Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Problemia Energetici, Unione Europea

Germania. Abbandonare il carbone comporta aumenti del 20% agli utenti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-02-02.

2019-01-30__carbone__001

«German consumers already currently pay the highest prices for electricity in Europe.»

*

«The phasing out of coal-based power generation in Germany could push up electricity costs by 20 percent»

*

«According to various studies on this topic, the phasing out of coal could raise the price of electricity on the stock exchange by around 20 percent or one cent per kilowatt hour»

*

«Electricity will be more expensive anyway, because the expansion of renewables will be financed by the EEG (Renewable Energy Sources Act) levy and grid fees will rise»

*

«The affected regions, where tens of thousands of jobs directly or indirectly linked to brown-and black-coal energy production, will receive €40 billion as compensation over the next two decades»

*

«Only one eighth of the 7700-kilometre electricity grid expansion in Germany has been completed»

* * * * * * *

Passare dal carbone alle alternative comporta un aumento in bolletta del 20%.

Se questo aumento va a gravare immediatamente sull’utenza finale, si dovrebbero conteggiare anche gli aumenti indotti.

Il panettiere che cuoce il pane in un forno elettrico, pagherà la corrente il 20% di più, così come per la illuminazione e per qualsiasi elettrodomestico usi nella lavorazione. L’impastatrice elettrica consuma molto. Ovviamente, il prezzo del pane dovrà salire.

Ma similmente, l’officina meccanica che ha tutte le apparecchiature che funzionano a corrente elettrica si troverà una lunga serie di aggravi, e quindi dovrà aumentare i prezzi.

Infine, 6,000 kilometri di grid non son mica poi tanto pochi, e giù altri miliardi che se ne vanno.

* * *

Sembra impossibile, ma al momento è impossibile trovare un conteggio totale di tutti i costi riuniti in un unico schema.

Sorge quindi naturale una domanda.

Riusciranno i tedeschi a sopportare i pesi del passaggio da carbone ad alternative?

Sono in molti che ne dubitano fortemente.

Nota.

Un po’ cinicamente si potrebbe dire che se il piano si articola fino al 2038, tra due anni in Germania si terranno nuove elezioni politiche ed è tutto da vedere se questo piano risulterà essere ancora nell’agenda di quello che sarà il nuovo governo.


The Local. 2019-01-30. Electricity prices could rise by 20 percent due to coal withdrawal

The phasing out of coal-based power generation in Germany could push up electricity costs by 20 percent, according to experts.

That’s the findings from the RWI Institute who say Germany’s exit from coal is going to be expensive for consumers and taxpayers, the Rheinishe Post reported Tuesday.

Germans are already paying the highest prices for electricity in Europe, the newspaper reported. It came as around 9,000 employees of energy giant RWE Power wait for details on job cuts.

“According to various studies on this topic, the phasing out of coal could raise the price of electricity on the stock exchange by around 20 percent or one cent per kilowatt hour,” Manuel Frondel, energy expert at the RWI Leibniz Institute for Economic Research in Essen, told the Rheinishe Post.

For a three-person household with an annual consumption of typically 4000 kilowatt hours, this would mean €40 in additional costs per year.

“Electricity will be more expensive anyway, because the expansion of renewables will be financed by the EEG (Renewable Energy Sources Act) levy and grid fees will rise,” said Thilo Schaefer of the Institute of German Business.

Schaefer also said that in the medium term, getting rid of plants that use lignite or brown coal will eliminate a cheap way of generating electricity.

As The Local has reported, the Coal Commission has recommended phasing out coal by 2038 and shutting down around 12.5 of the 43 gigawatts of coal-fired power plant capacity by 2022.

The commission’s findings will now be passed on to the government, which is expected – barring a surprise – to follow the recommendations of the panel it set up.

Under the plan, several plants that use lignite or brown coal, which is more polluting than black coal, will be closed by 2022. Other plants will follow until 2030, when only 17 gigawatts of Germany’s electricity will be supplied by coal, compared to today’s 45 gigawatts. 

The last plant will close in 2038 at the latest, the commission said, but did not rule out moving this date forward to 2035 if conditions permit.

The affected regions, where tens of thousands of jobs directly or indirectly linked to brown-and black-coal energy production, will receive €40 billion as compensation over the next two decades.

Although more and more wind turbines and solar plants are being installed, they often do not supply enough electricity because they depend on weather conditions.

Can electricity consumers be relieved?

The Commission advises the federal government to relieve consumers of two billion euros in network charges. But it is still unclear how this will be done and whether the EU will participate. According to RWI expert Frondel, electricity tax could be reduced by around a third with two billion euros, i.e. from two cents per kilowatt hour to around 1.3 cents. “But it is still unclear how electricity consumers will be relieved,” Frondel said.

However, this would not assist the industry, experts say. “If the €2 billion were used to reduce the electricity tax, for example, the industry would not be helped because of its exemption from the electricity tax,” said Frondel.

The CDU Economic Council is also concerned. They say the electricity supply must remain secure and affordable and that the expansion of the grid must be accelerated. Only one eighth of the 7700-kilometre electricity grid expansion in Germany has been completed. Meanwhile, German consumers already currently pay the highest prices for electricity in Europe.

“The government will do everything it can to protect consumers from rising electricity prices by switching from coal to renewable energy,” said Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Peter Altmaier, of the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU).

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Problemia Energetici, Unione Europea

Germania. Il business dell’abbandono del carbone.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-31.

brueghel il giovane. pagamento delle tasse. fisher_museum_of_art

«A government-appointed coal commission on Saturday set a 2038 deadline for Germany to shutter coal mines and electricity plants powered by black or brown coal»

Resta davvero difficile comprendere l’attaccamento dei liberal socialisti tedeschi al ‘clima‘ ed all’abbandono del carbone, che abbonda in Germania, se non si tenessero presenti alcuni dati ed alcune considerazioni. In quel momento tutto diventa chiaro, chiarissimo. Prima ripassiamo i dati.

*

Al momento attuale la Germania produce corrente elettrica bruciando carbone per circa il 35% dei consumi. Il carbone è estratto sul territorio tedesco e la relativa industria di estrazione, trattamento ed applicazioni varie – per esempio la siderurgia – danno lavoro  circa 300,000 persone fisse ed a 100,000 altre avventizie.

Alcune considerazioni.

Considerazione numero uno. Il 2038 è tra venti anni. Frau Merkel e gli attuali politici si saranno da tempo ritirati, e nulla vieterebbe di pensare che quelli loro subentranti la pensassero in modo diametralmente opposto. Come argutamente diceva Herr Schäuble posso rubare tutto, la le miniere restano lì, ancorché chiuse.

Considerazione numero due. La Germania ha un problema demografico da spavento. Le femmine tedesche autoctone non figliano, non procreano. Destatis, l’Istituto federale di Statistica riporta una popolazione attuale di 80.8milioni di abitanti, dei quali 49.2 milioni sono i metà lavorativa, dai 20 ai 64 anni. Ma al 2038 la popolazione si sarà ridotta a 67.6 milioni, con 34.6 milioni di persone in età lavorativa. Se la popolazione totale sarà calata di 13.2 milioni, quella in età lavorativa sarà calata di 14.6 milioni di unità. Una perdita percentuale del 29.67%.

Ma ad un calo così consistente della popolazione attiva corrisponderà una proporzionale riduzione dei consumi energetici: a lume di naso, di un buon 30%.

Considerazione numero tre. Se si guardassero proiezioni più a lungo termine, i quadri dipinti da Destati sono ancor più foschi. Nulla quindi da stupirsi se in Germania si inizia a pensare ad una tassa sul nubilato.

Germania. Herr Spahn prospetta la tassa sul nubilato.

Basterà solo avere pazienza ed aspettare che i tedeschi arrivino alla fase di terrore. La storia insegna come siano levi nell’attesa ed iperattivi nell’emergenza.

Considerazione numero quattro. Realizzare i propri sogni ha un costo. Chi volesse proprio comparsi una Lamborghini dovrebbe dar fondo ai risparmi e tener presente che una simile automobile ha un costo di gestione non da poco.

Lasciare il carbone, che ricordiamo è estratto in patria, significa accollarsi le spese di chiusura, quelle di costruzione di nuovi impianti, ed infine pagare la bolletta energetica di acquisto dei combustibili sul mercato estero. E questo proprio quando la Cina ha dichiarato che incrementerà la produzione di energia da carbone di almeno il 25%.

Carbone. Consumi mondiali. I numeri parlano chiaro. La Cina.

Cina. Energie alternative solo se più economiche. Fine delle sovvenzioni.

Nordrhein-Westfalen presenta un conto da 11.5 miliardi per il carbone.

* * *

Aggiungeremo citando alcune informazioni, poi potremo concludere il ragionamento.

«There will be “significant” job losses as Germany phases out coal use by 2038 as part of efforts to combat climate change, energy giant RWE’s CEO Rolf Martin warned on Monday»

*

«A government-appointed coal commission on Saturday set a 2038 deadline for Germany to shutter coal mines and electricity plants powered by black or brown coal»

*

«It also recommended some €40 billion euros be set aside to help coal-reliant regions with the transition, including through retraining younger workers and early retirement schemes for others»

*

«Energy companies can also expect billions in compensation»

* * * * * * * *

E se facessimo quattro conti della serva?

Chiudere le centrali elettriche alimentate a carbone, e con esse terminare l’estrazione del carbone, verrà a costare grosso modo quaranta miliardi di refusioni ai Länder, 40 miliardi per la costruzione delle nuove centrali non alimentate a carbone, 40 miliardi di refusione alle società estrattrici ed infine un trenta miliardi all’anno di acquisto di combustibili quali il gas naturale russo. Una rapida somma: centosettanta miliardi.

I tedeschi saranno ecologicamente puliti, anche se resteranno auto e camion, per non parlare poi del riscaldamento degli immobili, ma dovranno cavarsi dalle tasche un gran bella cifretta.

* * * * * * *

Ma donde li piglierà la Germania tutti quei soldi?

Banale la risposta.

Li pagheranno tutti i sodali dell’Unione Europea, Italia in testa.

Forse che gli stati membri dell’Unione verrebbero che la Germania continui a bruciare carbone, maleodorante e che sporca tutto?

Ma per un pura coincidenza del destino, tutte le società che gestiscono le energie alternative in Germania sono di proprietà di liberal socialisti. Hanno assunto solo e soltanto liberal socialisti. È in pratica cosa loro.

Questi, annusata l’aria di devoluzione, hanno pensato bene di trovarsi un posto di lavoro assicurato e redditizio.

Fiumi di denaro che saranno prudentemente investiti all’estero.

Fiumi di denaro pubblico che finiranno nelle loro capienti scarselle.

Les jeux sont faits, rien ne va plus.

Poi non ci si lamenti se gli identitari sovranisti crescono.


The Local. 2019-01-28. Energy giant warns of ‘significant’ job losses over Germany’s coal phase out

There will be “significant” job losses as Germany phases out coal use by 2038 as part of efforts to combat climate change, energy giant RWE’s CEO Rolf Martin warned on Monday.

“We can’t exactly say yet how many employees will be affected,” Martin told the Rheinische Post newspaper.

“But I expect a significant reduction as soon as 2023, which goes far beyond current planning and what can be done through normal fluctuations.”

A government-appointed coal commission on Saturday set a 2038 deadline for Germany to shutter coal mines and electricity plants powered by black or brown coal.

It also recommended some €40 billion euros be set aside to help coal-reliant regions with the transition, including through retraining younger workers and early retirement schemes for others.

Energy companies can also expect billions in compensation.

Coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, last year accounted for more than 30 percent of Germany’s energy mix.

RWE, the biggest operator of coal-fired plants in Germany, has for years been warning of the negative impact the exit from coal would have on jobs and energy security in Germany.

Some 20,000 people are directly employed in the coal industry in Europe’s top economy.

It is now up to the German government to implement the commission’s recommendations.

A meeting between Chancellor Angela Merkel, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz and regional leaders to discuss the proposals is scheduled to take place on Thursday.

Germany’s reliance on dirty coal is in part down to Merkel’s decision in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster to ditch nuclear power by 2022.

But the use of the polluting fuel has complicated Germany’s efforts to stick to targets for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, undermining Merkel’s role as a leading advocate of the global Paris Climate Agreement.

Under the commission’s plans, power plants in Germany using lignite or brown coal, which is even more polluting than black coal, would be closed by 2022.

Other plants will follow until 2030, when only 17 gigawatts of Germany’s electricity will be supplied by coal, compared to today’s 45 gigawatts.

The last plant will close in 2038 at the latest, the commission said, but it did not rule out moving this date forward to 2035 if conditions permit.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Senza categoria, Unione Europea

Francia. Macron alza bandiera bianca e scarica il biogas.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-27.

2019-01-27__france__biogass__001

Ecco cosa scriveva il 9 novembre 2018 l’Engie.

«Today, during the inauguration of the Beauce Gâtinais Biogas (BGB) methanization unit in France, in presence of François de Rugy, French Minister of State, Minister of the Ecological and Solidarity Transition, Isabelle Kocher, ENGIE CEO, announced that €800 million would be mobilized in the next five years to develop green gases, a new French sector of excellence that will create value and jobs in France. This plan will support the objective of at least 10% green gas injected into the networks by 2030, as enshrined in the French Energy Transition Law for Green Growth.

ENGIE is positioning itself throughout the entire value chain of the biomethane industry: from project development, in close collaboration with farmers, to the sale to end consumers. By 2030, ENGIE and its partners aim to mobilize a total of €2 billion to produce 5 TWh per year of biomethane by that date.»

Poi vennero i Giles Jaunes.

*

Qualche giorno fa la Germania aveva gettato la spugna per il biogass: non ce la faceva più a finanziarlo dando 25 cent per kilowatt. Kilowatt, avete letto bene.

Germania. Alternative. Cessati i sussidi il biogas fallisce. 40,000 a spasso.

«German government subsidies will end in 2021, which could mark the end for the entire experiment, but the biogas bubble has already deflated»

«The trouble is that is heavily subsidized by the government»

«When Berlin was paying 25 cents per kilowatt hour for biogas, farmers rushed to invest»

«he expects half of Germany’s biofuel facilities to disappear after 2021, with considerable loss of flexibility in the energy system»

*

Qualche giorno dopo la Germania, anche la Francia di Mr Macron alza bandiera bianca sulle alternative a biogas. Non hanno più soldi per finanziare a fondo perduto questa benemerita iniziativa che ha arricchito tanti e tanti sodali.

«France is ready to provide 7 to 9 billion euros ($8-10 billion) of subsidies for renewable gas but only if the industry can substantially lower its costs, the government said on Friday»

*

«Produced from methanisation of agricultural and other biological waste, biogas still costs about four times more than natural gas imported by pipeline or LNG tankers from countries like Russia, Norway, Algeria or Qatar»

*

«to reduce costs to 67 euros per MWh by 2023 was way too ambitious. Current tariffs are around 90-95 euros per MWh»

90 – 95 euro per MWh: avete letto bene.

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di sintetizzare e di tradurre in italiano dal politicamente corretto.

«biogas still costs about four times more than natural gas imported»

Alla fine, anche i bianchi dalla lingua biforcuta dicono qualcosa di vero: l’energia elettrica prodotta dal biogass ha un costo finale di quattro volte maggiore di quello ottenuto bruciando carbone, petrolio, oppure gas.

Fino ad oggi, esattamente come in Germania, la differenza era stata messa dallo stato: per la Francia erano a bilancio circa dieci miliardi di euro. Poi, in parte, il costo dell’energia per l’utente finale era, ed è tuttora, gravato da accise che ammazzerebbero un toro. In Francia l’energia elettrica la si compra dal gioielliere.

Togliendo i sussidi stato al biogas e destinando la stessa cifra ai Cittadini Elettori, si potrebbe innalzare la soglia minima tassabile di circa 8,000 euro l’anno, con grande sollievo delle classi misere e povere. Ma Mr Macron è il presidente dei ricchi.

Come si vede, la rivolta dei Gilets Jaunes inizia a dare i suoi frutti, che saranno davvero maturi quando Mr Macron avrà dato le dimissioni e si sarà ritirato in un convento buddista nel Tibet meridionale.


Reuters. 2019-01-26. France makes biogas support conditional on cutting costs

France is ready to provide 7 to 9 billion euros ($8-10 billion) of subsidies for renewable gas but only if the industry can substantially lower its costs, the government said on Friday.

Produced from methanisation of agricultural and other biological waste, biogas still costs about four times more than natural gas imported by pipeline or LNG tankers from countries like Russia, Norway, Algeria or Qatar.

Under its draft “PPE” 10-year energy plan, the government set a target for biogas to account for seven to 10 percent of gas consumption by 2030 from well below one percent today if costs can fall rapidly.

Gas grid operator GRTgaz said in a statement the draft PPE was worrying for the outlook of the nascent biomethane industry.

It said a goal to reduce costs to 67 euros per MWh by 2023 was way too ambitious. Current tariffs are around 90-95 euros per MWh.

“No other renewable energy sector that is mature today has seen its development conditional on such terms,” GRTgaz said.

It said the PPE did not account for the fact that biogas is non-intermittent, can easily be stored, helps deal with waste and provides income for farmers.

“As it is, the PPE trajectory threatens the development of this young industry,” GRTgaz said.

Through a system of tenders, the government wants to boost the amount of biogas produced in France from 5.4 terawatt hour in 2016, to 14 TWh in 2023 and 24 to 32 TWh in 2028. It also wants to boost the amount of biogas injected in the gas grid from virtually nothing today to more than half of production.

Although France is way behind biogas pioneers like Denmark and Germany, the sector is growing quickly. The amount of biogas injected in GRTgaz’ pipelines rose 75 percent to 714 GWh last year. Installed capacity is 1.2 TWh at 76 sites, and there is a pipeline of 661 new projects for a total capacity of 14 TWh.

A year ago, French utility Engie’s CEO Isabelle Kocher said biogas has the potential to grow from about one percent of gas consumption in France to 10 percent by 2025, 30 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. reut.rs/2sJwmUw

Over the next decade, the government wants to reduce total French gas consumption from 493 TWh in 2017 to about 420 THh in 2028 through energy savings and better insulation.

($1 = 0.8767 euros)

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative

Davos. Riunione di nobili decaduti senza terra e denari. Le defezioni aumentano.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-20.

2018-11-25__davos 001

Il Meeting di Davos ricorda da vicino la riunione dei nobili decaduti, sotto la terza arcata del ponte sull’Elba a Dresden. Le prime due arcate erano state occupate da migranti in via di integrazione.

Si vedevano, si salutavano con la deferenza dovuta al titolo, si chiedevano vicendevolmente, con tutto garbo e stile da noblesse oblige: “Ma Lei signor Visconte, ha portato qualcosa da mangiare?”.

La riunione si sciolse poco prima del tramonto, non senza essersi divise le zone dove poter rovistare nei cassonetti alla ricerca di un qualcosa di commestibile.

*

Eppure fino al 2015 i titoli di Davos erano roboanti.

There’s A Plan Floating Around Davos To Spend $90 Trillion Redesigning All The Cities So They Don’t Need Cars

«That is one of the more ambitious (and possibly outlandish) ideas knocking around the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, this morning. The Davos meeting is the annual conclave of the world’s ruling class: presidents and prime ministers, CEOs, and religious figures (and the thousands of journalists who follow them, hoping for a soundbite or two).

The $90 trillion cities proposal came from former vice president Al Gore and former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon, and their colleagues on the The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. That group hopes to persuade the world’s leaders to do something about humanity’s suicidal effort to heat the Earth’s climate. ….»

*

The 2018 Report of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate

«We are significantly under-estimating the benefits of cleaner, climate-smart growth. Bold climate action could deliver at least US$26 trillion in economic benefits through to 2030, compared with business-as-usual. There are real benefits to be seen in terms of new jobs, economic savings, competitiveness and market opportunities, and improved well-being for people worldwide.»

* * * * * * *

Si parlava con nonchalance non di milioni, e nemmeno di miliardi, bensì di trilioni di dollari americani. Un trilione equivale a mille miliardi.

Partnerships for better growth and a better climate.

«The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, and its flagship project The New Climate Economy, were set up to help governments, businesses and society make better-informed decisions on how to achieve economic prosperity and development while also addressing climate change.

The New Climate Economy was commissioned in 2013 by the governments of seven countries: Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Commission has operated as an independent body and has been given full freedom to reach its own conclusions. Lead by its global commission, it has disseminated its messages by engaging with heads of governments, finance ministers, business leaders and other key economic decision-makers in over 30 countries around the world.»

* * * * * * *

Mr Al Gore avrebbe voluto spendere 90 trilioni, poi scesi 26 trilioni. Tutti denari che avrebbero dovuto essere prelevati dalla tasche dei Cittadini Contribuenti, per transitare in quelle dei liberal, democratici negli Stati Uniti e socialisti in Europa.

Ben si comprendo gli urli di dolore che si stanno levando di questi tempi!

* * * * * * *

Eccovi il report odierna di Sky tg24.

«Una globalizzazione 4.0 che funzioni e sia inclusiva e sostenibile. Una governance internazionale efficace. Il rilancio dell’agenda climatica. Sono questi i temi principali del Wef 2019. A spiegarli è lo stesso Klaus Schwab: “Nella società attuale, una ulteriore integrazione mondiale è inevitabile e i modelli esistenti di governance globale hanno difficoltà a promuovere azioni concrete fra le potenze mondiali”. “Questa quarta ondata della globalizzazione deve essere centrata sull’uomo”, aggiunge Schwab che ha anche invitato i leader presenti al summit a trovare “l’immaginazione e l’impegno necessari”, per affrontare “un periodo di profonda instabilità globale portata dall’impatto della quarta rivoluzione industriale, dal riallineamento delle dinamiche geo-economiche e delle forze geopolitiche”. ….»

Tra i grandi della Terra assenti Trump, Macron, Xi

«Quest’anno alla conferenza manca Donald Trump, ospite d’onore arrivato nel 2018 da rockstar. Il tycoon aveva già anticipato la sua assenza a causa della questione Shutdown negli Stati Uniti. Per lo stesso motivo è stata cancellata la partecipazione dell’intera delegazione della Casa Bianca: era previsto l’arrivo del segretario di stato Mike Pompeo e il segretario al Tesoro Steven Mnuchin. Da sottolineare anche le assenze di Ivanka Trump, figlia del tycoon, e del genero Jared Kushner. Mancherà anche Xi Jinping, primo presidente cinese presente al Wef che nel 2017 lanciò una controffensiva a suo modo globalista. Impegnato sul fronte gilet gialli, anche il presidente francese Emmanuel Macron sarà assente a Davos.»

*

Le idee di Mr Trump sul ‘clima’ dovrebbero essere note: del tutto normale che non perda tempo andando a Davos.

Il forfeit di Mr Xi è urente.

Dapprima annuncia che la Cina aumenterà del 25% la quota di energia elettrica generata bruciando carbone:

Carbone. Consumi mondiali. I numeri parlano chiaro. La Cina.

Quindi annuncia che la Cina cesserà le sovvenzioni alle energie alternative: sono un fallimento economico.

Cina. Energie alternative solo se più economiche. Fine delle sovvenzioni.

Infine, manda a Davos il suo vice, che vi sarà nell’intermezzo della visita in Svizzera:

Cina. Davos. Sarà presente Mr Wang Qishan, vice presidente cinese.

*

Una sconsolata Cnn  annuncia che anche Ms May se ne guarda bene di andare a Davos.

Theresa May is skipping Davos, citing Brexit

* * *

Ma mica che sia finita qui. Persino l’inclito Mr Macron non attenderà i lavori di Davos: lui che si era proclamato l’erede universale del ‘clima’, che avrebbe portato avanti la sua battaglia per la vittoria finale del ‘clima’.

Ma, Vi ricordate che cosa aveva detto?

Macron. Ricordiamo cosa disse un anno fa a Davos.

Bene. Sono bastate qualche decina di migliaia di lebbrosi, Gilets Jauns, che gli hanno messo a soqquadro la Francia a causa delle imposte sul carburante e che adesso reclamano la sua testa.

Da autoproclamato imperatore del mondo si è trasformato nel recluso nell’Eliseo, che non osa nemmeno di andare a far visita in carcere al beneamato Benalla che pur tanto si è prodigato per lui.

*

Resta l’immarcescibile Frau Merkel, l’anatra zoppa di Europa, che si abbracccia a mr Macron, barcollante sotto il peso del distacco da Mr Benalla.

Il 24 gennaio 2018 aveva detto:

Merkel Davos: Trump impari dalla storia.

«Abbiamo bisogno di un’Unione europea sempre più integrata”, dall’unione bancaria alla difesa comune. Ha aggiunto la Merkel tornando a esprimere rammarico per il voto britannico a favore della Brexit, ma allo stesso tempo notando come il progetto europeo sia “chiaramente incoraggiato dall’elezione del presidente francese Emmanuel Macron, che ha dato all’Unione nuovo impeto che ci rafforzerà.

“Abbiamo bisogno di un’ Unione europea sempre più integrata”, dall’unione bancaria alla difesa comune. Ha aggiunto la Merkel tornando a esprimere rammarico per il voto britannico a favore della Brexit, ma allo stesso tempo notando come il progetto europeo sia “chiaramente incoraggiato dall’elezione del presidente francese Emmanuel Macron, che ha dato all’Unione nuovo impeto che ci rafforzerà” ….

La Francia sarà “un modello nella lotta contro il cambiamento climatico”. Emmanuel Macron ha imbracciato la bandiera ambientalista di fronte alla platea del Forum di Davos. “Stiamo perdendo la battaglia. Nel 2020, se non saremo in grado di presentare dei risultati, cosa diremo alla gente?

Fortunatamente non avete invitato nessuno scettico rispetto al riscaldamento globale quest’anno

La Francia e tornata al centro dell’Europa”, dice poi Macron, “non vi sarà un successo francese senza un successo europeo»

* * * * * * *

Su queste basi, oramai Davos è diventata quasi innocua.

Homo sine pecunia est imago mortis.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative

Cina. Energie alternative solo se più economiche. Fine delle sovvenzioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-16.

cina

L’annuncio dato dalla Cina è sobrio, esaustivo e sembrerebbe essere con i piedi bene sulla terra.

China: No Wind Or Solar If It Can’t Beat Coal On Price

«China has said it will not approve wind and solar power projects unless they can compete with coal power prices.

Beijing pulled the plug on support for large solar projects, which had been receiving a per kWh payment, in late May. That news came immediately after the country’s largest solar industry event and caught everyone by surprise.

Officials are understood to have been frustrated at seeing Chinese suppliers and engineering firms building solar projects overseas that delivered electricity at prices far below what was available back home.

The country also has its own issues with grid logjams. These have caused power from wind and solar projects to be wasted due to a lack of capacity on the network to transmit and distribute it. In 2017 12% of wind generation and 6% of solar was curtailed.

In the plans announced on Thursday, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the top strategic planning authority, and the National Energy Administration (NEA) set out a series of conditions under which new solar and wind projects would be approved from now till the end of 2020.

Chief among these is that the price matches or undercuts the national coal benchmark, something that happened for the first time ever just last month.

Projects will also have to show that the grid can handle their output. Technical specifications will ensure that the highest standards are met on that front.

Local governments have been told they are free to offer their own subsidies to projects if they wish.

In the past, provincial authorities have spent heavily to bankroll uncompetitive solar manufacturers. Thursday’s announcement warned that any attempt to use project subsidies to invest in “local factories” or to make the use of locally made components a condition of the subsidy.

Also included in the wide-ranging changes is the introduction of a green certificate scheme. A small trial of such a scheme was undertaken in 2017. It would work in a similar way to renewable energy certificates schemes in the U.S. and elsewhere. A certificate is created for each unit of electricity generated. These are then traded among utilities who may have targets to meet as determined by regulators or purchased by an end user to demonstrate their use of “clean” power. Details on the mechanics of the certificate scheme have not yet been released.»

Riassumiamo.

«China has said it will not approve wind and solar power projects unless they can compete with coal power prices»

*

«Beijing pulled the plug on support for large solar projects»

*

«The country also has its own issues with grid logjams. These have caused power from wind and solar projects to be wasted due to a lack of capacity on the network to transmit and distribute it. In 2017 12% of wind generation and 6% of solar was curtailed.»

*

«Projects will also have to show that the grid can handle their output»

*

«Projects will also have to show that the grid can handle their output. Technical specifications will ensure that the highest standards are met on that front.»

* * * * * * * *

Se è vero che la corrente elettrica è prodotta nelle centrali, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordare come da queste debba essere portata ai consumatori tramite gli elettrodotti, che dissipano energia.

Il costo deve essere contabilizzato su quanto alla fine arriva al consumatore.

Non solo, ma si deve anche tener conto del costo di impianto, di manutenzione e di rinnovo.

In linea generale, più le centrali sono piccole e sparpagliate e minore è la necessità di disporre di reti a lunga percorrenza: maggiore la lunghezza dell’elettrodotto, maggiore la dispersione

Della corrente eolica prodotta sul Baltico ne arriva in Baviera, luogo di consumo industriale, appena il 50%. Questo vuol dire raddoppiare i costi per kwh.

Infine, e cosa non da poco, l’eolico produce corrente solo quando tira vento ed il solare solo quando c’è il sole.

Queste centrali entrano in produzione a capriccio meteorologico, non dietro esplicita richiesta dei consumatori.

Per ultimo ma non certo per ultimo, quando queste centrali alternative entrano in funzione immettono grandi quantità di energia nel grid, che se ne va regolarmente in sovraccarico.

* * * * * * * *

L’arte di saper fare di conto non è poi impresa impossibile.


Climate Dispatch. 2019-01-12. China: No More Wind Or Solar If It Can’t Beat Coal On Price

China has said it will not approve wind and solar power projects unless they can compete with coal power prices. Beijing pulled the plug on support for large solar projects, which had been receiving a per kWh payment, in late May. That news came immediately after the country’s largest solar industry event and caught everyone by surprise. –John Parnell, Forbes, 10 January 2018

Shares in China’s new energy vehicle (NEV) makers and other firms in the industry chain are pummelled, after media reports that Beijing this year could continue to cut subsidies for NEVs. —The Economic Times, 9 January 2019

Saudi Arabia is nearing a deal to invest in U.S. liquefied natural gas, a landmark decision for the kingdom, which in the past had been a huge supplier of energy to America. America’s shale revolution has broken years of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, to the extent that the International Energy Agency expects the U.S. to become a net energy exporter by 2023. —The Wall Street Journal, 9 January 2019

China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) reported that shale gas production from its Sichuan Basin project increased by 40% between 2017 and 2018. Total gas output was pegged at 4.27 billion cubic meters (bcm), with a daily output amounting to 20 million cubic meters (mcm). The figures are record highs, the company said. —JPT Digital, 10 January 2019

Support in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition for a major new Russian gas pipeline is slipping as frustration with the Kremlin’s brinkmanship grows and pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump starts to bite. —Bloomberg, 7 January 2019

BP discovers 1 billion barrels of oil at its Thunder Horse field in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil giant also says it will spend $1.3 billion to develop the third phase of its Atlantis offshore field south of New Orleans. BP credits its investment in advanced seismic technology for speeding up its ability to confirm the discoveries. —CNBC, 8 January 2019

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Problemia Energetici

Carbone. Consumi mondiali. I numeri parlano chiaro. La Cina.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-14.

2019-01-09__carbone__001

«Weak demand in Europe and China along with ramping up of global output from recent capacity additions and upgrades will be the main overhang for EU coal prices next year»

*

«EU coal for 2019 increased 1.7% through Dec. 21»

*

«Coal use faces more headwinds from the EU’s emissions market. Carbon allowances tripled this year and are forecast to jump again in 2019 when market reforms to reduce a glut kick in next year»

*

«The story of coal is a tale of two worlds with climate action policies and economic forces leading to closing coal power plants in some countries, while coal continues to play a part in securing access to affordable energy in others»

* * * * * * * *

2019-01-09__carbone__002

La manfrina del carbone continua imperterrita.

Satellite images show ‘runaway’ expansion of coal power in China

«Extra 259GW capacity from coal in pipeline despite Beijing’s restrictions on plants. ….

Chinese coal-fired power plants, thought to have been cancelled because of government edicts, are still being built and are threatening to “seriously undermine” global climate goals, researchers have warned.

Satellite photos taken in 2018 of locations in China reveal cooling towers and new buildings that were not present a year earlier at plants that were meant to stop operations or be postponed by orders from Beijing.

