Enviromarxism and MG

Enviromarxism

Enviromarxism is an economic system in which capital is replaced by greentarded economic metrics like EROEI, “green jobs,” Social Cost of Carbon or Inclusive Wealth Index.

EROEI

It doesn’t matter how much energy it takes to extract, refine and transport fossil fuels. EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is even dopier than AGW and Peak Oil. I don’t spend energy to fill my tank. I don’t give energy back to the gas & electric companies in exchange for them being nice enough to heat and light my home. My company doesn’t drill for oil & gas to make energy.

I spend money to fill my tank. My company drills wells for oil & gas to make money. My gas & electric bills are paid for with money. My pay check, ExxonMobil & Shell credit card statements and checks to the gas & electric companies aren’t denominated in joules, kilowatts or btu – They are denominated in $.

I don’t give a rat’s @$$ if 1 barrel of amoeba farts uses less energy to produce than 1 barrel of crude oil… Because the barrel of amoeba farts costs $1,100 and can’t be produced in sufficient quantities to be waiting for me at the Exxon or Shell station when I need it.

If oil companies (or any businesses) used EROEI to guide their investment decisions, they would go out of business (unless the gov’t was footing the bill).

And, for that matter, most fossil fuels actually have better EROEI than most alternative sources do.

Oil, natural gas and coal are concentrated biofuels. They represent thousands to millions of years of condensed solar energy.

“Social Cost of Carbon”
 
Words cannot define the idiocy of this EPA report…
 
Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government

With participation by

  • Council of Economic Advisers
  • Council on Environmental Quality
  • Department of Agriculture
  • Department of Commerce
  • Department of Energy
  • Department of Transportation
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • National Economic Council
  • Office of Energy and Climate Change
  • Office of Management and Budget
  • Office of Science and Technology Policy
  • Department of the Treasury


February 2010

Executive SummaryUnder Executive Order 12866, agencies are required, to the extent permitted by law, “to assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The purpose of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.[…]I. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide EmissionsThe “social cost of carbon” (SCC) is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. We report estimates of the social cost of carbon in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide throughout this document.1When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the National Academies of Science (NRC 2009) points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.[…]The Greentards at the EPA

 
In its Greenhad against American industry, the Greenhadists at the EPA must present a cost-benefit analysis of any regulations they wish to promulgate. The costs of the regulations are pretty easy to tabulate… But there simply are no real data from which to calculate the potential monetary benefits of such regulations, therefore the EPA Greenturds have invented something called the “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC).The SSC enables them to monetize their feelings about how much greener the world will be when we are paying 20 times as much for electricity – Which will only be available during non-peak daylight hours – And we are all driving battery-powered clown cars… If we can afford and/or find the electricity to charge them.

 Mental Greentardation (MG)

Alternate spelling: Mental Greenταρδation (to avoid offending idiots who are offended by the syllable “tard.”

Mental greentardation is a perfectly accurate description of this form of mental illness…

The scene is set on HBO’s Real Time Friday. Krugman is a guest, pitching his book, but at the same time pitching an idea that he’s totally serious about. It involves aliens and scientists and lies to the public on a grand scale, plus a shout out to California’s high-speed rail boondoggle. Here’s the transcript, brace yourself.

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: This is hard to get people to do, much better, obviously, to build bridges and roads and healthcare clinics and schools. But my proposed, I actually have a serious proposal which is that we have to get a bunch of scientists to tell us that we’re facing a threatened alien invasion, and in order to be prepared for that alien invasion we have to do things like build high-speed rail. And the, once we’ve recovered, we can say, “Look, there were no aliens.”

But look, I mean, whatever it takes because right now we need somebody to spend, and that somebody has to be the U.S. government.

Watch the video here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh…#ixzz1w5zk6aAO

WUWT

According to the first law of thermodynamics, any net increase in the internal energy dU of a thermodynamic system must be fully accounted for, in terms of heat δQ entering the system and the work δW done by the system.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_…ics)#section_3

When you increase the cost of energy (dU) without increasing the value of work, you destroy wealth.

Only a moron or a greentard would try to increase to cost of dU.

(An Enviromarxist greentard would reply with some babbling about EROEI.)

Mental greentardation and libtardation are self-inflicted forms of mental defectiveness… Or symptomatic of latent Marxist tendencies. Investments have to be accounted for in dollars and other measures of capital formation. Accounting for investments in terms of labor (jobs created or saved), carbon emissions saved (Social Cost of Carbon), Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) and other measures is to economics what Lysenkoism is to science.

I’m not mocking the mentally ill. I’m pointing out the fact that people like Krugman and Al Gore are mentally ill (or closet Marxists). Since I know that they are not stupid (well Krugman’s not stupid), I have to assume that they have rationalized things like spending more than 20¢/kWh to generate electricity when the current sources cost less than 8¢/kWh or spending taxpayer funds on high speed rail lines that can’t compete with commuter airlines or even provide much advantage over driving.

I ridicule them because it is fun, easy and I firmly believe that stupidity should be painful.

Anyone who would intentionally choose electricity generation sources with levelized generation costs above 12¢/kWh deserves to feel stupid…

Anyone who thinks that California’s “high-speed train wreck” is a wise use of $43 billion of the taxpayers’ money deserves to feel stupid…

Editorial

California’s high-speed train wreck

The state’s plan to build a bullet train has become a monument to the ways poor planning, mismanagement and political interference can screw up major public works. We can do better.

May 16, 2011

California’s much-vaunted high-speed rail project is, to put it bluntly, a train wreck. Intended to demonstrate the state’s commitment to sustainable, cutting-edge transportation systems, and to show that the U.S. can build rail networks as sophisticated as those in Europe and Asia, it is instead a monument to the ways poor planning, mismanagement and political interference can screw up major public works. For anti-government conservatives, it is also a powerful argument for scrapping President Obama’s national rail plans, rescinding federal funding and canceling the project before any more money is wasted on it.

We couldn’t disagree more. We pointed out back in 2008, before voters approved nearly $10 billion in state bonds to fund the project under Proposition 1A, that it would be more expensive and difficult to build than its backers were letting on. But we endorsed it anyway because of the economic and environmental benefits the train could bring. The benefits still outweigh the costs, and none of the $43-billion project’s troubles are insurmountable…

[…]

The train’s biggest problems can be laid at the feet of the High Speed Rail Authority, which is overseeing its construction. Inexperienced board members appointed by the governor and Legislature on the basis of political patronage rather than expertise have made a host of poor decisions. Not the least boneheaded of these is the board’s plan to take a circuitous route from Los Angeles to Bakersfield by veering through Palmdale and Lancaster. Compared with the more direct route along Interstate 5 through the Grapevine, this would add 30 miles to the trip plus $1 billion in construction costs, and make it all but impossible for the train to meet its promised travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from L.A. to San Francisco.

[…]

LA Times

Two hours and forty minutes from L.A. to San Francisco…

It’s a one hour and twenty minute flight. So, even as fast as flying and it can’t be cheaper on a full-cost basis… A round trip ticket on Southwest runs $360-$412… SWA flights leave LAX for SFO every 90 minutes on an average weekday. 11 flights between 6:00 AM and 10:PM (16 hours).

The bullet train can’t even come close to matching that turn-around time. Even if it could, it will still never pay for itself.

Assuming a ticket on the bullet train will be comparable to a SWA ticket ($385) and it made 1,100 passenger-round trips per day (about what SWA does)… It would take 278 years to generate $43 billion in gross revenue. Almost 300 years just to cover the construction costs estimated in 2011. Since that editorial was written, the estimated costs have skyrocketed to $98.5 billion.

So, we’re looking at an “investment” with a pay-out of Capex measured in centuries… But, in addition to the CapEx, the high-speed train will also have OpEx. CaHSRA says OpEx will be in the neighborhood of 10¢ per passenger-mile…

The rail authority claims it can operate the 510-mile system at a cost of about 10 cents per passenger mile, less than one-fourth of the 40 cents to 50 cents it costs high speed rail operators in other countries, the analysis found. If California’s bullet train operating costs rise to the international average, losses will range from $2 billion to $9 billion annually, according to the report.

[…]

The authors of the study studied both European and Asian high-speed systems. They found that costs range from a low of 34 cents per passenger mile in Italy to 50 cents in Germany and Japan, based on public reports published by those operating systems.

[…]

LA Times

LA-SF is 432 miles by train. At 10¢ per mile, the round-trip OpEx per passenger will be $86.40. At 34¢ per mile, the round-trip OpEx per passenger will be $293.76, at 50¢ per mile it will be $432.00.

Using a realistic OpEx, it will cost $293.76 to $432.00 per passenger per LA-SF round-trip. So, CaHSRA would have to charge $700-800 per round-trip to break even in 300 years (plus or minus a 100 years).

This rail system is mind numbingly stupid.  It is mentally greentarded.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: