Pajamas media update: There have been some developments since this was published. The short version is that a series of coincidences led Gabriel Calzada to believe a package was a bomb threat. Let’s just review what Calzada was responding to: he received an unsolicited package addressed as from a “green” company. Thermotechnic. When he called to ask about it, he was told: “It’s our response to your study [on green jobs].”
It didn’t look like, or feel like, a letter or report, so at that point Calzada got a security guard to scan it — and what was inside was a cylindrical object with wires attached. At that point, the security guard got an expert to examine it, with others in attendance. The contents were a container for diesel of some sort, and some other parts. The expert saw this as a bomb threat, based on a pattern used by, eg., ETA: “This one is a hoax bomb. The next one might not be.”
So Calzada took this as a threat based on the experts’ opinions. Remember that Calzada has been viciously attacked for having had the temerity to publish a study that questioned the economic effectiveness of “green jobs” in Spain, including having been threatened personally and professionally. It was at that point Horner wrote this piece.
Since then, especially following the controversy becoming public in the Spanish press, the company contacted Calzada; what appears to have happened is this:
- A package containing car parts was swapped for a package containing a report intended for Calzada.
- The Thermotechnic person Calzada contacted said something that was ambiguous.
- Calzada, already the subject of threats and intimidation, relied on expert opinion that it was a bomb threat.
As further information became available, it became clear it was a misunderstanding based on several coincidences. Calzada has written an open letter explaining this in detail, and now agrees there was no threat from Thermotechnic.
======================
The author of a damning study about the failure of Spain’s “green jobs” program — a story broken here at PJM — received the threatening package on Tuesday from solar energy company Thermotechnic.
June 24, 2010 – by Christopher Horner
Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.
Says Calzada:
Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.
Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.
The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:
This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.
Dr. Calzada added:
[The terrorism expert] told me that this was a warning.
The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in Expansion (a Spanish paper similar to the Financial Times). A minister from Spain’s Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University — Dr. Calzada’s employer — seeking Calzada’s ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzada’s think tank — Instituto Juan de Mariana — was associated.
Additionally, the head of Spain’s renewable energy association and the head of its communist trade union wrote opinion pieces in top Spanish newspapers accusing Calzada of being “unpatriotic” — they did not charge him with being incorrect, but of undermining Spain by daring to write the report.
Their reasoning? If the skepticism that Calzada’s revelations prompted were to prevail in the U.S., Spanish industry would face collapse should U.S. subsidies and mandates dry up.
As I have previously reported at PJM (here and here), Spain’s “green jobs” program was repeatedly referenced by President Obama as a model for what he would like to implement in the United States. Following the release of Calzada’s report, Spain’s Socialist government has since acknowledged the debacle — both privately and publicly. This month, Spain’s government instituted massive reductions in subsidies to “renewable” energy sources.
Read the rest of the story here:
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:05 am
Histrionics aside, the numbers are straightforward. You need about 40-cents (U.S.) per kwh at the plant fence, either through subsidies or in the market, to make economic sense of a solar power plant investment. Wind power translates to about 27-cents, The average wholesale electric power rate in the U.S. is about 4-cents per kwh. It really is that simple….
————–
‘Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Does the 4-cent per kwh include the cost of pollution from the mining and burning of coal used to generate the electric power?’
Two can play that game.
Does the 40-cents and (U.S.) 27-cents per kwh include the cost of pollution from the manufacturing windmills and solar panels used to generate the electric power?
Well, it seems that Dr Calzada now agrees that Thermotechnic sent some spare parts instead of the intended report. And there never was a “dismantled bomb” as this post so ridiculously proclaims. And no threat.
Retraction?
Nick, the CAGW crowd started with the threats. Maybe you should be emailing Greenpeace and Hansen, and showing them how jumpy people can get after they’re subjected to repeated threats against their life and liberty.
Retraction? Your side first. Show us how it’s done.
RockyRoad says:
June 25, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:05 am
Claude Harvey says:
June 25, 2010 at 12:32 am
(…)
————–
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Does the 4-cent per kwh include the cost of pollution from the mining and burning of coal used to generate the electric power?
————–
…which is offset by the benefits of CO2 in growing crops, revegetating tropical forests, and making the earth a (truly) greener place to live. Besides, the effluent from coal-fired generating plants meets EPA standards; are you saying they’re not strict enough?
Btw, I’ve done more reclamation as a mining engineer re-mining old abandoned mining districts, along with upgrading the environment on deposits mined for the first time, than thousands of members of the Sierra Club put together. All mines are required to file a Mine Reclamation Plan (generally with the state’s DEQ) before the first shovelful of rock or dirt is even turned. A bond is posted that makes sure such remediation is completed once mining operations cease. In many cases, meeting the regs for reclamation requires more planning than extracting the minerals.
In the vast majority of cases, after a few years it is practically impossible for the layperson to detect that there was ever a mine in the area. However, the improved environment, with lakes, wetlands, reforested and reclaimed grazelands, are a welcome benefit. The fauna grows better with the increase in CO2, needs less water, and supports more wildlife. Hard to see a downside to all this.
========
Pollution = prosperity? Good luck trying to sell that one.
old construction worker says:
June 25, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:05 am
Histrionics aside, the numbers are straightforward. You need about 40-cents (U.S.) per kwh at the plant fence, either through subsidies or in the market, to make economic sense of a solar power plant investment. Wind power translates to about 27-cents, The average wholesale electric power rate in the U.S. is about 4-cents per kwh. It really is that simple….
————–
‘Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Does the 4-cent per kwh include the cost of pollution from the mining and burning of coal used to generate the electric power?’
Two can play that game.
Does the 40-cents and (U.S.) 27-cents per kwh include the cost of pollution from the manufacturing windmills and solar panels used to generate the electric power?
==========
Well, that wouldn’t amount to much. Once you make windmill or solar panel, it’s made. They have long working lives.
And don’t forget the question of where the money spent to make the windmills and panels would be spent if they weren’t made. Spend it on any making any other good, and you have some cost of pollution from making that good too, don’t you?
Looking ahead, although coal is cheap and plentiful now, it’s not always going to be that way, since we are using it faster than new coal is being formed . So developing sources of energy that don’t deplete(wind and solar) is a good thing to do for future generations of Americans.
Excellent find by Lubos
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/eu-banned-heated-family-houses-built.html
Euro Eco Technocrats
According to the Spanish news item, Calzada had been sent the disassembled motor from a car. Not a bomb
Unless I’m missing something.
It bears no relationship to the unmasking of the extraordinary cost of Spain’s green folly by Calzada.
When they panic and start mailing bomb parts, you know you are doing the right thing. Calzada is a hero.
I recently came across the UK Government figures for what they will pay for renewable energy fed into the national grid.
http://impactrenewables.com/ESW/Files/FITsconsultationresponseandGovdecisions%5B1%5D.pdf
The tariffs can be found on page 27 of the PDF.
Sure is a lot of money (i.e. tax-payer funded subsidy) to be made from ‘green’ energy.
You can earn 40 pence per kilowatt hour for the right type of installation! That’s a LOT more than electrity currently ‘costs’ the UK consumer.
As we say in Scotland, it’s just no right…
Calzada says now it was a simple shipping error. Calzada told the truth about the package, and deserves hero plaudits for that.
It was an obvious hoax that fit this site’s narrative, so it received no skepticism but a screaming headline instead. Then an outraged crowd reaction, it’s their narrative too.
Now the hoax is unmasked. But no retraction from WUWT.
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 8:46 pm
old construction worker says:
June 25, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:05 am
————–
‘Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Does the 4-cent per kwh include the cost of pollution from the mining and burning of coal used to generate the electric power?’
Two can play that game.
