Heliogenic Climate Change

“Imagine conditions in the once Great Britain. Ice laden wind turbines sit idle in the still air; solar panels covered in snow; gas reserves down to 8 days; pensioners burning books to keep warm, and a bankrupt government.

This is happening because politicians have been conned by anti-industrial greens to neglect the UK’s reliable and economical coal and nuclear generators, while wasting time and money on pointless climate crusades.

Australia is treading this treacherous path. The Wong energy plan will consume our savings, uglify our headlands with wind turbines, cover our deserts with solar panels and entangle our countryside with a spider-web of costly and poorly used transmission lines. And still we will need coal and gas to deliver power when “the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine”.

When this global warming madness passes, future generations will remove this derelict solar/wind infrastructure and return to the only reliable and economical electricity options for Australia – coal, gas, hydro and nuclear.”  “Climate Madness and Electricity Realities“

“I’m thankful that the US emits such huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Yes, I know that’s not a politically correct statement. But the simple truth is that carbon dioxide emissions are closely correlated with energy consumption and energy consumption is almost perfectly correlated with wealth. The US is wealthy because Americans are able to consume huge amounts of hydrocarbons. And those hydrocarbons provide nearly 90% of the primary energy consumed in the US. …

I’m thankful that America provides so much of its own energy. Amidst the continuing blather from various political factions on the Right and the Left about the need for “energy independence,” the reality is that the US produces 74% of all the energy it consumes. The US ranks first in the world in the production of electricity from nuclear reactors (ahead of France). It ranks second in coal production (behind China), second in natural gas production (behind Russia), third in oil production (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), and fourth in hydro production (behind China, Canada, and Brazil). All that production – combined with significant imports of oil – allows the US to provide gargantuan quantities of power to its citizens. And it’s that power availability that has made the American economy into a powerhouse. So the next time you hear one of the many energy posers complaining about the evils of foreign oil, remind yourself that the US remains a leader in every category of energy production. …

I’m thankful that I’ve finished all the copy edits on my next book, Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy, and the Real Fuels of the Future. For the past year or so, I’ve been busting my tail to finish the book, which will be published in April by PublicAffairs. I’m proud of the manuscript, which explains why we’ll be using hydrocarbons for decades to come, why renewable energy sources like wind and solar are not “green,” and why natural gas and nuclear are the fuels of the future. Of course, I’m biased. But Power Hungry contains the best explanation of energy and power that I’ve seen.” “A Panoply of Energy-Related Holiday Blessings“
-

“The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America’s nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.

The seal of approval for nuclear power — a cause embraced by Republican senators — came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama’s signature issues.

Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate – his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.

The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies – some of the fiercest critics of Obama’s clean energy agenda – with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America’s technological dominance in the world. …

The endorsement of a nuclear revival – a generation after the last reactor was commissioned – suggests the Obama administration is open to further compromises as it seeks to find a path through the Senate. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill late last month.” “Obama makes nuclear compromise to pass clean energy bill“

“WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with sixteen of his Republicans colleagues, sent a letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu asking about his comment that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” for disposing nuclear waste. Specifically, in the letter, the senators raise several questions about the legal, scientific, and technical justifications for the Obama Administration’s decision to derail the Yucca Mountain project, which has been studied for decades and supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading scientific organizations as a viable storage site for nuclear waste.

“The Obama administration’s approach to Yucca Mountain is nothing short of puzzling,” Senator Inhofe said. “Despite President Obama’s pledge that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, I find it difficult to understand Secretary Chu’s statement that Yucca Mountain is ‘not an option,’ made after only six weeks in office. This comment is of particular interest considering that, as recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including Secretary Chu, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy, which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.”” Senators Seek Explanation of Obama’s Yucca Mountain Decision“
-

“Britain must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country’s leading environmentalists – who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy – warn today.

The one-time opponents of nuclear power, who include the former head of Greenpeace, have told The Independent that they have now changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide.” “Nuclear power? Yes please.“
-

“A South African power shortage that forced rationing of electricity in 2008 probably is “behind us” as new generating plants rise, Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said. …

South African cities suffered power cuts in last year’s first quarter, and most mines and smelters shut for five days in January after the network almost collapsed. The country needs an additional 40,000 megawatts of electricity to support projected economic growth, according to Sonjica, who also said plans for a nuclear power plant are being revived.

“We are now looking at a different way,” she said of a nuclear plant. State-owned power utility Eskom Holdings Ltd., which scrapped plans to build a nuclear property in December after financing dried up, would co-own the plant in a joint venture with a private producer still to be chosen, she said. …

At least 2,000 megawatts will be added from projects currently being undertaken this year, with a further 7,000 megawatts by 2015 from Eskom’s two new coal-fired power plants, Sonjica said.” “South African Power Crisis ‘Behind Us,’ Sonjica Says“

Hansen is right about nuclear, but for the wrong reason, and I certainly agree that it is high time to get fed up with people like himself:

“Nuclear power: it would be great if energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved (“smart”) electric grid could satisfy all energy needs. However, the future of our children should not rest on that gamble. The danger is that the minority of vehement antinuclear “environmentalists” could cause development of advanced safe nuclear power to be slowed such that utilities are forced to continue coal-burning in order to keep the lights on. That is a prescription for disaster.

There is no need for a decision to deploy nuclear power on a large scale. What is needed is rapid development of the potential, including prototypes, so that options are available. We have to avoid a “FutureGen” sort of drag-out. It seems to me that it is time to get fed-up with those people who think they can impose their will on everybody, and all the consequences that might imply for the planet, by putting this R&D on a slow boat to nowhere instead of on the fast-track that it deserves.” “Dear Michelle and Barack“
-

“The domestic auto industry isn’t the only uncompetitive industry that seems to require life-sustaining transfusions of government cash to stay in business. Alternative energy sources have relied on such subsidies, called “investments,” for years. …

After decades of tax credits and subsidies, wind provides only about 1% of our electricity. By comparison, coal provides 49%, natural gas 22%, nuclear power 19% and hydroelectric 7%.

Wind power is currently uncompetitive. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported recently: “In 1999, 2001 and 2003, when Congress temporarily killed the credits, the number of new turbines dropped dramatically.” These subsidies will be renewed in the new administration, but to “invest” in wind and solar to replace fossil fuels will be expensive.

A just-published study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present and Future,” says that to achieve even modest amounts of wind energy in that state alone would cost rate- and taxpayers at least $60 billion through 2025. That includes transmission costs, production costs, subsidies, tax breaks, economic disruption costs and grid management costs. …

Meanwhile, nuclear power is making a comeback despite regulatory and environmental roadblocks, and little federal help. It is spending its own money to invest in clean energy for the future. …

Global nuclear giant Areva and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding are partnering to start building heavy nuclear components. The U.S. had very little enrichment capacity. Now, two new facilities are under construction, with two more planned.

“While visions of ‘green jobs’ dance in the heads of Washington bureaucrats,” notes Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation. “The nuclear industry is creating thousands of high-skill, high-paying jobs.”

Westinghouse, for one example, has already created more than 3,000 jobs and expects to add 2,900 for a development in Louisiana that will be used to construct modules for new nuclear plants.

Each new reactor will employ 1,400 to 1,800 people during construction, rising to as high as 2,400 jobs as the facility is built. During operation, a nuclear plant typically has a skilled work force of between 400 and 700 employees. …

Nuclear power means jobs, clean air, energy independence and keeping money here at home.” “Bailing out wind“
-

It is virtually certain that the EPA will “find” next year that the essential life-giving trace gas CO2 “endangers public health”. Their Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) is a blueprint for the finding. The ecotheist bureaucrats at EPA will not be swayed by the comments submitted by hundreds of scientists rebutting the ridiculous theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They will follow the zealots at the IPCC. What then? By law EPA must then regulate and limit absolutely (no trading of emission credits) CO2 emissions. This will destroy every industry in America that uses energy because energy sources other than fossil fuel don’t exist yet. Nuclear is hated by the ecotheists as much as fossil fuels. Hydro is minor as are solar, wind, geothermal, etc. The only option is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that doubles the costs and halves the energy output. But ecotheists oppose this too. Because of the tremendous increase in costs American industries will be uncompetitive and will die off. Unemployment will skyrocket. In short, economic suicide, a new Depression.

