‘Green’ Energy Backslide : Germany Bulldozes Wind Farm for Coal Mine Expansion

“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms.
That’s the only reason to build them.
They don’t make sense without the tax credit.

–– Warren Buffett

“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work;
we need a fundamentally different approach.”

–– Top Google engineers

The ultimate irony of ironies?

After spending upwards of half a trillion euros of taxpayers money on useless UNreliables (windmills and mirrors), ‘green’ Germany is now resorting to bulldozing an Energiewende wind ‘farm’ in order to expand a ‘dirty’ brown (lignite) coal mine to keep the lights on.

What a hot mess this ‘green’ ideology has now become.

The literal cracks visible for all to see…

via RenewEconomy

German energy company RWE has begun dismantling a small wind farm to make way for the expansion of an adjacent lignite coal mine, a move the company willingly acknowledges as “paradoxical”.

RWE has already dismantled one of the wind turbines at the Keyenberg wind park in the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The remaining seven turbines are expected to be dismantled throughout next year, as RWE expands its operations at its Garzweiler coal mine.

“We realize this comes across as paradoxical,” RWE spokesperson Guido Steffen said in a statement. “But that is as matters stand.”

The driving factor behind the decision is the fear of energy shortages driven by the Russia invasion of Ukraine, and the lack of imported fossil gas from Russia.

RWE decided in late-September to reactivate three coal-fired power plants that were previously on standby. The three plants, each with a capacity of 300MW, would resume operations “to strengthening the security of supply in Germany during the energy crisis and to saving natural gas in electricity generation.”

The full mea culpa, here.

•••

UNreliables related :


‘Green Energy’ Madness : $3.8 Trillion Spent on UNreliables to Reduce Global Fossil Fuel Consumption by One Percent

“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work;
we need a fundamentally different approach.”

– Top Google engineers

Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels
in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole
is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

– James Hansen
(Former NASA-climate chief)

It is so easy to be wrong
—and to persist in being wrong—
when the costs of being wrong are paid by others.

– Thomas Sowell

If there was ever a better (scientific) advertisement for the uselessness of UNreliables (wind and solar) then it is this.

According to economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs, over the past decade, nearly four-thousand-billion-dollars of taxpayer money has been spent on windmills and mirrors to reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by 1 percent from 82 to 81 percent of overall global energy consumption.

How many more pristine landscapes, wildlife, and taxpayer bank accounts need to be decimated to realise the fanciful “NetZero2050” target, or even a 10% “transition” toward industrial wind and solar?

The mind boggles.

CNBC Squawk Box:

TRANSCRIPT

Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division):

“Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82.” … The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress.”

Logical commentary from CBDAKOTA:

It is hard to get your head around the fact that $3.8 trillion has been spent with so little results.  A lot of that money has been going to Crony Capitalists through subsidies and tax forgiveness.

That they have not made any progress replacing fossil fuels is understandable and that it is unlikely that wind and solar ever will.  Their lack of dispatchability will forever prevent wind and solar from being the main source of power.  Long term, nuclear power will have to be the main source of power with wind and solar playing second fiddle.

$3.8 Trillion spent on renewables has not made a precipitable change in fossil fuels use | Climate Change Sanity

Nuclear is The Future of Mankind : Small Modular Reactors Advance in the Nuclear World

An HTMR-100 cannot melt down. If the worst possible event were to occur, the reactor will just shut itself down. If all cooling stops, the reactor will heat up a bit for 24 hours and then over the next 4 to 5 days will just cool down with no incident. That is ‘walk away safe’.

Nuclear power is the future of mankind. The world’s electricity insecurity experienced since 2020 has shown the way forward with great clarity.

Furthermore, nuclear is the only known efficient, reliable, safe, continuous and truly ‘green’ energy technology:

  • Zero CO2 emissions (if you believe that invisible, odourless trace gas, and plant food CO₂ is destroying the planet).
  • Zero particulate (smog) pollution.
  • The least land-intensive energy technology for both plant exposure and the mining required for key resource uranium.
  • ~60 year lifespan compared with an average lifespan of 15-25 years for windmills and mirrors.

A win, win for both the environment and for humanity.

There’s no such thing as a free green lunch

Wind farm cuts off eagle’s wing – Fieldsports News, 5 May 2021 – Fieldsports Channel

•••

See also :

Green-Energy-Fail related :

Climate Crisis’ related :


UK fracking moratorium reinstated

Another example of why Truss had to go.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Fracking: note the deep shaft
The people doing the banning conveniently forget they can’t enough gas at the moment, including from the US obtained by the method they profess not to like. But importing fracked gas is no problem, essential even.
– – –
The ban on fracking in England will be reinstated, new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said.

It reverses a decision by his predecessor Liz Truss, says BBC News.

Fracking was first halted in England in 2019, amid opposition from green groups and concerns about earth tremors.

What is fracking?

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique for recovering gas and oil from shale rock.

It involves drilling into the earth and directing a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals at a rock layer, to release the gas inside.

Wells can be drilled vertically or horizontally in order to release the gas.
. . .

View original post 167 more words


Back To Black: Coal demand to return to its peak this year 

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station (1966–2016)
[image credit: Lynne Kirton / Wikipedia]
The estimated global figure is 8 billion tonnes. Under UK ‘net zero’ climate policy, the coal option will soon disappear completely. Then what, when the electricity supply going gets tough? Electricity demand is rising, not falling, and global coal use is expected to do the same.
– – –
As countries are juggling between skyrocketing energy prices and reduced gas flows, it seems that many of them could turn to coal to secure power to keep the lights on in winter, says Energy Live News.

The latest report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) paints a grim picture of the current situation the international energy systems find themselves in.

The IEA’s Coal Market Update report forecasts that global coal demand will return to its record highs this year.

The agency estimates that global coal consumption will rise by…

View original post 60 more words


Net Zero Crisis : ‘No one ever won an election by promising to make voters colder, poorer and hungrier’

“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work;
we need a fundamentally different approach.”

– Top Google engineers

Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels
in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole
is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

– James Hansen
(Former NASA-climate chief)

Quality analysis from a quality journalist of the traditional Left, Chris Uhlmann.

Uhlmann’s well considered article ends here for mine …

“Germany stands as a stark testimony. It has spent more than €500 billion ($743 billion) transitioning its electricity system, boosting wind and solar to more than 45 per cent of generation since 2000. But it had to keep 89 per cent of its fossil-fired capacity to deal with the problems caused by calm, dark days. It now boasts Europe’s most expensive retail power and is strategically exposed because the country can’t function without imported gas.”

via: Sydney Morning Herald

OPINION

Make no mistake, energy transition will be difficult and costly

Chris Uhlmann
Chris Uhlmann

Nine News Political Editor

June 8, 2022 — 5.00am

Here’s an inconvenient truth: the transition to net-zero emissions will be hard and expensive.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed how deeply embedded fossil fuel is in the world economy and how wrenching rapid change can be. Cutting off the world’s largest gas exporter, the second biggest exporter of crude oil and the third largest coal exporter is the shot heard around the world because when you make essential goods rarethe price rises.

Here the fallout is a surge in wholesale power prices, as the highest cost of generation sets the dispatch price in the National Electricity Market and our gas and black coal prices are linked to international benchmarks. Putting more renewable energy on the grid will not guarantee lower prices because all the talk about how cheap it is rests on an average, or “levelised”, cost of generation, not the actual cost of sustaining a power source that cannot deliver continuous energy unsupported.

As J.P. Morgan’s annual energy paper points out, those costs include transmissionback-up thermal power and, eventually, utility-scale storage. Whatever fills the intermittent power void won’t be cheap – a study commissioned by Industry Super Australia calculated the cost of battery storage for Australia at $6.5 trillion. To that add the rising cost of ancillary servicesneeded to keep the retooled electricity system secure and reliable, a service that was once a byproduct of electricity generation in old-world power stations.

Germany is expanding its national power grid as a necessary infrastructure measure to accommodate new wind and solar electricity parks.
Germany is expanding its national power grid as a necessary infrastructure measure to accommodate new wind and solar electricity parks. CREDIT:GETTY

Germany stands as a stark testimony. It has spent more than €500 billion ($743 billion) transitioning its electricity system, boosting wind and solar to more than 45 per cent of generation since 2000. But it had to keep 89 per cent of its fossil-fired capacity to deal with the problems caused by calm, dark days. It now boasts Europe’s most expensive retail power and is strategically exposed because the country can’t function without imported gas.

Europe has at least acknowledged the difficulties involved in decarbonising electricity by designating gas and nuclear energy as “green” investmentsThe EU’s commissioner for financial services, Mairead McGuinness, says this is because, “we firmly believe that this recognises the need for these energy sources in transition”.

If the energy transition is to succeed here, the road runs through more gas and an end to state moratoriums on exploration and development. This recognition is beyond the wit of some state and territory governments as, once again, extremists rule the debate, putting Australia on the road to a self-imposed disaster that will hit the poorest hardest. It’s the same mindset that allows green activists to demand rapid decarbonisation while reserving the right to oppose building wind farms and ban nuclear energy.

And decarbonising electricity generation is the tip of the iceberg because it represents only 19 per cent of the world’s final global energy consumption. As one of the world’s leading energy experts, Professor Vaclav Smil, details in How the World Really Works, “the decarbonisation of more than 80 per cent of final energy users … will be even more challenging”.

Electricity generation represents only 19 per cent of the world’s final global energy consumption.
Electricity generation represents only 19 per cent of the world’s final global energy consumption.CREDIT:BLOOMBERG

“We have no readily deployable commercial-scale alternatives for energising the production of the four pillars of modern civilisation solely by electricity,” Smil writes.“This means that even with an abundant and reliable renewable electricity supply, we would still have to develop new large-scale processes to produce steelammoniacement and plastics.”

One of the pillars, ammonia, is the foundation for industrial fertilisers on which half of the world’s agriculture depends. The chemical process that creates it relies on natural gas, coal or oil. When the fuel used by the farm machinery and the trucks that transport food to the supermarket is added to the mix, Smil calculates the embedded energy in a 250 gram baguette at two tablespoons of diesel. A 125 gram Spanish tomato bought in a Scandinavian market is five tablespoons.

Last year Sri Lanka conducted a real-world experiment in rapidly changing this equation by banning chemical fertilisers in favour of organic farming. There followed the decimation of tea and rice crops, food shortagessoaring prices,riotsthe resignation of the prime minister, a presidential apology and the abandonment of the fertiliser ban.

Fossil fuel is embedded in the modern world. In the 20 years Germany has been transitioning its electricity system, the share of fossil fuel in the country’s primary energy supply has only declined from 84 per cent to 78 per cent. TheInternational Energy Agency’s review of the world’s stated policies shows fossil fuel demand will fall from 80 per cent in 2019 to 72 per cent by 2040.

The IEA notes that getting the world on track for net-zero emissions by 2050requires transition-related investment to rise to around $US4 trillion a year by 2030, “but only a minority of these investments immediately deliver zero emissions energy or energy services”.

The energy transition is inevitable, but it will be a lot harder than politicians, activists, service sector chief executives and billionaire energy hobbyists would have you believe. In trying to solve the current crisis, the political class should keep one thing in mind, no one ever won an election by promising to make voters colder, poorer and hungrier.

Chris Uhlmann: Make no mistake, energy transition will be difficult and costly | SMH

•••

Related :


Small Modular Reactors Advance In The Nuclear World

“An HTMR-100 cannot melt down. If the worst possible event were to occur, the reactor will just shut itself down. If all cooling stops, the reactor will heat up a bit for 24 hours and then over the next 4 to 5 days will just cool down with no incident. That is ‘walk away safe’.”

“Nuclear power is the future of mankind. The world’s electricity insecurity experienced since 2020 has shown the way forward with great clarity.”

Hear, hear.

Furthermore, nuclear is the only known efficient, reliable, continuous and truly ‘green’ energy technology:

• Zero CO2 emissions, if you believe that invisible trace gas and plant food CO2 is destroying the planet.

• Zero particulate (smog) pollution.

• The least land-intensive energy technology for both plant exposure and the mining required for key resource uranium.

• ~60 year lifespan.

A win, win for both the environment and for humanity.

PA Pundits - International

By Dr. Kelvin Kemm ~

The first two decades of the 21st Century will go down in history as a time of amazing world confusion about energy supplies, particularly electricity.

This is all due to electricity planning being done too much at a political policy level, and not by engineers and scientists. This in turn was linked to an inordinate fear of supposed man-induced climate change linked to fossil fuels, primarily driven by extreme green activist groups. Sadly, much scientific logic was trampled under the feet of street demonstrators, clamoring for Mother Nature’s natural energy: wind and solar.

The result has been soaring electricity prices in many countries, and power shortages leading to blackouts, resulting in major economic and social upheaval.

There has also been significant interference from European countries in the affairs of African and other countries around the world, insisting that developing countries adapt their energy usage…

View original post 1,732 more words


China And Russia Rejoice At America’s Quest To Go Green

“While America’s unabated movement toward electricity from breezes and sunshine have transferred the countries’ fossil fuel demands onto foreign countries, the data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that the growing demands of societies for petroleum-based liquid fuels will remain strong — and in fact grow — through at least 2050 as America, like much of the European Union, places more reliance on hostile foreign powers for its energy security.”

Not only is the climate-obsessed West suffering from a dangerous deficit of cheap, reliable energy, but also a deficit in reason, common sense, logic, and debate.

Putin has been emboldened to invade Ukraine, not because he’s a “murderer and a war criminal” but because the indolent and ideological West has become so weakened in their obsession with ridding the world of invisible, odourless trace gas and plant food, Carbon Dioxide.

Why attack Carbon dioxide? Because it’s the byproduct of ~80% of the world’s cheap, reliable energy supply — fossil fuels/thermal energy.

Control CO2 and you control the world and the lives and livelihoods of every single person on the planet.

This *is* the ClimateChange™️ agenda.

This is what it’s always been about — power and control over you.

PA Pundits - International

By Ronald Stein ~

China and Russia are great War historians of WWI and WWII, and know that the countries that controls the minerals, crude oil, and natural gas, controls the world! Biden has done an excellent job of relinquishing “CONTROL” for the “green” materials to China, and relinquishing “CONTROL” of the crude oil to OPEC and Russia! God help America!

How is it possible that America has allowed itself to become so dependent on authoritarian countries like China, Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War? The weaponization of energy by China and Russia have been extensively discussed in the three books co-authored by Ronald Stein and Todd Royal, including the 2022 Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy ExploitationsHelping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy.

America is in a fast pursuit toward…

View original post 878 more words


Shellenberger : The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin

In a Greenpeace action, a CO-2 sign stands in front of the Brandenburg Gate with flames coming out of it. (Jörg Carstensen via Getty Images)

We know only too well that war comes not when
the forces of freedom are strong,
but when they are weak.
It is then that tyrants are tempted.

– Ronald Reagan
Republican National Convention, July 17 1980

A superb article by @ShellenbergerMD on the root causes of Western weakness in the face of Russian aggression.

Michael Shellenberger

While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production.

How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?

There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.

Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe. 

Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.

The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.

That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal. 

The math is simple. A child could do it.

The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas. 

The question is why. 

How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War? 

Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need“degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)

John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”

But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply. 

As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.

While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy

While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking. 

The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent. 

For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”

The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.

Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons. 

In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine. 

Take Germany.

Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.

At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)

By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to nextdoor France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)

Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere, and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.

The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s, and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.

Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighboring countries or inviting the wrath of Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.

Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany, and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.

This is why Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration’’s first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, for now.) 

Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specifically exempted energy productsso Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.

We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.

The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs.

Second, we need concerted action led by Biden, Congress, and their Canadian counterparts to significantly expand oil and natural gas output from North America to ensure the energy security of our allies in Europe and Asia. North America is more energy-rich than anyone dreamed. Yes, it will be more expensive than Russian gas sent by pipeline. But it would mean Europe could address Putin’s war on Ukraine, rather than financing it.

Exporting gas by ship requires special terminals at ports to liquify (by cooling) natural gas; environmentalists oppose these terminals because of their ideological objection to any combustible fuel. So it’s a good sign that Chancellor Sholz announced plans on Sunday to build two of these terminals to receive North American gas, along with announcing major new military spending to counter Russia.

Third, the U.S. must stop shutting down nuclear plants and start building them. Every country should invest in next-generation nuclear fuel technology while recognizing that the current generation of light-water reactors are our best tool for creating energy at home, with no emissions, right now. What you’ve heard about waste is mostly pseudoscience. Storing used fuel rods is a trivial problem, already solved around the world by keeping them in steel and concrete cans. The more nuclear power we generate, the less oil and gas we have to burn. And the less the West will have to buy from Russia.

Putin’s relentless focus on energy reality has left him in a stronger position than he should ever have been allowed to find himself. It’s not too late for the rest of the West to save the world from tyrannical regimes that have been empowered by our own energy superstitions.

Michael Shellenberger

Best-selling author of “San Fransicko” (HarperCollins, 2021) “Apocalypse Never” (HarperCollins 2020) :: Time Magazine “Hero of Environment” :: Green Book Award winner :: Founder and President of Environmental Progress

The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin | Bari Weiss (Substack)

•••

Shellenberger related :


CLIMATE : New Discoveries That Change ‘Settled Science’ Based Climate and Energy Perspectives

“The polar bear as an icon for climate change is dead
because the distorted predictions made by
polar bear specialists were wrong.”

“This is a lesson for researchers in other areas
who have failed to stop the invasion of 
politics into their science.”

– Dr Susan Crockford

Mr. Art Krugler, a leading geothermal engineer and author, along with Vijay Jayaraj, a Climate Researcher who graduated from the University of East Anglia, proposes an interesting perspective into the current phase of the climatic system based around uranium ore deposits.

The authors note, “The recent cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration.”

While society is forced to only accept the arbitrary value of trace gas, and plant food carbon dioxide as the “climate control knob”, such new perspectives on the complex machinations of our ‘global’ atmosphere, perhaps, heighten the need to stop and pause, in the better interests of science, nature, and the ‘sustainability’ of the human existence.

For “shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas-fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity. Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe. At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables”.

Read on …

New Discoveries that Change “Settled Science” based Climate and Energy Perspectives 

By Art Krugler with Vijay Jayaraj 

Polar bears had been at the center of the debate surrounding climate change. In my book “POLAR BEARS in the HOT TUB”, I addressed the claims about how the global temperature change was impacting Polar Bears and what caused these changes in temperature. 

I explained that the rate at which CO2 was increasing depended on the hydrogen content of fossil fuels and further that there was no connection between CO2 concentration and temperature rise or energy use. 

In this, the book’s sequel, I use five data sets to identify the energy source behind the increase in global temperatures since 1980 and the reason for subsequent cooling in recent years. 

The sequel is based on five key data sets: 

1. A NOAA global temperature map (2013) showing warm and cool areas on the planet. 

2. A NOAA global temperature map (2017) identifying alarming temperature “Hot Spots” at geographical locations, especially within the Arctic Circle. 

3. A 2020 global temperature map showing the absence of most of those hot spots, especially Arctic areas. 

4. The data, discovered by Krugler in 2020, which shows that all of the global hot spots were located above deposits of uranium ore. 

5. Historical data that shows low sun spot activity is correlated with mini-ice-ages and major sun spot activity correlates with warming global periods, thus connecting the uranium deposit activity to sunspot activity. 

These five new perspectives must alter Global Energy Reports and Policies that have been against the use of fossil fuel.

Here is why.

Disappearance of Existing Hotspots: CO2 Not the Primary Driver of Temperatures 

The first data in the book reaffirms one of the most common faults that many climate scientists have been using: CO2 cannot be the primary driver of global average temperatures. 

Global temperature maps (for 2016 and 2020) are available from NOAA showing hot areas and colder areas.

NOAA Global Temperature Map – for year 2017

Note the absence of large red [hot] areas, and the many blue [colder] areas appearing in the latest [2020] map.

This cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration. 

The irrefragable connection between Uranium Ore and Thermal Hot spots demonstrates that Uranium ore deposits are the Primary Driver of Global Warming. 

The fifth set of data reveals groundbreaking insights into the totally ignored correlation between Uranium ore deposits and thermal hot spots in regions across the globe. A table showing the location and the amount of the top 10 of uranium ore deposits worldwide is given below. 

URANIUM ORE DEPOSITS – TOP 10 as on 12/20/2020
RANKCOUNTRY2015 Reserves  in TonnesPercent of Total Reserves
1 Australia178080024.0
2 Kazakhstan94160012.7
3 Canada7036009.5
4 Namibia4630006.2
5 South Africa4493006.1
6 Niger4113005.5
7 Russia3952005.3
8 Brazil2768003.7
9 China2725003.7
10 Greenland2280003.1

Surprisingly, each of the uranium ore deposits is located beneath a “hot spot”. The data suggests that the warming since 1980 must have been caused by the nuclear reactions in the uranium ore deposits, rather than the current popular theory that blames the Greenhouse Gas blankets. 

It is also very important to note that hotspots have disappeared or cooled down considerably during the last 5 years. If these hot spots continue to cool in the future, then the world temperatures will not increase. Instead we would witness a drop-in temperature. 

However, there is another critical correlation that determines the future of global average temperature: Sunspots. 

Sunspot Activity and Global Temperature 

Scientific data prove that the past two mini ice ages correlated with the absence of sunspots and the warmer periods in recent millennia correlated with an increase in sunspot activity.

Average yearly sunspot numbers –

Graph of average yearly sunspot numbers showing the 11-year solar cycle. Image Credit and Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 

Image Source: https://abruptearthchanges.com/2019/06/14/the-next-grand-solar-minimum-has-very-likely-begun-nasa-predicts-lowest-solar-cycle-in-200-years/ 

The increase in sunspot activity also correlated with the global warming that began in the 1980s. Prior to the 1980s, there was no major increase in temperatures despite 200 years of Industrialization and high atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Sunspots are now at very low levels and cooling is happening, as observed from the global temperature maps above. 

According to commentators, the next Cycle 25 is likely to be slightly smaller than Cycle 24 and much lower than the maximum annual sunspot number of 250). 

Implications for Energy Policy 

Given the non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, economies can now shift towards an energy policy that is more fossil friendly as other sources are developed.

Shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity.  Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe.  At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables. 

This requires operating gas turbines to negate the disruptions in renewable generation. It also requires maintaining the supply chain of natural gas from gas well, through gas purification to remove sulphur, to compressors, to pipelines and to gas storage. 

Moreover, contrary to popular belief, this policy will continue to drive CO2 levels higher and even worse, increase the cost of power and everything else in society. All efforts to reduce CO2 levels to save our planet are ineffective, costly and counterproductive. 

Keeping hydrocarbons in the ground or raising the cost of hydrocarbons will have serious consequences. For example, there is no substitute source (apart form Hydrocarbons) for asphalt for roads, roofs, polyester for clothes, carpets, polyester fiber for tire sidewalls, graphite fiber for lightweight electric cars or for the more than 5000 other products that we depend on an everyday basis. All these are derived from hydrocarbons. 

Coal may not be KING but it can be a SAVIOR with no negative factors. Coal, with acid gases removed from the stack gas, provides reliable power from local fuel and also CO2 at ground level for increased production of food from land and sea.

Developing economies, and even some developed economies, will experience immediate and adverse consequences if they shift away from hydrocarbons. The most logical analysis reveals that CO2 and greenhouse gases are not the primary drivers of global temperatures. 

With the advent of these new findings on Uranium ore’s correlation with temperature hotspots, it is time policy makers and decision-making institutions pay attention to the simplicity of the climate system and stop restricting themselves to the narrow theory of fossil fuel driven global warming. 

About the Author: Mr. Art Krugler is a leading geothermal engineer who has directed design and construction work on binary and flash steam plants in California, Nevada, Utah and Texas, and has contributed to many of the plants in the United States & internationally. He is responsible for 105 MW of co-generation power in Southern California and is a licensed chemical and mechanical engineer in five states.His book Polar Bears in the Hot Tub exposed the lies about the global warming movement and the state of climate reality. This article was co-authored with the help of Vijay Jayaraj, an environmental researcher. 

More from Vijay :

Related :


Vijay Jayaraj : India Crafts Fossil Pathway To Secure Its Future

“In some countries ’emissions’ obsessed leaders stumble around looking for non-existent net-zero pathways to their imaginary climate heaven. But India’s recent approach towards fossil utilization can be summed up in three words: ‘No Holds Barred’, says the author.”

INDIA also understands the meaning of four other words pertinent to wind/solar utilisation: “Go woke, go broke.”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Credit: Coal India Limited
In some countries ’emissions’ obsessed leaders stumble around looking for non-existent net-zero pathways to their imaginary climate heaven. But India’s recent approach towards fossil utilization can be summed up in three words: “No Holds Barred”, says the author.
– – –
India is on the way to becoming a fossil fuel-based energy powerhouse of the 21st century, says Vijay Jayaraj @ The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

India’s developmental goals for the future are quite ambitious. They ought to be: From tackling the surging poverty rates to providing affordable utilities, the country faces a steep challenge.

The key to achieving any of its developmental goals is a strong energy sector.

India is the third largest energy consuming nation and is following the fossil fuel pathway (like the West did during the 20th century) to achieve energy independence in the near future.

View original post 206 more words