Archive for 14 maj, 2008

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!

14 maj, 2008

De är stora skattekostnader för att subventionera s.k. ”grön energi”. I USA har U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) tagit fram siffror på hur mycket det hela kostar 0ch per energislag.

Totalt så får energi produktionen $16.6 billion i subventioner, skattelättnader etc. under år 2007.

Så här mycket subventioneras följande energislag per megawatt timme av skattepengar:

Solkraft                         $24.34

Vindkraft                       $23.37

”Ren” kolkraft                 $29.81

Kolkraft                           $0.44

Naturgas                         $0.25

Vattenkraft                      $0.67

Kärnkraft                         $1.59

Man tittade även på subventioner för icke elektrisk energi produktion (t.ex. för bränsle) per BTU

Etanol/biobränslen             $5.72

Solkraft                               $2.82

”Rent” kol                            $1.35

Naturgas/ petroleum liquids  $0.03

 Citat:

”All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of ”green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.”

Se även mina inlägg: All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind PowerWho knew a ”free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!

Artikeln finns här:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

May 12, 2008;

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new ”Manhattan Project” for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at ”renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and ”clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other ”alternatives.”

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of ”green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a> 

Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts

14 maj, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt föregående inlägg (Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models) kommer här en artikel av Roger Pielke om förmågan hos meteorologiska institut att förutsäga vädret de närmaste 3 månaderna (seasonal forcast). Och jämför detta med IPCC:s tvärsäkra påstående att de kan förutsäga klimatet om 100 år.

Där Met Office säger att ”Seasonal forecasting: Seasonal forecasting is a developing area of meteorology and, although these forecasts are not as accurate as our short-term forecasts, they do demonstrate some skill in predicting what may happen for a season (a three-month period) ahead.

The forecasts provide an estimation of broad trends in temperature and rainfall and will normally be expressed in probabilistic terms, with the more likely outcome highlighted. Information contained in these forecasts can allow business to plan ahead for weather that is forecast to be different from normal.”

Så säger IPCC som sagt att de och deras klimatmodeller kan förutsäga hur temperaturen kommer att var på en tiondels grad när om hundra år. Yeah -Sure!

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/14/honest-statement-of-current-capability-in-climate-forecasts/

The Met Office under seasonal:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_weather.html

Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts

Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

The 2007 IPCC report presents ”projections” of climate in the coming decades. Policymakers and politicians are using the IPCC models to plan policy for regions and globally. However, what is the actual skill at forecasting the weather (even averaged over decades) in the coming years? The IPCC uses the term ”projection” but it is being interpreted by almost everyone as  a prediction if certain CO2 emission scenarios actually occur.

The actual skill at making long-term climate predictions, however, is illustrated by a statement on the website of the United Kingdom Meterological Office with respect to seasonal prediction.  It states

 ”Seasonal forecasting is a developing area of meteorology and, although these forecasts are not as accurate as our short-term forecasts, they do demonstrate some skill in predicting what may happen for a season (a three-month period) ahead.”

The obvious message from this, which is being almost completely ignored by policymakers, and was certainly ignored by the IPCC, is that seasonal forecasting is ”a developing area of meteorology”.

However, how can longer term predictions be more skillful when the climate forcings and feedbacks become more complex the longer into the future we seek to forecast?

Of course, the multi-decadal climate forecasts must be less skillful. This was discussed in Pielke, R.A., 1998: Climate prediction as an initial value problem. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 79, 2743-2746.

yet the IPCC community has chosen to ignore this issue. In my 1998 article I write

”One set of commonly used definitions of weather and climate distinguishes these terms in the context of predictions: weather is considered an initial value problem, while climate is assumed to be a boundary value problem. Another perspective holds that climate and weather prediction are both initial value problems (Palmer 1998). If climate prediction were a boundary value problem, then the simulations of future climate will ”forget” the initial values assumed in a model. The assumption that climate prediction is a boundary value problem is used, for example, to justify predicting future climate based on anthropogenic doubling of greenhouse gases. This correspondence proposes that weather prediction is a subset of climate predictions and that both are, therefore, initial value problems in the context of nonlinear geophysical flow……

An important practical conclusion results if climate prediction is an initial value problem. This means that there are necessarily limits on the time into the future that we can predict climate, since the feedbacks between the ocean, atmosphere, and land surface are large and nonlinear. These limits have not been determined, yet climate ”predictions” are routinely communicated to policy makers on timescales of decades and centuries. Second, in the context of predicting what the future climate would be in response to an anthropogenic forcing such as carbon dioxide input, there are, as of yet, undefined limits on what aspects of future climate we can forecast even if all the important ocean-atmosphere-land surface feedbacks were included and also accurately represented in the models. This leads to the conclusion that weather prediction is a subset of climate prediction. Societally useful (i.e., reliable, accurate, etc.) climate prediction requires that all of the feedbacks and other physical processes included in weather prediction be represented in the climate prediction model. In addition longer-term feedback and physical processes must be included. This makes climate prediction a much more difficult problem than weather prediction.”

The seasonal weather forecasters recognize that ”Seasonal forecasting is a developing area of meteorology” as reported on the UK Met Office website.  It is the IPCC community which has ignored the reality that multi-year and decadal climate forecasts is an even more daunting challenge.

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a> 

Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models

14 maj, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant artikel och undersökning, (Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations by De-Zheng Sun, Yongqiang Yu, and Tao Zhang), som visar hur de klimatmodeller som IPCC och Al Gore dyrkar och på vars existens hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger, systematiskt underrepresenterar vissa faktorer (bl.a. the negative cloud albedo feedback) och systematiskt överrepresenterar the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

Dvs. på vanlig svenska – Klimatmodellerna förstärker systematiskt den globala uppvärmingseffekten.

Någon som är förvånad?? Ja menar ”debatten är ju över” och ”det finns inget att diskutera”! Ja undra på det!

Med sådana ”vetenskapliga bevis” så är det nog säkrast att undvika diskussioner för folk kan ju få klart för sig vilket skojeri och charlataneri dessa klimatmodeller är. Och på vars altare våra politiker är beredda att spendera biljontals (1 000 000 000 000) kr på nonsensåtgärder.

Citat:

”By comparing the response of clouds and water vapor to ENSO forcing in nature with that in AMIP simulations by some leading climate models, an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed two common biases in the models: (1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and (2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor. Extending the same analysis to the fully coupled simulations of these models as well as to other IPCC coupled models, we find that these two common biases persist:”

This study indicates that the IPCC models are overpredicting global warming in response to positive radiative forcing.

Se även bl.a. mina inlägg: Basic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkHey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This, The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONSHas the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledWhy multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric TemperaturesScientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesMera om Klimat modellernas falsariumKlimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!,

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/13/tropical-water-vapor-and-cloud-feedbacks-in-climate-models-a-further-assessment-using-coupled-simulations-by-de-zheng-sun-yongqiang-yu-and-tao-zhang/

Undersökningen finns här:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/dezheng.sun/dspapers/Sun-Yu-Zhang-JC-revised.pdf

                   Klicka på graferna så blir de större!

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

  (more…)

Myanmar’s deadly cyclone is global warming’s fault, Gore says. How the heck does he know?

14 maj, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en intressant artikel av Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun) om mäster hycklaren Al Gore och hans uttalande om cyklonen som drabbade Burma.

Som sagt, liken var fortfarande bokstavligen varma när Al Gore skyndsamt kom rusande med standard förklaring 1 A (Det finns bara en förklaring) – Det var naturligtvis Global Warmings fel (surprise! surprise!).

Och så tackfullt av denne VÄRDIGE vinnare av Nobels fredspris!

(Citat:

”We’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming,” he told National Public Radio in reference to the tragedy.

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if he could have waited until after they’d finish digging out the bodies, before blaming it on his favourite (only?) subject?

