Although Japan’s national daily ‘The Asahi Shimbun’ concedes green energies face “a broad array of tough challenges” such as high costs and a lack of storage, it irrationally calls for their acceleration!
If the green energy revolution proves anything, it is that it is far easier said than done. Too often we’ve heard from green energy proponents: We can do it, and it won’t even cost much!
Yet today some proponents are starting to back off from that rosy view. For example an op-ed piece appearing last month in the English-language Asahi Shimbun tells us that it’s becoming clear that the transition over to a green energy economy is nowhere near as easy nor as cheap as proponents used to tell us.
Japanese media waking up to green folly?
Though the op-ed piece whole-heartedly promotes green energies and calls for a “specific plan to accelerate” them, the Asahi Shimbun is forced to concede that green energies aren’t working out very well at all.
About half way down comes the passage of particular interest:
Promoting green energy, however, requires dealing with a broad array of tough challenges, such as lowering costs that are higher than in many other countries, enhancing the power grid and developing more efficient storage batteries. The government needs to act swiftly to devise a specific plan to accelerate the use of renewable energy sources.”
There are 5 points to take away from this surprising admission.
Firstly, the centre-left Asahi Shimbun finally acknowledges that green energy is indeed expensive and fraught with “a broad array of tough challenges”. That’s a good start. But green energy critics have been pointing this out for years.
Green energies without the green grid
Secondly the Asahi Shimbun also appears to recognize that the power grid infrastructure is indeed woefully lacking, is in need of “enhancing”, and that plastering the landscape with wind turbines and solar panels before getting the grid up to par was probably a pretty horrible idea.
Here Japan is not alone, as many countries worldwide put the cart before the horse when they decided to go green. Instead of first setting up a proper grid, governments simply forced power companies – by law – to buy up all the volatile green power that got produced and to ram it into the grid (whether it was needed or not). Policymakers hoped the grid would somehow cope.
Storage still nowhere in sight
Thirdly, the op-ed piece acknowledges that energy storage systems just aren’t available on the scales anywhere near what is needed. Just as is the case with the power grid, here as well the problem of storage should have been addressed long before putting up all the weather-dependent wind parks and solar systems. Moreover, there are still are no indications the storage problem will be solved anytime soon.
Green power folly: execute, and then plan!
Fourthly, and what should be stunning to everyone, is the admission that Japan really does not have a “specific plan” for implementing (let alone accelerating) green energies. Like many countries, it never had. Most just barreled blindly into the green project with barely an iota of planning. If a plan really existed, then why would the Asahi Shimbun be demanding swift action to “devise” one?
The truth is that energy infrastructure planning should have been done some 20 years ago – before setting up all the wind parks and solar panels without a proper grid or storage capability. Is it any wonder that so many other countries globally find their energy policies and infrastructures in shambles?
Political grandstanding – no planning
It’s a reality that the installation of green energies so far has been done slipshod, chaotically and without any professional planning. Green energies have in fact been primarily driven by activism and political-environmental grandstanding, and it had little to do with systematic project infrastructure engineering, i.e. analyze, plan, engineer, test, improve and then implement.
Many countries unwittingly let themselves get swept up by the irrational green energy exuberance and today they don’t know how to get out of the mess.
Kamikaze solution?
Finally one would think that with the Asahi Shimbun op-ed piece conceding the huge obstacles, it would at least advocate a whole new approach to avoid the “broad array of tough challenges” green energies harbor. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Quite to the contrary, the op-ed instead amazingly calls for the continuation down that faulty path, and “to accelerate” kamikaze style. That defies all logic. Maybe doing something wrong faster will somehow make it magically work?
The green energy proponents have become desperate, so much so that they are now resorting to kamikaze strategies in a last ditch effort to salvage their pet project.
The best thing here would be for the kamikaze green pilots to turn their suicide planes around, return to base, and realize it’s over.
The reason why they can’t give up is because the whole green program is a religion, complete with magical processes. “Save the planet” is a magical process, analogous to “Jesus saves” in Christianity. This skips any requirement to be logical or scientific.
It’s funny how you guys argue … always the same BS about religion and beliefs while it’s you guys who believe nearly anything as long as it complies with your strange version of reality.
You are the one unable to realise that what you worship is just another religion.
You can’t even support the most basic tenets of your brain-washed cult “belief”.
At least anyone with a real religion accepts that it is a matter of pure faith.
You can’t even admit to that. !!
The AGW cult is really just a BASELESS PSEUDO-RELIGION.
It’s no religion nor is it a cult. Can’t really take you serious when you guys go with this nonsense “argument”. As if there are no real arguments against AGW … oh wait, there aren’t.
I think it’s quite cultish. It has everything a cult involves: end-of-world visions, false prophets, junk unfalsifiable science, charlatans and so on.
Nobody can take you seriously, seb, while you continue your MANIC unthinking recanting of the AGW gospel.
You are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of even supporting the very basis of your cult-mantra…
… that being that extra atmospheric CO2 has any effect except plant growth.
There are NO ARGUEMENTS FOR the AGW religion, anywhere, anytime, except in fantasy and fairy-tale models.
You certainly have NEVER been able to put forward anything with an actual empirical scientific basis.
You have FAILED monuMENTALLY
At least other religions have the GUTS to ADMIT they are purely based on “faith” and “belief”.
Cowards of the AGW cult are either too dim to realise it, or too scared to admit it.
Kamikaze
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hziFBOx4yqc
I talk to a gentleman in Japan who takes a lot of pictures around where he lives.
There is little enough room in Japan for housing and agriculture, let alone put up tens of thousands of pieces of junk.
Japan has more than enough space to build offshore wind farms. And it is not like you have to build a wind turbine where agriculture and housing is possible. They are fine on top of hills.
And solar panels fit literally everywhere. So what is your problem?
“They are fine on top of hills.”
You really are an ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALIST, aren’t you seb.
UGLY grotesque monstrosities dotting Japan’s hills.
You HAVE to be joking !!
Solar panels are useless most of the time.
A “WHY BOTHER” “feel-do-gooder” case when you NEED, and can have, reliable dependable power 24/7, and benefit the environment at the same time by providing extra plant food..
Solar panels are useful exactly when electricity demand is highest.
I am not joking, you can literally build wind turbines everywhere. That doesn’t mean you have to do it though …
As I said, a why bother feel-good,
and a TOTALLY UNNECESSARY impost on society.
About time you grew up enough to realise that.
In Australia, the peak demand is at 6pm, when solar is basically a non-entity.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/tonyfromoz/eastern-australia-power-consumption-winter.gif
UK, also in the evening
https://energymag.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/daily-demand-copyright-2011-national-grid-plc-all-rights-reserved.jpg
And Europe as a hole
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/elec_load_demand.gif
“I am not joking, you can literally build wind turbines everywhere. That doesn’t mean you have to do it though”
Oh, but they do! A local wildlife reserve installed one (paid for by subsidies) in their car park – no doubt to broadcast their “green” credentials – but clearly didn’t have the sense to mount it high enough for the blades to be fully above the surrounding trees… It was taken down after a couple of years – another monument to the folly of “Renewable Energy”.
A recent TV series about “Living Off Grid” showed one enterprising guy installing a turbine (and solar panels) on the trailer home he was building. The next shot was taken from above, and showed the completed project parked on his friends property, SURROUNDED BY TREES!!! Suffice to say the only time the turbine turned was when he poked it with a long stick, and the panels were never going to deliver their full potential in such surroundings.
As long as people are gullible (and stupid) enough to waste time and money on such projects without giving any thought to how well (if at all) they will perform, “We” will continue to call you out for the fool that you are…
Do you want to know about the foolish stuff fossil fuel fans do? Like modding their trucks to be “coal burners” …
Dave, I’d bet anytime that there are more fools in the fossil fuel-“i am a skeptic”-“there is no AGW” camp than in the rest of humanity. Want to challenge that? Be a little bit more constructive 😉
Uh, considering that nearly all people are “fans” of reliable, readily-available energy, heat in winter, cooling in summer, fuel for their vehicles, jet airline travel, overseas shipping and trade, plastics, steel, industrial machinery and all the accommodations they afford, laptops and phones…it would be rather accurate to say that nearly all people are “fans” of fossil-fuel-based products. So you were saying?
Oooh. How substantive of you, SebastianH. You’re the fools! comments like this really hurt.
Yep, seb, just slice all those trees down.
With Japan’s dwindling population looming quickly, there might not be so much need for various types of energy. That goes for a lot of other places around the world as well!
This appears to be based on the fallacy that geographically dispersed energy collection will solve some of the problems.
It make no sense to expand the grid to cater for large scale wind and solar collection unless the grid spans the globe.
Wind and solar are ubiquitous sources but intermittent. It is guaranteed that a country the geographic size of Japan will gain very little in terms of reduced intermittency from grid connected wind and solar. The most economic solution for this form of energy collection is to locate it as close as possible to the load to avoid the transmission costs. Even Australia, with its relatively large geographic spread still has days when the entire fleet of wind generators produce nothing or next to nothing.
The economic option is to deploy wind and solar with storage ONLY where it is economic; meaning without subsidy. Even In suburbia there are applications like streets lights where it could be the economic choice. It saves a lot of cabling. Street lighting is not a highly critical load. External security lights for households and business premises is another economic application.
Intermittent generation and reliable grids should not be mixed.
No subsidies for power plants? Boy, we can never build one again then …
The point of wind and solar subsidies was and still is to make it an industry so the prices can come down. They are coming down, so it’s working. Why kill the industry early (you guys keep repeating wind/solar amount to around 1% of the power generation)?
It looks like you are forgetting why it could be (and is) economical to do something like this. Would you have said the same 15 years ago?
So if the price is coming down with more grid penetration of wind and solar (and it is), why is it that Germans pay 41% more for electricity in 2014 than they did in 2008? The greater the renewables penetrate, the more costs are laid at the feet of those who can least afford to pay. Why is this OK?
Blazquez et al., 2018
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117312546
“To illustrate this point, we performed simple calculations for three European countries using Eurostat data which show a sharp decrease in wholesale prices that concur with high penetration of renewable capacity but also a surge in the final consumer price for the period 2008–2014. In Germany there was a simultaneous increase in the price of electricity to consumers of 41 percent, a decrease of the wholesale price of electricity of 50 percent and renewable penetration increased from 15.1 percent to 28.2 percent.”
“In the longer term, investors will not reinvest or recapitalize electricity markets without sufficient guarantees on returns. These additional costs will eventually be borne by taxpayers or consumers. In Germany the feed-in tariff subsidy program has already cost more than $468 billion, and its total cost could exceed $1.3 trillion by the time it expires, according to 2015 estimates. German consumers paid an 18 percent surcharge on their monthly power bills in 2014 to finance renewables. This is more than a fivefold increase since 2009.”
Do you care that consumers have to pay more and more for electricity the more that renewables penetrate?
Because it is no one time subsidy, but paid out over 20 years. Even if wind would not require further subsidies (offshore seems to be on a good path), we still have to pay for all wind turbines that have been built before.
That is not true. At some point subsidies for new wind turbines (and solar panels) will be lower in sum than old turbines leaving the subsidized timespan. E.g. wind turbines producing 1000 kWh for 20 cents / kWh leaving and new wind turbines producing 4000 kWh for 4.5 cents / kWh. Understood?
They won’t have to, that is the nature of the decreasing price for both solar and wind. At some point (see above) the fee paying for the subsidies will level off and decline.
They could maybe change it into a tax instead of an addition to the consumer price of electricity to make the distribution of the costs more fair.
I love how you try to make it about me not caring or something. Do you not care about the environment? Do you not care about your country being the leader in a technology field? Do you not care about energy efficiency?
‘Do you not care about the environment?’
Entire forests wiped out to put up wind turbines.
Entire forests being wiped out to ship to biomass burning.
Entire forests being wiped out to grow palm-oil plantations for biofuels.
Biomes wiped out world-wide due to all of the above.
We know where you stand, seb. Sooner or later you will look around and see that standing in the bottom of an outhouse pit is not pretty.
“At some point (see above) the fee paying for the subsidies will level off and decline”
And when they do (as is already happening) the level of installations plummets, and we hear anguished crying from those previously making tidy sums from the scam…
“They could maybe change it into a tax instead of an addition to the consumer price of electricity to make the distribution of the costs more fair”
It doesn’t matter if you call it a subsidy OR a tax – it’s still an extra burden sitting on everybody’s shoulders. And it will always fall disproportionately on those of lower incomes, rather than those who have money to spare…
“Do you not care about the environment? Do you not care about your country being the leader in a technology field? Do you not care about energy efficiency?”
Of course “We” care about the environment, that’s why we complain about the damage caused by turbines and solar panels which will NEVER do more than put a small dent in overall energy supply. “We” are sick of being encouraged to buy new diesel cars – to save CO2, and thus (apparently) the planet) – only to find (surprise, surprise) that they are actually doing more harm than good. So now “We” are expected to scrap those cars, and replace them with something far less practical. “We” are sick of politicians and big business leaders trumpeting on about “reducing their carbon footprint” (particularly when most don’t know the difference between a harmless gas and soot), when all they are doing is moving that footprint to China, and to hell with the appalling damage being done there. And so on, and so on…
As for “Your” (or any other country) being a “Leader” in the technology field – well, it hasn’t worked out very well for Germany, has it? Shutting down perfectly good nuclear power plants, that would NEVER have been at risk from a Tsunami or Earthquake, only to replace them with brown coal! South Australia “Leading the way” in large scale blackouts, and rapidly rising prices… I could go on, but you won’t listen.
And finally, Yes – I DO care about energy efficiency (I have no choice, faced with ever increasing bills and limited income). But the mad rush to try and save the planet from “Evil CO2” has made it impossible to have a reasoned debate on genuinely sensible measures…
I think you haven’t quite understood what I wrote.
Again, I think you haven’t understood what i wrote. The choice here would be between a fee on top of the normal electricity price and a tax, both financing the subsidies. And no, a tax does not fall disproportionately on those of lower incomes. Please take a look at what income brackets are doing the heavy lifting regarding tax income of the state/country you live in.
*yawn* … nope.
You aren’t.
Hmm, if only other nuclear power plants with major incidents not caused by tsunamis or earthquakes would come to mind …
And no, it didn’t get replaced with brown coal.
Apparently you haven’t been listening to anything in the past years/decades ….
“We” are having that debate all the time. It’s the skeptics that want to see the world burning …
Says the same person who believes that 30,000 species are going extinct every year, the Earth is desertifying instead of greening, and sea levels will catastrophically inundate the coasts by the end of the century…
Meanwhile, we skeptics point out that there has been only 1 single confirmed extinction since 2000 (a mollusk, unrelated to climate), the Earth is greening, not browning, and 76% of the Earth’s coasts have either been stable or grown since the 1980s.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Beach-Shorelines-Growing-or-Stable-Across-75-Percent-Of-World-Luijendijk-2018.jpg
Luijendijk et al., 2018
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24630-6
“The application of an automated shoreline detection method to the sandy shorelines thus identified resulted in a global dataset of shoreline change rates for the 33 year period 1984–2016. Analysis of the satellite derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, while 28% are accreting [growing] and 48% are stable. …. Erosion rates exceed 5 m/yr along 4% of the sandy shoreline and are greater than 10 m/yr for 2% of the global sandy shoreline. On the other hand, about 8% of the world’s sandy beaches experience significant accretion (>3 m/yr), while 6% (3%) are accreting more than 5 m/yr (10 m/yr). … Taking a continental perspective, Australia and Africa are the only continents for which net erosion (−0.20 m/yr and −0.07 m/yr respectively) is found, with all other continents showing net accretion.”
In other words, the worst threat from “global warming” — rising sea levels — isn’t even occurring fast enough to offset the naturally-occurring geophysical coastal changes that keep our coasts stable or growing.
So what, exactly, is the “world burning” pronouncements we skeptics are promulgating?
@Dave Ward
Well said.
“We” are having that debate all the time”
You have NEVER been part of any “reasoned” debate. (why did you leave that word out , I wonder.)
Your MANIC irrational “belief” and the constant regurgitation of the mantra of the AGW cult, does not allow you to be either “reasoned” or “rational”
“if only other nuclear power plants with major incidents… blah, blah”
So now you are comparing German construction and design with old Russia.
DOH !!
“You aren’t”
True, there’s nothing wrong with replacing a diesel car with a petrol car.
Transport will of course continue to be mostly diesel.
Wind and solar, still less than a 2-3% of overall energy requirements despite all the huge amounts of money wasted.
A tiny niche market forced by political and pseudo-green anti-life activism.
But only a totally irrational AGW fundemMENTALIST with a mind totally infected by hallucinogenic AGW cultism could ever think that a electric car could meet the practicality of the ubiquitous diesel SUV that is so prevalent in modern society
“see that standing in the bottom of an outhouse pit is not pretty.”
Every creature has its natural habitat, the bottom of an outhouse pit is a common one for many AGW cultists.
General totalitarian leftist lack of basic morality and a disdain for life and others.
Be part of the cult..
…. chant the unthinking anti-life mantra.
“It’s the skeptics that want to see the world burning …”
Say what ??
You are the one that “believes” against all science, that CO2 cause warming.
Skeptics know its NOT WARMING from any human cause.
Skeptics know that the current climate is very much on the cool side of the last 10,000 years
Show me one skeptic that “wants to see the world burning”
The greater the renewables penetrate, the more costs are laid at the feet of those who can least afford to pay. Why is this OK?
Environmental Progress (February, 2018)
“The burden of higher cost electricity and benefits of renewable energy subsidies fall unevenly on Californians. Between 2007 and 2014, the highest-income 40 percent of California households received three times more in solar subsidies — valued between $10,000 and $20,000 per household — as the lowest-income 40 percent. California households with over $100,000 in annual income benefited from energy efficiency subsidies at twice the rate of households whose income was under $50,000.”
Poorest households hit hardest by UK climate change levy despite using least energy (March, 2018)
“We found that, in a year, the richest households each consumed on average the same amount of energy that would be produced by 12.7 tonnes of oil, compared to 3.3 tonnes for the poorest households. But the poorest spent a much greater proportion of their income (10%) on energy than the richest (3%). And the energy used for heating and powering their homes – the part that their climate change levy bill is measured on – represented a much greater proportion of their overall energy use.”
“This means that adding the climate change levy to household energy bills hits the poorest households hardest. Energy bills account for a much greater share of their household income and more of their energy use is charged. In fact, the levy only affects a quarter of the total energy consumption of the richest households, compared to 53% for the poorest households. As a result, the richest homes use nearly four times more total energy than the poorest but only pay 1.8 times more towards energy policy costs.”
You have a history on the topic of poor people who have their power cut off because they can’t afford to pay for heating…
https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/03/germanys-silent-catastrophe-330000-households-see-power-turned-off-in-one-year/
Silent Catastrophe …330,000 Households See Power Turned Off In One Year!
…and your very first comment on that report of 330,000 poor households having their power cut off, and the 8th comment overall for that article, was to deny that people on “wellfare” have to pay for their heating, as well as to attempt to minimize the 330,000 by saying it’s “less then” [sic] that:
In the past, you’ve also denied the seriousness of energy poverty in Germany. You’ve even said that nobody has to live in energy poverty in Germany because heating and cooling are paid for by “state money”. In other words, the above is not the only time you’ve denied that a problem exists. Once again, these are your exact words:
Of course, 6.9 million people live in energy poverty in Germany. To you, these people don’t exist, as “nobody has to live in ‘energy poverty’ in Germany”.
You seemingly have a very calloused attitude towards poor people, SebastianH. This goes along with your ageist snootiness and the disdainful comments you routinely make about “retirees” (which will henceforth be deleted).
And he throws in a red herring …
“The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752
“Accelerating extinction risk from climate change”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571
Good for you if you think beaches accumulating sand is more than offsetting sea level rise …
Do I need to repeat myself? You guys are wishing for blackouts, green tech failures, are rooting for the conspiracy theorists among you, express a general hatered against opinions different than your own and facts in general. And of course the celebration of a “coming ice age” every few years.
A red herring? I’m directly quoting you, SebastianH.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17826898
“According to IUCN data, for example, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”
According to SebastianH, 30,000 species go extinct every year:
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”
By the way, your links say nothing about real-world observational evidence of the number of actual species going extinct every year. As expected, they’re just extrapolations based on models and future projections. Just like much of the “science” of CO2-induced climatic doom you seem to prefer.
Wow. “Beaches accumulating sand”? Is that substantively different than land area along the world’s coasts accumulating dirt? The Luijendijk paper and its finding that 76% of the coasts across the world are stable or expanding is just a reiteration of the Nature paper from 2016 (Donchyts et al.) that shows the same thing:
Press release:
Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists’ surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart. “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”
The researchers said Dubai’s coast had been significantly extended, with the creation of new islands to house luxury resorts.
In other words, the main threat of warming…isn’t even a threat. But yet you believe sea levels will rise by meters because the ice sheets will catastrophically melt from CO2 emissions rising…right? If not, how many meters of catastrophic sea level rise will accrue by 2100? What’s your belief on that?
Uh, no, we don’t “wish” for blackouts due to the dependence on unreliable energy. We just shine a light on it when it inevitably happens.
I have no idea what this even means. What conspiracy theorists are we “rooting for”, and how does that manifest itself?
This is a rather amusing charge coming from someone who routinely calls people he disagrees with names (i.e., “fools” and “deniers” and “nutters” and “conspiracy theorists”) and calls attention to their age (“retirees”) in attempting to marginalize.
I challenge you to find even one example of anyone here celebrating a return to cooler temperatures, or that cooler temperatures are a good thing for humanity (or the biosphere in general). The opposite is true: we much prefer warmth.
Simply put, every single one of your examples of our “world burning” pronouncements is fabrication. As usual.
@Kenneth Richard 3. May 2018 at 12:48 AM |
Blaming The Victim
If “…nobody has to live in ‘energy poverty’ in Germany,” does that mean he’s saying that they chose it, and so it’s really just their own #%&*@ fault?
No, but he does believe that people who live in energy poverty in German are too incompetent or uneducated to figure out how to get out of it…or pay for electricity.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/12/27/328000-german-poor-households-saw-electricity-switched-off-in-2016-millions-more-threatened/#comment-1245004
SebastianH: “someone who can’t pay their electricity bill can get help, but people with low or no education often don’t know how.”
From Wikipedia: “A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.”
The discussion in this thread:
Economy of power plants, subsidies, you asking why the price for electricity increases when the price for wind/solar are decreasing at the same time.
I explained to you how subsidies in Germany work and why that is the case.
And you guys suddenly make it about caring for the poor (= red herring).
Extinction rate (= another red herring). By the way, what is the background extinction rate in your opinion?
Coastal lines (= another red herring). And you link says this “The largest increase in water has been on the Tibetan Plateau, while the Aral Sea has been the biggest conversion of water to land.” … So big lakes drying up are the largest sources of the “new land”? You also mention Dubai with its artificial islands *sigh*. This is just https://imgur.com/gallery/iWKad22 …
It’s not a belief. What is a belief is that you believe that it’s not going to be a problem and that it will be negligible. The predicted sea level rise until 2100 doesn’t get measured in meters btw.
See, you are practically expecting them. Where have they been this week when on monday and tuesday renewables reached more than a 70% share? Where were they when Portugal managed to have a 100% share for all of March?
You guys are regularly promoting conspiracy theories or use them as an argument.
It is amusing, yeah. How you shout into the forest … control your fellow “skeptics” commentators and you might get more civilized conversations in your blog.
Yep, you don’t understand sarcasm. Taking everything literally except the papers that you quote from. There only the quotes count, the context can be ignored apparently. And then freak out when someone points out that you should call a small area in northern Alaska “the Arctic”. Yes, it is amusing.
No, I am believing that poor people who are living on the streets or seemingly can’t afford to pay their bills, don’t know about all possibilities the state can help them. Germany is not the US, Kenneth.
As I said, sometimes pedantic with words taking everything literally and at other times freely misinterpreting stuff to your liking to make up a point. That’s what you do, Kenneth.
No, I’m claiming what I actually wrote: that you have stated that there is no one who has to live in energy poverty in Germany because the government pays their bills…and if they don’t have the government pay their bills it’s because they’re too uneducated to figure out how to get the government to pay for their electricity.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/22/2-new-papers-expose-the-environmental-nightmare-of-wind-turbine-blade-disposal/#comment-1217415
SebastianH: “Nobody has to live in ‘energy poverty’ in Germany. Heating and electricity are paid for when you live on state money.”
https://notrickszone.com/2017/12/27/328000-german-poor-households-saw-electricity-switched-off-in-2016-millions-more-threatened/#comment-1245004
SebastianH: “someone who can’t pay their electricity bill can get help, but people with low or no education often don’t know how.”
I don’t think I’m confused about energy poverty. Considering you’ve just admitted that “at the time I didn’t know the term ‘energy poverty'”, it’s rather odd that you are here trying to lecture me about what energy poverty is.
Again, at the time I thought you mean the definition that Wikipedia gives, not the EU/UK defintion that your numbers are based on. That should have been clear from what I wrote as I mentioned not being able to pay your bills, a small subset of those who are living in “energy poverty”. And why don’t you look up how other countries with less renewables are doing in this department? If what you are saying is true, the German numbers must be much higher than e.g. in UK or the US. Are they?
Kenneth, I am no english native speaker. The term read to me as if you are too poor to pay for energy, but in reality it covers anyone having to pay more than 10% of their income to keep themselves warm. That’s a difference and I don’t think you are making it …
I know “We” are frequently being told “DNFTT”, but I was inspired to have a go after Seb’s insinuation (yet again) that us horrible deniers don’t care about the world, and only the greens have the answers. And (predictably) Seb turns every single point around and pretends I didn’t understand what he wrote, in his response @ 5:23 PM. I would, however, disagree with Kenneth Richard as regards his reply to Seb’s comment: “You guys are wishing for blackouts”. I actually look forward to a few major disruptions, as it will be the ONLY way to get through to people like you, and the rest of the population who believe in the green dream…
It won’t get through to people like him. It’s an unfalsifiable belief.
It’s not a belief Kenneth, what you guys are doing is cultish belief. Making up a reality that doesn’t exist.
@Dave: you didn’t understand what I wrote as is very clear from your reply. To reiterate:
I was talking about the sum of new installation subsidies vs. the sum of old installation that are leaving the 20 year subsidized timespan. You clearly thought it was about a reduction of the subsidies per kWh.
See, the choice was between paying for subsidies with a fee on top of every kWh or paying for it via increased taxes. You clearly did not get that and on top you are claiming that taxes would “always fall disproportionately on those of lower income”. Since when is that the case?
So please spare us the drama … if it is the language barrier, I am sorry that it wasn’t clear enough. Otherwise, you displaying a behaviour that I would classify as trolling.