Germany has been touted as a world leader in "green energy" by "progressive" international mainstream media. However, this reality check by the government sponsored Deutsche Welle tells another story:
German households face steeply rising electricity bills, companies threaten to move abroad, engineers raise the specter of blackouts. A reform of Germany’s green energy revolution must top the new government's agenda. --
Under an ambitious new energy policy, Germany seeks to boost renewables to make up 80 percent of total power generated by 2050. Along the way, nuclear power is to be completely phased out by 2022, and fossil-fuel based energy production sharply reduced.
However, since the EEG law was implemented in 2000, German electricity retail prices have risen from then 14 eurocents per kilowatt-hour to almost 29 cents today, according to data released by the Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW).
Much of the increase is the result of a surcharge on electricity bills paid by private households and businesses to finance state subsidies for renewable energies. Wind, solar and biomass energy producers are guaranteed fixed so-called feed-in tariffs above market price for 20 years. These subsidies have led to an investment boom propelling the amount of renewable energy from 15 percent of German power generation in 2008 to 23 percent in 2012. --
Curiously enough, the more renewable energy is being fed into the German power grid the more people and businesses pay for the green energy. On July 16, which was a windy as well as sunny day, the wholesale electricity price even slumped to below zero on an excess of power from those renewable sources. Consumers had to pay the price difference to the feed-in tariff guaranteed to renewable producers.
Moreover, the subsidies are further inflated under a government policy to exempt energy-intensive industries such as steel mills and aluminum smelters from paying the renewables surcharge. But those breaks, which were originally meant for only a few companies competing internationally, are meanwhile being granted to over 4,000 businesses.
In addition, the costs of massive infrastructure updates, which are needed to accommodate the vast amounts of green energy, are also footed by consumers through their electricity bills. This includes expanding the power grid as well as creating storage systems for solar and wind power. --
And, as Deutsche Welle, points out, there is no way out of the subsidies energy trap:
No matter which policy measure will be finally implemented, the renewables subsidies' bill for German consumers - currently standing at a total of 20.3 billion euros a year - won't be substantially lower in the years to come. As existing renewable power producers will continue to be guaranteed fixed feed-in prices for the next 20 years, slowing the rise in costs is the best a new government might hope to achieve.
What does this mean?
It means that the medium and long range prospects for the German economy are far from good. International investors should stay away from a country that has chosen to sacrify its present economic success in order to keep the high priests of the church of global warming happy.
Saturday, 21 September 2013
UK scientist: Australia's new PM Tony Abbott is like the politicians who claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS
 |
| Engineering professor Nilay Shah |
Engineering professor Nilay Shah of Imperial College London, lead author of a new climate change report, says that politicians such as Australia's new Prime Minister Tony Abbott are like the South African leaders who contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths by claiming that HIV did not cause AIDS:
POLITICIANS who dismiss the need for urgent action on climate change are like the South African leaders who contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths by claiming that HIV did not cause AIDS, a scientist has said.
Nilay Shah, of Imperial College London, said that politicians such as Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who has raised doubts about the science behind climate change, would be judged as harshly by future generations as those who questioned the medical evidence on AIDS.
He made the remarks when launching a report saying that the world needed to be spending $2 trillion a year by 2050, or 1 per cent of GDP, to limit global warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels.
Professor Shah, lead author of the report by Imperial College's Grantham Institute for Climate Change, said: "There's an interesting parallel with South Africa in the 90s, where political capital was being made out of HIV denial. Those people must now regret what they did. I suspect that some of the politicians [now arguing against rapid cuts in emissions] will still be around in the mid-2030s and will reflect that they didn't do enough on climate change."
Read the entire article here
If someone is going to be "judged harshly", it is this professor, who is spreading false information about (a growing number of) politicians who are brave enough to oppose the false religion of human induced global warming.
Demands that the European Union change its costly and ineffective climate policies are increasing
The IPCC is about to confirm that its previous forecasts about warming have been wrong, but that does not bother European Union's highest climate change official, Danish commissioner Connie Hedegaard and her colleagues in the European Commission the least - the EU should according to the EU warmists continue with its costly and useless climate policies regardless of the lack of warming!
In an interview with the Telegraph, Europe's most senior climate
change official argued that the current policies are the correct
ones because a growing world population will put pressure on energy supplies
regardless of the rate of global warming.
"I personally have a very pragmatic view."
"Say that 30 years from now, science came back and said, 'wow, we were
mistaken then now we have some new information so we think it is something
else'. In a world with nine billion people, even 10 billion at the middle of
this century, where literally billions of global citizens will still have to get
out of poverty and enter the consuming middle classes, don't you think that
anyway it makes a lot of sense to get more energy and resource efficient," she
said.
"Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was
not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things
you have to do in order to combat climate change?."
The Danish commissioner also rejected public complaints over increases in electricity prices to subsidise renewable energies, such as wind farms, as unrealistic because, she said, increased competition over diminishing energy resources such as oil and gas will lead to higher bills.
"I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices," she said.
"I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer."
Mrs Hedegaard, and the European Commission, have not changed their position that the science that is currently used to justify EU climate change policy is "over 90 per cent" certain that global warming exists and that it is manmade.
However, EU and other policymakers are worried that the IPCC's forthcoming admission, expected on Sep 27, that previous forecasts are wrong will damage the legitimacy of climate change policies, such as levies and fuel taxes on consumers to fund renewable energy.
In fact, there are already signs that European policymakers are about to change their tone when speaking about climate change. The German daily Die Welt e.g. reports that the FDP's spokesperson for environmental policies in the European Parliament, Holger Krahmer, demands an about-turn of EU's climate policies.
Politicians are often slow to admit that they have been wrong, but when they realize that they are about to lose the confidence of their voters, for reasons of self-preservation change they will - or risk being replaced by others. For bureaucrats like Hedegaard and the rest, there is only one solution - to replace them with more sensible people.
The Danish commissioner also rejected public complaints over increases in electricity prices to subsidise renewable energies, such as wind farms, as unrealistic because, she said, increased competition over diminishing energy resources such as oil and gas will lead to higher bills.
"I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices," she said.
"I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer."
Mrs Hedegaard, and the European Commission, have not changed their position that the science that is currently used to justify EU climate change policy is "over 90 per cent" certain that global warming exists and that it is manmade.
However, EU and other policymakers are worried that the IPCC's forthcoming admission, expected on Sep 27, that previous forecasts are wrong will damage the legitimacy of climate change policies, such as levies and fuel taxes on consumers to fund renewable energy.
In fact, there are already signs that European policymakers are about to change their tone when speaking about climate change. The German daily Die Welt e.g. reports that the FDP's spokesperson for environmental policies in the European Parliament, Holger Krahmer, demands an about-turn of EU's climate policies.
Politicians are often slow to admit that they have been wrong, but when they realize that they are about to lose the confidence of their voters, for reasons of self-preservation change they will - or risk being replaced by others. For bureaucrats like Hedegaard and the rest, there is only one solution - to replace them with more sensible people.
Friday, 20 September 2013
The Economist on a weakened US (and West)
I do not very often find myself agreeing with what the people at the Economist write, but when it comes to Barack Obama's Syria "policy", I think they are right:
Now every tyrant knows that a red line set by the leader of the free world is really just a threat to ask legislators how they feel about enforcing it. Dictators will be freer to maim and murder their own people, proliferators like North Korea less scared to proceed with spreading WMD, China and Russia ever more content to test their muscles in the vacuum left by the West.
The West is not on an inexorable slide towards irrelevance. Far from it. America’s economy is recovering, and its gas boom has undermined energy-fuelled autocracies. Dictatorships are getting harder to manage: from Beijing to Riyadh, people have been talking about freedom and the rule of law. It should be a good time to uphold Western values. But when the emerging world’s aspiring democrats seek to topple tyrants, they will remember what happened in Syria. And they won’t put their faith in the West.
Read the entire editorial here
Now every tyrant knows that a red line set by the leader of the free world is really just a threat to ask legislators how they feel about enforcing it. Dictators will be freer to maim and murder their own people, proliferators like North Korea less scared to proceed with spreading WMD, China and Russia ever more content to test their muscles in the vacuum left by the West.
The West is not on an inexorable slide towards irrelevance. Far from it. America’s economy is recovering, and its gas boom has undermined energy-fuelled autocracies. Dictatorships are getting harder to manage: from Beijing to Riyadh, people have been talking about freedom and the rule of law. It should be a good time to uphold Western values. But when the emerging world’s aspiring democrats seek to topple tyrants, they will remember what happened in Syria. And they won’t put their faith in the West.
Read the entire editorial here
Politicians told IPCC scientists to "cover up" the lack of warming
This is nothing but a scandal:
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft. --
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
The politicians who wanted to cover up the lack of warming should of course be named and relieved of any duties related to (imaginary) human caused climate change - and voters should punish them in the next elections!
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
The politicians who wanted to cover up the lack of warming should of course be named and relieved of any duties related to (imaginary) human caused climate change - and voters should punish them in the next elections!
Thursday, 19 September 2013
Senator John McCain on Putin in Pravda: "He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn't strong enough to tolerate dissent"
How right US Senator John McCain is in his opinion piece, published in the Russian newspaper Pravda: "Russians deserve better than Putin"
Since my purpose here is to dispel falsehoods used by Russia's rulers to perpetuate their power and excuse their corruption, let me begin with that untruth. I am not anti-Russian. I am pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.
Since my purpose here is to dispel falsehoods used by Russia's rulers to perpetuate their power and excuse their corruption, let me begin with that untruth. I am not anti-Russian. I am pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.
I make that claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination. I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government. I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few. You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just. I make that claim because I believe the Russian people, no less than Americans, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
A Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Putin and his associates do not believe in these values. They don't respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even assassinate journalists who try to expose their corruption.
They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose sexual orientation they condemn. They throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Putin's rule.
Sergei Magnistky wasn't a human rights activist. He was an accountant at a Moscow law firm. He was an ordinary Russian who did an extraordinary thing. He exposed one of the largest state thefts of private assets in Russian history. He cared about the rule of law and believed no one should be above it. For his beliefs and his courage, he was held in Butyrka prison without trial, where he was beaten, became ill and died. After his death, he was given a show trial reminiscent of the Stalin-era and was, of course, found guilty. That wasn't only a crime against Sergei Magnitsky. It was a crime against the Russian people and your right to an honest government - a government worthy of Sergei Magnistky and of you.
President Putin claims his purpose is to restore Russia to greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But by what measure has he restored your greatness? He has given you an economy that is based almost entirely on a few natural resources that will rise and fall with those commodities. Its riches will not last. And, while they do, they will be mostly in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few. Capital is fleeing Russia, which - lacking rule of law and a broad-based economy - is considered too risky for investment and entrepreneurism. He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn't strong enough to tolerate dissent.
How has he strengthened Russia's international stature? By allying Russia with some of the world's most offensive and threatening tyrannies. By supporting a Syrian regime that is murdering tens of thousands of its own people to remain in power and by blocking the United Nations from even condemning its atrocities. By refusing to consider the massacre of innocents, the plight of millions of refugees, the growing prospect of a conflagration that engulfs other countries in its flames an appropriate subject for the world's attention. He is not enhancing Russia's global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants and an enemy to the oppressed, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.
The German goal of one million electric cars in 2020 going down the drain
Out of about 43 million passenger cars currently registered in Germany, not more than 7,000 are electrically driven. With 3,000 electric cars sold this year, the country is less than 0.2% of the way to achieving the government target of one million vehicle sales by 2020.
According to a study by research institute ISI, the success of electric cars is hugely dependent on energy prices:
Researchers argue that the best scenario for electric cars is for the price of batteries and energy to decrease, while diesel and petrol gets more expensive.
But if energy prices and battery costs do not fall the study believes Germany will be a long way short of its target, with consumers buying no more than 200,000 electric cars, author Martin Wietschel said.
But even the German government's department for promoting electric vehicles understands that the one million goal is impossible to reach without massive subsidies:
Henning Kagermann, head of a government department which looks at electric vehicles within the Ministry of the Environment, told the Süddeutsche newspaper that carmakers may need help from the state to realize the electric car dream, even though the German car industry is making multi-billion euro profits.
And it is not going to be cheap for the German taxpayers. Already now their contribution is huge:
By 2015, the German government will have spent about 700 million euros ($902 million) on promoting so-called e-mobility, which includes auto industry subsidies as well as support for electric transportation projects at community level. In addition, tax reductions for e-cars are planned.
Germany's neighbor France, as well as a number of other European countries mostly in Scandinavia, are trying to boost sales with direct subsidies for e-car purchases.
"This policy has failed so far to increase e-car sales," said Stefan Bratzel from the Center for Automotive Management, adding that the strategy was highly questionable in view of the states' huge public deficits.
According to a study by research institute ISI, the success of electric cars is hugely dependent on energy prices:
Researchers argue that the best scenario for electric cars is for the price of batteries and energy to decrease, while diesel and petrol gets more expensive.
But if energy prices and battery costs do not fall the study believes Germany will be a long way short of its target, with consumers buying no more than 200,000 electric cars, author Martin Wietschel said.
But even the German government's department for promoting electric vehicles understands that the one million goal is impossible to reach without massive subsidies:
Henning Kagermann, head of a government department which looks at electric vehicles within the Ministry of the Environment, told the Süddeutsche newspaper that carmakers may need help from the state to realize the electric car dream, even though the German car industry is making multi-billion euro profits.
And it is not going to be cheap for the German taxpayers. Already now their contribution is huge:
By 2015, the German government will have spent about 700 million euros ($902 million) on promoting so-called e-mobility, which includes auto industry subsidies as well as support for electric transportation projects at community level. In addition, tax reductions for e-cars are planned.
Germany's neighbor France, as well as a number of other European countries mostly in Scandinavia, are trying to boost sales with direct subsidies for e-car purchases.
"This policy has failed so far to increase e-car sales," said Stefan Bratzel from the Center for Automotive Management, adding that the strategy was highly questionable in view of the states' huge public deficits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)