January 17, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

Today is is fairly cold but not extremely cold in Alberta.  Around Fort McMurray it was about -44°C this morning, and here in Bruderheim it was -30.9°C.

Presently, at 4:00 p.m., it warmed up a bit in Bruderheim to -27.9°C.

That is cold, but those temperatures are not record-cold temperatures. Still, on account of the cold weather, of which we have had fairly little this winter, the Alberta electric power industry experienced record-high consumption rates yesterday and appealed through the media to the public, especially to residential consumers, to limit their electricity consumption by not using major appliances during the peak hours of the day (during noon and supper hours).

Roughly 15 percent of electric power consumed in Alberta is being used by residential consumers.  It was not explained why the inconvenience of saving on electric energy use was placed on residential consumers and whether industrial and commercial consumers are expected to follow suit.  It is a nice thought to press the urgency of the situation home with residential consumers, to prepare them for what will quite possibly follow soon, another rate hike for residential consumers.

There would be no shortage of electric power generation in Alberta if all of the money spend on installing wind-power generation, that without fail fails to put out on cold days, would have been used instead to construct power generating capacity from conventional energy sources, either coal, or, perhaps better yet, from the surplus of natural gas with which we are blessed.  That was not done, and we now have to pay for wind-power generation that is not available when it is needed and, to boot, costs many times per unit of production what power generation construction and production from conventional fuel sources cost.

Have a look at the table “Generation”, at this link: http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet

The following table has been created from the data shown there for 2012 01 17  4:30 p.m..  Columns have been inserted to identify the percentage for each group of the energy total shown shown in the bottom line for each category.

(Link to source)

MC = rated maximum generation (Maximum Capacity)
TNG = actual generation (Total Net Generation)
DCR = Dispatched (and Accepted) Contingency Reserve

Note that of the total wind-power maximum generating capacity that can be produced under ideal conditions (865MW), at the time when it is needed most only 2.2 percent or 18MW are being generated.  That will happen every time when it gets very cold in Alberta, because then the wind doesn’t blow.

It adds insult to injury that when that little bit of wind energy, in this case 0.2 percent of the total energy produced in Alberta, gets fed into the transmission grid, it is by far and many times more expensive than what the price of electric energy usually is.

Usually energy that is being fed into the transmission grid will cost about $23.00 per MWh, but the wind power that is being fed into the grid when it is needed during very cold weather costs around $1,000 per MWh or $1.00 per kWh.  That is the cost that everyone else involved in the industry will escalate by adding their costs for transmission, distribution and distribution services.  The end consumers will have to pay for all of it but will not notice much of that, because the price to them will be averaged out, but it will still be paid by them.

Even under the best of circumstances Alberta’s wind turbines only feed about one-third of the energy they are theoretically capable of producing into the transmission grid.  When the wind blows too strong, wind turbines are shut off (they are supposed to do that automatically) to prevent having tear themselves to shreds.

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Weather, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

January 8, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

For Albertans: Now that rates for the RRO (Regulated Rate Option) for electric energy have gone up to $0.15 per kWh and more in Alberta, you may wish to check this out when shopping for the best-possible price for electricity: http://www.theelectricityshop.net/content/contact.asp

The following is a quote from a  article in the Calgary Herald (published in the January 4, 2012 issue of the Edmonton Journal, p. A1):

…Nick Clark of Utility Network and Partners Inc. in Calgary said the option’s default price is an expensive route for most consumers.

“I think complacency and lack of awareness among the public is the reason for most people not signing up,” Clark said. “We are adding people every day with no cost to sign up or leave, and very few people ever leave. In 2011 we were selling (one-and two-year) plans for 6.5 to 6.8 cents, and we sold out.”

Clark’s firm offers services to major industrial users as well as many small retailers and co-ops. It also has its own retail arm, Spot Power.

Utilities, such as Epcor and Enmax, “go every month to the same wholesalers and generators, and buy power for the next month. But if you are always going to the farm gate with your hat in your hand, you are going to pay a premium,” he said.

“We buy off the power pool at the actual price.”

