German Wind Power Goes Completely AWOL For The 11th Time This Year…Fossils, Nuclear Again To The Rescue!

It’s a good thing Germany still has a lot of conventional power supply from coal and nuclear on line. Otherwise the entire country would have blacked out this morning during the partial eclipse of the sun. Conventional fuel saved the day.

As the following diagram depicts, there was almost no wind output from Germany’s 40 or so gigawatts of installed wind capacity over the last 36 hours. The country’s wind turbines called it an early weekend.

Agora mar 19-20

Wind energy (blue) has virtually disappeared over the last 36 hours. Solar disappears every night, and often during the day in the wintertime. Often less than 1% of Germany’s electrical demand gets supplied by wind and sun. Source: agora.

German wind and solar power disappeared this morning and over the last 36 hours, leaving fossil and nuclear power to step in to the rescue. The following chart of Germany’s energy supply and demand shows how wind has gone AWOL already 11 times since January 1:

Agora Mar 20

Since January 1, Wind power failed to show up some 11 times. On average about 85% of the installed capacity doesn’t show up to begin with. Charts cropped from agora.

The point here is that it doesn’t matter how much wind and solar capacity gets installed. Once the wind stops blowing and the sun does’t shine, which is often enough, you get no power – period. Imagine if a doctor sold you an artificial heart that could run for 100 years, yet the heart pumped only sporadically, sometimes at only a beat or two a minute over for hours or even days. So it is with wind and solar energy. Our society needs a steady and constant supply; it can’t afford to constatntly stall and sputter, otherwise it collapses and dies.

Today’s partial eclipse had little impact

Today’s partial eclipse of the sun did not strain Germany’s power grid as much as feared. Fog and cloudy weather over northern Germany helped to dampen the feared fluctuation. Sunny day projections of 12,000 megawatts of power going offline in just an hour followed by 19,000 megawatts surging online in an hour warned that the grid could be destabilized. Here’s what the sunny-day scenario solar feed-in looked like:

Solar eclipse_1

Sunny day solar power feed in into grid during eclipse. Source: cropped form here. Animation by:

What actually happened was nowhere near as bad as feared:


Fluctuation was far less than feared. Source: SMA.

As the sun’s energy disappeared, conventional fuels saved the day.

What follows is a photo I took outside near peak time of the partial eclipse in northwest Germany, where it was overcast:

Solar eclipse_2

 10:45 this morning. Looks like a typical dreary day in north Germany.

In general, power companies and grid operators had months to prepare for the eclipse. Lapses and wild fluctuations in wind and sun energy are common (see above) and so today’s eclipse was manageable though with considerable effort. Power companies asked large consumers such as aluminum smelters, cement plants and glass manufacturers to ramp down their production before the event. That would not have been necessary with conventional power.


BP 2035 Outlook Foresees Only 8% Renewable Energy By 2035! No End In Sight For Fossil Fuel Growth!

One of the biggest miscalculations that the global warming alarmists have made is claiming that global CO2 emissions must reach their peak by 2020 and then begin falling rapidly. If they don’t, there will be no chance of reaching the 2°C maximum warming target. Planetary catastrophe will ensue, the alarmists claim.

British energy behemoth BP has just released its BP Energy Outlook 2035, and it states in no uncertain terms that there is no chance of CO2 emissions beginning their decline by 2035, let alone 2020!

Good news: global GDP to double!

The BP reports states, “By 2035, the world’s population is projected to reach 8.7 billion, which means an additional 1.6 billion people will need energy.” and the globe’s “GDP is expected to more than double“.

That’s good news for humanity. More people enjoying the one-time gift of life and doing so in greater comfort. But that’s going to require energy, of course.

India 3rd largest economy in 2035

The BP report projects that India will go from being a third world country to being the world’s third largest economy.

That has major implications for the world’s energy market. The BP writes (my emphasis):

Primary energy consumption increases by 37% between 2013 and 2035, with growth averaging 1.4% p.a.. Virtually all (96%) of the projected growth is in the non-OECD, with energy consumption growing at 2.2% p.a.. OECD energy consumption, by contrast, grows at just 0.1% p.a. over the whole period and is actually falling from 2030.”

That’s strong growth, and today’s renewable energy technology will have no chance of economically meeting that kind of demand. Wind and solar are just too unreliable, and their storage is still a long way from being feasible. This is glaringly obvious in the BP report.

No end in sight for fossil fuel growth

The BP report features the following chart showing the breakdown of primary fuel consumption by 2035.

BP_2035 Energy

Source: BP.

The above figure foresees massive expansion of the traditional carbon based fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, with modest growth in coal consumption. That means global CO2 emissions will continue growing strongly, which would mean bad news if the CO2 greenhouse theory were correct. But so far, despite the massive rise in global CO2 emissions since the year 2000, global temperatures have not risen at all, and global warming scientists are now under extreme pressure to revise downwards their once lofty warming projections.

Emissions well above path recommended by scientists!

The future development of CO2 emissions bodes extremely ill for global warming alarmists. The BP Report writes on page 85: “Global CO2 emissions from energy use grow by 25% (1% p.a.) over the Outlook. Emissions remain well above the path recommended by scientists, illustrated by the IEA’s “450 Scenario”. In 2035, CO2 emissions are 18 billion tonnes above the IEA’s 450 Scenario.”

CO2 theory rapidly approaching its Waterloo

CO2 emissions growth clearly is not going to be curbed anytime soon, and temperatures really will have to start climbing in earnest if the AGW theory is to survive. (Un)fortunately there are no signs that is going to happen in the next 10-20 years.

Only 8% renewable energy by 2035

Page 14 of the BP Report shows strong growth in renewable energy, but it will be only about 8% of global energy supply. That’s light year’s away from the UN’s 50% target! Obviously, no one except a few token countries are taking renewable energies seriously. Their impracticality is their major obstacle.

On page 17 the BP states that “coal remains the dominant fuel, accounting for more than a third of the inputs to power generation.”

Planet awash in energy

The report shows a planet that is awash in energy and also projects strong growth in “new energy forms” such as shale and oil sands (p. 20) which “are thought to be abundant”. On page 95 the report states (my emphasis):

North America’s oil and natural gas supply outlook has been revised higher yet again (14%) due to the continued evolving expectations for shale gas and tight oil.”

The BP report summarizes on page 97:

Our Outlook shows more growth in non-OECD energy demand than the IEA NP; it also shows more growth for fossil fuels, especially for coal. This probably reflects differing views on the outlook for rapidly industrializing economies, in particular on the speed with which they can move to a less energy-intensive growth path.”

Read: BP Energy Outlook 2035.


German Federal Analysis Sees “Massive Threats To Security And Reliability Of Electric Power Supply System”!

So much for Germany’s transformation to “green” energies.

Germany’s Bun­desnet­za­gen­tur (Federal Network Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Railway) is the federal authority overseeing and regulating the German electrical power grid, among other networks.

At its site it has a link to an expert assessment report that analyzes the needs of and risks to the German power grid for the coming 2014/15 winter.

The name of the report: “Examinations for the winter of 2014/15 with respect to risks for system security and the necessity for reserve power plants”.

The 102-page highly technical assessment examines a variety of scenarios in order to see how well Germany’s electrical power grid will hold up this winter. Looking at the report’s conclusion, one can only conclude that the power grid is more unstable and prone to a collapse than at any time in Germany’s post-war period. It’s a debacle knocking at the door.

In the summary on page 97 for example it writes (link added):

Scenarios were parameterized on the basis of historical data and realistically form expected critical situations, but do not necessarily show the worst-case scenario.
Considered scenarios show massive threats to the security and reliability of the electric power supply system which are not manageable without a substantial intervention by the ÜNB and the use of a secured redispatch-potential.
There are no safety reserves for managing additional critical or unexpected situations.”

On page 98 the report re-emphasizes.

In critical situations a substantial threat to system security is to be feared.”

The report’s summary adds: “Ssecure management of the expected critical situations requires comprehensive measures.”

This all means that on a cold winter day, Germany’s power grid could could very well collapse and citizens be left in the cold and dark for hours or even days. Parts of the report have been blacked out, which is hardly reassuring to the reader.

So why has Germany’s power grid, once one of the world’s most stable, become so vulnerable? An editorial piece at the Financial Times sums it nicely. It writes: “Merkel’s decision to phase out nuclear power has been a huge mistake.”

The FT piece writes that Germany has added a huge amount of intermittent wind and solar energy. Not only does this energy act to destabilize the power grid, but it also is costing German citizens and the economy a bundle. What a bargain: Poor quality for high cost! The FT writes that the Energiewende is “designed to make the economy predominantly dependent on renewable sources such as wind and solar power“, and adds that these are “burdens on households and businesses“, something that “Germany can ill afford”, the FT writes.

What’s worse for clean-energy-minded Germans is that the elimination of nuclear energy has led to an increase in coal burning. In the end, Germany’s power system is now dirtier, more unstable than ever, and now costs consumers far more. Does that sound like a great deal? Sounds to me like a monumental mismanagement.

Those of us living in Germany may want to consider installing a wood-burning stove in the weeks ahead as winter quickly approaches.

Hat-tip: 2 readers

Energy-Wasting Internet…IEA Describes “Range Of Policy Options” For Curbing Wasted Power

Press release from the International Energy Agency

Around $80 billion wasted on power for online devices in 2013

Simple measures can keep problem of inefficient ‘network standby’ from worsening in years ahead, IEA report says
2 July 2014 Paris

Today, the world’s 14 billion online electronic devices – such as set-top boxes, modems, printers and game consoles – waste around USD 80 billion each year because of inefficient technology. By 2020, the problem will considerably worsen, with an estimated USD 120 billion wasted. But a report by the International Energy Agency points to a different path, identifying simple measures that can be implemented now to improve energy efficiency in networked devices, resulting in massive savings of energy and money.

The report, More Data, Less Energy: Making Network Standby More Efficient in Billions of Connected Devices, shows that electricity demand of our increasingly digital economies is growing at an alarming rate. While data centre energy demand has received much attention, of greater cause for concern is the growing energy demand of billions of networked devices. In 2013, a relatively small portion of the world’s population relied on these devices to stay connected. But energy demand is increasing as a growing share of the world’s population becomes wired and as network connectivity spreads to devices and appliances that were previously not connected, such as washing machines, refrigerators, lights and thermostats.

‘The proliferation of connected devices brings many benefits to the world, but right now the cost is far higher than it should be,’ said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. ‘Consumers are losing money in the form of wasted energy, which is leading to more costly power stations and more distribution infrastructure being built than we would otherwise need – not to mention all the extra greenhouse gases that are being emitted. But it need not be this way. If we adopt best available technologies we can minimise the cost of meeting demand as the use and benefits of connected devices grows.’

As the report explains, much of the problem boils down to inefficient ‘network standby’ – that is, the maintaining of a network connection while in standby. In many devices, standby is a misnomer: it suggests that the device has gone to sleep and is almost off. In reality, most network-enabled devices draw as much power in this mode as when activated to perform their main tasks.

In 2013, the world’s networked devices consumed around 616 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, the majority of which was used in standby mode. Of that total, around 400 TWh – equivalent to the electricity consumed annually by the United Kingdom and Norway combined – was wasted because of inefficient technology.

‘The problem is not that these devices are often in standby mode, but rather that they typically use much more power than they should to maintain a connection and communicate with the network,” said Ms. Van der Hoeven. ‘Just by using today’s best available technology, such devices could perform exactly the same tasks in standby while consuming around 65% less power.’

The report describes technologies and technical solutions as well as a range of policy options that are available to reduce energy waste. It projects that if better energy efficiency measures were applied to online devices in the coming years, 600 TWh of energy would be saved. That’s equivalent to shutting 200 standard 500MW coal-fired power plants, which would cut emissions by 600 million metric tons of CO2

In the report, the IEA calls on policy makers, standards development organisations, software and hardware developers, designers, service providers and manufacturers to work together to reduce energy demand. To achieve this, the agency urges an international initiative to enhance standards, as the issue is global.


Obama Plan Will Have Miniscule Global Impact…Der Spiegel: CO2 Will Keep Rising 1.1% Annually For Next 20 Years!

[Note: The report at Spiegel is one that comes from the DPA German news agency.]

The online Der Spiegel writes how global CO2 emissions are projected to keep rising strongly, 1.1% annually, at least until 2035 – thanks to strong economic growth in emerging countries like India and China.

Obama’s newly announced actions to curb CO2 emissions by America’s coal fired power plants will do almost nothing to prevent global energy trends from progressing in the opposite direction, the DPA writes.

Moreover, not even drastic global action would prevent CO2 emissions from rising. The DPA writes that “energy generation would need to be revamped worldwide  – up to going totally without coal, or catching the CO2 from the power plants. That is hardly realistic.”

Decrease in global poverty adding to energy demands. Number of automobiles worldwide to more than double by 2035!

As emerging countries continue to develop, so will their need for energy. Spiegel cites studies from the World Energy Outlook of the IEA, the BP Energy Outlook 2035 and the World Oil Outlook 2013 from Opec. One sector that is expanding massively is automobile production. Spiegel writes:

Just the number of cars alone will more than double by the year 2015, from 1.1 billion 2.3 billion.”

India’s car ownership will jump from 20 cars per 1000 Indians today, to 130 by 2035. In China that measure will go from 80 today to 360.

Clearly the measures implemented by Obama will have no noticeable impact on the climate of the future, but threaten burdening Americans will trillions in added costs.

Global population will also increase strongly over the next 20 years. As a result, the even most sober studies see no chance of curbing CO2 emissions. The IEA writes that also in the year 2035 worldwide energy demand will be predominantly covered by fossil fuels. Today that figure is currently 86%. The DPA writes:

Here neither the new plans from Obama to reduce greenhouse gases will change anything – nor the German plans.”

So CO2 will continue its unstoppable rise along with human prosperity and population. And should the temperature fail to rise much by 2035, as many scientists are predicting, then we will know that all the climate hysteria was for nothing. That, we suspect, is what the warmists are fearing the most. The truth is coming – like it or not.


James Hansen In Spiegel Interview: Environmental Groups Against Nuclear Power “For Fear Of Losing Funding”

At yesterday’s online Spiegel, science journalist Axel Bojanowski reported on a discussion with ultra-alarmist, former NASA GISS director James Hansen.

James Hansen

Photo by Bill Ebbesen, public domain.

Hansen believes that nuclear energy is the only way of effectively preventing global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gases. He called the policy of scaling back nuclear power “a big mistake” and claimed that “environmental groups for fear of losing funding would prevent a successful fight against climate change by following a false energy policy”.

That “false energy policy” Hansen’s here refers to is the attempt to satisfy the world’s energy needs almost exclusively with renewable energy, mainly intermittent sun and wind. Hansen and some of his fellow scientists call that narrow approach unrealistic.

Spiegel quotes Hansen further on funding:

There are various funders who would stop their support of environmental organizations if they came out calling for nuclear power.”

Hansen is increasingly at odds with environmentalists:

The environmental organizations are against nuclear power even though only an increase in the use of the power is able to put the brakes on climate change.”

Hansen says that renewable energies will not be able to supply the world’s demand for energy and that they are “too expensive“. Spiegel quotes Hansen:

There is no realistic way to stabilize the climate where nuclear power is not a substantial part of it.”

Moreover, Hansen and three other leading scientists published an open letter last November calling for “the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems” and that the risks nuclear power” are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels.”

Environmental groups, not surprisingly, have reacted harshly to Hansen’s remarks, calling Hansen’s funding claims “absurd” and that his energy arguments are “unsubstantiated. and that nuclear power has major safety issues.”

But Hansen counters, saying that “today’s generation of nuclear plants are considerably safer than older models“.

Environmentalists have put themselves in a catch 22 situation. By overblowing the consequences of fossil fuels, they have only succeeded in strengthening the arguments for a source of power they regard as being just as evil.


Persistent Cold Weather Keeps Thwarting German Efforts To Fight Warming!

According to preliminary findings of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen (AGEB), Germany has consumed far more energy in the first half of this year than a year earlier, up 4 percent.

Coal Power plant datteln_

 Germany burns more coal because of cold weather. Image (cropped) by Arnold Paul, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.

Alarmist site Klimaretter here, quoting the AGEB report, attributes the increased energy use to “the comparably long winter and the cool spring“. The AGEB writes that economic development played no role in the increased consumption.

According to the AGEB, consumption of natural gas rose almost 10%. Black coal consumption, a major contributor to CO2 emissions, jumped 8%.

Consumption of the massively subsidized renewable energy jumped only 4%. Most of the increase was due to biomass and hydro-power. According to the statistics, wind energy supplied 10% less energy into the grid during the period than a year earlier.

The bulk of Germany’s energy consumption continues to be supplied by fossil fuels, about 1/3 by oil, a quarter by natural gas, and 23% by coal. Only 11.7% was supplied by renewable energy in the first half of 2013, despite the massive subsidies. Renewable energy’s share in the energy mix remains unchanged from a year earlier.

In summary Germany’s investment in the energy transition to renewable energy has cost consumers tens of billions of euros, but has only resulted in higher (not lower!) CO2 emissions, its share remains stagnant, and energy bills for the poor have skyrocketed.

Ironically, experts blame the lack of progress in curbing energy use and combatting global-warming emissions on the persistent cold weather.


Worldwide Doubt Over Germany’s “Energiewende” Grows…German Flagship Daily Calls It “An International Flop”

International Doubt Over The Success Of Germany’s Energiewende growing

by Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Germany’s Energiewende [energy transition over to renewables] is being watched closely in foreign countries. Already bets are being made on whether the expensive experiment is going to work. Meanwhile increasing numbers of international experts are expressing serious doubts. In the March 20th print edition of German national daily Die Welt, Daniel Wetzel reports on a survey by the World Energy Council in an article titled “The Energiewende is an international flop”. An online version of the report is now available and bears the watered down title: “Other countries disdaining the Energiewende”:

Worldwide doubt about the success of the German Energiewende is growing. International experts are sure that the German economy is weakening. This is the finding of a survey from the World Energy Council. […] A rapid short-term shutdown of nuclear power plants along with unlimited subsidies for renewable energies: In Germany this has been viewed as the silver bullet for energy policy since the Fukushima accident. However in Europe and globally, there’s hardly a nation that views the German ‘Energiewende”’ as worth copying. These are the findings of the German section of the World Energy Council in 23 member countries, made exclusively available to Die Welt. […] The rising doubt is possibly related to the unexpectedly rapidly rising electricity prices in Germany, which are having a dissuasive effect. Stotz believes: ‘Obviously one has to be able to afford an energy transition.’ (Read more at Welt Online).

In a commentary appearing at Die Welt titled, “Germany, the odd one out”, Daniel Wetzel pleads for more prudence, and rejects climate alarmism as the most important argument for an Energiewende:

Also the necessity to rapidly end the use of fossil fuels no longer appears as urgent as it was just a few years ago. Indeed, in the meantime, fear of climate change appears to have evaporated worldwide. Global warming has been taking a break for over 10 years, and politicians in many countries appear as if they would rather await a good explanation for this phenomenon before again making the fight against climate change a high priority. Quite apart from this: one other large industrial country has just succeeded in reducing its per capita CO2 emissions to levels of the early 1960s. The best in the class when it comes to climate politics is the USA. Thanks to fracking technology in natural gas drilling, they have been able to switch off dirty coal power plants.”

Germany’s Top Green Politician Lies/Deceives Shamelessly Over Fukushima Accident And Tsunami Victims!

If you ever wonder if the Greens tell the truth when it comes to climate science, then just take a look at what they say about the Fukushima accident of 2011. Hat-tip Bernd Felsche.

Green Party top honcho Claudia Roth left an astonishing message at Facebook where she comments about the 2-year anniversary of the mega earthquake and tsunami that rattled northeastern Japan in March, 2011. Here’s a shot of her Facebook message (before it disappears):

+++ Story now a headline at Die Welt here! +++


Translated in English:

Today two years ago occurred the devastating atomic catastrophe of Fukushima, which after Chernobyl once again has left an entire region and with it the entire world looking down an atomic precipice. In the catastrophe in Japan a total of 16,000 people died, more than 2700 are still considered missing. Hundreds of thousands are living away from the irradiated homes. Today our thoughts are with the victims and their families. The Fukushima catastrophe has once again shown us just how uncontrollable and deadly the high risk atomic technology is. Therefore we have to make every conceivable effort in Germany, and also in Europe and worldwide, to bring about the transformation to renewable energy as rapidly as possible instead of pushing it off, as the CDU-FDP are trying to do again. Fukushima is warning us.”

Claudia Roth is a highly influential politcian in Germany. She is not some uninformed twit off the street. In her comment she is communicating that it wasn’t the tsunami that caused all the deaths in Japan – rather it was the Fukushima accident, through man’s negligence. This is as grotesque of a revision of history and hideous lie as you’ll ever find.

The fact is that not a single death has been attributed to the Fukushima accident to this day. Surely some will likely get ill and may die later on, but name one product that isn’t capable of killing.

This tells us just how desperate the greens have gotten and the means they’ll resort to in salvaging their green project of renewable energy. Now they have to shamelessly lie and fabricate an entirely new historical record that fits their agenda.

Can we believe them on climate science?

Now at Bild.
And at NTV.

Media Of Deception: Germany’s Public Media Mislead Their Audience, Link 16,000 Tsunami Deaths To Fukushima

Can we trust the media?

Germany’s massive public funded radio and television demonstrates to us that the answer is: not always. Yesterday many media outlets reported on the 2-year anniversary of Japan’s “earthquake/tsunami/Fukushima” disaster. The way some German public television and radio outlets are presenting the disaster 2 years later would probably make even North Korean state media officials blush.

For example, (hat-tip EIKE) flagship German public television ARD presented the story yesterday, claiming:

Japan remembers the victims of the devastating earthquake and tsunami catastrophe of 2 years ago. A scale 9 earthquake had shaken the northeast of the country and caused a tsunami. This caused a reactor accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Almost 16,000 people died. Thousands are still missing.”

I heard the very same deception earlier yesterday morning on German public NDR DisInfo radio. The reality, of course, is that so far not a single death has been attributed to the Fukushima accident. But that’s the last thing Germany’s manipulative public media want their audiences to believe.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Today Japan is remembering the victims of the devastating earthquake and tsunami catastrophe of two years ago. A powerful earthquake of 9 had shaken the northeast part of the country and unleashed an up to 20-meter tsunami. A reactor accident resulted at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Thereby 16,000 people were killed. Thousands are still missing.”

Even bolder and misleading about it was anchor Thorsten Schröder (see video and quote above) of the ARD Tagesschau, early yesterday morning.

In a functioning democracy, a good public media editor would make sure that the facts are presented clearly and accurately. But a slimey, manipulative editor might take the chance to intentionally mislead the people, and later defend his action by saying: well, you can’t prove it! and that “there is no reason to be talking about a blatantly false report or the like“.

German reporting by ARD and ZDF public television and radio on climate change is no less manipulative. Climate change is real and is happening right now. Never mind the all the cold winters we’ve been having, they keep telling us, ignoring the real data.

Germany’s green public media have long been on a mission to upbring citizens on responsible energy use, climate, and environmentalism. So we suspect here they just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to remind viewers and listeners that nuclear is bad and kills thousands.

Germany’s now famous Energiewende – energy transition from fossil and nuclear energy to renewables – is coming under increasing fire from the public due to its trillion-euro and still rising price tag, and the media are desperate for a story to convince the public that it is still “the right thing to do”. Fukushima was an opportunity to help do just that.


Germany’s Public Media Flat Out Lies…Claims Fukushima Accident Took “Thousands Of Lives”

It’s little wonder that the German public is beginning an uprising against the mandatory fees that every citizen is forced to pay in order to fund the country’s vast public radio and television. Every year the widely hated GEZ shakes €8 billion from Germans. For German readers, here’s a stinging commentary on just how unbelievably arrogant the German public media has become.

But not only are listeners and viewers fed up with the burgeoning arrogance of the public media, but also by their outright deceit and political propaganda, which they feel is necessary to properly up bring citizens.

One reader provides us yet another example of this. Deutsche Welle (German Broadcasting) here provides its readers with the latest “news” on Fukushima. The elitists in the German public media feel it is one of their solemn duties to tell audiences that nuclear energy is evil, kills thousands, and that we are all supposed to hate it.

From the report we see Japan is waking up to the fact that providing power without nuclear plants is not an easy thing after all, and so the country is contemplating a U-turn and returning to nuclear power, less than 2 years after the Fukushima disaster.

Ministerpräsident Shinzo Abe, who took office just a few days ago, says Japan simply cannot afford to stop using nuclear power.

The DW report, whose source is the German Press Agency (DPA) among others, pretty much provides background information on the Abe’s decision. But it’s the last sentence in the DW report that raises eyebrows:

Through the devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Northeastern Japan was seriously damaged. There were meltdowns in three reactor blocks; thousands of people died. It was the worst nuclear catastrophe since the Chernobyl accident in 1986.”

Thousands of people died? Really?

Sadly, editors could not be bothered to check if that spectacular number could be right. One place to start a simple fact-check would be Wikipedia, which is known for political correctness. It turns out that the “thousands of people died” claim is totally bogus – deceit fabricated and now being spread by various European media outlets.

Wikipedia writes that of what few deaths did occur, 2 deaths were caused by “sustained multiple external injuries and were believed to have died from blood loss”, and a Japanese research company found that “other deaths were due to the disruption of hospital operations, exacerbation of pre-existing health problems and the stress of dramatic changes in life” and that “the vast majority of people who died during evacuation were elderly. 45 patients were reported dead after the evacuation of a hospital in Futaba due to lack of food, water and medical care as evacuation was delayed by three days.”

Wikipedia then goes on to write about some people being over-exposed to radiation, but nowhere does the report mention “thousands of people died”. In fact, the Wikipedia report writes (my emphasis):

As of September 2012, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures.”

It appears that any radiation deaths show up only in models:

According to a June 2012 Stanford University study by John Ten Hoeve and Mark Jacobson, the radiation released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan.”

Quite surprisngly, Wikipedia then writes that nuclear power actually saves and extends lives – commenting on the numbers of people who died or may die from radiation exposure (emphasis added):

These numbers are very low compared to the estimated 20,000 casualties caused by the tsunami itself, and it has been estimated that if Japan had never adopted nuclear power, accidents and pollution from coal or gas plants would have caused more lost years of life.”

So the next time you pick up or hear any report coming from Germany’s elitist, forced publicly-funded media, don’t believe a damn word of it.

British EU Parliamentarian: “The Truth Is Nobody Believes In ‘Climate Change’ Anymore; There’s Been No GW For 15 Years!”

“Sea levels are not rising significantly.” Climate science is made up of “speculative and alarmist theories”.

Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt’s Die kalte Sonne website presents a video showing British European Parliamentarian Roger Helmer delivering a statement before the European Parliament in Strasbourg on July 5, slamming Europe’s climate religion and energy policy.

Don’t ask me where all the other EU deadbeat parliamentarians are. Probably on their month-long taxpayer-funded summer holidays! That aside, there’s so much here in Helmer’s statement that needs to be quoted. For example:

More and more scientists are rejecting the alarmist case. […] The world is awash with natural gas. […] We are forcing households and pensioners into fuel poverty. We have chosen to impoverish our children and grandchildren. Future generations will look back at this period with horror and despair, and colleagues they will never forgive us.


Energy Secretary Chu Has A Brilliant Idea: Electric Cars In A Country Where There’s No Electricity!

The mid-Atlantic of the USA has no power.

And so one really has to wonder about the sheer brilliance of Energy Secretary Chu’s latest idea – more electric cars for a country that can no longer provide its citizens with a steady supply of electricity.

I have a question for Secretary Chu: Even if electric cars were free, what purpose would they serve when your energy system cannot produce electricity for days and days? If people and emergency services had your electric cars, they would all be stranded by now with no means of getting around.

Secretary Chu, rather than calling for more electric cars, which very few people want, you need to focus on, well, energy. After all, you are the Energy Secretary, and not the Secretary of Golf Carts.

How about focusing on revamping the utterly dilapidated electricity grid, which has been allowed to go to hell over the years? The energy generation and distribution system has been so neglected that it can no longer withstand a summer storm or heat wave. What a joke.

It’s time for you to start focusing seriously on making the supply of electricity affordable and reliable. Why do you refuse to do that? As it now stands, Washington DC and surrounding area are looking like a banana republic.

It’s time to seriously invest in more coal, nuclear and gas power generation technology. These supplies are cheap and RELIABLE.

And only then can you start to think about electric cars.


Boosting Per Capita Prosperity And Energy Consumption Is The Only Way To Care For Our Planet

An honest look at the data allows us to conclude only one thing: The path to protecting the planet is paved with energy and human prosperity. A shortage of either would mean big trouble for the environment.

How Much Power Should We Consume?
By Ed Caryl

There have been many suggestions here on this blog, and elsewhere, that the aim of the CAGW hoax is population control.

It is obvious that the poor people of the world produce more babies; witness Africa with a birth rate much higher than the rest of the world but a very low GDP. The Africans would seem to be the model for what the Greens want the world to be: a low carbon footprint. But with their high birth rate and low production, most of Africa teeters on the brink of famine. Unable to afford energy and sanitation, many burn forests and dump their waste untreated into the environment. This would suggest that the “low carbon footprint” model is only a recipe for disaster.

On the other hand, countries with well developed economies have low birth rates but high carbon footprints. If we are to reach a stable population, one that can be sustained far into the future, a world-wide well developed economy will be required.

A well developed economy requires energy. Producing food, goods, keeping people warm or cool, assuring hygiene, and providing transportation for people, food, and products, require energy.

What are the relationships between population growth, energy consumption, and production? First, here’s a chart of electricity consumed versus GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per person for 202 countries. (Source for all the numbers in these charts is the CIA World Factbook.) Electrical power consumption can be considered a proxy for all energy consumption.

Figure 1: Per person GDP as a function of electricity use.

It is clear from Figure 1 that to have a well developed economy with a high GDP, energy consumption must also be high. A rough trend can be seen: each KW hour produces about $10 GDP per person. The average GDP per kilowatt-hour for all countries is $8.31. The ten highest electrical power users per person are: Iceland, Norway, Kuwait, Canada, Finland, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, United States, and Australia. Oil production in Africa and the Middle East distort some of the GDP numbers.

What does a high GDP do to birth rate?

Figure 2: As per capita GDP rises, fertility rates (children per woman) fall.

In Figure 2, a fertility rate of 2 is the replacement level. Fertility rates below 2 indicate a declining population. Above 2 there is an increasing population. As you can see, most of Africa is poor and pregnant. African countries that are not poor are oil producers like Libya and Nigeria. Most European populations are in decline. The exceptions are Andorra and Gibraltar. Asian countries with thriving economies are below the replacement value. Singapore is the bottom point on fertility with a rate of 0.78 children per woman. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau are just above that number.

There is a third leg to our stool: the relationship between fertility rate and electrical power. The next chart shows that relationship.

 Figure 3. The more power people consume, the less children they have.

Again, most of Africa, and some of Asia, is pregnant and powerless. It should be clear by now that there is an optimum electrical power and GDP necessary to result in a sustainable, stable population. Those numbers would appear to be about 3,000 KW hours and a GDP of about $30,000 annually per person. The total population is about seven billion. Therefore:

7 billion X 3,000 KWh = 21 trillion KWh.

21 trillion kilowatt-hours would seem to be a reasonable target. The world currently produces 19 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity. It appears that about 10% more electrical energy, with the accompanying improvement in GDP, primarily in Africa and some parts of Asia, would go a long way toward improving the quality of life and stabilizing population in those areas.

Energy drives civilization. This fundamental should be obvious to all, but apparently has not penetrated the consciousness of Greens, Progressives, and warmist zealots. Man builds cities to concentrate people, jobs, markets, and energy use into more efficient areas. Energy allows more efficient production, including food, technology, housing, and transportation. Cities and energy encourage creativity and innovation. More energy means a higher Gross Domestic Product.

Figure 4: GDP as a function of electrical power usage, for Europe and the Americas.

Figure 4 shows a clear relationship between GDP and electrical power consumption. If less electricity is generated, the cost of electricity will go up (due to the economic law of supply and demand), less will be used, and GDP will go down. The converse is, of course, more desirable: more power and reducing the cost, will result in a higher GDP. High priced wind and solar is not the answer. Let the market decide how to generate more power efficiently.

For those that are screaming “what about carbon footprint!”, the market will very soon take care of that non-problem. We are currently passing the “peak oil” point. Fossil fuels, in the long term, will be a declining portion of our power production. Barring governmental stupidity, nuclear power will be an increasing percentage of energy production.

Due to the fact that carbon dioxide is a vital plant food, as well as a minor greenhouse gas, sometime in the not too distant future we will be developing schemes to keep the atmospheric CO2 level above 400 ppm or higher.


Germany’s Per Kilowatt-Hour CO2 Emissions Jump 4%! Transformation To Renewables Flops

Steffen Hentrich of the liberty-oriented blogsite “Denken für die Freiheit” (Thinking for Liberty) writes a piece called “Climate-Killing Energy Transformation” about how Germany’s energy transformation from nuclear and fossil fuels to renewable energies is not working out very well.


Continue reading Germany’s Per Kilowatt-Hour CO2 Emissions Jump 4%! Transformation To Renewables Flops

Siemens: Nuclear Power Shutdown To Cost Germany $2,150,000,000,000.00 (2.15 Trillion)!

Have you ever been to a dinner party with lots of people when suddenly a mouse runs across the room and someone yells “mouse!” Most people simply ignore the intrusion, while others may ask “where?” But you can always count on someone flying into a fit of hysteria, jumping up on a table screaming and shaking violently until the medics arrive and shoot the person up with a massive dose of tranquilizers before wheeling the sedated patient to the nearest hospital for overnight obsevation. Irrational? Yes.That was pretty much how German politicians and media reacted in the wake of Fukushima. As the rest of the world watched with concern, and had their reactors checked over for good measure, Germany flipped out and plunged into a wave mass panic not seen since Orson Welles’ radio adaptation of War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells on October 30, 1938. After Fukushima, Germany immediately shut down 8 of its older reactors and then rammed through a law ordering the remaining 9 reactors be shut down as soon as possible.

That bout of total irrationality and panicked decision-making is now going to cost Germany a bundle, so estimates engineering giant Siemens AG here. Hat-tip Benny Peiser.

According to Reuters:

Germany’s exit from nuclear power could cost the country as much as 1.7 trillion  euros ($2.15 trillion) by 2030, or two thirds of the country’s GDP in 2011,  according to Siemens (SIEGn.DE),  which built all of Germany’s 17 nuclear plants.”

If that does not bankrupt something, nothing will. Germany wants to switch over to renewable energy. How much will that impact global temperatures? A few hundreths of a degree?

The estimate from Siemens makes some assumptions. Reuters writes:

The estimate of 1.7 trillion euros assumes strong expansion of renewables, with feed-in tariffs as the biggest chunk of costs. The cost would be lower — at about 1.4 billion euros — if gas was one of the major energy alternatives, Suess said.

The estimates given by Siemens factor in feed-in tariffs — costs that utilities have to pay to generators of renewable energy — investments into power transmission and distribution, operations and maintenance as well as technologies to store renewable energy and carbon dioxide.”

Siemens’ estimate is much higher than the 250-300 billion euros estimate given earlier by power plant executives. In the end, the price increase will be paid by the consumer, both private and business. This will hardly make Germany an attractive place to work (which is an activity that requires energy).

So it’s little wonder that businesses are calling it quits in Germany and moving to places that are more business friendly and energy is cheaper.

Don’t take my word for it. According to CO2 Handel here, comnpanies now see Germnany as a risk:

Rising energy and raw material prices are the top risks for Germany as a place to do business. Also 58% of companies fear that power outages. Since switching off 8 nuclear power reactors, power plants are have to switch on and off faster than ever before.”



It’s The Dawn Of Life-Saving Coal: 2010 Consumption Jumped 5.2% – Most Since 1979

Dig baby dig!

Germany has put the shutdown of all its nuclear reactors on the fast track since the Fukushima accident. Finally, Germany’s Renewable Energy Revolution to rescue the planet from nuclear power and climate-killing CO2 emissions appears set begin in earnest, at least that’s what the climate rescue heroes would like to believe.

Unfortunately for the renewable energy cheerleaders, and the enemies of fossil fuels, things are in reality developing quite differently globally and even in Germany. For example, China is putting one brand new coal power plant online every week, and will do so for the next 40 years. Now, suddenly, Germany looks poised to crank up its coal power capacity too. Edgar L. Gärtner at eigentumlich frei has a commentary called: Energy Revolution” – The New Age of Coal“. The climate fantasy rescuers aren’t going to like it.

Since Germany has taken 8 of its nuclear reactors out of operation since April, 2011, its energy supply now stands vulnerable. To keep the lights from going out, which is a real prospect should a very cold winter day befall Germany, old coal plants are now being brought back to operationability in order to serve as “cold reserve capacity”. Gärtner writes:

This confirms what independent specialists have been predicting since the ‘energy revolution’ was announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel: Instead of the rise of the promised “Age of Renewable Energies“, the nuclear phaseout will lead to a Renaissance of coal and (to a small extent) natural gas.”

Indeed, even ultra-green Germany is going back to coal. And Gärtner adds:

There are lots of signs indicating the age of coal as a resource for electrical power generation is actually just getting started.”

And anyone who doesn’t believe this is probably listening to too much German public media news, or is in chronic denial. Gärtner explains:

According to the most recent Statistical Review of World Energy of oil company BP, one of the most reliable sources of energy market data, coal consumption has increased by almost 50% over the last 10 years alone.”

And during those same 10 years, global temperatures have plateaued, or even fallen slightly, depending which data-set you’re looking at. Gärtner continues (emphasis added):

Such a rash increase has never been seen before. China and India alone account for 90 percent of this increase. Coal’s share of global energy generation has almost reached 30% and is now as now at 1970 levels. At 48.2% almost half of the world’s coal consumption is by China. Plans by China’s leadership provides for a coal power expansion of 600 gigawatts by the year 2035. Also in western countries coal consumption increased in the year 2010 by 5.2%, the most since 1979.

So why is coal burning gaining so fast? The answer is economics and science.

Global coal reserves are huge, enough to last an estimated 1000 years according to some estimates. Moreover the fuel is easy and cheap to extract, transport and use. And because there are now 7 billion people on the planet to sustain, its low price means that it is a real life-saver, one that can be relied on and does not depend on the weather. Thus only the most ignorant, or most tyrannical, of politicians would sit on mountains of coal and allow citizens to freeze to death in the wintertime.

Now that climate science is uncovering that CO2 is indeed a minor climate driver, the use of coal should be allowed unabated. Indeed science is showing more and more that coal is by no means a climate killer, but a human life-saver.


Standard Of Living Correlates With Energy Availability Almost One-To-One

Marc Morano here recently made what ought to be an obvious point: It’s immoral not to use fossil fuels, which are cheap and plentifully at our disposal. Today they can be burned more cleanly and efficiently than ever. Moreover, the science shows that they don’t have a significant impact on climate.To solve the poverty that still ravages many parts of the world, it is imperative that these impacted regions be supplied with the essential cornerstone of development: cheap ENERGY. It’s a fact: The more energy people consume, the more their standards of living improve. Take a look at the 2 following tables.

Per capita GDP, selected countries
[US $]
1. Norway 55,000
2. USA 47,000
3. Australia: 41,000
4. Canada: 39,000
5. Germany: 36,000
6. Japan: 34,000
7. Russia: 16,000
8. Mexico: 14,000
9. China: 7,600
10. India: 3,500
11. Sudan: 2,300
12. North Korea: 1,800
13. Ethiopia: 600

Per capita energy consumption of randomly selected countries
[kilograms of oil equivalent]
1. Canada: 8300
2. USA 7800
3. Norway 5900
4. Australia: 5700
5. Russia: 4400
6. Germany: 4200
7. Japan: 4000
8. Mexico: 1530
9. China: 1140
10. North Korea: 900
11. India: 510
12. Sudan: 480
13. Ethiopia: 280

Compare the position of each country in the 2 tables. What do you notice?

It should be no surprise that the countries with higher per capita energy consumption also have higher per capita GDP, i.e. far better standards of living. On the other hand, countries that consume very little energy have impoverished standards of living and much misery. It’s almost 1 to 1. No country that consumes lots of energy is living in poverty, and no country that consumes little energy is living in prosperity. Of course there are other factors that come into play, such as education and freedom.

Depriving people of energy is not going to allevaite poverty, period. To the contrary, it will only make it worse.  Moreover, making the supply of energy more expensive by mandating costly renewables is only going to result in yet a further reduction in energy consumption in the third world – one they simply cannot afford. Expensive alternative energy sources there will only make the catastrophic living conditions there even worse.

Preventing the construction of power plants and the drilling of gas and oil will also have the same devastating effects.

An extreme example is Somalia. There even the fundamental source of energy for human life – FOOD – is now in short supply. The big problem there is not that there is a global shortage of food, but rather it is that huge amounts of the global food stocks are being converted into biofuels to combat fantasized AGW. That criminal kind of energy-deprivation enacted by the west needs to stop – and soon.

Data sources:
CIA World Factbook

Global Coal Consumption Jumps Almost 50% – Yet Global Temps Drop!

A recently released BP report here shows that global coal consumption has risen over the last 10 years by almost 50%. So wouldn’t you think that all those millions of tons of emitted CO2 (food for plants) as a result would drive the global temperatures up? Have temperatures risen along with all that extra coal burning?

No they haven’t. In fact they’ve dropped slightly over the same period. So go figure!

The blue line shows skyrocketing global coal use, yet global temperatures have fallen.

In the above chart the blue line shows global coal consumption, data taken here, Review of World Energy. According to the report, India and China alone are responsible for 90% of the world’s coal consumption increase, while renewable energy in the 2 countries plays nary a role. According to BP figures, global CO2 emissions rose 5.8% in the year 2010.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that China will add a whopping 600 gigawatts of coal power plant capacity by the year 2035, equivalent to the current capacity of the USA, EU and Japan – combined! So as China adds one coal power plant each week, Europe and the USA are lucky to get a single one approved during an entire year.

Demand for coal is not about to change directions any time soon. The IEA estimates that the global population will climb to 8.5 billion people by the year 2035. That means a huge growth in demand for power. Already today the sad truth is that 20% of the global population still has no access to electricity. Forcing the prices up with CO2 emission trading schemes and carbon taxes will only make the situation worse for the very poor.

But now that we know burning coal has hardly a noticeable impact on temperature and climate (zero-correlation), it’s high time to double our efforts in producing more coal so that the world’s demand can be satisfied so that bitter poverty may be alleviated once and for all.

World Nuclear Association Director General John Ritch Calls Germany’s Nuclear Stop “Political Embecility”

The Voice Of Russia website has an interview with John Ritch, Director General of the World Nuclear Association, based in London, UK. The interview starts as follows:

What kind of consequences could the decision by the German government have, both in political and economical aspects?

Well, let us return to the basics of what has occurred here. To be successful, democracy requires leadership rather than politician desperately chasing the latest polls. Missus Merkel’s desperate chase has now produced an act of monumental irresponsibility both for the global environment and for Germany’s economic interest. Germany will now pollute more, function less efficiently and depend more on imported energy…

Continue reading (with audio)

Ritch doesn’t hold back in blasting Germany’s hysterical knee-jerk move away from nuclear power, adding comments as follows:

…excellent companies are being made to bear the burden of this political imbecility…will actually have little effect on the momentum of the world’s continuing shift towards nuclear power…they have become victims of a German experiment in the environmental ideology…has taken a serious step backwards into a dark yesterday…an example of misguided ideology…unfortunate to see such a sophisticated nation falling pray to this kind of ideological illusion…”

And here’s how Ritch views “green” technology industries and a German future based on them:

…they will benefit from it but only to the degree that the government is willing to create subsidies, because they operate technologies that cannot actually succeed in a competitive market…eventually the burden of such heavy subsidies will show up in the tax burden of the ordinary German citizen, and…will begin to notice that their government has led them down a completely silly path.”

In German there ‘s a saying that describes the country’s plan to reach this utopia: “Sie sind auf dem Holzweg!

This is just the latest sequel to a bad film by Germany’s latest political directors. Call it: Germany Commits Suicide III.