JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The German electricity crisis – twice the price, but everyone’s going broke

When the Germans mess something up, they do it properly

Germany — is aiming for a 40% cut in carbon by 2020, and have “led the way” with solar and wind power. Electricity bills are now twice the price of those in North America, and some 800,000 poor people had their power cut off because they can’t pay their bills.  Despite the high prices, gas power has become uneconomic, even though it is one the best methods for dealing with the erratic energy delivered from wind and solar. Nuclear can’t save them, they will have none after 2022 when the last reactor turns off.

The pain is pointless. For all the money spent, they aren’t saving much CO2, and aren’t changing the weather.  They end up importing many of the goods which need energy, so the emissions occur in other countries without emissions controls. The German manufacturing sector can’t compete and struggles by on subsidies. Consumers pay more for goods or pay more through tax for the subsidies. Meanwhile, in the EU politicians seem to have realized that biofuels won’t work, but they don’t have the courage to kill them off and face the backlash — instead they fund it just enough to keep it in a zombie state.

Benny Peiser, GWPF

Germany’s renewable energy levy, which subsidizes green energy production, rose from 14 billion euros to 20 billion euros in just one year as a result of the fierce expansion of wind and solar power projects. Since the introduction of the levy in 2000, the electricity bill of the typical German consumer has doubled.

As wealthy homeowners and business owners install wind turbines on their land and solar panels on their homes and commercial buildings, low-income families all over Europe have had to foot the skyrocketing electric bills. Many can no longer afford to pay, so the utilities are cutting off their power. The German Association of Energy Consumers estimates that up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they were unable to pay the country’s rising electricity bills.

Gas is uneconomic, plants are closing, 20% are unprofitable, facing shutdown:

Every 10 new units worth of wind power installation has to be backed up with some eight units worth of fossil fuel generation. This is because fossil fuel plants have to power up suddenly to meet the deficiencies of intermittent renewables. In short, renewables do not provide an escape route from fossil fuel use without which they are unsustainable.

Gas-fired power generation has become uneconomic in the EU, even for some of the most efficient and least carbon-intensive plants. At the end of 2013, 14 per cent of the EU’s installed gas-fired plants stood still, had closed or were at risk of closure. If all gas plants currently under review were to close, this would amount to 28 per cent of current capacity by 2016. Almost 20 per cent of gas power plants in Germany have already become unprofitable and face shutdown as renewables flood the electricity grid with preferential energy.

 Investors are running for the hills. Germany faces an energy crisis. Michael Bastash [Daily Caller]:

After years of subsidizing green energy production, Germany may be on the brink of an imminent “energy crisis,” reports German Mittelstand News.

“Every second power plant planned in Germany is about to fold,” Mittelstand News reports. “The willingness to invest is decreasing rapidly as even the most efficient gas-fired power plants can no longer be operated profitably.”

Economic times:

FRANKFURT: The economic viability of some 53 per cent or 39 of the power plants planned for construction in Europe’s largest economy by 2025 has been called into question, German energy industry association BDEW said in a statement on Monday.The association said investors were nervous because of lacking profitability for coal- and gas-fired power stations because of competing energy supplies from subsidised renewable power, and a tougher carbon emissions regime.

A real free market would have none of the core uncertainty of overlaying a government controlled market on every single part of the electricity sector.

Zombie biofuels economics

EU politics won’t kill the biofuels industry, but can’t afford to keep it alive. Financial Times:

The EU launched a range of subsidies and other measures mandating the use of biofuels more than a decade ago, prompting a wave of investment in an industry that was generating revenues of €15bn by 2011.

But concerns that making fuel from crops would drive up food prices and boost demand for farm land, increasing the problem of deforestation, led politicians to rethink their policies three years ago.

A vote to limit crop-based biofuels is due in the European Parliament this week but Mr Sanchez said the long delays meant Abengoa had been forced to put plants on hold in Germany, France and the UK.

A similar lack of clarity was damaging other sectors such as solar power, he said, affecting renewable energy investment across Europe.

Windpower is not far behind – semi-Zombie:

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) reported in February a sharp drop in new installations in 2014. The EWEA’s annual report shows investments in new wind facilities plummeted last year as a result of “erratic and harsh” changes in renewable energy policies in several countries.

The rate of installations plunged by 90 percent in Denmark, 84 percent in Spain, and 75 percent in Italy.

Bonner Cohen goes on to explain just how useless wind power can be:

Little Wind Energy, High Costs

The lack of reliability is also a problem. Examining data for 2014, German researcher Rolf Schuster reports, “Wind energy is extremely volatile. During some quarter-hour periods, the roughly 25,000 turbines [in Germany] indeed delivered a lot of power. But at other times they delivered practically nothing.” Schuster concluded on average Germany’s 25,000 wind turbines operated at 14.8 percent of their rated capacity in 2014, averaging less than 6,000 Mw of their nearly 40,000 Mw capacity.

INFO: The German plan to cut 40% by 2020 is thanks to the energiewende blueprint.

Graphs on the topic here from Marlo Lewis.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (140 votes cast)
The German electricity crisis - twice the price, but everyone's going broke, 9.3 out of 10 based on 140 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lhm8235

222 comments to The German electricity crisis – twice the price, but everyone’s going broke

  • #
    • #

      Tim, can you check the link please? It didn’t work for me. Thanks.

      40

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well I guess job done – the pinkos have trashed the european economic powerhouse.

      Bring on the Nurermberg style trials of the climate charaltans.

      But lets start at the top of the pyramid and work down….and use the ICC as the tool. Hoisted on ones own petard….

      210

    • #
      Barry

      It also demonstrates, yet again, that it is those on low incomes who are punished most by the self-indulgent or intentionally punitive policies of leftist governments:

      - the wealthy are in a position to cash in on renewable energy subsidies and carbon dioxide trading and it is the poor who are punished with unaffordable electricity bills;
      - congestion taxes, such as the one introduced by the socialists in Britain, and the one being mooted in Victoria, are just chump change to the wealthy but force the poor onto dangerous public transport. Also, the wealthy then have the benefit of less-congested roads once those ‘beastly lower-class people’ are put in their place!;
      - it is the poor who have to live with the violence and anti-social behaviour brought into their suburbs by leftist immigration and refugee policies;
      - during the last El Nino drought the poor were told they could not water their gardens, thanks to a lack of water storage in our cities. The wealthy simply paid for trucked-in water to fill tanks for watering their gardens;
      - the wealthy send their children to private schools and largely avoid the risks of bullying and violence in schools that result from the Left’s welfare, immigration, education, justice, youth and policing policies;
      - the wealthy can afford legal representation and the Left give free legals and a sympathetic hearing in the courts to certain privileged minorities, whereas the poor just have to let themselves be crapped on by government or others with the power to do so;
      - I recall a previous NSW government pulling the old “the rich have what you don’t” scam to increase electricity prices. The argument was that the wealthy were using air-conditioners and it was putting a strain on the supply. Translation: a) we want to grab a bit more of your money to waste, and, b) we have not built sufficient generating infrastructure, because of our obsessive hatred of coal, so we are going to increase the price in order to reduce demand. So the rich just paid a bit more pocket change and kept their air-conditioners going, while the poor had to turn theirs off and suffer.

      Do you see the point? It is always the poor who are punished by leftist governments. And when I say ‘leftist’ governments, I am of course referring to both sides of politics. The Left might intentionally punish people for their ‘sins’, such as ‘excessive’ consumption, but if the conservatives are too stupid or too cowardly to undo the harm the Left have done, they are equally culpable.

      Earlier on I referred to the ‘intentionally punitive’ policies of leftist governments. It is important to understand this. To many on the Left, public policy is seen as a way of punishing us for what they perceive as our transgressions. I suspect that most of them do not understand that that is precisely what motives them, because the disturbing thing about the Left is that they do not have the intelligence to be self-aware. For example, it has been demonstrated in this blog on several occasions that the Left hate coal more than they hate carbon dioxide. Although their ‘concern’ for the environment is what gave rise to their hatred of coal, that hatred is now all-consuming and they cannot reason beyond it. The Left are obsessed by what they are opposed to, rather than what they are in favour of. This applies to everything the Left advocate. In immigration they support everything that acts against the interests of our society – they are not acting out of a desire to help others but instead out of a desire to punish us for what they perceive as our sins. They use the education system to turn out unemployable delinquents. They don’t care about children’s education. They are intent on the education system not serving the needs of the society they hate, or, more specifically, what they perceive as the capitalist system. Again, their intention is to punish us for our perceived sins.

      Get inside the head of your typical leftist and you will begin to see just how many of them are deranged, if not mentally ill. The greatest crime of the Abbott government, and the Howard government before it, is that they have allowed these damaged people to control the political agenda in this country. It seems they are more concerned with managing the polls, so as to serve their own interests, rather than giving us good government and creating a better society. Evil or stupid? You decide.

      223

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        If you look at the genocide caused by the left-wing govts under Mao, Stalin , Hitler etc, the common factor was socialism.

        I think we also need to look at the fact that the offical religion of Socilaism under these people was Atheism. I am not saying at all that Atheists are genocidal, rather that Socialism removes the moral regulation of the Biblical God YHWH from the equation and you see the result.

        I guess I am kind of sermonising ( I am a Christian, so… ) , however I think its important that people have their attention drawn to understand that Godless-ness removes a proven Christian moral framework to replace it with essentially a pagan / occult / Satanic view of the world which is summed up as basically “do what you want”. When men make moral calls you see what you get.

        Yes I am sure that people will take this comment to task, but look at the historic evidence.

        I also would encourage people to not fall intot he trap of viewing modern man as being any smarter than people 100 years ago. I fnaything I think we have devolved ion many ways. Modern peopel think science can explain everything and provide everything, but forget that humans have an inherent spiritual component that is hard wired into us. From my persepctive, God made us so were ultimately dependent on Him, however he doesnt force us to do it. However we see when people drift from His morals and way of doing things that we get tangled up in a moral swamp and lack direction. Yeah sure, some people go “hey I’m agnostic or athiest and I do just fine” – great for you, go for it. Although as they say, “there are no athiests in fox holes”.

        Another point is PC – PC is nothing more than cultural marxism. PC supports all sorts of morally repugnant things, and codifies them in law.

        I think if youw ant to look at moral and theical breakdown in society and the rise of narcisstic and nhilistic behaviour, look no further than the rise of the Socialist world state.

        QED

        174

        • #
          gnomish

          You were preaching your religion and what can you expect by way of response?
          Since the abrahamic era goatherds discovered animal husbandry and immediately applied it to their fellow human beings, there has been a degenerate force in the world that’s brought death, destruction and terror for 2000 some years.
          It matters naught if you believe that self sacrifice is a virtue when done for the sake of supernatural spirits or done for the sake of your vulgar neighbors.
          Your moral leader gave his very life, the standard of any natural heirarchy of values- not for the best there was, not for his own purposes, not even his idea! He sacrificed himself for the sinners- the moral failures of the planet, his vulgar neighbors because he obeyed.
          Socialism with a ‘dear leader’ or with a ‘holy father’ are both the same trick so that acts perpetrated by human agents can be attributed elsewhere and responsibility evaded.
          But guess what:
          guns don’t kill people.
          states don’t tax anybody.
          churches do not possess morality.
          If you superstitiously attribute the action of a human agent to some supernatural or mythical force, you can’t identify the real cause and you are powerless to address the situation at its root.

          As for morality- if you think morality is obedience and that atheism is deficient in obedience, let me tell you about something with which you should acquaint yourself: principles.
          When you are obeying rules of man- you are not making a decision based on your own reason- and guess what that means. It means you are behaving as a sheep. A sheep is not a man.
          it also means that when you don’t find the answer in your recipe book you are stumped and clueless.
          A man of principles simply calculates to get the right answer for any situation. I recommend that you discover morality, principles and reason – or remain obedient and be scorned for abject default of the means of survival that is your nature and the nature of man: reason.

          Whereas civilization is the process of liberating men from other men, the means of keeping their minds enslaved is the fatuous nonsense you preach- it is the tried and true method.

          28

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            gnomish,

            Please see my comment to OriginalSteve and try to follow my advise to him and let’s leave that discussion for another place and time. We try as best we can to avoid such issues and as I said to Steve, this has been one of the most informative threads this week.

            I’m convinced that this is best for all involved.

            Abe

            40

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          OriginalSteve,

          I see your point but it appears that not every one else has. Please don’t be tempted to reply to mine or gnomish’s response. I feel that the issue you raised in your comment and the response yoy received can only lead into a long and protracted debate centering around a subject which is so controversial that it could take dozens of comments back and forth and not even lead to a resolution.

          It would be a shame to divert this thread, one of the best this week or longer, on a road with no foreseable end. And off topic no-less.

          Thank you,

          Abe

          [I agree. It should stop here before it can get out of hand.] AZ

          50

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Hi Guys, seems i have hit a nerve, that wasn’t the intent at all.
            My post was supposed to be a “contained” statement ( rather than trying to divert a thread ) on the lesser covered aspect of the green blob, its socialism which is its religious ( or lack of ) basis.
            I did also make it pretty clear I am a Christian, so people need to view it through that lens.
            Cheers

            [It had nothing to do with your Christianity and everything to do with the futility of getting into a protracted debate where no one can win. Just-A-Guy is basically correct in his assessment, even though his opinion carries no particular weight on this blog. So let's be done with it. Thanks] AZ

            10

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    To continue along with the ‘Zombie Analogy’. . .

    zombies, as in ‘The Walking Dead’, have a tendency to spread by biting healthy hosts. If the zombie industry was something other than the energy sector, the collapse or near collapse of that industry would spread to other sectors of the economy only gradually.

    But this is not some other industry! This is energy, the foundation of all indstry! When this one ‘bites’, it’ll spread like ‘World War Z’. Ferociously. Relentlessly. Lightnig-fast.

    Abe

    310

    • #
      Russ Wood

      Yep – this is already happening in South Africa! It’s not the CAGW ‘usual suspects’, but the sheer incompetence of politically appointed managers of the national electricity authority. With unmaintained power stations breaking down regularly, the country is undergoing ‘load shedding’ of four hour blackouts rotated around the country. The end result – industry is stagnating, investment is non-existent, and unemployment (already high) is climbing. AND the silly b*ggers are planning to institute a ‘carbon tax’.
      The ANC politicians can’t seem to understand the importance of energy to a modern society. But then, they ARE Socialists, after all!

      110

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Russ Wood,

        . . . politicians can’t seem to understand the importance of energy to a modern society.

        On the contrary, they understand the importance of energy very well. If you control the energy, and you tax the energy, you control our modern society. “But then, they ARE Socialists, after all!”

        Abe

        90

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I suppose it’s pointless to ask when they will finally notice the damage they’re doing. So I won’t.

    It’s perhaps of more use to ask, when will the German people rise up and bite those who lord it over them this way by voting them out of office?

    Some day in the not too distant future it must happen or Germany will collapse.

    I could say the same thing about my country.

    It’s a very grim picture.

    440

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I just got my latest Edison bill yesterday. It contains the second of a twice yearly credit called the California Climate Credit. It’s money taxed away from CO2 emitting industries and given to me in the hope that I’ll invest it in energy efficiency upgrades. Of course,the bill doesn’t specify the amount of the credit. They also stopped putting the current and prior meter readings on the bill so I can’t accurately audit the billing.

      We’re all headed down the road to utter ruin. I can take a certain amount of being screwed but I’d at least like to be kissed. And they don’t do that, do they?

      Needless to say, I’ll spend that money my way, not theirs.

      490

      • #
        Richard Ilfeld

        AhHa. The benefit of State by State Energy policies (not to mention water policies, tax policies, school policies, and pension policies) is that we can compare the results of real world experiments. And vote with our feet.
        As Californians are doing by the thousands, similarly the residents of no-shale New York, and no-tax-is-too-high Illinois.

        230

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Richard Ilfeld,

          The benefit of State by State Energy policies (not to mention water policies, tax policies, school policies, and pension policies) is that we can compare the results of real world experiments. And vote with our feet.

          Watch in amazement how the dominoes fall.

          common core remains in force.
          gates provides the computers/tablets for common core.
          schmidt provides the search tools based on ‘Knowledge Based Truth’ for the computers for common core.
          all our children now learn only post-modern science reinforced by the search tools in the conputers for common core.
          climate change becomes reality to our children who now learn only post-modern science reinforced by . . .

          You can’t vote with your feet if you have nowhere to go.

          In one very short generation, it’s all over.

          Abe

          240

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Climate Change Was Never About The Climate.

            Abe

            280

          • #
            Dave in the states

            After the Greens and the Reds “fundamentally transformed” California into the KDR (Kalifornia Democratic Republic to be confused with the DDR or Deutschland Democratic Republic), they could not live in what the created following the grey outs and the shuttering of industry, so many moved away to places like Colorado and Montana, where they are doing the same thing they did to California.

            190

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              Well one thing I know about the yanks is they have a tendency to tar & feather ‘em eventually….has the USA lost its pioneering spirit?

              90

              • #
                Spetzer86

                That question actually goes to the reference to our Common Core education program, and similar educational implementations in the UK and Australia. Individualism is being weeded out from the kiddies at an early age, with the plan to monitor the little buggers until they’re out of school with “community” and “progressivism” deeply imbedded in their hearts/minds. More here: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/

                70

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Spetzer, I agree, and prefer to imbue in my kids head an openness to questioning things, and not be cowed by “the science is settled” type arguments…

                00

      • #
        toorightmate

        Roy,
        This can’t be right.
        Oh Bummer has gone out of his way to ensure all this stuff in the USA is transparent.

        That’s why we can see through him.

        80

      • #
        Ron C.

        California and Quebec make a carbon deal

        All forms of approved climate action divert individuals and industry away from cheap and plentiful energy sources to more expensive sources. They also involve deadweight costs in terms of bureaucratic oversight and compliance.

        California gets a revenue transfer and Quebec gets a discounted price on its action plan. But more importantly, both get a bump in their cash flows. Proceeds from selling allowances are expected to increase the revenues of the Quebec government by $500 million for 2015 alone. By 2020, it represents an expected $3.5 billion of extra income.

        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/quebec-joins-california-carbon-market/

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Ron,

          By one means or another all that money is stolen from those who earned it and transferred to government, which definitely didn’t earn it. I don’t know of any other way to describe it.

          The whole business is theft on a grand scale. I could wish I’d thought of it except my conscience would bother me if I did.

          I stumbled on your reply a couple of minutes ago and couldn’t resist spouting off about it. My anger at the whole thing is beyond words to describe.

          70

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Roy Hogue,

            My anger at the whole thing is beyond words to describe.

            Your anger must be incredibly intense considering that both of your earlier comments above were in fact extremely well worded.

            Abe

            30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              I’ll take that as a complement. Thank you.

              As for the anger, I don’t let it get in the way of my thinking or analytical skills. Or at least I try very hard at that.

              It may look like I can rattle off something with great ease but in fact, good writing has always come very hard for me. You have no idea how many times I edit and change something until it reads coherently and says what I want it to say.

              20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        UPDATE:

        I enquired about the credit and the lack of meter reading on the bill. They didn’t say anything about the credit but on the missing current and previous meter readings they said this. Quote verbatim

        We no longer visit your property to obtain your monthly meter reads. The Edison SmartConnect meter gathers data electronically on a daily basis; therefore, eliminating the need for a meter read.

        With the new features online you are able to view your daily usage and help determine high usage patterns.

        unquote.

        Ah, the magic of an RF network of smart meters in the neighborhood. But I have to ask this question. Don’t they still have to compute my usage based on the meter readings on two days a month apart? And of course they do, so they certainly can show me those readings, the difference between which, determines my monthly consumption. Why don’t they?

        About logging on to monitor my account — what use have I for that? I’ve gotten through a lot of years without an online account with Edison and all I need from them is my monthly bill in a form I can easily audit.

        They haven’t replied to my response yet. I wonder what they’ll say.

        20

    • #
      ianl8888


      … when they will finally notice the damage they’re doing

      It’s been noticed for quite a while now

      The pointy end of the issue is accountability – and this is as opaque as dense, thick mud

      100

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        The welfare dependency voter block, the black voter block, the illegal alien voter block, the high tech- White House crony voting block and mega million donors, the Hollywood voting block and mega million donors, the radical-leftist greens voting block, and the student loan dependency voter block will support Obama to the dying breaths of the middle class taxpayers. The conservative Republicans are trying to fight back but the inside the beltway (ring road around Washington, DC) “moderate” Republicans(Dems in sheep’s clothing) Republicans roll over for Obama seem to conspire with the groups described above to form a significant majority. So the working people-the taxpaying people know what’s wrong and have been awake and opposing Obama from before 2008. There are just too many government dependent groups to overcome. The solution is for an honest House of Representatives to (where all funding bills are supposed to originate and most do) slowly dry up the big government. How to get honest conservatives elected to lead the House of Representatives is the problem. American citizens have not been able to do that.

        170

      • #

        They already know the damage they are doing. But the Priviligentsias collective egos won’t let them say the truth. And they think the effects will always hit them last.

        20

  • #
    Stuart Elliot

    Regulators and the government will extend and pretend for as long as possible, the same way governments around the world are artificially propping up their bankrupt economies.

    But although failure is inevitable, it isn’t necessarily immediate. Expect slow unwinding masked by comprehensive backside-covering as reality re-asserts itself.

    Meanwhile, those who can afford it the least bear the greatest burden.

    291

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The smarter german politicians have noticed the problem, but they can’t carry their parties with them because the mass of them fear being blamed for the mess. Instead they stuck their heads in the sand and hoped it would go away.

      Merkel was told VERY bluntly over a year ago by the largest companies that they would soon be moving out of Germany if electricity wasn’t made cheaper. That includes BASF (anyone seen their site – 8+kilometres long). The Deputy Chancellor, head of the Socialist party has said several times that the energiewende is a failure. Nothing happens and I can only assume there was pressure to keep the disaster creaking along until after the Paris Conference.

      300

      • #
        manalive

        Paris is all about spreading the gloom and doom, misery loves company.

        170

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Unfortunately, the politicans seem to be part of the plon, and as such have been tasked with creating misery.

        As such, they are willing “for the cause” to throw themseves under the bus politically ( to be later rewarded by their paymasters by some publically funded junket ) as the world collapses economically into a dystopian misery.

        This is also why so many wealthy people have large, self sufficient armoured compounds where they can live safely.

        My suggestion would be make sure you have solar power and ( well hidden ) water tanks at a minimum.

        When the power sthat be want to cerash the economy, imagine what happens when the food isnt distributed?

        Somalia in the UK/USA/Oz…..

        90

      • #
        tom0mason

        They may have also noticed that during the first six months of 2014, 427,000 people emigrated from Germany – an increase of 22 percent over 2013 for the same period.
        Makes you wonder why? Prices getting too high? Maybe.

        Still Germans will be relieved to learn that they received some 667,000 people migrated to Germany in the first half of 2014 – some 112,000 more than in the same period a year earlier.

        From : http://www.dw.de/germany-sees-net-migration-increase-in-2014/a-18268266

        30

    • #
      Dennis

      The collective heads of the governments run by leftists who claim to be the protectors of social justice.

      80

  • #
    Pat Frank

    Seventy years after the end of WWII, Germany self-imposes the Morgenthau plan.

    190

  • #
    tom0mason

    This is what happens when the Greenie Blob politics’ drags your country through the greenwash mire.
    The Greens attempt to fix what is not broken (climate) by breaking that which works (nuclear and fossil fuel power generation)

    Be warned!
    :twisted: The future is Green when the technology is Medieval! :evil:

    310

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Problem is the greens also have a pagan / occult medaevil view of “justice” and equal imposition of misery, too…..

      110

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Kermit was right. It’s not easy being green.

    140

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Oh it is very easy to be green at someone else’s expense and sacrifice. Why, one map even prosper and get rich as a 1%er. Gore, etc. are quite happy with their ill gotten gains.

      140

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Götterdamerung is proceeding as planned…..:o)

    80

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    “Heute Deutschland, Morgen die Welt.”

    100

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    Similar things are happening in the UK, for similar reasons. Scotland’s largest coal plant is shutting early. Eon is shutting a major newish CCGT plant. Neither is economic when forced to to cycle rather than run baseload. Taking out nearly 3GW of dispatchable capacity from a system already running on dangerously low reserve margins. It will probavly take a few calamatois blackout events to bring general awareness of the Energiewende folly.

    261

  • #

    Benny Peiser is effectively showing that the real cost of energy costs is hidden from the public. About 18 months ago I tried to estimate the cost of green energy after the British Labour Party vowed to freeze energy bills if elected. They inferred it was all down to the rising profits of the energy companies. Through looking at four years of accounts for the big 6 energy providers and electricity generators was the opposite. It was the hidden costs of renewables – both the subsidies and the increased costs of the grid – that were responsible for a 30% rise in bills in just four years.
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/12/18/labours-hypocrisy-on-rising-energy-bills/
    One impact of freezing bills will be to reduce the profits of the large energy companies, but will fail to stop the rise in renewables. A Labour Government could end up bailing out the distributors (or nationalizing them) whilst supporting the extraordinary profits enjoyed by the renewables companies. The state rigging the market in favour of business and against the mass of people used to be called corporatism, but in modern Britain goes under the guise of Socialism.

    340

  • #
    tom0mason

    The German green energy assimilation advances in a quest for perceived perfection. Unfortunately as reported at No Tricks Zone the assimilation is faltering.

    Fred F. Mueller at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)writes about how the storm that swept across Europe in late March exposed the lies of the German Energiewende (transition to renewable energies).

    With the current rate of growth in renewable energy installations, Mueller writes that it’s just a question of time before the grid gets overloaded just by the renewable energies under certain weather conditions and that it will no longer be possible to dump the surplus uncontrollably fed in power into neighboring power markets.

    The comments, especially from those living in the area, are very revealing.

    ¯
    Also of note is Germany’s Green energy revolution (Energiewende), finds that when it comes to green energy the lack of load resistance proves futile. . Something else to contend with, as the Dane’s Green energy assimilation gives both Green hive collectives problems when trying to unload excess energy.

    Green energy – Where the whole is worth less than the sum of its parts.

    50

  • #
    Ruairi

    Germany short of electricity,
    Would generate adverse publicity,
    When cometh the hour,
    All those without power,
    Would blame it on warmist complicity.

    361

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Germany has really dropped the ball on this one, it’s not the usual German way to show superior technology by self destruction, even the Third Reich used coal and hydro power in the last display of strength, solar and wind will be such easy targets for their enemies and the “Renewable Busters” just doesn’t have the same panache……/sarc.

    140

  • #
    F. Ross

    To feel or not to feel: Schadenfreude from unintended consequences.

    90

    • #
      ianl8888

      I think that the feelings of Schadenfreude actually come from the fact that, as unintended as the consequences may be, they were NOT unpredictable – as many, many people have pointed out for years now

      110

    • #
      Dariusz

      “800,000 poor people had their power cut off because they can’t pay their bills.”
      Talking about “unintended” consequences. How many people have died as a result of this green genocide? What can you do when you find your loved one frozen to death in their house? Who would be responsible for such a atrocity?
      If a high school child can take the US state government to court demanding compensation for not providing the clean air ie not doing enough for climate change crap, then why families of the frozen to death victims should not accuse the German state of murder?
      Why murder charge? because it was not unintended. The state knew that their policies would lead to death and hence this classifies as a premeditated murder.
      Once precedence takes place it can be applied to not only the state but individuals like the greens for advocating murder.

      80

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        I believe the original report said “as many as 800,000.” The actual figure may be either unobtainable or somewhat lower.

        00

  • #
    Mikky

    A major problem in Europe is coalition governments, few (no?) other parts of the world are so burdened. Guess who is everyone’s favourite coalition partner after elections? Yes, those cuddly greens (aka Lib-dems in the UK), everybody cares about the environment, what could possibly go wrong?

    What goes wrong is that greens insist on being in control of that minor thing, energy production. I can’t see their grip on it being loosened any time soon. What is required is an anti-green party to grow to the point where the greens are no longer needed to get a majority.

    270

    • #
      Mikky

      The other solution is to kick politicians out of energy production, what does it have to do with politics anyway? Turkeys don’t vote for christmas, so some kind of revolution is needed, I’d like to see power stations get together and declare UDI, politicians could decide between windmills under their control or what would be on offer from the power stations.

      140

  • #
    handjive

    German backlash grows against coal power clampdown
    April 15, 2015, theguardian:

    “If politicians carry on as they do now then there will be no new, modern power stations.”
    . . .
    Good luck with that.

    110

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yes well when you see the hari-kiri imposed by the germans on themselves, good thing all govts around the world have been making the police into true para-military outfits…

      This is the smoking gun about a planned economic collapse – you dont arm your cops to the teeth and train them to be an occupation force unless you will need it.

      And then if the cops cant cope, you call in the UN…..dont laugh, it will happen. And as Stalin leaned, use foreign tropps becasue they WILL shoot the locals to maintain control….

      110

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        The Copenhagen agreement, when read closely, called for creation of armed forces to deal with uncooperative nations. “There will be consequences…”

        30

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Can’t wait for it to happen here….not. If Christine Milne gets her way we’ll be doing just that. At least it’s warm here.

    130

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    The government or some entity it creates will eventually own the production of base load for the grid. The companies are out in front of this trend, see:
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/e-on-se-to-split-into-two-companies-1417388121

    or here:
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/11/eon-reports-record-group-losses-hive-off-fossil-fuel-business-german

    The idea is to split the company and give it to existing shareholders. The smart-money folks will figure out how to profit from this. Inattentive shareholders will likely miss this and wake one day to find their investment near worthless. Finally, the non-profitable but necessary base load properties will be taken over by the government – to be operated at a loss.

    30

  • #
    tom0mason

    I note I am again in moderation. Ho-humm!

    10

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    When wind (and solar) work surplus electricity becomes available. By law it must be used. So the grid regulators have to chop the price to get it used.

    The huge surge in installations has meant that there is too much available to be used in Germany so it is ‘exported’ to other countries. There are 2 problems; firstly Denmark, France and Sweden are or have recently added more wind capacity, and secondly, many of the intended users don’t want it despite the price.

    Poland and the Czech Republic are both installing phase shifting transformers on their inter-connecters to prevent surges in supply disrupting their black coal or nuclear operations.
    Norway has, at times, demanded to be paid to take the surplus. And the general slow economy means less demand anyway.

    Incredibly the Greens think this is good news. They cannot connect their rising electricity bills with the increase in “renewables” – all they see is conventional producers going out of business and they think(?) they will soon get fully green electricity. They won’t, because “renewables” MUST have a regular supply from the grid.

    The fallout from this will be rapid. Already Germany is having minor blackouts, but the first major one will cause anger and questioning from the hitherto passive mass of voters. The scramble for cover by the politicians will see green subsidies reduced or cancelled (as in Spain) and the closure of the majority of the wind farms. The panic will spread across Europe and it is a pity that the UK has an election next month so the same old useless sods will get back in. They had better stitch up a solid coalition as another election next year would drastically change the face of UK politics.

    180

  • #

    [quote name="solvingtornadoes"]You have to about be slow witted to believe that steam (the gaseous form of H2O) can exist at temperatures below its boiling point. [/quote]

    This opportunity was too great to pass by! The self proclaimed Atmospheric Physicist, James McGuinn, a.k.a. solvingtornadoes, a,k,a, Claudius Denk, has on this thread demonstrated has not even a high school education. Also Denk refuses to indicate any consistent meaning or consistent difference in meaning of such words (phrases) as:
    Power,
    Energy,
    Heating.
    Cooling.
    RadiateRadiates
    Radiating

    Steam.
    Water.
    Ice.
    Ice crystals.
    Snow.
    Water vapor.
    Boiling.
    Evaporating.
    Condensing.
    Solidifying.
    Subliming.
    Latent heat.
    Sensible heat.

    [quote]

    Meteorologists don’t actually even believe this. Like AGW advocates, they just refuse to scrutinize it because their models require it. The somewhat parallel notions that storms are caused by “latent heat” or convection are also rather obvious BS, neither ever having been tested.

    http://solvingtornadoes.com/2014/08/29/the-fourth-phase-of-water/

    There are very few real scientists in the atmospheric sciences. I am one of the extremely rare exceptions:
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

    It’s strangely typical for science groupies, like Joel Shore, to have formed steadfast beliefs for notions for which they have zero supporting evidence and for which they never even put two minutes of thought before they declare victory for a fight they’ve never fought and that has never been contested by anybody.

    Science groupies are ruining the atmospheric sciences by clogging it up with endless political nonsense.

    Where Do Winds Come From?
    http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-winds-in-the-atmosphere-and-how-are-these-winds-formed/answer/James-McGinn-4/quote

    52

    • #

      Sorry JoAnne,
      Using your site for composing.
      Can I blame it on the Kitten?
      Please delete :-)

      60

    • #
      ghl

      Please Will. do not direct any attention to “Solvingtornados”.
      I am interested in any physics based discussion, so I started reading. I finished at top skim speed just in case he got to the point in the last paragraph. FYI he does not. Content free. Bloviation. Avoid at all costs.
      I feel I took one for the team.
      You’re welcome.

      50

  • #
    Dennis

    Meanwhile in Victoria Australia the new Andrews Union Labor Government is planning for new wind turbine farms to save the climate from warming. Victoria saves South Australia, a wind turbine stronghold, from blackouts every time grid electricity demand exceeds supply, every time hot weather occurs.

    151

    • #
      toorightmate

      I have it on good authority that if Victoria installs a couple more wind farms, then Victoria will run out of wind.

      160

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I wonder if “peak wind” will sound like an F-sharp?, I’m thinking the “Brown Note” is more likely.

        60

      • #
        Alan McIntire

        You may think you’re kidding, but there’s a kernel of truth in that “running out of wind” statement.

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-farms-could-affect-earths-energy-balance.html#.VS_A4jHF9t0

        “Using a model of global circulation, Kleidon found that the amount of energy which we can expect to harness from the wind is reduced by a factor of 100 if you take into account the depletion of free energy by wind farms. It remains theoretically possible to extract up to 70 TW globally, but doing so would have serious consequences.

        Although the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon’s model changed precipitation, turbulence and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide “

        50

  • #
  • #
    manalive

    Germany — is aiming for a 40% cut in carbon by 2020, and have “led the way” with solar and wind power …

    Solar and wind cannot supply base-load power, that’s not ideology it’s common sense.

    260

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      “baseload” is an outdated concept invented to excuse the inability of coal-fired power to be load-following.

      Nobody is investing in coal, it’s a dying industry, demand is falling and oversupply is already here.

      247

      • #

        Oh Craig,

        thanks so much for this.

        See how people like this still use that word as an adjective, and not as the noun, the ABSOLUTE requirement for 24 hour power supply.

        So then, tell me, if 66% of every watt of power being generated is required for the full 24 hours of every day, what would you refer to that as then.

        That’s not power generation.

        It’s actual CONSUMPTION.

        24 hours of every day, 7 days of every week, and 365 days of every year.

        An ABSOLUTE physical requirement to have that power there no matter what.

        Craig, open mouth, change feet.

        Tony.

        360

        • #

          Tony
          You may like to see the Trove link below. Craig seems to be mixing up Baseload(minimum continuous power requirement) and base cost. Before we get to that I would like Craig to tell us all how well solar panels go at “load-following” especially at night. Also how well wind turbines go at “load-following” especially when there is no wind.
          .
          .
          The Sydney Morning Herald Wednesday 7 July 1926 page 14.

          “The price of power to the public depends upon the measure of continuity obtained in the working of the generating plant at its maximum capacity. That is to say, if a generating station is able to operate at full output continuously, then the cost per unit of power developed will be the minimum possible. Irrespective of the output of a plant, the overhead expenses continue, and are as great when the plant is idle as when it is working at full capacity. If it costs £10 to generate 100 kilowatts over a period of eight hours so far as overhead charges are concerned it will not cost a penny more to generate three times that output over a spread of 24 hours. Thus the basic essential of efficient operation is the obtainment of a maximum demand uniform throughout the day. Capital charges govern the cost of power, and they can only be reduced by increasing the number of hours during which the plant operates at full capacity. Bold mine

          So the final question is how much per kiloWatt hour does solar cost at night and wind cost in still air?

          50

      • #
        manalive

        Base-load, load-following, peaking plants, whatever is the most efficient and economical without subsidy from government or traditional energy source consumers.

        Nobody is investing in coal? Coal is a dying industry? Demand is falling and oversupply is already here?
        I don’t think so:

        Coal will be a “necessary part of the energy mix for decades to come,” de Boer said on the sidelines of a sustainable cities conference in Seoul.
        The polluting but cheap fuel is a “logical choice” for emerging economies like India, China and South Africa.
        “You really have to be able to offer these countries an economically viable alternative, before you begin to rule out coal,” he said.

        Link.

        210

      • #
        Alan

        “Nobody is investing in coal, it’s a dying industry, demand is falling and oversupply is already here”

        Craig you had better tell the International Energy Agency (IEA)about that.
        “Global demand for coal over the next five years will continue marching higher, breaking the 9-billion-tonne level by 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report released today. (15 Dec 2014).
        That’s up from the current level of approx. of 7.8 Bt of which China produces around 3.6 Bt

        230

      • #
        pattoh

        & while you are at it Craig have a think about the increase in hydrocarbon consumption :-

        During the past decade China accounted for over 90% of the increase in global oil consumption.”

        http://kingworldnews.com/this-major-market-just-experienced-the-equivalent-of-a-black-swan-event/

        You probably think IC engines are “so yesterday “too………….

        Next time you have a bowl of cereal, ask yourself how it got to your cupboard ( & choose one with plenty of fibre, I think you need it)

        170

      • #
        toorightmate

        Do not believe everything you see in Bloomberg. They even consider Hillary Crook to be a nice person.

        70

      • #
        James Bradley

        Craig,

        Actually:

        “baseload” is a concept used to excuse the inability of renewable power to be load-following.

        The Guardian, Industry Super Funds and many climate groups are heavily investing in coal, it’s the green climate change uni funds that invested in renewables where demand is falling and they blew their member’s investments out the window..

        71

      • #
        tom0mason

        Explain your term “load-following” as supplying electricity requirements are for “instant on” not “wait till I catch-up with the load requirement”.
        I assume that in your system of “load-following” a large degree of precognition is a basic requirement.

        10

  • #
    llew Jones

    When the hypocrite Merkel was in Australia she had a go at Abbott’s championing of coal along the lines “CO2 pollution” doesn’t stay in the Pacific region.

    Here’s her Germany’s reality:

    “A Snapshot of Germany’s Electricity Mix: Solar Capacity Reigns, but Coal Generation Sustains.”

    “…..2. But when considering yearly electricity production, coal is still winning out over everything….”

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germanys-energy-transition-explained-in-6-charts

    140

  • #
    Neville

    Here is Judith Curry’s presentation today before the house of Reps in the USA.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#more-18358

    100

  • #
    Robdel

    I have little sympathy for the germans. Self inflicted wounds which might prove fatal.

    80

  • #
    Ross

    Didn’t Hitler rise to power on the back of an economic collapse ?

    160

    • #

      well done

      As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

      I am glad I looked this up because for some reason I thought it pertained to online debate or disagreement but it is just “discussion”. So Godwin’s law applies here even though you all furiously agree.

      btw… I know that German electricity policy is very important for understanding the complexity of climate, but nonetheless are any of the hundreds of research papers released in the last few months not worthy of any sort of discussion. Are they all too low key or incremental? Has nothing come out this year at all that the readership wants to discuss or argue 9with or without Hitler)? Perhaps there is a paper or 2 that make the direct link between rising CO2 and surface temperature? Or maybe not.

      218

      • #

        Just imagine Gee Aye,

        it’s all fine and dandy to discuss the Science ad infinitum, and that is exactly what is happening virtually everywhere else.

        Ever so occasionally, some people like to point out the END RESULT of what all that Science talk leads ultimately to, because THIS is that end result, discussion assiduously avoided by all those concentrating on ‘The Science’, mainly because they have no clue what it actually does lead to.

        Without access to constant and reliable electrical power, they can discuss the Science all they like.

        No one will ever know, because they will have no electrical power that will enable communication of the Science on the scale they have now.

        Tony.

        280

        • #

          Tony science is a mechanism to understanding, it does not lead to something unless someone interprets the results of science (note not science itself) and makes decisions based on those results. As said many times before, there is a debate about the climate and yet you and Jo discuss social issues arising that assume that the debate is settled in a particular way. You’ve come to your end result without filling in the middle bits.

          523

          • #
            James Bradley

            Gee Aye,

            Science may be a mechanism to understanding, but climate science is a propaganda tool for political advantage.

            The middle bits don’t matter in climate science.

            In climate science, the end justifies the means.

            The analogy to Hitler’s Reich is accurate.

            Climate science is to the IPCC as eugenics is to the Third Reich.

            90

          • #
            Ross

            Gee Aye

            I would not mind it being limited to a scientific debate if it was just that. But the debate is well passed science and the activist scientists, politicians, some NGOs and the UN have taken well into the political and policy areas. Most importantly there are countries like the UK , for example, that have effectively wrecked the Energy Policies ( and are beginning to wreck their energy infrastructure) because of this “science debate”.

            So your comment ” yet you and Jo discuss social issues arising that assume that the debate is settled in a particular way” —these social issues are there right in front of us , right now.

            30

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Gee Aye,

            Tony science is a mechanism to understanding comprehension, it does not lead to something unless someone interprets the results of science (note not science itself) and makes decisions based on those results.

            This is something which everyone here can agree on. And I’m now going to defend your statement.

            Science, in the sense that you’ve used it, is in fact just a tool for us humans to comprehend the world we live in. Science, in the sense that you’ve used it, allows us to interpret all of the phenomenon that we observe. So, in this context, your statement makes perfect sense.

            As said many times before, there is a debate about the climate and yet you and Jo discuss [the] social issues arising [from the science, as defined in your previous statement] that assume that the debate is settled in a particular way.

            This too, is something which everyone here can agree on, to an exient. And I’m now going to defend your statement, also to an extent.

            To the extent that science is just a tool for comprehending or surroundings, there should be no discussion about the political and social issues that may derive from the science.

            BUT . . .

            In the real world, the one in which these discussions about the science are actually taking place, science is no longer understood to reside within the narrow confines of the definition employed in your statements. Let me explain.

            You and I, and Tony and Jo, were brought up in a world where science, by definition, did not involve political and social issues. The application of science by way of the scientific method, was never meant to ‘tell us what to do’. On the other hand, Climatology today, is practiced under different rules than the ones in which all science was once practiced. The ‘new’ rules now include, among other things, the applcation of The Precautionary Principle to the uncertainties inherent in the results obtained from scientific investigation.

            The Precautionary Principle is, by it’s very nature, a political and social construct, not a scientific one. As you may well know, when we apply this principle, what we’re doing is assigning ‘actions to be taken’ to scientific outcomes when those outcomes are not completely understood.

            The argument they propose is: “If the sience is right we should do this, if the science is wrong, we should do that. We don’t know, with certainty, that the science is right, but we accept that the science is only %90 right or %95 right and so, based on that assumption, we proceed to ‘take specific actions’.”

            Not only has it been shown that the percentages aren’t accurate, (the likelihood of their being right is %50 or less), but the actions being implemented are based on them being %100 right and those actions will most likely not have the desired effect even if they were %100 right. Please read this last paragraph again. A few times. This paragraph holds the key to the whole debate.

            This ‘new’ type of science is called post-modern science. Your statements are correct, but only to the extent that they apply to the practice of science as we learned it should be practiced when we were growing up.

            This is why your conclusion:

            You’ve come to your end result without filling in the middle bits.

            . . . is only partially correct. If this were common core math and you said 2 + 2 = 5, you would get partial credit if you ‘show your work’. In real math you would just be wrong.

            This is why everyone disagrees with your comment, but I gave you a positive click. (I’m really bugged by the fact that the thumbs up is green, btw.) ;)

            .

            Climatologists have ‘set the rules’ by applying post-modern pseudo-science to an area of enquiry that should strictly be within the realm of the hard sciences.

            In order for skeptics to get the message out about what’s really happening in climate science, we need to show how the policies that have been ‘wed’ to the science are inapropriate, and in most case harmful, as well as showing where the science is right and where it’s clearly wrong. We need to do both because that’s the way they’ve constructed the discussion.

            Abe

            100

            • #
              Annie

              Well put JAG.

              Perhaps the thumbs up could be blue?! :0

              30

            • #

              JaG

              I appreciate your comments and the effort you put into them. I have no problems with where your emphasis lies versus mine. It is a reasonable position to take even if i don’t agree. Also, “comprehension” is much better than “understanding” and I am sure if I was reviewing my own text, rather than rushing for publication, I would have made a similar correction.

              I think you are raising a similar point to Dave who’s syntax confused me – maybe James was trying to say similar but got lost trying to state stupid rhetoric about propaganda tools (of whom there are many). Even so, complaining about a particular downstream affect of “climate action” (you name your definition of this- there are many) when you believe that the reasons for that action are faulty is treating the symptoms and not the cause. If you can show that the climate science is a problem – which you think you have done but haven’t – then you treat the cause and stop the downstream misadventures.

              It is Jo’s blog and can write about what she wants, but I am also free to make my critique and she allows me to make it on her site, is that the balance of her blogs is tipped too much towards the response. I find this particularly odd since science is producing publications and new (not just incremental) findings at a rate that is much faster than any downstream political decisions.

              10

              • #

                Gee Aye, thanks. I’m grateful for your critiques, because you are one of the few rare defenders who is able to be both polite and rational.

                That said, I struggle to understand your point here.

                is that the balance of her blogs is tipped too much towards the response. I find this particularly odd since science is producing publications and new (not just incremental) findings at a rate that is much faster than any downstream political decisions.

                Do you mean that if we disagree that CO2 causes large climate change then we should not also discuss the “response” to reduce CO2?

                There are many reasons to do so: One we hope to stop governments pouring money into pointless pursuits. (Can you defend the idea that windmills will stop storms, or solar panels reduce floods?) The second reason is to expose the disconnect of the green sector. They say they want to help the environment, but they show no interest in the outcome of their actions. When it hurts the environment, few of them care. When someone explains how to make their enviro dollar more effective to achieve what they “say” they want to achieve, they attack him. This debate is not about the environment, nor about the poor, or the climate.

                As for “science” producing publications, I fear you are tripped up by inaccurate language. Science is a method, it (hopefully) produces nothing more than predictions. And when judged this way, the modern incarnation of climate “science” has been a dismal failure.

                The number of publications is a mere artefact of massive funding not an insight into nature.

                60

              • #

                Jo it looks like you’ve opened a whole thread that this discussion fits much better in.

                Regarding the bulk of what you wrote – you stated your opinion, it is different to mine (as above), and I think I’ll leave it at that. My view is unchanged.

                More a worry is that your view on the science seems unchangeable and you have a funny habit of labeling science that you agree with as sceptical and the rest as not. You might have picked up that I am probably the only luke warmer who contributes to this blog to admit as much, and I am very luke warm about many aspects of the response.

                So what research are you aware of that has been published in the last 4 months?

                01

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                A new post on WUWT has a great deal to say about whether it is “science” or politics.
                Note that in Canada, many utilities are publicly owned, so governments spend bundles to satiate the green blob.
                A former energy minister, Christine Stewart, once commented that it didn’t matter whether the CO2 hypthesis were nonsense or not, because it is all about the advancement of progressive ideology (or words to that effect).
                In this post Tim describe the rort in which the taxpayer is gouged to pay for something which the immediate players understand to be nonsense.
                The Province of Ontario, a few decades ago the flag bearer for efficient energy production from hydro, coal, nuclear, and gas has in the past decade usurped billions from the electricity customers which goes into the bulging bank accounts of the wind companies. At one time the 8 GW Darlington power station on Lake Ontario was the largest generating facility in the world. Canada’s nuclear power stations use the CANDU reactor which requires heavy water, and the heavy water plants in the Bruce Peninsula and on Cape Breton Island were part of that infrastructure. An this has bee foresaken for WIND???? To what end, pray tell? Who can say this is science?

                00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              My simple mind likes to look for simple patterns.

              I see Science as being nothing more than a process of understanding and defining how the universe works, within the capabilities of our observation and measurement systems, and to the extent of our intellectual ability, in interpreting those observations and measurements.

              I see Politics as being nothing more than a process of defining how the world should be organised, from a specific view point, and then creating a mechanism to move society from where is currently is, to that defined state.

              The first pattern, does not take politics into account. The second pattern has no room for science, except as an excuse, and a justification for the political mechanism chosen. To that end, science simply becomes whatever politics wants it to be, today.

              50

              • #
                Jon

                Religion and ideology are much of the same. Both are human made ideas. And their main purpose is to satisfy human needs and instincts that Life does not.

                00

        • #
          tom0mason

          TonyfromOz & Gee Aye
          ¯
          IMHO and in broad terms -
          Science is about investigating probabilities, it’s in the main, an intellectual pursuit.
          Engineering is about investigating possibilities, it’s a practical pursuit.

          Obviously getting reliable 24/7 electricity to the public is an engineering field. That said, in this modern life, it is not something we function well with if it is only supplied on a probable basis — like a windfarms’ output.

          200

      • #
        handjive

        Here is one!

        Allegedly non-existent hiatus lowers CO2 sensitivity by 0.3 C (3,000 KXLs at .0001C/yr)

        Nature Climate Change (2015) doi:10.1038/nclimate2573
        Received 09 September 2014 Accepted 03 February 2015 Published online 30 March 2015 Corrected online 14 April 2015

        Wait!

        The global warming ‘pause’ is more politics than science
        DANA NUCCITELLI AND MICHAEL MANN
        8 APR 2015, ABC Environment
        “As discussed in a new book by one of us (Dana Nuccitelli) Climatology versus Pseudoscience, research has shown that much of the heat buildup during that time was deposited in the deep layers of the Earth’s oceans, temporarily keeping it from the surface.”

        But, but …

        October, 2014, news24: Lack of ocean heat puzzles Nasa

        “Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.

        But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 “found the ocean abyss below 1 995m has not warmed measurably,” Nasa said in a statement.”
        ~ ~ ~
        Bonus link: 4 hiroshimabombs per second debunked 2013
        Appearances by both Cook & Nuccitelli in comments@link.

        111

        • #

          HJ,as I noted above, this is not a thread to debate the science of climate change.

          Here is another paper for another thread http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          216

          • #
            Dave

            .

            GeeAye

            Garbage mate, absolute garbage

            It IS ALL ABOUT the Science of Climate Change!

            The paper you quoted:
            From your source

            These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance

            Well, this has nothing to do with German Electricity prices?

            Can’t you see results of such highly valuable papers such as you quoted, has had an influence on the sources now being utilitised to generate electricity.

            The debate on electricity generation today HAS everything to do with

            “THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE”

            If you can’t see that this article by Jo and responses by the various people above, is not about the science of climate change and how it affects me, Germany, France, etc

            Then I think you may need to reread from the 1st article Jo has submitted.

            81

            • #
              Gee Aye

              Dave. It is probably me and I am not taking the [snip] for once but, I don’t understand your comment.

              [Please keep terminology a little higher than the gutter. Thanks.] AZ

              19

              • #
                Dave

                .

                That’s Understandable GeeAye

                21

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Apologies AZ

                Dave that did not help but I suspect that my interest in contributing on topic probably means I will answer off topic whether I understand your point or not.

                17

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Has nothing come out this year at all that the readership wants to discuss or argue (with or without Hitler)?

        The Fourth Reich has been bandied about a bit, along the lines of where Bismarck and Hitler failed, but as we all know, correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

        Nevertheless, there is a cooling trend in Germany and if Merkel doesn’t wake up soon, the poor will be burning books to keep warm.

        171

        • #

          pretending this is a serious comment and not another stupid nazi reference…

          The poor wont be burning books unless they are stealing them.

          115

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Thousands of them are stealing wood to burn and keep warm. Something to do with the high price of electricity?
            German foresters are having to move chopped logs into locked sheds to dry.

            200

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘…and not another stupid nazi reference…’

            Not particularly, the pensioners in England burned their books in the terrible winter of 2010-11.

            170

          • #
        • #
          Glen Michel

          Don’t go too hard on OTTO as he was a fine diplomat and had he been around ww1 might not have occurred

          90

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        The axiom should read:

        As the Socialist-driven global warming hoax grows longer, the probability of a putative solution involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

        (S)he’s coming. No funny moustache, this time.

        00

      • #
        Tel

        As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

        It’s a disguised tautology. Godwin once long ago thought he was teaching people about logic and rational thought.

        As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving either asparagus or tuna fish approaches 1.

        20

  • #
    Bulldust

    Dr Karl adds to his political stunt by saying he will donate IGR payments he receives to needy schools:

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/deep-regret-dr-karl-kruszelnicki-to-hand-over-intergenerational-report-pay-20150415-1mm3i0.html

    Does he not see the irony that he is becoming just as political as the report he took money for, but now chastises publicly? What’s next? Will he suddenly decide to donate more, because the IGR fund donation is a tax write off and therefore saves him in taxes? Perhaps that will result in a third media cycle on the same story. Apparently his celebrity opinion is more important than the entire Government’s…

    Lost.All.Respect.

    71

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      He’s clown in a polka dot shirt.

      He’s only missing a green muzzle and big red nose.

      Oops. No. That’s only half right.

      The greens muzzled him, didn’t they.

      90

      • #
        Glen Michel

        I can only agree sceptical Sam. The man is a preposterous twit.A talking head in the true term. As for his starry eyed myrmidons of the effete left….

        40

    • #
      Alan

      The thing I find humorous about the whole Kruselnicki event is that he admits he didn’t read the whole report before shooting off at the mouth. Does make you wonder if this is what he does with all his science reporting :)

      50

    • #
      GMac

      I have a serious report to give,I know,I’ll wear a shirt with red polka dots and bright yellow pants.
      What was the govt thinking about hiring him for the gig,and who the hell did he think he was doing the job for,Greenpeace?

      60

  • #
    Fred

    I notice that Forb’s makes a reference to windmills slowing the wind and thus decreasing the efficiency,has any study ever checked to see if the slowing of the wind in big wind farms alters the ecology of other areas as the saying goes a butterfly flaps it’s wings ect or if big solar farms affect the earths temperature. There must be a good lawyer out there who could make a case for one country affecting another country’s weather could be billions up for grab’s.

    90

  • #
    Senex

    Meanwhile, in the Canadian province of Ontario, it’s full speed ahead with wind and solar subsidies, with electricity rates skyrocketing just like in Germany. And to make it worse, the government announced a “cap and trade” agreement – I mean rortfest – with Quebec and California this week.

    80

    • #
      Bill

      Yeah, disgusting. And here in BC we’ve had the nonsense carbon tax for over 2 years and that scam doesn’t do a single usefull thing.

      20

  • #
    handjive

    For decades, the low- and medium-voltage networks that bring power into people’s homes were low-tech, one-directional cables.

    “If we want more renewables, we need smarter grids,” said Joao Torres, CEO of Portugal’s EDP Distribuicao and head of the distribution system operators’ lobby group EDSO.

    Power grid operators aim to get smart as Europe turns green (reuters)
    . . .
    What a terrible ‘business model’.
    Bound to fail from the start.

    By the time they build the ‘smart grids’, household solar will be redundant, economies broke.

    40

  • #

    From Joanne’s text: (my bolding)

    The lack of reliability is also a problem. Examining data for 2014, German researcher Rolf Schuster reports, “Wind energy is extremely volatile. During some quarter-hour periods, the roughly 25,000 turbines [in Germany] indeed delivered a lot of power. But at other times they delivered practically nothing.” Schuster concluded on average Germany’s 25,000 wind turbines operated at 14.8 percent of their rated capacity in 2014, averaging less than 6,000 Mw of their nearly 40,000 Mw capacity.

    While ever people think that electricity just comes out of ‘the hole in the wall’, this Capacity Factor will be an impossible thing for them to grasp.

    Think of it like this.

    You have two Mercedes Benz cars, one is the traditional version, and the second is the wind power equivalent Mercedes Benz.

    The wind power equivalent Benz will still operate like a normal Benz, but will only ever get you to your destination one time in seven trips. (around that figure of 14.8%)

    How many wind equivalent Benzes do you think would be purchased after that news got out.

    Tony.

    211

    • #
      Bulldust

      If people insist on renewables despite their inefficiencies, why aren’t they taking a more pragmatic approach. Use renewables for peaking energy demand purposes through elevated water storage, or somesuch, and let the fossil fuel baseload generators work as intended. For occasions when the peaking storage is depleted go to your neighbours cap in hand. Surely that is better than ramping fossil fuel-generators up and down all the time.

      Here’s hoping I live to see viable fusion which would put an end to all the debate.

      90

      • #
        ROM

        The UK and the Swedes and Norwegians plus quite a lot in Germany have pumped storage systems. But they are very, very costly to build and only provide a few hours of power which usually runs out when a big winter windless high pressure sets in for a week or two over NW Europe, just when the maximum electrical power output is demanded as the winter cold gets those heaters fired up.

        Pump up the storage
        The main problem with gravitational storage is that it is incredibly weak compared to chemical, compressed air, or flywheel techniques (see the post on home energy storage options). For example, to get the amount of energy stored in a single AA battery, we would have to lift 100 kg (220 lb) 10 m (33 ft) to match it. To match the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, we would have to lift 13 tons of water (3500 gallons) one kilometer high (3,280 feet). It is clear that the energy density of gravitational storage is severely disadvantaged.

        What we lack in energy density, we make up in volume. Lakes of water behind dams, for instance represent substantial storage.

        [ / ]

        Quite a lot of the public, maybe almost all of them don’t realise that the efficiencies of a wind turbine are limited by the Betz’s Law to extracting an absolute maximum of 59.3% of the energy in any wind speed.

        For an extreme and theoretical scenario ; To extract 100% of the energy in a wind stream would mean that you could have a 50KPH wind blowing but behind the turbine disc it would be absolutely still with no air movement.
        Therefore there could be no further flow of air through the turbine disc.

        [ quoted ]
        Betz’s law calculates the maximum power that can be extracted from the wind, independent of the design of a wind turbine in open flow. It was published in 1919, by the German physicist Albert Betz.[1] The law is derived from the principles of conservation of mass and momentum of the air stream flowing through an idealized “actuator disk” that extracts energy from the wind stream. According to Betz’s law, no turbine can capture more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy in wind. The factor 16/27 (0.593) is known as Betz’s coefficient. Practical utility-scale wind turbines achieve at peak 75% to 80% of the Betz limit.[2][3]
        &

        Betz’ Law applies to all Newtonian fluids, but this article will use wind as an example.
        Consider that if all of the energy coming from wind movement through a turbine was extracted as useful energy the wind speed afterwards would drop to zero. If the wind stopped moving at the exit of the turbine, then no more fresh wind could get in – it would be blocked. In order to keep the wind moving through the turbine there has to be some wind movement, however small, on the other side with a wind speed greater than zero. Betz’ law shows that as air flows through a certain area, and when it slows from losing energy to extraction from a turbine, it must spread out to a wider area. As a result geometry limits any turbine efficiency to 59.3%.

        [ / ]
        .
        There is a lot more to wind turbine design and wind farm design than the wind activists are prepared to admit and I suspect totally fail to understand despite their loud mouthed and basically ignorant support of wind power.

        Atmospheric and Wake Turbulence Impacts on Wind Turbine Fatigue Loadings

        Abstract
        Large-eddy simulations of atmospheric boundary layers under various stability and surface roughness conditions are performed to investigate the turbulence impact on wind turbines.
        In particular, the aeroelastic responses of the turbines are studied to characterize the fatigue loading of the turbulence present in the boundary layer and in the wake of the turbines.
        Two utility-scale 5-MW turbines that are separated by seven rotor diameters are placed in a 3 km by 3 km by 1 km domain. They are subjected to atmospheric turbulent boundary layer flow and data is collected on the structural response of the turbine components.
        The surface roughness was found to increase the fatigue loads while the atmospheric instability had a small influence.
        Furthermore, the downstream turbines yielded higher fatigue loads indicating that the turbulent wakes generated from the upstream turbines have significant impact.

        [ / ]

        Comment;
        The single main failure of wind turbines is blade failure where blades fail and then get thrown a half a kilometre or more away from the turbine when it is operating in high wind conditions.
        The second main documented failure of wind turbines is nacelle fires. the nacelles are closely packed with electrical machinery and wiring, lots of oils and plastic to burn and enormous bearings to run hot and / or fail and all located a hundred metres up where it is impossible to control the fire so it just keeps right on burning until the whole nacelle fails and topples to the ground.

        The flaming embers of a nacelle fire can be carried at least three kilometres downwind which will make life very interesting for the rural fire fighters and the rural people who are now forced to live through no choice of their own in close vicinity of those burning turbines and who will be expected to fight a fire over many kilometres that is constanrly relt for some hours as the nacelle burns itself out .

        As it is believed that only about 10% of the turbine fires are actually reported to the authorities.
        imagine the end result if one of those turbines set very close to or even within a forested area lit up from a lightning strike, a well catalogued starter of turbine fires, on one of those strong, stinking hot north wind days.
        And it will happen as more turbines are built in ever more stupid locations to get the best wind outcomes.

        Our politicals and wind energy pushers have to be stark raving mad to ever even believe that wind energy is of any benefit let alone being “free”.
        But the politicals being no doubt good politicians but as dumb as horse sh-t about the reality of the world outside of politics plus the sheer greed of the wind investors to scam as much money as they can from the tax payers wil always lead to the people out there having to bear the burden and suffer just so that thesae other unmentionables can make themselves wealthier and to give a nice warm felling to the saving the planet green whackos who couldn’t give a damn that their favorite fix for the planet is somebody else’s suffering and possibly their death sentence as we are seeing now amongst the elderly in Germany and the UK AND here in Australia;

        What does fuel poverty mean in Australia;


        Term used loosely by media and business

        Climate considerations different in Australia

        AGL Economic think tank paper redefines fuel poverty

        AGL Definition: household actuallyspends more that 10% of its income on energy, and therefore takes into account theactual energy utilised in keeping a home warm/cool rather than the UK’s use of an ambient target

        AGL research (conducted using NSW and QLD data) 6.6% of households could be said to be in fuel poverty –343,902 households in those states alone.

        180

        • #
          Peter C

          One thing that always intrigues me is why we do not have a pumped hydro storage energy scheme on the Kiewa Hydroelectric scheme in Victoria.

          The upper dam is the Pretty Valley reservoir at Falls Creek (ski report) and there is a lower dam at Mt Beauty called the Mt Beauty pondage. There are several holding dams and power stations in between.

          Even this recent University of Melbourne study did not identify the Kiewa scheme as a potential pumped hydro resource.

          I would have thought that it would be justified simply by capturing the very high peak energy prices which occur in Summer on Hot days. The infrastructure is almost all there already. Only pumps are required. Use low cost night time base load electricity to pump the water up and then sell it back at times of peak demand.

          Bugger the windmills.

          90

        • #
          Bulldust

          Thanks ROM – some interestiong stuff there. I remember seeing a presentation some time ago in which a chap was talking about energy density of renewables and showing how they simply weren’t practical in England, simply based on area of land that would be required to supply the nation (without even condsidering all the other problems of intermittent power and fires etc). It saddens me the political policy increasingly reflects feel-good ideologies rather than pragmatic solutions these days. The media cycle, social media and weak politicians are all to blame. I was hoping having the Libs back in power meant the adults were back in charge, but they are as weak-kneed as the rest of them.

          20

    • #
      tom0mason

      TonyfromOz,

      Use normal ‘climate science’ methods to achieve your modeled goal!

      You just have to lobby the government enact a more aggressive subsidizing program (at taxpayer’s expense) for cheaper ‘wind equivalent Benzes’.

      Thus with more ‘wind equivalent Benzes’ on the road (and in the road, around the roads, burning on the road). You can then better statistically model all ‘wind equivalent Benzes’ satisfactorily reaching their destinations. Also with correctly adjusted and homogenize distance traveled data, coupled with the cheaper price you can now ‘prove’ how they are truly much better than fossil fuel powered versions.
      :)

      50

    • #
      Dennis

      And your neighbours would be forced to subsidise your wind power Mercedes Benz, your socialist government would call it a green energy surcharge.

      10

  • #
    pattoh

    Ahoy Tony

    (Sorry to go 1/2 sideways- the bobbin missed the thread – SA power costs would have been a factor in the GMH planning)

    Has the gas supply hiccup in SA generated any hard figures for excess imported power costs for the hard pressed Crow ( un-cooked) Eaters?

    http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2015-04-13%2Fgas-supplies-cut-to-regional-sa-residents-for-up-to-five-days%2F6387926&ei=OggvVZ_TIae5mwWx-IHACg&usg=AFQjCNHXekDEdM5-EgdPHzBCE1KP_mWgMw&sig2=pHXl7rbJSOyTWCgyPVCSvw

    30

  • #
    ROM

    WARNING; A long post as is my usual ;

    We here in Australia are already forgetting just how close we came under the KRudd debacle of what was laughingly called a Government to a similar energy debacle as we are seeing now in Germany, possibly soon to be seen in in the UK and also Scotland plus Denmark which now has the highest renewable wind energy generation content in the world AND the highest prices for energy of any developed country.

    And it was all based entirely on climate model’s predictions WITHOUT ANY OBSERVATIONAL PROOF of any sort along with what is now known due to the so called “pause” and plateauing of global temperatures for the last couple of decades, to be merely a decade long correlation between the increase in CO2 levels and the rise in global temperatures.
    The claim of the modellers and the IPCC was that a doubling of CO2 would lead, according to the IPCC’s worst case scenario in the AR3, of anything up to an increase of as high as 6C or more in global temperatures.

    The newest research on aerosols takes apart and radically reduces the role that aerosols are supposed to play in reducing the global temperatures.
    A reduction that was an absolute requirement in climate models to explain the much lower observed real time temperatures compared to the climate model’s predictions which are still using the high climate sensitivity of up to 4.5C for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 and therefore are still predicting dramatically increased global temperatures.
    To account for the “pause” something had to be found and found fast that cooled temperatures and therefore would negate the modelled CO2 induced increase in global temps.
    Aerosols were it !
    Now that essential prop to support the high sensitivity warming claims of CO2 has been knocked out from under the climate modellers claims with much reduced roles of aerosol cooling based on actual observational evidence.

    A climate sensitivity for the doubling of pre-industrial CO2 is now down to a range of about 0.6 C to 1.45 C.
    It should also be known that once climate sensitivity gets below about 1C it becomes impossible to sort out it’s effects due to the noise in the system which overwhelms the effects of such a low CO2 climate sensitivity number.

    Hamburg-Based Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology: Aerosols Cool Less Than Previously Thought

    The point of all this is that the politicals and greens and climate activists both psuedo scientists and publicity graspers and associated troughers all tried to implement what are now increasingly being seen as extraordinarily stupid, socially extremely damaging and grossly destructive to industry and the lower status citizens energy policies that are de-industrialising the very centres of the 300 years long continuing Industrial Revolution that has been the very heart and soul of the still rising living standards of most of the world’s 7.4 billion peoples.

    And the politicals and greens and activists did this entirely on the say so of publicity seeking, narrow viewed, self promoting, selfish, arrogant, bigoted climate scientists who cynically and knowingly used the outputs of unproven, invalidated, unverified outputs of climate models that were programmed to give a entirely guessed at, unobserved, unverified high sensitivity warming trend from increasing CO2.

    And even today, two decades on, the climate models are still stupidly programmed that same way for CO2 sensitivity along with the climate modellers who are so fixated with their ideology they appear incapable of looking at the whole stupidly insane climate modeling scenario and going back and starting at the beginning all over again with a far more realistic set of data all over again.

    Or preferably just send the whole lot of those arrogant climate modellers packing to sweep floors somewhere if they are qualified at all to do so and switch off permanently, the whole damn lot of those climate models from which so much pain, suffering, angst, destruction of industry and jobs, of social structure and sadly worst of all, the totally unneeded, unnecessary deep personal suffering and distress created for so many in the lowest strata of our society.

    _____________________________

    The following is an edited post of mine from Climate Etc a few days ago ;
    __

    There appears to be a profound lack of contact between climate science and the street level herd of humanity as there appears to be little or no field work as a direct outcome of climate science research to bring climate scientists and associated science into regular contact and discourse with down to earth, street level ordinary people as well as in the fields and the back blocks of human residency

    So there appears to be little in the way of a real time ordinary down to earth reality acquired from the human masses in so much of the rarified climate science posturing that we down here at this level are being force fed.

    1 /;
    Reality in climate science is that 1.6 billion Islamics have some other very serious problems occupying them at the moment and climate change would be a very bad last in their estimations I would think.
    There are 1.3 billion Indians who want what we in the western world have and still want and the so called catastrophic climate change is not going to stop them using fossil fuels to achieve it as has already been made very clear including shutting down the Greenpeace climate activists entirely as Greenpeace’s nefarious activists activities was costing India an estimated 1% per annum in GDP growth.

    The 1.4 billion Chinese are also just wanting what we have and with the current corruption power play amingst the big boys probably couldn’t give a damn about climate change so long as the big wheels at the top don’t start using the lower status masses as tools to fight their own political games.
    And their main priorities at present are to raise the living standards of the 300 or 400 million who are still at the old peasant levels of living standards and to reduce and eliminate the very serious pollution that has arisen as China has industrialised at a frenetic pace over the last four decade.

    A billion Africans just want to be able to drink clean water and switch on a light and have it stay on. And the hell with any fossil fuel pollution or climate change, particularly after breathing dung and leaves smoke in their huts and dwellings for most of their short lives.

    140 million Russians believe it is all a plot by the westerners to rein in Russia’s dreams of grandeur for the future.

    A few hundred million or so South Americans just want a better life also. Climate change is a long way down their lists of worries.

    Another few hundred million SE Asians are already well down the track towards getting the living standards we enjoyed some many decades ago and intend to get their living standards a whole lot better yet.
    Climate change worries are way down their list if it can be found at all.

    Which leaves about 400 million in Europe, another 370 million in North America plus another few million in Australia , NZ and a couple of other minor population centres.
    Say about 800 million maximum or about 11% of the global population to worry about climate change and fossil fuel pollution.
    Of those roughly 800 million, at least 20% don’t give a damn about climate change and another 30% or more aren’t very concerned at all.
    Of what is left I think that at least half of those would quite readily shift camp if another equally persuasive meme came along.

    And that leaves very roughly a couple of hundred million or less than about 3% of Earth’s inhabitants who catergorise themselves as possibly [ ? ] being seriously “concerned” about the so called anthropogenic Climate Change.

    Which doesn’t leave much of a global population base and that in the narrow ideological western developed world in any case, to try to force major changes in political, social and energy policies onto the global and National social systems and onto the 7.4 billions of the global populace to supposedly prevent an unseen, non experienced as yet, non measurable, unable to be differentiated in any way scientifically and measurably from entirely naturally occurring weather and climate events.
    And also create the global social memes that will lead to the prevention of an entirely theoretically and supposed model predicted, human created, catastrophic and climatic armageddon projected to arise, without any backing data or observations, from our use of the humanity uplifting fossil fuels.

    2 /
    The whole total concept of catastrophic global warming is completely and entirely an totally invented artifact of the scientific, political, environmental and media elite.

    Scientists invented the catastrophic global warming meme.

    Scientists [ German ] came up with the supposed catastrophic 2 degrees increase in global temperatures.

    Scientists altered, Ben Santer to be precise, the findings of the 1995 Madrid Conference from a possible effect of humans on the climate to a definite effect from humans on the climate which kick started the whole damn situation we have today.

    Scientists could have corrected that political climate catastrophe “Fix” that the politicals have ridden hard ever since.

    Scientists as a very influential grouping could have stopped the excesses of the politicals, the rabid environmentalists and the political manipulators and the gross exaggerations and sometimes straight out mis-information and lies of the media very early in the piece and done it fast and hard.

    They didn’t!
    Instead scientists scrambled to join in with the other hypocritical scamming “troughers” at the tax payer’s well filled trough and buried their snouts deep and long into that trough.

    Now science is beginning to pay and it will pay a very high price indeed amongst the populace for the ongoing destruction of it’s former dearly held reputation for honesty, integrity and ethics.

    The point here is that the entire catastrophic global warming meme was purely an invented artifact of the elite of science, allied closely with politics, environmentalism and the media band wagon.
    It never ever began or came from the bottom of any society as a mass movement promoted by the people on the streets and fields .

    History tells us that all such elitist developed societal artifacts are ultimately doomed and eventually go on to fail, often spectacularly but sadly, usually involving great suffering and sacrifice by those at the bottom who never ever were asked as to whether this is what they want or would accept

    _____________

    241

    • #
      Peter C

      A climate sensitivity for the doubling of pre-industrial CO2 is now down to a range of about 0.6 C to 1.45 C.

      Could it go to zero, or even below zero (ie cooling)!

      Scientists invented the catastrophic global warming meme.

      Scientists(?) also invented the Greenhouse theory. Could it be that the whole mess is based on a misunderstanding at this most basic level?

      71

      • #
        ROM

        Peter C @ # 37.1

        [ Climate sensitivity ] Could it go to zero, or even below zero (ie cooling)!

        The green house theory is an actual practical effect otherwise this planet would be Moon like and immense ranges in ground temperatures, lots of very ancient impact craters and some of very recent vintage as in the last million years, all still highly visible because there would be no wind or water erosion to fill those craters in.
        The Earth has had just as many and probably a lot more impacts than the Moon due to it’s larger size plus perhaps a gravitational influence on the orbits of early solar system asteroids. These very ancient impact craters such as very recently found a long way under Australia’s central deserts plus a much larger than Chixulub crater under a kilometre or two of ice in Antarctica have all been filled and covered and eroded by the effects of the water and winds of our atmosphere.
        Water vapour is the BIG greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Its contribution to Earth’s temperature profile despite the bluster of the climate modellers and warmists that the “Science was settled” was basically not known in any detail even only a half dozen years ago which probably gives another perspective on the accuracy of the claims around the Carbon Dioxide’s climate sensitivity number.

        From NASA [ 2008 ]

        Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
        Andy Dessler, the principal author mentioned here is an out and out warmist. But a careful read will show that the theory was that as increasing CO2 warmed the climate, the warming would increase evaporation and hence more atmospheric water vapour which would increase temperatures which would lead to more evaporation and etc until we all got boiled in the catastrophic climate boiling soup or so that theory suggested.

        What the warmist scientists in their fixation with this bootstrap warming scenario seemed to have missed completely is that when humidity increases it RAINS!

        And so both the local climate is cooled, less evaporation and the humidity levels go down and fast after a heavy rain as the water vapour condenses in cloud formations and both release latent heat from that condensation process at high levels which heat is then radiated out into space.
        Plus the cooling effect of the clouds reflecting the incoming solar radiation back out into space so it cools further again.

        In short there are a whole host of feedback processes in maintaining the benign global temperatures, few of which are actually even known let alone calibrated as to when, where and how they act and react to maintain the very close range of benign for life global temperatures we experience
        Those feedbacks plus no doubt many others such as an increasing suspicion that the global biology, a version of the Gaia hypothesis may even have a role in maintaining temperatures and conditions that are so eminently suited to life on this planet.
        Just about everyone of those “known” ” known unknown” and “unknown unknown” feedbacks plus no doubt numerous other feedbacks that only react in different climatic circumstances and are no longer operating in our current climate system have operated all the way down through time since the planet was formed.
        If they hadn’t then there would have been any number of occassions when a runaway climate, either cooling or warming, a concept which the alarmists are so fond of with the increases in CO2, would have invariably destroyed all life on the planet or prevented life from developing.

        That balance between the warming greenhouse gases and the cooling feedback mechanisms, possibly mostly water vapour in the form of clouds and probably aerosols [ and the Earth has got a lot cloudier since around the mid eighties according to the Earth Shine project [ ie ; A global and absolutely calibrated albedo can be determined by measuring the amount of sunlight reflected from the Earth and, in turn, back to the Earth from the dark portion of the face of the Moon (the `earthshine' or `ashen light'). ] over the aeons that have passed since the planet’s formation have kept this planet in the Goldilocks zone for life’s continuing existence and development
        .
        We now know life has existed for some 3.5 to 3.6 billion years [ that figure is going further and further back as new bacterial fossil data is uncovered and researched.]

        Sentient life probably only got under way around 650 million years ago and after numerous major extinction events and other planetary traumas, it cleared out our potential competitors and opened the way for intelligent life, thats us or at least we operate under that assumption.
        Without those mass extinction events or even just one of them, the five major ones where a very large percentage of Earth’s then species were wiped out over a million or so years for each event, humanity might never have been able to get a foothold against the very competent if not always very intelligent competition .

        So we can look at perhaps some 2.5 billion years at least where Earth’s overall average temperatures have fluctuated between about 6C below what we have today and about 10 C above what we have today.
        And for that level of stability over that length of time there has to be some seriously stable systems of feedbacks and forcings that remain, despite other innumerable numbers of factors that might upset things, an extremely stable, self correcting system of planetary temperature control.

        I wish I knew what it was!

        90

        • #
          Peter C

          Well I think I agree with most of what you are saying here ROM, but we have an impasse. I think this statement is a sort of summary of what you said:

          That balance between the warming greenhouse gases and the cooling feedback mechanisms, possibly mostly water vapour in the form of clouds

          On the one hand you seem to agree that greenhouse gases are warming. On the other you say that water vapour in the form of clouds is a cooling feedback.

          Assuming, as you say that water is the strongest greenhouse gas, is it warming or cooling?

          30

          • #
            ROM

            Interesting question which I haven’t seen before.

            In the vapour form, water vapour is a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs solar radiation energy in a small range of frequencies and then re-emits that energy at another much longer wave length frequencies, the infra red band, the heat / warming band

            In it’s condensed form ie; cloud droplets it is a cooling medium through a mechanical and reflective process rather than through a quantum process and through the release of latent heat as it condenses , which heat being quite high as in cloud formation [ all clouds are formed from the condensation of water vapour into moisture in a rising air mass ] most of is reflected back into space from whence it first came from the Sun.

            As a side line comment, lift for gliders inside of clouds, verboten in Australia but if nobody is looking !!!, is always a lot faster than outside of and underneath in the cloud forming thermal lift.
            This increase in lift rates inside of the cloud is probably tied to the releasing of latent heat as the water vapour in the thermal feeding the cloud, condenses out and forms the cloud droplets.

            Further reading;
            THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            41

            • #
              tom0mason

              ROM

              I find it remarkable how that simple substance water is much under-appreciated. I am truly amazed at water’s properties and how they fit with life’s requirements on our planet.

              Water as white solid ice and snow reflects the suns rays, and as this lower density solid form, floats on liquid water.

              In everyday terms liquid water is water at its most dense. Liquid water is usually a clear substance but is a dark opaque energy absorber to much of the sun’s rays when aggregated into briny oceans. Oceans are massive heat sinks, and heat pumps that circulate the heat, powering our world climate. Oceans hold huge quantities gases including CO2.

              And as the mysterious cloudy vapor it both takes in the suns energy during the day but also will reflect lots of that solar energy back to space. Clouds also releases accumulated energy — think of warm cloudy nights where it is most evident. Clouds are also full of the energy they have gained from the planet surface, and in this form carries it away over many hundreds or thousands of miles to radiate it away elsewhere. Clouds, like all forms of water is rarely pure.

              Ordinary natural water as solid, liquid, or as a vapor is a complex chemical mix of dissolved gases, other chemicals, and microbes. Water as an ionic solvent lets our world live!

              So keep your puny CO2 with its weak and only fabled properties, water is the real dominant player on this planet.

              61

              • #
                tom0mason

                Forgot to paste-in an important aspect -

                Another of the interesting properties of water is its high specific heat. Specific heat is the measurement of how much heat it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1°C. Water can absorb a lot of heat without changing temperature, and so it has a high specific heat. This results in water cooling down and heating up much more slowly than the air around it.

                50

            • #
              Peter C

              Thanks ROM.

              An important reference there on the GREENHOUSE EFFECT, which I will read more carefully over time. One would hopefully expect the physicists at Harvard to know their subject and be able to explain it.

              I will make one comment and ask one question.

              Comment: In section 7.2 the text says” The wavelength range of maximum emission (of the earth) is 5-20mm. The accompanying diagram ,Figure 7.8 shows the wavelength range of emission is 5-20 micro metres.

              Question: The figure 7.8 shows the radiation spectrum from the Niger Valley, Africa at mid day on a hot day in 1972 (as seen from a satellite above the atmosphere). It is presented with a number of black body curves. My question is, why do they turn the scale around and show wave number instead of frequency? The black body curves are back to front.

              11

          • #
            tom0mason

            “Assuming, as you say that water is the strongest greenhouse gas, is it warming or cooling?”

            It all depends on the time you look. During the day clouds mostly reflect solar radiation from our planet. Cooling the planet. However they do absorb some solar heat, thus warming the planet. At the same time clouds are radiating the heat they acquired from the planet’s surface in all directions (including downwards to give the AGWers their misnamed ‘greenhouse effect’). Thus clouds lose heat from the planet while helping to maintain ground-level warmth.

            At night the clouds radiate heat in all directions as before but mostly cool the planet.
            Overall more clouds equals more cooling, less clouds for less cooling. The hotter it gets the more the clouds gather cooling the system. This is part of the lossy water/temperature negative feedback system that governs our planets temperature.

            A few things that affect clouds ability to warm or cool are location and time of day, some other specifics are — humidity, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric chemical mix, altitude, dust and particulate loads, prevailing winds, etc, etc.
            I’m sure that you could homogenize these effects to give a numerical answer but as ‘global climate’ is the aggregation of local macro-climates and hemispherical climates, I can not see what usefulness such a number would be. Surely the climate that matters the most is the local one.

            40

        • #
          Alan McIntire

          Here’s a link from Clive Best agreenig with you. Not only has the earth’s temperature been relatively stable for about 4 billion years- we’ve had liquid oceans all of that time, but that was in spite of the sun increasing in luminosity from about 70% of its current value 5 billion years ago. Note that 70% less luminous sun would just about have been balanced out with a cloudless, ocean covered earth-leaving about the same insolation as now.

          http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3659

          Best gave several other references, including Hsieng-Wang Ou, “Possible Bounds on Earth’s Surface Temperature” due to a strong cloud-water vapor feedback.

          10

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal in Oz

        Yes Peter C, my understanding is that it is (already, and proveably) at zero.
        I reckon that Ian Plimer’s “heaven and Earth…” proved that in 2009 and the British (High) Court found the same thing when it ruled that CO2 concentrations increased, following warming by about 800 years..
        And we’ve had posts here, quite recently, demonstrating that the correlation between increases in CO2 and subsequant warming was essentially zero. As I understand it, no correlation implies no causation.
        And my hobby horse, any warming since the Little Ice Age Ice is natural, and has recently plateaued.

        Cheers,
        Dave B

        20

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Yep very long. You must have good thermals out your way! Regards Ingo Renner Waikerie 1972

      40

      • #
        ROM

        Wow ! Thanks and regards.
        You sure have a good memory as I thought I was now one of the forgotten ones.
        Still have the plaque from the Sir Donald Anderson Trophy on my wall.

        40

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      ROM,
      When my colleagues discovered the Ranger uranium deposits, it was quickly evident that they would have a large global impact. So, of course, we examined that impact in various ways. One way was economic viability, as in how would our uranium compete as an energy source, against existing and projected competitors.
      Essentially all of the points you raise were examined at that time. It was evident that energy density and intermittency were major factors. Solar and wind had genuine places in smallish niche markets.
      Like you, I continue to be amazed by those planners who ignored what was pretty obvious at the time and dedicated themselves to the embarrassments we now see.
      Just to give a time signal, Ranger One was discovered in October 1969.

      20

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz -

    a while back, i heard two abc presenters discussing how young people rely on electronic gadgets to do calculations. both fondly recalled learning their times tables by rote & how it sticks. one says to the other 12 times 11 equals…and the other can’t answer but said words to the effect when i decided to be a journalist, maths no longer mattered.

    The Poynter Institute: Chip Scanlan: Why Math Matters
    Like many reporters, Roger Simon was never very good at math. “My SAT scores in math were so low that during my college interviews the interviewers said things like, ‘Did you leave the room halfway through?’ or ‘Are you sure you understood the concept of multiple choice?’”
    His poor math skills didn’t keep him from getting into college. Nor did they keep him from landing a job as a reporter…
    But as a beginning reporter, he suffered from a common journalistic ailment: Innumeracy, defined by mathematician John Allen Paulos as “an inability to deal comfortably with fundamental notions of number and chance.”
    If Simon had been an illiterate — someone who lacks the ability to read and write — he never would have been allowed in a newsroom. But as an innumerate, it didn’t matter that he wasn’t good at math…
    Widespread journalistic innumeracy is a serious problem.
    More than half — 58 percent — of the job applicants interviewed by broadcast news directors lacked an adequate understanding of statistical materials, such as a municipal budget. That was the finding of Tomorrow’s Broadcast Journalists — A Report and Recommendations From the Jane Pauley Task Force on Mass Communication Education, published in 1996 by the Society of Professional Journalists…
    The Poynter Institute includes numeracy as one of the skills today’s journalists need to be competent…
    Lynne Enders Glaser, former ombudsman for the Fresno Bee in California, made a passionate call for reform:
    “For eons, it’s been a standard line in newsrooms that journalists don”t do math. It’s been stated so often that many reporters and editors seem to accept it as a valid, logical reason for mistakes. And they seem to think that readers agree. But, readers don’t. They repeatedly say it is not okay to give them numbers that don’t compute … something needs to change here, and it needs to start with attitude. The newsroom should take numbers as seriously as words.”
    http://www.poynter.org/news/media-innovation/25284/why-math-matters/

    and it is because of journalistic innumeracy that the MSM will have no problem reporting the following:

    15 April: CarbonBrief: Flood damages in Europe to increase 200% by the end of the century, scientists warn
    Without efforts to reduce emissions, extreme river floods now occurring every 100 years will become twice as likely in the next three decades, according to scientists from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre…
    The researchers presented their results at this year’s European Geosciences Union (EGU) conference in Vienna earlier today
    At current emissions rates, limiting global average temperature rise to 2C looks increasingly unlikely, lead author Dr Lorenzo Alfieri told a press conference this morning…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/flood-damages-in-europe-to-increase-200-by-the-end-of-the-century,-scientists-warn/

    14 April: RTCC: Ed King: Twitter failing to bridge gap between climate activists and sceptics
    Opposing groups as far apart as ever says new research based on tweeting habits of those in climate change arena
    New research published in the journal Global Environmental Change shows both groups are ardent tweeters, but rarely follow what the others have to say.
    And even the common use of hashtags like #climatechange doesn’t mean that rivals are soaking in different viewpoints.Hywel Williams, a scientist at the University of Exeter, said he was “blown away” by the findings, based on analysis of 590,608 tweets from 179,180 users between January-May 2013…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/14/twitter-failing-to-bridge-gap-between-climate-consensus-and-sceptics/

    91

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Itrs been well known for decades the Left have run down education on purpose….as such, now we see the benefit of this to them,in maintaining power when journos are incapabale to logic-based maths.

      As such, the solution against ignorance is proper education.

      90

    • #
      Ian Hill

      For a while in the 1960s we were taught the “new” maths. As long as you knew that 12 times 11 was equal to 11 times 12, that’s all that mattered.

      80

    • #
      ianl8888

      Golly and gee :) :)

      When I remarked quite a while ago that most reporters and a majority of the populace are both scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate, the remark was labelled as cynical, negative and a host of other “weally wery bad non-PC thingos”

      But it’s just the truth. I had a discussion with a now retired ex-ANU Vice-Chancellor on this. He admitted the truth of the comment (STEM subjects are deliberately downgraded in school curricula) but maintained that young people were now better educated in any case … I found that confused; worse was to come – he then lamented that we (ie. society) had got ourselves into an unfixable mess on climate change and possible policy prescriptions and painfully wondered how this could have come about

      As I said, confused

      120

  • #
    pat

    subscription required to read the rest of this interview with CEO of giant copper producer Aurubis:

    15 April: CESCO Interview: Germany’s energy crunch will cramp domestic investment – Aurubis ceo
    Energy-intensive manufacturers are starting to make investments outside Germany because of its rising energy costs, a trend that will include the copper industry, the ceo of German copper producer Aurubis said.
    Bernd Drouven said that the closure of Germany’s nuclear plants and high but unrealistic targets in renewables mean companies are taking their planned-growth investments to other countries. “Industry is not likely to move out of Germany – what will happen will be a reallocation of capital, and that is already happening,” he said, noting that in the chemicals industry, large companies are not investing in Germany any more. Bernd Drouven, ceo of Aurubis “Job cuts due to closures are not easy, so it’s far easier for companies to maintain operations in Germany at existing levels, but see their expansions and future growth elsewhere,” he told Metal Bulletin in an interview. The USA is an attractive alternative location for the chemicals industry, Drouven said…
    http://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3445060/Homepage/CESCO-INTERVIEW-Germanys-energy-crunch-will-cramp-domestic-investmentAurubis-ceo.html#axzz3XQwXBK1Z

    71

    • #
      GMac

      Pat,what we are now witnessing is the demise of corporate capitalism and the eventual collapse of the western system.

      40

      • #
        Andrew RIchards

        ‘corporate capitalism’. Isn’t that the same thing as corporatism (crony capitalism)? Not in demise. On the contrary.

        30

  • #
    Bill

    So many potential sources of energy:
    biomass- i.e. sewage/methane capture
    natural gas & coal based methane
    micro hydro
    micro nuclear
    regenerative production
    chemical decomposition gas capture
    etc etc etc

    yet the greens simply won’t allow ANY of it, EVER.

    51

  • #
    pat

    15 April: RTCC: Alex Pashley: Obama climate plan comes under fire in Capitol Hill hearing
    Republicans, oil-funded think tanks and climate contrarian scientists tell Congress US carbon cuts should be stopped
    The US has pledged to slash greenhouse gas emissions between 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2025, as its part of a global pact to rein in global warming.
    But White House officials argue against countries being legally bound to make cuts, to avoid a would-be treaty being ratified through what is likely to be a Senate hostile to UN climate regulations.
    Instead, they prefers countries to make their pledges subject to future monitoring and verification…
    Almost two-thirds of states have raised legal objections against its regulatory body, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    The first will begin on Thursday with a coal mining company and states led by West Virginia presenting a case in the federal court.Judith Curry, professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology questioned man-made climate change, citing natural causes related to shifts in solar and volcanic activity.
    The world was unlikely to reach so-called tipping point, from which point climate change becomes irreversible this century, while US proposals would only halt a rise of “three-hundredths of a degree by 2100,” she said.Those views contrast with the UN’s IPCC climate science panel…
    Margo Thorning, senior vice president at the American Council for Capital Formation, a think tank with close links to the US oil industry, said it was “not clear” developing countries would commit to strong climate policies…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/15/obama-climate-plan-comes-under-fire-in-capitol-hill-hearing/

    15 April: Fox News: George Russell: Does Obama’s UN carbon pledge threaten much more US economic pain?
    The Obama Administration’s pledge of 26 to 28 percent cuts in U.S. carbon emissions by 2025 is coming under heavy fire from business and scientific experts, who charge the radical goals were not backed up by any concrete planning, likely to cause energy-intensive industries to flee the country at a heavy cost in jobs, and unlikely to make any difference at all to global carbon emissions—or to climate.
    The skepticism was aired at a session Wednesday of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, where the Republican majority clearly shared those views, and intended to underline them in the early stages of a major pushback against Administration climate policies. As one sign of that strategy, committee chairman Lamar Smith timed the hearing on the costly climate pledges to coincide with “tax day”—the deadline for normal tax filings with the IRS.
    The emissions promise made by the Administration last month as the U.S. contribution to a new global climate treaty intended to be unveiled at a Paris summit in September “raises more questions than it answers,” according to Karen Harbert, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 21st Century Energy Institute, in written testimony to the committee.
    “Nowhere does it explain how the administration intends to achieve the unrealistic goals it has set out.”
    In person, Harbert put the matter even more bluntly: “The Administration’s math just doesn’t add up,” she told committee members…
    Harbert noted that so far, the Administration has made no reference in its pledge—known in U.N.-speak as the “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution,: or INDC to global carbon reduction—to reductions in emissions from U.S. industrial plants, and said that further carbon restrictions on pulp and paper, iron and steel, and cement industries, among others, could be expected soon.
    The result, she predicted, would be “carbon leakage”—simply the movement of a sizeable percentage of those industries to nations with less restrictive rules, including China and India, who will continue “business as usual,” even within a recent relatively vague Chinese promise enshrined in a deal with the Administration to “peak” carbon emissions by 2030.
    Even the EPA, she declared, admits that the promised U.S. restrictions will have “no discernable impact” on the global environment. In written testimony, she amplified that even the drastic cuts the EPA is about to mandate for U.S. power plants would be “offset by Chinese carbon dioxide emissions in about three weeks.”…
    Thorning cited a prediction that global energy demand will grow by 37 percent by 2040, in large measure because the “strongest driver” for developing countries “ will be the need for energy for economic growth, not CO2 reductions.”
    Even broader concerns about the direction of Administration policy, and the logic of greenhouse gas reduction as an instrument of controlling climate change, came from Judith Curry, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Georgia, who told committee members that recent data—including the lack of real rises in global temperature for the past 18 years have “called into question that human activity is the dominant cause” of global changes in climate activity.
    “We need to push the reset button on climate change,” she told the committee, stating that the heavy emphasis on reducing carbon emissions had “stifled the development of a wider range of policy options.”…
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/15/does-obamas-un-carbon-pledge-threaten-much-more-us-economic-pain/

    41

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Being a sceptical person, and having already encountered Benny Peiser’s propaganda before, I just thought I’d check out what he’s saying about electric prices in Germany.

    According to Lomborg, Peiser is wrong.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/lomborg-electricity-prices-for-german-households-have-increased-61-since-2000-renewables-blamed/

    And according to the ABS, AUstralian household electricity prices *more* than doubled since 2000:
    http://blueskyminesolar.com.au/assets/Electricity_Cost_Price_History_Australia_large.png

    And California’s prices have increased more than Germany’s have:
    http://www.invisiblesunenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/rising-electricity-costs-e1338843195113.png

    Not only that, but according to the latest figures, Germany’s electricity prices are now falling:
    https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/9D1CF269C1282487C1257E22002BC8DD/$file/150409%20BDEW%20zum%20Strompreis%20der%20Haushalte%20Anhang.pdf
    (This figure also confirms that Peiser’s propaganda is non-factual.

    In summary, my previous experience of finding Peiser to be a non-reliable source of information is confirmed as correct again.
    It’s great being sceptical – saves you from being a gullible fool.

    130

    • #
      James Bradley

      Craig Thomas,

      I absolutely agree with you.

      Peiser is way wrong because that actual cost of electricity is not doubled – it’s nearly tripled.

      I don’t know about other locations you mentioned, but here in NSW, Australia in the year 2000 my home electricity cost was 18.2cents/kw with no access fee.

      Today I am paying 28.7cents/kw with a $1.26/day access fee.

      I use about 9kw a day and that usage has not changed in the last 20 years.

      In 2000 electricity cost me…. $597.00/year which is about as I remember roughly $150.00/quarter.

      Today electricity costs me….. $1,403.00/year at about $450.00/quarter.

      221

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      You sound just like sod who infests NoTricksZone.

      Try these

      http://www.dw.de/german-electricity-price-is-half-taxes-and-fees/a-17849142

      This is a little out of date in that German and Danish retail prices have gone up.
      Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh
      http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh

      161

      • #
        Peter C

        Very disappointing that our electricity prices here in Australia are the 4th of 5th most expensive in the world. Given our resource abundance we should have the cheapest, level or lower that Canada.

        What effect would that have on manufacturing and jobs in our country?

        100

        • #
          Bill

          Unfortunately Electric costs are rising in Canada as well. Mainly due to the rampant mismanagement of the utilities that provide it. Ontario is one of the worst examples, followed (in order by BC and Quebec). If the provincial utilities were not so badly run so as to make them cronic economic burdens, prices would be vastly cheaper for users. As things stand, time of day billing is being introduced as they already got away with multi tier billing. And the politicians have the nerve to question why industries either produce their own power or are looking to relocate (not to mention increasing labour costs as workers are also consumers).

          60

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Being a sceptical person’

      Really, you always struck me as a hard core warmist.

      191

  • #
    pat

    Viv Forbes in Queensland Times:

    16 April: Qld Times: YOUR SAY: Climate scare based on carbon dioxide ‘bogus’ by Viv Forbes
    http://www.qt.com.au/news/your-say-climate-scare-based-carbon-dioxide-bogus/2608334/

    81

  • #

    Fair enough Jo,
    Often I snip myself, but -snip- itself is a beacon in the sky! I was serious about Governments not Earthlings are the threat! :-)

    51

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    There’s a big solar farm just next to the M4 in Berkshire, England. Alongside junction 11 and in view from the solar farm is a solitary wind turbine. Last time I went past, the rain was bucketing down and there was no sun. Judging from the wind turbine, there was no wind, either. How much electricity was being generated by either the turbine, or the solar panels? My guess would be: precious little (with the emphasis on “precious”, since the subsidies were still rolling in for the respective owners, and on “little”, since my car was probably generating more electricity than those “renewables” were producing).

    As for the eu’s belated revelation, that biofuels are a drain on arable land and an excuse for chopping down forests, that has been blindingly obvious from the start, to everyone except the ecoloons. Years ago, in Costa Rica, I saw where swathes of rain forest had been removed, to make way for palm-oil plantations. Aren’t rain forests supposed to take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and isn’t that what the biofools supposedly want? In other parts of the world, the biofuels craze has caused actual starvation.

    110

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I assume that is the (in)famous Ecotricity turbine, courtesy of proprietor Dale Vince. Known as the worst performing turbine in the UK – it averages the same lousy CF as german wind farms.

      70

    • #
      Annie

      I remember the one. Wasn’t it at Green Park….a John Madjeski place? I didn’t know about the solar panels but frequently drove past the wind turbine. (Had to concentrate on the roadworks around Jct 11 for quite a while…a considerable re-arrangement there). I was under the impression that particular wind turbine actually produced some power…was that just make believe?

      50

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Annie,

        …was that just make believe?

        Yes, Annie, all wind turbines are make-believe. No /sarc there either.

        Let’s consider what TonyfromOz keeps pointing out to us about the Nameplate of these so-called ‘electrical generators’.

        The Nameplate tells us how much electricity will potentially be produced by the generator component of the wind facility. The generator is powered by the wind but only up to a maximun wind speed, (I’ve seen a figure of 50 mph or kph, can’t remember which, as the max. after which the generator is turned off. There’s also a minimum wind speed which, IIRC, is 5 mph or kph, can’t remember which.) So the Nameplate (generation capacity) tells us how much electricity we can expect the generator to produce under optimal conditions.

        At any rate, mph or kph is irrelevant to the point at hand. There is, in either case, a minimum and a maximum operating range, and when the wind is not blowing within that range, there’s no power being generated.

        In practice, only between %15 and %20 of the Nameplate capacity will be produced because the wind doesn’t blow continously and even when it does, the wind speed is not always within the operating range of the generator.

        On the ground, in the field, in practice, in the real world, however you want to phrase it, we only get, at best, %20 of Nameplate capacity beig generated but we’re paying for %100 of that capacity when we build it and while we’re operating it.

        So every wind mill we construct is at least %80 make-believe!!!!!!! :o

        Now consider this; our understanding of the wind is close to excellent as far as how the wind is produced, but our understanding of when and how much wind we’ll actually receive at any given location is probabilistic in nature. These values, when and how much, are calculated by taking periodic measurements and averaging them out.

        It’s just like a slot machine in Monaco or Las Vegas. For every coin you put in, you only win 1 out of five times!!!!!!! :o

        The other 4 out of 5 coins go straight to The House!!!!!!! :o

        Now that’s what I call profitability. ;)

        Abe

        80

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Not only that, but I understand that the output from most turbine designs is purposely reduced, by some margin, to give a more constant output, when the wind is variable.

          The primary reason for having a dam in hydro generation, is to provide a constant flow of water over the turbines, in order to give a constant power output. Having sufficient backup to mitigate periods with little or no rainfall, is a secondary, although still important, consideration. You don’t get that with wind. No way of storing it, you see.

          60

        • #
          Annie

          Hello JAG. Since those days of driving past that wind turbine by the M4 I have read a lot of Tony from Oz’s comments and certainly am now very cynical about CF claims. I used to loathe the sight of the things, cluttering up the landscape and mincing birds but at least that one was in a semi-industrial area. The ones that really annoyed me can be seen in Cumbria from the M5, from the fells of the Yorkshire Dales, looking towards the coast and in a multitude of places as you gain altitude after taking off from MAN. They are an abomination in the landscape.

          20

          • #
            Owen Morgan

            There’s one particular bunch of wind turbines right next to the motorway in Cumbria, somewhere on Shap Fell. They actually seem to be sited below the road, as if to protect them from, well, ermm… the wind. Down near Bardsey, just above Morecambe Bay and close to the southern end of Cumbria, you can look north, towards the Cumbrian fells, except that the view has been spoilt in the last couple of decades by the proliferating windfarms. It’s a couple of years since I was last there, but I could definitely see at least three, possibly four, wind farms, without needing to shift my viewpoint.

            Come to think of it, I shouldn’t be surprised if quite a few of those turbines are already more than halfway through even their theoretical life, not that they are going to go anywhere when they crumble and die.

            10

            • #
              Annie

              I know exactly the ones you mean. There are now some highly visible from the A595 near Cockermouth too.They are all an eyesore on the beautiful Northern Lakes landscape.

              00

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Actually Abe, it is even worse than that.
          When the wind velocity exceeds those upper and lower limits, the output breaker opens.
          So whatever the damned thing was producing is instantly not there.
          There is no storage in the grid, so the only result is one of two things:
          a) Some producer on the grid, with spinning reserve must instantly supply that missing energy. For a few seconds the inertia or angular momentum of a machine somewhere supplies this missing energy until the governor on partially loaded machine or machines has a chance to respond.
          b) If the loss is substantial, i.e. more than one giant fan drops off simultaneously, the grid frequency and voltage go for an excursion. The simple fact that these unreliable wind machinery is anywhere near the grid forces the grid operator, (AEMO in Australia’s case) must arrange for more frequency and voltage control than would otherwise be the case (FCAS is the acronym for Frequency Control Ancillary Service) which is a charge ultimately paid by the electricity customer. As more giant fans are added to the system, their intermittent operation causes a loss of power quality.

          40

  • #

    We observe that very clever earthling toolmakers can damn near screw up anything, as in Atomic bombe tests, or Hiroshima!
    Normally the temperature control system of Earth can compensate for earthling AW Shits.
    It takes the eminent wealth of not so clever government ignorance,to stress this Earth temperature control system. Governments not Earthlings are the threat! :-)

    10

  • #
    Wombat

    I find it absolutely amazing – positively stunning – that the German chancellor, a graduate and former lecturer in the physical sciences, has fallen for one of the greatest scams in the history of humanity. Has something fused in her brain? Or has she simply forgotten all her physics? Sheesh!

    141

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think she remembers more of her political science, than she does of her physical science.

      60

  • #
    GMac

    The Green/communist/totalitarian types want to rid the world of poor people,that has always been their goal.

    120

  • #
    Tim

    When a county that is the experimental poster-child of the renewable green movement fails – logic would prevent imposing the same formula on others. (Unless, however, failure is the objective.)

    80

  • #

    Germanistan is going crazy.

    70

  • #
    DonS

    This is actually worse for Germany, and others, than it first appears. If gas is uneconomical at the current low oil and gas prices then what will happen when the price goes up again? Current gas fired power plants will close and new ones will not be built. Also given German support for Ukraine they might find the Russians unwilling to supply the gas they require anyway.

    They will have 2 alternatives. Reconsider nuclear (as Japan has), or start burning their massive reserves of cheap dirty brown coal. Of course for the Germans to make this decision will probably require them to pull out of the EU and without German funds the EU will be finished.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade especially if global temperatures continue to remain stable.

    80

    • #
      ROM

      The Energy Collective;

      Why Germany’s Nuclear Phase Out is Leading to More Coal Burning

      [quoted ]
      In September 2012 Germany’s Environment Minister opened a new lignite power plant, arguing the following: “If one builds a new state-of-the-art lignite power plant to replace several older and much less efficient plants, then I feel this should also be acknowledged as a contribution to our climate protection efforts.”
      &
      Between 2011 and 2015 Germany will open 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations.
      This is more new coal coal capacity than was constructed in the entire two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
      The expected annual electricity production of these power stations will far exceed that of existing solar panels and will be approximately the same as that of Germany’s existing solar panels and wind turbines combined.
      Solar panels and wind turbines however have expected life spans of no more than 25 years. Coal power plants typically last 50 years or longer. At best you could call the recent developments in Germany’s electricity sector contradictory.

      60

    • #
      Bill

      Bringing an end to the failing EU experiment would be a good thing for Europe and the world. The EU is run by anaccountable and unelected bureacrats according to their own desires, not the benefit of all.

      70

      • #

        Yes but what is their desire? As with any power and control obsessed individual, the superficial desire is to stop anyone else from doing anything without their permission.

        The thought that there is anyone out there who can and will do something simply because he can is terrifying. The world becomes unpredictable and the power and control obsessed fears he will have to deal with change not of his doing.

        The so obsessed never question their terror and project it outward onto those whom they fear the most: the free, independent, self defined creative, and productive individual. Since this is exactly what he cannot be, he must destroy the ability of that kind of person to think, to choose, to act, and to live.

        The obsessed feels that there must be universal stasis except only for the change he deems necessary. The deemed change must be brought about without thought, choice, or action. The change must happen on command by magic. This even though magic is not operative in this universe is a fact, so fearful, he cannot permit himself to be aware that he knows it to be true.

        If the demanded change doesn’t happen as decreed,then out come the booted thugs with whips, ropes, clubs, knives, and guns to force his will upon the targets of his projected fears. That the end of this is only poverty, despair, death, and destruction was the real point of it all from the start. The power and control obsessed cannot build so they are driven to destroy those who can as well as all they build. Their fantasy is that the power to destroy is greater than the power to build. They feel if they can destroy enough then they will at long last feel safe. Even this fails to deliver as wished.

        Their final cry will be “But…but…I didn’t mean this to happen.” The proper answer is “Yes you did! You did not really want to live and didn’t want anyone else to live either.”

        A dark picture? Yes but this is the picture of mankind for the vast bulk of its history. The fundamental truth is the power and control obsessed have no power except that which we give them and no control over us except that to which we submit.

        He who is free, never submits. He who submits, was never free. Stay free!

        50

      • #
        Dennis

        I hope that the EU collapses soon. I also hope that Australia never experiences a Shorten Labor government, or any other Labor government in the foreseeable future. Noting that Shorten admitted on ABC 7.30 that the next Labor government will re-introduce a carbon tax joined to the EU ETS, our taxes sent to the EU.

        30

  • #
    Andrew RIchards

    Great piece Jo. Lunacy. The asylum has been overrun.

    80

  • #
    MadJak

    Hi all,

    This one from the lame stream this morning is a really interesting example of what the average aussies think about this issue. Just checkout the comments – it’s a far cry from what was going on back in 2007 when we were being held to ransom by ideologically driven numbskulls.

    I think the time may have come where there can possibly be a bit more of a balanced debate/reframing of the issue.

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      Thanx Madjak, its uplifting to see so many intelligent comments.

      50

    • #
      FarmerDoug2

      And again “Thanks Madjak”.

      Some of us just don’t have the time to sift through the rubbish to find the good bits.
      There is hope.

      Doug

      20

  • #
    ROM

    Ok this is right at the bottom but it is from Germany and is a very, very important shift from one of the most hardline catastrophic climate warming research Institutes in Europe, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by German climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. -
    Shellnhuber of course was the hard line warmist who came up with the 2C catastrophic warming limit back in the early 2000′s and has pushed this line ever since.

    Speigel online ; The invention of the two degree target

    [ This link is now creating a few loading problems on my old 2007 Mac Safari browser due I think to the animated advertising scripts which are no longer compatible with my version of Safari which is an increasing problem. ]
    ________
    From NTZ

    Alarmist Potsdam Institute Concedes: “Natural Variability Underestimated”…”WE ARE CURRENTLY FACING A COOLING PERIOD”!

    [ quoted ]

    The institute has long maintained that the science was settled, and was instrumental in formulating a master-plan for re-organizing global society and watering down democracy in order to avert the modeled disaster. Their master-plan calls for allotting more power to an elite group of “visionary” scientists – like to Herr Doktor Schellnhuber himself.

    So today it’s all the more surprising that they are announcing a paper that concedes natural factors indeed are more powerful than the 0.01% CO2 atmospheric concentration added in part by humans over the last 150 years. This is a milestone for the PIK, which earlier claimed they could not find any real evidence of other factors driving the climate.

    &
    ‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

    ‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”

    [ But Pierre finishes his NTZ post thus;]

    The good Herr Dr. Schellnhuber never lets you down. Just be patient longer than we thought.
    The catastrophe that we promised is just taking longer to get here – but when it does, by golly, it’ll be a lot worse – you’ll all be sorry for not doing what we told you.

    This is taking on comical dimensions.
    [ / ]
    _______________

    This is a truly extraordinary development from one of the hardist line groups on the global warming scene with a lot of backfilling caveats of course, coming only a few months before the Paris conference which is supposed to like Copenhagen before it was supposed to do, to stitch up permanently all the global nations, each to a confirmed reduction in “carbon” emmissions to Save the Planet.

    Paris is now dead and close to being buried with only the paid leftist green watermelon mourners left to weep and howl their crocodile tears in between enjoying the lavish entertainment and attentions of the east european ladies and etc.

    30

    • #
      ROM

      By way of clarification and the probable impact of this press release; Shellnhuber was I believe, the chief scientific adviser to Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel.

      20

  • #
    pat

    Stuart posted the following on WUWT Tips & Notes:

    - Here is another interview with Stuart McNish, the journalist that did the recent piece with Freeman Dyson. Here he interviews climate scientist Ken Green, and the result is probably the most refreshing, state of the art interpretation of the state of the climate issue. http://conversationsthatmatter.tv/ -

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 April: Yahoo New Zealand: Laura Heathcote: Unusual cold snap blasts country
    Forecasters say the latest cold snap to hit the country is extremely rare for this time of year.
    The snow has arrived early to the lower South Island and the Desert Road – and most parts of the country are in for a cold and blustery start to the day.
    MetService forecaster Peter Little says it isn’t often that such wintry conditions arrive in the middle of April.
    “This sort of event is really what you’d usually see in the middle of winter. So for this time of year it is unusual.”
    It’s a frigid morning in the South Island…
    Scarlett Cvitanovich says the temperature in central Christchurch was around one degree at midnight… but the wind chill sent the mercury plummeting to minus-six…
    https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/27093542/unusual-cold-snap-blasts-country/

    20

  • #
    pat

    PICS: 16 April: Weather Channel: Spring Snow Coats the Rockies, Including Denver and Salt Lake City
    Parts of the Rockies are looking like a winter wonderland thanks to a slow-moving spring snowstorm…
    We’re not just talking about the mountains either. Salt Lake City saw 5.8 inches of snow late Tuesday night through Wednesday. In Colorado, snow whitened the ground across the Denver metro area Thursday morning.
    By the time the snow is finished this weekend, some locations in the mountains and foothills west of Denver could see more than 2 feet of total snowfall. In the mountains of Utah where snow has tapered off, up to 45 inches was reported at Snowbird ski resort as of Thursday morning…
    http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/spring-snow-rockies-colorado-utah-wyoming-denver

    20

  • #
    pat

    16 April: Weather Channel: Blinding Snow Blamed for Large Pileup Along Interstate 80 in Wyoming
    Three major pileups involving as many as 70 vehicles forced police to close Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Laramie, Wyoming, Thursday, as heavy snow blinded drivers.
    The Wyoming Highway Patrol said heavy, blowing snow contributed to the wrecks. They weren’t sure how long it would take to clear the vehicles off the 50-mile stretch of the interstate.
    No one was killed, but police say several people were hurt…
    http://www.weather.com/news/news/snow-blinds-drivers-along-i-80-in-wyoming

    10

  • #
    pat

    16 April: WaPo Capital Weather Gang: Kevin Ambrose: Snow pile yoga: It’s a thing (PHOTOS)
    PHOTO CAPTION: Colure Caulfield, yoga instructor at Down Dog Yoga, de
    monstrates the proper form for snow pile yoga in Reston, Virginia, April 15, 2015. This is the Reverse Warrior pose. All serious yogis are doing snow pile yoga.

    Earlier this week, Colure Caulfield, an instructor with Down Dog Yoga, demonstrated for me the proper poses for snow pile yoga on a heaping snow pile that is currently melting near the Plaza America shopping center in Reston, Virginia. Snow pile yoga photos are displayed below.
    Colure said that snow pile yoga brings her closer to nature. “It’s like doing yoga on the beach but instead of warm, dry sand under your feet you have cold, sloppy ice granules.”…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/16/snow-pile-yoga-its-a-thing-photos/

    00

  • #
    Lawrie Ayres

    The European Union will soon cease to exist. It is rapidly becoming unprofitable for business which means less employment. At the same time thousands of largely unskilled asylum seekers are arriving to join the unemployment queues. To make matters worse most of these unskilled and unemployable immigrants are Muslims who are quickly changing the face of Europe and will move it backwards. It’s an attack on two fronts engineered by the European leftists themselves. You might say “serves them right” but it’s really the political elite that will be responsible for Europe’s demise. Ordinary and non-political citizens will soon see the folly of their leaders and react badly. David Cameron will find out in a few weeks time as some if not many of his votes go to UKIP. Late but better late than never.

    10

  • #
    pat

    16 April: CarbonBrief: Sophie Yeo: Explainer: What we know about the Pope’s encyclical
    In just under two weeks’ time, Vatican City will welcome an august selection of guests for a one-day conference on climate change.
    The meeting, entitled “Protect the earth, dignify humanity: the moral dimensions of climate change and sustainable development”, will take place on the 28 April.
    An agenda released by the Vatican on Tuesday lists appearances from UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and US economist ***Jeffrey Sachs…
    Pope Francis said that he would take a week in March to complete the document, which would then be sent out for translation – and if this process goes well, then the encyclical could be released in June or July.
    He added that it is important that the document is out far enough in advance of the UN’s climate negotiations, scheduled to take place in Paris this December, so that it can make a “contribution”…
    Who cares?
    There are 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, so that’s automatically a lot of people who could take an interest in what Pope Francis thinks about climate change.
    One of them is speaker of the House of Representatives in the US: Republican politician John Boehner. He has arranged for the Pope to address Congress on 24 September. Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio is also a Catholic…
    Gina McCarthy, head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, which is tasked with overseeing much of President Obama’s carbon cutting plans, has also met with Vatican officials who helped to draft the encyclical…
    Will it be enough?
    Climate pressure group 350.org has a campaign underway to persuade the Vatican to get rid of its investments in the fossil fuel industry…
    The encyclical itself is more likely to provide Catholics and the world with moral guidance rather than practical advice on tackling climate change, yet one thing is certain. The input of Pope Francis has the potential to be one of the most influential interventions into the climate debate between now and the UN climate negotiations in Paris, appealing to people across political and religious spectrums.
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/explainer-what-we-know-about-the-popes-encyclical/

    ***why not mention Sachs is on the Executive Committee & the Leadership Council of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, or that he is special adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on the Millennium Development Goals, having held the same position under former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

    alongside Sachs on the UNSDSN Leadership Council are such CAGW-concerned folks as Ted Turner, Rajendra Pachauri, Prince Albert of Monaco, Christiana Figueres,James Hansen & more.

    10

  • #
    pat

    16 April: RTCC: Megan Darby: Figueres: National climate plans = “investment prospectuses”
    UN climate chief urges businesses to look for opportunities in countries’ contributions to a global climate deal
    That was the line of UN climate chief Christiana Figueres ahead of a business and climate change conference in Paris next month…
    “While it is the responsibility of governments to set the direction of travel and that is very clearly lower carbon, it falls on business and sub-national governments to be the engines of change.“What is very exciting about these two days coming up is businesses are not waiting for policy perfection – because that is a work in progress – but businesses are already acting.” …
    Companies will be able to see where investment is needed in clean energy, public transport or energy efficiency, she suggested.Nigel Topping, CEO of We Mean Business, said the Business and Climate Summit on 20-21 May would define the “new normal” for responsible companies…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/16/figueres-national-climate-plans-investment-prospectuses/

    16 April: Deutsche Welle: Sarah Steffen: World Bank failed to protect the poor, research shows
    Projects funded by the World Bank have displaced more than three million people in the past decade, according to a group of investigative journalists. Activists say the bank needs to upgrade its human rights policies.
    Dams, power plants, conservation programs and other projects financed by the World Bank have pushed an estimated 3.4 million people out of their homes, off their lands, or threatened their livelihoods, according to research by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and other media organizations published on Thursday…
    “I believe that we must do better in implementing our resettlement policies,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said Thursday at a press conference in Washington, D.C.
    “We are now reviewing our safeguard policies, and I am determined that we will learn from the past, and that we will do all in our own power to protect people and the environment,” he added…
    Poor people are most vulnerable to activities funded by the World Bank – the very same people the institution is trying to lift out of poverty…
    http://www.dw.de/world-bank-failed-to-protect-the-poor-research-shows/a-18388491

    10

  • #
    pat

    we may have screwed up so far, but give us more $$$:

    16 April: RTCC: Ed King: Use fossil fuel subsidies for climate aid – World Bank envoy
    Rachel Kyte says billions directed towards oil, gas and coal should be used to promote green economy
    Finance ministers and central bankers are becoming increasingly concerned over how the world will fund an “orderly transition” to green and climate resilient growth, a senior World Bank official has told RTCC.
    Rachel Kyte, vice president at the Bank and its climate change envoy, said discussions over carbon pricing, clean energy investment and the need to stop burning fossil fuels were “more and more front of mind” for governments.“This year what you are starting to see is a mainstreaming of the debate,” she said, ahead of the annual International Monetary Fund spring meeting in in Washington DC…
    “We will have a ministerial discussion with more ministers than we have ever had before – including the G7,” Kyte said. She hopes delegates will “roll up their sleeves” and “get cracking”…
    Research from the Overseas Development Institute published last year suggests that G20 countries spend US$88 billion a year subsidising exploration for oil, gas and coal.
    A 2013 study by the OECD arrived at similar figures, finding that up to $90 billion a year is being directed towards fossil fuel production or subsidising its use.
    ***Kim has called for these to be “removed right now”, pointing to data suggesting the richest 20% benefit up to six times from these funds than the poorest 20%…
    Progress on these fronts, linked to a $38 billion market for green bonds and the newly-launched Green Climate Fund could offer a landing ground for a strong climate finance package in Paris, said Kyte…
    According to the New Climate Economy report, in next 15 years energy demand will grow between 20-35%, requiring $45 trillion of investment.
    By 2050 the OECD says the world will need 80% more energy due to rising population and a tripling of per capita consumption levels…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/16/use-fossil-fuel-subsidies-for-climate-aid-world-bank-envoy/

    ***yes, Kim, that would really help the poor.

    00

  • #
    pat

    would TonyfromOz & others care to analyse the figures!

    15 April: Bloomberg: Tom Randall: Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables
    This is the beginning of the end
    The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there’s no going back.
    The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added.
    “The electricity system is shifting to clean,” Michael Liebreich, founder of BNEF, said in his keynote address. “Despite the change in oil and gas prices there is going to be a substantial buildout of renewable energy that is likely to be an order of magnitude larger than the buildout of coal and gas.”…
    The price of wind and solar power continues to plummet, and is now on par or cheaper than grid electricity in many areas of the world…
    GRAPHIC: Investment Needed to Minimize Climate Change
    The blue lines are what’s needed, in billions; the red lines show what’s actually being spent. Since the financial crisis, funding has fallen well short of the target, according to BNEF.
    (An earlier version of this story represented the IEA’s scenario for solar in 2050 as a forecast when it was in fact one of several possible scenarios. The IEA does not make any forecasts for specific expectations after the 5-year mark, according to spokesman Greg Frost)
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-14/fossil-fuels-just-lost-the-race-against-renewables

    00

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      Without even looking further than your comment into the issue, I can safely say that the even if the amount of gigawatts in renewable electricity capacity is accurate, the amount of actual elctricity generated will never reach the stated capacity for the same reasons stated before.

      Renewables like sun and wind can’t produce the capacity stated in their Nameplate. Ever. This is physically impossible.

      Take %20 percent of 143 gigawatts and go with that.

      Abe

      20

  • #
    Tel

    When the Germans mess something up, they do it properly

    Yeah, two world wars, renewable energy and some sort of European trade association.

    You would think by now it might occur to them that central planning doesn’t work for them.

    Wait, central planning doesn’t work for anyone. We just need to discover out who has the capability of learning from this.

    40