When this happens the new green Democrat Congress will ride to the rescue. They will take away EPA’s power to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act and replace it with a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS) or a carbon tax. (They will, of course have the option of removing EPA’s jurisdiction without replacing it with a ETS or tax, but that is unthinkable to the ecotheists. Some radical ecotheists oppose carbon trading as well. Hansen says, “Carbon trading does not solve the emission problem at all.” They want absolute emission reduction, EPA style.) So it is virtually certain that next year, or the next, America will have a national ETS or carbon tax. This will not be as bad as EPA’s absolute limitation of emissions, but will be very bad for the economy nonetheless. The theory that rationing energy will “grow the economy” is just as fallacious as the theory of AGW, and both theories are pushed by the same ecotheist zealots.

These unnecessary and destructive actions can be undone in years to come when reality intrudes and it becomes obvious that the AGW scam is the biggest hoax in scientific history, but untold damage will be done in the meantime. Ecotheists have been trying to bring down the American economy and return us to the Stone Age for decades. They may have succeeded. And that’s the memo.
-

“Almost a quarter of the population will be in fuel poverty by next year and those on low incomes will be especially badly hit, new figures have shown.

A report published by the National Housing Federation shows that by the end of 2009 5.7 million UK households will be spending at least 10% of their annual income on energy bills – an increase of 100% since 2005.” “Warning over growing fuel poverty“

“Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

This is the stark warning from the head of an energy think-tank who believes power cuts could be serious enough to spark civil disorder. …

In May, hundreds of thousands of people in Cleveland, Cheshire, Lincolnshire and London suffered blackouts when seven power stations were closed. …

The “retirement” of a string of nuclear and coal-fired power stations will see 37 per cent of the UK’s generation disappear by 2015, partly because of EU environmental directives. …

Blackouts could force the Government to impose electricity rationing, last seen in the Seventies. The REF report says the Government “should prepare itself to intervene with social policy to prevent hardship and maintain order”. …

“There’s a very real chance that power, will not even be there when you need it. That’s when you start worrying about social disorder.”” “Blackout Britain warning“

“Within a few years, eight of the nine nuclear plants that supply 20 per cent of our power will come to the end of their life. We shall also – thanks to an EU anti-pollution [CO2!] directive – have to close nine of the major coal and oil-fired power stations that provide another 20 per cent. …

It is left to the supply companies to provide energy according to where profit lies. And the only obvious way in which the Government could incentivise EDF or anyone else to get on with building new nuclear power stations would be to offer some form of subsidy.

This would be strictly prohibited under EU state aid rules. The only form of energy subsidy allowed is that given to renewable sources of energy such as wind turbines (nuclear power, though carbon-free, does not count). In Britain it is this “renewables obligation”, requiring supply companies to buy electricity from wind at nearly twice the normal price, that makes wind so profitable and hopelessly skews the investment market in favour of the one source of power least able to fill our energy gap.

To address our looming energy crisis with the urgency it calls for, we would not only have to ignore the fantasies of Mr Hansen and the green lobby, but also directly confront our government in Brussels, which stands in the way of almost every measure we need to take.” “Ministers in power struggle over power“

h/t Benny Peiser, CCNet today, for the links above.

“Anti-carbon versus anti-nuclear“

if enviros truly believe that AGW is Armageddon, do they not support nuclear power, which emits no evil CO2? Enviros worry about increased cancer risks from nuclear waste, but that is not Armageddon. It seems like a no brainer to support nuclear power if you truly believe the AGW nonsense. “No environmental groups support nuclear power.” Conclusion: either they are profoundly illogical or they don’t really believe the hype and just want to bring down western democracies and evil capitalism.