Month: July 2020

W. S. Jevons (1865) on Wind (Memo to Biden, Part I)

“The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.”

The most important book written on energy economics was the first: William Stanley Jevons’s The Coal Question (London: Macmillan and Company, 1865, rev. 1866). This classic is available in its entirety on the Internet.

Jevons’s remarkably sophisticated treatment of energy sustainability remains pertinent today. In a real sense, the Biden approach to energy was refuted by the insight of W. S. Jevons more than 150 years ago.

This four-part series will continue this week with Waterpower, Biomass, and Geothermal; Coal; and Energy Efficiency.

Jevons makes four points regarding windpower.

1) windpower is not new

“When in 1708 windmills were wanted to try and drain certain Scotch coal-mines; John Young, the millwright of Montrose, was found to be the only man in the country who could erect windmills.” (p. 75)

2) windpower is intermittent and unsuitable for modern work

“The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.” (p. 122)

“Before the era of steam-engines, windmills were tried for draining mines, ‘but, though they were powerful machines, they were very irregular, so that in a long tract of calm weather the mines were drowned, and all the workmen thrown idle. From this cause, the contingent expenses of these machines were very great; besides, they were only applicable in open and elevated situations’.” (p. 123)

Civilization … is the economy of power, and consists in withdrawing and using our small fraction of force in a happy mode and moment.” (p. 122)

3) windpower is land constrained

“No possible concentration of windmills … would supply the force required in large factories or iron works. An ordinary windmill has the power of about thirty-four men, or at most seven horses. Many ordinary factories would therefore require ten windmills to drive them, and the great Dowlais Ironworks, employing a total engine power of 7,308 horses, would require no less than 1,000 large windmills!” (p. 123)

4) windpower for transportation unworkable

“Richard Lovell Edgeworth spent forty years’ labour in trying to bring wind carriages into use. But no ingenuity could prevent [wind carriages] from being uncertain; and their rapidity with a strong breeze was such, that … ‘they seemed to fly, rather than roll along the ground.’ Such rapidity not under full control must be in the highest degree dangerous.” (p. 126)

“A wind-wagon would undoubtedly be the cheapest kind of conveyance if it would always go the right way. Simon Stevin invented such a carriage, which carried twenty-eight persons, and is said to have gone seven leagues an hour.” (p. 125)

Conclusion

Modern analyses of electricity from industrial wind turbines acknowledge intermittency.

The post W. S. Jevons (1865) on Wind (Memo to Biden, Part I) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/39bB3ec

July 20, 2020 at 01:09AM

The Rising Costs of the Climate War

By Alan Moran

Rio Tinto’s [Paywall] announced closure of its aluminium smelter in New Zealand due to uncompetitive power prices is a reminder of the vulnerability of Australia’s four remaining smelters, all of which face sharply higher prices courtesy of government energy policies. With energy costs comprising about a third of their total costs, smelters are industry’s bellwethers of future energy competitiveness and all four of Australia’s are on national suicide watch.

As a result of subsidies to wind and solar, these expensive and unreliable energy sources have caused high customer costs, both directly and indirectly, while also diverting the nation’s investment resources into avenues that actually damage the economy.

Commonwealth and state subsidies to wind and solar energy are running at just under $7 billion a year. $4 billion of these are as a result of requirements imposed on consumers by the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Target, its similar provisions for roof-top installations and measures taken by state governments. Some $2 billion of assistance to renewables comes from direct subsidies.

The effect of these subsidies is compounded by their forcing out of production lower cost coal generators. As a result, prices are now double what they were three years ago, bringing the national damage to over $15 billion per year. The outcome is that from having the world’s lowest cost electricity we now suffer from being among the highest and our reliance on intermittent renewables has left supply increasingly precarious.

But it does not stop there. In order to accommodate the subsidised renewables, consumers are being required to spend vast sums to augment transmission links.

These expenditures are for two reasons. First, they are to allow the surplus from wind and solar during daytime peaks to be exported – a further subsidy to renewables. Secondly, they are to provide greater security for those regions, especially South Australia, which have become over-reliant on intermittent power, having jettisoned the in-state coal generators that provided stability and reliability. In addition, we are in the process of converting the magnificent Snowy and Tasmanian hydro systems into quasi-batteries that will, at a cost of 30 per cent of their output, simply offset the inherent unreliability and intermittent nature of wind and solar. The Tasmanian link is likely to cost over $2 billion and Snowy2 will be far pricier than this.

At some future date we will ask how this was allowed to happen. How did we as a nation not only acquiesce in but actually finance the demise of our energy industry?

Obviously, the great sales pitch from the wind/solar subsidy seekers is part of the answer. That pitch promised low cost reliable electricity if only the government offered a few incentives as a bridge to this future. So also is the hysteria, on which the subsidy-seekers’ pitch partly rested, about global warming and the misinformation that this can be remedied by Australia abandoning the fossil fuels that still supply three quarters of our electricity.

But a great deal of the blame must be sheeted home to the bureaucracy, especially Treasury, formerly the gatekeeper of wasteful spending and the leader in combating other damaging proposals and policy stances. Forty years ago, under the legendary John Stone, the Commonwealth Treasury not only focussed on paring back ministerial spending ambitions but was also the leader in reducing regulatory imposts – which were at that time mainly in the form of import tariffs.

Gradually Treasury has metamorphized. Treasurers themselves, with the notable exception of Peter Costello, have been incapable of resisting the green interventionist advice that they have been offered.

Today the Treasury is headed by people who are wedded to accelerating an “inevitable” replacement of fossil fuelled electricity generation to one dominated by wind, solar or some yet to be discovered alternative. Secretary Steven Kennedy was the author of the notorious 2008 Garnaut report with its panoply of taxes and new spending levers designed to transform the economy. The two senior Deputy Secretaries, Jenny Wilkinson and Meghan Quinn have also spent over a decade pressing for carbon taxes and other interventions designed to push the economy in the directions they favour.

The coronavirus crisis offers an opportunity to turn back the tide before it engulfs the entire economy. Benefits include savings of over $2 billion in Commonwealth and state outlays presently wasted in direct support of renewables, a further $5 billion in regulatory forced transfers imposed on electricity customers and almost $10 billion in consequent increases in wholesale energy costs. In addition, there are the further outlays down the pike on new transmission lines and in converting the hydro schemes into renewable support facilities.

But the leading bureaucrats will not help in illuminating these opportunities and the Energy Minister is either incapable of persuading his colleagues to reverse course or he too is captive to the same environmentalist fervour.

via The Carbon Sense Coalition

https://ift.tt/3eI0GEz

July 19, 2020 at 08:50PM

Book Em Dano!

Hawaii used to greet you like this. Now they have 22% unemployment, and want to make it worse. Nearly 200 people arrested in Hawaii for violating travel quaran – Honolulu, Hawaii news, sports & weather – KITV Channel 4

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/2BeFybr

July 19, 2020 at 07:27PM

untitled

“Joe Biden, AOC, Democrats and environmentalist groups would not just shut down fossil fuel production, pipelines and fuels for power generation and manufacturing. They would effectively turn our energy systems, manufacturing, defense, livelihoods and living standards over to China.”
– Paul Driessen and Ned Mamula

____________

“In just over six months, the Wuhan Coronavirus sickened 2.7 million Americans and left 130,000 dead, while causing trillions in economic damage and making tens of millions of our citizens unemployed,” writes Paul Driessen. “Meanwhile, Chinese companies dominate supply chains for drug and medical device manufacturing, raw materials and key components for aerospace, defense, telecom and other industries  – and the metals and minerals needed for wind turbines, solar panels and rechargeable batteries. Under the so-called Green New Deal, Joe Biden, Democrats and environmentalist groups would not just shut down fossil fuel production, pipelines and fuels for power generation and manufacturing. They would effectively turn our energy systems, manufacturing, defense, livelihoods and living standards over to China.

“This article, coauthored by Ned Mamula, presents the details of where this radical anti-fossil fuel agenda would take us – and explains how we could easily avoid that dark future by producing those raw materials right here in the USA.”

__________l

Hold China accountable – or give it even more control?

Democrats’ Green New Deal would make US reliance on China much worse

Paul Driessen and Ned Mamula

China unleashed Covid-19 on an unsuspecting world. It knew by early January 2020 (if not by December 2019 or earlier) that it was dealing with a vicious, fast-spreading disease in Wuhan, a city with more people than Chicago and New York City combined. But first it said nothing. Then it lied repeatedly, expelled foreign journalists, and threatened, silenced or “disappeared” Wuhan doctors who tried to warn the world.

The Chinese Communist Party used its influence with the World Health Organization to advance its false claims about the origins of the Wuhan virus (likely a laboratory or wet market in the city) and absence of human-to-human transmission. The CCP even claimed the virus was brought to Wuhan by US soldiers during an October 2019 military sports tournament. It shut down domestic travel to and from Wuhan, while allowing millions to fly between Wuhan and Europe, the United States, Africa and Latin America.

By July 1, the Wuhan virus had sickened 11 million people worldwide and killed a half million – with 2.7 million ill and 130,000 dead in the USA alone. The virus caused trillions of dollars in economic damage, as the world issued stay-home orders, closed down global trade and made hundreds of millions jobless. Amid the pandemic, China shipped defective respirator masks, engaged in hoarding and price gouging on medical supplies, and expanded its campaign to blame other countries for the disaster.

A University of Southampton study concluded that, if China had been honest and transparent, and stopped foreign travel to and from Wuhan even three weeks before it actually did, global Covid-19 transmission could have been reduced by 95% and hundreds of thousands would not have died. Nor would the world economy have imploded. (The WHO refused to declare a global pandemic until March 11.)

China’s outrageous behavior is nothing new. Companies wanting to sell products in China have long been compelled to build factories in China and share their technological and manufacturing secrets – while Chinese students, agents and hackers have systematically stolen other intellectual property and trade and defense secrets. Its treatment of Hong Kong, Laos and Chinese Uighurs is duplicitous and immoral.

Many have said China must be held accountable, punished, and made to pay reparations and financial penalties. Justice certainly demands that. In a more perfect world, it might even happen. However, securing a verdict on reparations would be a tall order, enforcing any verdict highly doubtful.

China’s status as a global economic and military superpower is augmented by its positions on the United Nations Security Council, in the World Trade Organization, and on the UN Human Rights Council (along with Iran, North Korea and other moral exemplars). Its predatory lending practices make China an even more untrustworthy pariah, and conditions in its mines, processing plants and factories show that it has little regard for workers’ health or basic rights. Indeed, it demands that we ignore human rights issues.

These problems are compounded by China’s control of numerous vital supply chains. China dominates not just manufacturing of US drugs like heparin, vaccines and penicillin, but the active ingredients that allow US companies to make other essential medicines. Chinese companies thereby control 70% of acetaminophen, and up to 95% of antibiotics and hydrocortisone. In 2008, contaminated heparin from China caused 81 US deaths. Much of the USA’s basic and high-tech medical equipment (respirators, surgical masks, protective gowns, and MRI and CT scan equipment) is also imported from China.

The United States is also beholden to China for metals and minerals in energy, aerospace, defense, telecom and other industries. Joe Biden, AOC, Democrats and environmentalist groups would not just shut down fossil fuel production, pipelines and fuels for power generation and manufacturing. They would effectively turn our energy systems, manufacturing, defense, livelihoods and living standards over to China.

Chinese computer chips are in countless products – and Trojan horse viruses or backdoors for hackers could enable steady information theft, take over GPS systems or crash electrical grids. Minerals, metals and components essential for aircraft, night vision goggles, computers, wind turbines, solar panels, rechargeable batteries, electric vehicles and other technologies are sourced directly from China or through Chinese companies that conduct horrific mining operations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Supplies of these materials or products could easily be restricted or cut off amid trade or other conflicts.

Incredibly, America has nearly all the metals and minerals needed to manufacture these products, and many more. However, because of unrelenting environmentalist and Democrat opposition to exploration and mining, the nation’s vast, mineral-rich federal lands (worth many trillions of dollars) remain off limits and undeveloped, forcing the United States to import the vast majority of its essential raw materials.

In fact, America is needlessly 100% dependent on imports for 35 “critical” minerals and metals that are needed for defense, aerospace, transportation, communication, “renewable” energy and healthcare technologies – including 15 different rare earth elements (REEs). At least 25 of them come from China. Another half dozen come from Russia. Not one is renewable, clean, green, cheap or sustainable.

That means America imports nearly two-thirds of its critical minerals and metals from adversaries and enemies! Amazingly, although the United States once led the world in producing REEs, China now makes 95% of all the world’s rare earth metals, using technologies that the U.S. gave them – for free.

Thin-film solar panels require indium and tellurium, to convert the sun’s rays to electricity. Making solar panels also requires lead, cadmium, copper, gallium, silver, polyvinyl fluoride, and other materials and chemicals. Just building the 500 square miles of solar panels that Dominion Energy Virginia is planning would involve some 5,000,000 pounds of cadmium and enormous amounts of these other materials.

A single 2-megawatt wind turbine requires some 3.5 tons of copper to generate and transmit electricity – plus 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic composites, several tons of rare earth elements, and many tons of manganese, cobalt, aluminum and other metals and minerals.

Magnets in hybrid gas-electric vehicle motors require dysprosium and neodymium, while a single 100-kilowatt-hour Tesla rechargeable battery pack (for all-electric vehicles and backup power systems) requires 140 pounds of lithium, large amounts of cobalt, nickel, graphite, aluminum and copper, and smaller amounts of manganese and rare earth metals. The raw material demands go on and on.

Multiply these requirements by the tens of thousands of offshore wind turbines, millions of onshore turbines, billions of solar panels and billions of 1,200-pound battery packs that would be needed under the Green New Deal – and the demand for raw materials would translate into unimaginable increases in mining around the world. It would also bring unsustainable global ecological impacts, enormous increases in global fossil fuel use and emissions, indefensible reliance on Chinese (and Russian) raw material and finished product imports, and vastly more slave and child labor and human rights violations around the world.

Transformers, smart grid control systems, electric vehicles and thousands of miles of additional transmission lines under the GND would add even more to the increases in raw materials demand. Modern civilizations also need numerous other metals: arsenic for microwave communications, fluorspar for aluminum and steel production and uranium processing, gallium for LEDs and cell phones, graphite for rechargeable batteries, scandium for lightweight alloys and fuel cells, bismuth for pharmaceuticals and lead-free solders, antimony for lead-acid batteries and flame retardants, and countless others.

It bears repeating: Almost every one of these essential materials could be mined and processed domestically. But instead many are 100% imported, mostly from China. Many Americans’ disdain for mining and manufacturing means US energy, jobs, living standards, health and national security will be almost entirely dependent on China, Russia and other countries that are not exactly friendly or reliable.

One thing is certain. Unlike US technologies and intellectual property that are constantly at risk of theft by China – there is absolutely nothing about US mineral resource policies that the CCP would ever want to copy, much less steal! And the Chinese certainly have no interest in copying our pollution control, mined land reclamation, wildlife protection, workplace safety, fair wage, child labor or human rights laws.

Sadly, not one of these realities seems to merit even a moment’s consideration by GND proponents.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

Dr. Ned Mamula is geologist and former mineral resource specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey. He is author of the book Groundbreaking! America’s New Quest for Mineral Independence.

The post appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/30p7wtG

July 19, 2020 at 07:11PM