The purpose of this website is to consolidate the many websites, videos and news articles pertaining to scientists` concerns over the questionable way that the IPCC and other government funded agencies have portrayed climate change. There is no direct climate scientist input so there is no new information on this website, rather it is just research on existing information and organized into this central location.
For years celebrity environmentalists such as Al Gore and David Suzuki had us believe that humans were the cause of climate change, that we were heating up the earth, that all bad storms are to be blamed on this and eventually this would destroy our climate and ability to live. Below you will find why many scientists and meteoroligists to not believe this.
Misconceptions of wind turbines
The Pickering nuclear power station in Ontario occupies about 600 acres and supplies about 14% of Ontario's electricity needs. The Greenfield Energy Centre is a natural gas power plant that produces about 4.6% of Ontario's electricity and occupies about 35 acres.
As of 2015, all wind farms in Ontario occupy 21,000 acre of land
yet only produce 4% of our electricity. Not efficient from a land usage perspective nor environmentally friendly if those are trees or
farmland that are being destroyed for their existance. Wind turbines also kill thousands of birds each year.
From another perspective, as of 2016, Ontario has 2,465 wind turbines that can produce a maximum of 4,781 MW yet can only supply 5% of Ontario`s electricty. Pickering nuclear has a maximum 3,100 MW yet supplies 14% of Ontario`s electrcity. This means there is about a 75% inefficiency with wind turbines compared to a power plant. The reason, on average there is either not enough wind or too much wind to operate the turbines so 75% sit idle at any given time. This is a disaster both financially and for land usage.
Then there is the cost. Since 2004 Ontario electricity rates have increased 375% and driven many industries out of the province. Even the media shows bias towards green energy and tries to hide its costs. A recent CityNews article had a title about the rising costs of policing in small towns but the actual article was about wind turbines affecting their tax base and driving up their fees and therefore the police costs along with that. Ontario MPP Bob Bailey even told the news that communities should be careful before agreeing to any windfarms.
On January 19, 2018 a wind turbine collapsed in the Windsor area. No one was hurt. This type of failure is unusual but they do break
down on a regular basis:
"Oldred said more common structural failures that occur with turbines happen in the gearbox or with shaft or mechanical aspects of the structures.
``They break quite regularly, but to have the whole tower fail, that`s more of a civil engineering problem, and I would say pretty unusual,`` Oldred said."
To win contracts, manufacturers often use the least amount of materials possible and "cut corners" to keep costs down when building something. Takata air bags is one good example. If wind turbine manufacturers have taken a similar approach, perhaps more could fail over time.
According to a 2018 Science News article wind turbines can contribute to a warming climate just like fossil fuels are accused of doing.
A study published in Science Direct states, "Many people believe renewable energy sources to be capable of substituting fossil or nuclear energy. However there exist very few scientifically sound studies, which apply due diligence to substantiating this impression."
Publications in increasing numbers have started to raise doubts as to whether the commonly promoted, renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels, providing abundant and affordable energy. Trainer (2014) stated inter alia: `Many reports have claimed to show that it is possible and up to now the academic literature has not questioned the faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that all Green agencies as well as the progressive political movements have endorsed the belief that the replacement of the fossil with the renewable is feasible`. However, experience from more than 20 years of real operation of renewable power plants such as photovoltaic installations and the deficient scientific quality and validity of many studies, specifically aimed at demonstrating the effective sustainability of renewable energy sources, indicate precisely the contrary.
Siemens closes wind turbine plant in Tillsonburg - 340 green energy jobs gone. Despite only producing 5% of Ontario`s electricity, the costs and ineffeciencies of wind turbines prohibits too many more from being built.
Trudeau's carbon caper
"For Trudeau to meet his target of reducing Canada`s annual emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, Canada will have to lower them by at least 127 megatonnes (Mt) annually, the equivalent of shutting down all of our electricity sector (85 Mt) plus half of the building sector (43 Mt), in less than five years."
"To meet Trudeau`s target of reducing emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, Canada will have to lower its annual emissions by at least 241 Mt, the equivalent of shutting down all of Canada`s oil and gas sector (179 Mt), plus most of the agriculture sector (75 Mt) in less than 15 years."
2019: After 5 years, Medicine Hat powers down $12M solar thermal power plant. Low price of natural gas made solar power a too-pricey proposition. Some communities are now starting to see how expensive solar power can be and are switching back to more affordable and reliable energy sources.
Notice the satellite photo of Sarnia ON and the solar farm in the bottom right corner. This solar farm size occupies about 20% of the land area of the city of Sarnia. Compared to a power plant, this is a large waste of land for the little power they produce.
New Michael Moore backed doc questions alternative energy, examines false promises of the environmental movement and why we're still "addicted" to fossil fuels.
Battery Life In Electric Cars
As of 2016, electric vehicles will have a maximum range of 300 km on a closed curcuit track in ideal weather conditions. Add cold temps, rain, night time and rush hour to the mix and their range drops off dramitically. Not practical for distance commuters.
After about 4 years the batteries will need replacing. The costs range from $3,000 for a compact car to $14,000 for a full size car/SUV. This is a major expense for a vehicle that is now 4 years old and has lost a lot of re-sale value. Don't forget that batteries degrade over time so would lose some of their capacity even before those 4 years were up. This means that a new electric car might have a 300 km range but after a couple of years that range could drop well below that.
Car airbags were invented in 1951 but the technology back then wasn't good enough for production. In the mid 1970's GM and Ford tried airbags in a couple of their cars but again the technology was not practical enough for mass production. It wasn't until the 1990's that airbags went into production.
3D films were invented in 1915 but were not very popular. In the 1950's 3D films became popular for a short period of time then died off again. In 2009, the movie Avatar brought back interest in 3D. This time even televisions were made for 3D but again, the technology was not very practical for home use and within a few years 3D TVs died off.
One day in the future we will likely have electic cars. However, as of 2016 the electric car is not very practical and is more of a novelty for companies like Tesla. Once an electric car has the same range and refueling speed as a gasoline car along with being more affordable without government subsidies, then they might become successful at mass production.
Netherlands on brink of banning sale of petrol-fuelled cars. If this propaganda and mentallity comes to North America too soon then a lot of commuters who have to drive longer distances to work could be in trouble.
As you can see from the 2016 Chevrolet car lineup, their one electric car the Volt, is also their most expensive car at $38,000+. This car compares in size and features to the Cruze but costs more than twice as much. The Volt is actually in the same price range as luxury cars such as Cadillac and BMW, not something that the average person can afford to buy. Perhaps in 7-8 years the electric car will follow in the footsteps of flat screen TVs and become affordable for the working class person.
The typical car battery is referred to as the rechargeable lead-acid battery. It was invented in 1859 and further refined in the 1960`s. It has a lifespan of about 4-7 years, depending on use. The second type of rechargeable battery is the lithium-ion battery which Sony put into production in 1991. This battery is typically used in consumer electronics such as laptops and smartphone. Tesla uses lithium-ion battery packs in its electric vehicles. Lithium-ion batteries have a lifespan of about 500-1,000 cycles of use/charging.
Since battery technology is old and already mass produced, there will be little or no cost savings with time if electric vehicles ever gain in popularity and become somewhat mass produced.
Batteries contain precious metals such as Lithium iron phosphate, Lead acid, Nickel and Cadmium. If electric vehicles ever become mass produced, the mining of these precious metals will likely cause a significant amount of pollution that the alarmist complain about with fossil fuels.
The Rauch & Lang Carriage Company was an American electric automobile manufactured in Cleveland, Ohio, from 1905 to 1920 and Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts, from 1920-1932.. "In 1911, the Rauch and Lang Electric was voted the most popular car in San Francisco and Minneapolis...Again has the Rauch and Lang electric asserted its premiership as Society's chosen car". "The introduction of Charles Kettering's self-starter in 1912 marked the beginning of the end for the electric automobile and by 1915 their share of the burgeoning automobile marketplace had fallen dramatically."
The technology and ability to produce electric cars has existed for over 100 years. Although there have been significant improvements over the years, the modern day EV still is not as practical as an ICE vehicle.
The largest economies on the world such as the USA, Germany, China and India all rely heavily on coal as part of their electricity generation (USA about 39%, Germany over 50%), so the perceived benefits of not burning fossil fuels to power EVs is lost with the extra coal that needs to be burned to supply the extra electricity.
Owning an electric car in today would be like owning a 3D TV, Digital Audio Tape machine, HD DVD player or a Betamax player when these devices first came out.
The Ontario provincial government recently announced that ethenol in gasoline will be raised from 5% to 10%. This is being done in the belief that it will reduce CO2. Per fuel tank fill-up, it will reduce CO2. However, ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gasoline and therefore fuel economy will decrease and cause a person to fill their fuel tank several more times per year.
Ethanol attracts water and therefore over time can cause condensation in the fuel system resulting in corrrosion and harder starts. Corrosion will result in expensive repairs.
According to the Canadian federal government, as of 2017/2018 Canada still gets the majority of its ethanol from wheat and corn, which results in food prices going up to compete with the increased demand of food crops for fuel. Other countries around the world likely have a similar situation and would perhaps explain the large deforestation that occurs in the Amazon rain forest as Brazil is known for its use of ethanol.
In this misguided quest to reduce CO2, governments are adding to deforestation and driving up food prices, making the poor suffer more.
Many environmentalists would have you believe that industrialization is bad. There is some truth to this but it has also done a lot of good. Prior to industrialization (before the 1800`s), the average human only lived to about 45-50 years. Now, the average is closer to 80 years with many living past 100 years. Industry has made hard labour jobs easier and dangerous jobs safer. Also, we can live almost anywhere on the planet (north/south poles, deserts, jungles, etc.) in relative comfort. We can also grow food or transport food to where we live.
The caveat is poisonous chemicals. When we began industrialization we dumped chemicals into the air, land and water without any thought or restraint. We have now learned from these mistakes and in at least the industrial nations we have implemented significant pollution controls and recycling. Even the cars today run much cleaner than just 30 years ago.
As long as we continue to improve our capture and treatment of industrial by-products and waste, then industrialization is a good thing that makes our lives significantly better. Without it, we wouldn`t have our homes, modern medicine or the ability to communicate around the world.
According to a 2018 Vox news article 23 charts and maps that show the world is getting much, much better.
Some key topics:
The Chevrolet Bolt ($38,000) is the same size as the Chevrolet Cruze ($18,000), costs three times as much and yet GM loses $9,000 on each Chevy Bolt. On top of that, the Ontario government (and tax payers) lose up to $14,000 on each EV purchase because of rebates. The hope is that the price of batteries will come down to make EVs economical. That is a very optimistically big hope.
Smoke and Mirrors
Summary: investors continue to pour money into a stock for a company that continues to only lose money. Electric car companies Rauch & Lang Carriage and Baker Motor-Vehicle were manufacturers that operatred from about 1899 to 1932 before going out of business. Tesla is not the first electric car company to mass produce cars.
Siemens to cut 6,900 jobs at their Power and Gas Division. Siemens also produces wind turbines but the job creation from that division has not been equal to the job losses in their power and gas section. A lot of well paying jobs are being lost with the switch to "green energy".
Tesla wants to electrify big trucks. "The truck will have Tesla's Autopilot system..." which will eventually eliminate the need for human drivers. "According to the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS), there were 283,185 truck drivers employed in Canada...". This means that in the near future over 285,000 good paying jobs could be completely eliminated with Tesla`s Autopilot.
The same article from above also states that Tesla says the new Roadster will have 620 miles (1,000 km) of range.... There is no battery technology today or planned for the next 5 years that could provide that kind of range. The best range currently is from a Model S at 335 miles (536 km).
Another industry that relies heavily on human drivers is the taxi industry. As reported on cantaxi.ca, "According to the 2006 Census...There were over 50,000 taxi drivers in Canada". That is another 50,000+ jobs that will be lost.
The primary component of electric vehicles is their batteries. The raw materials to produce these batteries comes from third-world countries like Boliva, Chile and China; North America and Europe do not have much of these materials from a global perspective. Electric vehicles will become another consumer electronics like TVs, smartphones, appliances, etc. and these all get built in China and some other Asian countries, not here at home. This means more good paying jobs will be lost to this trend. This idea is supported by the news article, China is crushing Europe`s electric car dreams. Also, General Motors just announced that they are closing 5 North American plants to focus on electric vehicles.
While solar panels and wind turbine construction as decreased in price, the production of electricity from these sources still tends to be the most expensive. The most affordable and clean way to produce electricity is nuclear. California is very pro green energy with the use of solar panels however they also have the highest electricity rates in the USA paying as much as 40% more. Calif. Power Rates Go Up 80 Percent. Despite California`s over production of unpredictable electricity, they also mandated that all new houses are to have solar panels installed on their roofs. This will not only drive up the cost of electricity even more but also increase the cost of buying a house!
Germany`s plan of replacing coal with "green energy" will destroy about 60,000 jobs: Some 20,000 jobs in Germany are tied directly to the coal industry; another 40,000 depend on it indirectly. This move will cost billions of euros and only produce 5,000 new jobs over 10 years: The government is expected to have to spend billions of euros (dollars) helping affected regions manage the economic impact of mine closures in the coming decades. A draft proposal envisages the creation of 5,000 new jobs over the next 10 years. A net loss of 55,000 jobs along with billions in expenses.
Sometimes, a Greener Grid Means a 40,000% Spike in Power Prices. Nothing more needs to be said.
Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report. This will be Canada in the future if the alarmists continue to dominate.
This combined move towards "green energy" along with electric vehicles and autopilot will destroy many good paying jobs which will have a negative impact on our economy.
This photo is one of 66 photos from an article about the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The article tries to depict the mining of oil as being environmentally horrible while green energy would have little or no environmental impact. While the photo is accurate of the Alberta tar sands you will see from photos below that lithium mining has a similar impact to the land. Unlike oil sands which are in the middle of a forest and easier to see, lithium mines tend to be in the mountains where it is harder to see and photograph. Thanks to Google Maps, lithium mining can no longer hide its impact to the environment.
"Green Energy" products such as electric vehicles require resources from the earth just like fossil fuel vehicles, just perhaps different materials. A key component to EVs are batteries which need nickel and lithium. These products need to be mined. Below you will find satellite images of some lithium mines and the dramatic increase in mining to meet future "green energy" needs. There is a pollution cost to this mining that is rarely discussed.
A Lithium mine in Chile as seen from Google maps.
A Lithium mine in Bolivia as seen from Google maps.
These are just 2 examples of what Lithium mines look like and how they may impact the environment. These mines are usually found in mountainous regions and therefore hidden from most peoples` eyes.
There are already many Lithiums mines around the world just to supply the consumer electronics that we have so far. Since electric vehicle batteries can weigh 2,000 x to 4,000 x more than consumer electronic batteries, the need for new Lithium mines will be astronomically higher. This calculation does not include all the batteries that will need to be retrofitted to wind turbines to help with lack of supply during poor weather conditions.
The above graph taken from MiningFeeds.com. This graph shows that about 90% of the world`s Lithium mines are controlled by three companies. These three companies specialize in other resources as their main source of revenue and Lithium is just a small part of that.
Even if everyone on the planet decided tomorrow that they wanted to buy an electric car, no mining companies are set up yet to handle that demand. It would first have to be determined if the current mines could handle a 1,000+% increase in production and if not, then new exploration would have to take place. It could take decades to find new locations and begin mining.
The second obstacle for mining companies is battery research and development. Given the possible limitations of lithium batteries, will a new material be used in the future for batteries that would make lithium obsolete? If yes, how much investment are mining companies willing to make to explore/develop new lithium mines if they may become useless in the near future?
The third obstacle is recycling along with supply. With lithium batteries, only the cobalt and nickel are of any financial value. A 2011 article from Waste Management World stated the following concerns:
Many EV enthusiasts look at EV vehicles as futuristic technology and ICE vehicles as old and archaic. One such example is from a recent news article talking about the new Jaguar I-Pace EV.
ICE vehicles have evolved significantly over the years and have the latest technology such as direct injection, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation, magnetic ride control shocks, 10-speed dual clutch transmissions, etc. Today, a 600+ hp V8 can get 9.5 L/100 km and a 2L 4 cylinder can develop 300 hp and get 6.5 L/100 km. Amazing and unheard of just 20 years ago.
Assuming EVs were to replace ICEs and the average house has 2-3 drivers but only one charging station, how will these charge overnight? Will the owners have to move the cars around every evening so that each car can charge? Not likely. What about condo and apartment residents. Will each parking space have a charger? Not likely. So, charging an EV in a highrise will be quite unpredictable and frustrating.
Since C02 is not a pollutant as some falsely claim, there is no compelling need to switch to EVs. They are a novelty. At best, EVs can be part of our future but their inconvenience will prevent them from replacing ICEs.