FYI... Renewable energy sources behind 30% of the world's electricity in 2023 Thirty percent of the world's electricity in 2023 was generated by renewable energy sources, according to a think tank. The data comes from the Global Electricity Review 2024 report [PDF] authored by Ember Climate. While the 165-page document covers lots of topics, the headliner was the share of global electricity created by …
I speak for Germany, but maybe I speak for the western world in whole. Our local worry warts are the classical German Angst. Some worry wart stories I heard from the US are plain "They believe WHAT?????!?!?!?? will happen with a solar plant near them ?????" weird. Others apply the famous "CIA Field Sabotage Manual" as their normal "process" "plan" "change" with a "committee" and a "team".
In short: The western world is busy sabotaging itself, busy delaying everything.
Certainly many corporations have vested interests in opposing various changes, and are not at all reluctant to act accordingly. But there's plenty of grassroots stupidity, too. I see it regularly here in the Land of Chemtrail Panic. God only knows what would happen if someone tried to build a nuclear-power plant (even a good fail-cold, low-waste design) around here. There'd be rioting in the streets.
> Wind, solar, hydro, other renewables, and nuclear together now make up 39.4 percent of the world's ***electricity*** supply. It might not be too much longer until most ***energy*** in the world is generated by low-carbon sources.
So are we talking about electricity, or about total energy (which includes electricity, plus other things like gasoline and diesel used for internal combustion engines, natural gas for heating, etc)?
This is talking about electricity only.
But with the slow march toward heat pumps instead of gas/propane for heating (or replacing wildly inefficient resistance heating) and EVs, a lot of that overall energy demand is coming along too.
Some will more difficult to displace without new production technologies, like process heat for making cement, steel, aluminum, etc.
Is there any major mining equipment (not lighting or computers) powered by electric
Actually there is. I don't recall the specifics but I saw an article where a mine was using an absolutely massive dump truck that's fully electric. The reason that works is that they are hauling stuff from a higher point to a lower point, so the trip down fully laden with tons of material allows regenerative braking to charge it enough for a trip back uphill when empty - so it is able to run 24x7 and never need charging.
I'm not sure how common that is (loading up on top of a hill and dumping your load down below) but even for open pit mines where you're doing the reverse, someday you'll want to fill up that giant hole you dug. Well you will in countries that have environmental regulations at least.
For a very long time aluminium smelters have been placed in areas where they could be near or even build their own hydro plant to guarantee supply of electricity.
The extraction process for metals like aluminium and steel requires the removal of oxygen from the starting material (iron ore, bauxite, rutile etc.) to get the desired metal. Even producing silicon requires the same type of reduction process. The easiest way to achieve this is to give this oxygen something else it would prefer to bond to and this is almost always carbon.
wildly inefficient resistance heating
Eh? Every domestic resistance-heating application I've ever seen is unvented. 100% of the heat produced goes into conditioned space. Most of it doesn't produce any discernible radiation elsewhere on the spectrum (toasters aside, and not much there) or mechanical motion (except for fans on space heaters, which are generally not how permanent domestic heating works). There's a voltage drop and the remaining electrical potential goes back to the grid. So what inefficiencies are you talking about?
Frankly GSHP efficiency is somewhat overstated by fans. You have to actually crunch the numbers. For example:
Assuming a system COP of 3, 1.36 lbs of CO2 would be created for the generation of 3 kWh of useful, or 0.45 lbs CO2 per kWh of heat delivered.Burning pipeline-delivered natural gas produces 0.40 lbs of CO2 per kWh of heat, if burnt at 100% efficiency. If a 92% efficient boiler operating on natural gas were to be employed to make heat, it would produce about 0.44 lbs of CO2 per kWh of heat delivered (plus any pump or fan electrical energy).1
Given the aridity of the soil around here, my back-of-the-envelope guess is that my high-efficiency tankless natural-gas water heater radiant-floor heating system is about as efficient as a GSHP would be, with significantly less complexity and installation cost. And considering how little heating I actually do (my monthly gas bills are < $100 even in the coldest months, and include DHW and cooking), even if the GSHP were more efficient it'd just be a rounding error. And we don't cool - it's not necessary here - so the system wouldn't be used at all in the warm months.
-- In the case of solar energy, though, there are some caveats. China saw less sunlight in 2023, which limited the impact of its new solar panels, and some countries underreported their expansion of solar energy. The report says these are temporary factors, and had they not occurred, the actual increase for solar could have been around 387 TWh instead of 307 --
I love this paragraph - applying the same logic:
- if it hadn't rained (a temporary factor) I wouldn't have got wet
- if the sun had been shining the solar panels would have been more effective
WTF.
Long live scientific reporting
No confusion. The US, UK, Australia, pretty much the entirety of Europe uses a feed in system. You pay for the system up front and you get paid for every kWh you export. This is a subsidy being paid to you to offset the system cost over a long period of time. There are places (US) which also offer tax incentives on the initial system cost.
Even if you were right, that's still a minority of countries. Reminder: the UN counts 193 officially recognized countries.
Installation subsidies are at installation time: when you purchase and install the panels (local and/or national subsidies). Feed in apply during operation. Some countries do one but not the other (also because the grid and the meters don't necessarily support feed in).
I never said they shouldn't. But when the feed in is 4-5x market rate the extra money has to come from somewhere and that is usually from everyone else.
The IMF in that report posted earlier consider any situation where you pay less than market rate to buy something or get paid more than market rate to sell something as a subsidy. And in the case of solar FIT schemes all the energy users without solar have been subsidising those with.
That all those windmills give you cancer, kill all the birds and is by far the most expensive source of power known to man.
Drill baby drill.
Or that is what 'the most leading candidate for the presidency of the USA me!' (aka Donald, I did nothing wrong, I never met her Trump) says almost daily to his cult members who drive their monster trucks that get 8mpg on a good day to his sermons, usually delivered close to his own private Boeing 757.
That all those windmills give you cancer, kill all the birds and is by far the most expensive source of power known to man.
Yep, the last part being the most critical, along with the usual industry spin using TWh rather than wind's ability to actually deliver reasonably priced energy on demand. Which it simply cannot do, hence the need for wasting trillions on also providing TWh of batteries, or gas turbines. Reality is dawning, and the last COP saw an increase in promoting more viable low/zero carbon generation like nuclear.. But that still has to overcome decades of lobbying from neo-luddites and the 'renewables' industry. See as an example the billions being wasted on dead-end technology like CCS that's overhead rather than generating useful product* compared to the much smaller amount being invested in SMR R&D.
As for cost, see-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/05/07/cfd-subsidies-rising-again-as-market-prices-fall/
On a financial year basis, subsidies jumped to £2159 million in 2023/24, with average market prices of £82.53/MWh.
This year, market prices have fallen even further. Since January they have been averaging £57.45/MWh.
Bear in mind that the current Administrative Strike Prices for offshore, onshore and solar are £105, £92 and £87/MWh respectively.
This is obviously a UK-specific example of the cost problem, but explains why there's so much lobbying and promotion of 'renewables' given the massive subsidies being added to UK energy user's bills. Never mind the inflationary impact, give your money to the 'renewables' scumbags. And to head off the inevitable attacks, that website is run by an accountant, and what would an accountant know about the numbers?
*CCS is ironic given the beneficiaries will be the oil & gas industry, in both storage and transport. Plus of course generating a massively subsidised supply of CO2 for enhanced oil & gas recovery.
Even with the subsidies the wind companies seem incapable of making money. Despite many a claim that wind is n (where n can be as large as 9) times cheaper than fossil fuels we are seeing the turbine makers and installers are losing money or going out of business.
Yep. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance. Wind operators are still making money hand over fist thanks to their lobbying and regulatory capture. Along with some incredibly deceptive marketing, ie the 9x claim based on peak gas prices caused by political ineptitude and unrealistically low CfD bids that never entered into service. But the 'renewables' scumbags still claim 'cheapest evah!' despite the obvious realities. I think it's also rather ironic that the turbine makers & installers are being driven out of business by the cost pressures it's been responsible for creating.
Someone in the comments here-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/05/07/cfd-subsidies-rising-again-as-market-prices-fall/
also caught an interesting situation wrt UK wind-
https://postimg.cc/646QZKW2
where offshore wind generated -0.427MW and so switched from generating electricity to consuming it. Which is not a very unusual event, and has more impact in winter when the windmills also have to run heating & de-icing, along with the anti-brinelling and other energy drains. But the entire UK offshore wind fleet generated enough electricity for a thousand EVs to try and keep it powered..
Another issue being that the govt has allowed some operators to delay the start of the CfD.
I am of the mindset that nothing should be subsidised however it is too late to stop. They have a very short term positive effect with a long term and often much worse negative effect. The headline £ per MWh is all very good but we are then propping up this under pricing through tax and extras tacked on to our bills.
> I am of the mindset that nothing should be subsidised
This is an ideological position. Established technologies are economically optimized because of market economies of scale advantage. Disrupting technologies need some help to be able to catch up and compete on an equal technical playing field.
They never needed it before. It is a recent phenomenon where instead of a race to be first to market with a new idea it is a game of who can get the most cash from the govt.
At the end of the day the end user, the tax payer, who funds everything. We just now pay twice and pay more.
> They never needed it before.
How do you know? Are you an economist?
> It is a recent phenomenon where instead of a race to be first to market with a new idea it is a game of who can get the most cash from the govt.
Typical rant of the uneducated taxpayer resenting every penny of his taxes.
This is an ideological position. Established technologies are economically optimized because of market economies of scale advantage. Disrupting technologies need some help to be able to catch up and compete on an equal technical playing field.
Therein lies the problem. The entire UK energy policy has been captured and driven by ideology, rather than economics or engineering. This is where wind, and 'renewable' technology fails at every level. There is no economy of scale advantage, quite the opposite given the more we add, the more it costs to provide reliable and affordable power. Current weather conditions should make this painfully obvious-
https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind
minimum: 0.373 GW maximum: 9.649 GW average: 3.536 GW
Against an installed capacity of around 30GW, so currently this month is running at <10% capacity factor. This is likely to continue till the weekend, and the high pressure system across Europe means it's not just UK wind farmers (or consumers) feeling the effect. Luckily it's not winter so fewer people will be dieing. It's more destructive than disruptive, and wind power is nothing new. It's been around for a few thousand years, with wind generation being around since the late 1800s. The problems of wind/weather dependency are well known given the Age of Sail was replaced by the Age of Steam. The way UK energy policy and subsidies have been captured by the 'renewables' scumbags also means there is no 'equal technical playing field'. The game is thoroughly rigged, especially against more practical and modern technologies like nuclear, or even modern supercritical coal power stations.
And of course it''s pointless virtue signalling-
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-2023-coal-output-hits-record-high-2024-01-17/
The world's biggest coal producer mined 4.66 billion metric tons of the fuel last year, up 2.9% from a year earlier, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.
China produces more CO2 in a little over 10 days than the UK does in a year, and it's demand for energy is still growing fast. So even if the UK continues to committ economic suicide by ploughing ahead with 'Net Zero', it will make essentially zero difference to global CO2 emissions, or concentrations. And of course India is also following suit and increasing it's coal output and usage.
Funny how wind-subsidy haters never seem to mention that the fossil fuel industry is the largest worldwide reciever of subsidies.
From the FT "Global fossil fuel subsidies and costs hit record $7tn in 2022" https://www.ft.com/content/fa607c72-7810-4ed5-98a3-d27d004c15bd
BBC "COP26: How much is spent supporting fossil fuels and green energy?" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59233799
IMF "Fossil Fuel Subsidies" https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
I'm saying there should be no subsidies, not for renewables, not for coal, not for gas, none.
Also from the IMF report the majority of fossil 'subsidies' is implicit and not actually a subsidy but a cost the IMF believe is being paid by society. They are including road damage, accidents and congestion, all of which are also caused by EVs, as part of the 'subsidy' for petrol.
The explicit fossil fuel subsidies are actually quite small. In the US, UK and Europe there isn't much fossil energy where the cost to the customer is less than the cost to produce due to explicit subsidies but this is not the case for renewables.
Funny how wind-subsidy haters never seem to mention that the fossil fuel industry is the largest worldwide reciever of subsidies.
That's probably because we've read the Greenwash, like this example from the IMF-
Implicit subsidies occur when the retail price fails to include external costs, inclusive of the standard consumption tax. External costs include contributions to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, local health damages (primarily pre-mature deaths) through the release of harmful local pollutants like fine particulates, and traffic.
So basically making up numbers and loading those costs onto fossil fuels. They also usually ignore additional costs loaded onto fossil fuels, like higher rates of corporation tax on UK oil & gas producers, royalties, and of course direct environmental levvies. The IMF one is especially amusing as it completely overlooks the fine particulates and road damage caused by overweight EVs.
> The Russian interference was with the anti-fracking lobby
Of course, fracking in UK or in the US is bad for Russia's fossil fuel based economy. Obvious. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> and pro renewable
NO. More renewables means LESS gas. Your logic is flawed. Germany got more gas initially because they decommissioned coal first, So gas replaced some coal, renewables replaced the rest. But now they also need LESS and LESS gas because they keep increasing their renewable capacity.
Except² that Germany is straight on the move to renewables again, almost as fast as in 2012 (Merkel changed a few rules in 2013, which literally bombed out renewable market, we were world-leader in total numbers). For comparison: My normal electric usage was around 8,5 kWh per day. Some solar stuff on the roof, as far as the "plug and ready" regulations allow, and I am at 2.9 kWh per day this April, with yet not 100% optimizes usage. Resulting a win of over 50 € for April. This month the trend is getting close to 2 kWh this month, despite the "typical Germany" weather for half of the days, so I will be above 60€. I may even get below 2 kWh on average. Oh, and I get hot water for free now.
Even those which don't go "full nerd-out" on their solar stuff still make between 20€ and 30€ by their more simple usage and optimization.
We (Germans) were already at the 56% renewable for electricity in 2023, and that number will not go down in 2024.
> "Many German firms are facing issues due to gas shortages"
Official figures: Gas consumption in Germany continues to fall "In 2023, Germans consumed five per cent less gas than in 2022. This can be seen in current data from the Federal Network Agency provided on SMARD, its comprehensive website on the German electricity market."
> Many German firms are facing issues due to gas shortages.
There was no gas shortage. Our big gas storages were full in 2022 right before winter came, and then we didn't even need to tap them. The firms were indeed afraid, and they were right to be afraid, but in the end the preparation worked. For 2022-to-2023 winter, and for 2023-to-2024 winter. Two winters in a row.
You can't cherry pick an example and build a whole theory out of it. That's not how statistics work. Just as you can't take an isolated fact and suggest that it's the cause of some larger multi-factorial economic situation, just to make your point. That's not how economics work either.
FACTS:
1/ FInancial Times April: EU exits winter with gas storage at record levels
"Gas storage for the EU at the end of March, considered the end of the winter season by the industry, stood at 58.72 per cent full, according to industry body Gas Infrastructure Europe. That is about 3 percentage points higher than the previous high, set last year."
2/ The current economic slowdown in Europe is general. It is not limited to Germany. One of the main causes of this slowdown lies into high interest rates, raised to fight inflation. But inflation is decreasing and so are energy prices.
The output reduction of Basf, Bayer, Novartis, etc. is not caused by lack of gas in a context of strong demand, but on the contrary, by a general lack of demand across the board.
High interest rates weakens demand. However, while consumers are holding back spending, their buffers are increasing as inflation is falling and nominal wages are rising, so spending capacity is at least building up. Also, despite Germany's dull economic prospects, firms continue to hold onto their workers in prevision of the upcoming upturn and unemployment is only expected to rise slightly in the coming quarter. Unemployment stayed at 5.9% over the last 5 months.
