In a victory for energy reality, EU dumps 2050 climate alarmist targets and commitments

Guest easy by Larry Hamlin

In a spectacular climate alarmist policy failure the EU dumped its “carbon neutrality by 2050” commitment and targets driven by the sacred but highly arbitrary and unsubstantiated 1.5 degree C global temperature “limit” and ended its Brussels summit with no climate commitments or targets for year 2050.

clip_image002

The EU heavy weight Germany along with other Eastern European countries including Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic refused to agree to any climate commitments or targets for year 2050 which had been expected to occur at this highly touted EU summit meeting.

Germany is facing huge economic along with energy supply and reliability problems as a consequence of trying to implement its incredibly costly “Energiewende” transition plan to “green energy” as highlighted in a WUWT article which noted:

“The cost of Germany’s “Energiewende” (energy transition) is enormous: some 200 billion euros by 2015 – and yet with minimal reduction in CO2 emission. In fact, coal consumption and CO2 emissions have been stable or risen slightly the last seven to ten years. In the absence of a miracle, Germany will not be able to fulfill its self-imposed climate commitments, not by 2020, nor by 2030.

What applies to Germany also applies to other countries that now produce their electricity primarily with fossil or nuclear power plants. To reach development comparable to Germany’s, such countries will be able to replace only about one quarter of their fossil and nuclear power, because these power plants must remain in operation to ensure frequency regulation, balance and back-up power.”

The same article also described the nightmare scenario of Germany trying to meet its 2050 renewable energy objectives as follows:

“To fulfill the German target of getting 60% of their total energy consumption from renewables by 2050, they must multiply the current power production from solar and wind by a factor of 15. They must also expand their output from conventional power plants by an equal amount, to balance and backup the intermittent renewable energy. Germany might import some of this balancing power, but even then the scale of this endeavor is enormous.

Perhaps more important, the amount of land, concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals, lithium, cadmium, hydrocarbon-based composites and other raw materials required to do this is astronomical. None of those materials is renewable, and none can be extracted, processed and manufactured into wind, solar or fossil power plants without fossil fuels. This is simply not sustainable or ecological.

Construction of solar and wind “farms” has already caused massive devastation to Germany’s wildlife habitats, farmlands, ancient forests and historic villages. Even today, the northern part of Germany looks like a single enormous wind farm. Multiplying today’s wind power capacity by a factor 10 or 15 means a 200 meter high (650 foot tall) turbine must be installed every 1.5 km (every mile) across the entire country, within cities, on land, on mountains and in water.

In reality, it is virtually impossible to increase production by a factor of 15, as promised by the plans.”

Another WUWT article addressed the extremely high costs associated with the unrealistic push to excessive levels of renewable energy noting:

“Germany is an interesting case, because it has been the poster child in the crazy war on fossil fuels. Note how they’ve been shuttering their nuclear plants. In doing so they’ve raised their renewable use to 14%. However, it’s gotten to the point where the German people are getting tired of the push for renewables, which has driven the energy prices through the roof.”

“The pattern is clear—the more installed renewable energy capacity a country has, the higher the electricity price.”

clip_image004

As the graph documents both Germany and Denmark have driven their electricity prices to the highest in the world at about 2.5 times higher than in the U.S. because of excessive and unrealistic government mandates for renewable energy use.

Events are now occurring in Denmark which signal great discontent with that countries climate policies as reflected in the most recent election that saw major gains in provincial seats by those opposed to the countries climate policy.

clip_image006

The EU climate policy pushing completely unrealistic, unnecessary and hugely economically damaging demands for “carbon neutrality” to address the inadequate computer model driven speculation and conjecture of man-made “climate change” is collapsing.

These events are a clear signal and victory for energy reality versus scientifically unsupported climate alarmism propaganda policy.           

Advertisements

116 thoughts on “In a victory for energy reality, EU dumps 2050 climate alarmist targets and commitments

  1. Could it be because of what they see is happening in France after introducing climate taxes over there? The European Parliament Elections are scheduled for the end of may. So let’s see what the EU decides in june. I do not trust them at all.

    • Scarface March 25, 2019 at 1:45 am
      you do realise that the demonstration occurring in France are currently trying oust capitalism?!
      wiki
      The movement is motivated by rising fuel prices, high cost of living, and claims that a disproportionate burden of the government’s tax reforms were falling on the working and middle classes,[62][63][64] especially in rural and peri-urban areas.[25][65] The protesters have called for lower fuel taxes, reintroduction of the solidarity tax on wealth, a minimum wage increase, the implementation of Citizens’ initiative referendums

      • I know, but their initial grievance was an increase in the gas tax, issued by the french government to fight climate change. That their protest since then got hacked by anti-capitalists doesn’t change that imho. And that’s my point. The climate taxes can trigger protests. Plans for climate taxes can support anti-EU parties. And the EU doesn’t want that before this election. So they postpone their decision. It’s all cosmetics. The EU will stubbornly descend further into their desired green hell.

        • I think the most hilarious moment in the French crisis (forgetting for a moment the deaths and terrible injuries the gendarmerie have been ordered to inflict upon their compatriots) was when the mass resentment against the fuel tax was explained to Macron. Modelling on Marie Antoinette (“let them eat cake”) when the situation in rural France was pointed out, he stated that the paysans should leave their cars at home and catch the bus.
          “Contre nous de la tyrannie” as their song goes.

        • I believe that communists hijacking other causes has been a standard play since the Spanish Civil War. In the case of the yellow vests, Western left leaning media have been tripping over one another in their haste to obliterate the original reasons for the protests.

      • Socialists never want to be taxed for the free stuff they are demanding.
        It’s always someone else’s job to pay for their free lunches.

        • Macron wasted an opportunity. He could have said that more taxes are needed to fund the transfer payments. What do the people want? They can support increased taxes, or they can reduced payments, but that France cannot continue with an imbalance forever.

          THAT would have shifted the debate.

        • ghalfrunt: Stop funding the craziness and you can give the working class a raise AND cut taxes for corporations and they can business and the economy.

    • The European Parliament is a debating society with no power. The real power belongs to the Council of Ministers and the secretive, anonymous, and unaccountable bureaucracy. The elections are of very little consequence.

      • True, but the European Parliament has some influence and the EU leaders don’t want a euroskeptic parliament:

        “What impact to expect from a rise of Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament:

        The new European Parliament will be less supportive towards further European integration and this will be felt across all policy areas. Although the Eurosceptics will not obtain a majority, the result will be an even slower process of European integration.”
        https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2019/february/what-impact-have-eurosceptic-parties-on-european-parliament/

        That is the risk the EU is trying to avoid by not encouraging a euroskeptic vote in may with climate policies. So that’s why I think this ‘failure’ (=delay) is happening. Wait till june and they will come back to make the deal anyway, because Europe must perish.

  2. This article is vastly inaccurate.

    “Construction of solar and wind “farms” has already caused massive devastation to Germany’s wildlife habitats, farmlands, ancient forests and historic villages. Even today, the northern part of Germany looks like a single enormous wind farm. Multiplying today’s wind power capacity by a factor 10 or 15 means a 200 meter high (650 foot tall) turbine must be installed every 1.5 km (every mile) across the entire country”

    Solar farms have been constructed for example on otherwise unusable land – e.g ex soviet air bases and training areas, too polluted to return to agriculture. A very large proportion of German wind is owned by the local communities it sits in… the villages and farmers own it and decided to put it up. Wind growth is currently largely offshore.

    German CO2 emissions would have course have dropped if they’d kept their nuclear plants running instead of the overnight shut down in 2011. That’s a separate policy for them, but one which uniquely influences their CO2 output.

    The idea that you need fossil fuel for frequency regulation is obsolete. A grid scale battery does a better, faster job.

    Germany hit its renewable energy target for 2020 early… (as did 10 other member states) it is the whole climate target for 2020 it will miss, due to a failure to reduce heating output and a slight growth in cO2 as a result of a successful economy.

    and I could go on, but I have to have breakfast…

    • Who would have ever guessed that Germany is an idiot savant nation? But, unlike Rainman, they are incapable of doing math…

      German CO2 emissions would have course have dropped if they’d kept their nuclear plants running instead of the overnight shut down in 2011. That’s a separate policy for them, but one which uniquely influences their CO2 output.


      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/04/a-look-at-impacts-of-wind-and-solar-electric-generation-on-electricity-price/

      Only an idiot savant nation, incapable of doing basic arithmetic, could “hit its renewable energy target for 2020 early,” while driving up CO2 emissions and achieving nearly the most expensive electricity on Earth… Wunderbar!!!

        • Apparently, the only way Germany could hit it’s target would be to change it’s greatest export to Germans and it’s greatest import to Reliable Energy sourced from Chinese Coal

        • “Remove the tax component and German electricity is only 10% more than US and Denmark is less than Germany.”
          Isn’t that exactly the point in contention? Cheaply available power is being taxed out of reach of the poor in order to subsidise solar and wind and construct the massive infrastructure changes required in an ever failing attempt to make “renewables” work. More eco-twattery.

        • Why reduce the “tax component”?

          Subsidies are drawn from the “tax component”.
          Without including the “tax component”, one presents a false graphic.

          California regularly post graphics of their renewables, without the tax component.

          If they also posted fossil fuel prices without the “tax component”, it would become obvious that fossil fuels are subsidizing renewables.

          Renewables are unable to be taxed effectively without severely driving their price up.

      • David, I love your postings! BTW I thought I saw that Prince Charles of England’s son took a 6000 pound ride in a private helicopter to go give a speech about climate change, some royal hypocrisy.

        • Perhaps you could demonstrate greater knowledge by realising that Prince Charles’ official title is Prince of WALES?

          Idiots like you might do well to get some basic knowledge and education…..

          • As long as you’re casting aspersions regarding accuracy, his full title is:

            His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, CC, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

      • So the subsidies on wind and solar don’t count as costs, eh?
        Surely the wind subsidy (claimed here last week as 75%) would stretch all the way to the left side of the page. The cost as shown being only 25% of the total, no?

    • Enjoy your breakfast Griff; but somehow I doubt that even you are running your toaster on a solar powered battery.

    • Hey Griff, some people run into Reality and recognize it adapt their thinking to Reality, and evidently some people bounce off Reality and try to find some way around it. I strongly recommend you eat some brain food for breakfast.

    • “A grid scale battery does a better, faster job.”
      Like the one in South Australia? Cost as much as a gas power station? Holds the supply up and steady for what was it – 6 minutes? 8 minutes? The lowest baseload power demand in Australia is 18,000MW and occurs at 4am. Sundown around 6pm, winds are fickle. What kind of battery is going to support that sort of load ? Charging something that big is likely to take a big chunk of the daytime power supply. And you wouldn’t want to be anywhere near it if it blew up.

    • griff

      If wind turbines are so good at producing cheap, clean energy, how come Africa isn’t covered in them?

    • “The idea that you need fossil fuel for frequency regulation is obsolete. A grid scale battery does a better, faster job.”

      Unicorns do an even better job.

    • ‘The idea that you need fossil fuel for frequency regulation is obsolete. A grid scale battery does a better, faster job.’

      And yet oddly no country has yet done this , so why is that ?

    • Poor old Griff. Like the Grauniad, he is wrong about everything, all the time. Every post he makes gets immediately debunked.

      • He’s probably a virtue-hero in his real-life circle of friends, getting his BS sharpened on here.

        It might be his granny’s knitting circle, but a hero nonetheless.

    • The idea that you need fossil fuel for frequency regulation is obsolete. A grid scale battery does a better, faster job.

      Really? And may I ask what country in the world has/uses a grid scale battery without fossil fuels? I’d like to see some facts and figures on just how good a job such a setup does? What’s that? there are no grid scale batteries in operation capable of doing what you say in any country anywhere in the world? Why am I not surprised?

    • “griff March 25, 2019 at 1:49 am

      Solar farms have been constructed for example on otherwise unusable land – e.g ex soviet air bases and training areas, too polluted to return to agriculture.”

      And he does this, before breakfast, without a single citation. Amazing!

      • griff is like the Queen in Lewis Carrol’s famous works – believing in impossible things before breakfast.

    • “griff March 25, 2019 at 1:49 am

      and I could go on, but I have to have breakfast…”

      Are you forced to? Mind you, you already have woken, ie, broken from your fast (Break from fasting)! Try running a toaster on solar.

    • Grid scale batteries are fantastically expensive. The produce zero power. They only attempt to make up for the inherent unreliability of “Green” electricity. This is an idea that’s even dumber than windmills and solar.
      No one would dream of buying these batteries if not for the false premise that CO2 is a hazardous “pollutant”.

      • South Australia’s labor party thinks taxpayers can afford grid batteries, as economics objections don’t even come into it, it’s a magic pudding, you just keep eating the future, and future never becomes skint.

    • “A very large proportion of German wind is owned by the local communities it sits in… the villages and farmers own it and decided to put it up.”

      As a German who lives in a rural area I can tell you this is very misleading, to say the least. The communities (or rather politicians) are *bribed* into accepting the wind monsters (they receive lots of money from the highly subsidized renewable mafia); the farmers are paid *lots* of money if they offer their fields to building wind monsters and often can’t resist; most of the locals absolutely hate wind energy, forming civil movements to battle this lunacy, but to little avail in the face of the green ideologues and their massively profiteering buddies in the industry. There are also serious health concerns with wind energy (many doctors are speaking out, even receiving mainstream coverage), they destroy the landscape, and they hardly produce any energy. The whole idea is pure insanity.

      Also worth mentioning is that the green ideologues are mainly in the cities, while the rural population pays the price for their ideological possession. Never, ever are these wind monsters built in cities or on the next hill to a city, go figure.

      • Keep trying to persuade your urban counterparts. There are probably a lot of German urban-dwellers who resent the fact that they are paying anywhere from two-four times the amount for electricity than I am here in the United States. They need to be found and made common cause with.

        Then you can all vote for AfD.

    • Once again griff demonstrates that he has no idea what the words he uses mean.
      Grid scale batteries don’t exist.
      The batteries that do exist serve only one purpose, to try and level out the quick swings in power as wind speeds change (or stop altogether) and clouds passing over these mystical solar arrays that don’t take up room that could have been used for something else.

      Even those batteries cost millions and will only last a decade or two (at best).

    • The German grid dodged a bullet two weeks ago it almost went into total collapse. It is an accident that is going to happen and when it does it will be interesting to hear the excuses.

    • “The idea that you need fossil fuel for frequency regulation is obsolete. A grid scale battery does a better, faster job.”

      So, fossil-fuels are obsolete for frequency regulation, are they, Griff.

      Grid-scale batteries of a practical, economically viable kind which could do that job for more than a few milliseconds at a time are the stuff of futuristic science fantasy. They are still a subject of blue-sky research and don’t even exist on the drawing-board yet, let alone in production!

      The technical obstacles to inventing and developing them are formidable and include the constraints of fundamental physical laws, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. I don’t expect these non-existent power-frequency regulators to render fossil-fuel back-up to power national and international power-grids when the sun doesn’t shine and/or the wind doesn’t blow any time soon, or even in the foreseeable future.

    • “g. March 25, 2019 at 1:49 am

      Solar farms have been constructed for example on otherwise unusable land – e.g ex soviet air bases and training areas, too polluted to return to agriculture. A very large proportion of German wind is owned by the local communities it sits in… the villages and farmers own it and decided to put it up. Wind growth is currently largely offshore.”

      As usual, spouts nonsense without proof.

      “Solar farms have been constructed for example on otherwise unusable land – e.g ex soviet air bases and training areas, too polluted to return to agriculture.”

      Utter nonsense.
      g, as per many leftist progressives, presumes that land not usable for growing the silly vegetation people like to consume is otherwise unusable. Ignoring land left fallow or forests that supply lumber while storing carbon.

      Now that the solar farms or wind farms are installed, the land is truly unusable.

      “g. March 25, 2019 at 1:49 am

      The idea that you need fossil fuel for frequency regulation is obsolete. A grid scale battery does a better, faster job.”

      Mr. electrical engineer g. has declared batteries superior to high quality electricity producers like hydroelectric, fossil fuels and nuclear.

      Braawwwp!!! Bogus logical fallacy strawman on the field!

      g.’s fantasy world has installed yet another redundant feature just to try and contain the variable inconsistent electricity produced by solar and wind!

      Make it easy, dump the bad producing renewables and stick with fossil fuels and nuclear!

      • I sometimes wonder whether Griff just throws crap up there on the wall just to see if anyone is paying attention. Over 90% of what he says is usually thoroughly demonstrably refuted and put down as nonsense in a matter of minutes.

        Which is part of the reason why I enjoy WIWT so much!

  3. Swiss energy giant ALPIQ just announced “unavoidable big blackouts” due to unsubstantiated Swiss and EU energy policies.

    De facto a “Brace Brace Brace” announcement.

    Eerie ! Ever since it exists, the German/Swiss binode grid was a schoolbook example of stability and availability. Just saying …

    • Flight Level March 25, 2019 at 2:02 am
      https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/alpiq-chef-jens-alder-kritisiert-energiepolitik&prev=search

      alpiq statement translation
      Risk of a blackout will increase
      “If one drives an import strategy, this must be regulated in a state contract. The Electricity agreement is blocked because of the missing framework agreement. “The Security of supply of Switzerland is without Electricity agreements are no longer guaranteed. “If you see the regulations of the surrounding countries, make no illusions. “When things get scarce, they first supply their own consumers and then export electricity abroad.””

      so not about solar or wind it is about trading with the eu (sw is non eu). I.e. if a shortage occurs then EU will deliver to EU first and Switzerland goes short. He also says
      “because scarcity means rising prices.
      Gas-fired power plants as an uninteresting “adventure”
      On the construction of gas power plants as compensation for the elimination of nuclear power has Alpiq loud Alder currently no interest. «Under the current regulatory regime, electricity production is in the Switzerland entrepreneurial uninteresting, too Gas power plants . We will not go on such adventures. “”

      I.e no company interested in building gas powered plants.

      • This post literally missed the panel discussion on the origins of the newly developed concept of electric energy scarcity.

        Switzerland relies for about 40% on nuclear power generation and, the way things go, risks to attempt a compensation with either unreliable renewables or costly agreements. 40% that’s quite a big hole on the charts.

        SwissGrid has already long released itself from the “public utility” domain, i.e. “we deliver what we can with what we are allowed to have”.

        Now that’s the complete picture less the sugarcoating.

  4. This article has some trouble distinguishing between Denmark and the Dutch (Netherlands). A recent Dutch election seems to have taken place in Denmark!

    • LOL, nothing like not being able to read your own material to boost reader confidence that you have not made the rest up as well.

      Maybe that’s why the headers says : “guest easy by Larry Hamblin”.

      • You made a typo (Hamblin) by pointing out a typo. You win!

        My guess is he’ll blame his phone. Why people type up these things on their phones is beyond me.

    • Events are now occurring in Denmark which signal great discontent with that countries climate policies

      Having a basic grasp of grammar would also boost reader confidence.

    • Yes, as a former Dane, I was surprised to hear that about Denmark. They love their wind turbines and the Norwegian hydro backup system they are connected to. It is extremely costly, environmentally damaging, but their income from wind turbine export is also enormous. I do not believe Denmark will change course before export diminishes drastically.

  5. It is not Denmark that just recently had an election. As the illustration shows it was in Holland, where the Dutch “Forum” party made unexpected progress.

    • Yes, it was the Netherlands where the provincial elections were held. But those elections should be a warning shot across the bow of all EU nations who insist upon these fantasy energy policies. Their politicians, too, can be replaced.

      I only wish now that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez could be replaced immediately. But her constituents have another year or so to go. She’s said enough stupid environmental-related things in promoting her Green New Deal that everyone in her district should be mad as heck by then.

  6. Yellow vests in France, EU elections, and “Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee” in WUWT. Oh and lets not forget Americans and Canadians being up to their ears in Global Warming Goodness this winter. (And many still are even though its ‘spring’). And we don’t yet know what the next Solar Cycle’s going to look like.
    Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of Global Warming, the biggest scam evah!!!
    Pinch me. I must be dreaming.

  7. In a spectacular climate alarmist policy failure the EU dumped its “carbon neutrality by 2050” commitment and targets driven by the sacred but highly arbitrary and unsubstantiated 1.5 degree C global temperature “limit” and ended its Brussels summit with no climate commitments or targets for year 2050.

    Local news failed to report (no surprise there). Instead, they chose on to report that Macron is disappointed. As if we’d care what Marcon opines, but not what others opine.

    • I can’t even find anything about Macron being disappointed. Do you have a link.

      The only place I can find anything on the EU failing to agree on 2050 targets is in skeptical blogs. eg. Jo Nova

  8. In the third to last paragraph, “Events are now occurring in Denmark…” should read Netherlands, not Denmark, as the link provided in the same sentence links to an article about Dutch elections.

  9. And if you do increase renewable generation by 15 times, what happens to all of the surplus power during much of the year, when it is too windy, too sunny or demand is low?

    Summer is the obvious example.

    • “what happens to all of the surplus power during much of the year, when it is too windy, too sunny or demand is low?”

      The excess will result in negative prices. Producers pay to produce, and consumers get paid to consume. It happened this weekend in GB. But it’s nearly impossible to predict, and almost no consumers will find it possible to plan to take advantage of the negative prices.

      The result is twofold:

      Renewable investments cannot happen without the protection of the contract for difference, which protects them from their own price destruction.

      Other forms of generation may be forced to suffer the negative prices if their dynamics are not fast enough for them to cut their export to zero when the price collapse happens. So they need capacity payments to make their economics stack up. And then the green lobby criticises them for receiving a subsidy.

  10. Sorry peeps but this one shoots its own foot off.
    With this ill considered and extravagant BS:

    Perhaps more important, the amount of land, concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals, lithium, cadmium, hydrocarbon-based composites and other raw materials required to do this is astronomical. None of those materials is renewable, and none can be extracted, processed and manufactured into wind, solar or fossil power plants without fossil fuels.

    Concrete: mash it up to use as rubble/aggregate or feed it back into the cement kiln. All those things need/use is heat – no matter what source. Coal/gas/oil/old tyres/waste chemicals/ waste plastic or by rubbing 2 boys scouts together.

    Rare Earths: Where? As magnets in wind turbines maybe but totally unnecessary. Self excited generators have been around since forever and *if* you cannot build a simple gearbox, ferrite magnets are just fine.
    Not in solar PV either.
    Yes maybe within the Touch Screens of phones, computers etc but otherwise ??

    Lithium: As far as I can see, it involves simple filtration and solar evaporation of brine followed by the addition of sodium carbonate. If you need the metal you’d need to electrolyse it. No fossils there.
    Then, the only significant use for the stuff now is in batteries – don’t we all (apart from Griff) struggle to see how they can be scaled up sufficiently

    Copper: Take the ore, add (sulphuric) acid and electrolyse. No fossils there.

    Cadmium: What does anybody need Cadmium for apart from Chinese folks manufacturing cheap, nasty low quality/capacity, high self discharge rechargeable batteries. Painter and artists otherwise for the pretty colours it makes.
    Also in bearings but there are other things that better – but= more expensive.

    If you wanna live in a world full of cheap & nasty rubbish tat and junk, go right ahead.
    Oh my bad, yo already do, its just the sugar/ beer/wine/whiskey and cannabis that make it bearable.
    And, “Never Better” of course.

    Yes Cadmium goes into Thin Film solar PV but those cells are nowhere near as efficient as mono or poly crystalline silicon. (In cloudy conditions Thin Film apparently does have a tiny advantage)

    Steel: Yes, For the chemical reaction that takes the ore down to the metal

    Plastic: C’mon then.. What *would* happen if you put your plastic in an oxygen free ‘environment’ and shone UV light onto it? Wouldn’t the UV break up those long carbon chains into some random soup not dissimilar to crude oil?

    Land: Nailed it perfectly. No it is not renewable. And Fossil Fuels, via tractors, ploughs, glyphosate and fertilisers is flushing the tiny bit we have got (10% of Planet Earth) right out into the ocean.
    Unless we work out some way of extracting the salt from sea-floor mud and putting that mud back into our fields & farms – we really are finished.

    No number of batteries, turbines, cadmium, fossils or super computers will avert that.

      • Nothing new about this to me. I grew up in Durban South Africa. The most important thing about this drug that they never mention is it’s fat soluble so it stays in the system 24/7 for weeks, even months. Basically if you smoke it once a week you can’t drive, not legally anyway. It also means that you’re always under the influence, sort of equivalent to being an alcoholic even if you’re an occasional user. ALCOHOL IT IS NOT! Not sure if the brain damage it causes is permanent or not. Oh and to answer the obvious question. No I didn’t. I’m over 70 but still sharp. It’s been in S. Africa for 200 years. We know what it does. Watch your children. Depression kills.

        • Off topic (apologies), but yes, cannabis can cause developmental problems, permanent cognitive impairment and is deeply involved in the formation of long lasting, possible permanent, psychoses, disregarding all the temporary, but medium term, problems of mental impairment. There is literature which claims the opposite, but unlike climate studies, the evidential observations are gaining credence. We are leaving yet another terrible legacy for future generations to go along with all the greencrap. But if they are all stoned it probably won’t be a worry.
          http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm

        • I wish I could have you talk to my son. He still thinks pot is more like alcohol. The more I’ve been reading on the subject, I’m finding out that it’s not. But too bad, as George Bernard Shaw once noted, that youth is wasted on the young.

    • Peta,

      “Concrete: mash it up to use as rubble/aggregate or feed it back into the cement kiln.”

      “Mash it up” – what with sledge hammers and muscle? And concrete is Portland cement plus aggregates (graded stones).
      And “used” concrete is certainly filled with lots of iron rebar, and probably steel plumbing pipes and PVC conduits. How do you deal with that without lots of processing and heat? Rebar is low-carbon steel and melts around 1,530 C. The Portland cement kiln (clinkers) perform the final C3S production at around 1,400-1,450 C. And the multiple intermediate processing steps to make Portland cement requires copious amounts of heat, usually from natural gas.
      And how do you propose “used concrete” is transported to processing-recycling centers? Mule trains?

      “Copper: Take the ore, add (sulphuric) acid and electrolyse. No fossils there.”
      “Take ore” – what with mules, picks, and shovels? Do you grasp how much raw ore has to be removed and transported to a smelter just to get a tonne of raw copper in ingot form?
      “(sulfuric) acid” – comes from where? What industrial process makes H2SO4 at industrial-scale quantities and then transports it to where it is used?
      “electrolyse” – the electricity comes from where?

      And the bigger issue for rechargeable battery tech isn’t lithium, but cobalt. And that is an ugly story in itself.

      The drive for Electricity sourced from Wind and Solar and then EV cars/trucks that require massive batteries that must be periodically replaced are are combining to destroy the very environment the Eco-nutters claim they want to save. Their ignorance of how these things are made is breath-taking.
      That is the clear point Mr Hamlin is making.

  11. In politics there two fundamental rules .
    Firstly , get elected
    Secondly , stay elected
    And the fact that across the world through a whole series of election ‘climate doom ‘come very low or no where on the list of things politicians campaigned on. Reflects that to the meet rule one and two, they acknowledge how ‘important’ this idea for the voters compared to cost and availability of power .
    I have thought for a long time that the ‘death ‘of AGW would come about for politic reasons rather than ones based on science. Because the science does not support it in the first place.
    While the ‘social justice’ idea that hides much of this approach was always going to hit a barrier where the voters said ‘thanks but no thanks’ to the idea of poverty and energy supply crises to punish the ‘evil west ‘ .
    You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    • “I have thought for a long time that the ‘death ‘of AGW would come about for politic reasons rather than ones based on science.”

      Yes it was always their dopey prescriptions that would see them undone and forgetting about dispatchability with electricity was a no brainer. Too many red faces to tell all the mums and dads with rooftop solar now, oops we got it wrong and if you can’t guarantee your electrons 24/7/365 for the communal grid you can keep them.

      Same with wind and they can’t back down just double down and wear the reaction with power poverty after their global thin air derivatives trading was an equally predictable disaster. Massive fallacy of composition problem for them on both fronts but it’s way over their heads.

  12. Notice the timing – Torquemada Mueller published a nothing-burger, Trump fully exonerated from a complete hoax, an attempted coup-d’etat. Seems some EU’ers, yurpeans as even Bush called them, were banking on a coup.
    Massive damage control in play as Trump has now a free hand.
    CO2 is a gone bunny.

    • following you digression I add mine;-)
      I was reading ZH and recenbtly theyve been on the warning danger recession meme
      well golly gosh even MSM is picking it up as of today
      so…when recession hits and govts are in deep cack, biz isnt able to get cashcow handouts
      betcha the entire renewable scam falls ove with it.
      always look on the bright side;-) lol

  13. Once again Griff shows how simple he/she/they are twisted in spin from reality.
    The statement included communities are doing this, solar on poor land and wind is largely offshore.

    All of this addresses none of the statement nor backs up any argument for a future for Germany. The major of solar has nothing to do with poor land. The problem with Germany being covered in windmills is unaddressed other than he/she/they are arguing communities don’t mind them. (Well-known to be un true for the vast number of cities.) They still would next to checker their country with windmills. Largely offshore is blatantly false as 6.5 Gw are offshore and little more coming, while onshore is 88 Gw. Largely for griff is just like war is peace, provery is prosperity!

  14. Leaders in Germany and in the rest of the EU need to ask themselves how they didn’t anticipate this outcome from the very beginning. What made them go down this path in the first place?

    • At least we are going to have some examples of what *not* to do, so other countries can avoid the mistakes Germany and the rest of the Western world are making trying to power their economies with windmills and industrial solar.

      It looks like we are almost to the policy breaking point.

  15. Germany’s sea along the North coast is not all that big so “mainly offshore” wind cannot be true! It also is subject to small weather systems so would be far from reliable.

    The greatest failure to date in this war of politics to find the most stupid policy has to be the UK. The elimination of fossil fueled cars by 2030 will need at least 10 more 2.5GW nuclear stations by that date, or else charging will not meet current usage! It will also need all the infrastructure to be replaced as each house has only about 1.5kW available if we all use it at once. This will not enable car charging for most users. All roads will need to be dug up, the grid doubled in size etc. Estimated cost at today’s prices is £500 billion, and for what? To save <1% of the worlds CO2 production (and perhaps a small amount of air pollution)?

    Moving on, another policy is to state that "air pollution kills 30,000 people a year in the UK". This statistic is false as no death certificate has ever said "Cause of death: Air pollution". They get the number by estimating that each persons life is shortend by a week or so, multiplying this by 65 million citizens and getting the lifetime of 30,000 people. Talk about lying by statistics, as well as total mathematical ignorance! It is of course meaningless as well as false.

  16. Hey stupid Krauts: pay attention to the advanced nuclear energy technologies that are at the stage of prototyping new small modular molten salt reactors, which can burn Thorium, a fuel that will last beyond the next thousand years, or Uranium, which can be reprocessed and last at least a thousand years. These intrinsically safe reactors can be located ANYWHERE – they air air cooled and do not need cooling bodies of water or pumping systems. They require a couple of acres and can produce the same amount of (reliable) power as wind turbines occupying over 20,000 acres.

    • pay attention to the advanced nuclear energy technologies that are at the stage of prototyping new small modular molten salt reactors …These intrinsically safe reactors can be located ANYWHERE

      Great, where can I see them in commercial operation to verify your claims? Oh, what’s that? they “are at the stage of prototyping “? You do realize that means they’re not yet ready for prime time and that there’s a very real possibility that they might never be (there are lots of technologies that never progress beyond the prototyping stage because the prototypes end up revealing the viability problems that you’d never consider if you only believed the hype).

  17. ‘It’ can be done in Denmark – with windmills – due to vast low depth shore lines surrounding our otherwise small state.
    But somehow we tend to believe all other countries have the same geography – no one does. And this weekends EU summit , otherwise heavily covered by danish media due to Brexit – somehow has not mentioned this green set back.
    They never do these days – when the news doesn’t fit the ‘agenda’.

  18. Surely the inventors of the VW-Audi software cheat can also cheat the modeled cheat crisis with cheating policy loopholes. It comes down to the skill set.

  19. I believe this signals the reelection of Donald J Trump as the 2020 US President. Why?

    The Muller Report didn’t do its job. The folks have given up trying to get him out of the office for 2020. Had the report worked, they could go on and have a Socialist President (if there is such a thing) to give away Americas wealth. Now reality sets in. More will follow suit. Iran may give up, for now. North Korea next. What else?

    Too much is signaled here.

    MAGA

    • The Muller Report didn’t do its job. The folks have given up trying to get him out of the office for 2020

      The loon left has not given up trying. Look at all the investigations the Dems in the House have launch just since Jan. They’ll keep trying to kick Trump out of office from now till Jan of 2025.

      • Ah, but now it’s payback time. I have a hope that Mr. T will keep them so tied up with lawyers and fees trying to keep out of prison that they’ll be too busy to bother him leaving him to run the US and maybe even tie up a few loose ends with some UK spooks that were behaving very badly a short while ago.

      • The Democrats and the Leftwing Media will continue to attack and try to undermine Trump. They will just attack from another angle since Mueller has exonerated Trump over conspiracy with the Russians.

        The Left has no viable plan for the future of the United States, so all they can do is try to tear down their opposition with one personal attack after another.

        We can hope that Americans will see these unfair attacks for what they are, partisan, political lies meant to smear Trump and they will be repulsed by these actions and will turn out in droves to oust the Democrats from office so the nation can get back on track and put these divisive, dangerous Democrats behind us in the rearview mirror.

  20. Why worry about meeting these 2050 targets when the UN keeps assuring us that unless we get there by 2030, the planet is doomed anyway. Incidentally, in 1989, it was telling us that unless we make major transitions to renewables we’d be doomed by 2000. So here we are 30 years later and the countries that were most gung-ho about meeting their emissions targets have finally realized that these are unattainable until well into the future—if at all!

  21. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So all the efforts to reduce CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels will have no effect on climate. The serious alternative to the burning of fossil fuels for energy on a national scale is nuclear power. If the powers that be expect future disasters what they should be doing is taking steps to bolster the current economy and that means doing things more efficiently and not wasting money and resources.

    • Haas. Agree, Germany, once Merkel is out of the picture, can politically partially return to energy sanity. Perhaps, “on a temporary basis restart several select nuclear plants on a limited basis while the goals of energiewende continue”, or some such PC phraseology. Almost impossible to believe otherwise. Germany has essentially ended onshore wind new construction because of local NIMBY opposition to siting the ugly windmill monsters and additional transmission lines. IMHO wind is having it’s last few “gasps” in Germany.

  22. I am very disappointed in the EU. I hope the EU keeps going green. Everyone needs to go green…except the US of course. Cheap, abundant, fossil fuel heaven here…

    MAGA

  23. “Construction of solar and wind “farms” has already caused massive devastation to Germany’s wildlife habitats, farmlands, ancient forests and historic villages. Even today, the northern part of Germany looks like a single enormous wind farm.”

    – far out at sea not yet feeding power to the electrical grid:

    Press release Expansion of offshore wind energy successfully continued in 2018 …

    21.01.2019 · the current figures for offshore wind energy in Germany for the year 2018. …

    but have not yet fed into the grid. … a scenario framework for offshore wind farms in the 15.

    Energiewende hinges on unblocking the power grid | Clean Energy Wire

    But the country’s grid is just not up to the job of making proper use of all the renewable power Germany now generates. And the new …

    Despite rapid expansion across Europe, German offshore … – Energy Transition

    19.02.2019 · Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) in the … far out at sea not yet feeding power to the electrical grid, … In total, Europe now has 105 offshore wind farms …

Comments are closed.