China building 200 GW of coal-fired power

To offset the abundance of ‘renewable'(the concept is in fact a perpetuum mobile) China has no alternative than to install base load power plants.


By Paul Homewood


Greenpeace appear shocked that China is continuing to build new coal-fired power capacity.

From Reuters:

China is building another 200 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power capacity despite tough new measures designed to cut the use of fossil fuels and tackle overcapacity, environmental group Greenpeace said on Wednesday.

China’s coal-dominated thermal power sector has continued to expand rapidly amid an unexpectedly sharp slowdown in energy consumption growth, as well as a state-led effort to tackle smog, cut carbon emissions and encourage cleaner forms of electricity.

According to National Energy Administration (NEA) data, China’s total thermal capacity grew 7.8 percent in 2015 to 990 GW, outstripping a 0.5 percent increase in consumption. Another 24 GW went into operation in the first five months of 2016.

Greenpeace said more than 1 trillion yuan ($150 billion) could be “wasted” on new capacity in the next five years, leading to a…

View original post 336 more words

Clexit, Climate accord Exit

Clexit, Climate accord Exit

A new international organization aims to prevent ratification of the costly and dangerous Paris global warming treaty which is being promoted by the EU and the present US administration.

“CLEXIT” (CLimate Exit) was inspired by the Brexit decision of the British people to withdraw from the increasingly dictatorial grasp of the EU bureaucracy.

Without any publicity or serious recruiting, Clexit has attracted over 60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders from 16 countries.

The secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes from Australia, said that widespread enforcement of the Paris climate treaty would be a global tragedy.

“For the EU and the rest of the Western world, ratification and enforcement of the Paris Treaty (and all the other associated decrees and Agendas) would herald the end of low-cost hydrocarbon transport and electricity, and the exit of their manufacturing, processing and refining industries to countries with low-cost energy.

“For developing countries, the Paris Treaty would deny them the benefits of reliable low-cost hydrocarbon energy, compelling them to rely on biomass heating and costly weather-dependent and unreliable power supplies, thus prolonging and increasing their dependency on international handouts. They will soon resent being told to remain forever in an energy-deprived wind/solar/wood/bicycle economy.

“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the “Green Climate Fund”. Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting silly green energy policies.

“Naturally some smart politicians and speculators in the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and in the small island nations, understand that they can profit from the Paris Treaty by gaming the rules on things like carbon credits, or milking the green fund for “climate compensation” or “green energy technology”. This will only work for a while, and when the handouts stop, the re-adjustment to reality will be very painful.

“This UN-driven war on carbon energy has already caused massive losses and dislocation of western industry. If allowed to continue as envisaged by the Paris Treaty, this economic recession will become a world-wide depression, and all nations will suffer.

“We must stop this futile waste of community savings; cease the destruction and dislocation of human industry; stop killing rare bats and birds with wind turbine blades and solar/thermal sizzlers; stop pelletising trees and shipping them across the world to feed power stations designed to burn coal; stop converting food to motor vehicle fuel; and stop the clearing of bush and forests for biofuel cultivation and plantations.”

“Carbon dioxide does not control the climate. It is an essential plant food and more carbon dioxide will produce more plant growth and a greener globe.”

PDF version of this summary statement, the founding statement and more reading:[296 KB]

The initial Clexit Committee and the list of Founding Members: [158 KB]

Green Energy Plan Can’t Work

Green Energy Plan Can’t Work

NYISO doesn’t answer to Cuomo and building the infrastructure to move large amounts of solar or wind power across a state is an expensive endeavor which would require cooperation from the grid regulator.

The costs associated with constructing the kind of high voltage power lines needed to transport the power cost $1.9 to $3.1 million per mile built, and the “smart grid” technology said to be able to move wind and solar power can cost up to 50 percent more. A comparable network of transmission lines in Texas capable to move power from wind-rich West Texas eastward was projected to cost $6.8 billion when it began in 2008. The project still isn’t entirely finished.

The best places solar or wind power tend to be far away from the people who will consume power, according to the Department of Energy.

The technical issues associated with transporting wind or solar power across long distances pale in comparison to the technical issues involved with storing the power. In order for the power grid to function, demand for energy must exactly match supply. Power demand is relatively predictable and conventional power plans, like nuclear plants and natural gas, can adjust output accordingly. Solar and wind power, however, cannot be predicted or easily adjust output and the electricity they generate cannot be stored economically.

Additionally, the output of a solar or wind power plant is incredibly unreliable and generally doesn’t coincide with the times when power is most needed as peak electricity demand occurs in the evenings, when solar power is going offline. Adding power plants which only provide power at intermittent and unpredictable times makes the power grid more fragile and risks blackouts.

Read More

A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.



When we measure temperature in our backyard, we really aren’t that concerned if the thermometer we use is off by a degree or two. Since most people live where the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day, and the seasonal swing in temperatures can be 80 F or more, a couple of degrees doesn’t matter too much.
But in the case of global warming, one or two degrees is the entire change scientists are trying to measure over a period of 50 to 100 years. Since none of our temperature monitoring systems was designed to measure such a small change over such a long period of time, there is much disagreement over exactly how much warming has or will occur.
Whether we use thermometers, weather balloons, or Earth-orbiting satellites, the measurements must be adjusted for known sources of error. This is difficult if not impossible to do accurately. As a result, different scientists come up with different global warming trends—or no warming trend at all.
So, it should come as no surprise that the science of global warming is not quite as certain as the media and politicians make it out to be.
Increasingly, the “science” of global warming is being based upon theories of what might happen, not on what is being observed to happen. And the observations are increasingly at odds with the theory. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies upon theoretical climate models which predict about 2 C (3.8 F) of warming by the end of this century, due primarily to carbon dioxide emissions resulting from our burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC claims that this rate of warming could be catastrophic for some forms of life.
But is the Earth really warming as rapidly as the IPCC says? And, is that warming entirely the fault of humans?
In this paper I will answer some basic questions about global temperature data in particular, climate change in general, and what it all means for the debate over energy policy. The following questions are some of the more frequently ones asked of me over the last 20 years I have been performing climate change research under U.S. government funding.
These questions include:
1) Does an increasing CO2 level mean there will be higher global temperatures?
2) Can global temperatures go up naturally, even without rising CO2 levels?
3) How are temperature data adjusted?
4) Are global temperatures really going up? If so, by how much?
5) Is warming enough to be concerned about? Is warming necessarily a bad thing?
6) Could the warming be both natural and human-caused?
7) Why would the climate models produce too much warming?
8) What is climate sensitivity?
9) Don’t 97 percent of climate researchers agree that global warming is a serious
man-made problem?
10) Haven’t ocean temperatures been going up, too?
11) What does it mean when we hear “the highest temperature on record”?
12) Is there a difference between weather and climate?
13) Why would climate science be biased? Isn’t global warming research
immune from politics?
From the answers to these questions that follow it should be clear that the science of global warming is far from settled.
Uncertainties in the adjustments to our global temperature datasets, the small amount of warming those datasets have measured compared to what climate models expect, and uncertainties over the possible role of Mother Nature in recent warming, all combine to make climate change beliefs as much faith-based as science-based.
Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.


By Paul Homewood



I mentioned earlier the new paper just published by Roy Spencer.

It is only 12 pages long, and is well worth reading. I have though put together below a couple of key sections:

View original post 1,674 more words

More evidence that male and female brains are wired differently

More evidence that male and female brains are wired differently

While measuring brain activity with magnetic resonance imaging during blood pressure trials, UCLA researchers found that men and women had opposite responses in the right front of the insular cortex, a part of the brain integral to the experience of emotions, blood pressure control and self-awareness.

The insular cortex has five main parts called gyri serving different roles. The researchers found that the blood pressure response in the front right gyrus showed an opposite pattern in men and women, with men showing a greater right-sided activation in the area while the women showed a lower response.

“This is such a critical brain area and we hadn’t expected to find such strong differences between men and women’s brains,” said Paul Macey, the study’s lead author. “This region, the front-right insula, is involved with stress and keeping heart rate and blood pressure high. It’s possible the women had already activated this region because of psychological stress, so that when they did the physical test in the study, the brain region could not activate any more. However, it’s also possible that this region is wired differently in men and women.”

“We have always thought that the ‘normal’ pattern was for this right-front insula region to activate more than other areas, during a task that raises blood pressure,” added Macey. “However, since most earlier studies were in men or male animals, it looks like this ‘normal’ response was only in men. The healthy response in women seems to be a lower right-sided activation.”




This article is concerned with the two main forms of weather dependent Renewable Energy, Wind Power, (Onshore and Offshore) and Photovoltaic solar power.  In the UK this amounts to ~75% of all Renewable Energy as installed.  The other Renewable Energy  inputs are traditional Hydro power ~8% and the remainder are other sources such as biomass, waste and landfill gas amounting to ~17%:  they are not considered here.

This article sets out a plausible model to assess the costs commitments made to introduce weather dependent Renewable Energy in Europe.  The numbers that result are very significant indeed .  The populace of Europe were never consulted as to whether they wished to commit such vast sums to the Green cause of controlling CO2 as a greenhouse gas in a futile attempt to limit further temperature rise due to greenhouse warming.

  • The installation of the weather dependent Renewables fleet in Europe, as of 2015, has already lead to a 60 year lifetime financial commitment amounting to roughly €3.4trillion:  this approximates to the annual GDP of Germany.
  • Electricity generation by using gas-fired installations is significantly cheaper than weather dependent Renewables in terms of both initial installation Capital cost and later Operation and Maintenance costs, even when accounting for the current costs of fuel.
  • The € 0.72 trillion capital costs already spent on weather dependent Renewables in Europe to date would have been sufficient to re-equip the 1,000 Gigawatt European electricity generating fleet with Gas-fired power stations in large part:  producing electricity for the grid consistently, as and when needed at ~90% capacity.
  • The European weather dependent Renewable fleet with a nominal nameplate output of ~236 Gigawatts only contributes ~ 42Gigawatts to the European Grid, a capacity percentage at about 19% overall.
  • 60 year life-time costs of Onshore wind power range from 5 times more expensive than Gas-fired generation.
  • 60 year life-time costs of Offshore wind power and Solar power are about 20 times more expensive than Gas-fired generation.
  • during the 60 year life-time Gas-fired generators have a full-time productive capacity of about ~90%,  whereas the combined capacity figures for weather dependent Renewable Energy of only about 19% is achieved across all European weather dependent Renewable installations.
  • if full fossil fuel back-up has to be provided to maintain the viability of the electricity network, the entire need for the weather dependent Renewables in the first place is obviated.


Germany’s energiewende meets reality head-on

Germany’s energiewende meets reality head-on

A leaked environment ministry document suggests that Germany will not go ahead with a coal-fired power phase-out.

A similar draft document released earlier this year had proposed phase-out of coal-fired power production well before 2050. However the latest paper sees the proposal dropped as well as the scrapping of several C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors.
The new version deleted specific concrete C02 emissions savings targets for the energy, industry, transport and agriculture sectors, according to Reuters.

The document forms the German government’s national climate action plan for 2050 and lays out how it plans to move away from fossil fuels and achieve its goal of cutting CO2 emissions by up to 95 percent compared to 1990 levels by the middle of the century.

Also included in the earlier paper was a paragraph suggesting Germany would consider lobbying for the introduction of a minimum price on European carbon-dioxide emissions. But this has also been removed from the latest document.

The draft is due to be debated by the cabinet in September.