BASF cite rationing and the cost of gas as a reason. The German govt cite cost of energy in general as the reason. France, which has historically used more electric heating, isn't having the same issues.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/15/gas-rationing-germany-basf-plant-europe-crisis
> BASF cite rationing and the cost of gas as a reason. The German govt cite cost of energy in general as the reason.
Nice try, but irrelevant. This is from September 2022. When Germany was still dependent on Russian gas. Three months before Uniper managed to launch Germany's first (floating) LNG terminal. A remarkable feat. So, again, you're confirming that Jou is right to claim "The firms were indeed afraid, and they were right to be afraid".
> "France, which has historically used more electric heating, isn't having the same issues."
In contrast with Germany, the countries of origin of French natural gas import were safe. With Russia being less than a quarter. Main suppliers were Norway, Algeria and Qatar.
The difference of inflation figures between France and Germany in 2022 has various causes:
- France put a tariff shield in place to limit the rise in electricity and gas prices because French inflation was more energy-led than German inflation (at the time, the energy component explaining half of French inflation versus 34% in Germany).
- At the end of 2021, French inflation was also slightly more “tertiary” (services contributing 28% versus 25%), while it was a bit more industrial and food-related on the other side of the Rhine (contribution of 24% and 16%, respectively) than on this side (16% and 8%).
You are again "connecting dots" to justify your gut feeling. You should start with the data and then draw conclusions. Not the other way round.
Hmm.. you're not being very consistent here AC.
"Nice try, but irrelevant. This is from September 2022. When Germany was still dependent on Russian gas"
In another one of your posts you state
"Russia which was already trying to starve Germany from Russian gas"
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-declares-force-majeure-gas-supplies-europe-2022-07-18/
So in July 2022 Russia was 'starving Germany of Russian gas' but by Sept 2022 it is 'irrelevant'?
Germany was already talking about gas rationing in March 2022:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-declares-early-warning-potential-gas-supply-disruptions-2022-03-30/
And then in late September 2022 nordstream goes bang.
And just for reference the LNG terminal they built can supply 7.5 billion cubic M of gas per year and Nordstream 1 could handle 55 billion. 55 is greater than 7.5 so that still left a very large shortfall.
So just for clarity, March comes before July and July comes before September.
2/ The current economic slowdown in Europe is general. It is not limited to Germany. One of the main causes of this slowdown lies into high interest rates, raised to fight inflation. But inflation is decreasing and so are energy prices.
More fantasy economic theories from a person who didn't know the difference between capacity and load factors. Luckily nobody (I hope) is dumb enough to let you near a power grid, so nothing exploded.
But here are some actual facts for you..
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/march2024
The Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers' housing costs (CPIH) rose by 3.8% in the 12 months to March 2024, unchanged from February.
The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose by 3.2% in the 12 months to March 2024, down from 3.4% in February.
Core CPIH (excluding energy, food, alcohol and tobacco) rose by 4.7% in the 12 months to March 2024,
Core CPI (excluding energy, food, alcohol and tobacco) rose by 4.2% in the 12 months to March 2024
How to massage inflation figures by excluding inconvenient data that's still factored into things like indexed PFI and CfD contracts.. Like my favorite, fagflation*. Up to 12.1% from only 0.7% March 2023 thanks to more insane government policies. So in a few areas, the rate of inflation has slowed slightly, but obviously any inflation increases costs. And because inflation is still high, the BoE also just held rates at 5.25% creating that double-whammy of high interest costs as well as high energy costs.
*at some point, I'm going to have to try and calculate if fagflation and the supertax on tobacco is now costing the NHS even more than actually smoking does. I suspect it will be given AFAIK smoking rates are still declining, yet fagflation will be putting up their costs due to indexed PFI contracts, staff costs etc etc.
Amazing how your own quote kills your own argument. This is your exact quote from the ONS.
> "The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose by 3.2% in the 12 months to March 2024, down from 3.4% in February."
You highlight the word "rose". TBH, this is very stewpeed. As soon as a CPI is positive (it always is), the ONS will use the word "rose", that does not mean that inflation rose (second derivative) but that prices rose (first derivative).
Thanks for making exactly my point. Inflation is receding in Europe (and globally, apart from Russia, printing monopoly money to send its men to die in the trenches).
You highlight the word "rose". TBH, this is very stewpeed. As soon as a CPI is positive (it always is), the ONS will use the word "rose", that does not mean that inflation rose (second derivative) but that prices rose (first derivative).Thanks for making exactly my point.
Nope. Again you miss the point and stew yourself. Costs increase, inflation increases and we end up in a doom loop or inflationary spiral. This shouldn't be hard to understand as it's simple math and compounding. So I have my basket of goods. It cost me £100. In year 1 it inflates by 3.4% and so costs me £103.40. Year 2 it inflates by 3.2% and now costs me £106.92 so in only 2 years, my costs have inflated by nearly 7%.
Or I'm say, an aluminum smelter. Energy is a substantial part of my costs. Because a notional basket of goods has increased by 7%, so has my energy cost because energy prices are indexed. So have wage costs, and maybe other input costs. To maintain margins, or maybe just to stay solvent, I have to increase my prices. But that makes me uncompetitive, and so I go bankrupt. Again, very simple economics currently being demonstrated across Europe as energy costs continue to inflate, mostly due to insane energy policies. The UK's specifically makes the doom loop inevitable given we've allowed scammers to have 25yr, indexed contracts that inflate annually regardless in changes to actual input costs. The way the market is rigged to allow priority access for the most expensive suppliers also accelerates the problem, especially given energy is an input cost to pretty much every useful economic activity.
The only solution is for costs to go negative, ie fall, yet contracts don't permit this unless inflation becomes negative, ie deflation. But for some reason, politicians whine about reducing the cost of living, or making the UK competitive whilst also being conditioned to hate the idea of deflation and reducing costs. The BoE is also pretty powerless given it doesn't control the right levers. It can increase interest rates, but that just increases costs again.
Meanwhile, inflation rates being lower than any previous arbitary interval get spun as 'inflation rate falls'.. Which may be true, but as long as it's positive, it just means costs/prices are rising slightly slower than before.. But unless inflation is negative. costs are still rising. This is very basic economics that you can't seem to grasp. Or intentionally lie about.
Government, however, has more levers to pull. So my favorite fagflation is due to very punitive sin taxes on tobacco. 50g of rolling baccy now costs £40 and has a more significant impact on that notional basket of goods, so a single item is increasing inflation whether people (or businesses) consume tobacco or not. So one solution to reduce the appearance of inflation is to change the definition and exclude that cost.. Yet it remains in the basket used to calculate energy & PFI contract price increases, so inflates those costs, even though it's not actually an input cost. Goverment can fix this by cutting tobacco duty by say, half and the cost of running a school, hospital or wind farm drops.. Well, the last one of course doesn't, but it means energy costs won't rise quite as rapidly.
Of course it won't reduce costs, unless inflation goes negative again because previous inflation increases have been locked in for the remainder of those contracts..
And then of course there's the great white elephant in the room.. Energy policy. As long as government keeps tilting at windmills, energy costs are going to keep rising, and so will inflation. There are some positive signs they're waking up though, eg the COP announcement wrt nuclear. But it's still wasting our money subsidising expensive and inefficient occasional generators like wind.
> Costs increase, inflation increases
The "P" in CPI stands for "Price". Not "cost". Get yourself a dictionary jellied CNS.
Inflation "increased" from "3.4% in February to "3.2" in March (your very own quote from the ONS). You understanding of "increase" is like the rest of your understanding. Upside down. And yet, you come again and again to ridicule yourself - because you can never admit being wrong. You try to save face but, although prices increased, inflation decreased.
You need to choose: admit it when you're wrong and progress, or stubbornly persist in your obvious misconceptions and regress.
The "P" in CPI stands for "Price". Not "cost". Get yourself a dictionary jellied CNS.
I'm still puzzled why you still can't grasp this one, although context is one of those things you struggle with, along with the rest of reality.
So 1MWh of premium, taste the difference electricity is say, £80 if I buy virgin, FOAK nuclear. Or it's £150 if wind nudging the electrons. The product is physically the same. So normally, you'd opt for the lowest price because that's your lowest cost. Of course you have no choice due to the way the market is rigged, so you're forced to pay more because both price and cost are artificially inflated. And then because your costs have increased due to high prices, you are also forced to put up your prices.
And thus inflation is born.
No wonder you think 'renewables' are a good thing when you don't even understand basic economics or accounting..
Looks like R.F.K. Jr trying to teach economy.
Better than watching his rival trying to eat salad, and I guess you didn't see the CNN interview that touched on the US economy. But he loves 'renewables', then again, so did his patron. Remember Solyndra? Four more years! Pause!
There was no gas shortage. Our big gas storages were full in 2022 right before winter came, and then we didn't even need to tap them. The firms were indeed afraid, and they were right to be afraid, but in the end the preparation worked. For 2022-to-2023 winter, and for 2023-to-2024 winter. Two winters in a row.
Sooo.. what you're saying is global warming and a couple of mild winters can be a good thing? Also a lot of the EU's gas was being stored in Ukraine. Luckily Russia waited until after winter before blowing that up. Now it's in the process of reducing Ukraine's carbon emissions even further. I wonder if I could have sold carbon offsets based on Ukraine's reduced emissions? Wonder if BlackRock beat me to that, and explains why Ukraine's claims of shooting down Russia's missiles and drones, it's power stations keep exploding.
> Sooo.. what you're saying is global warming and a couple of mild winters can be a good thing?
I knew one would take that bite :D. Old straw man fallacy provocation never fails.
>Also a lot of the EU's gas was being stored in Ukraine.
"Was" in the sense of "pumped it out of Ukraine before Putin began his nonsense" -> correct.
> Russia waited until after winter before blowing that up.
Nordstream 2 did not even start operation when it got blown up, there was no "waiting for". Barring the question who is actually responsible - you point a finger, but you only guess-blame. Nordstream 1 was blocked due to "part delivery problems" -> i.e. Putin tried to put the blame on Siemens, a German company, for not delivering any gas. But the plot failed.
Who is paying you for spreading false information? Well, actually we don't need to ask.
Old straw man fallacy provocation never fails.
It's not a strawman, it's the truth. The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and there are benefits, eg fewer excess deaths due to cold weather.
"Was" in the sense of "pumped it out of Ukraine before Putin began his nonsense"
Err.. right. So prior to winter we were assured storage was full. Winter was mild, consumption was low, so.. where did it go? Ok, so it could have meant that there was less need to replenish EU gas storage, but the drop in demand should have been reflected in a fall in gas prices, which doesn't appear to have happened. Then again I haven't been able to find any seismic data from that event, which may suggest it wasn't very full. The EU couldn't possibly have lied about gas stocks and been praying for a mild winter now, could they?
Barring the question who is actually responsible - you point a finger, but you only guess-blame. Nordstream 1 was blocked due to "part delivery problems" -> i.e. Putin tried to put the blame on Siemens, a German company, for not delivering any gas. But the plot failed.
The responsibility is one of life's little mysteries. You'd think the EU, or even just Germany would have been interested in finding out just who was responsible for the biggest act of sabotage in the EU, if not European history. But nope. Crickets.. As for other blame, Siemens was contractually responsible for servicing the turbines, and along with Canada used the sanctions excuse to delay their return and installation.
Who is paying you for spreading false information? Well, actually we don't need to ask.
Nobody, but neo-luddites and ecofreaks are easily misinformed. I may as well ask you the same question though? Who's paying you to spread misinformation, or are you doing it pro bono because you believe the lies and propaganda spread by the 'renewables' lobby?
> Putin tried to put the blame on Siemens, a German company, for not delivering any gas. But the plot failed.
Correct. In fact, the bombing of NS2 AND NS1 was very convenient for Russia which was already trying to starve Germany from Russian gas to avoid paying penalties and invoke "force majeure". Russia had come to the conclusion that Germany was quite capable of weaning itself from its dependence on Russian gas and tried to prevent reserve storage under various pretexts before 2022-2023 winter, knowing all too well that NS1 and NS2 were becoming useless anyway. This is the real context prior to NS1 and NS2 sabotage. With this sabotage, Gasprom escaped hefty penalties for SLA breach. Follow the money!
> Sooo.. what you're saying is global warming and a couple of mild winters can be a good thing
Hey, JE, you're in progress! So, now you agree that global warming is a thing? (When it suits your trolling! ROTFL). This is deviating from the "Internet Research Agency" directives. Wait for Peskov's call and better get ready with some solid excuses.
Hey, JE, you're in progress! So, now you agree that global warming is a thing?
I've never denied that global warming is a naturally occuring event, expected post-LIA and even the IPCC agrees with me that warming can be a GoodThing(tm).
This is deviating from the "Internet Research Agency" directives.
Perhaps you could send me a copy? I'm unfamiliar with these directives..
But now they also need LESS and LESS gas because they keep increasing their renewable capacity.
Citation needed. Again the problems should be obvious. UK with 30GW installed 'capacity', average of 3GW actually generated by the wind subsidy farmers. Solar generates zero at night, and solar output drops during winter when heating demand is greatest.
So what, I wonder fills the gap between supply and demand? Answer of course has been CCGT, so as 'renewable' capacity has increased, so has the demand for gas. This was why Germany needed Nord Stream, and why US LNG exporters needed that gone. And so it came to pass, and Germany and much of the EU lost it's access to cheap gas. Our Dear Leaders were happy because they want people to stop using fossil fuels, even though we depend on them.
Source Deloitte
"The results show that natural gas is losing momentum in the German and EU energy systems on the transformation to net zero. Natural gas demand declines by more than a quarter in Germany and the EU by 2030 over 2018 (reference year in the modeling, see details in Figures 1 and 2), and 80% by 2050 (95% in Germany). The gradual phase-out of all fossil fuels, including natural gas, is compensated by the sustained deployment of renewables, increased electrification, the dawn of the clean hydrogen market and its derivatives, and efficiency measures."
You obviously haven't opened the report. No further than figure 1 and 2, you can see that the historical data starts in 2018. With 3640 TWh Europe and 900 for Germany. Next time, keep an open mind. One thing is your gut feeling, another thing is real data gathered and analyzed by recognized experts. Nobody cares about the former. Rational people go with the latter.
Rational people go with the latter.
Except neither you, nor much of the EU's energy policy could ever really be described as rational. However, as with the the EU, UK and COP28 nuclear announcements, a reality check might slowly be landing. Except in Germany where the SPD is still very reliant on their Greens, who hate the 'n' word.
But I'll take your news article and raise you a different one-
https://www.politico.eu/article/nuclear-reactors-germany-invest-gas-power-plants-energy/
Berlin has agreed to spend €16 billion to build four major natural gas plants to meet electricity demand in a major overhaul of the country's energy grid.
In a statement Monday, officials said the new strategy came "in addition to the consistent expansion of renewable energies," and was key to ensuring steady power supplies "even in times where there is little sun and wind."
With Pirate Sholz getting Halfbaked.. I mean Habeck to greenwash the announcement by suggesting the new gas power stations could run on 'green' hydrogen. Except they almost certainly never will given the cost of producing H2 vs CH4.. Especially when a big chunk of that cost will be the energy. And Germany's also helping introduce a new word*-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute
In the renewable energy sector, a dunkelflaute, lit. 'dark doldrums' or 'dark wind lull', plural dunkelflauten is a period of time in which little or no energy can be generated with wind and solar power, because there is neither wind nor sunlight. In meteorology, this is known as anticyclonic gloom.