For example, on Tuesday, generators were getting $25 per megawatthour, or 2.5 cents per kW-h. Under a floating contract, the consumer would be paying between four and five cents per kWh. Over the past 30 days, the average price paid to generators has been $50.36 per MWh….(More)

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

January 4, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

Fred Singer: Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!

Monday, January 2nd 2012, 4:14 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline “They are real — and they’re spectacular.” He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” — also taken from a Seinfeld episode — in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy….(Full Story)

After I had posted the link to that article to my Facebook wall, someone commented:

That looks like a quality site. Interesting that only land-based temperature sensors show a rise in temperature and not sea or atmospheric sensors. Could the rise be because of the rise in concrete? Cities act like storage heaters and are always a bit warmer, if the thermometers are nearer cities then there is your answer.

Yes, concrete in cities has a lot to do with hot and somewhat rising land-surface temperature records, but that is not all.  The circumstances involved are complicated.  Here is my response to the man:

Yes, it not only looks like but it is a respectable website. It presents primarily the views of skeptics who do not deny that there is a warming trend in global temperatures but who are doubtful that much of the increase of about 0.7 degrees C during the past century was caused by anything that was done by people.

Your question deserves a long answer, and it is essential that before and after reading all of this comment by me, you have a look at some of the graphs and comments shown at http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150216691769443.332265.591619442&type=3
They strongly relate to many of the issues discussed in the following.

The vast majority of skeptical climate scientists feels very strongly that our sun, a variable star, modulates climate trends on Earth. They should know. Most of them had long careers in climate sciences, meteorology and such. Fred Singer, for example, the author of the lead-in article in this discussion thread, has very respectable credentials.

He, “…(born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

About concrete, roofs, parking lots, etc. in urban areas affecting temperature trends, yes, they do. A very large number of official temperature measurements are being taken in weather stations that are in urban areas or at airports. About 0.5% of the global land surface is considered to be urban. A very disproportionately-large portion of weather stations is located in urban locations. It would be ludicrous to assume that all of the temperature values measured at those stations are representative of or close to global, average temperature values, however one may decide how such a hypothetical global average can be accurately determined.

The effect that the urban environment has on temperature values is real, it has been measured, and allowances and adjustments have been made for it in the official temperature record — with frequent revisions as the debate of the effect progressed from initial denial to tacit acceptance. It is called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.

One of a number of research studies targeting the UHI effect addressed California. The results from that study support what you surmise. The issue of the UHI in California is very well illustrated by this graph: http://prntscr.com/4sm9m
(quoted at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-phil-jones-calling-a-scientist-the-jerk-over-his-uhi-discoveries-in-calfifornia/ )

There is much disagreement between climate scientists who consider their science in constant need of refinement (something that applies to all true science) and those who oppose them and insist that mankind is to be blamed for the current global warming — even though there have been many and often much greater intervals of global warming throughout human history, long before any SUVs were even a gleam in the eyes of automakers, even long before there was any industrialization at all, not only on earth but even on other planets of the solar system.

The one camp feels that correlations exists between hundreds and thousands of aspects of the incredibly complex global climate system. They seek to measure all possible climate factors and to gain an understanding of the roles they play, their correlations and of the mechanisms that drive them.

The other camp feels that the global climate is essentially stable and would remain stable if it were not for mankind mucking things up. They seek to build computer models that are to game their theories, with the outcomes being hoped for to match what their theories predict, even though reality increasingly diverges from the predictions that result from those theories.

There is a much, much better correlation between the variations of solar radiance and global temperature variations than there is between global atmospheric CO2 trends and temperature trends.

While the mechanisms that make the sun such a large influence on global climate are being increasingly better understood, global temperature trends have miserably failed to come even close to reaching the enormously escalating temperature increases that the proponents of the man-made global warming theory had insisted on predicting. In fact, while atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising (quite likely as a result of the Sun’s influence and increasing solar activity since the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850 and before), global temperature trends have remained flat for the last decade.

Puny man remains puny, and there is little reasonable doubt that the climate on Earth is driven, dominated and controlled by the largest source of energy in our solar system, our sun. Mankind’s influence appears to be pocket change in the enormously large, astoundingly complex and nested systems of energy flows affecting climate on Earth. Nevertheless, the proponents of the theory of man-made global warming promote their beliefs with religious zeal and, in the name of “the precautionary principle”, pursue their goals that cost many trillions of dollars and the systematic deconstruction of the economies of the developed nations.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

January 4, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

You decide whether global warming is a problem, globally or where you live.

Latest Global Temperatures as of Dec. 2011
By Dr. Roy Spencer

11-Year Weather Trends at Elk Island National Park
(from 2001 01 01 to 2012 01 01)

From that:

Posted in Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

December 20, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Tuesday, 20 December 2011 21:59
Gabriele Steinhauser, The Associated Press

From the article:

By last week, the price of one emission allowance had tumbled to a meager euro6.41 — making it much cheaper to pollute and slashing the financial incentives for companies to invest in low-carbon technologies….

Shell, which is mostly known for selling oil and gas, has been one of the pioneers of carbon capture and storage, projects in which CO2 emissions are stored underground so they don’t get released into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. But investing in new technologies like carbon capture and storage only becomes commercially viable at a carbon price of between euro25 and euro30, Hone said.

“Over the last few months, we have seen some of these projects disappear,” he added.

In October, the U.K. government shut down the carbon capture project in Longannet in eastern Scotland in which Shell was one of the partners…. (Full Story)

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

November 5, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In October 2011, the Alberta Government launched a massive advertising campaign promoting the idea that billions of dollars of tax revenues and increased electricity rates (which climbed in October to about 12.5 cents per kWh for residential consumers) are needed to achieve “carbon” capture and sequestration (that is: “storage”), in an attempt to have Alberta do its part in regulating global climate trends.

First of all, the “carbon” in carbon capture and sequestration is a misnomer, because what is supposed to be captured is not carbon but carbon-dioxide, plain, old CO2, a benign, harmless trace gas that is essential to all life on Earth and without which life as we know it would not exist on Earth.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been measured regularly and systematically since 1959.  Some people, some of whom are scientists, assert that global temperature trends are being affected and even controlled and driven by atmospheric CO2 levels. That assertion is not supported by hard evidence.  At best, nothing more can be said about it than that it is a theory for which the science is not settled.  It is supported only by computer models.

Computer models will say what they are designed to say, and the adage about computers, “GIGO” (Garbage In, Garbage Out), applies with a vengeance to computer models.  No scientific evidence exists that proves that atmospheric CO2 levels are a controlling factor in global temperature trends.

On the other hand, a good many scientific facts relating to CO2 have been established and are supported by real world measurements, such as,

1. There is no correlation between rising temperature trends and increasing CO2 levels.
2. In 1998, the global temperature trend levelled off and can even be said to have fallen a bit, while atmospheric CO2 increased since then to about 392 parts per million or about four hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere.
3. Man-made CO2 emissions comprise only about three percent of total atmospheric CO2.  The other 97 percent of atmospheric CO2 originate from natural sources.
4. Plants will stop growing when atmospheric CO2 reaches a level of 200 parts per million and will begin to die off when the CO2 level falls to 150 parts per million.
5. The rising CO2 levels during the last thirty years have helped along the greening of the planet and increased agricultural productivity (e.g.; by about 25 percent in China).  In reality, increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have helped substantially to alleviate world hunger.

The truth about CO2 emissions is not wanted by those who spend our money.  Indeed, some people try to oppress it!  Good luck with that.  The advent of the Internet has made it practically impossible to suppress the truth, but the Alberta Government’s CCS propaganda campaign makes it obvious that good, old propaganda tactics are alive and well.  There are just fewer people now who will be willing to swallow government-sponsored lies than there were, say, during the Hitler era.

John O’Sullivan: Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud

Friends, I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101, was  terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles  published over a two-year period with them ar….(Full Story)

In  case you missed the link to it in John O’Sullivan’s article, the  observations offered here are fairly straight-forward and easy to  understand:

Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West

Well, in a somewhat bizarre twist, it looks like I must reconsider my opposition to CO2 reparations. The notion that the evil sources of CO2 “pollution” must pay those who are lowering the planet’s CO2 levels….(Full Story)

So,  guess what! If we believe that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of  catastrophic global warming, then let’s do the best thing possible to  ameliorate the problem.  Let’s make sure that the underdeveloped and  developing nations acquire the same living standard as achieved by the  developed nations, and the problem will go away all by itself.

However, if anyone wishes to put his money where his mouth is with his climate change superstitions and wants to spend billions of dollars implementing measures for amelioration of catastrophic global warming, let him do it with his own money, at the source and not here where it will do no good.  However, if he wants to spend that much money to do some good for humanity where he lives, let him spend it on fixing things that need fixing, such as our health-care system.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Censorship, Shell CCS Project, Corruption & Fraud, Electric Energy Prices, Community & Industry, Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

October 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Not quite so fast, let’s take a step back, take a deep breath, and look at things a bit more objectively.

In October 2011, the Government of Alberta launched a massive advertising campaign on TV and in the press promoting the ostensible benefits of a number of carbon capture and storage projects that are largely funded by Alberta taxpayers and to a smaller extent out of federal tax revenues.

The October 26 issue of the Edmonton Journal included “A SPECIAL SECTION by the Calgary Herald in partnership with the Government of Alberta”, comprised of a collection of articles from various sources printed on a total of six full-sized pages.

Here is just one of those stories: “Taming CO2 crucial to our future“, by Brian Burton, for the Calgary Herald.

I agree to some extent with the assertion in the title of that article, but from a perspective that is opposite to the intended meaning.  CO2 doesn’t need to be tamed.  It is a benign, beneficial but nevertheless vitally essential atmospheric trace gas without which life as we know it would not exist on Earth. Globally, the man-made portion of atmospheric CO2 comprises about three percent of annual CO2 emissions.  The remaining 97 percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources.  For starters, every human alive breathes out about 1 kg of CO2 each day.

The portion of Alberta CO2 emissions that is to be captured and stored is a minuscule fraction of global man-made CO2 emissions. Even if atmospheric CO2 levels were to drive and control climate trends, the fraction of CO2 captured and stored in Aberta would be so small that it would not ever be possible to measure how that would influence global climate trends.  If anyone ever calculated what the impact of our CCS schemes would be, the results of such calculations must be extremely disappointing, as they have not been published or mentioned in the main-stream media.  Aside from that, the “evidence” of the benefits of reductions in man-made CO2 emissions only exists in computer models.  There is no measurable evidence in the real world that proves that there is any substance to the claims made in the theory that reductions in Alberta CO2 emissions will have any measurable impact on global climate trends.

Those are just some of the circumstances of the context in which Alberta’s efforts at attempting to use CO2 capture and storage as a thermostat for global climate control take place.  Still, far from objectively addressing any of those circumstances, the Government of Alberta ignores and does not even mention them.  That is so because of the main premise of the theory of sucessful propaganda expressed by one of its masters:

“The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. …

“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. …

“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan….

“The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.” —Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

One may well wonder why the Government of Alberta is waking up to the reality that if the propaganda that supports CCS schemes is not being promoted, all CCS schemes may well and most likely flop.  The CCS schemes are expensive white elephants that cannot come to life, exist and operate without massive government subsidies.

Page 2 of the Edmonton Journal’s special October 2011 section on Carbon Capture and Storage boasts that “Alberta Leads the Way: Pioneering province first to put money behind CCS projects and a levy on carbon emissions”, but I see nothing laudable about a scheme to waste $2 billion through blowing CO2 down Mother Earth’s derriere.  Alberta may lead the way now, but it was one of the last to jump on the wagon and may well be one of the last to jump off.

I have no intention of presenting here even only a partially complete list of CCS and green energy boondoggles, but let’s at least look at a couple of recent news items in that regard:

1.) In Scotland: “Longannet carbon capture and storage project is no more”, October 22, 2011
http://lce.folc.ca/2011/10/22/longanet-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-is-no-more/

2.) In West-Virginia: “High costs bury AEP’s carbon burial plan”, July 16, 2011
The king wears no clothing, but it is even worse that he can’t afford to pay for being made to look like a naked fool.
http://lce.folc.ca/2011/07/16/high-costs-bury-aeps-carbon-burial-plan/

It seems to me that just as the Nazi propaganda machine went into high gear and intensified its efforts the more elusive Hitler’s dream of his 1000-year Reich became, so the CCS and alternative energy  schemes will be promoted ever more intensively the more their objectives prove themselves to be unattainable.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Deficits and Debts, Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

October 22, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

There is jubilation and rejoicing over the shut-down of the U.K.’s white elephant of a carbon capture and storage project at Longannet, Scotland.  Shell was one of the parties developing that project.  The project was shut down, because it is too expensive.  Of course, without massive subsidization through tax- and utility-rates no one in their right mind would have expected a profitable rate of return on capital investment.  Read more about it.

There is a comparably-sized CCS project in the planning and engineering stages in Alberta, Canada, Shell Quest CCS project that is supposed to capture CO2 from the Shell Scotford oilsands upgrader, pipe it to Thorhild and blow it down Mother Earth’s derriere through a number of boreholes there, to have it “safely” stored forever, thousands of feet below the surface.

There are CCS projects that use CO2 injection into oil-bearing strata to boost the production of crude oil in oil fields that approach the limits of production by conventional methods.  No one ever made the slightest pretense that the CCS project at Longannet, nor the Shell’s Quest CCS project at Scotford, Alberta, ever were to provide a return on capital investment.  Both projects are manifestations of the politicians’ mania of obsessing with using CCS projects as thermostats with which to regulate what cannot practically be regulated, namely global CO2 contents in the air and thereby our climate trends.

The CO2 that is supposed to be sequestered is a beneficial atmospheric trace gas, a natural fertilizer that increases the productivity of the biosphere and agriculture.  U.K. politicians have come to their senses and put an end to their squandering of more than a billion dollars on a folly that cannot possibly have more than a minuscule, unmeasurable impact on climate trends, while at best the role of CO2 on those trends has not yet been substantiated.  Meanwhile, Canada’s politicians still want to carry on with their obsessing.

About three percent of global, annual CO2 emissions are man-made, 97 percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources that are not affected in the least by such CCS projects.  The CCS projects that are slated to be put into operation are expensive, and their costs will be born by consumers of electricity and other forms of energy, whose rates will be jacked up considerably to pay for the folly of trying to do the impossible.

Shell’s Quest project at Scotford, Alberta, will be funded mainly by Alberta taxpayers (about $800 million).  Federal tax revenues will provide about $200 million, and Shell will contribute roughly $150 million, which costs will without a doubt be recovered through the price for oil that will be produced and sold by the Scotford upgrader.  Also without a doubt, Shell’s Quest CCS project will generate wealth for Shell (mark-up on oil prices), for the provincial and federal governments (through taxes that are called royalties), while the taxpayers and the consumers of energy will be left holding the bill.  The consumers and taxpayers never turn out to be the winners in these games.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Taxes, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

October 7, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

The Guardian, 2011 10 06

Flagship UK carbon capture project ‘close to collapse’

Scottish Power, and its partners Shell and the National Grid, have just completed a detailed study of the CCS scheme and have deep concerns about its commercial viability without heavier public backing….(Full Story)

Note: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) a.k.a. Carbon Capture and Sequestration, is a misnomer.  It is CO2 (carbon dioxide) that is being captured and stored or sequestrated.  I guess that CO2 is being called carbon by the proponents of CCS schemes because in that fashion it is a little easier to invoke unfounded fears of “carbon pollution” that is falsely alleged to drive up global temperatures and burn all life on Earth to a crisp.

CO2 is a vital natural fertilizer without which life as we know it could not exist on Earth. All life on Earth is carbon based and exists within a biological life-cycle that evolved to have plants extract carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere, while almost all other life forms depend on plants doing well enough to be a direct or indirect source of food without which no other life can exist. CO2 is a trace gas that comprises a little less than 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. The majority (97%) of atmospheric CO2 stems from natural sources, while a tiny fraction (3%) of atmospheric CO2 is man-made.

The unproductive, useless and expensive luxury of burying a minuscule portion of man-made CO2 is a futile attempt to regulate global temperature trends. There is no scientific proof that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 drive up temperature trends.  Even though all measurable evidence that has been found indicates that rising temperature trends have a direct, positive influence on global atmospheric CO2 levels over time and life on Earth, economic policies throughout the developed nations are now geared to regulate and restrict the minuscule, man-made portion of atmospheric CO2. Moreover, the developed nations impose policies that restrict the economic development of the under-developed nations, also in attempts to constrain man-made CO2 emissions.  Those policies keep the underdeveloped nations in squalor and poverty.

Carbon capture and storage schemes such as the UK carbon capture project at Longannet in Scotland are not economically viable and can be brought into existence and operation only and entirely through massive subsidies derived either through taxes or through surcharges on utility prices or both. CCS schemes that serve no other purpose than to bury CO2 may reduce global temperatures somewhat. However, their impact will be so small that the temperature reduction hoped to be achieved a hundred years from now can only be calculated to be at best a few ten-thousands of a degree Celsius, which is far beyond the capacity of any instrumentation in existence to measure. The calculated delay of global warming will by the year 2100 amount at most to only a few hours.

The most efficient method for the disposal of man-made CO2 is to let it escape, unhindered, into the air, whereby it can then contribute to the greening of the Earth.

Yes, our globe has for a long time suffered from a dearth of CO2. Scientific evidence shows that the rising CO2 levels experienced lately are caused by global warming resulting from a more active Sun. Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently at 392 parts per million by volume or at 0.0392% of the atmosphere. Plants will stop growing when CO2 levels drop to 0.02% and die when CO2 levels fall to 0.015%. Earth experienced periods during the recent geological past when CO2 levels were many times, 10 and even 20 times, higher than they are now. Many recent scientific studies established that the rising levels of CO2 have contributed to the greening of the Earth and caused substantial increases in agricultural productivity during the past 30 years or so.

The CCS project at Longannet in Scotland is only one of such projects in the planning, engineering or construction stages around the world. It is also not the only one that is in peril. See “High costs bury AEP’s carbon plan”. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2011/07/15/high-costs-bury-aeps-carbon-plan.html

“…American Electric Power [AEP] said it would halt a project to bury carbon dioxide deep beneath a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, experts say the decision reflects a seismic change in the economics of generating electricity.”

The CCS project at Longannet in Scotland is also not the only one involving Shell. Shell is promoting CCS projects in Alberta, Canada. The Alberta Government reserved $2 billion for those. While one of Shell’s CCS projects will collect CO2 for injection in central Alberta, to enhance oil-field production, another one is a CCS project called Quest that will not serve any purpose other than to inject CO2 underground for storage.

Shell’s Quest CCS project will cost about $1.25 billion dollars and is planned to go into operation in about 2015. About $150 million of the costs will be provided by Shell. The remainder of the construction costs will be born by Canadian (mostly by Albertan) taxpayers. Shell’s commitment for the construction of their Quest CCS project is a result of a condition by Canadian governments for granting the operating licence for Shell’s Scotford Oil-Sands bitumen upgrader at Scotford, Alberta.

Shell’s Quest CCS project is purely political folly funded by taxpayers and users of fossil fuel.  It is not something that Shell should be required to put into operation.
____________
More concerns about Shell’s Quest project are expressed in the following article, “No price too high for appeasing climate alarmists”, http://lce.folc.ca/2010/11/06/no-price-too-high-for-appeasing-climate-alarmists/

Here is Shell’s website that promotes Shell’s Quest CCS project: http://www.shell.ca/home/content/can-en/aboutshell/our_business/business_in_canada/upstream/oil_sands/quest/

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Deficits and Debts, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

September 28, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Good points, not all are true, at least not at the level of detail that is feared and castigated, but, ultimately, that is what metering will in the end evolve into:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JNFr_j6kdI&feature=youtu.be

Posted in Civil Rights, Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »