Klimabedrag.dk
Vil hjælpe dig til at bidrage med fornuft og bekæmpe uetisk- og politisk klimavidenskab.
09 February 2012, Thursday 19:59:35
Sti
Menu
Find i klimabedrag
Vejledning
Håndbog For Skeptikere er en dansk oversættelse af den legendariske The Skeptic Handbook, som er skrevet og udgivet af den australske science reporter Joanne Nova. Håndbogen, som er i PDF format og kan nedhales her, giver en oversigt over grundlæggende fakta, som er tilstrækkelig til selv at kunne danne sig en saglig begrundet holdning til klimadebatten.
Who must prove?
Non-believers don’t have to prove anything. Skeptics are not asking the world for money or power. Believers need to explain their case. . . .Quote from JoNova
En mand forsøger at grave bilen ud af sneen i nærheden af Grove i Oklahoma den 10. februar 2011.
Klik billede for stort format.
| Trend Of Subsidies Harmful To Clean and Cheap Energy |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Karl J. Hansen, klimabedrag.dk | |||
| Friday, 23 July 2010 00:09 | |||
|
Taken the "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007" in the USA, I would like to do a few calculations using some of their figures. Total subsides in 2007 for electricity production was 6,747 M$. Now, what would it it be if all production methods got the same subsidies as wind-power/solar-power, namely around 24$ per MWh? Then the total subsides would have amounted to 98,184 M$ or 1,455% higher subsidies. This is the way the wind is blowing at the moment and for no good reason. Why would any government give even one penny to a thing like wind power, which has a footprint the size of several states, a resource demand 10-20 times that of coal fired plants, has a four times shorter lifespan and finally providing asynchronous unpredictable power by by nature? Given that we have so many other far cheaper, environmentally friendlier and higher quality production forms, it cannot be due to technical or environmental reasons that government so enthusiastically support wind and soler, there must be another reason. When we look at ethanol for the transportation sector, things get even worse, much worse. Total subsidies to natural gas and petroleums was 1,921 M$. If these products were subsidized the same way as ethanol/biofuels, then the petroleum products should have cost 317,946 M$ in subsidies or 16,551% more. Ethanol, biodiesel etc. is not likely ever to be that big a deal though as too much hunger in the world would naturally limit the use of our food as fuel in cars, trucks and boilers. I find it surprising that geothermal energy is one of the least subsidized energy forms, despite geothermal energy, in most respects, is one of the cleanest, most plentiful and high quality energies available. If drilling very deep holes in the ground one day becomes possible and cheap, we can use geothermal energy all over the world. We could have it in Texas as we have it on Iceland and in Yellowstone National Park today. My suggestion is to support useful, clean and environmental friendly energy production system, for which the technique is already developed, like thorium power using LFTR plants and then scrap all subsidies all together. Alone by removing all subsidies we would likely see a more professional, feasible and healthy development of energy resources.
|