Does the 40-cents and (U.S.) 27-cents per kwh include the cost of pollution from the manufacturing windmills and solar panels used to generate the electric power?
==========
‘Well, that wouldn’t amount to much. Once you make windmill or solar panel, it’s made.’
You seem to forget, it takes more then just electricity to produce windmills and solar panels.
‘They have long working lives.’
Not really. Windmills are high maintenance and solar panel don’t pay for themselves before they have to be replaced.
‘Looking ahead, although coal is cheap and plentiful now, it’s not always going to be that way, since we are using it faster than new coal is being formed . So developing sources of energy that don’t deplete(wind and solar) is a good thing to do for future’
We have been subsidizing wind and solar since the Jimmy Carter days (40 years). Now subsidy is 50 cent or higher on the dollar and it is still an in-suffocated way to produce electricity.
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 8:46 pm
[–snip–]
Well, that wouldn’t amount to much. Once you make windmill or solar panel, it’s made. They have long working lives.
And don’t forget the question of where the money spent to make the windmills and panels would be spent if they weren’t made. Spend it on any making any other good, and you have some cost of pollution from making that good too, don’t you?
Looking ahead, although coal is cheap and plentiful now, it’s not always going to be that way, since we are using it faster than new coal is being formed . So developing sources of energy that don’t deplete(wind and solar) is a good thing to do for future generations of Americans.
Your whole post rests with the corrupt ‘broken window’ fallacy.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken_window
See also:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/22/rat-falls-back-on-the-broken-window-fallacy/
899 says:
June 26, 2010 at 4:02 pm
‘In Sunday’s “Pearls Before Swine” comic strip, the nefarious Rat is now a PR flak. And when his client accidentally blows up downtown, he comes up with a solid economic defense:’
That put a smile on my face.
old construction worker says:
June 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 8:46 pm
old construction worker says:
June 25, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Wren says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:05 am
————–
‘Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Does the 4-cent per kwh include the cost of pollution from the mining and burning of coal used to generate the electric power?’
Two can play that game.
Does the 40-cents and (U.S.) 27-cents per kwh include the cost of pollution from the manufacturing windmills and solar panels used to generate the electric power?
==========
‘Well, that wouldn’t amount to much. Once you make windmill or solar panel, it’s made.’
You seem to forget, it takes more then just electricity to produce windmills and solar panels.
‘They have long working lives.’
Not really. Windmills are high maintenance and solar panel don’t pay for themselves before they have to be replaced.
‘Looking ahead, although coal is cheap and plentiful now, it’s not always going to be that way, since we are using it faster than new coal is being formed . So developing sources of energy that don’t deplete(wind and solar) is a good thing to do for future’
We have been subsidizing wind and solar since the Jimmy Carter days (40 years). Now subsidy is 50 cent or higher on the dollar and it is still an in-suffocated way to produce electricity.
=====
Fossil fuel interests see wind and solar power as threats. So they want people to think these sources are impractical. Buggy whip makers probably felt the same way about cars.
Gneiss says:
June 26, 2010 at 11:18 am
It was an obvious hoax that fit this site’s narrative, so it received no skepticism but a screaming headline instead. Then an outraged crowd reaction, it’s their narrative too.
Now the hoax is unmasked. But no retraction from WUWT.
——–
Give it time. Maybe WUWT is waiting for a retraction from Pajama Media’s Chris Horner, the author of the article “Green Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts.” The article was WUMT’s source. I just checked the Pajama Media site, and there is no retraction or correction yet.
Horner must be red-faced over this. His headline embellished the hoax.
This just goes to show if something doesn’t sound right, it probably isn’t right.
Wren says:
June 26, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Fossil fuel interests see wind and solar power as threats. So they want people to think these sources are impractical. Buggy whip makers probably felt the same way about cars.
In the same way that you’re afraid of nuclear power?
Why all the pretenses with wind and solar?
Why not just cut to the most obvious chase?
899 says:
June 26, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Wren says:
June 26, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Fossil fuel interests see wind and solar power as threats. So they want people to think these sources are impractical. Buggy whip makers probably felt the same way about cars.
In the same way that you’re afraid of nuclear power?
Why all the pretenses with wind and solar?
Why not just cut to the most obvious chase?
—–
Where did you get the idea I’m afraid of nuclear power?
BTW, if anyone tells me wind power doesn’t work, I know better. We used a windmill to drive a pump on the farm where I grew up. It worked just fine.
Maybe there was an old fashioned watch in the parcel – it was probably a wind up.
Nick Stokes says:
June 24, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Does nobody see something odd about the claim that a regular commercial firm is sending out simulated bombs in packages under its own name?….
____________________________________________________________
I though similar, but in my case I wondered what made Dr Calzada call in a terrorism expert to scan the package, and then call in a journalist before opening it. It just sounds a little suspicious to me.
Ringing the company to ask what was in it was okay. Then, based on that response, he calls in a terrorism expert?
_______________________________________________________________
Dr Calzada acted in a reasonable manner considering the “authorities” are not skeptics. Also we do not know what other thing happened before this to make Dr Calzada “twitchy” and distrust the “authorities”
1. The “dismantled bomb parts” consisted of a fuel filter and wire, nothing else. No timer, fuse, explosive, fuel, accelerant. Nada.
2. The courier service, Tourline Express, took responsibility for delivering a package, intended for a garage, to Dr. Calzada.
3. The “security expert” called by Dr. Calzada, was a security guard.
4. An employee of Thermotechnic assumed that the package, mentioned by Dr. Calzada in the phone call, was a written response to his study.
Isn’t a retraction or update indicated, given these facts?
Wren says:
June 26, 2010 at 11
‘BTW, if anyone tells me wind power doesn’t work, I know better. We used a windmill to drive a pump on the farm where I grew up. It worked just fine.’
When the wind was blowing or did you have a storage system when didn’t blow? Plus, your own windmill wasn’t supplying water to 50 other farmers. I’m sure you neighbors didn’t subsidized your windmill to the tune of over $.50 on the dollar.
Marge wrote,
“1. The “dismantled bomb parts” consisted of a fuel filter and wire, nothing else. No timer, fuse, explosive, fuel, accelerant. Nada.
2. The courier service, Tourline Express, took responsibility for delivering a package, intended for a garage, to Dr. Calzada.
3. The “security expert” called by Dr. Calzada, was a security guard.
4. An employee of Thermotechnic assumed that the package, mentioned by Dr. Calzada in the phone call, was a written response to his study.
Isn’t a retraction or update indicated, given these facts?”
Apparently not on this site. Three days later and they’re still letting it run.
Wren says:
June 26, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Where did you get the idea I’m afraid of nuclear power?
BTW, if anyone tells me wind power doesn’t work, I know better. We used a windmill to drive a pump on the farm where I grew up. It worked just fine.
Well, since you seem so enamored of wind power, one may gather that you’re for it over other energy production sources.
Now, insofar as windmills go, you’re talking about a small-scale machine well-fitted to the application.
How many birds did your windmill manage to slaughter whilst you used it? I will wager that there were none, if only that the thing was both low enough to the ground and the blades were neither large enough nor spaced such as to have suffered bird strikes.
My problem with wind power is that there are people whom are given to think that if a little is good, then a lot must be better, and that just isn’t so.
Wren (#899), got a study or two on birds hitting wind power generators? Is this more serious than their problems with radio towers, or power lines?
Why wouldn’t a lot of wind power be a good thing? I was in Corpus Christi, Texas, yesterday; from I-37 you can see — how many, 100? — windmills churning away to the north, through the piping and effluent from the oil refineries. Heck of a visual commentary on our energy needs, uses and future.
Why do you think one of Texas’s most promising new industries won’t work? How many thousands of generators have to be in place before your change your mind?