Claim: New "Green" Danish Facebook Data Centre Will Increase CO2 Emissions

RStudioScreenSnapz027

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Information, a major Danish News Outlet, has claimed the rush to build “green” data centres in Denmark, to take advantage of Denmark’s abundant wind energy, will increase CO2 emissions.

New data centers will account for a third of the increase in electricity consumption in the future – and it may be costing the climate and the taxpayer

Facebook has confirmed the construction of a data center in Odense, and together with other companies’ data centers will account for a significant part of the increase in Denmark’s electricity consumption. It will certainly boost CO2 emissions, and taxpayers end up paying for international companies high electricity consumption, experts say

It is now official that Facebook will place a data center outside of Odense, and it will not only be visible in the island’s landscape, but also largely on the country’s total electricity bill.

Energinet.dk expects an increase in electricity consumption of approximately four Terawatt-hours (TWh) already as of 2023 as a consequence of data centers that are either approved or expected to be the – including Facebook’s data center and a previously announced Apple data center in Viborg. Energinet.dk will not say how many or what other yet unbuilt data centers in question.

“It is quite a lot. This means that the recorded CO2 emissions from Denmark will rise, as one usually calculates it because we do not have a 100 percent renewable energy target, but only 50 percent, “says Peter Birch Sørensen, chairman of the government’s independent advisory body Climate Council and professor in economics at the University of Copenhagen.

Although Facebook has announced that data center aims to use 100 percent renewable energy, so recognize the government that data centers will result in increased emissions of CO2, “because our generation is not yet fully green” equivalent energy – supply and climate minister Lars Christian Lilleholt (V) in an email to Information.

Read more (Original Danish – translated with Google Chrome): https://www.information.dk/indland/2017/01/nye-datacentre-staa-tredjedel-oeget-elforbrug-fremtiden-kan-komme-koste-klimaet-skatteyderne-dyrt

Building and maintaining green energy infrastructure is expensive for ordinary consumers. According to Wikipedia, Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe, an effective 31c / KWh. As Willis demonstrated in 2015, there is a strong correlation between installation of renewables and high electricity costs.

The rush to take advantage of Danish efforts to embrace green will in my opinion likely increase the pain on ordinary Danish consumers. Danes will have to choose between compromising their green energy principles, or paying even more for electricity, to fund all the new hideously expensive renewable electricity capacity which will be required to meet higher demand.

Or who knows – perhaps the joke will be on Facebook and friends – perhaps Danes will simply raise electricity charges on non-Danish data centres, to recoup the full economic cost of all that new green infrastructure.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
158 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Max Photon
February 10, 2017 6:51 pm

So they get stuck with windmills AND Facebook? Bummer.

Max Photon
Reply to  Max Photon
February 10, 2017 6:53 pm

(God I hate Facebook.)

Reply to  Max Photon
February 10, 2017 10:09 pm

Facebook denier!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Max Photon
February 10, 2017 11:26 pm

After years of use, as it was my single point of contact for friends and family all over the worl, Facebook demanded that I send them proof of ID such as a drivers license, passport or birth certificate. FB can go to hell!

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 12:28 am

Facebook is a man-made cultural disaster and its emissions are…(snip)

Max Photon
Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 5:02 pm

I have never touched Facebook, and I never will.
(And is it just me, or is Zuckerberg even creepier than Bill Nye?)

Stephen Greene
Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 6:44 pm

I refuse to use it!

Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 2:42 am

Someone used one of my two email addresses to register under false name to facebook, managed to block access, tried to delete it, but whatever I tried it failed, so get email spam box loaded daily with junk, any advice ?

Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 11:01 am

Become a subsistence farmer. No more junk email, no electricity, a strictly carbon neutral lifestyle. Al Gore and HRH Prince Charles will fall in love with you.

Pat Jones
Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 11:48 am

Change your password by doing the “Forgot Password” to regain control then delete account. Good luck

Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 2:50 pm

@ Pat Jones
Thanks for the advice, tried to do as you suggest but, in order to get access I need to enter all sorts of personal info of the impostor or alternatively identify from photos of 5 impostor’s ‘friends’ selected on random, which of course I can’t do.
I attempted to contact Facebook but no avail, never got a single reply from any of the email addresses I complained about the situation.
By trying to log in numerous times, and not having correct password account is blocked by the Facebook.

scarletmacaw
Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 4:45 pm

Contact a lawyer. I bet that’s worth big bucks.

Yirgach
Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 7:55 pm

If they used one of your email accounts to setup the FB account, then you should be able to regain control by getting a new password sent to your FB registered email account, no?
See https://www.quora.com/I-forgot-my-Facebook-password-and-email-password-How-can-I-log-into-Facebook
A long thread, but lots of info.
Best of luck.

Yirgach
Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 8:15 pm

Oh, I finally understand what your predicament is.
Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any easy (not costly) way around it.
I have learned that only a few trusted individuals get my real email address, anything else coming in is junked.
Have used several “throw away” addresses as required but not necessary for life.
Nowadays, having your own email server/domain address and control of such is worth the effort.
Once you lose control, there is not much else to do…

Robertvd
Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 3:07 am

Does that mean ‘ No wind No Facebook’ ?

Max Photon
Reply to  Robertvd
February 11, 2017 5:04 pm

Hahaha! 🙂

Robertvd
Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 3:09 am

But if they use diesel backup during windless or stormy days how BIG would be their carbon footprint?

Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 6:11 am

2 years ago I drove down from the northern tip of Jutland, Denmark all the way down to Copenhagen through a”forest” of wind turbines. The journey took some time. All the WT’s I passed were motionless!
Secure and reliable power supplies! LOL

TRM
Reply to  Max Photon
February 11, 2017 9:23 pm

And here I am thinking “Wow I actually am on the same side as the lefty pinko commies for once. Close FB down!!!!”.
I joined the “delete yourself from FB” day years back to protest their invasion-of-privacy policy. Don’t miss it a bit. Did in my Twatter account too.

Felflames
February 10, 2017 7:06 pm

Iceland seems a better “green” option.
They can power the datacentres from thermal plants.
http://www.nea.is/geothermal/

Jeff In Calgary
Reply to  Felflames
February 10, 2017 9:04 pm

Iceland’s “green” power is financially sustainable. It would indeed be a good option. However, some of the locals do not like ‘multinational’ corporations using their power (as if there is a limit to the power there), and giving Icelanders jobs.

AndyG55
Reply to  Jeff In Calgary
February 10, 2017 9:35 pm

The obvious place to put Facebook servers is South Australia.

Steve Borodin
Reply to  Jeff In Calgary
February 11, 2017 6:11 am

The obvious place to put Facebook is Uranus.

Reply to  Jeff In Calgary
February 11, 2017 7:09 am

Uranus receives very little solar energy though.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Jeff In Calgary
February 11, 2017 8:10 am

Venezuela would also be a good place. Zuck can then see the ultimate fate of his political orientation.

Timo - not that one
Reply to  Jeff In Calgary
February 11, 2017 7:18 pm

“The obvious place to put Facebook is Uranus.”
I blew beer out my nose with that one.

Hivemind
Reply to  Felflames
February 11, 2017 2:22 am

Put it in the right glacier and your air conditioning needs are all met.

Reply to  Felflames
February 11, 2017 3:13 am

Is Iceland Poised to Become a Data Center Paradise?
“Iceland doesn’t actually get as cold as one might imagine, it has a very narrow range of temperatures, and stays cool year round.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/telecom/internet/iceland-data-center-paradise
I sincerely hope that Facebook (see my comment at the top of the thread) locates their servers in the Eyjafjallajokull crater.

Roy
Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 4:12 am

What about Greenland? On second thoughts wouldn’t that cause the glaciers to melt even more rapidly?

greatgriff68@gmail.com
Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2017 8:36 am

I’ve been in Iceland in February and I can’t imagine any place colder!

Eric Simpson
February 10, 2017 7:28 pm

Of all the myriad “green” groups there’s only one that is dead set against wind power: The Audubon Society: http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds
An excerpt: “Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy.”
That’s in North America alone! And wind power is not even that big here. Imagine what wind is doing in places like Germany and Denmark. Well, what it’s doing is sending many bird species to the brink of extinction. Horrendous and shameful.
There’s a compelling reason to think twice now before building more windmills:

We may end up knocking down most wind turbines as the threat of bird extinctions becomes paramount, and people realize that the only solution is to raze the wind monsters.
Investing in wind power now is throwing money down the drain.

Sheri
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 10, 2017 8:38 pm

The Audubon Society was for wind. If they changed their mind, you have to wonder why. The American Bird Conservatory was the only wildlife group that openly opposed turbines all along.
I would guess the Audubon Society is still pro-wind, with the caveat of “in appropriate areas”.

Reply to  Sheri
February 11, 2017 1:28 am

The Raptor Education Foundation (www.usaref.org) has been fighting wind power longer than any of them, except maybe ABC

Louis LeBlanc
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 10, 2017 9:16 pm

Let’s see, averaging 234,000 kills a year, and estimating 9 billion birds in NA, that would be about 2/1000 of one percent (.000026) of the bird population in a year, or 641 birds a day in 49 states and Canada. About one billion (with a B) are killed flying into windows, over 4,000 times as many as by wind turbines. Not a statistically serious reason to raze the turbines, but emotion rules in USA politics.

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 10, 2017 9:45 pm

Louis,
The problem is actually a bit more complicated than that. The birds that are most touched (“pun intended”) by windmills are the larger birds of prey – creatures that are not easily scared by some large object rotating. I do know that birds of prey – because they are higher up the food-chain – are already largely wiped out – especially in North America – by pesticides and suchlike.
I mean, they cannot even stop killing their bees over there. How dumb can they get?
“Glyphosate Free Honey”
http://blackhillsportal.com/2017/01/20/glyphosate-free-honey/

Dean
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 10, 2017 9:50 pm

The overall percentage is irrelevant if the wind turbines kill large percentages of the one species. Like raptors.
Using your analogy we would not bother about human emissions because they are a tiny percentage of the total CO2 emissions.

old44
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 11, 2017 12:09 am

1: sparrows and starlings are not the oones killed by Wind Turbines.
2: Where do you get your figure of 2,740,000 birds killed per day by flying into windows?
Your numbers are rubbery at best, you are not a climate scientist by any chance.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 11, 2017 1:03 am

Another group of unresearched, uncounted, useless stats. Birds flying into windows are not reported by anyone. 1 Billion would mean a bird a day killing itself on the windows of every house in Europe and america

richard verney
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 11, 2017 1:50 am

I am against these useless turbines that do not in fact significantly reduce CO2 emissions for different reasons, but see no reason why we should needlessly kill endangered species such as raptors.
I understand that the figures on bat kills is even worse.
The bats with their sophisticated sonar/echolocation have no problem in flying through the turbines without being struck by the blades/rotors, but the pressure differences either side of the rotors causes their lungs to explode thus killing them.
The bats are unfortunate; they do not see the hidden danger of pressure differentials and therefore do not try and fly around or over the turbines. Bats are of course an endangered species.

Trebla
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 11, 2017 5:03 am

Don’t you just love the way greenies casually dismiss any negatives about renewables? How about corn ethanol driving up the cost of a basic foodstuff? As Marie Antoinette would say, “let them eat cake”?

Greg F
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 11, 2017 9:10 am

About one billion (with a B) are killed flying into windows, over 4,000 times as many as by wind turbines.

