Cambridge University electrical engineering professor Dr. M.J. Kelly concluded in a peer-reviewed journal article that attempts to fight global warming with green energy will impoverish the world.
The Monday article found reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions enough to actually slow global warming in a measurable way simply isn’t possible without significantly reducing standards of living by plunging most of the world into poverty, destitution and starvation.
“Over the last 200 years, fossil fuels have provided the route out of grinding poverty for many people in the world,” states the article. “This trend is certain to continue for at least the next 20 years based on the technologies of scale that are available today. A rapid decarbonization is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle class people downgrading their own standard of living.”
The article found current CO2 emissions aren’t falling rapidly enough to slow global warming largely because most public policy has focused exclusively on developing wind and solar power, which may actually increase emissions. Continued support for wind, solar and other forms of green energy like biofuel “represents total madness” as these energy systems don’t justify the massive costs of the subsidies required to support them.
“It is clear to me that every further step along the current pathway of deploying first-generation renewable energy is locking in immature and uneconomic systems at net loss to the world standard of living,” Kelly wrote in a press statement. “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality.”
The article confirms previous criticism of environmental policies which state the total amount of energy created by solar and wind is relatively small, even though both systems have been heavily subsidized since at least the 1970s. In 2010, wind power alone received $5 billion in subsidies, swamping the $654 million oil and gas received. Solar and wind power get 326 and 69 times more in subsidies than coal, oil, and natural gas per amount of energy generated.
In 2015, solar and wind power accounted for only 0.6 and 4.7 percent of electricity generated in America, respectively, according to the Energy Information Administration.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
Sums up the supply situation clearly. Every kw of wind energy should have instant backup supply for when the wind varies. If this is not so we get power cuts, this generation capacity is kept fully manned and idling 24/7. The oft quoted reduction in c02 production is imaginary, not accounting standby plant operation.
Wind Turbines are designed 500% larger than the required output, power of the wind varies on a logarithmic base making load balancing an art form with 10% renewables, and at 50%, it’s impossible to maintain regular supplies. Essential consumers must have priority so all others will take the brunt of all cuts.
Finally the mechanism for c02 being a warming cause has never been explained, the current theory reverses from c02 being a result of heat to being a cause which seems illogical.
The fuel for these turbines may be free, but use of green electricity is confined to when it’s being produced, in short only justified by Micky Mouse Economics.
A well informed post, and this is what most media platforms leaves out.
Dezember 6, 2014 German Renewable Energy Keeps Blacking Out! Supply Often Less Than 2% Of Wintertime Demand
My last post featured a commentary by renewable energy expert Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who forcefully conveyed the folly of Germany’s mad rush into renewable energy, and the country’s hysterical obsession with its suicidal fast-track shutdown of its stable base-electric-power generation.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/06/german-renewable-energy-keeps-blacking-out-supply-often-less-than-2-of-wintertime-demand/
Thank you, grid watch uk is a very good resource for those who enquire.
Good for what?
Spreading misinformation?
Is it wise to believe people you know are misleading you, Brin?
Do you think that will work out well for you in the end?
spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/germanys-superstable-solarsoaked-grid
Finally the mechanism for c02 being a warming cause has never been explained,
Actually it has been explained to you a dozen times, you are either being dishonest or lack capacity to grasp the explanation.
Either way.
Best,
D
You have been challenged and failed. I want to hear a viable explanation and you have been a dumbo not even being able to understand what you believe.
Remember, you failed to grasp what several people have showed you, including me. The failure is on you, not anyone else.
Best,
D
I am familiar with Dano, and I doubt that claim very much!
The signature of the greenhouse gasses we emit can be seen from space, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are warming the planet.
…so what explains your “doubt”?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05
Familiar with Drano? Then you must know he’s an idiot.
Says purposeful liar Graves caught in many lies by me.
Best,
D
You’re being intentionally evasive if not dishonest. Explanations and evidence have been provided to you many times. You tell us what you don’t understand: http://climate.nasa.gov/.
He’s just a baiting troll, ignore him.
April 22, 2016 Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view
Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations. On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.
http://usat.ly/1SwHOsS
This is the goal. Bring the West down, particularly, and make everyone impoverished. That way, we’re more easily controlled.
Maurice Strong was an billionaire elitist who helped organize the IPCC, and was the Secretary General of the 1992 Rio Conference (sometimes called the Earth Summit). Here is a quote from Strong:
“ISN’T THE ONLY HOPE FOR THE PLANET THAT THE INDUSTRIALIZED CIVILIZATIONS COLLAPSE? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro [ Emphasis mine].
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
Dishonest quote-mine, thanks!
Best,
D
Should that come as a surprise on a site like this?
I wonder if they realise broadcasting the same dishonest talking points on multiple propaganda outlets simultaneously alerts the public that there really is a conspiracy to mislead going on…
http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/cost-of-not-acting-on-climate-change-44-trillion-citi.html
1 billion people live without energy and they endure (for a little while) pain and hardship unimaginable to people like you. Why dont you drop your cell phone in the trash and give your car keys to a stranger and go join them. Please and thank-you.
Oh, I know!
You’re so very concerned about those poor people without energy… but it’s fake concern, isn’t it?
I would be fine with helping poor countries install renewable energy that won’t crash the climate they depend on for survival!
Would you?
Plant type LCOE ($/MWh)
Conventional Coal $95.10
Advanced Nuclear $95.20
Geothermal $47.80
Biomass $100.50
Wind $73.60
Solar PV $125.30
Hydroelectric $83.50
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
So are you saying that solar power can run an entire city of 10 million? Or a country of 1 billion? Why dont you f-off with your crap.
I am!
Are you saying it can’t?
http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf
OH BS! How do you power a city of 10mm at night using all solar? You don’t have that sort of storage. Are you an idiot?
You citation is irrelevant.
Plus since all that wonderful solar energy is so spread out the practical energy derived is much less then imagined. The effective energy density on a good desert day near the equator is about 1% that of coal, 5% that of NG. That’s why it takes so much infrastructure to capture all that wonderful renewable energy that can’t be affordably stored.
But greenies claim if you just get enough participants, why you could run the world of off unicorn farts and rainbow pixie dust! Oh yes we can! LOL.
WHAT!!??? Do you mean we CAN’T?
Hey, where were you for the last 9 months?
Busy with other issues. Better late then never.
No you can’t replace high density fossil with low density solar and wind:
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/01/30/the-wind-and-solar-will-save-us-delusion/
The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” Delusion
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/08/31/intermittent-renewables-cant-favorably-transform-grid-electricity/
Intermittent Renewables Can’t Favorably Transform Grid Electricity
Where do you expect the energy to build the “renewable energy” to come from?
Why would it matter where the seed energy came from if the system is self-sustaining?
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
You have to build all of the junk you claim will be self sustaining, don’t you? What are you going to use for energy needed to build them? For examples, how are you going to process your silicon, or make steel?
Wow, nice link. I didn’t realize the payback was so quick.
I posted this solution in the UK over 2 years ago. Ho hum.
http://principia-scientific.org/the-science-theory-of-functional-relativity.html/
Thats the whole idea.
So well-known global warming denier writes an opinion piece. And the sun rose in the east.
best,
D
Professor: ‘Madness’ of fighting global warming will impoverish everyone
Cost of not acting on climate change $44 trillion: Citi
Anmar Frangoul | Special to CNBC.com
Tuesday, 18 Aug 2015 | 7:05 AM ET
Best,
D
No need for impoverishment. The timeframe we have available for adjustment to renewable resources is more than enough if we start making a change now. Nations will have time to adjust the economy towards renewable resources and in fact this will enrich many countries with more accessible and affordable energy. https://ourcarbonfootprintblog.wordpress.com/
Reread Garrett Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/lectures/population/Tragedy%2520of%2520the%2520Commons.pdf
http://tragedy.sdsu.edu/
A bigger tragedy is that abundance produces idiots who write the crap you cite.
?
?