Today we look at two new papers that reveal renewable energies don’t deliver what their proponents like to have us believe they do, i.e. clean, affordable and reliable energy, and another telling us that the Paris Agreement is a joke.
Biofuel blends are more polluting
The first paper by Emery et al., 2017, looks at biofuel and found:
Life-cycle non-GHG air pollutant emissions, particularly NOX [nitrous oxides] and PM [particulates], are higher for corn ethanol and other biofuel blends than conventional petroleum fuels.”
Other findings include 1) emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) increase by 9–50% per 100 km traveled for high-ethanol blends from corn grain and combined grain and stover feedstocks; 2) NOX, PM [particulates], and SOX [sulfur dioxides] increase by 71–124% from corn grain and 56–110% from combined grain and stover, relative to conventional gasoline; and 3) The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.
In Germany many people are apprehensive about putting fuels blended with ethanol or biodiesel into their tanks because it is long known that these fuels are more aggressive with the vehicles’ fuel burning systems. I never put the stuff in my car.
Renewables cannot compete
Another paper shows that renewable energies are non-competitive on yet another front. Vass, 2017 here concludes that they “cannot compete with forest carbon sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EU carbon target for 2050″.
The paper writes:
[T]he average cost per unit emissions reduction is more than twice as high for renewables as for forest carbon sequestration. Hence, the results indicate that renewables are unable to compete with forest carbon sequestration unless they receive continued government support.”
Paris Agreement is a “toothless deal”
And finally another study by Mahapatra and Ratha, 2017 finds that the Paris Agreement “is a relatively toothless one, which does not bind countries to actual emission limits, and has no mechanisms to impose actions. No sanctions will fall on any country that fails to come up to these intentions.”
The paper goes on to quote Professor James Hansen, the so-called father of climate change awareness:
…the deal is worthless words’ (Wente, 2015). The final text contains only bland platitudes. There is no necessary connection between the legally binding nature of an international agreement and its effectiveness in producing outcomes (Lake, 2015). The agreement delineates an aim for reducing temperatures to a 2°C above pre-industrial levels, but does not commit.
Yes, this is what all the climate activists and politicians were celebrating in December, 2015, in trying to have us believe they had accomplished something really big and unprecedented.
And there have been rumors that Ivanka Trump is pushing for the deal’s ratification by the US. Don’t be surprised should President Trump sign it. But it won’t matter, because the treaty is toothless and only a show. On the other hand, the President should keep his campaign promise and not sign the farce treaty.