Every once in awhile a window opens and shows us the dark, illogical souls of the bureaucrats in the climate cabal. This is one of those times.
Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.
There’s more.
Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.
These are the views of the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.
Read it all here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
h/t to Dennis Wingo, and many others.
Here are some posts from the past (on WUWT) wrt subsidies:
================
PS:
As many here must know, Moore was featured in the Great Global Warming Swindle:
Roger: Adding to your previous (and very thorough) comments about the “subsidies” so bitterly complained by those who favor $100 billion in direct payoff’s to such demnocrat party bribers (er, campaign donors) as Solendra, GM (for the Volt and its electric cars tax writeoff’s and subsidized chargers and parking and …), BP (solar panels), etc, etc, etc…..
So: for those subsided prices to democratic party donors, how much power do they generate?
Well, wind, in general worldwide, only creates 23% of its rated power. On average. So less than 1/4 of the SUBSIDIZED (rated or nameplate) power capacity is available at unpredictable times and for uncertain durations, but ALL of the subsided extra transmission lines, switchyards, transformers, controller, roads, foundations, and infrastructure must be paid for by the taxpayers and ratepayers. ALL of those resources are wasted monies – good only for donations for democrat party officials How’s that working for for anyone except democratic party officials getting their campaign donations from the wind and solar industries?
Physically, wind cannot generate power over more than 1/3 of the country due to routine weather features like the southeast United States’ “Bermuda high” – where for weeks on end, breezes average less than 5 knots. There simply is no power available to turn the windmills over too many regions. Do you want to build the grid and transmission lines to carry current wastefully too far? More wasted resources and wasted monies.
Oh – The last short power line to cross state lines required over 10 years of permitting delays by the environmental-ecological industry for less than 300 miles of new lines. 300 miles won’t even get ONE set of power lines from a region with no wind to a region with no-wind-today-but-maybe-some-tomorrow-but-the-power-is-not-needed-there-either. Build the windmills? Are you going to let us build the towers to carry their product too?
Solar? The most expense of all, and capable of generating power only 6 hours a day – ON those days of the year when the sun actually IS shining! The rest of the time? The sun is too low in the sky to create power needed, and – when the sun IS shining at those peak solar hours – the power generated is not at peak power demand hours. But the fossil turbines must keep turning, ready to be instantly brought up the speed and on load, because the solar plants turn on an doff erratically and catastrophically at irregular hours – as when the sun goes behind a cloud each minute. Each hour.. . each half-hour. Or it does not.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Projections of future costs have already been done by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), as can be found here: Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Full AEO report (Early Release) here.
So by your stats in the US wind is cheaper than coal and much cheaper than advanced coal, solar PV is cheaper than advanced coal (just), and what exactly are you trying to say with those figures? That renewable are now cheaper than advanced coal? Gas is cheaper still and should rightly be part of the mix, but is subject to fuel price fluctuations…
But the bigger point I’m not sure how you guys keep missing/ignoring is that the historic price for coal is going up and price for renewable is going down, I’m not sure when that study was done but the price for solar PV fell 23% over the last 12Months
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-big-solar-costs-fall-23-in-12-months-21407
so that study might already be out of date ! That’s the point you’re missing, renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper while fossil fuels are getting more expensive, the writing is on the wall you just have to have the courage to read it.
As for intermittency these issue will be solved, through a combination of more gas plants, and smarter load matching, the Germans as a lot more intermittent renewables in the mix and have plans for a lot more.
Lets apply this logic to Iraq.
Even if we were wrong on WMD, we were right to go to war with Saddum.
SideShowBob:
In reply to the data provided by kadaka (KD Knoebel) at September 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm, your post at September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm asks/says
No! Like all fronts for subsidy farms, you deliberately miss the point and select only the data which fits your carnival barking.
In his post kadaka (KD Knoebel) explained
And, importantly, he said
And in his post kadaka (KD Knoebel) repeatedly – i.e. again and again – said
Plus he reported much more.
In other words, you have deliberately misrepresented the post of kadaka (KD Knoebel) which provided a detailed explanation of how and why figures you have been asserting are untrue and misleading
Furthermore, you have completely ignored the post of rogerknights at September 17, 2013 at 5:31 pm which details subsidies to ‘renewables’ and fossil fuelled power.
You are trying to present a ridiculous sales pitch for expensive, polluting environmentally damaging, bird swatting subsidy farms. That probably works on AGW-scare sites which are only frequented by the ignorant and gullible. It does not wash here on WUWT where there people willing and able to check your ludicrous assertions.
Richard
From SideShowBob on September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm:
The solar price fell from the influx of cheaper Chinese-made solar panels, coupled with lower demand as the subsidies started drying up, which lead to the collapse of many US panel makers and a glut of panels on the market. The decrease is not sustainable.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/solar-pv-profits-last-stand
Figure 2 summary, all eight manufacturers have net losses.
The solar PV industry is busy failing by success.
The panel makers are not making money, the panel buyers don’t want to pay more, inventories are high. There will be bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, and otherwise a shrinkage of manufacturing capacity until it meets demand. At which point prices might go up into profitability, but with subsidies going away, most likely the makers will have to trim costs to get to net gains, if that’s even possible.
You are praising the ongoing fire sale prices without mentioning the ongoing fires.
SideShowBob:
In your ridiculous sales pitch at September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm you also say
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! HOW DARE YOU!?
You are “ignoring” that your fallacious and misleading point has been repeatedly refuted in this thread by several people. Indeed, my refutation of it was my first answer to your twaddle. And the conclusion of that refutation was quoted by two others later in the thread. It is at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am and this link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419170
Also, in addition to your pretence that your untrue assertion has been “ignored”, you have “ignored” (i.e. have failed to mention) my rebuttal of wicked and amoral assertions you made by implication. That rebuttal is at September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm and this link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419776
It is nearing the point where you need to apologise for your behaviour.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:29 am
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! HOW DARE YOU!?
You are “ignoring” that your fallacious and misleading point has been repeatedly refuted in this thread by several people. Indeed, my refutation of it was my first answer to your twaddle. And the conclusion of that refutation was quoted by two others later in the thread. It is at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am and this link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419170
What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about your airy fairy drivel about how all energy is free and how nature has collected it for us! You call this “proof” ? I give you statistics from reputable organizations that have done the costings and you this give this fluff and call it “proof” – And then chastise me for not responding to it ???
richardscourtney says:
September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm
“The fossil fuel industries have lowered tax burdens. If you want to call that a “subsidy” then feel free, but wind and solar cost at least 5 times as much and get actual subsidies.”
Yes I call it a subsidy, it come from tax payers doe it not, and yes fossil fuel have historically been granted more subsidies than renewable, as I pointed out in a link, but feel free to ignore that point…
“The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. This is because it has released us from the energy poverty of wind, solar and muscle (animal and slave) power. Human health, life expectancy and leisure have all increased with resulting increase to art, philosophy and knowledge. And the environment has benefited enormously. ”
Who’s denying that, I’m not, I’m just point out that renewable’s are fast becoming much cheaper than coal ..
@Sideshow – No. It does not come from tax payers. All TAXES do. But NOT paying taxes is not a charge to anyone else. Period. It is not a subsidy. period. Here is the dictionary Definition:
The only way it is a cost to taxpayer is if ALL MONEY belongs to the government, of which they allow you to keep some. That is true in communistic countries. But not in the rest of the world.
richardscourtney says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am
“In other words, you have deliberately misrepresented the post of kadaka (KD Knoebel) which provided a detailed explanation of how and why figures you have been asserting are untrue and misleading”
Well if you think that then anyone can look at the study that Kadaka linked to and draw their own conclusions
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:16 am
“The solar PV industry is busy failing … ”
Boy that’s a courageous call, I think solar PV is here to stay and is only going to get bigger globally… we’ll see who’s right in 10-20 years, my prediction is that coal and petrol cars will be all but phased out, while wind, hydro, solar, gas peaking plants and electric cars will dominate.
I have published the following information since about 2005.
The “Capacity Factor” of wind power is about 20%, depending upon location, but wind power is actually much LESS EFFICIENT than this.
The “Substitution Factor” of grid-connected wind power is often less than 10% – for example is projected to be less than 4% in Germany by 2020.
That means Germany will need 25 units of wind power to replace one unit of conventional electrical generation by 2020.
Bob, maybe you can understand this:
“Wind Power – It doesn’t just blow; it sucks!”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/newsbytes-germany-faces-green-energy-crisis/#comment-983628
E.On Netz, the largest wind power generator in the world, in their report “Wind Power 2005″ describes the problems.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
One of the greatest disadvantages of wind power is the need for almost 100% conventional backup. E.On Netz says the “substitution capacity” in Germany was 8% in 2003, and will drop to 4% by 2020. See Figure 7 in the E.On report.
In concrete terms, this means that in 2020,
with a forecast wind power capacity of over
48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of
traditional power production can be replaced by
these wind farms.
Another big problem with wind power is that power varies as the cube of the wind speed – this causes sharp peaks and valleys in the power output from wind farms, so extreme that it can cause the entire grid to crash – try that in winter – remember the 1998 Ontario-Quebec ice storm? Many people died as a direct result of this huge power failure.
A near-miss occurred in German during Christmas week of 2004 – see Fig. 6 in the E.on report.
The feed-in capacity can change frequently
within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6,
which reproduces the course of wind power feedin
during the Christmas week from 20 to 26
December 2004.
Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on
Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year
at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only
10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds
to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired
power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power
feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in
levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.
Allan MacRae:
At September 18, 2013 at 2:19 am you say to the egregious timewaster posting as SideShowBob
Of course he/she/they understands it. He/she/they is trying to excuse it.
Please note that SideShowBob said at September 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419748
So, he/she/they says he/she/they is making a living on the basis of the subsidies. Well, if he/she/they had not admitted it, then we could have inferred it from the egregious misrepresentations he/she/they is posting here.
SideShowBob is merely another – in this case, self confessed – rent seeker trying to sustain his/her/their ripping off the public for as long as possible.
Richard
SideShowBob:
I am replying to a series of your egregious posts in this single post.
At September 18, 2013 at 1:53 am you reply to my reasoned explanation for you at at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am by saying
No, I was “talking about” my irrefutable explanation which you could not refute so you ignored.
It began by telling you
You ignored both the statement and the explanation of it then continued your fallacious assertions about prices. Indeed, the “statistics” you trumpet are about prices.
At September 18, 2013 at 1:57 am you quote my having stated at September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm
And you reply
I ignore none of your nonsensical and misleading points. Please do NOT attribute your egregious behaviour to others.
Of course, “fossil fuel have historically been granted more subsidies than renewable” because fossil fuels have provided the basic requirement of industrial civilisation whereas renewables have produced almost nothing and nothing cannot be taxed. Your “point” is ridiculous.
Then you revert to repeating your falsehood that I had already explained to you is a physical impossibility when you say
Bollocks! Renewables are becoming PRICED lower than coal because their high cost is being subsidised to reduce their price.
As I had already said, the reality which you are trying to conceal is
Costs are the sum of price and subsidies. And being “cheaper” is having lowest costs.
After that nonsense, at September 18, 2013 at 1:59 am you quote my having said at September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am
And reply
Freely translated, your reply says you know the critique of of kadaka (KD Knoebel) is irrefutable so you will pretend it does not exist.
And your reply to kadaka (KD Knoebel) having pointed out – with evidence – at September 18, 2013 at 1:16 amt
Is at September 18, 2013 at 2:08 am and in effect consists of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “La, La, La, …”.
SideShowBob, your posts would be funny if they were not so sad.
Richard
From SideShowBob on September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm:
Except the current price for coal in general is actually low by historic standards.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0709
Coal prices 1949 to 2011, price per short ton. There’s a handy graphing tool, select Real Dollars (adjusted for inflation/purchasing power) and look at each coal type and total (average) price at the same time.
The high-quality anthracite is in high demand for steel making but also for power generation. The next-best bituminous benefits from substitution and briefly surpassed anthracite, which the market corrected. Neither have exceeded their historic highs, and extraction technology has improved which lowers production costs. The new abundant natural gas reserves shall displace some of that coal use, lowering those coal prices.
Meanwhile the low-grade lignite has been relatively cheap for over sixty years, and “subbituminous” is even cheaper. They also haven’t reached their historic highs.
Coal in general is just a bit more than half of its 1975 all-time high.
So by the proper metric, coal is still cheap, and will likely get cheaper as demand shifts to natural gas. Heck, bituminous has actually dropped lately.
Meanwhile subsidies for wind and solar are going away, thus the real costs are going up, not down. Wind and solar technologies have gotten about as mature as possible, their production costs aren’t getting any lower.
Thus it looks about as likely that coal will be getting cheaper, while renewables will get more expensive.
richardscourtney says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:51 am
” (which I’m all for BTW as they affect the competitiveness of my business)”
“So, he/she/they says he/she/they is making a living on the basis of the subsidies. Well, if he/she/they had not admitted it, then we could have inferred it from the egregious misrepresentations he/she/they is posting here.”
Let me rephrase it for you so there is no misunderstanding, solar PV subsidies make my business less competitive as, i.e. they harm my business. I’ve never taken subsidies nor do I believe in them nor would I get involved in a business that takes subsidies. Clear now?
Allan MacRae says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:19 am
“Handling such significant differences in feed-in
levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.”
Yes I see the challenges, do I think that Germany should insulate itself from Russian energy (and as a side benefit set the country up if climate change turns out to be real) – even though there are these challenges. yes.!
SideShowBob:
Thankyou for clarifying the matter as you do in your post at September 18, 2013 at 5:56 am.
You make this statement in your subsequent post addressed to Allan MacRae at September 18, 2013 at 6:00 am
I assure you that climate change is very real.
Climate always has changed and always will change everywhere.
It would be news if climate were to stop changing.
These facts are only disputed by believers in the disproved hypothesis of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).
Richard
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:47 am
“Thus it looks about as likely that coal will be getting cheaper, while renewables will get more expensive.”
Yes well we’ll see, frankly I think you’re going to lose your pants if you throw in your lot in with coal
When you believe virtue prevents all bad things from happening, then “eliminating fossil fuel use” sounds just fine since you don’t have to count either the direct costs, the opportunity costs, or the unintended consequences. This is the common problem with activists of all stripes–they want what they want, and the emotion overrules any ability to be objective and look at costs and benefits. Thus “if it saves one life” leads to policies that indeed save one life….and sacrifice 5.
The climate change conversion is changing as the media, public, and politicians start to become aware of the facts/issues. The conversion changes when reality is not ignored.
Green scams will quadruple the cost of electric power (type of indirect taxation on consumers), resulting in job losses and a significant reduction in standard of life. The activists and the industrial leaches that profit from the green scams have hidden the facts that show green energy is a scam that does not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If there was a CO2 AGW problem, nuclear power is the solution, not green scams. Using fourth generation nuclear power and extracting uranium from the ocean provides roughly a billion years of power (William: As per James Hansen’s high level analysis, multiple papers.) Western countries have massive accumulated debit, are running yearly deficits, and have high unemployment. Western countries do not have surplus funds to waste on green scams.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/08/16/no-end-in-sight-for-spains-escalating-solar-crisis/
….The associated economics (William: green scam) are something akin to the (William: economic) apocalypse…. ….Spain calls it the “tariff deficit,” a massive debt that accumulated over the past decade as the cost of running the country’s electrical system exceeded the revenues generated by sales of power. … … In May, the tariff deficit reached a whopping $34 billion. …. ….In 2007, Spain paid a premium of $556 per megawatt-hour for electricity that rooftop solar panels supplied to the electric grid, compared with an average $52 paid to competing coal- or gas-fired power plants. (William: Solar subsidy is 10 times the cost of competing sources.) By 2012, a whopping $10.6 billion in subsidies were paid out to the renewable energy industry, rising by about 20% from the previous year, and covering more than one third of all electricity generated in Spain.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated
As a result of the existing RE build-outs, German household rates increased from 13.94 to 28.50 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 104.4% increase, and industrial rates increased from 6.05 to 16.10 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 166% increase. According to a recent study for the federal government, electricity will cost up to 40 eurocents/kWh by 2020, a 40% increase over 2012 prices.
Among european nations, German households have the second highest electric rates; 28.5 eurocent/kWh (energy, plus fees, plus taxes), after Denmark (32 eurocent/kWh), courtesy of RE. US low electric rates are the envy of heavy industry elsewhere, including Germany. France’s are among has the lowest.
William: The average cost of power to US consumers is US $0.1057/kw-hr, a third of the cost of electric power in Germany. ($1 US = 0.75 Euro) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm Note the phony solar economics and wind farm calculation which is quoted in other comments in this thread is based on peak noon solar energy generated on a cloudless day and optimum wind speed, not realistic 24/7 solar and wind farm.
Germany’s Solar Energy: About 22,000 MW of Germany’s 32,800 MW of PV solar systems (end 2012) are in South Germany. (William: Note quoted solar capacity is noon, cloudless day, not 24/7 realistic calculation) On a sunny summer day, from an output of about 0 MW at 6 AM, the PV solar output increases to about 16,000 MW at about noon, and back down to about 0 MW at 6 PM. As this would create major disturbances on the grid and, as PV solar panels cannot be turned off, Germany has to export part of the PV solar energy from about 10 AM to about 2 PM. …. …..As a result of the existing RE build-outs, German household rates increased from 13.94 to 28.50 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 104.4% increase, and industrial rates increased from 6.05 to 16.10 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 166% increase. According to a recent study for the federal government, electricity will cost up to 40 eurocents/kWh by 2020, a 40% increase over 2012 prices. Among european nations, German households have the second highest electric rates; 28.5 eurocent/kWh (energy, plus fees, plus taxes), after Denmark (32 eurocent/kWh), courtesy of RE. US low electric rates are the envy of heavy industry elsewhere, including Germany. France’s are among has the lowest.
William: Note Germany is exporting solar energy at a loss to France and Czech. France and Czech cannot therefore rely on solar energy. The green scams do not work if the objective is to reduce CO2 emissions for whatever reason by 50% for all countries. Nuclear is the only solution. Note Germany has 2300 km of high voltage power lines that need to be constructed due to green scams. The cost of the 2300 km of high voltage power lines and new back up fossil fuel plants that are required has not been included in the green scam economics.
– – – – – – – –
SideShowBob,
“Yes well we’ll see” from various aspects.
Just one of the aspects is that what we see develop in the energy market is not economically calculated and therefore an illusion. That could be the case when there is broad based coerced government intervention in the energy industry that pre-empts the market which makes economic calculation invalid. In that case the energy industry is cloaked from our view economically. For background on that concept please see: von Mises; von Hayek; Mencken.
John
philjourdan:
At September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm I replied to SideShowBob saying
In your post to SideShowBob at September 18, 2013 at 9:59 am you say
For clarity, I write to say I agree with your statements in your post I have quoted here.
Richard