And didn’t climate hysterics just finish telling us that the record and near-record cold and snow experienced in many parts of the world this past winter didn’t disprove man-made global warming?

Didn’t they just insist no single weather event — or one winter’s worth of data — disproves (or proves) global warming?

Actually, they’re right, although that would admittedly be more impressive if these weren’t the same folks who screeched throughout the mild winter of 2006/2007 that that was proof of global warming.

Then again, consistency has never been the strong suit of folks who are seriously into ”climate porn.”

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Al Gore’s global warming debunked – by kids!A ”Nobel” Folly!,  The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies!Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!  Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Al Gores energislösande hem,  Al Gores energislösande resande. och Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/05/11/5532516-sun.php

Goreacle’s complicated truth

Myanmar’s deadly cyclone is global warming’s fault, Gore says. How the heck does he know?

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Well, here’s a surprise. Al Gore last week linked the deadly cyclone in Myanmar to global warming.

”We’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming,” he told National Public Radio in reference to the tragedy.

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if he could have waited until after they’d finish digging out the bodies, before blaming it on his favourite (only?) subject?

And didn’t climate hysterics just finish telling us that the record and near-record cold and snow experienced in many parts of the world this past winter didn’t disprove man-made global warming?

Didn’t they just insist no single weather event — or one winter’s worth of data — disproves (or proves) global warming?

Actually, they’re right, although that would admittedly be more impressive if these weren’t the same folks who screeched throughout the mild winter of 2006/2007 that that was proof of global warming.

Then again, consistency has never been the strong suit of folks who are seriously into ”climate porn.”

Remember how thrilled they were when some climate scientists predicted 2007 would be the ”hottest year” ever — meaning the hottest year in the last 150 or so since we started keeping reliable records — not the hottest in the Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history?

Never mind that 2007 turned out to be the … uh … seventh, fifth or tied for second-hottest year on record, depending on which climate-monitoring agency you believe.

Never mind that many climate scientists say there hasn’t been any global warming since 1998 and a recent study suggests it may have stopped — offset by ocean currents — and won’t resume until after 2015.

The hilarious thing about media reporting of that study suggesting global warming is on hiatus, was all the frantic assurances by ”green” journalists emphasizing that this didn’t disprove man-made global warming, odd, since the scientists who did the research never claimed it did.

Nonetheless, we were patronizingly told, while it might surprise the great unwashed (us) to learn global temperatures aren’t actually rising steadily year after year in lockstep with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere, it didn’t surprise climate scientists.

Actually, it didn’t surprise anyone who has done any research on the subject and thus already knows global warming (and cooling) don’t go up (or down) in steadily rising (or falling) lines year after year.

So where did the public get the nutty idea that global temperatures are rising relentlessly year after year in lockstep with rising GHG concentrations? Hmmm?

Gee, could it have been from the Goreacle, who said in his climate porn film An Inconvenient Truth ”there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this: When there is more carbon dixoide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside”?

Or this: ”In any given year it might look (my italics) like it’s going down, but the overall trend is extremely clear and in recent years it is uninterrupted and it is intensifying. In fact, if you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record, they’ve all occurred in the last 14 years and the hottest of all was 2005”?

Actually, that ”atmospheric record” only goes back to 1846 — the blink of an eye in terms of climate change — global temperatures aren’t rising in concert with increasing GHG concentrations at the moment, and, as previously noted, many scientists say 1998, not 2005 was the hottest year ”on record,” suggesting what a relatively new field taking the Earth’s temperature is.

I guess Gore figured he covered all that when he said in his film it was ”very complicated,” without explaining the complications.

From there, Gore used a couple of year’s worth of selective temperature data about summer heat waves and hurricane activity, especially 2005 (Hurricane Katrina) to suggest this was all evidence of man-made global warming.

Actually, while 2005 was the most active year on record for Atlantic hurricanes, 2006 was dramatically quieter, with not one hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Perhaps Gore will explain all this ”very complicated” stuff in An Inconvenient Truth, Part II.

Then again, perhaps not.

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a> 


%d bloggare gillar detta: