#Renewables

Just Wow

Good to see the Extinction Rebellion prosecutes the argument so well. CM is sold. Based on this Guardian article. How the hell did British Parliament roll over and declare a ‘climate emergency’ based off the prophecies of these people? We’ve already seen how empty the Irish one is when examined at the allocated budget level.

Irish inhaling magic clovers

The Irish government is looking to ban new petrol and diesel car sales from 2030 in its ‘Climate Action Plan‘. One would imagine many car dealers will go out of business because the product offerings will be so slim and global supply won’t be there. Sadly the document contradicts itself too. Not to mention that Ireland’s contribution to global CO2 is only 0.000012%.

On page 33, the report drills holes in itself when it states,

Solar PV, some electrification of buses, and biofuel blending are identified in 2030 the NDP scenario but are not showing as cost- effective in MACC. Despite MACC analysis these technologies may remain in plan given other factors (e.g., exchequer cost, ease of implementation, need for public sector leadership)

So it is a poorly thought out plan to begin with such caveats.

For transport the manifesto denotes,

Accelerate the take up of EV cars and vans so that we reach 100% of all new cars and vans are EVs by 2030. This will enable achieving our target of 950,000 EVs on the road by 2030. This means approximately one third of all vehicles sold during the decade will be Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) or Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)

Hang on a minute. In its own document on page 24 it hopes for at least 500,000 EVs on the road. Thats almost half what is mentioned in the exec summary! Which is it? Hoping no one reads this rubbish?

Make growth less transport intensive through better planning, remote and home-working and modal shift to public transport.

That will work. Just tell companies to keep people working from home. Why not get people to grow their own vegetables so they don’t need to drive to the supermarket?

Increase the renewable biofuel content of motor fuels

On page 33 under volumes, it mentions nothing. Just the E10 and B12 biofuel mix plans. Maybe Germany holds clues.

The German authorities went big for bio-fuels in 2008 forcing gas stands to install E-10 pumps to cut CO2. However as many as 3 million cars at the time weren’t equipped to run on it and as a result consumers abandoned it leaving many gas stands with shortages of the petrol and gluts of E-10 which left the petrol companies liable to huge fines (around $630mn) for not hitting government targets.

Claude Termes, a member of European Parliament from the Green Party in Luxembourg said in 2008 that “legally mandated biofuels were a dead end…the sooner It disappears, the better…my preference is zero…policymakers cannot close their eyes in front of the facts. The European Parliament is increasingly skeptical of biofuels.” Even ADAC told German drivers to avoid using E10 when traveling in other parts of continental Europe.

• Set targets for the conversion of public transport fleets to zero carbon alternatives

It is unlikely that Public transport is a swing factor. The hope is to have 1,250 electric buses by 2030. Even then it has concerns it may not hit the plan.

It is scary to think countries are willing to submit to the altar of this green madness. The word “public leadership” should cause people to run for the hills. For such a minuscule impact on the climate, Ireland is about to kill its competitiveness to protect against what? 55% renewable target with a huge uplift in EVs and an extra 600,000 households using electric heating, 400,000

The most interesting thing is that in the 2019 Irish budget, the spending ceiling for “Communication, Climate Action and Environment Group” is €391m out of total expenditures of €59.25bn or 0.6% of its budget. Note this ministry will max out at €391m for 2020 and 2021. How much will be achieved on the Climate Action Plan if resources aren’t going to plug the infrastructure gaps?

As much as the “woke” nature of the plan here is betting it misses by a country mile on dates and achievements. In the history of government led climate initiatives, failures far outweigh successes. Don’t forget Ireland gets 5% of tax revenues from fuel excise. So once consumers save the planet they can expect an EV tax to slug them instead.

Greta & Obama

A propaganda picture which would have had a place in Soviet times. A socialist leader Obama looking down on a brainwashed teenager, Great Thunberg, who is unbeknownst being exploited by the intelligentsia.

The picture, while excellent as a stand-alone photo, has a patronizing overtone. The disdain held against those wicked climate skeptics. Had NZ PM Jacinda Ardern been in it, the leftist dream team would have been fully assembled. Although her 2050 zero emissions plan has been independently costed and its outrageous.

Obama better not tell Greta Thunberg about the disastrous Solyndra scandal otherwise those crossed arms might end up being for him.

Solyndra was an Obama era solar darling that the Inspector General’s Office, after more than four years of investigation, concluded that company’s senior management used inaccurate information to mislead the Department of Energy (DoE) in its $535 million loan. Soon after the fees landed, Solyndra declared bankruptcy.

Perhaps Greta should be speaking to Bjorn Lomborg to get a proper education on the real price of costing her plans for climate change.

Sustainable air travel will require extra sick bags

Air France-KLM is looking to fund the Dutch Delft University of Technology to explore a flying wing design known as the Flying V, where passengers will sit.

Boeing dabbled with the idea in 2007 but scrapped it as it likely worked out passengers sitting out toward the wingtips would be thrown around like rag dolls in turbulent weather. Anyone who has tried to drink hot coffee during rough weather will know how even sitting toward the centre of the plane causes it to swish about, mostly in the saucer. A wing aisle seat would mean one would wear it.

Better to save shareholders’ funds Air France/KLM. Prototyping this “sustainable aircraft” might do wonders for its CSR signaling but has it considered that it must include the environmental footprint of extra sick bags and all those nasty chemicals required to clean up the mess of those who suffer motion sickness but didn’t make it in time?

Perhaps Mother Nature has given us all tips on air travel. There are many passenger jets shaped like birds. Yet no birds shaped like the Delft University of Technology design…

If Air France/KLM is so worried about the environment the best thing to do would be to close down operations.

The Virgin Group CEO Josh Bayliss said,

“It’s definitely true that right now every one of us should think hard about whether or not we need to take a flight.”

Close the airline if it means so much to save the planet.

Bjorn Lomborg points to cold facts of global warming

Bjorn Lomborg has written a powerful piece in the Weekend Australian which looks at the “cost” of climate emergency driven policy. It makes a complete mockery of the people who tell us we must save the planet with their prescriptions. Although CM has made the assertion many times that politicians make promises which are so unaffordable for so little return that it makes no economic sense. The hypocrisy of signatories is also telling.

Some of the choice quotes,

After New Zealand made its 2050 zero emissions promise, the government commissioned a report on the costs. This found that achieving this goal in the most cost-effective manner (which strains credulity because policy seldom if ever manages to be cost efficient) would cost more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defence, environment and every other part of government combined. Each and every year.

To replace a 1ha gas-fired power plant, society needs 73ha of solar panels, 239ha of onshore wind turbines or an unbelievable 6000ha of biomass...We often hear that wind and solar energy are cheaper than fossil fuels, but at best that is true only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. It is deeply misleading to compare the energy cost of wind or solar to fossil fuels only when it is windy and sunny

Most people think renewables are overwhelmingly made up of solar and wind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Solar and wind contributed only 2.4 per cent of the EU total energy demand in 2017, according to the latest numbers from the International Energy Agency. Another 1.7 per cent came from hydro and 0.4 per cent from geothermal energy…In comparison, 10 per cent — more than two-thirds of all the ­renewable energy in the EU — comes from the world’s oldest ­energy source: [burning] wood.

Today, fewer than 0.3 per cent of all cars are electric, and even if we could reach 200 million electric cars in 2040, the IEA estimates this would ­reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent. That is why, in the face of years of failure, politicians have continued doing one thing: making ever bigger promises.

The promises made in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in the Kyoto Treaty in 1997 fell apart. A new study of the promises made under the Paris Agreement finds that of almost 200 signatories, only 17 countries — the likes of Samoa and Algeria — are living up to them, and these are succeeding mostly because they promised so little. But even if every country did everything promised in the Paris Agreement, the emission cuts by 2030 would add up to only 1 per cent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2C.

Fail

Interesting article on Bloomberg discussing the obvious outcome of Sweden’s plan to get more EVs on the grid. As most hair-brained climate alarmist governments have a desire to outdo each other on the virtue signaling scale it often leads to poorly thought out decisions which end up costing tax payers a fortune.

Bloomberg’s Jesper Starn wrote,

Demand for electricity in Stockholm and other cities is outgrowing capacity in local grids, forcing new charging networks to compete with other projects from housing to subway lines to get hooked up.”

We’ve been here so many times before. Take Germany in bio-fuels.

The German authorities went big for bio-fuels in 2008 forcing gas stands to install E-10 pumps to cut CO2. However as many as 3 million cars at the time weren’t equipped to run on it and as a result consumers abandoned it leaving many gas stands with shortages of the petrol and gluts of E-10 which left the petrol companies liable to huge fines (around $630mn) for not hitting government targets.

Claude Termes, a member of European Parliament from the Green Party in Luxembourg said in 2008 that “legally mandated biofuels were a dead end…the sooner It disappears, the better…my preference is zero…policymakers cannot close their eyes in front of the facts. The European Parliament is increasingly skeptical of biofuels.” Even ADAC told German drivers to avoid using E10 when traveling in other parts of continental Europe.

Spain perhaps provides the strongest evidence of poorly planned subsidy execution. In 2004 the Spanish government wanted to get 1GW of solar under its feed in tariff over 4 years. Instead it got 4GW in 1 year meaning its budget exploded 16x and it had €120bn in tax liabilities over the course of the promise. In the end, the government reneged on the promises it made because it couldn’t afford it. So much for the assurance of government run programs.

Not to mention the overproduction that has often been created by subsidies. When the subsidies are withdrawn, we see fierce cost cutting which buries prices and sends many producers to the wall which was the experience of the last cycle. Take a look at India’s once largest wind power producer Suzlon. At the peak $425 a share. Now $4.35. 90% up in smoke.

To think Bill Shorten wanted 50% EVs by 2030. Clearly Australian voters disagreed.

If governments can’t sustainably raise living wages without regulation, cheaper energy prices act like a tax cut so sticking with coal, gas and nuclear make far more sense than the life experience of sharp price increases thanks to green madness.

Here is betting Sweden doubles down on green madness to remain “woke”

100% renewable Manly requires 80% of area blanketed in solar panels

CM was asked by a reader what blanketing 50% of Manly in solar panels would power. Recall Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Rikers Island plan (previous post) to install panels on only 25% of the area. New climate alarmist Member for Warringah, Zali Steggall would need to think the following mathematics:

34,398 households in Manly.

Manly is 1,384 acres in size. So 50% coverage = 692 acres.

As 1,000 households can be powered by 32 acres, 692 acres would technically power 21,600 homes. What the other 12,800 homes will do is unclear at this point!!

In order to go 100% renewable for all households, 80% of Manly would need to be drenched in solar panels.

It is only fair to grant the wishes of the electorate.