Which is precisely why Germany is now building those gas power stations. It's also why the dishonest spinners of wind such as yourself prefer to confuse energy with power and throw out impressively big numbers like '3640 TWh'. That, of course glosses over what happens during those dunkelflauten, 'renewables' deliver close to 0TWh and... something needs to keep the lights on. 'Renewables' simply cannot do this, with the exception of perhaps hydro. But that has it's own issues with flow rates, dam capacities, tide times and of course 'climate change'. As you pointed out, the IPCC says there are going to be water shortages.. aren't there? Plus dams have already created disasters given conflicting demands to store water & flog electricity leading to overtopping, or sometimes just failing.
*although my favorite recently discovered German word is still 'morgenmuffel'.
You forgot to quote the interesting part:
"because they will be capable of conversion to use clean-burning hydrogen gas produced from renewable sources"
But since the "H"-word looks like blasphemy to you, I'm not surprised. Green H2 is perfect for long term energy storage. Somehow I trust German engineers more than old lunatics parroting Russian propaganda.
You forgot to quote the interesting part:
Nope, I covered that when I said..
I mean Habeck to greenwash the announcement by suggesting the new gas power stations could run on 'green' hydrogen. Except they almost certainly never will given the cost of producing H2 vs CH4.
And you're still a boring, racist troll..
> and the last COP saw an increase in promoting more viable low/zero carbon generation like nuclear.
Nuclear is unlikely to make any difference. It's the most expensive power generation technique -so, definitely out of reach of developing countries. Fastest deployment lead time is minimum 10 years (construction only). And it is vulnerable to... climate change, like all other steam-turbine based technology (source: IPCC).
Nuclear is unlikely to make any difference. It's the most expensive power generation technique -so, definitely out of reach of developing countries. Fastest deployment lead time is minimum 10 years (construction only). And it is vulnerable to... climate change, like all other steam-turbine based technology (source: IPCC).
I'd be impressed by the way you've managed to cram so much misinformation into only two lines, but sadly I know you too well.
Nuclear isn't the most expensive, offshore wind is. Especially the new scam, floating offshore windmills. Developing countries you say?
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_89153/cop28-recognises-the-critical-role-of-nuclear-energy-for-reducing-the-effects-of-climate-change
COP28 also saw 22 world leaders sign a declaration to make efforts to triple nuclear energy by 2050. The declaration, announced by President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron at a ceremony on 2 December 2023, referenced 2022 NEA analysis which found that tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050 would significantly help countries reach their net zero carbon emission targets while creating and maintaining energy security.
“If you want to reconcile jobs creation, strategic autonomy and sovereignty and sovereignty, and low carbon emissions, there is nothing more sustainable and reliable than nuclear energy,” said Emmanuel Macron during his address at the Tripling Nuclear Energy by 2050 ceremony.
and because you'll probably argue the first link is 'industry lobbying', here's a list of the countries that signed up-
https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key
Endorsing countries include the United States, Armenia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Jamaica, Japan, Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom.
So some countries committing to triple their nuclear energy are starting from zero, but those countries have also recognised the ruinous costs of 'renewables'. As for 10yrs, you're closer to the truth. But China managed to squeeze two EPRs into operation in it's Taishan plant in just under, and those were FOAK designs. And of course the whole point of SMRs is they can be installed and operational in 3-5yrs, hence the announcements at COP28 promoting nuclear across the world, and even EU and UK.
And finally, you may not have noticed but the UK is an island surrounded by cooling water, so nuclear is far less vulnerable to climate change than on/off-shore windmills, especially floating and solar. Need me to link the images of solar farms destroyed by hail storms or just high winds again?
You forgot floating solar. Someone failed to take into account the lack of friction and the sail area of the panels.
Hah, I hadn't seen that one, although the effects of wind on solar have been long known. Also one of the reasons why house insurance has been increasing, ie the combined risk of fires from DC arcing and wind ripping panels, and sometimes roofs off.
Also liked the following story about new recycling rules so all recyclables go into a single bin.. Except it's come just after my council's introduced it's new 3-5 wheelie bin system. We have red for card & paper, blue for metal, glass and plastic. I wonder if they can err... recycle the lids so we end up with 1 black and 1 purple bin for all the recyclables? Somehow, I doubt it and it'll be yet more money wasted. Hopefully less than the £25bn that's been spaffed on 'smart' meters though.
> Also one of the reasons why house insurance has been increasing, ie the combined risk of fires from DC arcing and wind ripping panels, and sometimes roofs off.
Watching you opening bills coming out the door mail slot must be something. Poor little JE's hard-earned savings vanishing due to "neo-luddites" cult of "windmills".
Ironic how the guy calling others "neo-luddites" puts so much energy into fighting modern renewables, modern[a] vaccines, modern smart meters, modern climate science, and a few other things...
But that's a pattern. Somehow, there is a cluster of individuals flocking across all these apparently unrelated dimensions.
Watching you opening bills coming out the door mail slot must be something.
I have servants to do that for me. But I think you're still living in pre-industrial times. When was the last time you recieved a paper bill?
Ironic how the guy calling others "neo-luddites" puts so much energy into fighting modern renewables, modern[a] vaccines, modern smart meters, modern climate science,
They're better connected than the 'teleconnected' trees you rely on for measuring temperatures. But modern climate dogma is still largely based on Arrhenius's from 1896, it's just that supercomputers now allow is to disprove the assumed relationship between CO2 and temperature faster than ever before. This chap-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria
provided the first documented example of 'modern renewables' almost 2,000 years ago. We've wasted around £25bn on 'modern' 'smart' meters, and large numbers now need to be replaced because they run on non-modern 2G. And then there are the fault rates (around 20% need replacing ISTR and billing errors. But given Crapita runs a large chunk of this, that should suprise nobody. So those 3 are all better teleconnected that trees are. Oh and vaccines. You missed the news from AstraZeneca?
Yeah, Macron hunting German money, again, to fund his crazy dreams of 6 more Flamanville-3/Olkiluoto-3/Hinkley-Point-C disasters. Another political guy following some party ideology and overlooking science based facts and advice. Yet every summer, half of the French nuclear power stations, the "open" ones cooled by river water, have to be stopped to avoid boiling the fish. And this is just 2023. Imagine the situation in 2050 when all these new reactors eventually come online (if ever).
"but China was by far the leader, having created 60 percent and 51 percent of new sources of wind and solar respectively."
What's that even mean? How do they define the measure of new sources, per unit, per site or power produce? Lets take new sources of wind, is it a) China produced 60% of new wind turbines, b) China built 60% of new wind farms, or c) 60% of the power from new wind sources is produced by China.
Unless it is c) then the 60% figure is pretty meaningless. Because a) and b) are not necessarily comparing like for like such as if average power generation capacity per turbine or farm was only 50% of that produce/built by the rest of the world*.
Even if it is c) it's not really useful when we don't how much of power generation from wind came from new sources, the same applies to solar. If values are only 1% then they are more than canceled out by China's increased usage, which gleaning from the figures in the article indicate China was responsible for the 2.2% rise in world power consumption and then some.
* I am not saying that is true, its just an example of how a) or b) would not necessarily be comparing like for like.
"...What's that even mean?..."
No idea, but I note with interest that it does *not* mention that China mined rather more than four and a half thousand million tonnes of coal last year:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-2023-coal-output-hits-record-high-2024-01-17/
and that it does *not* mention that in 2023, China was responsible for 95% of the world's new coal-fired generating capacity:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/
so now I'm driven to wonder how much the Chinese paid the author of this article.
@sitta_europea
"so now I'm driven to wonder how much the Chinese paid the author of this article."
I dont know if they would need to. The modern religion of Gaia worship has caused desperate grasping to call black as white and fantasy over reality. Prices rise as we are told energy is cheaper (no longer claiming free). The necessity of stable cheap energy is promised with a future technology we dont have nor seems any closer to reality. What could be seen as good efforts to develop new technology has been deployed too soon with little to no regard for its inability to provide what we need.
I wonder if we are in the new dark ages.
I wonder if we are in the new dark ages.
I think we're certainly heading in that direction. So I've been looking at houses. Not in the casing sense, I hasten to add. But something that struck me is that baths have become a thing of the past. Much as they used to be where they only seemed to be installed in expensive properties. And you have to be reasonably wealthy to afford the water and heat it anyway. This seems to be driven by a combinaton of cost, and social conditioning. So baths are 'wasteful', and people shouldn't be soaking in their own juices. This makes me wonder what people are doing to get themselves so dirty, and the Romans showed us how to bath properly, ie get clean, then relax in a nice hot bath. Of course getting clean is also getting harder given we've mandated flow restrictors in showers, and our dear leaders have been telling us we should only shower for a minute.
Of course if you're wealthy, you can still get a decent power shower.
We haven't regressed back to the point of communal bath houses for the peasents, yet. But I have heard people saying they shower at the gym or sometimes even at work to save money. Then there's heating and lighting. The wealthy were the first to be able to afford both gas and electricty. Now, we're back to those dark days but without the ability to forage for coal or wood to burn. And then of course there's keeping the lumpen proletariat off the roads. Personal transport was previously the preserve of the wealthy, and it will be again. If you can't afford an EV or have the space to recharge it, it's Shank's pony for you, peasent..
Own nothing, and be happy! Or we'll fine you and reduce your social credit score. Welcome to Dark Ages 2.0
I find it curious that the discussion of renewable energy generation doesn't seem to include one blazingly obvious aspect: The world, and in particular the rich, highly industrialized countries, are going to HAVE to become much more economical in our use of energy in general, and electricity in particular. We simply cannot endlessly consume ever-increasing amounts of power and expect to survive. Nor can we demand that developing nations economize where we do not; that's a recipe for failure, massive unrest, and mass migration.
The US in particular (and probably China, but I'm less sure of that) could do much better in energy efficiency. When I've been in Europe, folks there seem to be much more conscientious about energy use in general, as illustrated by simple things like not lighting unused spaces. I've seen more motion-sensor lights there than I ever saw in the US.
Human civilization will not survive climate change without getting serious about energy use, and this is going to mean making do with less, especially for rich and powerful nations. That is an uncomfortable truth as well as a very hard thing to sell politically, but it IS a truth. Fortunately, there are signs that people are becoming aware of that fact and are willing to make necessary sacrifices, IF they see that process as equitable and fair.
< "Human civilization will not survive climate change without getting serious about energy use..."
If this were true, we would be screwed, as it would be too late by the time enough people believed this truth to collectively take the necessary actions. The trend of global per capita energy use increasing will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Luckily, your statement is not true at all. Nuclear energy exists right now and much more can and should be deployed ASAP. Also, new technologies will likely increase the efficiency of harvesting solar, wind and hydro. New, as of yet untapped energy sources will also likely be discovered. This is not our extinction event.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
