Overblown outlook III...

---

I noticed that it has been nearly 7 years since OOI and OOII but the problems haven't changed much: wind power is a little better off in the percentage of the world’s energy that it provides, i.e. to the nearest whole number, it isn't zero any more. However, even ex environmental 'zealots' (Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine 'Hero of the Environment' no less) understand "Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet" [LINK to the article on Quillette].



"In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have to spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural." My emphasis; a veritable environmental disaster...



Earlier this year I happened across the image above; what interested me most was the massive imbalance in the European Union's nuclear power plants: France accounts for
45% of all of the EU's operational reactors.
The image isn't 100% up-to-date but things haven't changed much.



The France/Germany nuclear thing had grasped Michael's attention:

"I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too."

The whole article is a very interesting and balanced read, well worth the time...and the links he provides too.

Overblown outlook III...

---

I noticed that it has been nearly 7 years since OOI and OOII but the problems haven't changed much: wind power is a little better off in the percentage of the world’s energy that it provides, i.e. to the nearest whole number, it isn't zero any more. However, even ex environmental 'zealots' (Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine 'Hero of the Environment' no less) understand "Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet" [LINK to the article on Quillette].

"In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have to spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural." My emphasis; a veritable environmental disaster...

Earlier this year I happened across the image above; what interested me most was the massive imbalance in the European Union's nuclear power plants: France accounts for 45% of all of the EU's operational reactors. The image isn't 100% up-to-date but things haven't changed much.

The France/Germany nuclear thing had grasped Michael's attention:

"I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France. Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost. Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power. Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too."

The whole article is a very interesting and balanced read, well worth the time...and the links he provides too.

Obama's obambulation...

---

Obama seems to be thrashing about with an innate anti-Midas touch desperately trying to find something to enable him to be remembered for something good; he may manage it: there's still a while to go.  Let's hope he isn't remembered as the guy who heralded a new big bang: his overt 'cooling' towards Israel and even more overt crazy-gang bending-over-backwards to the Iranians (so poor that even the Democrats are questioning some of it) seem to indicate he wants a permanent solution to the Middle East problem...very permanent. Obama said,

"The issues at stake here are bigger than politics" ..."These are matters of war and peace."

Yeah, we know...but you seem intent on making war more likely?



[Update: Iran’s statement in Farsi on the 'deal' contradicts Obama’s and Kerry's claims...you don't say?! Some US figures quoted even differ to the Italian and French texts of the talks!] [Link: NY Post]



On another topic, Obama even managed to condemn the Muslim terrorists that targeted Kenyan Christians without using the words Islam, Muslim or Christians...(click on image to enlarge) a job at the BBC awaits!

Obama's obambulation...

---

Obama seems to be thrashing about with an innate anti-Midas touch desperately trying to find something to enable him to be remembered for something good; he may manage it: there's still a while to go.  Let's hope he isn't remembered as the guy who heralded a new big bang: his overt 'cooling' towards Israel and even more overt crazy-gang bending-over-backwards to the Iranians (so poor that even the Democrats are questioning some of it) seem to indicate he wants a permanent solution to the Middle East problem...very permanent. Obama said,

"The issues at stake here are bigger than politics" ..."These are matters of war and peace."

Yeah, we know...but you seem intent on making war more likely?

[Update: Iran’s statement in Farsi on the 'deal' contradicts Obama’s and Kerry's claims...you don't say?! Some US figures quoted even differ to the Italian and French texts of the talks!] [Link: NY Post]

On another topic, Obama even managed to condemn the Muslim terrorists that targeted Kenyan Christians without using the words Islam, Muslim or Christians...(click on image to enlarge) a job at the BBC awaits!

Obvious opportunity IV...

---

Excellent news for the South West and the UK with some sort of energy self sufficiency being brought back (despite foreign firms in control!); soon to be followed by more good [nuclear] news. Despite being "dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky...replaceable with relative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works" [The Economist: 24/05/11, the 14% solution] it is still a very viable option that Green activists should encourage. Already the future cost being too high etc is being spouted. The image left (click to enlarge) shows what the area in terms of power generated is but the cost of nuclear energy will be now so high, increased "to a level comparable with onshore wind, losing most if not all of the comparative cost advantage, and making it vastly more expensive than coal-fired generation." EUReferendum goes on to say how this due to 'deliberate ploys to increase the price of nuclear plants' and 'fuel poverty will kill vastly more than nuclear accidents are ever likely to'. "...regulation is reckoned to be enough to have caused the massive hike. And much of the regulation has been promoted by Green activists, the aim being to price nuclear power out of business."

Obvious opportunity IV...

---

Excellent news for the South West and the UK with some sort of energy self sufficiency being brought back (despite foreign firms in control!); soon to be followed by more good [nuclear] news. Despite being "dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky...replaceable with relative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works" [The Economist: 24/05/11, the 14% solution] it is still a very viable option that Green activists should encourage. Already the future cost being too high etc is being spouted. The image left (click to enlarge) shows what the area in terms of power generated is but the cost of nuclear energy will be now so high, increased "to a level comparable with onshore wind, losing most if not all of the comparative cost advantage, and making it vastly more expensive than coal-fired generation." EUReferendum goes on to say how this due to 'deliberate ploys to increase the price of nuclear plants' and 'fuel poverty will kill vastly more than nuclear accidents are ever likely to'. "...regulation is reckoned to be enough to have caused the massive hike. And much of the regulation has been promoted by Green activists, the aim being to price nuclear power out of business."

One-upmanship on Obama...

---

I was OK but my son is a bit headstrong...

WOW, "Full war declaration statement from DPRK". Could this really happen or is it oneupmanship by the North Korea Supreme Command hoping Obama is as weak as he looks and sounds? Even if he is the South Koreans aren't a pushover. That said it really does sound like the Team America script writers have been at it:

"The era when the U.S. resorted to the policy of strength by brandishing nuclear weapons has gone.

It is the resolute answer of the DPRK and its steadfast stand to counter the nuclear blackmail of the U.S. imperialists with merciless nuclear attack and their war of aggression with just all-out war.

They should clearly know that in the era of Marshal Kim Jong Un, the greatest-ever commander, all things are different from what they used to be in the past.

The hostile forces will clearly realize the iron will, matchless grit and extraordinary mettle of the brilliant commander of Mt. Paektu that the earth cannot exist without Songun Korea.

Time has come to stage a do-or-die final battle."

One-upmanship on Obama...

---

I was OK but my son is a bit headstrong...

WOW, "Full war declaration statement from DPRK". Could this really happen or is it oneupmanship by the North Korea Supreme Command hoping Obama is as weak as he looks and sounds? Even if he is the South Koreans aren't a pushover. That said it really does sound like the Team America script writers have been at it:

"The era when the U.S. resorted to the policy of strength by brandishing nuclear weapons has gone. It is the resolute answer of the DPRK and its steadfast stand to counter the nuclear blackmail of the U.S. imperialists with merciless nuclear attack and their war of aggression with just all-out war. They should clearly know that in the era of Marshal Kim Jong Un, the greatest-ever commander, all things are different from what they used to be in the past. The hostile forces will clearly realize the iron will, matchless grit and extraordinary mettle of the brilliant commander of Mt. Paektu that the earth cannot exist without Songun Korea. Time has come to stage a do-or-die final battle."

Obama's one on one...

---

No, not another POTUS debate (even though there is one left) and to be honest it may not even involve Obama, unless he wins...and unless it goes ahead: a report in the NYT says "U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks". Well agreed in principle but it will be a first...and could "[set] the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran". If the talks go ahead - I'm sure the Mullahs are against - I have no doubt that money will play a big part: Iran is hurting. Anyway, the point is the irony: news of these talks comes exactly 50 years since the last time the world has come near to actual nuclear strikes: next week is the 50th anniversary of Black Saturday, the 'eye to eye' of the Cuban Missile Crisis when 'while the risk of war was very high', however, "it was not caused by a clash of wills. The real dangers arose from 'the fog of war.' As the two superpowers geared up for a nuclear war, the chances of something going terribly wrong increased exponentially. To their credit, both Kennedy and Khrushchev understood this dynamic, which became particularly evident on the most nerve-racking day of all, 'Black Saturday.' By Saturday, Oct. 27, the two leaders were no longer in full control of their gigantic military machines..." interesting stuff; I doubt it could happen again, (could it? I really don't have faith in any of today's leaders) but as Michael Dobbs writes,

"The most important lesson [JFK] drew from it was that mistakes and misunderstandings can unleash an unpredictable chain of events, causing governments to go to war with little understanding of the consequences."

Update: LOL, Iran has denied the NYT report and it was also described as inaccurate by the US! 

Obama's one on one...

---

No, not another POTUS debate (even though there is one left) and to be honest it may not even involve Obama, unless he wins...and unless it goes ahead: a report in the NYT says "U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks". Well agreed in principle but it will be a first...and could "[set] the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran". If the talks go ahead - I'm sure the Mullahs are against - I have no doubt that money will play a big part: Iran is hurting. Anyway, the point is the irony: news of these talks comes exactly 50 years since the last time the world has come near to actual nuclear strikes: next week is the 50th anniversary of Black Saturday, the 'eye to eye' of the Cuban Missile Crisis when 'while the risk of war was very high', however, "it was not caused by a clash of wills. The real dangers arose from 'the fog of war.' As the two superpowers geared up for a nuclear war, the chances of something going terribly wrong increased exponentially. To their credit, both Kennedy and Khrushchev understood this dynamic, which became particularly evident on the most nerve-racking day of all, 'Black Saturday.' By Saturday, Oct. 27, the two leaders were no longer in full control of their gigantic military machines..." interesting stuff; I doubt it could happen again, (could it? I really don't have faith in any of today's leaders) but as Michael Dobbs writes,

"The most important lesson [JFK] drew from it was that mistakes and misunderstandings can unleash an unpredictable chain of events, causing governments to go to war with little understanding of the consequences."

Update: LOL, Iran has denied the NYT report and it was also described as inaccurate by the US!