Tag Archives: energy

Carbon-Free Energy

Posted on by
Reply

To the (very limited) extent such a thing would be useful.  Robert Dyson, in his Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal is on the right track:

It’s worth pointing out that the 7,100 acre (11 square mile) Gemini Solar Project is rated at 690 megawatts (when the sun shines, of course) whereas only a few miles away sits the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, occupying only 12 acres and producing 3.3 times as much electricity, but on a 24/7 basis. That nuclear plant currently produces almost a quarter of all the carbon-free power generated in California, yet it will be closed in five years, largely due to the expense of fighting the same “greens” who oppose Gemini. The main argument against Diablo Canyon seems to be earthquake risk. However, the Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster in 2011 included a magnitude 9-plus earthquake that didn’t cause any radiation leaks. The leaks resulted from a 40-foot-high tsunami, for which there was no planned defense. Despite the resulting meltdown, only one death was attributed to radiation and now, only nine years later, the surrounding land is fast approaching full utilization again.
If carbon-free power generation is important, logic would point to the necessity of nuclear power, not 11-square-mile solar installations.

There’s also our own Three Mile Island incident, in a different extremity, as an indication of the safety of nuclear power generators.

Plus, we have that Harry M Reid Memorial Nuclear Waste Repository nearly ready to go.

“Clean” Cars

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) wants Government to subsidize.  He’s proposing Government spend $462 billion to pay Americans trading in our gasoline-powered cars for electric ones.  He wants to drop $17 billion on subsidies for auto manufacturers to “help” them build more electric cars along with batteries and associated parts, and $45 billion on charging stations and associated “infrastructure.”

In addition to ignoring where this money is supposed to come from, he’s also misleading on the “clean” electric car bit.  He knows, after all, where the electricity must come from to charge those batteries, whether at home or at his charging stations.

That electricity is generated by coal-, oil-, and gas-fired generating plants.  In New York, where Schumer’s fellow Progressive-Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo has banned fracking and additional gas infrastructure, those generating plants can’t use clean gas to produce electricity for Schumer’s cars: those plants are dependent on coal and oil fuel: Schumer’s electric cars will have even larger carbon footprints.

“Clean” electric cars, indeed.

This sort of scheme also is an affront to our free market economy and an insult to ordinary Americans’ intelligence.  If electric cars were ready for market, they wouldn’t need government subsidies to be saleable.  If Americans wanted electric cars, we’d buy them in droves on our own, without needing to be bribed into buying them.

Germany…Dithers

Posted on by
1

…on the matter of helping protect freedom of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and, presumably, up into the Arabian Gulf.

Great Britain, in an effort that parallels the US’ efforts, is proposing a European naval mission to the region to protect European oil tankers.  Germany isn’t sure.  On the one hand, Norbert Röttgen, Bundestag Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman, says

Our prosperity lives on free shipping.  And we have to make clear that we stand alongside our British friends, partners and allies who are affected. There must be joint European action.

But the US might be involved, so he dithers:

Unfortunately, there are fundamental differences in Iran policy with the US, which is why we can’t cooperate with the US just like that.

No, can’t have that.

The Social Democrats are more open about their reluctance to participate. Karl-Heinz Brunner, SPD member of the Bundestag Committee on Defense:

A German participation is currently neither necessary nor opportune. Of course, securing free trade routes is extremely important, but I am convinced that this would also be possible by diplomatic means. In the current situation, military options could contribute to further destabilization.

Yeah, Iran is open to diplomacy—so long as everyone does exactly what Iran diplomatically says.  Besides, if we took concrete action to defend German or European interests, we might angrify the pirates.

Can’t have that, either.

‘Course, Germany really doesn’t have a dog in this hunt, anyway—it gets most of its oil from Russia.

Update: Germany has decided not to join any coalition ensuring free sea navigation in the Strait of Hormuz or the Arabian Gulf.  Foreign Minister Heiko Maas:

“Germany will not take part in the sea mission presented and planned by the United States,” Maas told reporters during a trip to Poland.
The German government said it remains in close consultation with France and the UK over a European approach to the freedom of navigation crisis in the Persian Gulf.

Close consultation. Chit chat. I’ve already pointed out whence German oil comes.

Responsibilities

Posted on by
1

Iran, as I write this (Monday), has rejected efforts to defuse the situation in the Arabian Gulf, a situation it has created with its piracy of and extended threats toward oil shipping in the Gulf and transiting the Strait of Hormuz.  Indeed, in response to a planned British redeployment of a couple of small combat ships to the Gulf to add to the protection of British tankers, Iran had this:

But Mr [Ali, Iranian government spokesman] Rabie warned Sunday that a European military deployment in the Gulf would be viewed as an escalation of the crisis. “Such moves under the current conditions are provocative,” he said, according to IRNA.

Thus, Iran does not want the nations trading in oil to be able to more effectively protect their shipping.  Iran demands to preserve its ability to seize those ships for itself.

This is not the action of a peace-loving nation. Piracy in the Gulf is the responsibility of Iran.

Germany’s Cost of Going “Green”

Posted on by
Reply

Germany is moving decisively to eliminate coal-fired plants as a source for its economy’s energy.

Germany has already banned nuclear power, which was a singularly stupid thing to do—that source of energy already had no CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, the destruction of that industry already is ongoingly expensive.

Merkel’s decision in 2011 to dump nuclear energy by 2022 and to accelerate the build-out of renewable sources such as wind and solar power is already costing them €27 billion [$31.8 billion] each year in the form of a renewable-energy tax.

Despite that, Germany’s Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment has laid out the requirement, and the Merkel government seems willing to take it up.

[T]he coal commission advised the government to pay around €50 billion [$57 billion] to the three regions hit by the shutdown of lignite mines to make sure new jobs are created. It also recommended that the government should pay €32 billion [$36.5 billon] to compensate consumers and business for higher electricity prices [annually] and an unspecified amount to indemnify coal power plant operators for the lost value of their assets.

That’s just the inner bound of the cost of “green.”  With black coal mining already shut down—at a cost of €240 billion ($273.7 billion)—this will put coal-fired energy plants out of business.  It’s not just the immediate coal-based energy industry that will suffer.

Biblis, in the Hesse State, used to have a nuclear power plant.  The closure of that plant cost the city 50% of its corporate tax base.  That cascades up the political jurisdiction hierarchy and across the nation.  The increased cost of energy also is hammering German industries that are users, not producers, of energy.

Manufacturing companies, from chemicals maker BASF to carbon fiber producer SGL Carbon, have shifted investments abroad, where energy costs are often a fraction of Germany’s.

Consumers have to pay the higher energy prices, too, and that’s money they can’t spend on other goods and services—which hurts producers of those other goods and services.  All of that is lost revenue for Government, and it’s lost jobs and German prosperity.

What’s the value of changing energy sources if the energy becomes prohibitively expensive and so stunts economic growth and development?