The projects are part of an “approaching tsunami” of coal plants that would boost China’s existing coal capacity by 25% …. The total capacity of the planned coal power stations is about 259GW, bigger than the American coal fleet and “wildly out of line” with the Paris climate agreement

This new evidence that China’s central government hasn’t been able to stop the runaway coal-fired power plant building is alarming – the planet can’t tolerate another US-sized block of plants to be built ….

Other photographs show water vapour emerging from cooling towers where there was none before, such as at the Zhoukou Longda power station in central China, which indicatesa plant burning coal and generating electricity»

* * * * * * * *

La Cina brucia al momento il 55.98% del carbone mondiale per generare energia elettrica. Ma aumentando la produzione di corrente aumentando potenza e numero delle centrali a carbone salirà rapidament al 70%.

«coal plants that would boost China’s existing coal capacity by 25%»

Lo fa per il semplice motivo che il costo dell’energia generata con il carbone costa moto meno di tutte le altre soluzioni possibili.

Poi, per amore di quieto vivere proclama che in un futuro sostituirà il carbone con qualcosa di altro, ma nei fatti si comporta all’opposto. Sanno fare i conti: tutto qua.

China: No Wind Or Solar If It Can’t Beat Coal On Price

L’incontro di Davos si preannuncia essere un altro buco nell’acqua. E tra Gilets Jaunes e recessione sia Mr Macron sia Frau Merkel avranno cose ben più importanti a cui pensare: per esempio, la loro sopravvivenza fisica.


Bloomberg. 2019-01-06. Coal’s Heyday At $100 a Ton Passes in Europe With Curbs on Its Use

Price of the power generation fuel may drop 10% this year in Rotterdam as demand falls in Europe and China.

*

Coal’s three-year run of blistering gains in Europe is set to end, clobbered by a combination of weakening demand and energy polices aimed at phasing out the dirtiest fossil fuel.

After prices more than doubled since 2016 as Asian importers drove demand, coal is expected to fall more than 10 percent to $76.50 a ton next year in Europe, a Bloomberg survey shows. That’s a far cry from October’s five-year high of $100 a ton.

A return to those levels any time soon may be difficult. Slowing growth in China and other Asian countries is damping demand at a time when India’s mines are set to churn out more supplies. In Europe, pressure to cut use of the fuel in power generation is intensifying, while the cost for polluting is near the highest in a decade and expected to climb further.

“Weak demand in Europe and China along with ramping up of global output from recent capacity additions and upgrades will be the main overhang for EU coal prices next year,” said Elchin Mammadov, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.

Since its October high, year-ahead coal contracts on ICE Futures Europe have fallen as low as $83.70 a ton. That reflected an ebb in demand in China after it built up stockpiles needed for winter. In the same period, crude oil, a bellwether for energy prices, collapsed almost 40 percent along with concerns of weakening economic growth and a looming glut.

The global movement against climate change is spurring the push for cleaner alternatives to coal. This has led to several European Union countries setting dates by which they will stop burning the fuel altogether. Britain has committed to phasing out coal completely by 2025. Sweden and France plan to close their last plants by 2023.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government will in February publish a timetable for exiting the world’s most widely used power-plant fuel. The so-called Coal Commission is weighing whether to slow the pace of coal station closures after union leaders and industrial companies objected to rising energy costs.

Coal use faces more headwinds from the EU’s emissions market. Carbon allowances tripled this year and are forecast to jump again in 2019 when market reforms to reduce a glut kick in next year. The rising cost of pollution is likely to boost demand for natural gas, which emits half the carbon of coal.

A Year in the Life of Coal

EU coal for 2019 increased 1.7% through Dec. 21

Demand for coal in Europe has fallen steadily since 2012 and will drop 1.1 percent annually through 2023, International Energy Agency data show. It’s forecast to fall more than 2 percent a year through 2023 in the U.S. and Europe, while China demand will decline.

That contrasts with Southeast Asia and India, where consumption is seen expanding annually by at least 4 percent over the next five years. Newcastle coal, an Asian benchmark, is averaging $106 a ton in 2018, the highest since 2011, and is forecast to average about $95 next year, according to the median of seven estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Asian Appetite

Coal demand from Southeast Asia and India to continue through 2023

“The story of coal is a tale of two worlds with climate action policies and economic forces leading to closing coal power plants in some countries, while coal continues to play a part in securing access to affordable energy in others,” said Keisuke Sadamori, director of energy markets and security at the Paris-based IEA.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Problemia Energetici, Unione Europea

Germania. Alternative. Cessati i sussidi il biogas fallisce. 40,000 a spasso.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-11.

2019-01-07__bigas__3-format2020

«’Biogas is as good as dead».


Realizzare i propri sogni ha un suo costo. Cercare di realizzare le proprie allucinazioni comporta soltanto una dilapidazione che si arresta solo davanti al muro del fallimento.

I liberal socialisti tedeschi si sono invaghiti delle energie alternative ed hanno varato grandiosi piani di sussidi ed interventi statali a favore del settore.

Poi, quando anche il denaro degli altri è finito, il settore fallisce: porta i libri in tribunale.

Trump. Fotovoltaico in bancarotta. Ora è il turno di Suniva. Kaputt.

«In April 2017, Suniva filed for bankruptcy» [Fonte]

Sunrun, leader del fotovoltaico. Bilanci truccati prima della quotazione.

Germania. Rinnovabili. SolarWorld fallita. Era l’industria del futuro tedesco.

«On May 10, 2017, SolarWorld AG filed for bankruptcy citing “ongoing price distortions” and “no longer a positive forecast for the future”. In May 2016, a lawsuits brought by U.S. silicon supplier Hemlock was reported as “threatening the continued existence of the company” with damage claims up to $770 million.»

L’elenco dei fallimenti sarebbe tristemente lungo.

Ma adesso al fotovoltaico si sta aggiungendo il biogas: un bagno di sangue per i Contribuenti.

Senza il delirio per le alternative, la Germania potrebbe dimezzare le tasse.

* * * * * * *

«More than 9,000 biogas facilities make Germany the No. 1 player in the renewable energy»

*

«But falling prices and dying subsidies are putting the future of this biofuel into question.»

*

«German government subsidies will end in 2021, which could mark the end for the entire experiment, but the biogas bubble has already deflated»

*

«In 2011, 1,500 new biogas facilities opened on farms across Germany. Last year, it was just 120.»

*

«Once upon a time, biogas was the next big thing, promised a key role in Germany’s transition to renewable energy»

*

«As nuclear plants have been powered down, biogas has indeed stepped in to fill the gap. Biogas accounts for 8 percent of the country’s renewable energy, powering about 8 million German households. In no other country does biogas play such an important role.»

*

«The trouble is that is heavily subsidized by the government»

*

«When Berlin was paying 25 cents per kilowatt hour for biogas, farmers rushed to invest»

*

«Currently, about 20 percent of Germany’s arable land is used for biogas, with 20 percent used to grow food, and 60 percent for animal fodder»

*

«But in the last seven years, almost 20,000 biogas jobs have disappeared, leaving 44,000 employed in the sector.»

*

«But there are ecological downsides to the sector, not least because it encourages monocultures. Although corn is the most productive biogas crop, there are strict limits on how much corn farmers can grow»

*

«To qualify for the government’s tenders, he would have to upgrade his plant. For many small farmers, that investment is more than they can afford.»

*

«he expects half of Germany’s biofuel facilities to disappear after 2021, with considerable loss of flexibility in the energy system»

*

«So it could be the end of the harvest for more small biofuel farmers»

*

«The future of biofuel now lies in the hands of politicians»

* * * * * * * *

Lasciamo al Lettore un semplice calcolo: quanto spende in un anno il Governo federale tedesco, che sussidia ai farmer 25 centesimi per ogni kw/h immesso in rete?

Poniamoci alcune domande.

– Senza aiuti di stato il settore delle alternative a biogas è destinato al fallimento. Come rimpiazzerà la Germania l’8% della produzione di energia elettrica che questo comparto produceva?

– La Germania ha indotto a gestire a pascolo il 20% del terreno arabile. È uno sbilanciamento verso la monocultura assai pericoloso. Basterebbe una epidemia di morbo di Johne, di diarrea virale bovina, di mastite streptococcica, oppure di leucosi bovina enzootica e tutto il settore si azzererebbe.

– A margine, i danni sul mercato del latte potrebbero essere enormi.

* * * * * * * *

Conclusione.

I settori sostenuti da sovvenzioni statali stanno in piedi fino a tanto che vi siano le sovvenzioni.

Cessate queste, si va al fallimento: muoiono le aziende e crepano i sogni sprovvidi.

Rimettere a coltivazioni il 20% dei terreni arabili sarà cosa ben dura. Si dovranno ricollocare gli addetti al biogas e trovare contadini esperti delle coltivazioni allo stato dell’arte. Per non parlare poi degli squilibri indotti nel piano agricolo comunitario.

Handelsblatt. 2018-12-26. As subsidies are phased out, biogas farmers fight to survive

More than 9,000 biogas facilities make Germany the No. 1 player in the renewable energy. But falling prices and dying subsidies are putting the future of this biofuel into question.

*


Seventeen years ago, Thomas Endres was one of the first German farmers to build a biogas plant on his land. Back then, environmentalists thought biogas would be the future of energy.

These days, like many biogas farmers, Endres is thinking about getting out of the business. German government subsidies will end in 2021, which could mark the end for the entire experiment, but the biogas bubble has already deflated. In 2011, 1,500 new biogas facilities opened on farms across Germany. Last year, it was just 120.

Once upon a time, biogas was the next big thing, promised a key role in Germany’s transition to renewable energy. What could be more sustainable than growing your own energy sources?

As nuclear plants have been powered down, biogas has indeed stepped in to fill the gap. Biogas accounts for 8 percent of the country’s renewable energy, powering about 8 million German households. In no other country does biogas play such an important role.

‘Biogas is as good as dead’

The trouble is that is heavily subsidized by the government. When Berlin was paying 25 cents per kilowatt hour for biogas, farmers rushed to invest. The country now has over 9,000 biogas facilities, but the sector has been in crisis since 2014, when subsidies were cut by more than half.

Since last year, the German government no longer automatically subsidizes all players: Instead, biofuel production goes out to tender, with only the best bids winning contracts.

Currently, about 20 percent of Germany’s arable land is used for biogas, with 20 percent used to grow food, and 60 percent for animal fodder. But in the last seven years, almost 20,000 biogas jobs have disappeared, leaving 44,000 employed in the sector.

“Biogas in Germany is as good as dead,” says Jörg Meyer zu Strohe, CEO of PlanET, one of the biggest and oldest biogas plant constructors in Germany. The company now operates almost entirely outside Germany, mostly in France and Belgium.

However, experts still see biofuels as a crucial part of a sustainable energy system. Unlike solar and wind power, it’s dependable and helps even out gaps. The International Energy Agency says biogas could become more important as countries phase out nuclear power.

Environmental downsides

But there are ecological downsides to the sector, not least because it encourages monocultures. Although corn is the most productive biogas crop, there are strict limits on how much corn farmers can grow.

Endres grows a mixed batch of biofuel crops, including 30 percent corn, but also grass, rye and turnips. Manure from cows, chickens and pigs also flows into the process. The heat generated by the stinking fermentation powers seven houses and some public buildings, as well as his own farm facilities.

In spite of his financial difficulties, Endres still believes in biogas. But now he faces a new obstacle: To qualify for the government’s tenders, he would have to upgrade his plant. For many small farmers, that investment is more than they can afford.

So it could be the end of the harvest for more small biofuel farmers. Meyer zu Strohe says he expects half of Germany’s biofuel facilities to disappear after 2021, with considerable loss of flexibility in the energy system.

The future of biofuel now lies in the hands of politicians, who must soon make yet more decisions about the sustainability of the sector. “We just hope they don’t completely let us down,” Endres says.

Pubblicato in: Economia e Produzione Industriale, Energie Alternative

Automobili elettriche. Costi/benefici. Qualche conto. – Bloomberg.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-02.

201811-01__Auto_Elettriche__001

Se si riuscisse a poter fare un discorso serio, non inquinato da infiltrazioni politiche oppure ideologiche, si potrebbero fare ragionamenti altrettanto seri sulle automobili elettriche.

Sotto queste condizioni, grande cura dovrebbe essere riposta nel cercare di evitare di emettere sentenze che contengano mezze verità. Spesso è più pericolosa e fuorviante una mezza verità di una menzogna, che almeno è più facilmente riconoscibile. Il risultato di contabilità parziali può essere anche seriamente ingannatore.

Bloomberg pubblica un interessante articolo che compara il fabbisogno energetico di un mezzo che si sposti per mille miglia da New York fino a Daytona Beach: i risultati sono riportati in figura e nell’articolo allegato.

*

Sono dati interessanti, che richiederebbero altri dati ad integrazione.

Non segnaliamo questo per denigrare l’articolo, che invece apprezziamo, ma solo per constatare come la contabilità dei costi non possa fermarsi solo ad alcune voci.

– La produzione di corrente elettrica necessita di impianti produttivi, le centrali elettriche, i costi delle quali sono, nell’ordine, la costruzione, la tenuta in manutenzione, la tenuta in produzione, i costi del combustibile usato e la dispersione negli elettrodotti. A conti fatti una centrale anche a costo di costruzione zero ma che utilizzasse combustibili costosi potrebbe essere meno conveniente di altre soluzioni. Ciò che conta è il costo finale del Kw, omnicomprensivo di tutti gli oneri.

– Un’altra caratteristica di non poca importanza è l’affidabilità dell’impianto. La produzione industriale avviene in determinate fasce orarie, e queste condizionano le richieste di elettricità. La Baviera, per esempio, sfrutta abilmente questi fattori: l’Austria importa nottetempo dai paesi dell’est energia elettrica generata da impianti nucleari e la utilizza per riempire i bacini idrici delle centrali idroelettriche, che di giorno possono quindi generare corrente da esportare ale industrie bavaresi. Si attua una grande economica di scala, razionalizzando la produzione.

– È invalso l’uso di denominare ‘rinnovabili’ le energie alternative. Questo ultimo aggettivo apparirebbe essere ben più proprio. A costo di sembrare brutalmente lapalissiani, non eiste energia solare senza la luce del sole né esiste energia eolica senza vento. Ma la produzione energetica di una nazione non può affidarsi alla presenza di luce e di vento: gli impianti devono produrre anche al buio oppure in condizioni di bonaccia.  In questo l’articolo è molto chiaro:

«Calculating carbon emissions from wind and solar is a bit trickier. Neither emit any carbon dioxide in the course of producing electricity on a daily basis. But unless they’re paired with adequate energy storage — and most existing renewable generation isn’t — carbon-emitting generation has to make up for them whenever the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.»

– Per quanto riguarda le autovetture, ciò che interessa è il loro costo di acquisto e quello di manutenzione, cui aggiungere ovviamente quello della corrente utilizzata. Ma questo non estingue i costi totali. Al momento attuale le automobili elettriche hanno una autonomia alquanto limitata e necessitano di ore per la ricarica delle batterie. Se questo fattore potrebbe essere di minore interesse per il privato in ferie, una sosta potrebbe anche fare piacere, diventa invece un severo costo aggiuntivo per chiunque usi la autovettura a scopi commerciali.

*

L’elencazioni delle fonti dei costi è chiaramente incompleta, ma dovrebbe essere sufficiente a dare un’idea sia pur approssimata della complessità dell’argomento.

Una sola considerazione finale.

Al momento il mercato delle autovetture elettriche sembrerebbe essere limitato alla nicchia della circolazione cittadina da parte di quanti possano, e vogliano, acquistare una macchina elettrica come seconda autovettura. Un onere che non tutti possono permettersi.

Sarebbe suggeribile che chiunque stesse valutandone l’acquisto facesse una accurata ricognizione della totalità degli oneri, per evitarsi facili entusiasmi generatori di conti da pagare.


Bloomberg. 2018-11-01. You’ll Need 286 Pounds of Coal to Fuel That Electric Road Trip

– Bloomberg NEF analyses mileage, efficiency of different fuels

– Compares gas, wind, solar, coal and natgas for 1,000-mile trip

*

New Yorkers looking to escape the winter chill by driving to Daytona Beach, Florida, would use about 40 gallons of gasoline to traverse the 1,000 miles in a Chevrolet Impala.

Switch that gas guzzler out for an electron-eating EV and the equation changes. A Tesla Model S traveling the same distance would need power generated by about 2,500 cubic feet of natural gas, 286 pounds of coal or 33 minutes of blades spinning on a giant offshore wind turbine to make the same journey.

As electric vehicles slowly become a bigger part of the global automobile fleet, questions about mileage and fuel efficiency are going to become more apposite. While there are multiple variables that can affect electric vehicle energy consumption, a Bloomberg NEF analysis illustrated some ballpark estimates to give drivers a better picture of what’s happening underneath the hood.

Coal

Taking that same 1,000-mile road trip in an electric vehicle that needs 33 kilowatt-hours of energy to travel 100 miles, like a Tesla Model S, would require about 286 pounds (130 kilograms) of coal to be burned at the local power plant. Modern coal plants only convert about 35 percent of the fuel’s energy into electricity, and about 10 percent of that electricity could be lost as it travels along power lines.

Even with all those losses, the electric vehicle road trip is still better for the climate than driving a gasoline-powered car. Burning that much coal would release about 310 kilograms of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, compared with 350 kilograms by the 40 gallons of gasoline. Even though coal tends to emit more pollutants than oil for the amount of energy it generates, the efficiency of the electric vehicle, which recharges its battery with every brake, more than makes up the difference.

Natural Gas

A natural gas power plant producing the same amount of electricity would need to burn about 2,500 cubic feet of the fuel, enough to fill a small apartment in Hong Kong or a master bedroom in Dallas. Gas plants are more efficient than coal, typically converting about half the fuel’s energy into electricity. It’s also much cleaner, emitting just 170 kilograms of carbon dioxide for the 1,000-mile journey.

Solar

When it comes to charging electric vehicles with solar power, size matters. A typical 10-kilowatt rooftop array would need about seven days to create enough electricity for a 1,000-mile journey, as clouds and darkness mean it only operates at about 20 percent of its capacity on an average day.

Scale up to a photovoltaic power station, though, and it would take a matter of minutes, not days. At a modest-sized solar field like the 25-megawatt DeSoto Next Generation Solar Center in Florida, the average daily output would produce enough electricity for a 1,000-mile drive in less than four minutes.

Wind

Wind is a similar story, with different sizes of turbines producing different amounts of electricity. Take the Vestas V90-2.0 MW, an 80-meter tall behemoth that can be found swirling on the plains of West Texas, among other locations. Just one of these turbines, and wind farms are usually planted with dozens of them, produces enough electricity in a day to power a 1,000-mile trip every 33 minutes.

Calculating carbon emissions from wind and solar is a bit trickier. Neither emit any carbon dioxide in the course of producing electricity on a daily basis. But unless they’re paired with adequate energy storage — and most existing renewable generation isn’t — carbon-emitting generation has to make up for them whenever the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Problemia Energetici, Stati Uniti

Kontrordine Kompagni!!!! Il Mit afferma che il nucleare è l’unica via per il futuro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-05.

Contrordine Compagni 001

«nuclear play vital role in climate solutions»



«L’Istituto di tecnologia del Massachusetts (in inglese: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT) è una delle più importanti università di ricerca del mondo con sede a Cambridge, nel Massachusetts. ….

Il MIT si è classificato in 1ª posizione assoluta nella annuale classifica delle migliori università del mondo 2012/2013 e del 2015/2016 di QS World University Rankings. Risulta primo nelle facoltà di chimica, ingegneria elettrica ed elettronica, ingegneria meccanica, fisica, informatica, ingegneria dei materiali e ingegneria chimica ….

Il MIT vanta 78 Premi Nobel, 29 nella fisica, 20 nell’economia, 15 nella chimica, 10 nella medicina e 4 per la pace.» [Fonte]

Nel 2017 la fondazione che governa il Mit aveva un capitale di 14.968 miliardi Usd. Dieci anni fa, nel 2008, erano 10.069 miliardi Usd.

Come ha fatto a tesaurizzare un simile capitale in dieci anni? Semplice: incamerando fondi federali per il ‘clima’, le energie rinnovabile, e così via. Poi, indubbiamente sanno gestire bene il proprio capitale.

Ma questi fiumi impetuosi di denaro stanno esaurendosi, e l’urlo di dolore che si leva dai liberal affamati supera la ionosfera. Tranquilli: non è problema di credo ideologico, ma di mettere il mestolo nel minestrone. Quindi via il ‘clima’, resta il surriscaldamento, ben venga il nucleare. E quindi, giù nuovi fondi.

I liberal democratici adorano mammona.

* * * * * * *

Attenzione. Da leggersi con cura sovra le righe.

«new policy models and cost-cutting technologies could help nuclear play vital role in climate solutions.»

*

«The authors of a new MIT study say that unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve»

*

«Our analysis demonstrates that realizing nuclear energy’s potential is essential to achieving a deeply decarbonized energy future in many regions of the world »

*

«Incorporating new policy and business models, as well as innovations in construction that may make deployment of cost-effective nuclear power plants more affordable, could enable nuclear energy to help meet the growing global demand for energy generation while decreasing emissions to address climate change»

*

«Global electricity consumption is on track to grow 45 percent by 2040, and the team’s analysis shows that the exclusion of nuclear from low-carbon scenarios could cause the average cost of electricity to escalate dramatically»

*

«policymakers should avoid premature closures of existing plants, which undermine efforts to reduce emissions and increase the cost of achieving emission reduction targets.»

* * * * * * * *

I tempi sono mutati radicalmente.

Chi avesse sostenuto codeste tesi due anni or sono sarebbe stato crocefisso nel corridoio dei passi perduti.



MIT News. 2018-09-04. MIT Energy Initiative study reports on the future of nuclear energy

Findings suggest new policy models and cost-cutting technologies could help nuclear play vital role in climate solutions.

*

How can the world achieve the deep carbon emissions reductions that are necessary to slow or reverse the impacts of climate change? The authors of a new MIT study say that unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve. For nuclear energy to take its place as a major low-carbon energy source, however, issues of cost and policy need to be addressed.

In “The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World,” released by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) on Sept. 3, the authors analyze the reasons for the current global stall of nuclear energy capacity — which currently accounts for only 5 percent of global primary energy production — and discuss measures that could be taken to arrest and reverse that trend.

The study group, led by MIT researchers in collaboration with colleagues from Idaho National Laboratory and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, is presenting its findings and recommendations at events in London, Paris, and Brussels this week, followed by events on Sept. 25 in Washington, and on Oct. 9 in Tokyo. MIT graduate and undergraduate students and postdocs, as well as faculty from Harvard University and members of various think tanks, also contributed to the study as members of the research team.

“Our analysis demonstrates that realizing nuclear energy’s potential is essential to achieving a deeply decarbonized energy future in many regions of the world,” says study co-chair Jacopo Buongiorno, the TEPCO Professor and associate department head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT. He adds, “Incorporating new policy and business models, as well as innovations in construction that may make deployment of cost-effective nuclear power plants more affordable, could enable nuclear energy to help meet the growing global demand for energy generation while decreasing emissions to address climate change.”

The study team notes that the electricity sector in particular is a prime candidate for deep decarbonization. Global electricity consumption is on track to grow 45 percent by 2040, and the team’s analysis shows that the exclusion of nuclear from low-carbon scenarios could cause the average cost of electricity to escalate dramatically.

“Understanding the opportunities and challenges facing the nuclear energy industry requires a comprehensive analysis of technical, commercial, and policy dimensions,” says Robert Armstrong, director of MITEI and the Chevron Professor of Chemical Engineering. “Over the past two years, this team has examined each issue, and the resulting report contains guidance policymakers and industry leaders may find valuable as they evaluate options for the future.”

The report discusses recommendations for nuclear plant construction, current and future reactor technologies, business models and policies, and reactor safety regulation and licensing. The researchers find that changes in reactor construction are needed to usher in an era of safer, more cost-effective reactors, including proven construction management practices that can keep nuclear projects on time and on budget.

“A shift towards serial manufacturing of standardized plants, including more aggressive use of fabrication in factories and shipyards, can be a viable cost-reduction strategy in countries where the productivity of the traditional construction sector is low,” says MIT visiting research scientist David Petti, study executive director and Laboratory Fellow at the Idaho National Laboratory. “Future projects should also incorporate reactor designs with inherent and passive safety features.”

These safety features could include core materials with high chemical and physical stability and engineered safety systems that require limited or no emergency AC power and minimal external intervention. Features like these can reduce the probability of severe accidents occurring and mitigate offsite consequences in the event of an incident. Such designs can also ease the licensing of new plants and accelerate their global deployment.

“The role of government will be critical if we are to take advantage of the economic opportunity and low-carbon potential that nuclear has to offer,” says John Parsons, study co-chair and senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. “If this future is to be realized, government officials must create new decarbonization policies that put all low-carbon energy technologies (i.e. renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture) on an equal footing, while also exploring options that spur private investment in nuclear advancement.”

The study lays out detailed options for government support of nuclear. For example, the authors recommend that policymakers should avoid premature closures of existing plants, which undermine efforts to reduce emissions and increase the cost of achieving emission reduction targets. One way to avoid these closures is the implementation of zero-emissions credits — payments made to electricity producers where electricity is generated without greenhouse gas emissions — which the researchers note are currently in place in New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.

Another suggestion from the study is that the government support development and demonstration of new nuclear technologies through the use of four “levers”: funding to share regulatory licensing costs; funding to share research and development costs; funding for the achievement of specific technical milestones; and funding for production credits to reward successful demonstration of new designs.

The study includes an examination of the current nuclear regulatory climate, both in the United States and internationally. While the authors note that significant social, political, and cultural differences may exist among many of the countries in the nuclear energy community, they say that the fundamental basis for assessing the safety of nuclear reactor programs is fairly uniform, and should be reflected in a series of basic aligned regulatory principles. They recommend regulatory requirements for advanced reactors be coordinated and aligned internationally to enable international deployment of commercial reactor designs, and to standardize and ensure a high level of safety worldwide.

The study concludes with an emphasis on the urgent need for both cost-cutting advancements and forward-thinking policymaking to make the future of nuclear energy a reality.

“The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World” is the eighth in the “Future of…” series of studies that are intended to serve as guides to researchers, policymakers, and industry. Each report explores the role of technologies that might contribute at scale in meeting rapidly growing global energy demand in a carbon-constrained world. Nuclear power was the subject of the first of these interdisciplinary studies, with the 2003 “Future of Nuclear Powerreport (an update was published in 2009). The series has also included a study on the future of the nuclear fuel cycle. Other reports in the series have focused on carbon dioxide sequestration, natural gas, the electric grid, and solar power. These comprehensive reports are written by multidisciplinary teams of researchers. The research is informed by a distinguished external advisory committee.

Pubblicato in: Energie Alternative, Unione Europea

Germania. Energie alternative. Produttività al 2.24%. – Handelsblatt.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-08-19.

2018-08-17__renewable

Negli ambienti che contano, ossia quelli che investono mettendo lì il denaro cash, iniziano a serpeggiare serissimi dubbi su molti aspetti della situazione tedesca: tutta una serie di perplessità, che sommate assieme conducono alla sospensione degli investimenti nel comparto produttivo. Un aspetto è di semplicità al limite del banale:

Germania. La demografia che stritola. Mancano tre milioni di lavoratori. – Vbw.

Germania. Incidenza economica del calo demografico. – Bloomberg.

Germania. Realtà geografica, non più umana, politica ed economica.

*

Il quesito è semplice: a cosa mai potrà servire una produzione sostenuta di energia quando le proiezioni della popolazione tedesca autoctona la danno dimezzata in qualche decennio?

Una cosa sono le dotte, si fa per dire, disquisizioni accademiche, sostituite di questi tempi dagli articoli sui media e dalle continue interviste su youtube, senza tener conto delle interviste rilasciate da illustri sconosciuti/e che parlano con grande sicurezza, ed una totalmente differente e il mettere sul tavolino una decina di miliardi di euro, estratti dalle proprie tasche.

Ci si metta nei panni di chi investe cifre di tal rango, con attesa di rientrare nell’arco di una decina di anni: orbene, costui è interessato massimamente a come si prospetta la situazione in tale arco di tempo. Ha l’attuale in non cale.

* * * * * * *

«The comment comes after a high-pressure front over the region, known to cause clear and sunny skies, brought wind turbines to a standstill»

*

«At one point in July, the 38,000 wind turbines with a 58,000-megawatt capacity delivered only 1,300 megawatts to the grid»

*

«Last month, the 4.4 billion kilowatt hours of wind energy produced was 20 percent less than in July 2017.»

*

«To get a lot of wind energy, you need a lot of wind»

*

«high temperatures are not optimal for solar energy. Moderate temperatures lead to greater performance. The warmer a module gets, the less electricity it produces»

* * * * * * * *

Due elementi sarebbero da essere enfatizzati.

«the 38,000 wind turbines with a 58,000-megawatt capacity delivered only 1,300 megawatts to the grid»

Ma (100 * 1.3 / 58) = 2.24%.

Al sodo, gli impianti delle energie alternative hanno immesso in rete il 2.24% della loro potenzialità.

Se per alcuni questo sia un successo mirabolante e se per altri sia invece un fiasco terrificante, per i poveracci che ci hanno investito è una débâcle. Ma è universalmente noto come i politici guardino con malcelato sprezzo quei vili ragionieri contabili, salvo poi criminalizzarli a default ottenuto.

«To get a lot of wind energy, you need a lot of wind»

Già: chi lo avrebbe mai detto? Chi mai avrebbe potuto immaginarselo?

Senza vento le turbine eoliche non producono alcunché.

Il comparto produttivo potrà quindi lavorare solo se la Divina Provvidenza mandasse un po’ di vento.

Ma ben difficilmente chi investe miliardi lo fa nella sola speranza che intervenga la Divina Provvidenza.

Nota.

A ottobre si voterà in Assia ed in Baviera. Che il vento non cambi direzione?



Handelsblatt. 2018-08-16. Germany’s renewable energy production defies fickle weather

The recent unpredictable weather is a reminder of renewable energy’s variability, prompting coal proponents to argue Germany shouldn’t abandon conventional fuels. But heat waves don’t play favorites.

*

Northern Europe’s summer heat wave showed once again how sensitive wind and solar energy can be to the vagaries of weather. And proponents of the continued use of coal wasted no time calling for a slowdown in abandoning conventional fuels for power generation.

“This unusual summer shows how important a broad energy mix is, in which every type of generation can play to its strengths,” said Rolf Martin Schmitz, chief executive of RWE, Germany’s largest electrical utility. RWE relies exclusively on conventional fuels like coal, gas and nuclear.

It was a bold gambit to seize on weather conditions that are caused by too much carbon in the atmosphere to justify putting even more carbon emissions into the air.

Stilled wind turbines.

The comment comes after a high-pressure front over the region, known to cause clear and sunny skies, brought wind turbines to a standstill. At one point in July, the 38,000 wind turbines with a 58,000-megawatt capacity delivered only 1,300 megawatts to the grid. Last month, the 4.4 billion kilowatt hours of wind energy produced was 20 percent less than in July 2017.

“To get a lot of wind energy, you need a lot of wind,” said think tank Agora Energiewende’s Christoph Podewils. “And that usually comes with a weather change.”

By contrast, the uninterrupted sunny weather, with temperatures hitting 39 degrees Celsius (102 degrees Fahrenheit), enabled Germany’s solar installations to produce 6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in July – more than any other month.

Counterintuitively, high temperatures are not optimal for solar energy. Moderate temperatures lead to greater performance. “The warmer a module gets, the less electricity it produces,” said Robert Girmes from Energy Weather.

The best month for solar energy was May, when sunny weather with temperatures at a more pleasant 23 degrees Celsius led to the generation of 32,000 megawatts, while that hot 39-degree day in July yielded only 27,000. A gruelingly hot summer like this one can actually reduce performance by 5 percent.

It isn’t just renewables.

For that matter, the hot weather also affected the performance of conventional power plants, reducing their output. Nuclear and hard coal-fired plants often have to cut back on production because the water they need for cooling is too warm or the rivers are too low to draw from.

In any case, the continual increase in the share of renewable energy in electricity production defies the variable weather, whether heat wave or cloudy doldrums or even reduced subsidies. Wind energy may have been down this summer, but the long periods of sunshine more than made up for it, so that overall electricity production from renewable sources rose 2 percent in July.

For the first half of 2018, the share of power provided by renewable sources was 36 percent. And for the first time, electricity from wind, sun, water and biomass exceeded that from coal-fired plants.