My wife has maintained a bird feeder 3′ from a window at our house for many years. Birds slam into that window on a regular basis. We have not found even one causality on our 2 plus acres. Funny thing, we never hear birds slamming into any of the other windows on our house. Now perhaps some do fly away and die. This leaves open the question of how many die due to hitting the window vs. how many survive starvation due to the presence of the bird feeder in our somewhat harsh winters.
The “one billion” is the upper estimate on what is a very uncertain number. The lower estimate is almost one third the upper estimate. All based on extrapolation of small local studies. It seems ironic that one who accuses others of being emotional would at the same time only present the extreme upper limit, without caveats. Psychologist call this ‘projection’.

MarkW
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
February 13, 2017 9:27 am

The problem for raptors is that their eyes are focused ahead, so that they can chase their prey.
They don’t see the blades coming at them from the side.
Prey animals tend to have much wider fields of vision and have a better chance of seeing the blades in time to avoid them.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 10, 2017 11:58 pm

In the UK, the RSPB (the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) has its own wind turbines. The RSPB is more concerned about getting money to reward its staff with high salaries than it is concerned about birds.

Greg
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 1:21 am

Well, what it’s doing is sending many bird species to the brink of extinction.

What species? Names please and references, not spacious assertions.
Compare to how many are killed by domestic cats, window collisions and cars.

Gamecock
Reply to  Greg
February 11, 2017 4:30 am

“spacious assertions” ?
I like it!
Most bird species are quite short lived, a couple of years at most. Most of their deaths are irrelevant. However, wind turbine impact on raptors can be significant.

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Greg
February 11, 2017 4:42 am

Updated numbers for the USA:
“According to a study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, every year 573,000 birds (including 83,000 raptors) and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines — 30 percent higher than the federal government estimated in 2009, due mainly to increasing wind power capacity across the nation.” http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
Again, that’s the US alone! Extinction is in play for many species:
According to Save the Eagles International, “contrary to what we are told, wind farms will cause the extinction of many bird species.” The World Council for Nature reported that “a few wind farms in Germany have been loosely monitored for bird and bat mortality and the government has disclosed a number of carcasses: 69 eagles, 186 kites, 192 buzzards, 13 harriers, 59 falcons, 12 hawks, 7 ospreys, plus hundreds more birds of all sizes and even more bats. These figures are just a small sample of the ongoing massacre, driving many rare species into extinction,” said Duchamp. He cited Ubbo Mammen, an ornithologist commissioned by the German government.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Greg
February 11, 2017 10:25 am

A cardinal (male) used to see his reflection in our window and throw himself at it. Whack! He would do that several times a day. Eventually his crest became thin and ragged, and (I would guess) his brains–none too effective to begin with–became addled. One year he didn’t come back; but he had banged the window for several summers. Nonetheless, he appeared to survive that. A few other birds whanged into the windows accidentally, but we never found one even knocked out, let alone killed. Based on that anecdotal experience, I would guess that the windmills are far more dangerous than a mere window. We had cats also. Our cat from 1980 to 1997, Mog, never got any birds that we saw, only the occasional vole. Our cat from 2000 to 2014, Shadow, got bunnies from time to time; no birds. It was funny to watch her stalk a grown rabbit, which waited patiently for the cat to close in for the kill; just as Shadow was getting ready to pounce, the rabbit simply disappeared, it shot away so fast; Shadow’s look of mystification was worth a long wait to see. She never got close to a bird, though some came close to her: some neighbors had Guinea fowl, and a bold and haughty hen came stalking up to Shadow, quite openly, one day. Shadow turned around quite slowly and walked off.
Windmills are the killers, along with huge sun-power arrays.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
February 13, 2017 9:29 am

Greg, how many eagles do you believe house cats kill every year?

catweazle666
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2017 3:54 pm

“Greg, how many eagles do you believe house cats kill every year?”
It is usually the eagles that kill and eat the cats, for obvious reasons.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e141/jimbro999/IMG_3226a.jpg

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 6:37 am

When turbine collisions are more than any of the following: car collisions, cats, building glass and communication structures, then there is a worry.
https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds.php

Ben of Houston
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
February 11, 2017 8:56 am

I’ll agree, when put in perspective, bird deaths due to wind aren’t terribly significant on a species scale.
On the other hand, should they not be held to the same standard as other parts of industry? Consider the fines that have been issued for ducks that get into tailing ponds, or the fines that can result from a single fish kill in a release. Why should the wind industry be allowed to get away with hundreds of thousands of bird kills as a matter of course, while the oil and coal industries get severels punished for any effects, no matter how minor?

Macha
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
February 11, 2017 2:00 pm

I love dean’s comment…if, in perspective, bird kill % by wind farms is low then why do anything about Manmade CO2 emissions… Thats low too.

Robertvd
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 7:26 am

Maybe these snowflakes could protest under a windmill but probable they love them.

Robertvd
Reply to  Robertvd
February 11, 2017 7:28 am
Tom Halla
February 10, 2017 7:31 pm

Facebook and Apple are both making the rather rash assumption that Denmark will or can not let the grid crash, as the grid did in South Australia.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 11, 2017 2:04 am

They won’t care if the grid crashes, they’ll have automatic-starting diesel generators beside their parking lots to pick up the load.

markl
February 10, 2017 8:07 pm

I’m always amazed that countries will go to great ends to limit their CO2 output yet turn a blind eye to the fact Co2 emissions are increasing regardless and temperature stays the same.

Sheri
Reply to  markl
February 10, 2017 8:39 pm

It’s not about CO2. Never was.

Eric Simpson
Reply to  markl
February 10, 2017 11:55 pm

markl Great point!
CO2 has been going through the roof while temperatures remain the same. Global warming er .. “climate change” is bunk:comment image

Greg
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 1:26 am

and if you choose different vertical scaling you could make it look like temperatures were rising and CO2 was flat. Also what “temperature” is that supposed to be? Not the slightest indication.
Sorry, that’s just chartism.
( Not saying you are wrong about CO2 rise being inconsistent with CAGW claims ).

Greg
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 1:30 am

Here is equally arbitrary scaling which gives the opposite impression: such graphs are meaningless and misleading.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1940/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-280/normalise/scale:0.05

Greg
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 1:33 am

comment image

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 2:54 am

Here is another one
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTC.gif
note R2, that da mn CO2 is playing havoc with the Earth’s magnetic field, stop exhaling CO2 or we are doomed ! /sarc & /sarc

NowyKopernik
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 4:35 am

Not all axis scalings are equivalent
There is something to the slow roughly linear rise in CO2 with a superimposed quite periodic oscillation [ostensibly the Northern Hemisphere temperate forest leaf decay] — that’s a relatively well-behaved signal. In contrast the GISS and Hadley Global Surface Temperature has sporadic wild excursions [ostensibly El-Ninos] superimposed on a very noisey on many time scales signal [lacking any significant linear component].
Those two observations are quite independent of the choice of the axis [as long as your axis range is consistent with the data range].

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 9:16 am

Can you cite the temperature dataset? As in its source and what part of the world, and what level of the atmosphere (if aloft) it covers? It looks like one of the datasets of the troposphere, its 1979 start time makes it look like a satellite one, but the early 2016 spike is not showing as the highest of the spikes. In both the UAH and RSS global lower troposphere satellite datasets, the greatest spike is the 2016 one.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 12:02 pm

Data is from
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
but graph was made some 18 months ago so neither 2015 or 16 numbers are included (last entry is for 2014.
Since not much interest is shown I have not bothered to update variables (GT, CO2 and GMF)

Justanelectrician
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 12:23 pm

That’s funny, Greg, I was thinking the scaling gave a false impression too, but in the opposite direction. What I would really like to see is this same chart starting in the 1930s. Not only would that show the entire run-up in co2 attributed to man, but it would also include the ‘looming ice age’ cooling period that ended right about the time this chart starts. No amount of creative scaling would hide the fact that a massive increase in co2 coincided with minuscule, if any, warming.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 4:00 pm

Eric, I hope you don’t understand the problem with that graph you keep posting.

yarpos
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 5:00 pm

They will just say its a lagging effect, that buys them a few years and then people move on.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 12, 2017 1:53 am

“tony mcleod February 11, 2017 at 4:00 pm”
Watch out Queenslander, day light savings turns cows milk sour.

seaice1
Reply to  markl
February 11, 2017 5:48 am

markl – have you not heard that the last three years were the hottest in the record? That is not staying the same.

Richard M
Reply to  seaice1
February 11, 2017 7:22 am

More satellite technology denial? What is it? Do you hate technology?

markl
Reply to  seaice1
February 11, 2017 8:45 am

Statistically insignificant. Have you noticed that every time the MSM claims hottest day/week/month/year there’s no mention of by how much? None. Why is that? Whenever a warmist trumpets the “hottest ever” meme ask them by how much and watch them squirm. It doesn’t take long for that question to sink in. The other question that gets their goat is “how many warmist years ever has their been since the end of the LIA?” And how many of them were before 1930?

clipe
Reply to  seaice1
February 11, 2017 3:16 pm

So what?
Toronto airport (YYZ) Feb 6
Average high
-2.0°C
Average low
-10.6°C
Highest temperature (1938-2013)
9.4°C1938
Toronto airport (YYZ) Feb 9
Average high
-1.8°C
Average low
-10.4°C
Highest temperature (1938-2013)
10.6°C1938

clipe
Reply to  seaice1
February 11, 2017 4:23 pm

YYZ Record daily high
Date
Jan 25 1950 16.7
Feb 23 1984 14.9
Mar 28 1945 25.6
Apr 25 1990 31.1
May 16 1962 34.4
Jun 25 36.7 1952
Jul 07 1988 37.6
Aug 25 1948 38.3
Sep 02 1953 36.7
Oct 05 1951 30.6
Nov 01 1950 25
Dec 03 1982 20
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/forecasts/statistics/ontario/mississauga

MarkW
Reply to  seaice1
February 13, 2017 9:34 am

Last year was 0.02C warmer than 1998. The 2 years prior to that were cooler than 1998.
This year is going to be cooler by several tenths of a degree. At least.
How will you explain that?

Jeff In Calgary
February 10, 2017 9:05 pm

You may notice that Canada is not on the graph. I suspect it is because we have almost no ‘green’ power. (Other than hydro and nuclear)

3¢worth
Reply to  Jeff In Calgary
February 10, 2017 9:44 pm

Jeff in Calgary:
Except for Ontario – Wind – 3,923 MW Capacity (~11% of total), Hydro – 8,451 MW (~23%), Nuclear – 12,978 MW (~36%). The rest is generally under-utilized NG – 9,943 MW (~28%) plus Solar/Bio-fuel (~2%). Total 36,070 MW Capacity. Average Wind Output is ~28% of Capacity (~1,100 MW), but daily average varies from <1% to 98%.
I hope you guys in Alberta will "enjoy" your bird blenders and the associated increase in electricity rates as much as we do in Ontario (+100% increase over the last 10 years). Welcome to the Green Hell. By the way our Liberal Premier (Wynne), primarily because of electricity prices, has a 15% popularity rating. I'm surprised it's that high. Next provincial election: Spring 2018.

commieBob
Reply to  3¢worth
February 10, 2017 10:27 pm

By some calculations, Ontarions are paying 3.75 times as much for peak-time power as they were in 2003. The other thing is that there is now a delivery charge which varies depending on the local electricity utility. link
Electricity costs are ruining the Ontario economy. link

clipe
Reply to  3¢worth
February 11, 2017 3:27 pm
Timo - not that one
Reply to  3¢worth
February 11, 2017 7:15 pm

“Next provincial [Ontario] election: Spring 2018.”
Too bad the opposition believes in Global Warming too.

TAG
Reply to  Jeff In Calgary
February 11, 2017 6:56 am

Ontario electricity geenration can be viewed at http://www.ieso.ca
All coal plants have been shut down and almost all power generation comes from green sources. Ontario residents have paid a great deal for this green transition. The provincial auditor found that there will be costs in the tens of billions of dollars incurred that did not need to be because of poor management of the system. Green producers were given long term guaranteed contracts at much higher prices than if normal market prices for green installations were applied

Bengt
February 10, 2017 9:40 pm

No, because of EU-ETS co2 will not change. Bengt

J Mac
February 10, 2017 9:52 pm

Having viewed this plot, I will not complain about my electric rates here in the US!
What’s a ‘green danish’? Doesn’t sound very appetizing…. made with kale?

afonzarelli
Reply to  J Mac
February 10, 2017 11:21 pm

No… it’s one that’s been sitting out of the fridge too long (☺)

commieBob
February 10, 2017 9:56 pm

The trend line is calculated wrong.

The cost goes from 10 cents to 30 cents so the delta is 20 cents.
The installed capacity goes from 0 WATTS/capita to 1000 WATTS/capita. (not kw)
In other words the delta is 1 kW/capita.
The trend is 20 / 1 = 20 cents / kilowatt-hour per additional kW of capacity.

February 10, 2017 10:16 pm

perhaps Danes will simply raise electricity charges on non-Danish data centres, to recoup the full economic cost of all that new green infrastructure

California has been charging real estate developers for added costs related to new housing etc. for decades. It might require enabling legislation to implement this principle for green projects here or elsewhere. But it could be quite entertaining to see Zuckerberg doing battle with the greenies to hold his costs down.

John F. Hultquist
February 10, 2017 10:35 pm

Data centers (aka server farms) need backup power. Ones I know of used diesel and these had to be tested every little bit (1 or 2 weeks ?). Things change so I don’t know the current procedures.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 10, 2017 11:32 pm

True but ram and disk such as DDR4 and SSD and the latest CPU’s consume less power and provide better performance and hot-redundancy. But still, more show by Facebook, like Apple, to be SEEN to be GREEN!
You would not believe how many times I was locked out of Facebook discussions about climate change. It’s probably why I was totally banned. Easy come, easy go. Like MSN Messaging, ICQ and the like, something else will replace it.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 11, 2017 8:21 am

And soon, I hope.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 11, 2017 1:05 am

So does every telephone exchange. Usually diesel

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Stephen Richards
February 14, 2017 11:44 am

The actual connection is to a wet-cell battery bank which is charged from the utility or back-up diesel.

Griff
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 11, 2017 1:32 am

Likely to be fuel cells now and/or grid storage batteries.
Diesel is so last year…

Trebla
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 5:13 am

Griff, I sure hope it’s fuel cells. My Ballard power shares could use a boost. At one time they were trading at $120 per. Now they are languishing at $2.50. I guess that version of the great green renewable dream was just pie in the sky like all the rest of that non-economic green bulldung.

yarpos
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 5:36 pm

doubt it Griff, a small gas turbine maybe. Hard to beat bang for buck especially if real estate is limited

J Mac
Reply to  Griff
February 12, 2017 12:29 am

“Diesel is so last year…”
No. Likely to be diesel, just like in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950, 1940, 1930…… because diesel is soooooo infallible, economic, and available…. everywhere and anytime ya need it.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 9:36 am

Funny thing. Nobody who’s spending their own money is using fuel cells or grid storage batteries.
Griffie is one of those people who actually believes that all they have to do is wish hard enough, and physics itself can be ignored.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 9:37 am

Griffie, what will they do if the power outage lasts more than 30 minutes?

Griff
February 11, 2017 1:31 am

Since the various large companies which have large data centres – Apple, Google, Facebook, etc – are all investing in new (additional) renewable energy worldwide, I think that this is just nonsense: the growth in electricity use is going to be met from increased renewable capacity.
And think of the boost to the economies of the countries with these new data centres, both in terms of new energy infrastructure and jobs in data centres.

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 2:06 am

The problem is that for every 1 GW of renewables, one needs 1 GW of backup, usually by CO2 emitting fossil fuel.
The Danes can only get their grid to work because of back up from the likes of Norway. Fortunately for them, Norway is largely hydro, so the back up to the Danish grid is also green. However, this is the exception since worldwide their is relatively little natural hydro (or natural geo thermal), and nuclear is presently waning. World wide most back up is by fossil fuel, and that is why green renewables do not in practice reduce CO2.
One can see that in Germany where despite the massive role out to renewables, CO2 emissions have not reduced this millennia, and last year CO2 emissions increased, and will do so as Germany builds more and more fossil fuel generators..

Griff
Reply to  richard verney
February 11, 2017 10:40 am

Denmark is connected to multiple other countries, Germany in particular. Surpluses are often exported… Denmark has frequently generated over 100% of its demand and exported the extra.
The point being that when 1 GW of renewables are online, 1 GW of fossil fuel is idle, not burning fuel.

richard verney
Reply to  richard verney
February 12, 2017 2:03 am

The point being that when 1 GW of renewables are online, 1 GW of fossil fuel is idle, not burning fuel.

Unfortunately, that is the very problem. That statement is either incorrect, or misleading depending upon the backup.
Some backup (usually coal fired) is running 24/7 some 365 days a year and energy is supplied to the grid when wind is incapable of supplying power. Since this form of backup is running 24/7 it saves no CO2 whether or not wind is in the mix. This is the incorrect part of your statement.
The other type of back up is from gas powered stations. These do not run 24/7 365 days a year, but instead are run as and when needed, ie., when wind cannot supply the power needed. The problem in this scenario is that these generators are being used in ramp up/ramp down mode which is very fuel inefficient and means as much fuel is being used as if they were in fact running at steady state 24/7 365 days a year. This is the misleading part of your statement.
It is like your car. Compare fuel consumption in urban driving conditions with freeway driving conditions. More fuel, is used in urban conditions per mile driven. Urban driving is the equivalent of the ramp up/ramp down operation of the gas powered generators used for backup, and that is why in practice wind does not reduce CO2 emissions.

Hoplite
Reply to  richard verney
February 12, 2017 3:32 am

Richard,
This is very misleading information. The most common backup for wind is gas/distillate fired and they can ramp up/down quickly and partner with wind well. Obviously not running as efficiently as they would if running in base load mode. The studies have been done numerous times even including installation/fabrication energy of the backups. It is a simple fact that wind is a net energy contributor. It is pure obduracy to insist otherwise. I noted 25 years ago that wind had its vocal and vociferous opponents and they are still around today. Plus ca change.

MarkW
Reply to  richard verney
February 13, 2017 9:41 am

Hop, nothing you stated contradicts what richard wrote.
You seem to believe that because some people have failed to believe in wind for many years, this proves that the critics are wrong.
Will I ever find a wind power advocate with even a passing familiarity with basic logic?

Hoplite
Reply to  richard verney
February 14, 2017 5:54 am

Mark, The logic/comprehension deficit is yours not mine. Richard stated that ‘ as much fuel is being used’ (explanation for Mark – this means he is saying wind is not a net energy contributor). In this respect Richard is wrong and wrong in the face of incontrovertible measurements and analysis which say otherwise.

NowyKopernik
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 4:44 am

Griff — absent large scale, reliable and cost effective storage — your scenario is Green Bong-Dream
If you want to do the least to the environment with your server farm –find a black smoker on the bottom of the ocean. Use the thermal and perhaps chemical energy to power your computing and dissipate the waste heat into the deep ocean water — might not be so good for the Tube Worm Population.
Alternatively, build your server farms in earth orbit using the sun for power [no need for much back-up] and you can radiate your waste heat into the coldness of space

Griff
Reply to  NowyKopernik
February 11, 2017 10:41 am

Plenty of reliable storage coming online every year.

yarpos
Reply to  NowyKopernik
February 11, 2017 5:47 pm

I guess if its reliable then they must have forgotten to connect it, Europe certainly hasnt been enjoying this plentiful storage this winter.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  NowyKopernik
February 12, 2017 1:49 am

“Griff February 11, 2017 at 10:41 am”
Not in South Australia, obviously.

MarkW
Reply to  NowyKopernik
February 13, 2017 9:42 am

Batteries may be reliable, they aren’t economic however.
Making an already uneconomic power system even more uneconomic.
How precious.

Neillusion
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 6:39 am

significant increase, oh come on. This is hyped up anti-renewables, citing CO2 in a CAGW context of over reaction. Since on this site CO2 is being, rightly, welcomed, in my opinion, this should be good news. I don’t understand all the anti-renewables comment on here. We know it forms/supplies an insignificant portion of power demand, so why is everyone getting their nickers in a twist about it? There are appropriate uses for re-newables, and in time they will sort it out. Why attack the renewables thmeselves when it is the misuse of public money, syphoned off into a few well positioned pockets that is the real problem and causing a significant portion of the increase to the bill payer.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Neillusion
February 11, 2017 8:28 am

Solar and wind turbines have problems not associated with the financial scam. One is wild life death, ie. mincing raptors and exploding bats for the wts while solar is known to fry birds as they fly over them. Those are the know environmental affects but has anyone done any studies on the impacts of the vibrations on ground dwelling wildlife? I’ve read that cows grazing in wt fields will cluster as far away from the structures as they can. Then there is the issue of disposal of all the dangerous rare earths involved with building to motors as well as the various materials in the vanes. It isn’t just rising costs that irritate people, it’s all the other detrimental impacts for very little value received.

Reply to  Neillusion
February 11, 2017 9:30 am

Most solar facilities don’t harm birds. It’s one particular one using unusual technology, Invanpah, that does.
As for rare earths in motors: They’re going into rare earth magnets, which are not a significant environmental problem. They can even be recycled through E-waste recycling programs.

Griff
Reply to  Neillusion
February 11, 2017 10:36 am

Donald, they fixed the problem at Ivanpah

Griff
Reply to  Neillusion
February 11, 2017 10:37 am

As insignificant as 33% of electricity in Germany and 42% in Spain, Neil

yarpos
Reply to  Neillusion
February 11, 2017 5:45 pm

Sure Griff just like SA has 40% renewable. At times 40% of nothing is nothing (as Europe has rediscovered this winter), and at the best of times what you really get is 30% of the whatever fatuous claim is made.

mobihci
Reply to  Neillusion
February 11, 2017 11:51 pm

the portion that is sustainable without government funding is insignificant. the point that was made is correct, the renewable energy form itself is not important, what is is the funding. make renewables fend for themselves in an open market, and they will be gone. if government is to fund a stable grid, then renewables are not in the tax payers best interest.

MarkW
Reply to  Neillusion
February 13, 2017 9:43 am

The problem is that the renewables are being forced on us. They are making electricity much more expensive and much less reliable.
If you don’t have problem with that, then I have a problem with you.

MarkW
Reply to  Neillusion
February 13, 2017 9:44 am

Griffie math. Germany reaches 40% for a few minutes once a year, therefore:
Germany gets 40% of it’s power from renewables.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 9:38 am

I see that Griffie still believes that heavy government subsidies are all that are required to make something economically viable.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Griff
February 15, 2017 10:43 am

Griff, Google, for one, isn’t relying on renewables. Their own engineers admitted you can’t power civilization on renewables alone.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

February 11, 2017 2:13 am

Billed prices seldom reflect true costs when significant govt subsidies are involved (as for renewables). The taxpayer generally is paying for only a fraction of the cost in their electric bills – the rest they paid in their taxes to the govt providing the renewable build subsidies. Until you examine exactly where the money comes from , you cannot accept electric prices as being comparable across various countries. Green orgs typically “forget” to provide true cost figures.
If any country was situated to reap wind energy , Denmark is the place. It will be interesting to see what they do with their environmentally obnoxious turbines when the rest of the world transitions to molten salt nuclear power plants. Each wind turbine sits on a block of concrete that extends 30 or
so feet into ground. As I recall, when turbines are torn down, they don’t always remove that massive block of concrete. It’s a major task to do so.

Hans-Georg
Reply to  arthur4563
February 11, 2017 3:22 am

Yes, the inevitable demolition and disposal costs of renewable energy producers, whether wind or solar, are in some decades higher than demolition and disposal costs for a power plant based on fossil energies. If the production capacity as a block for the respective energy type is taken as a measure. And then the longer-term demolition costs for backup power plants will be added to the renewable energies. So an expensive, inefficient toy. Just to calm down a bad conscience cared for by Scaremongerers.

Hans-Georg
Reply to  Hans-Georg
February 11, 2017 3:29 am

It is the same as the now long lasting dams of buildings in Germany with polystyrene. It has now been found that the fire protection means used in the insulation boards is inherently damaging the health of the people. As a result, old insulation boards have to be disposed of costly and expensive. In Germany, more than 50 million square meters have been insulated with these environmentally harmful slabs. Everything for CO2 insanity.

Sommer
Reply to  Hans-Georg
February 11, 2017 1:17 pm

Looking ahead to demolition, here’s some information that might be of interest:
http://www.altfuelsnow.com/wind/wind-turbine-recycling.shtml

Lance of BC
February 11, 2017 4:31 am

Denmark’s electricity Odense,““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`is……Aah.hahahaha!!!!
““““““““““““““““““““““` who cares.

Gamecock
February 11, 2017 4:32 am

Note that Denmark’s energy system has placed limits on growth. Most everywhere else would be happy to become the home of data centers.

michael hart
February 11, 2017 5:23 am

Will Facebook shareholders be told how much extra they paying to use Danish electricity? (assuming that Facebook receives no subsidies from the Danish government).

Bruce Cobb
February 11, 2017 5:34 am

Wow, shocker. “Green” electrons are indistinguishable from “evil” (CO2-producing) ones. Who knew?
CO2-obsession is a type of mental illness. You know who should be concerned about Fakebook’s use of expensive “green” energy? Shareholders.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 11, 2017 6:22 am

“CO2-obsession is a type of mental illness.”
If you look at certain wind power advocates, it seems to me to be more like a cult brainwashing, a form of addiction.

Robertvd
Reply to  Mickey Reno
February 11, 2017 6:43 am

More like a cancer.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 11, 2017 7:19 am

Mass psychosis.

Neillusion
February 11, 2017 6:48 am

The price of the actual energy and means to get it to you is very small compared to what you actually pay. There are thousand of jobs and profit seeking investors and a market, as with all things, where the price always balances with alternatives. When they want more business, they reduce prices to get people on board, then they go up to the average of all supply systems. It is not a real, competitive market, it is false as with most things you buy. The actual cost of the item is insignificant compared to what you end up paying – it’s the numerous middle men taking their cut, adding a bit every step of the way – energy is no different in my opinion. It is just because it is such an important part of life, electricity, that there is a well organised pseudo balance of the rich and the government taking as much as they think they can get away with – sort of human nature. The discussion rarely focuses on the root detail, especially when it comes ot renewables.

MarkW
Reply to  Neillusion
February 13, 2017 9:48 am

I love it when activists try to pretend they know what they are talking about.
Who exactly are these myriad of middle men between the power plants and the consumer.
In most of the US, electricity production is a heavily regulated monopoly and the total rate of return that the power company gets is highly regulated.
PS: I love the way these fools actually believe that these “middlemen” provide no value, just add cost.
To them a car shouldn’t cost any more than the same amount of raw iron.

February 11, 2017 6:50 am

Denmark is not a separate electricity market. The Nordic countries, UK, Germany, and the baltic states is an electricity market where electricity is traded at the at nordpol (http://www.nordpoolspot.com). So you can’t really say that Denmark will increase fossil power just because FB. FB also has also built a really big server site in the the cold north in Sweden where electricity is cheap and produced mainly by hydro, and cooling comes for free most of the year.
You can watch the current price and flow between Nordic countries and adjacent neighbors at the control room at Svenska Kraftnät (http://www.svk.se/drift-av-stamnatet/kontrollrummet/) Sweden currently produce about 10% of the yearly power by wind, the rest comes from nuclear, hydro and waste. Norway is 100% hydro. Sweden and Norway provides a lot of energy to Denmark at times when the wind is low.

Griff
Reply to  Karl Jansson
February 11, 2017 10:35 am

Yes… Germany and Denmark regularly export wind power to each other (when wind output is high in one country or the other). Germany and Denmark have joint tenders for solar power in their border regions. The Baltic wind farms near Denmark are grid connected to Sweden and Germany also.
all one big W Europe electricity market…

Hans-Georg
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 11:25 am

Rather, it can be said that the renewable electricity disorder the reliable power generation in Germany as well as Denmark and Norway. Power can´t be exported at any time. Therefore, a fairy tale is when spoken of by the great Nordic electricity network. Norway and Sweden can not take German electricity at peak times because their electricity generation is continuous. Denmark and the north of Germany usually have peak times at the same time, an export at these times is not possible. Weak power generation times for renewable energy generators have to be supplied by backup power plants in both Denmark and Northern Germany. This winter has almost escaped a blackout due to massive fluctuating electricity. Everything else is fairy tales of zealots. On the contrary, Germany tries to transport the excess electricity from northern Germany, which is generated at peak times, from north to south (North-South-Links), with the result that renewable energies in the south become even more senseless. And these Power Lines costs very many billions and are environmentally very controversial. And at peak times even wind power plants in the north have to be shut down. This is pointless resource use due to the discontinuity of this type of power generation.

michael hart
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 1:07 pm

+1 Hans-Georg.
Griff refuses to recognise that Danish windpower generation ‘should’ be in a fabulous position: They have a small-nation that can provide huge hydro storage to the North, and a huge nation-consumer to the South. And yet they still have the highest electricity prices in Europe.
The Danish case for “renewables” is about as good as it can ever get, and it still fails dismally.

Terry Warner
February 11, 2017 7:27 am

Denmark simply wants the money, kudos and jobs that high tech data centres provide.
Facebook (and others) want to be politically correct and create the illusion they are using green energy. They also want somewhere with incentives, stable and secure with a ready supply of well educated staff.
But as the electricity that comes down the wire is completely detached from the source (off grid installations excepted) discussion of green/non green credentials is completely pointless from a user perspective.

Griff
Reply to  Terry Warner
February 11, 2017 10:32 am

Facebook and google and apple ARE using renewable energy… they are even building it…

Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 11:08 am

That’s why consumer prices of electricity are going through the roof.

michael hart
Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 4:52 pm

Griff February 11, 2017 at 10:32 am
Facebook and google and apple ARE using renewable energy… they are even building it…

“Google abandons renewable energy projects”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/google-abandons-renewable-energy-projects/
Like Apple etc, they are willing to pay lip service only up to the point where it costs them more money than the green brownie-points they gain by being seen to be virtuous.
As with every other company in ‘silicon valley’ they are not really run by programmer-nerds, but by accountancy-nerds.

troe
February 11, 2017 8:00 am

Let me second the posts regarding the true cost of renewable energy especially wind. In the US we have special tax preferred green bonds, net metering, direct state and federal tax credits, and much more. It is a tangled web that requires a good financial anayllysis to obtainb accurate numbers.
In Tennessee while building a now collapsed solar supply chain we even passed a law to shield polysilicone producers from electricity price increases. Price increases nessecitaded by implementing the very low carbon policies those same producers were pushing. They have some nerve.

troe
February 11, 2017 8:14 am

As for green jobs created by data centers they are minimal. Data centers are low tech warehouses full of dummy servers. In Stevenson, Alabama we closed the Widows Creek Coal generation plant to cut emissions. 300 direct good paying jobs were lost. Google built a data center in the plant which will employ at most 100 people. Many of those are low paying security positions.

Neillusion
February 11, 2017 8:14 am

Look what the arabs did to oil prices to get shale oil out of the picture and land usa with a loss per barrel produced from same, if I’m right. It is all cut throat. Same with electric, with added middle men cost. These guys are close to politicians and on the one hand wanted protection from market shinanigans to get them out and other the other hand made sure that there was plenty of cash to curl fingers of that hand around.

Taylor Ponlman
Reply to  Neillusion
February 11, 2017 8:50 am

Re Greg’s comment on Eric’s graph above (with respect to scale issues:
No problem, use the same numeric scale for CO2 increase and average temp. Temp in Kelvin for actual temp (not anomoly) and CO2 in ppm. Temp will be in range somewhere above 280, and CO2 will start at around 280. I predict (over standard period of 1880 onward) that temp will look pretty flat while CO2 increases 50% or so. Anything else is just as biased, but that approach seems as good as any, and would definitely set Greg and Griff’s hair on fire.

MarkW
Reply to  Neillusion
February 13, 2017 9:51 am

Shale oil isn’t out of the picture. They are still producing. What they aren’t doing is expanding.
That will happen the minute prices go back up.
I love it when economic illiterates such as your self start whining about middle men. Just goes to show you how paranoia can totally rot the mind.

MarkW
Reply to  Neillusion
February 13, 2017 9:52 am

Criminy, was it the ‘p’ word that keeps getting me thrown into moderation?
p@r@noi@?

February 11, 2017 11:01 am

We can make these two graphs showing the real temperature (UAH) and the temperature effect according to IPCC. The warming efffects of GH gases is now 2.54 W/m2 corresponding the temperature increase of 1.27 C, which is 49 % greater than 0.85 C.comment image

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  aveollila
February 11, 2017 11:41 am

That’s called making the “data” fit the “science”.

February 11, 2017 2:19 pm

Not smart to put an electricity hungry data farm in the European country with the highest electricity rates. More Farcebook.

troe
Reply to  ristvan
February 11, 2017 3:05 pm

Its a fair bet that FB has negotiated a special deal of some kind. Our big tech companies are not known for overpaying on taxes or anything else. Perhaps some deal to pay for excess wind power when available on a lower smoothed basis rather than shorter term market rate.
Somewhat like broadband owners dumping unused capacity at cut rate prices.

Resourceguy
February 11, 2017 4:44 pm

Perverse incentives do not end well. This is like punishing banks by Democrats to get more and more subprime mortgages pumped through the financial system or larger and larger hiring in a renewable energy sector that is mostly dependent on tax credits. Sooner or later the distortion breaks down but regulators and analysts can’t pinpoint the exact breaking point. See Fed Chairman memoirs.

February 11, 2017 8:39 pm

It is all a scam. They know it. The liberals around the world live in a delusional maze.

Robertvd
February 12, 2017 5:01 am

Remeber South Australia Heatwave Wind Power Collapse
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/South-Australia-Summer-Capacity-vs-Actual-Supply-Feb-8.png
So if they would only have wind power to get those 4833 nominal capacity they would have to install at least 85268.
At what price ?
http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robertvd
February 12, 2017 5:34 pm

Where did you source that table Robert?
Griff, Griff, where are you? Look above…

MarkW
Reply to  Robertvd
February 13, 2017 9:59 am

Griff has already made his pronouncement. The real problem is that those blasted consumers keep expecting to have power when they want it, instead of when it’s available.
All we need is a better class of consumers, and all problems will be solved.

MarkW
February 13, 2017 9:21 am

Companies that use lots of electricity move to places that subsidize electricity.
Who’da thunk it.

%d bloggers like this: