Monckton: Green policy kills jobs and causes energy poverty

Posted: July 8, 2017 by tallbloke in Big Green, Energy, fuel poverty, government, greenblob, Incompetence, Robber Barons, turbines

Excerpt from an open letter to the head of MIT:

Professor Reif of MIT says, “In 2016 alone, solar industry employment grew by 25 percent, while wind jobs grew 32%.” These numbers are highly misleading. In fact, they underscore how deficient these energy sources are as job creators.

Growing jobs by subsidy is easy, provided that one cares nothing for the far greater number of jobs destroyed by the additional taxation, energy price hikes or public borrowing necessary to pay for the subsidy. Several studieshave shown that the creation of one “green” job results in the loss of two to four jobs elsewhere in the economy. In Spain the estimated ratio was two jobs lost for each one created by renewable energy, prompting the government to finally end most renewable subsidies.

And yet, despite all those subsidies, wind and solar power generation expensively and unreliably account for 5.6% and 0.9% of total U.S. electricity production, respectively. On its own, electricity provides only a small fraction of total energy consumption, including transportation, industrial processes, heating and electricity generation, so these numbers actually exaggerate the contribution of wind and solar facilities to overall energy consumption.

Viewed from another perspective, EIA data reveal it took nearly 400,000 solar workers (about 20% of electric power payrolls) to produce just 0.9% of all the electric power generated in the United States in 2016. About the same number of natural gas workers (398,000) produced 37 times more electricity – and just 160,000 coal workers produced almost as much electricity as those gas workers. Moreover, gas and coal provide power nearly 100% of the time, compared to 15-25% of the time for most solar (and wind) installations. Wind employment numbers reflect this same pattern.

The so-called alternative energy companies survive only because of heavy subsidies, power purchase mandates, supportive regulations, and exemptions from endangered species and other rules that are applied forcefully to fossil fuel industries. Wind and solar electricity is cripplingly expensive for families, hospitals, schools, churches, small businesses and other customers.

In fact, “alternative” or “renewable” energy is often unprofitable even after massive subsidies from taxpayers. For example, SunEdison received $1.5 billion in subsidies and loan guarantees, and yet it was compelled to file for bankruptcy. Solyndra is another example. This is unsustainable.

Europe is suffering from growing political rejection of fossil fuels: energy prices have soared, millions of poor people are unable to pay their energy bills, and elderly people are dying because they cannot afford adequate heating in the winter. Energy-intensive businesses are relocating to countries where energy is cheaper – thereby transferring fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and job creation to other nations, especially in Asia. Theirs is not an example the United States should wish to follow.

Conclusion

By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, President Trump did a wonderful thing for America and the world. He showed that advocacy masquerading as science should not be the basis for public policy decisions. We hope others will follow his lead.

Comments
  1. “additional taxation, energy price hikes or public borrowing necessary to pay for the subsidy. Several studieshave shown that the creation of one “green” job results in the loss of two to four jobs elsewhere in the economy.”

    “Viewed from another perspective, EIA data reveal it took nearly 400,000 solar workers (about 20% of electric power payrolls) to produce just 0.9% of all the electric power generated in the United States in 2016. About the same number of natural gas workers (398,000) produced 37 times more electricity – and just 160,000 coal workers produced almost as much electricity as those gas workers.”

    Less is more?

  2. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    LORD MONCKTON nails the fine print on the unreliable-energy con with his ever reliable menu of pesky facts and stats that send climate zealots into a tail-spin!

    Excellent, well researched open letter to MIT that should turn the heads head…

  3. AlecM says:

    Monckton is not a scientist but a self-taught mathematician. As a result he has mistakenly accepted the premise that Planck (plus Bose) were correct to assume the bidirectional energy flowing across the gap between two radiators in a vacuum is real. GHG-containing air is not a vacuum.

    He’s now desperately trying to jump from the IPCC horse to another based on GHG physics: the only energy flux is the net radiant flux in one direction. This means OLR comprises energy emitted from the altitude at which black body absorption ceases; about 20 km for the 15 micron CO2 band.

    This mistake, existing since 1964, leads to 40% extra radiant energy than reality, first offset by imaginary negative convection then by imaginary atmospheric window IR from incorrect cloud aerosol optical physics, a mistake made in 1969 by Hansen. The same error creates imaginary positive feedback in 3D models devised for UKMO by Julia Slingo’s deceased husband.

    So the real AGW is from Asian aerosols. That effect plateaued about 20 years ago; the start of the plateau. Now Asian power stations are being fitted with desulphurisation and the Sun is cooling the World is going into a new LIA.

  4. AlecM says:

    PS van der Hulst made the same cloud aerosol physics’ mistake in 1967.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Alec M: I think he tries to fight the mainstream on their own turf for strategic reasons.
    Monckton has other arguments in his anti-consensus armoury, such as this one.

    You say, on the basis of “hundreds of conversations…with faculty, students, alumni and researchers”, that the Party Line (sorry, “consensus”) is “grounded in the compelling body of scientific evidence regarding anthropogenic climate change”. Let us narrow the issue to just one aspect of the official science.

    There is a natural greenhouse effect, which drives the difference of 33 K between the mean emission temperature of the Earth (255 K) and the mean surface temperature (288 K). That greenhouse effect comprises partly the consequence of forcings and partly the consequence of feedbacks. Assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that the 33 K natural greenhouse effect comprises entirely feedbacks.

    You will agree, I think, that the feedbacks acting on today’s climate (before any perturbation by us) cannot by any stretch of the imagination exceed the entire natural greenhouse effect, for otherwise they would be by some magical process materially influencing the Sun itself. Accordingly, elementary feedback theory stipulates that the feedback fraction f, which is the fraction of today’s 288 K surface temperature that is fed back, cannot exceed 33/288, or 0.11, and it is most unlikely to be this large.

    IPCC, however, says reference warming ΔTs in response to doubled CO2 before feedbacks will be 1.2 K, but that equilibrium warming ΔT after feedbacks will fall on [1.5, 4.5] K, implying that its feedback fraction f = (1 – ΔTs/ΔT) will fall on [0.23, 0.74]. But that interval is between twice and seven times the absolute maximum possible value of f, and two orders of magnitude greater than any realistic value.

    The above three paragraphs constitute a complete, formal demonstration by contradiction that the “consensus” interval of equilibrium sensitivities to which you and MIT and IPCC so profitably cling must be a monstrous overstatement. If so, IPCC’s conclusion and yours, defying all but 0.3% of the peer-reviewed literature, that recent warming was almost certainly mostly manmade is manifestly insupportable.

    Yours sincerely,

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  6. […] Ref.: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/07/08/monckton-green-policy-kills-jobs-and-causes-energy-povert… […]

  7. pochas94 says:

    I don’t understand Lord Monckton’s argument. If the maximum negative feedback is that required to reduce the observed greenhouse effect to zero is 0.11, Ok, I follow. But to say that the IPCC’S estimated greenhouse effect of [1.5, 4.5] K by itself implies a feedback factor? What if the claim is that there are no feedbacks?

  8. ferdberple says:

    When dealing with absolute temperatures it becomes obvious that worries over CO2 have been exaggerated. A natural variation of 1 part in 100 is not the least bit unexpected. It is only when the observations are converted to anomalies and this 1% variance suddenly becomes a 100% variance does the problem appear significant.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Pochas: Monckton’s argument is that the most a positive feedback can be is 33/288 K in order to lift Earth’s surface temp from the non-radiative atmosphere scenario of 255K to 288K = a factor of 0.11 (i.e. 288 is 0.11 times bigger than 255K). So the IPCC can’t be right by claiming that feedbacks will increase the amount of warming for a doubling of CO2 alone (~1.2K) to somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5K.

  10. pochas94 says:

    Or more, depending on what kind of positive feedbacks you can conjure up.

  11. Petrossa says:

    as in all things, growth percentage is relative to the baseline. In that it’s easy for India to have economic growth numbers of >7% because they had nothing to begin with.
    Same for ‘green’ energy. The only true baseline in existence is that of hydro-power which only works in countries with enough height difference so gravity does all the ‘work’
    Absent of those natural resources any growth % is polluted by the amount of energy you put in (i.e. taxpayers money)
    I suggest we discard growth % as a valid yardstick but use cost per capita per kw/h including all taxes in the form of any subsidies.
    I live in France.
    I pay 12 eurocent per kw/h including ALL taxes, levies for maintenance of the grid and VAT over the ‘ecotax’ we have to pay.

  12. renewableguy says:

    and elderly people are dying because they cannot afford adequate heating in the winter.

    Your facts are wrong on this. They are dying from getting sick easier mixed with poverty.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/20/older-person-dying-winter-fuel-poverty

    Over the last four winters, according to the latest official figures, nearly 120,000 people in England and Wales have died of cold weather, or factors associated with cold weather such as a virulent strain of influenza. But campaigners argue that these excess winter deaths, defined as the difference between the number of deaths that occur each winter (from December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding four months (August to November) and the subsequent four months (April to July), have more to do with poverty than freezing temperatures.

    [Reply] Yep, can’t afford to heat their homes due to hikes in ecotaxes added to energy bills.

  13. renewableguy says:

    A carbon fee can shift money to the poor to insulate their homes and assist with fuel bills.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/30/millions-families-living-fuel-poverty-england-statistics

    More than 2.3 million families are living in fuel poverty in England – the equivalent of 10% of households, according to government statistics.

    Almost 60,000 households in Birmingham alone cannot afford to heat their homes. The figures from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show the West Midlands city is worst affected, with Leeds, Cornwall, Manchester and Liverpool also in the top five local authorities where households face “eat or heat” choices in winter.

  14. renewableguy says:

    “Energy-intensive businesses are relocating to countries where energy is cheaper – thereby transferring fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and job creation to other nations, especially in Asia. Theirs is not an example the United States should wish to follow.”

    A lot of the American jobs went to Asia anyway. China is now going to become the leader in carbon free energy. We just handed that one off for sure with Trumpty Dumpty.

    [Reply] China is building new coal fired power stations at an eye-watering rate.

  15. renewableguy says:

    “In fact, “alternative” or “renewable” energy is often unprofitable even after massive subsidies from taxpayers. For example, SunEdison received $1.5 billion in subsidies and loan guarantees, and yet it was compelled to file for bankruptcy. Solyndra is another example. This is unsustainable.”

    The failure rate is actually quite low and that is why it is sustainable. There will always be failure. Fear of failure and the world will be paranoid of change.

    [Reply] Yep, just 112 of them 2009-2014: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/08/112-solar-companies-have-closed-their-doors-in-5-years/

  16. renewableguy says:

    Conclusion

    “By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, President Trump did a wonderful thing for America and the world. He showed that advocacy masquerading as science should not be the basis for public policy decisions. We hope others will follow his lead”

    We are now with two other third world countries that have not signed the Paris Climate Accord. The G20 is moving on without us. Industry and states are moving forward with the help of the federal government. Its a fossil fuel wet dream.

    [Reply] How’s that green climate fund coming along?

  17. renewableguy says:

    “The so-called alternative energy companies survive only because of heavy subsidies, power purchase mandates, supportive regulations, and exemptions from endangered species and other rules that are applied forcefully to fossil fuel industries. Wind and solar electricity is cripplingly expensive for families, hospitals, schools, churches, small businesses and other customers.”

    I pay a penny and a half more per kw-hr to have 100% renewable energy. where I buy electricity no one has to buy renewable energy. They can buy coal power if theyy wish. This is not crippling anyone.

    [Reply] Most aren’t so lucky as you. Here in UK green energy taxes have added over £300/year to bills and it’ll double by 2025 on the current trajectory. Use italics for quoting and stop using bold for your comments please.

  18. Thanks for providing a valid link to the Gabriel Calzada Álvarez study. My previous link went dead!

    Too bad nobody in the Obama administration bothered to read it.

  19. renewableguy says:

    Viewed from another perspective, EIA data reveal it took nearly 400,000 solar workers (about 20% of electric power payrolls) to produce just 0.9% of all the electric power generated in the United States in 2016. About the same number of natural gas workers (398,000) produced 37 times more electricity – and just 160,000 coal workers produced almost as much electricity as those gas workers. Moreover, gas and coal provide power nearly 100% of the time, compared to 15-25% of the time for most solar (and wind) installations. Wind employment numbers reflect this same pattern.

    And then there is the ghg emissioins. Coal and natural gas are many times tthe ghg emissions of renewable energy. The difference beetween coal and wind in global warming potential is just huge. Renewable energy does create more jobs than fossil fuels. ANd it is a cheaper source of energyy when it is finished. Almost every state will have a reduction in energy costs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC.2C_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources

    2014 IPCC, Global warming potential of selected electricity source

    Life cycle CO2 equivalent (including albedo effect) from selected electricity supply technologies.[2][3] Arranged by decreasing median (gCO2eq/kWh) values.

    coal max 910
    wind offshore 35

    [Reply] Tell it to the south Australians.

  20. renewableguy says:

    And yet, despite all those subsidies, wind and solar power generation expensively and unreliably account for 5.6% and 0.9% of total U.S. electricity production, respectively. On its own, electricity provides only a small fraction of total energy consumption, including transportation, industrial processes, heating and electricity generation, so these numbers actually exaggerate the contribution of wind and solar facilities to overall energy consumption.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources#States_by_2016_renewable_electricity_production

    United States with hydro 14.9 without hydro 8.4

  21. renewableguy says:

    There aren’t even that many fossil fuel jobs. So by the author’s assertion we would lose about 8 million jobs. This is just pure fantasy.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/12/clean-energy-economy-2-7-million-green-jobs-40-less-emissions/

    he Clean Energy Economy: 2.7 Million Green Jobs, 40% Fewer Emissions
    September 12th, 2014 by Silvio Marcacci

    $200 billion may sound like a hefty tab, but consider the following: It would be just 1.4% of the federal budget, while adding up to roughly 40% LESS than what America invested in the oil and gas industry during 2013 and about 20% the total spent on bank bailouts in 2008. And, that money could prevent projected economic damages of $150 billion per year if temperatures increase 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

    [Reply] The jobs aren’t just lost in other energy sectors, they are lost across the economy as the higher taxes to cover subsidies affect spending power. The green bill may be 40% less than for oil and gas, but oil and gas produce two orders of magnitude more energy! Stop using bold for your comments please.

  22. tallbloke says:

    South Australia power prices to rise to highest in the world on Saturday, energy expert warns
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/sa-has-most-expensive-power-prices-in-the-world/8658434

    “South Australia will overtake Denmark as having the world’s most expensive electricity when the country’s major energy retailers jack up their prices this Saturday [July 1, 2017]….

    Bruce Mountain, the head of a private energy consultancy firm, said the increases would see South Australia take the lead on world power prices….”

  23. renewableguy says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 8, 2017 at 3:48 pm
    Pochas: Monckton’s argument is that the most a positive feedback can be is 33/288 K in order to lift Earth’s surface temp from the non-radiative atmosphere scenario of 255K to 288K = a factor of 0.11 (i.e. 288 is 0.11 times bigger than 255K). So the IPCC can’t be right by claiming that feedbacks will increase the amount of warming for a doubling of CO2 alone (~1.2K) to somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5K.

    You are going to take Monckton over the IPCC? Monckton doesn’t even have the qualifications.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sensitivity_to_carbon_dioxide_forcing

    Radiative forcing due to doubled CO2[edit]
    CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.

    Right away this says that co2 sets the bottom limit. It would have to be a strong long term negative forcing to overcome co2.

    The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback”;[12] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).

    This is the range expressed of what is possible for a doubling of co2. Bottom limit is 1.5*C as expressed by this article. But we are now at 1*C currently increase since the beginning of the industrial era. So in the next 83 years we are only going to increase temperature .5*C? 1.5 times 280ppm is 420ppm and we are over 1/2 way to 1.5*C centigrade. Even with a logarithmic increase of co2 to temperature, we will easily shoot beyyond 1.5*C.

    [Reply] It’s not a matter of qualifications, it’s just arithmetic and logic. The ever upwardly adjusted temperature data don’t provide a reliable guide, so we’ll need to look at phenomena whose data cant be fiddled so easily, such as sea ice amount.

  24. renewableguy says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Water_vapor_feedback

    Water vapor feedback[edit]
    Main article: Water vapor feedback
    If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[44] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[58] Water vapor feedback is considered a faster feedback mechanism.[48]

    The surface of the earth is 70% water, Water vapor feedback is a fast feedback and is the strongest feedback. Water vapor has a residency in the atmosphere of of about 8 to 10 days while co2’s residency is centuries. CO isn’t the strongest ghg, but it is the longest ghg to stay in the atmosphere in quantity. Slow and steady wins the race.

    [Reply] The water vapour data NVAPM shows no increase in the upper atmosphere over the last 20 years where it actually matters.

  25. renewableguy says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

    There are 5 negative feedbacks in climate change and there are 15 positive feedbacks. We are warming due to positive feedbacks now of 1 degree centigrade with out being halfway to a doubling of 280ppm co2. There is also a lag in the warming of the earth of about 40 years. I say we easily go beyond 2*C. I have read by the mainstream scientists that they are looking at about 2.7*C for a doubling of co2. There are studies that go higher on this. What are you going to bet the farm on? If the scientists are low, what happens to the earth if the world bets its low?

  26. renewableguy says:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/20/older-person-dying-winter-fuel-poverty

    Over the last four winters, according to the latest official figures, nearly 120,000 people in England and Wales have died of cold weather, or factors associated with cold weather such as a virulent strain of influenza. But campaigners argue that these excess winter deaths, defined as the difference between the number of deaths that occur each winter (from December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding four months (August to November) and the subsequent four months (April to July), have more to do with poverty than freezing temperatures.

    [Reply] Yep, can’t afford to heat their homes due to hikes in ecotaxes added to energy bills.

    Soooo how much is influenza and how much is due to lack of heat. The two are tangled together and one may not be as big as the other. I see it as dying from poverty not providing health services that they need. There is no reason a society cannot remedy this situation. The carbon tax or eco tax can take care of this easily. This is poverty that is not even necessary. Again energy efficiency and some subsidy for those less fortunate.

  27. renewableguy says:

    2014 IPCC, Global warming potential of selected electricity source

    Life cycle CO2 equivalent (including albedo effect) from selected electricity supply technologies.[2][3] Arranged by decreasing median (gCO2eq/kWh) values.

    coal max 910
    wind offshore 35

    [Reply] Tell it to the south Australians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

    Australia per capita co2 16.3 metric tons

    United states 16.4 metric tons per capita

    California 9.6 metric tons per capita

    California is forging ahead along with several other states ignoring the present administration in the white house.

    [Reply] Yes, it’ll be interesting to see what happens to California’s economy in the coming years.

  28. tallbloke says:

    Folks, you’ll be getting a 10 day break from this kind of thread bombing, as no-one is going to be around to moderate.

    Here’s the last ten years of Arctic sea ice. It’s increasing slightly.

  29. renewableguy says:

    The surface of the earth is 70% water, Water vapor feedback is a fast feedback and is the strongest feedback. Water vapor has a residency in the atmosphere of of about 8 to 10 days while co2’s residency is centuries. CO isn’t the strongest ghg, but it is the longest ghg to stay in the atmosphere in quantity. Slow and steady wins the race.

    [Reply] The water vapour data NVAPM shows no increase in the upper atmosphere over the last 20 years where it actually matters.

    Wwe don’t live in the upper atmosphere.

    [Reply] We don’t live on the Sun either, but its gravity is what keeps us near enough to it to stay warm. Why don’t you go away and learn how the theory you believe in supposed to work?

  30. renewableguy says:

    Nobody listens to Donald Trump on this. No one.

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/08/landslide-victory-climate-g20-leaders-minus-trump-affirm-paris-accord

    “Donald Trump is learning the hard way that he cannot thwart the entire world on climate change and expect to continue with business as usual,” added Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.

    He continued:

    Trump’s historically irresponsible decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement has left the U.S. isolated on the world stage. The other 19 leaders of the world’s largest economies stood shoulder to shoulder in unified support for the Paris Agreement. Given the choice between following Trump or standing strong for climate action, not a single world leader decided to back him. That’s unprecedented, and it shows how deeply unpopular and misguided Trump’s attack on the Paris Agreement has been, and how much damage it has done to U.S. credibility and standing in the world.

    [Reply] So Trump is standing up to a 95% consensus then? The sierra club’s argument won’t fly far at the Talkshop, where the pronouncements of the consenseless are seen for what they are. By the way, China, Russia and India won’t be cutting CO2 emissions under the Paris agreement. They’ll be increasing them dramatically as they develop their economies. The EU’s economic suicide amuses them.

  31. Bitter&twisted says:

    DNFTT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s