The impossible conundrum: Going Netzero cancels your ability to get to Netzero
The industrial death spiral grows: Europe is the king of renewables and it’s also got the most expensive energy in the world making it impossible for the EU to make the things it needs to get to NetZero.
The EU lost their solar panel factories to China years ago, and the wind industry was worried they were going the same Sino way the solar industry went. A few months ago, the Vestas chief admitted that they were losing money on every wind turbine they sell. (Good thing their orders were collapsing, eh?)
Now the Volkswagen chief warns that things are so expensive, it soon won’t be viable to make electric cars and batteries in Europe either — which must be a bit of nasty surprise given that they just started building the first of six planned battery factories in Europe.
How fast those balance sheets change…
Naturally, the whole industry is calling for more subsidies. Obviously they can’t ask for what they really need, cheap energy.
‘We are treading water:’ An energy crisis is grinding European industry to a halt as the U.S. and China race ahead, Volkswagen warns
Tristan Bove, Yahoo News
Europe’s energy crisis is leaving the continent’s industry at a standstill, and its biggest car manufacturer says competitors are racing ahead as EU governments fail to provide enough support.
“On the international stage, Germany and the European Union are rapidly losing their attractiveness and competitiveness,” Thomas Schäfer, brand chief executive officer at German carmaker Volkswagen, wrote Monday in a LinkedIn post.
Schäfer said that Volkswagen, and other European carmakers, risk falling behind competitors in the electric car manufacturing space due to high energy prices, as the crisis puts the whole of European industry at a disadvantage.
“We are treading water,” he wrote. “I am very concerned about the current development regarding investments in the industry’s transformation. This needs to be urgently prioritized—unbureaucratically, consistently, and quickly.”
He also warned that Volkswagen could not afford to make batteries in the EU either:
VW exec says high energy prices will kill car battery production in Europe
Politico
“If we don’t succeed in quickly lowering energy prices in Germany and Europe, then investments in energy-intensive production, or for new battery cell factories, in Germany and across the EU will no longer be feasible,” he said.
Maybe it’s no coincidence that Volkswagen are searching for new sites for battery plants in Canada?
It’s a bloodbath in Europe for the wind industry
Europe’s Wind Energy Industry Has Hit A Rough Patch
Haley Zaremba, Oilpatch
…across Europe, major wind turbine makers are reporting massive losses and laying off swaths of employees. Just this month, Denmark-based Vestas Wind Systems, the largest maker of wind turbines in the world, reported a third-quarter loss of 147 million euros (about $151 million). General Electric, another major wind turbine producer in the United States and Europe, reports that its renewable energy unit is likely to report a $2 billion loss at the end of the year. Spanish company Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, a Madrid-based company that is a leading producer of offshore wind turbines, reported an annual loss of 940 million euros ($965 million) and has announced spending cuts which will incur 2,900 job losses – approximately 11% of the company’s workforce.
Here’s a clue about why wind power can’t compete:
According to the CEO of Siemens Energy, the issue is supply chains. “Never forget, renewables like wind roughly, roughly, need 10 times the material [compared to] … what conventional technologies need,” said Christian Bruch in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe. “So if you have problems on the supply chain, it hits … wind extremely hard, and this is what we see.”
With slower production due to supply chain problems, the wind industry is stuck — still trying to deliver orders from the pre-covid era at prices that are impossible, to an audience that is strapped for cash and selling a product that no one really needs.
So the Europeans are getting a lesson on the meaning of ‘Return On Energy Invested’?! Oh. What a shame..
580
Or are they just feeling the revenge of the Economic Marxists?
90
There hasn’t been any wind here in the Uk (and very little sun) for around 3 days, so wind turbines seem a bit superfluous. Renewables have been supplying about 5% of our power the last few days as that common winter scenario of cold, cloudy, windless weather strikes.
I would just like to repeat that excellent article by Matt Ridley
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/12/01/the-tories-wind-power-delusion-matt-ridley/
Here’s that excellent article about the impossibility of sufficient Storage when the weather gods get angry and don’t cooperate.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/11/Menton-Energy-Storage-Conundrum.pdf?mc_cid=80a8bdfb6a&mc_eid=4961da7cb1
What is depressing is that we know the many failings of green energy and their immorality-child labour and coerced workers and cost- yet still our elite and their puppets (or is it the other way round) enthusiastically promote them
It’s very difficult to believe that they don’t know as much as we do about green energy yet still they persist, which unfortunately means they are nothing less than an irrational cult
620
From the second link:
“The only remaining option is energy storage of some sort. The concept is to build enough wind and solar capacity to meet full demand when averaged over a year.”
The last words “when averaged over a year” present a common misconception.
The grid should be able to meet peak demand for episodic but unpredictable events. Such events may last from a few seconds to a couple of weeks.
This has been the past protocol using coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear.
590
Electricity consumption follows a periodic waveform approximately between 15GW and 25GW per day, with a peak at evening.
Solar + wind generation, if it were to be extrapolated to 100% of generation averaged over a year, follows a less periodic and much more erratic waveform that would vary between 5GW and 70GW, with a strong peak at midday each day, and strong low at night (no solar).
So the aim of storage would be to essentially “smooth out” the erratic solar + wind into the much smoother consumption. It turns out this is a mind-blowingly huge task. Stright off the bat, several hundred GWh needs to be stored EVERY SINGLE DAY to accomplish this smoothing.
But there’s a much bigger catch: in winter solar + wind are significantly less than summer, so we’d need to store essentially weeks worth of generation from summer to get through the low solar output in winter. I’ve calculated we would need approximately 5,000 GWh for this to work, based on the NEM data for the past year.
The biggest battery in the world only covers 0.02% of this ….. I wonder what we can conclude from that?
370
The infeasibility of storage for the United States is discussed at the following link. Similar would apply in Europe but probably even fewer suitable dam sites than the US.
The calculations are very simple and the results are conclusive but no one, present company excepted, seems to understand or care.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
221
An additional problem with hydro occurs during extended rain periods as we have had recently on the east coast. If the upper reservoir is full with rainwater and the lower reservoir is also full but cannot discharge water into a river system due to the risk of flooding, then the hydro system cannot be used. Perhaps wouldn’t occur too frequently but would be a big problem if the hydro system was the main storage back-up for the unreliables.
70
And in a drought, which happens quite often here, who gets the water? The “battery”, the river system, drinking water or farming?
No one has thought any of this through.
40
” I wonder what we can conclude from that?”
What it looks like when your favourite tooth fairy bites you on the arse?
130
This is not even a minimal requirement. The grid runs more comfortably at a reserve margin — maybe around 10%. Then there is the issue of one year not being like others. Is a ten year average sufficient? probably not.
90
And I assume everyone knows that storage is actually a load, not an energy source. Thus annual average demand must include the needed storage load as well.
180
Indeed. Adding in storage inlet and outlet losses, add about an extra 20% to the power that needs to be generated.
180
On the plus side, the UK is renowned for it’s sunny skies and it’s northern location provides an optimal azimuth for solar power, so they should be fine. 😉
191
Maybe the ‘elites’ and our ‘leaders’ have already been implanted with the WEF chip and are under remote control? Can’t think of any reasonable explanation as to why ordinary people can see that the emperor is naked, but the emperor’s mates are rating his togs so highly.
30
The problem is that as yet not enough ordinary people do see the looming disaster mainly because the majority are just too ignorant.
50
There are many ways to skin a cat-the cat this time being net zero. Germany appears to be following Holland in penalising its farmers, but instead of buying them out they want to severely restrict fertiliser use
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/12/01/great-reset-germany-bans-farmers-from-properly-fertilising-land-to-serve-eu-green-agenda/
So less fertilier, less crops, less need to tend them, so all in all another tiny fraction of a fraction of one percent in reaching their glorious net zero goals. Mind you, wouldn’t it be better to take the farmland out of commission and plant hundreds of wind turbines on the land?
140
The only reason that governments are able to pursue their crazy green policies is the lie that costs and prices will get cheaper. And each time they are faced with the reality of rising costs their response is we are not transitioning fast enough and when they speed up the transition they speed up the unreliability and increase in costs. Ultimately the solution is to acknowledge that the whole concept of climate change / global warming is a lie and the only solution is to actually stop all renewables. Not just remove subsidies, actually ban them, go back to coal, gas and / or nuclear and start the process of decommissioning those renewables that have already been installed . This situation is not resolved by trying to change the climate but trying to change the mindset of the decision makers and the voters who put them there. Ironically it is the authoritarian undemocratic regimes who ignore the net zero crap and it’s democracies who suffer. Sceptics have to get into positions of power. Unfortunately Australia is a basket case with both sides captured by the climate movement but elsewhere in the world cracks are appearing. It might take 2 years to get acceleration of this political transition with the potential of Republican sceptic as US president .The rate of increase in energy issues globally , change will by then be demand by most countries. Even in Australia the closure of two more major coal fired power stations will change the energy dynamics dramatically with political change likely in 2025 / 26 ( as long as the Liberals grow some balls).
580
Zigmaster:
I’ve given up hope tha the Liberals will do anything other than follow Labor crying Me Too.
The coming disaster in electricity in Australia will bring down the current Federal Government with Chris Bowen leading the lemmings over the edge, but the Liberals don’t see any reason to change at all.
It will be “If renewables fail, then we need more renewables”.
450
I was most interested in the statement by the CEO of Siemens Energy “Never forget, renewables like wind roughly, roughly, need 10 times the material “. That statement from a man who knows energy should tell the environmentalists that their rush to renewables is going to be ruinous for the environment both in terms of mining the raw materials and the prodigious use of energy to turn them into something that is only 30% useful.
I have a question; When a wind farm, or in the case of VW in the article, demand more subsidies why don’t they just charge the real price of the unit they are selling? We know it is to deceive the consumer into thinking something is cheaper than it really is but that subsidy is being paid by the consumer in taxes, if they pay tax, or in less services if they need services. Subsidies are useful to governments because they can have another department and more bureaucrats. It would be far more beneficial to the proles if no subsidies were paid and the products charged out at full price. IOW when government gets out of our lives we will be much happier. Happier than Claus Schwarb will ever know.
210
A subsidy is usually because the product or service is not economically viable. It can then be either because the service usually is considered necessary for the public or because the government is trying to drive a change which the public don’t want.
40
True – Politicains continue to raid industry to buy votes.
Voters won’t wake up until there’s no more industry and no money.
I will be a long hard road back, but a lesson will be learned that will last generations.The unknown is just how bad the fallout will be.
210
Governments who created the carnage will then present heroic nation building initiatives to keep us safe.
100
And the sheeple will continue to vote for them.
90
Zigmaster,
Being a Victorian and having just watched Dan Andrews get back in after his record of lies and corruption tells me something is very wrong . At least Dan will be front and centre when the SHTF. I suspect VW are facing reality , its the middle of winter…..
100
Trn to page 16 of this report (worth reading it in full) for a fascinating analysis of the amount of materials needed to build enough wind turbines to produce the wind generated equivalent output of a gas fired power station
https://www.blackrock.com/uk/literature/interim-report/blackrock-energy-and-resources-income-trust-plc-en-gb-2019-interim-report.pdf
240
That image alone on p16 should be enough for anyone to run away. It underlines the madness and lack of insight. It is a gigantic bubble that has to pop very soon.
Miners pinning their hopes on the transition could end up in deep poo.
The only reason Australia has a chance to get to Nut Zero is because a lot of the wasted resources will come out of Australia and at a premium price.
China’s cheap domestic coal underpins their manufacturing prowess, subsidising the “transition” everywhere else. At some point they will stop subsidising their coal and take it from elsewhere.
80
There is a giggle of schadenfreude here, but a more serious issue as well. Industry in general in the US’s largest trading partner is in a death spiral, with tens of thousands of mundane things suffering supply chain disruptions as European industry slows down; these were often the high value niche products made by few vendors in limited volume; circumstances that allowed companies to thrive in high tax high labor cost states. These individual disruptions will show up in the statistics of orders not filled, labor not utilized, and jobs not completed next spring and summer and unlike the mass layoffs of tech companies will go unnoticed by policy wonks until stagflation is firmly established. There is special knowledge in many of these companies where and how and if it will re-establish will be geopolitically important.
310
“giggle of schadenfreude”
🤣
190
Or a titter of epicaricacy.
60
At some point in time, political and corporate elites have got to admit that the green energy emperor has no clothes. It will likely take a lot of working-class pain, followed by political upheaval then changes to administrations to make that happen.
260
They know this, but they like their jobs and perks. This is down to the voters.
120
Voting our way out of this madness?
Given any contact with reality, that approach seems like a triumph of optimism over experience.
100
All of the above might just sound like a problem of defective technology, which of course it is.
But making energy too expensive to use, to make manufacturing non-viable, to make farming non-viable, to make being warm in winter non-viable, to make personal transport non-viable….
IT’S ALL PART OF THE PLAN
This is what the Left wants for non-Elites.
It’s an engineered roll-back to pre-Enlightenment and pre-Industrial Revolution times.
471
‘This is what the Left wants for non-Elites.’
The left wants to crush the working class, a novel approach but inaccurate. There have always been elites in societies and this present mob just happen to be delusional on the question of climate change and energy, thinking of Twiggy and Cannon-Brookes.
‘The Australian Energy Market Operator has been flagging for the best part of two years that by 2025 there is likely to be enough wind and solar to power the grid entirely by renewables – at least for a half hour period.’ (Renew Economy)
92
All of this was completely predictable on the basis of information provided in two five-minute videos by Mark Mills. These are the first two items in the basic information pack that is circulated by The Energy Realists of Australia (based in Sydney of course and not to be confused with the interlopers from the north who call themselves The Climate and Energy Realists of Australia.)
The tireless Energy Realists, led by James Taylor, have produced a forensic critique of the abominable Integrated System Plan produced by AEMO.
The same team is working on a critique of the fatally flawed CSIRO GenCost study that is the basis for the ludicrous claims that are circulated about the cheapness of wind and solar compared with coal and nuclear power.
Watch this space!
310
Rafe
I read the report. Solar seems to be predicated on 8 reliable full strength hours of sun per day. That might be so in Oz but here in the UK our heavily subsidised solar industry has to cope with our northerly latitude which means that in my part of the country, Devon in the south West, we are considered one of the sunniest parts of the country and would expect around 1750 hours of sun annually. Of course in the winter the days are short and sun is in short supply.
What sort of average sun hours would the major Australian cities expect to get because if solar energy can’t work in your part of the world it’s not going to work anywhere
240
There have been complaints in Australia, under the spell of three consecutive La Ninas, that the sun god rarely shows his face.
110
” predicated on 8 reliable full strength hours of sun per day” yes basically a nonsense, except for Queensland of course where my family tells me its always perfect.
30
This is really not the key point for Australia. In Australia, my solar system has to cope with a glut of system power through the middle of the day. That is what constrains its output now. Our street voltage on any sunny day sits at 254V. The system’s output has wound back to maintain that level. Sunny Saturday morning and Victoria, South Australia and Queensland all curtailing intermittent grid-scale output as the rooftops kick in. All mainland states on the NEM have negative wholesale price. Forecast minimum demand in SA is 366MW. Evening peak is 1812MW. And noe of the peak will be supplied by solar.
70
Life is instrinsically nett zero but not an individual life. Far from it. All animals generate vast amounts of CO2 by just breathing, everything they do. About three tons per year for every human without going anywhere. But this energy is powered by hydrated CO2, carbohydrates and derivatives stored grasses, seeds, fruit and the meat of other animals and therefore ‘renewable’ in new science speak.
So Nett zero is basically a law against the use of fossil fuels based on the ridiculous IPCC promoted lie that old fossil fuel CO2, old carbon atoms stay in the air for far longer, ‘thousands of years’, that this extra CO2 cannot be absorbed by an overloaded atmosphere or the vast deep oceans which cover the world. Old CO2 is insoluble apparently when it is the most soluble common gas, 30x more soluble than O2 on which fish depend.
The question then is how long does this old fossilized CO2 last in the atmosphere compared with the new CO2 of grasses and animals and wood pellets? The IPCC gives a half life of CO2 to reenter the admitted vast oceans of 80 years. Where they derived this figure is a complete mystery. This is the core argument that you cannot have nett zero without eliminating fossil fuel CO2. In fact the life of cows and kangaroos is too long (what about humans?), so they have to go. It’s us and insects then. Humans are the problem.
Except the real and proven fact is the half life of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is only 6 years, comparable to grasses. This was well known in the 1950s, but the IPCC invented new science. And six years is at least comparable to the wood pellets which provide 14% of all energy in the UK in the most ridiculous denial of common sense. So fossil fuels are nett zero!
The farting elephant in the room is China which with 20% of the world’s population is pushing out more than 50% of all CO2 and getting subsidized by everyone as a third world country. Even tiny Australia is castigated for having the world’s highest CO2 per capita when it is China outputs more CO2 than all other countries combined. What is the UN saying about Chinese CO2? Nothing. Why aren’t the STOP OIL protesters in China? Can’t get there without flying? Try glueing yourself to Tienamen square.
So what is the point of nett zero? If we reduce CO2 output, it just increases Chinese CO2 output as all manufacturing goes to China including windmills and solar panels. This does nothing for total CO2 output or total CO2 as is self evident from the graph of CO2. In fact humans have had no demonstrable effect on CO2 levels at any time, but who needs facts?
Along with medieval Carbon indulgences we have self flagellation by Western democracies who decry any history of slavery and exploitation but say nothing about the slavery and exploitation in China. When is China going to be nett zero? Never.
And besides, CO2 is under rapid equilibrium with the vast oceans and we could not change CO2 levels if we wanted to do so, up or down. That’s how equilibrium works. But who needs science when you can disrupt traffic and get on television?
230
I also feel the need to point out that CO2 is just a gas. A very common gas formed by two of the most common elements in the universe. CO2 is everywhere and embedded in longer molecules like Calcium Carbonate which is all the shell fish, all the limestone and marble. The stuff under Paris and England and from which the Nullabor plain is made or South Australia’s limestone coast. The Great Barrier Reef is carbon dioxide based limestone and silicon oxides.
So even if life on earth based on plentiful CO2 did not exist, CO2 would exist. And it would form a lot of the atmosphere, about 2% if the gas was not so soluble.
What O2, N2 and CO2 forms the atmosphere is what escapes from the oceans. And in the case of highly soluble, highly compressible CO2 only about 2% makes it out.
The little bit which is involved in life on earth is a tiny part of this tiny part. And with a half life of 6 years, each year about 16% of CO2 goes into the ocean and that includes all fossil fuel CO2 of course as it is identical chemically. And as total CO2 has gone up, tiny fossil fuel CO2 is swept away even faster.
The idea that the extra 50% of the 150% is man made is not based on anything other than ignorance or opportunism by the Intergovernmental Pushers of Climate Change. The simple chemistry is that warmer ocean surfaces release more CO2. And the contortions of logic to try to explain that CO2 actually warms oceans is unproven, unlikely and as water temperature determines air temperature and air temperature does not determine water temperature, completely absurd. Man Made GLobal Air Warming cannot heat the water and certainly not 1.5C over 150 years.
And if the computer models modeled the oceans and not the air, they would be accurate long term. If only because 99.99% of surface heat is stored in the oceans where the land and atmosphere cools rapidly every night, the oceans do not change. All their rises and falls are internal and heat cannot escape except through surface evaporation. Which causes all our weather.
It’s very important to exclude meteorologists from Climate Science. Long term Climate officially has nothing to do with weather but apparently causes every short term weather event because Climate Change is nasty and capricious. So there.
180
‘ … 99.99% of surface heat is stored in the oceans where the land and atmosphere cools rapidly every night, the oceans do not change.’
I like it, but perhaps we should say 90%.
Also, the top few meters of the oceans hold more heat content than the entire atmosphere of planet earth.
70
No, even the bottom of the ocean is not below 0C. Thats 3.5km of non frozen water. The weight is 350x the air and the heat capacity 1400x. 99.9% would be my only concession. Dry air holds nothing. It all radiates away. Except in the tropics where you have high water/humidity.
30
The idea, humanity’s tiny 2-3% of 0.04% CO2-a colourless, odourless, inert trace gas so rare, it’s almost extinct & exponentially exceeded by Water Vapour as a ‘Greenhouse Gas’-influences anything, is an infantile disinformation campaign. ( not my quote, cant trace the author)
90
Hi Jo
Could you please email this little article to Matt Kean and Chris Bowen?
Though I surmise the highly technical aspects of the piece would be too much for their little politician brains to comprehend.
210
Neither Kean or Bowen has the least intent or capability of comprehending the scientific reality.
110
How do you spell Schadenfreude.
60
Even though Kurt Vonnegut was a Leftist, he got this statement right:
110
Thanks again Jo for trying to wake us up, but our blog donkeys hate proper data and evidence.
So far we’ve only started on the first step to their fabled net zero idiocy and already the cost blowouts are horrific.
We should stop now and have a REALITY conference to try and return the world to ONLY BASE-LOAD power stns ASAP. No excuses, just do it.
Today Oil, Coal and Gas generate over 80% of global energy and the future global energy requirements will be much higher than 2022.
The TOXIC S & W lunacy couldn’t even supply the increase required by 2030 or 2050 or ….
Anyone in doubt should look at the Mark Mill’s videos and let the DATA and evidence guide you instead of the TOXIC S & W fairy tales. There are no excuses left, you either understand very simple sums or you have a very low IQ and nobody can help you.
120
Virtue signalling meets reality Swiss style
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/switzerland-considers-electric-vehicle-ban-avoid-blackouts
120
Thanks Yarpos and we’ve only started down this very slippery slope.
So who decides if you should drive your car or NOT?
Is it some lefty committee of extremists or do the Police just burst into your house and cart you off to the lockup?
But perhaps I should stop because I’m sure our clueless blog donkeys are already starting to smack their chops.
100
normally they just come and take your plates if you have infringed some rule
30
It can’t come better 😀
40
AGAIN I need to refer to the Lefty NZ govt’s audit to reach their so called net zero.
They calculated it to be 5 trillion $ and Lomborg’s team thought that might be a reasonable number.
So 5 trillion $ to cover the NZ’s 0.1% of global co2 emissions or about 50 + trillion $ for Aussies and 650 trillion $ for the USA and about 475 trillion $ for the EU.
Anyone starting to see a problem yet? DUH? And don’t forget you’ll have endless blackouts over the chaotic lifespan of the TOXIC S & W disasters of about 15 years and then it’ll all have to be dumped in landfill. THEN you start again.
So where is their CHEAP, CLEAN, GREEN energy?
111
Ahh, the law of unintended consequences strikes again.
70
The consequences are ‘unintended’ – by who, exactly?
Auto
10
John Hayward’s thread EXPOSES the elite’s endgame with EVs and it’s NOT about ‘saving the planet
Spoiler alert: the endgame of the “electric vehicle revolution” is NOT the same number of people driving around, except using EVs instead of gas-fueled cars. The endgame is sharply restricting or eliminating personal transportation for the middle and lower classes.
– Hat tip to @TXOdysseus for pointing out in this thread that there aren’t enough vital minerals in the entire world to “replace” the internal combustion engine with batteries. It’s an empirically demonstrable fact. Those profiting from the “EV revolution” are well aware of it.
– And what of the Third World? If it’s physically impossible to build enough EVs to “replace” cars on a one-to-one basis, what happens to the places that need affordable internal combustion engines to develop industry? They’re being consigned to eternal pre-industrial poverty.
– The genuine demand for electric cars is very nearly zero, and always has been. If they were sold at realistic prices, without titanic subsidies forcibly extracted from taxpayers, there would be maybe a hundred of them in the entire world, driven by virtue-signaling idle rich.
– We have been forced to finance our compulsory transition away from reliable and affordable personal transportation. If this was any other industry, the Left would be screaming bloody murder at the cronyism, corruption, profiteering, and staggering environmental damage.
– The environmental promises of electric cars are a total sham as well. It takes a very long time for an EV to reach the same net “environmental footprint” as a modern automobile, especially if we’re not allowed to use nuclear power to charge them, and the cost/mile is staggering.
– Existing national power grids cannot come close to handling a 1-to-1 transition from autos to EVs. Again, the people doing this to us are very well aware of it. If we’re forced to sacrifice reliable power sources for expensive solar and wind junk, the shortage gets much worse.
– Everything that could come close to making these calculations work out for EVs is highly speculative technology, if not outright science fiction. We’ve got collectivist plans that dissolve into penciled-in question marks 5 and 10 years out. Maybe hydrogen fuel cells will pan out!
– So the plan is clearly to reduce the number of people with access to personal transportation, especially with enough range to give them control over careers and lifestyles. The lower classes will move around less. They’ll use public transport. More of them will cluster in cities.
– Not so for the elite, of course. THEY will have reliable transportation. They will be allowed to fly. Not a single member of the political or corporate upper crust will ever be obliged to plan their business or leisure around the lack of at-will long-range individual transport.
– The cost/mile factor is important, not only because the middle class will be impoverished by the compulsory adoption of EVs, but because environmental sensitivity is a luxury of prosperous societies. Raise the cost of everything for EVs and people will get dirtier in other ways.
130
Thanks Old Ozzie but I’m hoping to use my modern ICE SUV to service my needs until they ban me from driving.
And if I’m banned I’ll consider my next move at that time, but I don’t think it will make them very happy.
141
Get woke, go broke.
81
Here’s a challenge for all those politicians masquerading as engineers and other pretend engineers promoting this wind and solar nonsense.
Build a totally off-grid solar system for your own home that operates in winter as well with no power restriction even with 10 days of cloud.
You can even add a windmill if you wish.
If you can’t do it (and pay for it), don’t impose your fantasy on the rest of us.
160
Quite a few around here doing that, but you left off the bit about the diesel generator.
90
In a book I read a month or two ago, it was mostly fiction but the was one line that was not at all fiction. The setting was a military hospital in Afghanistan. The line was “diesel powered climate control”
20
Primitive, superstitious cultures like the Mayans beleived they were responsible for changing the climate so they self-mutilated and performed ritual sacrifices in order to appease the weather gods. Nothing’s changed much. Now it’s called NetZero.
110
The Dark Agenda Behind the WEF’s Green Energy Push
Recently, the COP27 meeting concluded in Egypt with the World Economic Forum laying out 40 metrics the world must accomplish by 2030, including the below ones that I thought were the most revealing of the ones they outlined:
(1) Shut down 925 average-size coal plants a year;
(2) Increase public transportation infrastructure 6X’s faster than the current rate to decrease individual driving;
(3) Lower CO2 from cement production 10X’s faster than the current rate;
(4) Reduce the rate of deforestation 2.5X’s faster;
(5) Shift to plant-based diets 5X’s faster (call for a drastic reduction in beef consumption per capita in developed nations); and
(6) Phase out oil subsidies 5X’s faster
The above policy directives are interesting for Directives (1) and (6) obviously feed into WEF’s agenda of greatly increased reliance on inefficient expensive green energy, a policy agenda that will cause energy prices around the world to soar into unaffordable price levels for many people and create a decision in many households between feeding one’s family or heating/cooling one’s home during winter/summer seasons. Directive (2) is about reducing our rights to privacy and to future car ownership, an iteration of Klaus Shwab’s declaration that “you will own nothing and be happy”. At first glance, Directive (3) seems to be a call for massively decreasing the levels of building construction in large cities around the world and stymying any commercial real estate growth, but new methodologies of fabricating cement that rely on electrolyzers and no CO2 production, if perfected, could accomplish Directive (3) without calling for a massive decrease in the rate of all commercial real estate growth.
Directive (4) is somewhat of a shock to me
40
Delivering “directives” from on high , when in reality they should have no status at all. Just another opinion.
70
” Directive (4) is somewhat of a shock to me”
So is Directive (6). Can someone please tell me what these oft touted subsidies are?
Low royalties paid to governments for oil, coal or gas are NOT subsidies. The non payment of road taxes on fuel by mining companies are NOT subsidies.
These are direct wealth creating initiatives that actually benefit the entire nation. Subsidies to green energy scams on the other hand seem to just be a profit harvesting scheme that benifit very few.
90
OldOzzie. There is no way anyone can accomplish those goals without a huge reduction in human population. Beware the next “pandemic and vaccine” for they are surely a means to an end. If these elites are so concerned they should lead by example and have a mass suicide at the next Davos conference. We would all be suitably impressed and some might even follow suit. Meanwhile in the real world Mr and Mrs Average will be busy doing the dishes or bathing the kids and miss the news item. The world then could return to normal.
20
Dr. L. Schernikau and I have published four papers on these topics. Two have been refereed (one with R. Falcon) and two are in review, but available on ResearchGate and SSRN. We also have published a more comprehensive book, now available on Amazon. These papers and book provide NUMBERS from extensively referenced, published data to make the case that replacement of fossil fuels requires far more than renewables can achieve. Investment in Fossil fuels and nuclear are available solution, not doubling down on an already failed energy policy. Dictatorships and oligarchies, however, never like to be shown wrong and …
120
It is statements like this that give false hope to perveyors of intermittent generation. It demonstrates he has no insight into the overall system requirements; rather a very narrow focus on just nameplate capacity combined with natural capacity factor. The actual material intensity for a 100% intermittent grid with energy storage is closer to ONE HUNDRED TIMES the material intensity of a coal fired grid with gas topping.
The problems faced by the manufacturers in Europe gets back to the fundamental fact the current wind and solar technology CANNOT produce more energy in their life than that required to build them. They all become energy SINKS once their penetration reaches a low threshold in most existing electricity networks.
101
If the CEO of Siemens does not understand the system impact then there is ZERO hope for technical challenged like Chris Bowen.
The only way Chris Bowen has any chance of understanding is for him to get a solar panel and try to run his house on it. Completely off-grid and just keep adding stuff until it all meets his energy needs.
This is what Australia is trying to do without any system planning. Every man and his dog trying to make a buck out of the transition. More wind turbines, more grid solar. more rooftop solar, more batteries, more hydro, more pumped storage, more gas plant, more synchronous condensers, more computers to manage the complexity, more computers to maximise profits, more administration to manage the complexity, more gas, more land. more transition lines more, more, more – Only less coal. And somehow electricity prices will magically come down!
101
Solar? Less than 8 hrs a day, between Lat -40 to + 40. Less if N or S of those Latitudes.
Wind? Whenever it chooses to blow. Gambling at best.
Batteries? Require more materials than exist and all of it mined with diesel fuels.
All of these fantasies deny or ignore physics, engineering, economics and reality. A fantasy of the incompetent.
What kind of morons think Green Energy is anything but a taxpayer fleeced, Government funded, failure?
If anyone likes living in 1850, just keep on doing what doesn’t work.
Exactly how many human sacrifices need to be made in order for the spring rains to come? That’s Green Ideology.
We are living amidst the death spiral of knowledge, history, logic, and meaningful thought. It is a travesty.
Millions of ancestors have bought us the opportunity to excel in every way, but it is all being trashed for the sake of childish indulgence, economic suicide, national stupidity, abandonment of responsibility, acceptance of deception and treason against the people who ostensibly empower the government.
This is utterly insane. The corrupt leading the stupid is no way to survive. The clock is running out.
Einstein was correct. The Universe may be infinite, but there is no limit to human stupidity.
100
Given the growing avalanche of concern from the better informed among us, it’s puzzling why so many people remain unaware of of the looming train-wreck. The Fourth Estate has disintegrated – useless – and when the lived experience becomes the ultimate wake up call, the reality will be beyond most peoples comprehension.
What will follow cannot even be guessed at.
70
Time has its revolutions.
10
[…] eine Antwort NetZero impossibility point? Europe’s renewable wonderland now can’t make solar, wind, b… JoNova […]
00
[…] NetZero impossibility point? Europe’s renewable wonderland now can’t make solar, wind, b… […]
10
The original UN documents available for download in the late ’80’s or there abouts were read and described as aiming to handicap Western first world nations and redistribute their wealth to third world nations (regardless of governance). It’s all coming to pass. The Climate Change (anthropogenic global warming in the early days) debacle, then idea dreamed up by European elites seeking to form the West into the image of the EU – undemocratic Eu Commission and all- is coming home to roost, in the EU, home of those that dreamed it up and those that blindly believed. ‘The science is in’ was a declaration sealing their own demise. Now they grizzle? They made no attempt to define the consequences for their futures and hence sewed the seeds of their own demise.
As someone recently wrote, Karma is a bitch. The worst of it is, the powers that be seem to be totally shocked by the outcomes of their own stupidity. That emphasises their total lack of understanding the outcomes of their actions guaranteed. This is how stupid are the people we elect to govern us. Or are they so malignant they pursue other unproclaimed agendas? Are Australian, EU and US politicians really as bad as they appear, or is this what they have deliberately designed and they no longer serve their people?
Our politicians cut the ground from under our economy regardless of outcomes in evidence in Europe. Australians are deeply into advancing the renewables con despite actually experiencing the pain of pricey, failing energy. Why are people so stupid? Is maths so weak they seem incapable of adding 1+1? Elections? Is this the outcome of 40years of an education system where logic seems dead, where wokism rules and basic beliefs are shaped by continuous propaganda and fear campaigns that overwhelm the senses we are born with.
50
EV anyone?
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/12/01/swiss-look-to-ban-use-of-electric-cars-over-the-winter-to-save-energy-n514785?mc_cid=232c44ba14&mc_eid=ca56af04ed
10
[…] Our Energy Policies Get?Is Hydrogen the Answer to Reaching Net-zero—Apparently, it’s not!Europe’s renewable wonderland now can’t make solar, wind, batteries or EV’sHeating Is the Coming Crisis, Brought on by Green […]
00
[…] NetZero impossibility point? Europe’s renewable wonderland now can’t make solar, wind, b… […]
00
[…] Europe cannot make the green energy toys:https://joannenova.com.au/2022/12/europes-renewable-wonderland-now-cant-make-solar-wind-batteries-or… […]
00
[…] Europe cannot make the green energy toys:https://joannenova.com.au/2022/12/europes-renewable-wonderland-now-cant-make-solar-wind-batteries-or… […]
00
[…] Europe cannot make the green energy toys: https://joannenova.com.au/2022/12/europes-renewable-wonderland-now-cant-make-solar-wind-batteries-or… […]
00
[…] Europe cannot make the green energy toys: https://joannenova.com.au/2022/12/europes-renewable-wonderland-now-cant-make-solar-wind-batteries-or… […]
00