The Myth of Green Energy Security!!!!

[skookerasbil]

Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!!

The Myth of Green Energy Security
Bjørn Lomborg, May 12, 2011

COPENHAGEN – Turmoil across the Middle East and Northern Africa has refocused attention on the impact that political tensions or interference can have on the price and availability of energy imports. Against consumer fears of gas-price hikes, energy security ranks high on many Western governments’ policy agendas.

Of course, this is hardly a new phenomenon: Europe started trying to build up its energy reserves back in the 1960’s. Likewise, every American president since Richard Nixon in the early 1970’s has tried, and failed, to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

A new trend, though, is that policies that just a few years ago were being touted to fight climate change are being presented as a necessary way to increase energy security. Against the backdrop of the financial crisis, and as public support for climate-change policies scrapes new lows in many developed countries, we hear less from leaders about the threat of global warming, and more about the supposed economic benefits of climate policies.

This shift is hardly surprising, given the increasing number of analyses that demonstrate that current – unilateral – climate policies will have virtually no impact on the rise in global temperature.

The Myth of Green Energy Security by Bjørn Lomborg - Project Syndicate






More lose for the k00ks...................




But wait...............I thought the science was settled!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

In other words.................exactly what Ive been saying in here for months and months. Public support for climate change policies is virtually DEAD!!!!!


But go right ahead and knock youself out posting up numbers by the REAL SCIENTISTS!!!

 

[Flopper]

Consider Europe's options for becoming energy independent, it seems logical they would embrace a green energy policy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Consider Europe's options for becoming energy independent, it seems logical they would embrace a green energy policy.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

Thats ALL theyve done for 20 years and its been NOTHING but an abyssmal failure!!!! In every EU country, they've lost 2 jobs for every green job gained. ANd they have no more money for any of this Disneyland shit anymore..........the public has spoken.

 

[skookerasbil]

kinda figured the k00ks would avoid this thread. Anything real and measurable causes a far lefty to shit his shorts.

 

[Mr. H.]

Bjørn to be wild...

 

[California Girl]

And.... even worse.... it's a very legitimate, non partisan source.

Oops.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Consider Europe's options for becoming energy independent, it seems logical they would embrace a green energy policy.

Mr. Obama's green jobs program turns this on its head, favoring technologies that employ large numbers of people over technologies that use labor efficiently. For example, according to the United Nations Environment Program, solar energy requires 9 times as much labor per megawatt of energy generated as natural gas, and 9 times as many workers per megawatt of energy as coal. No wonder, solar energy costs 3 to 5 times as much per megawatt as electricity from natural gas or coal.

Experience in Europe, which has taken the lead in green job creation, confirms that this is an economic shell game. For example, according to a study of Spain's renewable energy initiatives, the Spanish government created about 50,000 green jobs, but as a result about 110,000 other jobs were lost.

Worse, only 1 in 10 new jobs were permanent, and the average green job created since added $774,000 in costs to consumers' bills. The high cost of green energy has driven energy-intensive Spanish industries to countries with lower energy costs.

The report concluded, "These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain's approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources." That means that even if Mr. Obama's initiatives manage to produce 5 million green jobs, about 11 million jobs could be lost in other sectors.
GEDDES AND BURNETT: Eco at the end of recession? - Washington Times

 

[skookerasbil]

Consider Europe's options for becoming energy independent, it seems logical they would embrace a green energy policy.

Mr. Obama's green jobs program turns this on its head, favoring technologies that employ large numbers of people over technologies that use labor efficiently. For example, according to the United Nations Environment Program, solar energy requires 9 times as much labor per megawatt of energy generated as natural gas, and 9 times as many workers per megawatt of energy as coal. No wonder, solar energy costs 3 to 5 times as much per megawatt as electricity from natural gas or coal.

Experience in Europe, which has taken the lead in green job creation, confirms that this is an economic shell game. For example, according to a study of Spain's renewable energy initiatives, the Spanish government created about 50,000 green jobs, but as a result about 110,000 other jobs were lost.

Worse, only 1 in 10 new jobs were permanent, and the average green job created since added $774,000 in costs to consumers' bills. The high cost of green energy has driven energy-intensive Spanish industries to countries with lower energy costs.

The report concluded, "These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain's approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources." That means that even if Mr. Obama's initiatives manage to produce 5 million green jobs, about 11 million jobs could be lost in other sectors.
GEDDES AND BURNETT: Eco at the end of recession? - Washington Times

And whats funny as hell is that the k00ks dont bat an eyelash about this..........as long as big oil is fcukked. Stupid dumbasses.........green technology industry bigs are getting their pockets lined JUST LIKE big oil bigs......and its all tied to a mega-scam that sticks a dick in the ass of the common man........using 20th century mindless technology that is laughable.

 

[Flopper]

The energy goal in Europe over the last 20 years has not been job creation but rather energy independence through alternative energy wherever possible. Spain is now producing 25% of their electricity from wind and solar in spite of their financial problems. Germany has increased their energy independent, mostly from alternative sources from 10% to 20% and expects to be producing over 50% of their energy from alternative sources by 2050. Almost every country in Europe has made some progress toward energy independent through alternative energy over the last 20 years. The US today is much more dependent on foreign energy sources and we haven't the scratched the surface at using alternative energy.

I think Europe will make tremendous gains in energy independence through alternative energy over the next 50 years because they have no other option.

 

[skookerasbil]

The energy goal in Europe over the last 20 years has not been job creation but rather energy independence through alternative energy wherever possible. Spain is now producing 25% of their electricity from wind and solar in spite of their financial problems. Germany has increased their energy independent, mostly from alternative sources from 10% to 20% and expects to be producing over 50% of their energy from alternative sources by 2050. Almost every country in Europe has made some progress toward energy independent through alternative energy over the last 20 years. The US today is much more dependent on foreign energy sources and we haven't the scratched the surface at using alternative energy.

I think Europe will make tremendous gains in energy independence through alternative energy over the next 50 years because they have no other option.

LAUGH MY BALLS OFF..........Alternative energy fAiL.....................


S0N........YOUR POST IS A FCUKKING JOKE!!!

Financial Post: Wind power is a complete disaster

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 – compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

By Michael J. Trebilcock
Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.

Financial Post

8 April 2009


Financial Post: Wind power is a complete disaster « Wind Concerns Ontario

 

[PoliticalChic]

The energy goal in Europe over the last 20 years has not been job creation but rather energy independence through alternative energy wherever possible. Spain is now producing 25% of their electricity from wind and solar in spite of their financial problems. Germany has increased their energy independent, mostly from alternative sources from 10% to 20% and expects to be producing over 50% of their energy from alternative sources by 2050. Almost every country in Europe has made some progress toward energy independent through alternative energy over the last 20 years. The US today is much more dependent on foreign energy sources and we haven't the scratched the surface at using alternative energy.

I think Europe will make tremendous gains in energy independence through alternative energy over the next 50 years because they have no other option.

1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.

2. If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why haven’t market forces should make it an increasing part of the energy picture…? Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. Sometimes called the “Watermelon Effect,” it is made up of the ‘green’ pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.
BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Green math: solar panels to save 50% on your electric bills? Well, if the average electric bill is about $100/mos, the savings is $600/ year! But solar costs 30-40 K, so it takes about 58 years to start saving money. But…solar panels are projected to last 20-30 years. So, savings? Not so much.


3. "I think Europe will make tremendous gains in energy independence through alternative energy over the next 50 years because they have no other option."
Really?

Have you notice the warm embrace between Germany and Russia?

Russia is the world’s largest gas producer, producing hundreds of times more gas than anybody else. Mostly in Siberia, and goes to Europe.
a. Ukraine consumes about 80 billion cubic meters of gas a year. Half of it from Russia, most of it used for heating.
b. Nearly 40% of Germany’s gas consumption was Russian.
c. 25% of Frances.
d. 30% of Italy’s.

4. By 2030 Europe will import 2/3 of its gas from Russia, as compared to 1/3 today. For the 25 EU members, dependence on Russian gas will rise from 50% to 80%.
a. Urengoy in the north-western Siberian Basis is the second largest field in the world, with 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Urengoy-Uzhgorod pipeline is 56 inches in diameter, with 100 pumping and compressor stations squeezing 1,500 pounds per square inch of pressure into the line to keep it moving at 6 cubic meters per second.
From “Pipeline,” a novel by Peter Schechter.

 

[skookerasbil]

The energy goal in Europe over the last 20 years has not been job creation but rather energy independence through alternative energy wherever possible. Spain is now producing 25% of their electricity from wind and solar in spite of their financial problems. Germany has increased their energy independent, mostly from alternative sources from 10% to 20% and expects to be producing over 50% of their energy from alternative sources by 2050. Almost every country in Europe has made some progress toward energy independent through alternative energy over the last 20 years. The US today is much more dependent on foreign energy sources and we haven't the scratched the surface at using alternative energy.

I think Europe will make tremendous gains in energy independence through alternative energy over the next 50 years because they have no other option.

1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.

2. If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why haven’t market forces should make it an increasing part of the energy picture…? Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. Sometimes called the “Watermelon Effect,” it is made up of the ‘green’ pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.
BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Green math: solar panels to save 50% on your electric bills? Well, if the average electric bill is about $100/mos, the savings is $600/ year! But solar costs 30-40 K, so it takes about 58 years to start saving money. But…solar panels are projected to last 20-30 years. So, savings? Not so much.


3. "I think Europe will make tremendous gains in energy independence through alternative energy over the next 50 years because they have no other option."
Really?

Have you notice the warm embrace between Germany and Russia?

Russia is the world’s largest gas producer, producing hundreds of times more gas than anybody else. Mostly in Siberia, and goes to Europe.
a. Ukraine consumes about 80 billion cubic meters of gas a year. Half of it from Russia, most of it used for heating.
b. Nearly 40% of Germany’s gas consumption was Russian.
c. 25% of Frances.
d. 30% of Italy’s.

4. By 2030 Europe will import 2/3 of its gas from Russia, as compared to 1/3 today. For the 25 EU members, dependence on Russian gas will rise from 50% to 80%.
a. Urengoy in the north-western Siberian Basis is the second largest field in the world, with 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Urengoy-Uzhgorod pipeline is 56 inches in diameter, with 100 pumping and compressor stations squeezing 1,500 pounds per square inch of pressure into the line to keep it moving at 6 cubic meters per second.
From “Pipeline,” a novel by Peter Schechter.

Green Energy is a great idea...........but only for the hopelessly duped.