Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

VIDEO – AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTER – SPEAKS TO SPOILED CLIMATE PROTESTING STUDENTS

Saturday, September 28th, 2019

 

VIDEO – CLICK ON LINK

WATCH: Australian Broadcaster Takes Down The Spoiled Climate Protesting Students In Epic Fashion

Posted at 1:00 pm on September 21, 2019 by Brandon Morse

Alan Jones, an Australian broadcaster for Sky News had some choice words for students taking part in the climate protests that occurred on Friday, which featured these students ditching school in order to push the “we’re all going to die” narrative so beloved by the church of climate change.

Jones had a harsh reality check for these students, who he noted demand better action by people and government in the name of saving the environment (Jones calls it a “hoax”) while they themselves refuse to give up their own cushy lifestyles. His words came in the form of a letter which Jones said he might send to Al Gore.

“It says this: To all the school kids going on strike for climate change, you’re the first generation who have required air conditioning in every room. You want TV in every room, and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices,” said Jones

“More than ever, you don’t walk or ride bikes to school,” he continued, “but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.”

“You’re the biggest consumer of manufactured goods ever, and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy,” said Jones. “Your entertainment comes from electric devices. Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.”

(more…)

Share

THE REAL COST OF ‘RENEWABLE ENERGY’

Thursday, August 15th, 2019

 

This is an excellent article regarding the realities of cost involved in “renewable energy”.    Quite an eye opener !   Please share with your email lists as this information really does need to be known by those who are clamoring for “The Green New Deal”    Nancy
 
 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig

Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic

August 6, 2019
By Mark P. Mills  Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a partner in Cottonwood Venture Partners, an energy-tech venture fund, and author of the recent report, “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking.”
Wind turbines in Palm Springs, Calif., July 13, 2017. PHOTO: PAUL BUCK/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY

Democrats dream of powering society entirely with wind and solar farms combined with massive batteries. Realizing this dream would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has seen and would produce huge quantities of waste.

“Renewable energy” is a misnomer. Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. And they wear out. Old equipment must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste. The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that solar goals for 2050 consistent with the Paris Accords will result in old-panel disposal constituting more than double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste. Consider some other sobering numbers:

A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet. The alternative? Use gasoline and extract one-tenth as much total tonnage to deliver the same number of vehicle-miles over the battery’s seven-year life.

When electricity comes from wind or solar machines, every unit of energy produced, or mile traveled, requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. That physical reality is literally visible: A wind or solar farm stretching to the horizon can be replaced by a handful of gas-fired turbines, each no bigger than a tractor-trailer.

Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels, the International Energy Agency forecasts. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.

(more…)

Share

5 MINUTE VIDEO – PRAGER U THE GREEN NEW DEAL

Tuesday, July 30th, 2019

 

5 MINUTE VIDEO – PRAGER U

What’s the Deal with the Green New Deal?
There’s been a lot of talk about The Green New Deal. Beyond the headlines, what is it really? Given our energy needs, is it practical? Can we have an abundance of energy and a clean planet? Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, considers these questions and has thought-provoking answers.
Share

7 REASONS WHY THE URANIUM ONE SCANDAL WON’T GO AWAY

Wednesday, May 15th, 2019

 

“The chickens are coming home to roost ”  Thanks to Reverend Wright for making that little saying so well known and  so appropriate in the case of the Clintons and all their accomplices  who were involved in this little scheme.  Thanks to Steve Bishop for sharing this article.  Nancy
www.theepochtimes.com/7-reasons-why-the-uranium-one-scandal-wont-go-away_2914343.html

 May 9, 2019

 

Seven Reasons Why the Uranium One Scandal Won’t Go Away

OPINION

SEAMUS BRUNER    Seamus Bruner is the author of the book “Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption.”WHY

The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is officially dead, now that special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded there is no evidence of collusion. With the cloud of the Mueller probe lifted, President Donald Trump can now go on the offensive with an attorney general who appears ready to drop the hammer on corruption in Washington. Moreover, Attorney General William Barr doesn’t appear to be intimidated by Democratic lawmakers who have already threatened him with impeachment and even incarceration.

Former President Barack Obama’s allies have lately claimed his term in office was “scandal-free,” a claim his critics find “laughable.” Abus es of power in the Obama administration ranged from drone strike assassinations of U.S. citizens to the IRS’s targeting of conservatives. In fact, the Obama administration was a magnet for scandals. One of the largest—and perhaps least understood—involves the Russian takeover of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company with large uranium holdings in the United States.

The mainstream press has repeatedly declared the Russian purchase of Uranium One a “debunked conspiracy theory.” But it’s no theory, nor has it been debunked. The Uranium One deal was complicated and had many moving parts, which also explains why misinformation about it has spread widely. Claims such as “the Russians gave Clinton $145 million” and “Clinton sold American uranium to the Russians” are great soundbites, but are factually inaccurate.

It’s true that the Clinton Foundation received undisclosed millions from Uranium One stakeholders— such as the $2.35 million from board Chairman Ian Telfer. The Obama administration did allow the Russians to acquire domestic nuclear assets critical to U.S. national security. But minor inaccuracies in the soundbites have allowed self-appointed fact-checkers such as PolitiFact and Snopes to selectively “debunk” the larger story without critically examining the full set of facts.

In the coming months, readers may find the UraniumOne scandal coming back into focus. For that purpose, it’s time to set the record straight.

Here are seven reasons why the Uranium One scandal isn’t going away:

1. Uranium One is the largest foreign-influence scandal in US history.

(more…)

Share

THE GREEN NEW DEAL’S IMPOSSIBLE ELECTRIC GRID

Monday, February 25th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Green New Deal’s Impossible Electric Grid

Renewable energy can’t consistently balance power supply with demand.

Feb. 21, 2019

The San Gorgonio Pass wind farm in Palm Springs, Calif., Jan. 6.
The San Gorgonio Pass wind farm in Palm Springs, Calif., Jan. 6. PHOTO: RUARIDH STEWART/ZUMA PRESS

The Democrats’ Green New Deal calls for a fully renewable electric power grid. Regardless of the economic or political challenges of bringing this about, it is likely technologically impossible.

An electric power grid involves second-by-second balancing between generated supply and consumer demand. In the case of a sudden imbalance—such as from the loss of a generator’s output—all the remaining generators on the grid instantaneously pool together. Each one pitches in a small part of the required power to make up for the lost generator fast enough to keep supply and demand balanced.

This doesn’t work for wind and solar because you can’t spontaneously increase wind or sunshine. Hydro power is limited and unevenly distributed around the country. And for safety reasons, nuclear power—even if the Green New Dealers accepted it—can’t be cranked up to neutralize imbalances. Nor can consumer demand be suddenly reduced enough.

Fossil-fuel turbines, by contrast, very naturally compensate for sudden supply outages. The inertia of the spinning mass of rotors provides the extra energy needed to compensate for the loss for the first few seconds. (Wind-rotor inertia is too short-lived.) Meanwhile the generators’ on-line reserve capacity kicks in, giving a rapid boost in power output to prevent the turbines from slowing down. That substitute power, called “governor response,” lasts as long as 15 minutes. During that time a single replacement generator ramps up to compensate entirely for the loss. All the turbines on the grid are thereby restored to their original speed, and the governor response is rearmed for the next disturbance.

An all-renewables grid would require prohibitively expensive battery storage to compensate for sudden power losses. Even with batteries, the lost power would have to be fed through “inverters”—a technology that converts variable-wind-speed alternating current, solar-power direct current, and battery-power direct-current into alternating current—to allow for synthetic inertia and governor response in the case of a disruption.

Opinion: The Green New Deal Gets a Senate Vote

Opinion: The Green New Deal Gets a Senate Vote
Share

$1,973 LED’s and the Green New Deal

Monday, February 18th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

$1,973 LEDs and the Green New Deal

How many union workers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

The Editorial Board   January 16, 2019

The Green New Deal that Democrats unveiled last week has a grand ambition to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years, retrofit every building in America, and guarantee high-paying jobs in the bargain. If you want to see how that works in the real world, consider the public housing projects near Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York office.

The New York City Housing Authority (Nycha) has a more modest goal of a 30% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2027. As part of its plan, Nycha is switching to LED lighting, which lasts longer than incandescent bulbs and consumes less energy. Sounds smart, until you see how many union workers it takes to screw in a light bulb.

One recent project focused on 23 housing developments, and changing the light bulbs and fixtures there cost $33.2 million. Supplies account for a fraction of that cost. Under Nycha’s Project Labor Agreement, electricians make $81 in base pay and $54 in fringe per hour, and overtime is usually time and a half. Add administrative and contracting expenses. All in, Nycha paid an average of $1,973 per apartment to install LEDs.

For Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, sky-high labor costs are part of the plan. Her Green New Deal resolution would create “high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages” and reinforce “the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain.” It also mandates upgrades for “all existing buildings in the United States” to “achieve maximal energy efficiency.” In this worker’s paradise, there’s a $1,973 LED in every socket.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal also states that a Green New Deal “must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership” with both labor and low-income families. But if she visited the Nycha homes, she may find those mandates are at odds.

“I can buy LED myself,” said Barbara Jones, 69, who has lived in Cypress Hills since her 20s and is dismayed by the disrepair. Others we interviewed said they’d rather see money go first to getting rid of vermin, mold and lead paint, tidying filthy premises, or improving safety.

Nycha also updated the heat and hot water systems in addition to upgrading the lights at these 23 developments, and the total cost for the energy-efficiency overhaul was $68.7 million. A Consolidated Edison grant covered $8.25 million, but Nycha took out a loan to cover the rest. The housing authority has three similar projects in construction at other developments, and the total cost for all four is $271.8 million.

LED lights and other energy-efficiency upgrades may drive Nycha’s utility bills down, but those savings aren’t directly passed on to taxpayers for as long as 20 years. Under the federal Energy Performance Contracting Program, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development continues to reimburse Nycha for utilities at pre-LED levels. Public housing authorities must spend a minimum of 75% of their savings on servicing the loan and other project costs, but they have more discretion over the rest.

In the private economy, $1,973 could go a long way toward improving a dilapidated apartment. Only in the world of green government spending is replacing light bulbs for two grand a unit a cost-saving measure.

Share

AUSTRALIA – A CAUTIONARY TALE OF A GREEN NEW DEAL

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

 

The first article tells the the revealing story of Australia’s fatal  experiment with trying to maximize energy efficiency.  The second article encourages a vote on the new green energy deal to put Democrats on record for supporting this fantasy land proposal.  It is truly fascinating to watch this spectacle unfold of a party self-destructing right in front of our  very eyes.   Nancy      
 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Green New Deal: A Cautionary Tale

Australia’s costly and fatal 2009 effort to upgrade houses for energy efficiency.

By Tim Blair    Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.
February 12, 2019

Sydney

The Green New Deal—introduced in Congress last week and immediately endorsed by several Democratic presidential candidates—calls among other things for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States . . . to achieve maximal energy efficiency.” We’ve tried it in Australia—on a much smaller scale—and it didn’t go well.

On Feb. 3, 2009, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his treasurer, Wayne Swan, announced the Energy Efficient Homes Package. “To support jobs and set Australia up for a low carbon future the Rudd Government will install free ceiling insulation in around 2.7 million Australian homes,” declared a press release from Mr. Swan’s office.

“For a time-limited period of two and a half years, from 1 July 2009, owner-occupiers without ceiling insulation will be eligible for free product and installation (capped at $1,600) simply by making a phone call.” At the time, A$1,600 was worth about US$1,280.

In many cases those calls weren’t necessary. At the Daily Telegraph, where I work, we discovered something was amiss when our chief of staff ordered a pizza. To her surprise, the delivery man also offered an insulation quote.

There were only 250 registered insulation businesses in Australia when the package was announced. That number quickly blew out to 7,000 because the government was handing out free money to installers. Pizza drivers could pick up more in one insulation job than from a month’s worth of tips. They received their rebates directly from the government rather than from homeowners, who therefore had little incentive to check if the work had been done well or even at all. Some ceilings ended up with a mere handful of insulation batts thrown around. Others featured only shredded paper. Almost every insulation job went right up to the $1,600 cap, regardless of size or ceiling area.

The insulation army worked at frantic speed, eager to cash in while they could. When the difference between five jobs done reasonably well and eight jobs done in careless haste is $4,800, a short amount of time represents a lot of money.

Then the deaths began. Four young men were killed while installing insulation under the government’s program—three by electrocution and one from hyperthermia during the Australian summer. Dozens more workers, most of them inexperienced, suffered injuries and heat stroke.

Nearly 100 houses caught fire. Environment Minister Peter Garrett, whose hits as Midnight Oil’s lead singer included 1987’s “Beds are Burning,” subsequently announced the planned deregistration or suspension of 5,000 installers.

Those suspensions were never required. In February 2010, a year after the Energy Efficient Homes Package was announced, it was abandoned.

Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

Share

“I SURVIVED COMMUNISM” A WARNING TO CANADA AND THE U.S.

Saturday, February 9th, 2019

 

A very sobering article that was written as a warning to Canada  but also applies to the U.S regarding Communism and Socialism.  Key words that we have been  bombarded with from the Left for years are becoming louder – Socialism, Social Justice, Global Warming/Environmentalism, Equality, Save the Planet, Indoctrination of our children in the educational system, redistributing wealth, eliminating fossil fuels, Medicare for All (controlled by the government, of course).  This article addresses them all and warns what they lead to.  Thanks to Steve Bishop for sharing this article.    Nancy   

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

SPENCER FERNANDO JANUARY 3, 2019

The article below was written by Zuzana Janosova Den Boer, who experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before coming to Canada. She said, “Having recognized all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda in my adopted country of Canada, I felt obligated to write the article below ( I survived communism – are you ready for your turn?)– because I do not want my adopted country to suffer the same fate as the country from which I emigrated (Czechoslovakia).”

Her warning is something all Canadians need to see. That’s why I’m sharing her article in full on SpencerFernando.com, and I encourage you to share it:

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

By Zuzana Janosova Den Boer

It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality – 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”, so proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject ‘scientific communism’, while the country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’ideology is.

In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitledEnvironmentalism is new communism. In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” He goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.” Klaus has also written a book: “Blue planet in green shackles”, in which he states communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism – new communism.

(more…)

Share

UNLEASHING THE ENERGY SECTOR

Friday, January 25th, 2019

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Unleashing the energy sector

By Monica Crowley   November 28, 2018

Given the historically significant pressures on the Republican Party in the midterm elections, there were two major things that saved the GOP’s bacon: The thunderous star power of President Trumpand the booming economy he has delivered.

The remarkable economic expansion is a direct result of the Trump tax cuts, widespread deregulation and renegotiation of global trade relationships. But the largely untold part of the economic success story is the Trump administration’s unleashing of the energy sector.

For eight long years, President Obama used the Environmental Protection Agency as a sledgehammer to enforce the leftist energy wish list: Bankrupt the coal industry, subsidize green energy boondoggles such as Solyndra despite massive taxpayer losses, impose cap and trade, halt offshore drilling and exploration projects and kill off oil pipelines such as the Keystone XL. American consumers, domestic energy producers and tens of thousands of jobs be damned.

Once in office, Mr. Trump set about reversing these destructive energy policies with the stated goal of achieving true energy independence.

Mr. Trump understood that energy policy may not be as sexy as tax relief or a new NAFTA agreement, but it is a bipartisan issue vital to the nation’s economic future. Unfortunately, in today’s highly-politicized climate, economic growth can often be caught in the crossfire of ideological activism.

In one of the more egregious recent examples, the Keystone XL pipeline was blocked by a San Francisco judge on Nov. 8, frustrating the president’s agenda. “It was a political decision made by a judge. I think it’s a disgrace,” Mr. Trump told reporters, adding, “Forty-eight thousand jobs. I approved it. It’s ready to start.”

This latest judicial ruling presents significant challenges to Mr. Trump’s energy policy and stalls the prospect of further harvesting abundant U.S. natural resources, hampering national security in the process. Other projects, such as the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), which was placed on Mr. Trump’s National Infrastructure Priorities List, may yet face similar challenges.

(more…)

Share

RUSSIAN HACKERS AND OUR ELECTRICAL GRID

Friday, January 11th, 2019

 

This article was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this morning.  While our country has been distracted with the shiny object of Russian Collusion by the Trump Administration, this is what the Russians have really  been doing for at least the last year.  It doesn’t matter whether you are a liberal, conservative, Democrat or a Republican, this should concern you.  Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

America’s Electric Grid Has a Vulnerable Back Door—and Russia Walked Through It

A Wall Street Journal reconstruction of the worst known hack into the nation’s power system reveals attacks on hundreds of small contractors

Share
Search All Posts
Categories