Green Energy Policies raise the Cost of Heating this Winter in the UK

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2013

Week in Review

You can either fight ‘manmade’ global warming or you can have low energy prices.  But you can’t have both (see British Gas to raise prices by 9.2% posted 10/17/2013 on BBC News Business).

British Gas is to increase prices for domestic customers, with a dual-fuel bill going up by 9.2% from 23 November.

The increase, which will affect nearly eight million households in the UK, includes an 8.4% rise in gas prices and a 10.4% increase in electricity prices.

The company said it “understands the frustration” of prices rising faster than incomes. The average annual household bill will go up by £123 [$198.89]…

The company said that the cost of buying energy on the global markets, delivering gas and electricity to customers’ homes, and the government’s “green” levies, were all factors in the decision to put up prices.

With a focus on renewables we bring fewer fossil fuels to market.  Coal, oil and natural gas.  And with the war against clean nuclear power we’re shutting down our reactors.  So instead we focus on the more costly wind and solar power.  Because it takes a lot more costly infrastructure to capture the ‘free’ energy from the sun and the wind.  So much that the taxpayer has to subsidize them.  To bring us that ‘free’ energy.  When the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, that is.  Which brings us to that costly distribution system.

People can put solar arrays on their home to use that ‘free’ solar power during sunny days.  But what about cloudy days?  And night?  Wind farms can generate ‘free’ wind power when the winds are blowing right.  But what about when they are not blowing right?  Either too fast?  Too slow?  Or not at all?  What then?  Fossil fuels.  That’s what.

Baseload power (typically coal that takes hours to bring on line) is a funny thing.  To be cost effective power plants run at full capacity 24/7.  When demand rises they can bring on some ‘peaker’ units (typically gas that are quick to bring on line) to add additional capacity.  So power companies have to maintain baseload power even if the people aren’t buying any to be available when solar and wind aren’t.  And if all the homes disconnected from the grid and ran on solar power during the day the power companies would still have to keep them physically connected to the grid.  So these homes can use their power at night.

This is why energy prices are rising.  Revenue at power companies are falling due to that ‘free’ wind and solar power while their expenses are not.  And because they are selling to fewer customers they have to charge them more to cover their expenses.

Affordable energy for the people lies with fossil fuels.  Not renewables.  Governments have to choose.  All the people.  Or their liberal base.  Less costly power from fossil fuels.  Or more costly power from renewables.  It’s that easy.  For you can fight ‘manmade’ global warming or you can have low energy prices.  You just can’t have both.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline puts more Oil on Trains like the one in Lac-Mégantic

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2013

Week in Review

Oil fuels the modern economy.  We use it everywhere.  And can’t live without it.  Even those people who hate it sipping their coffee while they surf the Internet and engage in social media in their favorite coffee shop.  None of which they could do if it were not for oil.  The coffee they drink crossed the ocean on a ship burning diesel refined from oil.  The smartphone they use contains plastic.  Made from oil.  And these smartphones crossed the ocean on a ship burning diesel before they could use them.  The cars in the drive-thru at the coffee shops are burning gasoline refined from oil.  The freight trains and trucks burn diesel that deliver the goods these coffee shops sell.

Oil makes everything better in our lives.  Without oil life expectancy would plummet.  As hospitals wouldn’t have any life-saving equipment made from plastic.  Ambulances couldn’t speed patients to the hospital.  And there would be no backup generators during a power outage.  As there would be no backup power available at our wastewater treatment plants.  Or at our freshwater pumping stations.  We would return to the 19th century.  Using steam and water power in our factories.  Horses in our cities.  Doing our business in an outhouse.  And drawing our water from a well.  Except for the rich, of course.  Who would be able to enjoy these luxuries.  Luxuries that most of us take for granted today.

Oil is so important in our lives that we should be doing everything within our power to make it as inexpensive and plentiful as possible.  Like building the Keystone XL pipeline.  So we can transport oil safely in large quantities.  Reducing the cost of transportation.  Thus lowering the price at the pump.  Which would also prevent things like this from happening (see What’s in rail tankers and why can’t we know? posted 9/27/2013 on CBC News).

Nearly three months after the  Lac-Mégantic disaster, rail safety remains at the top of the national agenda with a meeting of federal and provincial transport ministers this week focusing on the question of what is in tanker cars and why provinces and municipalities can’t get that information.​

After the conclusion of the meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba’s transportation minister said the legacy of the Lac-Mégantic disaster in July must be safer rail system across Canada.

Steve Ashton said there is an urgent need to look comprehensively at rail safety at a time when more oil is being shipped by rail and the Lac Mégantic disaster is fresh in the public mind.

This is what happens when the environmentalists get their way.  And President Obama secures their support.  And their money.  President Obama opposes the Keystone XL pipeline.  And other pipelines where he can.  Because his liberal base hates oil.  Even though the lives they enjoy would not be possible without oil.  So their opposition to oil and pipelines forces oil onto trains.  That travel through our cities.  Sometimes derail.  And explode.  Killing 47 in Lac-Mégantic.  And destroying a part of that city.

With continued opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline more oil will travel by train.  More trains will derail.  And explode.  But the Democrats will secure the support of their liberal base.  And the environmentalists can claim a victory in the war against oil.  While they enjoy their coffee and smartphones in their favorite coffee shop.  That only oil makes possible.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Power Outage stranding Electric Trains show the need for Coal and Oil

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2013

Week in Review

There are few more costly ways to move people than by train.  Running a passenger train is incredibly expensive.  With the biggest cost in maintaining all the infrastructure before point A and point B.  Track, signals, rights-of-way and people.  Lots and lots of people.  To build this infrastructure.  To maintain this infrastructure.  With electric trains requiring the most costly infrastructure of all.  Especially high-speed trains.  These costs are so great that they are greater than their fuel costs.  Unlike the airlines.  That provide a much more cost-efficient way to move people.

Trains are slower than planes.  And they make a lot of stops.  So they appeal to a small group of users.  So few travel by train that it is impossible to charge a ticket price that can pay for this infrastructure that people can afford.  Which is why governments have to subsidize all passenger rail except for maybe two lines.  One Bullet line in Japan.  And one high-speed line in France.  Governments pay for or subsidize pretty much every other passenger train line in the world.  Which they are only more willing to do because those ‘lots and lots of people’ are union workers.  Who support their friends in government.

So governments build passenger rail lines more for political reasons than economic.  For passenger rail is bad economics.  In a highly dense city, though, they may be the only option to move so many people.  But even then the ridership can’t pay for everything.  So it requires massive subsidies.  Worse, by relying on electrified trains so much these rail lines are subject to mass outages.  Unlike diesel electric trains.  Trains that don’t need such a costly infrastructure as electric trains do.  And with a full tank of diesel they can move people even during a large-scale power outage.  Like that currently happening with Con Edison (see Stranded NYC Commuters Ask Why Metro-North’s Power Failed by Mark Chediak & Priya Anand posted 9/27/2013 on Bloomberg).

Less than a year after Consolidated Edison Inc. (ED) left 900,000 customers in the dark during Hurricane Sandy, the utility faces the wrath of stranded commuters over a power failure that has crippled trains from New York to Boston.

Con Edison, based in New York, has warned it may take weeks to restore electricity to the Metro-North Railroad’s busiest line, which serves Connecticut and parts of suburban Westchester County. An electrical fault cut power on a feeder cable while an alternate was out of service for improvements…

The latest high-profile power failure for Con Edison follows Sandy, the worst storm in the company’s history, which brought flooding that left lower Manhattan without power for days. A few months before Sandy, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, stepped in to resolve an employee lockout by the company that led to protests outside the Upper East Side home of Kevin Burke, the chairman and chief executive officer…

The rail operator is running buses and diesel-powered trains to accommodate no more than a third of the New Haven route’s regular ridership…

The power failure also affected Northeast Corridor passenger-rail service, as Amtrak canceled its Acela Express trains between New York and Boston through Sept. 29.

How about that.  Dirty, filthy, stinky diesel comes to the rescue.  Refined from petroleum oil.  As much as people hate it they can’t live without it.  No matter how hard they try.

This is what you can expect when you wage a war on reliable and inexpensive coal.  Pushing our power provides to become green only raises the cost of electric power generation.  Disconnecting coal-fired power plants from the grid removes more reliable power while replacing it with less reliable power.  And forcing power companies to invest in renewable power reduces their margins.  As they have to maintain their entire electric distribution system even if everyone has a solar power at home.  Because solar power won’t turn on your lights once the sun goes down.  And windmills won’t spin on a calm days.  So while power companies have to maintain their systems as if there is no solar or wind power they can’t bill for that capacity when the people get their power from renewable sources.  So they have little choice but to cut costs.  Leading to conflict with the unions.  And making an aging infrastructure go longer without maintenance.

You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t wage a war on coal and oil without getting costlier and less reliable power.  If you want lower-cost and more reliable power than you use coal and oil.  If you want to pay more for less reliable power then you can’t bitch when the trains stop running.  And the more we move away from coal the more our train will stop running.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Spain’s Massive Investment in Solar Power has Greatly increased the Cost of their Electric Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 24th, 2013

Week in Review

People think renewable energy is the answer to all our energy problems.  But that isn’t quite so.  In fact, all it does is increase the cost of our electric power.  For sunshine and wind may be free.  But the equipment to harness the energy in sunshine and wind is not free.  It is very, very expensive.  And you need a lot of it.  You will not see one wind turbine service the power needs of one metropolitan area.  You may see a wind farm providing a small percentage of the electric power needs of a large metropolitan area.  And only when the wind blows.

Wind can blow day or night.  But it can also NOT blow day and night.  While solar panels will not work at all at night.  So you have massive investments to install renewable energy generation capacity.  And there will be times when they will provide no power.  So what do you do?  What do you do when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?  You turn to old reliable.  The electric grid.

This is why renewable energy is so costly.  It cannot replace our fossil-fuel power plants that can provide reliable power day or night in any type of weather.  It can only supplement what we call our baseload power.  Like our beloved coal-fired power plants.  One of the most cost-efficient ways to produce reliable electric power.  Which the power companies have to still run and maintain day and night.  For those who don’t have a wind turbine or a solar array providing their electric power.  And to light up the night.  So instead of one cost-efficient power generation system we have two systems.  One cost-efficient and one cost-inefficient.  And those who invested heavily into renewable energy are now having to deal with these very real problems (see Out Of Ideas And In Debt, Spain Sets Sights On Taxing The Sun by Kelly Phillips Erb posted 8/19/2013 on Forbes).

With so much sunshine at its disposal, Spain has aggressively pursued the development of solar energy: over the past ten years, the government has made significant advances in pressing solar energy and is one of the top countries in the world with respect to installed photovoltaic (PV) solar energy capacity.

It might, however, be too much of a good thing. Spain is generating so much solar power, according to its government, that production capacity exceeds demand by more than 60%. That imbalance has created a problem for the government which now finds itself in debt to producers. And not by a little bit. The debt is said to have grown to nearly 26 billion euros ($34.73 billion U.S.).

So how do you get out of that kind of debt? You propose incredibly onerous taxes and fines, of course. And you do it on exactly the behavior that you encouraged in the first place: the use of solar energy panels. That’s right. Spain is now attempting to scale back the use of solar panels – the use of which they have encouraged and subsidized over the last decade – by imposing a tax on those who use the panels…

…many residents in Spain generate enough electricity from solar that they get paid to selling the excess energy back to producers. This, it turns out, is a problem. The government is putting a stop to that, too: as part of the reform efforts (read: desperate measures), there will be a prohibition on selling extra energy.

If the power companies are providing all the power at night they have to maintain their power plants.  And their power distribution system.  Which means they even have to trim the trees away from their overhead power lines from people who use solar power during the day.  Nothing changes for the power companies.  Except that they can’t sell as much power as they once did.  So their costs of producing power remain the same.  But their revenue has fallen.  Forcing them to operate at a loss.  Or find other ways to replace their lost revenue.  Which they have to.  Because they must have the same capacity available during the day that they have at night.  Even if they aren’t selling as much power during the day as they are at night.  And the last thing they want to do is buy excess power back from homeowners with solar panels on their house when they’re producing their own power that they can’t sell.

Baseload power plants like coal and nuclear take time to bring on line.  They have to produce the heat that boils water into steam.  Then superheat the steam to remove all water from it.  So the steam can spin the generator turbines without damaging the vanes on the turbine.  And once they start these plants up they run these systems at full capacity where they produce power most cost-efficiently.  During peak demand they may bring on some gas-fired turbines that can start and produce power quickly.  And add them to the grid.  When the peak subsides they can shut down these gas-fired turbines and let the baseload generation carry the remaining load.

The Spanish government invested heavily into solar power for whatever reason.  It’s ‘free’ power.  It’s ‘clean’ power.  Or it was just a good way to create a lot of jobs.  But what Spain has now is a surplus of peak power generation during the day that doesn’t eliminate the need to maintain baseload power generation during the day.  Creating a surplus of electric power during the day no one wants.  While requiring power companies to maintain their baseload power during the day so they can provide power at night.  Incurring great costs on the power companies.  Which must be passed on to the same people who paid for the renewable energies subsidies.  The electric power consumer.

This is a classic example of a Hayekian malinvestment.  Friedrich Hayek of the Austrian school of economics said this is what happens when governments interfere with free markets.  They make investments to produce what they think is best while the market demands something else.  The market demanded low-cost electric power.  Which baseload power plants (coal and nuclear) provided.  But the government intervened and subsidized the more costly solar power.  This bad investment—or malinvestment—has only increased the cost of electric power for the Spanish consumer.  And now the Spanish have a big problem on their hands.  What to do with this surplus of peak power no one wants to pay for?  And how to replace the lost revenue of the power companies so they can cover their costs?  Two problems they didn’t have until the government intervened into the free market.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite the Left’s Opposition to Fracking even the Environmental British are Joining In

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2013

Week in Review

One of the reasons the government tells us we must ‘invest’ in clean energy is to wean us off of costly foreign oil.  To give us energy independence.  And so we stop sending out money to nations in the world who don’t much care for us.  That’s why we must spend enormous amounts of tax dollars on things like solar and wind power.  Because we need them.  But because they are such poor business models they can’t operate without government subsidies.  So is there another option to give us that energy independence?  That doesn’t require government subsidies?  While even lowering our energy costs?  Yes there is.  And the British are now trying to play catch up to the United States (see The potential prize from fracking is huge by Michael Fallon posted 7/31/2013 on The Telegraph).

North, south, east and west, shale gas represents an exciting new potential resource for Britain that could contribute to our energy security, growth and jobs.

We only have to look across the Atlantic to see how it has reinvigorated the US economy: gas prices have halved, cutting costs for industry and consumers, and creating thousands of jobs and billions in new investment. Countries from India to Australia have looked on in envy at this boom – and are now joining in.

For its part, this Government is serious about shale. We are encouraging industry to find out how much is recoverable in all parts of the country. Given increasingly volatile international gas and oil prices, and our commitment to helping hard-pressed families with their bills, it would be irresponsible to ignore a new energy source right underneath our feet…

…residents understandably want reassurances that their water will not be contaminated. The facts are that around 2.5 million wells have now been fracked worldwide, more than 27,000 of them in the US in 2011. There is no evidence from America of fracking causing any groundwater contamination.

Other than in Hollywood movies.  And on television shows.  There it’s contaminating groundwater like there’s no tomorrow.  But with all that fracking going on in the United States the news is surprisingly barren of contaminated groundwater reports.  And you know they’d be leading all the news programs if there were.  Because the left hates fracking.  And the mainstream media leans left.  Way left.

That energy boom is a private boom.  It’s not because of the government.  It’s in spite of the government.  Who has launched a war on coal and oil.  Shutting down oil production on the Gulf of Mexico.  And on all federal lands.  Or making it very difficult for those who try.

Much of the global warming nonsense came from the University of East Anglia.  Making Britain near ground zero in the battle against global warming.  And here they are.  Wanting to frack to bring energy costs down for households.  Create jobs.  And reduce dependency on foreign oil.  Pity the United States government doesn’t care enough about the American people to do the same.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Food Scarcities and High Food Prices are Government-Made Crises

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 21st, 2013

Week in Review

The world’s population is growing.  And it’s threatening our food supplies.  Or so say the experts on population.  But what’s interesting is that the populations in the advanced economies of the world which are generally food exporters have fallen.  Apart from the United States these countries are having so few babies that they won’t be able to replace their parent’s generation.  So these countries will see a decline in population.  Yet the world’s population is growing.  So who’s growing the world’s population?   And threatening the world’s food supplies?

Primarily the less-advanced economies.   The food importers.  Like the countries of Africa.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And the Palestinian Territories.  Many of which have the lowest life expectancies.  And the highest child mortality rates.  So, the countries that can feed the world aren’t having enough babies to replace the current generation.  While the countries that have the highest fertility rates are also suffering from the shortest life expectancies due to those high child mortality rates.   So it’s hard to see where the food crisis is.

Once upon a time food was so scarce that famines were commonplace.  A lot of wars were fought to prevent famine.  One of the reasons Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union was for food.  To make Europe’s breadbasket, the Ukraine, a part of the Third Reich.  Today the advanced economies have so much food that they’re making gasoline out of it.  So if there is any food shortage it must be manmade.  And anything manmade can be unmade.  But until we do food prices will rise (see Food prices forecast to treble as world population soars by Steve Hawkes posted 7/21/2013 on The Telegraph).

Professor Tim Benton, head of Global Food Security working group, added there could be shortages in the UK in the future as the emerging middle class in south-east Asia sparks a revolution in “food flows” such as the trade in grain and soya around the world…

The shock forecast came as the chief executive of Tesco, Philip Clarke, warned the era of cheap food was over because of the forecast surge in demand.

In an interview over the weekend, the supermarket chief said: “Over the long run I think food prices and the proportion of income spent on food may well be going up…”

Food inflation in the UK has been running around 4 per cent for much of the year, and is among the highest in the EU after poor harvests last year and the rising cost of feed.

Here’s a thought.  If food is becoming so scarce why don’t stop using it for energy?  Let’s use fossil fuels that we can’t eat for energy.  And use food for food.  By mandating that we add ethanol to gasoline we diverted corn from the food chain already suffering from a depleted corn crop thanks to Midwest droughts.  Raising corn prices.  And meat, poultry and dairy prices.  As cows and chicken eat corn.  So if we stop artificially raising the price of corn feed we stop raising the price of everything downstream of corn in the food chain.  Crazy talk, I know.  But sometimes you just have to think outside of the box.

And here’s another thought.  Let’s do everything we can to bring energy costs down.  Let’s drill for more oil.  Let’s build that Keystone XL pipeline.  Let’s frack like there’s no tomorrow.  Because high fuel prices cause high food prices.  Everything we grow and raise has to travel great distances before landing on our kitchen tables.  By tractor, by truck, by train by ship.  Means of conveyance with internal combustion engines that burn a petroleum product.  From the farm to the silo to the grain elevator to the rail terminal to the mill to the food processing plant to the wholesale distributor to the grocery store.  Every mile of every trip from the farm to our kitchen table burns a petroleum product.  Every mile we burn fuel bringing food to our tables adds to the price tag in the grocery store.  Higher fuel costs even reduce what families can spend in those grocery stores.  For the higher gas prices are the greater amount of their paycheck go into their gas tanks.  Leaving less to buy food with.

And speaking of energy let’s dig up that coal and use it for what it’s best for.  Burning.  To produce steam.  To spin turbines.  That spin electric generators.  And let’s end the war on coal.  And make it less costly to generate electric power.  Because when food isn’t moving it’s using electric power.  For electric power runs our grain elevators, our mills, our food processing plants, our wholesale distributors and our grocery stores.

There are a lot of manmade causes making food scarcer and more costly.  If we care about feeding the world we should focus on the manmade causes.  For we can do something about those.  Unlike a drought.  But petroleum and coal can even lessen the impact of the occasional drought.  We can ship food from areas not suffering from drought to areas suffering from drought.  And we can use the electric power generated from burning coal to store food surpluses in refrigerated warehouses.

The only food crisis we have is manmade.  Or, rather, government-made.  Where government officials take more and more control of the private economy to fight the myth of manmade global warming.  Whose solution to save the planet is a simple one.  Save the planet.  Kill the people.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s Carbon Tax raised the Cost of Living so much that it’s hurting the Left’s Reelection Chances

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2013

Week in Review

The political left says we need to stop global warming RIGHT NOW before it’s too late to save the planet.  And the children.  Of course they’ve been saying that we need to do something RIGHT NOW since the Nineties.  When global warming became all the rage.  Leaving poor old global cooling and the coming ice age it foretold behind in the ash heap of fear mongering.

Why the change?  Simple.  What can you do to prevent global cooling?  Force businesses to emit more carbon into the atmosphere?   To remove carbon scrubbing equipment from power plants?  To produce more of our electric power from coal-fired power plants and less from solar, wind and hydro?  Reduce business taxes to lower the cost of electric power?  Thus lowering electric utility costs to encourage people to use more?

As you can see these are all options that benefit taxpayers.  Not the government.  That’s why the 180-degree change from global cooling to global warming.  Because government can combat global warming.  By forcing businesses to emit less carbon into the atmosphere.  To add carbon-scrubbing equipment to power plants.  Produce more of our electric power from solar, wind and hydro (that the government can subsidize) and less from coal-fired power plants.  Raise the cost of electric power generation to encourage people to use less.  These things benefit the government.  Not the taxpayer.  For the whole purpose of fighting global warming is to transfer more wealth to the government.  So they have more money to spend (see Australia to scrap carbon tax for trading scheme by AFP posted 7/14/2013 on Yahoo! 7 News).

Key greenhouse gas emitter Australia on Sunday announced it will scrap its carbon tax in favour of an emissions trading scheme that puts a limit on pollution from 2014, a year earlier than planned.

The move is set to cost the government billions of dollars but Treasurer Chris Bowen said cuts would be made elsewhere to compensate with the Labor Party sticking to its plan to return the budget to surplus in 2015-2016.

Bowen confirmed media reports that the fixed Aus$24.15 ($21.90) per tonne carbon tax would be dumped in favour of a floating price of between Aus$6 and Aus$10 per tonne from July 1, 2014, to ease cost of living pressures for families and help support the non-mining sectors of the economy.

The political left in Australia implemented a carbon tax to save Australia from global warming.  Yet when they’re making changes in that program what is the BIG problem they have to address?  Billions of dollars of lost tax revenue.  As if they’re spending that money elsewhere.  On government pork.  Not just on subsidizing green energy.  Which makes the carbon tax not about saving the planet.  But about giving the government more money to spend.  As governments everywhere have an insatiable appetite to spend money.  So the carbon tax was a lie.  Surprise, surprise.

And how do you get billions of dollars in additional tax revenue in the first place?  By increasing the cost of living and business with more taxes.  People don’t like paying more taxes.  Politicians on the left understand that.  Which is why they lie during political campaigns.

Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard’s popularity sunk after she announced plans for the carbon tax in early 2011 — after pledging before her 2010 election that it would not be introduced by a government she led.

The policy backflip prompted protests around the country and conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, who opinion polls suggest will narrowly win the 2013 election, has vowed to abolish it.

Abbott on Sunday said the shift to 2014 was “just another Kevin con job”.

“Mr Rudd can change the name but whether it is fixed or floating it is still a carbon tax,” he said, adding that “it’s a bad tax, you’ve just got to get rid of it”.

Wherever you are in the world liberals make up a minority of the population.  So the only way they win elections is by lying.  President Clinton promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class.  But after he won the election he raised taxes on the middle class.  President Obama promised that he wouldn’t nationalize health care.  And within his first 2 years in office he signed the most sweeping health care bill into law.  Obamacare.  Which has put the U.S. onto the path to national health care.  And in Australia Julia Gillard promised she wouldn’t allow a carbon tax happen under her watch.  When she apparently planned to implement a carbon tax all along.  And just lied to the people.  Knowing that they never would have voted for her if she had told the truth.  That she intended to raise the cost of living for everyone.

Politicians lie.  Especially those on the left.  And yet they fool the people time and again.  Getting exactly what they want.  By going out of their way promising that they will never do what they always end up doing.  Clinton.  Obama.  Gillard.  They’re all the same.  They get what they want by saying one thing.  And then doing something completely different.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study finds Coal cuts Lives by 5 Years for some who wouldn’t have Survived Childhood if it weren’t for Coal

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 13th, 2013

Week in Review

Early man did not have a long life expectancy.  Thanks to infectious disease and poor (or nonexistent) medical care people who got sick or injured often died.  Unhygienic living spread communicable diseases which killed large numbers in the community.  The lack of fuel to heat your home or cook your food exposed people to the elements and food-borne bacteria.  Causing illnesses that went untreated and added to the death toll.  And a high infant mortality rates brought down the average lifespan further.

There were a lot of old people in their 70s throughout history.  But go back a couple of centuries so many children didn’t survive their childhood that the average lifespan was in the 30s.  But thanks to the modern world of energy and medicine our life expectancies have never been higher.  Even though coal is taking some years off the additional years it gave some (see Burning Heating Coal Cuts Lives by 5 Years in China, Study Finds by Daryl Loo posted 7/9/2013 on Bloomberg).

People in northern China may be dying five years sooner than expected because of diseases caused by air pollution, an unintended result of a decades-old policy providing free coal for heat, a study found.

Coal burning leading to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and respiratory illnesses may cause the 500 million Chinese living north of the Huai River — a rough line dividing the country’s north and south — to lose an aggregate 2.5 billion years of life expectancy, according to the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today.

