Week in Review
Britain is green. They have made the prevention of manmade global warming a national goal. They’re gradually doing away with carbon-based energies. Like coal-fired power plants. And replacing them with green things like wind farms. Although one large wind project just got derailed. The £4bn ($6.6 billion US) Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel. But just the fact that they were going to spend $6.6 billion to build an offshore wind farm shows you how committed they are in going green. Of course one might ask where does one get $6.6 billion to build a wind farm? Simple. You just add a green levy to everyone’s utility bill (see Energy policies just rob Peter to pay Paul by Telegraph View posted 12/1/2013 on The Telegraph).
Yesterday morning, George Osborne and Ed Balls both graced the sofa of the Andrew Marr Show as part of a pre-Autumn Statement offensive to woo the voters. Perhaps the biggest issue of the day was the fate of the green levies on consumers’ bills – a policy that Ed Miliband began as energy secretary and which the Tories embraced in office as a way of proving their environmentalist credentials. Now the consensus that the consumer should be forced to pick up the tab for saving the planet is gone, thanks to sky-rocketing energy costs. But the solutions proposed by Mr Osborne and Mr Balls may not be enough to induce a warm glow in the heart of the hard-pressed voter.
Mr Balls had nothing compelling to say. He made some noises about “value for money” and said that anything the Government could do to reduce costs was welcome. But it was Labour, after all, that introduced the green levies and remains committed to unreasonable decarbonisation targets. The party’s core pledge now is to freeze prices after the 2015 election. It is, as Mr Osborne called it, “back of a fag packet” stuff. Labour can do nothing to control global energy prices; a price freeze could put smaller providers out of business; and the likely outcome is that companies will simply hike bills before the freeze comes into effect. This variety of socialist populism typically ends up hurting the economy in the long run.
However, there are serious flaws in Mr Osborne’s alternative. Although the average bill could fall by £50 under the Government’s plan, some bills are predicted to rise by £120.
First of all, “back of a fag packet” isn’t a gay slur. A fag is slang for cigarette in the UK. And a fag packet is a pack of cigarettes. So “back of a fag packet” stuff is a plan with so little meaningful details that they can write it out on one side of a pack of cigarettes. It’s sort of like us yanks writing out something on the back of a cocktail napkin. It’s not detailed stuff. And probably not stuff thought out well. Hence the disparaging tone of George Osborne’s criticism of the Labour Party’s idea of a price freeze.
As interesting as this explanation was it’s what is in the following paragraph that is of note. The rise in the average bill of £120. This is the green levy on the people’s average utility bill. Which comes to $197.16 in US dollars. This is the cost of all those wind turbines they’re building. A number so painful that Britons everywhere are saying that this manmade global warming? It isn’t as bad as I once thought it was. So we can stop building these silly windmills. Especially those that cost $6.6 billion. Let’s just leave those beautiful coal-fired power plants on line. So I can afford to feed my family. For I know my history. And my Dickens. England during the Industrial Revolution was a filthy place. Where workers—and everything else—were covered in soot and ashes. And despite all of this manmade carbon it was not warm and balmy during those times. No. People struggled to both eat. And stay warm. England is cleaner today and yet we are suffering from manmade global warming? Right, pull the other.
Tags: average utility bill, Carbon, coal-fired power plants, George Osborne, Global Warming, green, green levies, green levy, Labour, manmade global warming, price freeze, utility bill, wind farms
Week in Review
To save the world from global warming we have to go to a low-carbon energy economy. Say goodbye to coal. And hello to solar. And wind (see Energy firm RWE npower axes £4bn UK windfarm amid political uncertainty by Terry Macalister posted 11/25/2013 on The Telegraph).
Britain’s green ambitions have been dealt a blow as a big six energy company has pulled the plug on one of the world’s largest offshore windfarms, with the political storm enveloping the industry threatening the multibillion-pound investments needed to meet emissions targets and head off a looming capacity crunch.
Weeks after warning that the government was treating environmental subsidies as a “political football”, the German-owned RWE npower is pulling out of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel because the economics do not stack up.
The move comes as figures show that energy firms reaped a 77% increase in profits per customer last year, due to bill increases that the big six say are partly due to government green levies…
The Renewable Energy Association (REA), which lobbies for more low-carbon power, said government infighting over subsidies was causing deep uncertainty in the industry…
“We need assurances from George Osborne in the autumn statement about where we stand,” said a spokesman for the REA. “Nick Clegg says one thing about the green levies, Michael Fallon [the energy minister] another…”
RWE indicated that the government might have to raise green subsidies – and thus increase bills or the burden on the taxpayer – after admitting that technical difficulties had pushed the price up so far that it could not be justified under the current subsidy regime.
But RWE has already pulled out of a £350m nuclear-power project, is selling its DEA North Sea oil business and last week disposed of part of its UK gas and electricity supply arm. Developers have been warning for some time that they would need more subsidies from the government if ministers were to realise low-carbon energy targets.
RWE was in partnership to build that nuclear project. Which cost in total £696m. Or 17% of the cost of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel. Which they say will power one million homes. Of course, that would be only when the wind is blowing. But not blowing too fast. For there is a small window for safe wind speeds these turbines can generate power at. Giving them a low capacity factor (the amount of power they could produce over a period of time at full nameplate capacity and the actual power they produced over that period). About 30% in Britain. Whereas nuclear power is about 90%. Which is why we use it for baseload power. Because it’s always there. Even when the wind is blowing too slow. Or too fast. So that Atlantic Array wasn’t going to provide reliable power for a million homes. In fact, on a calm day it will provide no power to any home. Which begs the question why spend £4bn for unreliable power when you can spend £696m for reliable power?
Worse, wind power requires government subsidies. So much that companies won’t build wind farms unless they get government subsidies. Something you don’t need to build a nuclear power plant. And to rub salt in an open wound those subsidies are paid for with levies on the family utility bill. Or higher taxes. Forcing these families to get by on less. While these green energy firms are seeing rising profits. Because of the money the government takes from the households and gives to the green energy firms in the form of subsidies. Which begs another question. Why charge the British people so much more for clean energy when they can get it for far less from nuclear power? At 17% of the cost for the Atlantic Array project?
When it comes down to it renewable energy is crony capitalism at its worst. Huge transfers of money from the private sector to the public sector. Where they turn around and give to their friends in green energy companies in the form of lucrative contracts and fat subsidies. After taking some off the top for their expenses, of course. If it wasn’t they’d be building less costly and more reliable nuclear power plants to be green. Instead of building these green elephants all over the place.
Tags: Atlantic Array project, Bristol Channel, capacity factor, Carbon, Global Warming, green, green levies, green subsidies, levies, low-carbon, low-carbon energy, nuclear power, reliable power, renewable energy, RWE, subsidies, unreliable power, wind, wind farm, £4bn Atlantic Array project
Week in Review
Do you know why it was so cold at Valley Forge during the American Revolution? We were in a mini ice age at the time. The Little Ice Age (from about 1350 to 1850). Introduced by the Black Death. The greatest plague in human history. As the earth continued to cool we got shorter growing seasons. And wetter growing seasons. Leading to a little famine. And war. As nations struggled to feed themselves with shorter, colder and wetter growing seasons. Plunging the world into centuries of world war. Including the previously noted American Revolution. Which followed the Seven Years’ War. And was a prelude to the Napoleonic Wars. And there were plenty more wars before, after and in between.
Disease, famine and war. No, cold isn’t good. Warm is good. Just ask Napoleon. Who was beaten by the brutal Russian winter. Or those who died from cold, famine and disease at Valley Forge. Yet there are those who believe that cold is better than warm (see Warming report sees violent, sicker, poorer future by Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer, posted 11/8/2013 on Yahoo! News).
Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.
Actually, history has shown all of these things are worse during times of global cooling. When disease, famine and war were the norm. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union for Lebensraum. Living space. Which meant taking the breadbasket of Europe for the German people. The Ukraine. A lot of wars have been fought over food. And the less food there is the more frequent and brutal the wars. For those who have no food suffer famine and die.
We’ve been putting carbon in the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (1760ish). We’ve been burning coal in our steam engines, locomotives, ships, steel plants, and our home furnaces for centuries. The smoke, soot and ash was so thick and heavy that we made our city trains electric. Because they don’t block out the sun when they run like our steam locomotives did. Then coal gave way to petroleum products. And the glorious internal combustion engine. The greatest game changer in the history of man.
We’ve just been putting more and more carbon in the air since 1760. And in those 250 or so years has any of the global warming doom and gloom come to pass? No. The world population has grown. Because our food supply has grown. And life expectancies have grown longer throughout this period because there have been fewer plagues, famines and wars. The Pax Britannica (the British Peace) lasted about a century (1815–1914). And the Pax Americana (the American Peace) has been going on since the end of World War II (1945). We suffered some horrendous wars during these periods of peace but they were the exception not the rule. In large part because the Little Ice Age had ended. And the world was warming once again.
Tags: American Revolution, Carbon, Coal, cold, famine, food, growing seasons, little ice age, plague, Valley Forge, War, warm, world war
Week in Review
Once upon a time the glaciers nearly reached down from the poles to the equator. Then they retreated back towards the poles. And they moved these great distances before man was adding any carbon to the atmosphere. Which means glaciers were melting more before man started adding carbon to the atmosphere. Pretty much debunking the theory of manmade global warming. Yet when a glacier moves a fraction of what they once did people believe it’s global warming Armageddon (see Ancient forest revealed 1,000 years after being ‘entombed’ in gravel as Alaskan glacier melts by Steve Nolan posted 10/10/2013 on Mail Online).
An ancient forest which is thought to have been hidden for at least 1,000 years has been discovered beneath a melting glacier…
The forest is said to have been shielded from the ice by a tomb of gravel which most likely encased the forest as Initial carbon dating tests suggest that the gravel tomb, which is around 5ft high, may have been formed at least 1,000 years ago.
As glaciers develop they often emit summer meltwater streams which produce aprons of gravel…
But while the find has excited scientists, locals are concerned about the prospect of glacial melting.
They are worried about the threat of rising sea levels and the loss of freshwater sources relied upon for drinking water.
If you go back 1,000 years you are in the era of the Eastern Roman Empire. Or the Byzantine Empire. With its capital Constantinople on the Bosporus. Modern day Istanbul. The Western Roman Empire may have fallen by then but the Eastern half was still around. So there were Romans walking the earth the last time these trees saw the light of day.
Now, interesting thing about the Roman Empire was that they did not have the internal combustion engine. They did not have jet planes flying across the globe. They did not have coal-fired power plants. They did not even have the steam engine. So the Romans were putting little carbon into the atmosphere. In fact, manmade carbon during the Roman Empire was little different than it was for all of time before the Roman Empire. Yet the glaciers moved down from the poles towards the equator and retreated numerous times. All without the help of manmade global warming.
Another way to look at this is this life-killing glacier entombed a forest. Killing all forest life. And forcing what life remained fleeing in front of this life-killing glacier as it advanced down from the poles. Now this killer is retreating. Allowing life to return where it once had killed it. Funny we don’t celebrate that. We celebrate the end of winter. When life returns after a few months of winter. But when a glacier gives up its dead people feel sorry for the glacier. Not its victims.
Tags: ancient forest, atmosphere, Carbon, glacier, life-killing glaciers, manmade global warming, melting glacier, Poles, Roman Empire
Global Warming Activists are Anti-Capitalists who want the US to be a European Social Democracy
Democrats lie. It’s the only way they can advance a liberal agenda the people don’t want. In the Nineties they warned us about impending doom from manmade global warming. They said their science told them that within a decade global temperatures would rise so much that the polar icecaps would melt. And the rising oceans would flood our coastlines. While the hotter temperatures would turn our fertile farmland into desert. The left wasn’t saying this could happen. They were saying it was going to happen.
Well, it didn’t. Every dire prediction they made didn’t happen. The polar icecaps are still there. Our coastlines are still there. Our farmlands are still fertile. In fact, they’re so fertile that America has an obesity problem. Because we’re eating too much food. And we’re eating too much food because we are growing so much food thanks to those fertile farmlands. Why, we’re growing so much food that we’re using a large portion of our corn crop to make ethanol to burn in our cars.
So either the global warming crowd was so very wrong. Or they were lying the whole time. Why would they lie? Well, who exactly are the global warming activists? They’re not Republicans. They’re not conservatives. They’re liberals. And it just so happens that they want the same thing liberal democrats want. An ever growing regulatory environment strangling our businesses. For these people are, generally, anti-capitalists. Who want the United States to become a European social democracy. Where there is fairness. Egalitarianism. And no rich people. Other than those in government.
The Climate Scientists were wrong about Manmade Global Warming and their Hurricane Predictions
Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest and costliest hurricane to hit the United States. And the left said, “See? Global warming.” Not only that they said this was only the beginning. And because of manmade global warming we could expect a lot more Hurricane Katrinas. In fact, it was a sure thing. Manmade global warming was going to fill the hurricane season with a lot more hurricanes. And a lot of them would be Hurricane Katrina bad. Or worse. And you could take that to the bank. Because their mathematical models proved this.
Well, it turned out these mathematical models were wrong. Since Katrina we’ve had nothing but mild hurricane seasons. Exactly the opposite of what the climate scientists said we would have. In fact, it took 7 years before we experienced another storm nearly as destructive as Katrina. Hurricane Sandy. Or Superstorm Sandy. As it wasn’t quite a hurricane. Though it was destructive. It wasn’t Hurricane Katrina destructive. Like the climate scientists said most hurricanes would be like following Katrina.
So either the climate scientists were just very bad at science. Or they’ve been lying. Or both. During the Seventies these same brilliant scientists were upset that the world’s governments wouldn’t heed their warnings and start storing food for the coming ice age. For they said it was a sure thing. And there was nothing we could do about it. Then another decade or so later these same climate scientists were warning us about global warming. Which was then a sure thing. As global cooling and ice ages was so yesterday’s climate.
The Left is Good at Lying because they keep the People Ignorant and Gullible
Today business is strangled by environmental regulations. The government is waging war against inexpensive and reliable coal-fired power plants. While spending our tax dollars on costly and unreliable renewable energy. Australia has a carbon tax. And Europe has an emissions trading scheme. To charge power plants, businesses, airlines, etc., for the carbon they exhaust into the atmosphere. Adding layers and layers of costs to everything we buy. All because the climate scientists said we were causing global warming. Warming the same planet they said was cooling a few decades earlier.
They were wrong. As they are on most things. In fact, they are some of the most ignorant smart people in the world. The political left. Who want to run our lives because they are so much smarter than we are. Yet their track record shows that they are not smarter than us. Or that they’re just very good liars. Who can tell the same lie over and over again and people will believe it. Like global warming. Or their Keynesian economic policies. Policies that have given us the Great Depression. The stagflation of the Seventies. Japan’s Lost Decade. The dot-com bubble and recession. The subprime mortgage crisis. And, of course, the European sovereign debt crisis.
Yet the left is very good at winning elections. And that’s because they are such good liars. For all of their policies are politically driven. They don’t care about manmade global warming. They just want to control the economy. So they can pick winners and losers. And enrich themselves. Which is why they will tell the same lie over and over again. Because they are so good at lying. And the people are so gullible. Because they are so ignorant. Thanks to our public schools. Which are controlled by the left (the teacher unions aren’t filling Republican campaign coffers). The problem with lying to advance your agenda, though, is that you can’t keep everyone ignorant forever. Eventually people grow up. They raise families and feel the direct result of the left’s costly policies. They live through 2 decades where there was no warming. They see few hurricanes despite predictions of record hurricane seasons. That’s why the left works so hard for the youth vote. Because they are just too young to have experienced these things. Young and dumb. The ideal Democrat voter. Who vote for the party that says sex is okay. And drugs aren’t that bad. Unlike their parents. Who are old enough to have experienced the left being so wrong for so long.
Tags: anti-capitalists, Carbon, climate, climate scientist, coastlines, Democrats, environmental regulation, European social democracy, Global Warming, Hurricane Katrina, hurricane season, ice age, liars, Liberal Agenda, manmade global warming, polar icecaps, social democracy
Week in Review
Trees love carbon dioxide. They breathe it in. And exhale oxygen. Allowing us to breathe. The more carbon dioxide they breathe the more oxygen we get. The happier the trees are. And the happier we are. So this is no surprise (see Redwoods and sequoias thrive despite climate change posted 8/26/2013 on CBS News).
A four-year study by the Save the Redwoods League called “the Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative” found that due to changing environmental conditions, California’s coastal redwoods and giant sequoias are experiencing an unprecedented growth surge and have produced more wood over the past century than any other time in their lives.
Imagine that. Man made the trees grow faster. And here the global warming alarmists were wringing their hands over the deforestation of the rain forest. When there is nothing to worry about. For we are planting trees. And now we know we can make those trees grow faster. All we have to do is burn more fossil fuels.
The global warming alarmists can rest easy tonight. For man’s carbon footprint isn’t killing the planet. It’s making it grow like a son of a bitch.
Tags: Carbon, carbon dioxide, climate change, forest, global warming alarmists, oxygen, redwoods, sequoias, trees
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: Australia/New Zealand, Carbon, carbon scrubbing equipment, carbon tax, coal-fired power plant, cost of living, electric power, Emissions Trading Scheme, global cooling, Global Warming, political left, power plants, taxpayers
Week in Review
The conservation of matter states that we cannot create or destroy matter. We can only rearrange it. Meaning everything on this earth has been on this earth since this earth became the earth. Except, of course, stuff falling out of space. And the few moon rocks brought back by our astronauts. But other than that if something is here today it means it was here yesterday. Last week. Last year. Last decade. Last century. And last millennium. Get the picture? For this process goes all the way back to the big bang theory. To the day this spinning planet became a planet.
The elements on the periodic table are the building blocks of everything around you. Even you. All we have ever done throughout time is find these elements. Combine these elements. And separate these elements. To make the things in our world. But we use the same old elements that have been here since the big bang and are still here. We dig atoms out from the earth and pull them out of the atmosphere and rearrange them in new forms. Then chemical reactions rearrange them yet again. And they return to the earth and to the atmosphere from whence they came. This remarkable closed system. Where we can neither create nor destroy matter. But only rearrange it. Yet today this matter that has been here since the beginning is now too dangerous to be in the earth or the atmosphere (see Cowper mutiny on carbon capture by Daniel Mercer posted 7/9/2013 on The West Australian).
Premier Colin Barnett is facing another backbench revolt from former minister Murray Cowper, this time over proposed carbon capture and storage legislation.
The State Government wants to amend laws to allow carbon dioxide to be injected into underground reservoirs as part of efforts to reduce pollution and tackle climate change…
Mr Cowper said they “trampled” on landowners’ rights by giving drillers unfettered access to property and betrayed Liberal policy.
He also attacked the proposal as environmentally reckless, saying it amounted to “pumping and dumping” waste and would put groundwater at risk.
The State and Federal governments and industry plan to sequester carbon from Kwinana, Collie, Pinjarra and Wagerup under- neath Mr Cowper’s South West electorate.
Yes, you can mix together some elements from the periodic table and make a substance that can contaminate the groundwater. Yes, you can mix some elements from the periodic table together that can be dangerous to breathe. But carbon? The very building block of organic chemistry. Of life itself? That stuff we exhale when we breathe? This element is now so toxic that it’s too dangerous for the atmosphere? And too dangerous for the earth?
It’s time we dial back the crazy. Before the global warming people proclaim all carbon toxic. Limiting the amount of breath we may exhale. And the carbon we may carry within our bodies that make up our life-forms. Which isn’t a far stretch with Obamacare charging obese people more for their health insurance because of their greater at-risk status of weight-related disease. What’s to stop these people from identifying them as dangerous life forms due the abundance of carbon they carry within them? Don’t be surprised if you see a carbon content blank to fill in on the Obamacare paperwork.
Crazy? That’s exactly what someone would have said a century ago about the idea of sequestering carbon by injecting it into underground reservoirs to tackle climate change. If these men of yesteryear were here today and heard people talking like this they’d probably spit at them with derision. Seeing the only danger to mankind being the feminization of men that allowed people to quake with fear over the carbon dioxide we exhale.
Tags: atmosphere, atom, building blocks, Carbon, carbon capture, carbon dioxide, climate change, earth, elements, groundwater, matter, Obamacare, periodic table, planet, sequester carbon
If you want to Destroy an Industry and Kill Jobs all you have to do is Raise the Cost of Labor
What happened to American manufacturing? The Industrial Revolution swept through the United States and made America an industrial superpower. By the beginning of the 20th century the United States became the world’s number one economic power. Immigrants poured into this country for those manufacturing jobs. Even though some of these jobs may have come out of a Dickens novel. Because being able to eat had it all over starving to death. And in America, with a good factory job, you could put food on your family’s table.
Most of those manufacturing jobs are gone now. Why? What happened to the once booming textile industry? The once booming steel industry? The once booming automotive industry? Unions happened to them. That’s what. These jobs were so horrible and unfit for humans that unions stepped in and organized them. But the jobs never got better. Based on the ever more generous union contracts they kept demanding. Increasing the cost of labor more and more. Which chased the textile industry out of the country. And much of the steel and automotive industries as well.
Is there anything we can learn from this? Yes. If you want to destroy an industry, if you want to kill jobs, if you want to damage the economy, all you have to do is raise the cost of labor. The largest cost to most businesses. Which is why many businesses have been replacing people with machines. Advanced machines. Computer-controlled machines. Robots. Because they can work 24/7. They’re never late. Never hung over. Never out sick. They don’t take lunch. And they will work as fast as possible without ever complaining. This is why businesses like machines. For they let them lower their costs. Making them competitive. So they can sell at prices lower than their competitors. Allowing them to remain in business.
Uncompetitive American Manufacturers go to Emerging Economies where they can be Competitive
Labor is a big cost of business. Especially in an advanced economy. With a high standard of living. Where people own houses and cars. Where those houses have central heat, air conditioning, televisions, sound systems, kitchen appliances, washers and dryers, etc. These things cost money. Requiring paychecks that can afford these things. As well as pay for clothes, groceries, gasoline, utilities, etc. Common things in an advanced economies. But not all that common in an emerging economy. Where factory workers aren’t accustomed to those things yet. And don’t demand paychecks that can pay for those things. Yet.
Still, people in developing economies flock to the new factories. For even though they are paid far less than their counterparts in advanced economies these factory jobs are often the highest paying jobs in their countries. And those who have these jobs have a higher standard of living than those who don’t. Even when the occasional factory burns to the ground or collapses killing everyone inside. As sad as that is. But if you want to eat and provide for your family these factories often offer the best opportunity.
So this is where American manufacturing jobs go to. Where labor costs are lower. Allowing business to stay competitive. Because if they can’t be competitive no one will buy what they are selling. And without any revenue they won’t be able to pay their suppliers. Their employees. Or their energy costs. Another large cost of business. Especially for manufacturers.
Unions and Regulatory Costs haven’t made Emerging Economies Uncompetitive Yet
A lot of houses today come with a 200-amp electric service. Assuming a house uses about 100 amps on average that comes to 24,000 watts (100 amps X 240 volts). Now consider a large manufacturing plant. Like an automotive assembly plant. That can have anywhere around 8 double-ended unit substations. Which are pieces of electrical distribution equipment to feed all of the electrical loads inside the plant. Each substation has two 13,800 volt 3-phase primary electrical services. If you’re looking at one you will see the following from left to right. A 600-amp, 15,000 volt switch, a transformer to step down the 13,800 voltage to 480 voltage, a 480-volt main switch, a bunch of 480-volt switches to feed the electrical loads in the plant, a ‘tie’ switch, another bunch of 480-volt switches, another 480-volt main switch another transformer and another 600-amp switch.
The key to a double-ended unit substation are the two 480-volt main switches and the tie switch. Which normally distributes the connected electric load over the two primary services. With both 480-volt main switches closed. And the tie switch open. If one service fails because a car knocks down a cable pole these switches will sense the loss of that service. The 480-volt switch on the side of the failed service will open. And the tie switch will close. Feeding both sides of the unit substation on the one live primary service. So each primary service carries half of the connected load. Or one primary service carries the full connected load. Assuming each unit substation uses 600 amps on average (2 services at 300 amps or 1 service at X 600 amps) that comes to approximately 13,194,070 watts (600 amps X 13,800 volts X √3 X .92 PF). Where we multiply by the square-root of 3 because it is three phase. And assume a 0.92 power factor. If a plant has 8 unit substations that comes to 105,552,562 watts. Which equals approximately 4,398 houses with a 200 amp service. Now to further our crude mathematical approximations let’s take a typical electric bill for a house. Say $175 on average per month. If we multiply this by 4,398 that comes to a monthly electric bill for this manufacturer of about $769,654. Or $9,235,849 per year.
So here is another way to destroy an industry, kill jobs and damage the economy. By increasing the cost of electric power. Which is already a very large cost of business. And ‘going green’ will make it even more costly. As the Obama administration wants to do. With their war on coal. The cheapest source of electric power we have. By increasing regulations on coal-fired power plants. Even implementing some kind of a carbon tax. To punish these carbon emitters. And to subsidize far more costly green energies. Such as solar. And wind. Going from the least costly to the most costly electric power will greatly increase a business’ electric utility costs. Easily adding 15%. 30%. 40%. Or more. A 40% increase in our example would increase the electric utility cost by $3,694,340 each year. If a plant has 1,200 workers that’s like adding another $3,000 per worker. And we’ve seen what higher labor costs have done to companies like General Motors. Chrysler. And the textile industry. By the time you add up all of these new regulatory costs (Obamacare, green energy, etc.) businesses will be so uncompetitive that they will have to follow the textile industry. Out of the country. To a country that will let them be competitive. Such as an emerging economy. Where unions and regulatory costs haven’t made them uncompetitive. Yet.
Tags: advanced economy, American manufacturing, Carbon, Coal, competitive, cost of labor, double-ended unit substation, electric bill, electric power, emerging economy, energy, energy costs, factory, green energy, industry, jobs, labor costs, machines, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing plant, primary services, substation, textile industry, unions, unit substation, workers
Week in Review
The earth is, what, 4.5 billion years old? And climate ‘scientists’ can look at a 19-year snapshot of data and know everything that is going on with climate? That 19-year snapshot represents only 0.00000042% of the earth’s total climate picture. That’s a small percentage. Very small. Much, much smaller than 1%. Statistically speaking it’s meaningless. Yet by this 19-year snapshot today’s climate ‘scientists’ know all when it comes to climate (see Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds by Matt Smith posted 11/29/2012 on CNN).
Two decades of satellite readings back up what dramatic pictures have suggested in recent years: The mile-thick ice sheets that cover Greenland and most of Antarctica are melting at a faster rate in a warming world…
The net loss of billions of tons of ice a year added about 11 millimeters — seven-sixteenths of an inch — to global average sea levels between 1992 and 2011, about 20% of the increase during that time, those researchers reported…
Long-term climate change fueled by a buildup of atmospheric carbon emissions is a controversial notion politically, but it’s one accepted as fact by most scientists. Previous estimates of how much the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contributed to the current 3 millimeter-per-year rise in sea levels have varied widely, and the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change left the question open.
While the 19-year average worked out to about 20% of the rise of the oceans, “for recent years it goes up to about 30 or 40%,” said Michiel van den Broeke, a professor of polar meteorology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. The rest comes from thermal expansion — warmer water takes up more space.
So in other words, 80% of the rise in sea levels has nothing to do with melting ice sheets. Yet they predict doom and gloom that global warming will melt these glaciers and raise sea levels and wash away all of our coastal communities. So global warming may be melting the ice sheets. But not much. Surely not as much as they melted after the ice ages. When some glaciers retreated from nearly the equator back towards the poles. And that happened before manmade activities began releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Meaning that ice sheets melted far more before any manmade global warming. But when your data sample looks only at 0.00000042% of the climate record you’re likely to miss significant things like this.
They concluded that Greenland and two of the three ice sheets that cover Antarctica have lost an estimated 237 billion metric tons, give or take a few billion, in the past 19 years. The ice sheet that covers eastern Antarctica grew, but only by about 14 billion tons — not nearly enough to offset the losses from the layer that covers the western portion of the continent and the Antarctic Peninsula.
They call it global warming. Not warming in small pockets of geographic areas. For if the warming was only in small pockets there would be no global warming. No coming cataclysmic global climate disaster. And nothing to worry about. But if global warming is truly global then the warming would be uniform. Global. And surely equal throughout a small geographic region like Antarctica.
Okay, so they put the fear of God in us that the world will end if we don’t act within the next 5 minutes. Okay. So tell us, how much time do we have?
Don’t panic: At the current rate, it would take between 3,000 and 7,000 years for those regions to become ice-free, said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington…
In July, researchers watched as a stretch of unusually warm temperatures melted nearly the entire surface of the Greenland ice sheet…
“Any model that someone would use to predict sea level rise is only really as good as the data that goes into it,” Shepherd said. “And the fact that our data is twice or three times as reliable as the most recent overarching assessment has to give some weight to improving the value of those model predictions in the future…”
“Right now, all of that is very complicated stuff, and we’re not at the point where all of that is integrated into the models we have now,” Schmidt said.
Really? They look at a 19-year snapshot and can predict 7,000 years out? Even though it’s complicated stuff? I suppose that would be easy once you assume in your model that everything in the world will continue as they have during that 19-year snapshot. Of course that would make it hard to explain how the glaciers retreated from near the equator all the way back to the poles a few times following the ice ages. Ah, they probably just consider that a statistical anomaly. Despite there being 5 major ice ages so far. That lasted in the tens of millions of years. Some even lasted in the hundreds of millions of years. And according to the climate ‘scientists’ another one was right around the corner from the Seventies. Before, of course, they changed their minds and started warning us about global warming. Which was a lot more fun. Because you couldn’t enact a lot of environmental regulations on business to stop the cooling. But you can make an argument for environmental regulations to stop the warming. Which is why they’re sticking to the warming. Because it’s a lot more fun.
Interestingly, between these ice ages the earth may have been ice free. Meaning that the ice sheets they’re wringing their hands over may not have existed during other interglacial periods. Again, those ice-free times were BEFORE any manmade greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere.
It’s bad science that only looks at a 19-year snapshot of data. Especially when other scientists have found a cyclical warming and cooling of sea surface temperatures every 20-30 years. Something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Perhaps this is why they looked at 19 years of data. To keep their models predicting what they want to find. Not what actually may be happening. And something like the PDO could really throw a wrench in things. Which is why much climate science is not science. It’s politically motivated. Where ‘scientists’ are funded by governments. And these scientists conclude what these governments want them to conclude. So they will keep funding them. For after all, if they found there was no manmade global warming what would these scientists do for a paycheck?
Tags: Antarctica, Carbon, carbon emissions, climate, climate change, climate scientists, cooling, glaciers, Global Warming, Greenland, ICE, ice ages, ice melt, ice sheets, sea levels, warming