The government gave free heating coal for people living north of the Huai River over a period of central planning from 1950 to 1980, and such indoor systems remain common today, the study showed. Burning coal in boilers is linked to the release of particulate matter that can be extremely harmful to humans, raising health costs and suggesting a move away from using fossil fuels would be attractive, according to Michael Greenstone, one of four authors of the study.

If the government took away fuel to heat and cook with how would that impact their life expectancies?

Yes, it’s sad that breathing particulate matter can remove 5 years of your life.  But how many more years did these people live because of coal?  They had to stay warm somehow.  And they needed to cook their food with something.  If they didn’t have coal these people would have been collecting firewood year round and burning that inside of their homes.  Releasing particulate matter into their homes anyway.  Only with a rise in lost appendages from swinging an axe.  More infected wounds from axe slips.  And they’d have rodents living in their wood piles.  Bringing disease into their homes.  Carried by the fleas on these rodents.

Coal may be taking 5 years away these people.  But they may be taking these years from a person who might not have survived his or her childhood if it weren’t for coal making their home a better place to live in.  It’s time we stop seeing only the bad that coal does.  And start recognizing the good that coal does.  For when it comes to human existence the good of coal far outweighs the bad.  For look where coal has taken us.  To the highest life expectancies in our history.  And it is still making our world a better and healthier place by creating electric power.  The essential ingredient in making the best medical care possible.  Thank you, coal.  Some of us appreciate the good that you do.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama directing Federal Regulators to increase our Electric Bills

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 29th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass a carbon tax (aka, cap and trade) into law to increase the cost of electric power.  So he is going to use his regulatory powers to increase the cost of electric power (see Obama directs EPA to end dumping of carbon from power plants by Steve Holland posted 6/25/2013 on Reuters).

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he is directing federal regulators to develop a plan to end the “limitless dumping of carbon pollution” from U.S. power plants.

Translation?  President Obama is directing federal regulators to increase the cost of your electric bill.

Carbon dumping?  They make it sound like these power plants are driving down country roads in the dead of night and pouring carbon out of barrels over the pristine wilderness.  But it’s just the smoke coming out of smokestacks.  Most of which is scrubbed clean these days.  Thanks to previous costly regulations.  What’s next?  Breathing tests to calculate how much carbon we dump each year?  So they can tax our breathing, too?  Because we exhale a greenhouse gas?  Of course, with Obamacare that won’t be so hard to do.  As the government will have their fingers in our medical records.

Beware buying your electric car.  That is, if you think it will be less costly than paying for very expensive gasoline.  First of all, one of the reasons why gasoline is so expensive is because of the taxes the government tacks on to the price per gallon.  Which is supposed to maintain our roads.  Of course that’s hard to see these days with our crumbling infrastructure.  They are collecting a ton of money.  But where it goes is another question.

Now that we have moved into more fuel efficient cars and electric cars and hybrids what is our thanks?  They want to put a black box in our car to track the miles we drive.  So they can tax us per mile.  Because we’re not buying enough gasoline to maintain the roads.  Or so they say.  So even though we’re saving money by buying less gas we’ll probably end up paying more to drive in the long run when they start taxing us per mile.  Giving electric car owners no advantage for sweating bullets wondering if they have enough charge to get home.  For they’ll be paying as if they are driving a big gas-guzzling car that gives them no range anxiety.  But all they’ll get is the range anxiety.  And it now will get worse.

Never buy gas again.  That’s what they told us.  And we shouted, “Hurrah!”  And, “Take that you greedy oil companies.”  While those who bought electric cars thought they would plug in anywhere for free.  But electric power isn’t free.  It costs.  You will see it in your electric bill as you plug in overnight.  You will see it when you have to swipe a card to use a charging station away from home.  And thanks to President Obama’s directing federal regulators to increase the cost of producing electric power you will see how costly driving an electric car can be.  Even when it buys no expensive gasoline from those greedy oil companies.

The tough fuel economy standards?  The hybrids?  The electric cars?  None of them were about us saving money.  It was about making us do things we didn’t want to do.  And now that we have what is our reward?  Higher electric bills.  And a lower standard of living.  As more of our paychecks will go to pay for the government’s intrusion into our private lives.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Even though Solar Panels and Natural Gas Home Generators allow us to Disconnect from the Grid we Shouldn’t

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 21st, 2013

Week in Review

I remember losing power for a couple of hot and humid days.  The kind where you stick to everything because you’re just covered in sweat.  Making it almost impossible to sleep.  But I was able to borrow my father’s generator.  So I would not have to suffer through that insufferable heat and humidity.  While I was able to run my refrigerator, turn the lights on and even watch television I could not start my central air conditioner.  Even when I shut everything else off.  It was large enough to run the AC.  But it was just not big enough to start it.  I tried.  But as I did that inrush of current (about 40 amps) just stalled the generator.  Which could put out only 30 amps at 240 volts.  So even though I had a 30 amp generator to start an air conditioner that was on a 20 amp circuit breaker it wasn’t big enough.  Because of that momentary inrush of current.  So I suffered through that insufferable heat and humidity until the electric utility restored power.  And I never loved my electric utility more than when they did.

Now suppose I wanted to go to solar power.  How large of a solar array would I need that would start my air conditioner?  If one square inch of solar panel provided 70 milliwatts and you do a little math that comes to approximately a 950 square-foot solar array.  Or an array approximately 20 FT X 50 FT.  Which is a lot of solar panel.  Costly to install.  And if you want to use any electricity at night you’re going to need some kind of battery system.  But you won’t be able to run your air conditioner.  For one start would probably drain down that battery system.  So it’s not feasible to disconnect from the electric grid.  For you’re going to need something else when the sun doesn’t shine.  And because there can be windless nights a windmill won’t be the answer.  Because you’re going to need at least one source of electric power you can rely on to be there for you.  Like your electric utility.  Or, perhaps, your gas utility (see Relentless And Disruptive Innovation Will Shortly Affect US Electric Utilities by Peter Kelly-Detwiler posted 4/18/2013 on Forbes).

NRG’s CEO David Crane is one of the few utility CEO’s in the US who appears to fully appreciate – and publicly articulate – the potential for this coming dynamic.  At recent Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics conference, he indicated that solar power and natural gas are coming on strong, and that some customers may soon decide they do not need the electric utility. “If you have gas into your house and say you want to be as green as possible, maybe you’re anti-fracking or something and you have solar panels on your roof, you don’t need to be connected to the grid at all.”  He predicted that within a short timeframe, we may see technologies that allow for conversion of gas into electricity at the residential level.

If you want carefree and reliable electric power you connect to the electric grid.  Have a natural gas backup generator sized to power the entire house (large enough to even start your central air conditioner).  And a whole-house uninterruptible power supply (UPS).  To provide all your power needs momentarily while you switch from your electric utility to your gas utility.  Well, all but your central air conditioner (and other heavy electrical loads).  Which would have to wait for the natural gas generator to start running.  Because if you connected these to your UPS it might drain the battery down before that generator was up and running.  No problem.  For we can all go a minute or two without air conditioning.

So this combination would work.  With solar panels and a natural gas generator you could disconnect from the electric grid.  But is this something we should really do?  Not everyone will be able to afford solar panels and natural gas generators.  They will have to rely on the electric utility.  Some may only be able to afford the solar panels.  Staying connected to the grid for their nighttime power needs.  But if our electric utilities cut their generation and take it offline permanently it could cause some serious problems.  For what happens when a day of thunderstorms blocks the sun from our solar panels and everyone is still running their air conditioners?  The solar panels can no longer provide the peak power demand that they took from the electric utility (causing the utilities to reduce their generation capacity).  But if they reduced their generation capacity how are they going to be able to take back this peak power demand?  They won’t be able to.  And if they can’t that means rolling brownouts and blackouts.  Not a problem for those with the resources to install a backup generator.  But a big problem for everyone else.

We should study any plans to mothball any baseload electric generation.  For renewable sources of energy may be green but they are not reliable.  And electric power is not just about comfort in our homes.  It’s also about national security.  Imagine the Boston Marathon bombing happening during a time of rolling blackouts.  Imagine all of the things we take for granted not being there.  Like power in our homes to charge our smartphones.  And to power the televisions we saw the two bombers identified on.  We would have been both literally and figuratively in the dark.  Making it a lot easier for the bombers to have made their escape.  There’s a reason why we’re trying to harden our electric grid from cyber attacks.  Because we are simply too dependent on electric power for both the comforts and necessities of life.  Which is why we should be building more coal-fired power plants.  Not fewer.  Because coal is reliable and we have domestic sources of coal.  Ditto for natural gas and nuclear.  The mainstay of baseload power.  Because there is nothing more reliable.  Which comes in handy for national security.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »