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.

Annunci
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.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Energie Alternative

Energie Alternative. Solarworld alla seconda brutta bancarotta.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-10.

2018-04-09__Solarworld__001

Solarworld Seeks State Aid to Rise Again

«Bouncing back from bankruptcy, Qatar-backed panel maker Solarworld is hitting up the government for support.

Frank Asbeck, the man who has dominated the German solar industry for two decades, refuses to go down without a fight. Having led his once all-conquering Solarworld company into bankruptcy in May, and seen it partly saved by a Qatari rescue package earlier this month, he is now looking for state help to revive his solar empire, Handelsblatt has learned.

Handelsblatt’s sources say Mr. Asbeck has been sounding out political options to get state support for his company. The states of Thuringia and Saxony, where the company’s two factories are based, are willing to offer financial guarantees to the reconstituted Solarworld. No formal application has been made for state assistance in any state, not least because Mr. Asbeck would have to submit a substantial business plan.

For a number of reasons, both national and state politicians will be deeply ambivalent about helping out the irrepressible Mr. Asbeck. First, EU law puts severe restrictions on government money for businesses. Second, he has benefited handsomely from public subsidies in the past. Finally, the fact that a Qatari investor now owns 49 percent of Solarworld is a difficulty»


Qatar Rides to the Rescue of Solarworld

«The administrator reports a deal is near to save two factories, but only a quarter of the firm’s employees will keep their jobs.

Qatari investors are negotiating to buy two factories belonging to Solarworld, Europe’s largest maker of solar panels, which filed for insolvency a week ago.

According to industry sources, the insolvency’s administrator, Horst Piepenburg, is in talks with the Qatar Foundation, which owns a 29 percent share of Solarworld through Qatar Solar, to acquire the firm’s solar panel factories in Freudenberg in Saxony and Arnstadt in Thuringia. The plan involves acquiring Solarworld’s land, equipment and existing inventory at the two sites.

Mr. Piepenburg said only that he was in intense negotiations with an undisclosed “investor group,” but he declined to identify them. He added that the talks had advanced far enough that the chances of success were greater than failure. The Qataris and Solarworld founder Frank Asbeck declined to comment.»

* * * * * * *

«SolarWorld ha ricevuto il premio di sostenibilità tedesca nella categoria della “Produzione più sostenibile del 2008”.» [Fonte]

*

«The company filed for insolvency of its German subsidiaries alone in May 2017. While subsidiary SolarWorld America was not itself insolvent, it subsequently was put up for sale or other action to help resolve the debts of the German parent company. In the beginning of August 2017, leaving all liabilities behind, all the assets alone were acquired by the original Founder of SolarWorld Ag, Frank Asbeck along with Qatar Solar Technologies (QSTec) to form SolarWorld Industries GmbH, thus becoming completely debt-free and the only Solar Manufacturer in the world with zero-debt and zero liability»

*

«On Aug. 18, 2017, however, news came that the German administrator of SolarWorld AG’s bankruptcy had put SolarWorld Americas up for sale, though no potential buyers had been identified at that time. The US-based subsidiary, which reportedly produced half of “SolarWorld” branded modules worldwide, was put “in something of a limbo” by the bankruptcy and a spokesperson stated the company had entered an “open ended” mergers and acquisitions process» [Fonte]

*

«Germany’s last significant maker of solar panels filed for insolvency for the second time in a year as China gluts the market with dumping prices»

*

«Solarworld …. is declaring bankruptcy for the second time in a year, and this time it may be curtains»

*

«The business, launched with such optimism in 1988 as a combination of German manufacturing skill and future-oriented technology, has suffered from a shift in the market, as solar panels, like many other innovations before them, became a commodity»

* * *

Solarworld è stata una delle tante voragini di fondi pubblici immolati sull’altare degli interessi personali dei liberal.

«launched with such optimism in 1988 as a combination of German manufacturing skill and future-oriented technology»

Già. Tutto quell’ottimismo nella tecnologia del futuro è finita in una duplice bancarotta fraudolenta.

Oltre cento miliardi di fondi pubblici erogati una tantum su base ideologica andati in fumo. E perché mai? La risposta è scritta dalla stessa SolarWorld, qui sotto.

2018-04-09__Solarworld__002


Handelsblatt. 2018-04-01. Solarworld back in bankruptcy court

Germany’s last significant maker of solar panels filed for insolvency for the second time in a year as China gluts the market with dumping prices.

*

Solarworld, the erstwhile showcase for the rebirth of East German industry and the country’s last remaining producer of solar panels, is declaring bankruptcy for the second time in a year, and this time it may be curtains.

The business, launched with such optimism in 1988 as a combination of German manufacturing skill and future-oriented technology, has suffered from a shift in the market, as solar panels, like many other innovations before them, became a commodity. At the same time, like other manufacturers in Europe and the US, the company has fallen victim to China’s predatory glutting of the global market with heavily subsidized production and price dumping.

Ironically, it was US President Donald Trump’s January retaliation to this price dumping with a 30-percent tariff on imported solar panels that drove the final nail into Solarworld’s coffin.

The company, or at least its technology, may yet survive in some form, but its demise highlights once again the conundrum posed by China’s effort to dominate technologies that many countries see as essential to their future security. “Without our own production, we would be dependent on China in a few years,” said Andreas Bett, director of Fraunhofer-Institute for solar energy systems.

——-

“Without our own production, we would be dependent on China in a few years.”

Andreas Bett, Fraunhofer Institute

——-

The new bankruptcy filing affects the 600 remaining workers in the Saxon town of Freiberg – down from 1,850 before last year’s insolvency – and a few dozen in the Bonn headquarters. A bankruptcy trustee must now determine whether the prospects for continuing as a restructured business justify aid to keep production running for now. Most experts feel Solarworld is operating in the red and see no turnaround in the near future.

Solarworld and other European manufacturers have banded together to lobby against Chinese dumping through EU ProSun. Currently, the European Union imposes a minimum price for solar panels but more than half the imports circumvent that restriction. “The anti-dumping instrument of the EU has as many holes as Swiss cheese,” a spokesman for EU ProSun said. “There are no checks and there is no political will.”

Solarworld never really got off the ground after August’s restructuring, despite a cash injection from Qatar and financial contributions from firm founder Frank Asbeck. It had a credibility problem after the bankruptcy. Well-connected employees went to the competition. Suppliers demanded prepayment.

Solarworld’s cells are high quality and private homeowners are happy to pay a premium to have them. But commercial solar park operators are much more sensitive to price. While any future as a self-standing company seems out of the question, Solarworld could be bought up by a competitor, perhaps even a Chinese company. Or at least the know-how and modern production facilities in Saxony and Thuringia.

Separately, SMA Solar Technology, a supplier of equipment to the industry, reported a sales decline for 2017, in part because of the US tariffs but also because of price pressures. Sales were €891 million, compared with €947 million in 2016. Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation were down nearly a third to €97 million, while net profit was steady €30 million due to tax breaks on carried-forward losses in China.

Pubblicato in: Economia e Produzione Industriale, Energie Alternative, Unione Europea

Russia. Il Lebedev Physics Institute ipotizza una nuova Piccola Era Glaciale.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-26.

2017-11-21__Little Ice Era__001

Sul ‘clima’ è stato detto tutto ed il suo contrario.

L’unica cosa certa è che i liberal ed i socialisti ideologici ci hanno guadagnato sopra bastimenti carichi di miliardi. Tutto gli stati occidentali vi hanno profuso fiumi di denaro finiti alla fine nelle tasche di quella genia.

Inutile, perfettamente inutile è ogni tentativo di confutazione logica. Denaro e logica non sono propriamente amici: è impossibile convincere un corrotto.

Adesso il Lebedev Physics Institute ipotizza l’avvento una nuova Piccola Era Glaciale.

«All sunspots have disappeared from the side of the Sun facing Earth, reported scientists at Moscow’s Lebedev Physics Institute, basing their conclusions on photos taken two weeks ago»

*

«The consequences could be far-reaching for the entire planet»

*

«The Little Ice Age brought colder winters to Europe and North America»

*

Noi siamo tutto tranne che la caricatura del frate predicatore medievale: non intendiamo quindi convincere nessuno.

Ciò che ci basta è che cessino quelle immani sovvenzioni statali ai poveri liberal e socialisti che avrebbero voluto tramutarsi da milionari a miliardari alle spese della Collettività.

Nota.

Si è perfettamente a corrente di una teoria propalata come verità assoluta, secondo la quale ad estati calde seguirebbero inverni freddi. I suoi supporter sostengono che quindi, a dir loro, gli inverni freddi sarebbero la evidente dimostrazione che il ‘clima’ vira verso il torrido. Costoro sembrerebbero ignorare che le temperature medie altro non sono che la somma algebrica dei dati nell’arco di un dato periodo temporale.


Russia Beyond. 2017-11-15. Solar minimum is coming: Earth faces a deep freeze future, say Russian scientists

All sunspots have disappeared from the side of the Sun facing Earth, reported scientists at Moscow’s Lebedev Physics Institute, basing their conclusions on photos taken two weeks ago. The consequences could be far-reaching for the entire planet.

Something is wrong with the Sun. In September, NASA announced the biggest solar flare in 12 years, which was unexpected considering that the Sun is heading into a period known as the solar minimum, when surface activity becomes muted.

In 2016, using observations of other sunlike stars made by NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope, scientists in the U.S. announced the Sun is entering a special phase of its magnetic evolution. These results offered the first real confirmation that the 11-year sunspot cycles are likely to disappear entirely. This means the Sun will have fewer sunspots than during the first half of its estimated 10 billion year life as a hydrogen-burning star.

Scientists originally thought this would happen slowly, but according to researchers at the Lebedev Physics Institute, it has already happened – complex sunspots and associated solar flares have completely disappeared on the Sun.

“Based on the picture that we are seeing now, the Sun is moving inevitably towards another low, that will be reached in late 2018 – the first half of 2019,” scientists said in a statement.

That’s just the first stage of the process, however. According to researchers in Moscow, the regions of hot plasma will also disappear, and then solar radiation will also drop to a zero.

“Finally, at the minimum point, the solar magnetic energy almost completely vanishes,” the researchers said. “In this form, our star can exist from several months to a year, after which new fluxes of the magnetic field begin to float from the depth of the Sun, the first spots appear, and the flywheel of the solar cycle starts a new 11-year revolution.”

Currently, individual spots and even faint flashes may still appear on the Sun for a short time, but this is only the last fading burst of activity. According to researchers, the sunspots will completely disappear within the next 2-3 months.

The consequences for Earth might be more cold, ice, and heavy snowfalls. The last so-called Little Ice Age, observed in the 17th-18th centuries, coincided with the known “failure of the solar cycle, during which for 50 years there were almost no sunspots on the Sun.”

The Little Ice Age brought colder winters to Europe and North America. In the mid-17th century, farms and villages in the Swiss Alps were destroyed by encroaching glaciers. Canals and rivers in Great Britain and the Netherlands frequently froze, and early settlers in North America reported exceptionally severe winters.


Lebedev Physics Institute. 2017-11-15. На Солнце исчезли пятна

Число пятен на Солнце, считающееся главной характеристикой уровня солнечной активности, стремительно падает до нуля. В настоящее время на обращенной к Земле стороне Солнца не наблюдается ни одного пятна. Есть ли сейчас пятна на обратной стороне Солнца, сказать трудно, но исходя из фотографий Солнца 2 недели назад, когда эта сторона была обращена к Земле, пятна отсутствуют и там. Тем самым наша звезда сейчас очень близка по внешнему виду к идеальному объекту, без каких-либо “недостатков”, каким его и представляли люди до начала 17 века. То, что на совершенном небесном теле, к каким относили тогда Солнце, существуют пятна, так потрясло современников, что первые сообщения об этом публиковались анонимно, либо в частных переписках, из опасений обвинений в ереси. И даже после того, как наличие пятен было доказано, “идеальность” Солнца пытались спасти, утверждая, что пятна являются облаками, отрицая доказанный сейчас факт принадлежности пятен к поверхности Солнца.

Число пятен на Солнце является главным параметром, по которому измеряется 11-летний солнечный цикл, история которого насчитывает уже почти 270 лет. Раз в 11 лет число пятен достигает максимума, а примерно посередине между этими пиками снижается до наименьшего значения, называемого солнечным минимумом. Природа этих изменений оставалась непонятной на протяжении почти 200 лет и лишь в середине XX века было установлено, что с шагом 11 лет меняется магнитное поле Солнце (поочерёдно усиливается и ослабляется). Так как пятна образуются в областях сильного поля, то в моменты максимальной напряженности поля достигает максимума и число пятен. Магнитная и связанная с ней электрическая энергия Солнца являются основным “топливом” для солнечной активности (солнечные вспышки и выбросы вещества имеют в своей основе электрическую и магнитную природу). По этой причине в годы максимума солнечного цикла растет и “взрывная” активность Солнца. В годы минимума она напротив затухает.

Исходя из картины, которую мы наблюдаем сейчас, Солнце неотвратимо движется к очередному минимуму, который будет достигнут в конце 2018 – первой половине 2019 годов. На этом пути на Солнце сначала должны полностью исчезнуть сложные группы пятен и связанные с ними солнечные вспышки, что похоже уже произошло. Затем в короне Солнца исчезают области горячей плазмы, а производимое ими рентгеновское излучение Солнца падает до почти нулевого фонового уровня. Оставшиеся солнечные пятна предельно упрощаются и, хотя визуально присутствуют на диске, не могут уже ни греть плазму, ни производить вспышки. На следующем этапе пятна на Солнце полностью исчезают, хотя области повышенного магнитного поля еще видны на диске. Наконец в точке минимума магнитная энергия Солнца практически полностью обращается в ноль, и оно вырождается в почти в идеально симметричный объект без каких-либо особенностей. В таком виде наша звезда может существовать от нескольких месяцев до года, после чего из глубины Солнца постепенно начинают всплывать новые потоки магнитного поля, появляются первые пятна, и маховик солнечного цикла начинает новый 11-летний оборот.

В настоящий момент Солнце, судя по всему, начало входить в третий этап, характеризующийся постепенным исчезновением пятен. На этом этапе всё еще на короткое время могут появляться отдельные пятна и даже происходить слабые вспышки, но это является лишь последними угасающими всплесками активности. Окончательное исчезновение пятен с Солнца может произойти уже в течение 2-3 ближайших месяцев.

Хотя низкая солнечная активность кажется благоприятной ситуацией для Земли, ученые в своих “апокалиптических прогнозах”, как ни парадоксально, крайне редко связывают их с высокой активностью Солнца и напротив, с опасением относятся к низкой. Вызвано это тем, что Солнце в доступной человечеству истории никогда не производило суперсвспышек, способных повлиять на жизнь. Периоды же “замораживания” солнечного цикла в истории наблюдались и показывали корреляцию с климатом. В частности, последний так называемый малый ледниковый период в истории Земли, наблюдавшийся на стыке 17 и 18 веков совпал по времени с известным сбоем солнечного цикла (минимумом Маундера), в течение которого на Солнце на протяжении почти 50 лет почти не было пятен — то есть активность замерла на несколько десятилетий в точке минимума.

Опасения о том, выйдет ли Солнце из очередного минимума, и не произойдет ли сбой, в ходе которого оно останется в нем, высказываются при приближении каждого солнечного минимума. За последние 200 лет, однако, повторений ситуации с минимумом Маундера не было. Из того, что видно на Солнце сейчас, его эволюция происходит пока в полном соответствии с поведением, которое наблюдалось в ходе предыдущих 11-летних циклов. Что будет потом, покажут дальнейшие исследования.

>>> Traduttore automatico <<<

Il numero di punti sul Sole, considerato la caratteristica principale del livello di attività solare, sta rapidamente scendendo a zero. Al momento attuale, nessuna macchia solare è osservata sul lato del Sole rivolto verso la Terra. Ora ci sono punti sul retro del Sole, è difficile da dire, ma sulla base delle foto del Sole 2 settimane fa, quando questo lato era rivolto verso la Terra, non ci sono nemmeno punti. Così, la nostra stella è ora molto vicina nell’aspetto all’oggetto ideale, senza “difetti”, come è stata rappresentata dalla gente prima dell’inizio del 17 ° secolo. Il fatto che il perfetto corpo celeste a cui ha attribuito quando il Sole, ci sono macchie, contemporanei così scioccato che i primi rapporti su di esso sono stati pubblicati in forma anonima o in corrispondenza privata, per paura di accuse di eresia. E anche dopo che le macchie sono state provate, l'”idealità” del Sole è stata tentata di salvare, sostenendo che le macchie sono nuvole, negando il fatto ormai dimostrato che le macchie appartengono alla superficie del Sole.

Il numero di punti sul Sole è il parametro principale, secondo il quale viene misurato il ciclo solare di 11 anni, la cui storia è già stata contata per quasi 270 anni. Una volta in 11 anni il numero di spot raggiunge il massimo e approssimativamente nel mezzo tra questi picchi si riduce al valore più basso, chiamato il minimo solare. La natura di questi cambiamenti è rimasta incomprensibile per quasi 200 anni e solo verso la metà del XX secolo è stato stabilito che il campo magnetico del Sole cambia con un passo di 11 anni (alternativamente amplificato e indebolito). Poiché i punti sono formati in regioni di un campo forte, il numero di punti raggiunge un massimo nei momenti di massima intensità del campo. L’energia elettrica magnetica e associata del Sole è il principale “combustibile” per l’attività solare (i brillamenti solari e le emissioni di materia sono fondamentalmente di natura elettrica e magnetica). Per questo motivo, negli anni del massimo del ciclo solare cresce anche l’attività “esplosiva” del Sole. Negli anni di minimo, è smorzato al contrario.

Sulla base del quadro che stiamo vedendo ora, il Sole si muove inevitabilmente verso un altro minimo, che sarà raggiunto alla fine del 2018 – la prima metà del 2019. Su questa strada, le complesse macchie solari e le brillamenti solari associati dovrebbero prima completamente scomparire sul Sole, il che sembra essere già accaduto. Quindi nella corona del Sole scompaiono le regioni del plasma caldo e la radiazione a raggi X del Sole prodotta da esse scende a un livello di fondo quasi zero. Le restanti macchie solari sono estremamente semplificate e, sebbene visivamente presenti sul disco, non possono più riscaldare il plasma o produrre bagliori. Nella fase successiva, le macchie sul Sole scompaiono completamente, sebbene le regioni del campo magnetico aumentato siano ancora visibili sul disco. Infine, nel punto minimo, l’energia magnetica solare svanisce quasi completamente e degenera in un oggetto quasi perfettamente simmetrico senza alcuna singolarità. In quanto tale, la nostra stella può esistere da pochi mesi a un anno, e poi dalle profondità del Sole a poco a poco cominciano ad emergere, nuovi flussi del campo magnetico, ci sono il primo posto, e ciclo solare il volano inizia una nuova rotazione di 11 anni.

Al momento, il sole, apparentemente, ha iniziato ad entrare nel terzo stadio, caratterizzato da una graduale scomparsa delle macchie. In questa fase, i singoli punti e persino i deboli bagliori possono ancora apparire per un breve periodo, ma questa è solo l’ultima esplosione di attività. La scomparsa definitiva delle macchie solari dal Sole potrebbe verificarsi entro i prossimi 2-3 mesi.

Anche se la bassa attività solare sembra essere una situazione favorevole per la Terra, gli scienziati nei loro “previsioni apocalittiche,” paradossalmente, raramente li associano con l’alta attività del Sole e d’altra parte, con apprensione sono bassi. È causato dal fatto che il Sole nella storia accessibile all’umanità non ha mai prodotto super-bagliori capaci di influenzare la vita. I periodi del “congelamento” del ciclo solare nella storia sono stati osservati e hanno mostrato una correlazione con il clima. In particolare, l’ultima cosiddetta Piccola Età Glaciale nella storia della Terra, che è stata osservata a livello della giunzione dei secoli 17 ° e 18 ha coinciso con il fallimento nota del ciclo solare (il minimo di Maunder), durante il quale il sole per quasi 50 anni, quasi senza macchie – che è, L’attività si bloccò per diversi decenni nel punto minimo.

I timori circa se il Sole uscirà dal minimo successivo e se ci sarà un malfunzionamento, durante il quale rimarrà in esso, saranno espressi all’approssimarsi di ogni minimo solare. Negli ultimi 200 anni, tuttavia, non ci sono state ripetizioni della situazione con il minimo di Maunder. Da ciò che è visibile sul Sole ora, la sua evoluzione è ancora in piena conformità con il comportamento osservato durante i precedenti cicli di 11 anni. Quello che accadrà dopo, mostrerà ulteriori ricerche.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Energie Alternative, Unione Europea

Germania. Kontrordine, kompagni. Il carbone è bello, buono ed anche profumato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-14.

Ciminiere Tedesche

Ma allora Mr Trump aveva ragione….

Le ciminiere tedesche non inquinano.


I liberal democratici ed i socialisti ideologi non hanno il senso dello humour. Non sanno né sorridere né ridere di sé stessi.

Inoltre, presumono che tutti gli altri siano scemi e che siano anche smemorati.

Correva il giorno del Signore, il 29 giugno 2017: questo era il titolo di un giornale internazionale.

Merkel to put climate change at centre of G20 talks after Trump’s Paris pullout

«German chancellor says Trump administration’s decision to quit Paris climate agreement means EU must show leadership on issue. ….

Tackling climate change will be one of the central tasks of the upcoming Hamburg G20 summit of the world’s largest economies, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said on Thursday, following the US withdrawal from the Paris climate pact. ….

Merkel …. said the climate change scepticism of the Trump administration made it all the more important for the European Union to show leadership ….

Since the decision of the US to quit the Paris climate agreement, we are more determined than ever to make it successful,” she said. “We must tackle this existential challenge, and we cannot wait until every last person on earth has been convinced of the scientific proof.” ….

windfarms in the northernmost states are producing so much energy that in some cases the state has to pay renewable energy companies to switch off their turbines to stop congesting the power grid»

*

Giorni or sono la confindustri tedesca aveva preso severe posizioni.

«Germany Needs Gas, Not Hot Air»

*

«Germany should ditch its national CO2 emissions targets, end its plans to expand solar and wind power and embrace natural gas instead.»

*

«There has probably never been a project in Germany before in which the gap between aspirations, goals and reality has been as wide as it is with the transition to green energy. When it comes to the “Energiewende,” it is no longer facts that count, but ideology and the pushing of scenarios that have little or nothing to do with reality.»

*

«The reality is that Germany still lacks the grids for transporting electricity from the renewables-dense north to the south, and that in 2016 electricity consumers had to pay around €1 billion to fire up old oil-powered plants in the south when wind power dropped in the north»

* * * * * * *

Queste semplicissime considerazioni si sono riverberate sulle trattative per la formazione di un qualche governo in Germania.

Franza o Spagna purchè se magna

«Germany’s Green party has agreed to compromise on key environmental issues in talks between parties hoping to form a coalition government by the end of the year»

*

«The party’s decision to back down on its insistence over a ban on combustion engines and the closing down of coal-fired power plants was welcomed by the other negotiating parties»

*

«the Greens said they were ready to admit that their goal of a ban on combustion engines by 2030 was unrealistic»

*

«The FDP is strictly against a quick pull-out from coal-fired power»

*

«The CSU in particular has indicated its readiness to move to the right in order to claw back the millions of voters both parties lost to the rightwing populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).»

* * * * * * *

Bene.

Adesso che pur di fare un qualsiasi governo ed accomodarsi a tavola con tovagliolo al collo, coltello nella destra e forchetta nella sinistra, Frau Merkel ed i Grüne ammettono che tutte le loro ubbie erano “unrealistic“.

E l’Europa ha speso in venti anni quasi 4,500 miliardi in un progetto utopico, che è servito solo a foraggiare liberal e socialisti ideologici.

Se si fosse persone serie si dovrebbero confiscare tutti i beni personali e di partito dei socialdemocratici, dei cristiano democratici e dei Grüne.

Parlano tanto di morale questa gente, ma rendere la refurtiva è anch’esso un obbligo morale, esattamente come le dimissioni.


The Guardian. 2017-11-12. German Greens drop car and coal policies in coalition talks with Merkel

Decision to drop key issues welcomed by other negotiating parties but criticised by some supporters.

*

Germany’s Green party has agreed to compromise on key environmental issues in talks between parties hoping to form a coalition government by the end of the year.

The party’s decision to back down on its insistence over a ban on combustion engines and the closing down of coal-fired power plants was welcomed by the other negotiating parties as paving the way for official negotiations to begin.

But the news was met with disgruntlement by some Green supporters, who fear the party’s leaders are in danger of watering down some of their core environmental policies in return for entering government.

Angela Merkel’s conservative alliance, the pro-business liberal Free Democratic party (FDP) and the Greens are jostling for their positions in what has been dubbed the Jamaica coalition, due to the match between the parties’ colours and the yellow, green and black Jamaican flag.

After the latest round of exploratory talks between the parties, the Greens said they were ready to admit that their goal of a ban on combustion engines by 2030 was unrealistic.

“It is clear to me that we will not be able to enforce a ban on internal combustion engines by 2030,” the Greens’ co-leader Cem Özdemir told Stuttgarter Zeitung.

The Greens are also prepared to modify their demand that the 20 most polluting coal-fired power plants in Germany should be shut by 2020.

The FDP is strictly against a quick pull-out from coal-fired power. The party’s leader, Christian Lindner, said he would prefer to see more development aid pumped into climate protection instead, suggesting that Germany might suffer energy supply shortfalls if power stations were shut down. The Greens insist Germany produces far more electricity than it needs so shortages are not to be feared.

The Greens’ parliamentary leader, Anton Hofreiter, has signalled that in return he expected the other parties to make compromises over the Greens’ proposal to make it easier for families of refugees in Germany to be able to join them.

Both Merkel’s CDU and its Bavarian sister party the CSU are meanwhile keen to assert their leadership having suffered historic losses in September’s election. The CSU in particular has indicated its readiness to move to the right in order to claw back the millions of voters both parties lost to the rightwing populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

The presence of the AfD in the Bundestag has given the negotiators an extra impetus with the participants publicly acknowledging the need to pull together to create a strong and stable government.

Germany has never before had a coalition between the conservatives, liberals and Greens on the national level, where the parties’ vast differences have been seen as too great.

Merkel has said she expects the exploratory talks to be completed soon, so that official negotiations can begin on 16 November. A coalition is not expected to be finalised before Christmas.

She has warned against the suggestion made by Lindner of new elections as an alternative should the talks fail. “It is not clever to be constantly talking in public about new elections,” she said, noting that the parties had a national responsibility to form a stable government.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative

Germania. Energiewende kaputt. – Handelsblatt.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-13.

Aula Anatomia Reimbrandt

La Confindustria tedesca sta rapidamente evolvendosi in forza politica di forza davvero non trascurabile. Questa volta gioca duro, molto duro.

E questa forza avversa frontalmente tutto il pregresso pensare ed agire della Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel. Ne apprezza solo lo charme muliebre. E senza i finanziamenti da parte degli industriali nessun partito tradizionale riesce a sopravvivere. La Csu si è persa altri due punti percentuali ed AfD cresce al 13%.

2017-11-13__Merkel__001

*

La settimana scorsa Confindustria aveva attaccato duramente la politica estera e militare della cancelliera.

Germania. Confindustria sempre più attrice politica anti-Merkel.

«NATO’s eastern border certainly cannot be secured if the German military turns up with broomsticks instead of bullets»

*

«The call for a post-Atlantic Western policy by some German columnists also misses the mark, as it suggests the West could exist as a political force without the United States»

*

«Contrary to the beliefs of many people here, the West’s political model is not universally accepted in the rest of the world»

* * * * * * * * * * *

Adesso si registra un altro attacco al cuore della politica economica domestica della Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel, proprio mentre si sta parlando a Bonn di energie alternative che sarebbero a lor dire la panacea a tutti i mali mondiali. Frau Merkel adora le energie alternative: per amor loro ha persino litigato con Mr Trump.

Coalition Talks Stalling on Climate Targets

«Germany is way behind on its emissions reduction goals, but coalition talks currently underway in Berlin aren’t likely to help. Instead of embracing the shift to renewables as an economic opportunity, wariness of future technologies remains.»

*

«The urgent need to prepare the next step toward complete reliance on renewable energy – which Merkel made national policy in 2011 – appears to be going largely ignored. That step is the closure of the country’s coal-fired power plants. The FDP in particular is acting as though the 240 million tons of carbon dioxide that were pumped into the atmosphere by Germany’s coal-fired facilities in 2016 didn’t represent a problem. And this despite the fact that Germany has pledged to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Paris climate deal.»

^ ^ ^ Da Traduttore ^^^

“L’ urgente necessità di preparare il prossimo passo verso la completa dipendenza dalle energie rinnovabili – che Merkel ha fatto politica nazionale nel 2011 – sembra essere in gran parte ignorata. Si tratta della chiusura delle centrali a carbone del paese. In particolare, l’ FDP sta agendo come se i 240 milioni di tonnellate di anidride carbonica che sono state pompate nell’ atmosfera dagli impianti a carbone tedeschi nel 2016 non rappresentassero un problema. E questo nonostante il fatto che la Germania si sia impegnata a ridurre significativamente le proprie emissioni di gas serra nell’ ambito dell’ accordo sul clima di Parigi.”

* * * * * * * * * * *

Prima pausa di constatazione.

Se la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel vuole proprio rifare la cancelliera, ebbene deve per forza di cose stare a sentire i prossimi soci della coalizione. Soci che si stanno litigando come lavandaie ubriache, dimentiche che alla fine senza i fondi loro versati da confindustria non avrebbero potuto far appendere nemmeno un manifesto, né tanto meno farsi villa al mare e conti in Svizzera, per parlare il politicamente corretto.

Quindi, che la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel:

– Si riavvicini a Mr Trump, in ginocchio e con il cappellino in mano ad implorare la limosina;

– La smetta di voler imporre agli altri la sua Weltanschauung che proprio nessuno gradisce;

– Proceda al riarmo della Germania, lasciando le femmine in luogo confacente, ovunque si voglia, ma non nell’esercito;

– Cacci alle ortiche la Energiewende.

– Si ritiri dagli accordi di Parigi.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Ora un attacco micidiale alla Energiewende, che è etichettata come frutto di follia pura. Da leggersi con cura ed attenzione.

«Germany Needs Gas, Not Hot Air»

*

«Germany should ditch its national CO2 emissions targets, end its plans to expand solar and wind power and embrace natural gas instead.»

*

«There has probably never been a project in Germany before in which the gap between aspirations, goals and reality has been as wide as it is with the transition to green energy. When it comes to the “Energiewende,” it is no longer facts that count, but ideology and the pushing of scenarios that have little or nothing to do with reality.»

*

«The future is not the foolish expansion of solar and wind-power plants»

*

«Since the sun will not be shining 24 hours a day in 2050 and the wind will not always blow, enormous storage systems will be needed to ensure security of supply.»

*

«Despite Berlin’s best efforts, ranging from billions in state funding programs to national climate action plans such as NAPE, the reality looks grim»

*

«The reality is that Germany still lacks the grids for transporting electricity from the renewables-dense north to the south, and that in 2016 electricity consumers had to pay around €1 billion to fire up old oil-powered plants in the south when wind power dropped in the north»

*

«It is also a fact that this situation will deteriorate even further by 2022 if Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants are decommissioned, especially in the south. In this case, German power plants will no longer be sufficient to maintain security of supply»

*

«Natural gas is a multi-faceted fuel that can be used to generate electricity and heat in co-generation plants, and also to power natural gas vehicles to meet the demands of mobility»

* * * * * * * * * * *

Seconda pausa di constatazione.

Ne parlammo diffusamente quasi un anno fa, e quasi con grande vergogna. Infatti l’argomento è trattato fino nei più succinti enchiridi di ingegneria, anche se è del tutto ignorato dai sostenitori delle energie alternative e del ‘clima’. Ma eravamo anche consci del grado di corruzione etica e morale di questa categoria di persone, per non parlare poi del loro tornaconto. Nessun stupore quindi quando questi caddero dalle nuvole.

Energia. Il problema degli elettrodotti a lunga distanza. Le dissipazioni.

Ora confindustria ha fatto presente alla Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel alcuni sfavillanti verità:

the sun will not be shining 24 hours a day;

the wind will not always blow;

Germany still lacks the grids for transporting electricity.

*

Una conclusione finale sembrerebbe essere doverosa.

In tutto il mondo il tanto bistrattato comparto produttivo si è finalmente dato delle strutture politiche che lo tutelino dalla sfrenata ingordigia di politica, servizi e finanza.

Se negli Stati Uniti è stato eletto Mr Trump, ed in Cina Mr Xi si è rinsaldato alla guida di quella nazione.

Cina. Giudizio sulla Germania. Fine di un’era.

Cina. Centrali elettriche nucleari. 37 reattori attivi, 60 in costruzione, 179 programmati.

Adesso Germania ed Europa devono uscire dal loro delirio schizofrenico e tornare a fare i conti con la realtà. Senza Frau Merkel.


Handelsblatt. 2017-11-10. Germany Needs Gas, Not Hot Air

Germany should ditch its national CO2 emissions targets, end its plans to expand solar and wind power and embrace natural gas instead.

*

There has probably never been a project in Germany before in which the gap between aspirations, goals and reality has been as wide as it is with the transition to green energy. When it comes to the “Energiewende,” it is no longer facts that count, but ideology and the pushing of scenarios that have little or nothing to do with reality.

In the country’s so-called target scenarios, computer models are used to show that by fully electrifying Germany, it can achieve the political goal of reducing CO2 by 95 percent by 2050. And with the help of a process known as sector coupling, electricity will be used to heat our buildings and operate our cars.

Well-respected institutes use complex scenarios to show what needs to be done to meet the 2050 goal. For example, one suggests that the energy consumption of all buildings, including those that are very old, must be reduced by 50-60 percent. The remaining heating needs would be met by 16 million electric heat pumps and long-distance heating. According to this scenario, natural gas pipelines could then be shut down, since neither natural gas nor oil would be needed anymore. At the same time, the mobility sector would be converted almost entirely to electric vehicles.

«The future is not the foolish expansion of solar and wind-power plants.»

There’s just one problem. This strategy will require at least 600,000 megawatts of photovoltaic and wind-power plants by 2050. In order to integrate this enormous output, connect the electric heat pumps and set up the electrical charging infrastructure in the mobility sector, the electrical grid will have to be expanded by about 300,000 kilometers at all voltage levels. Since the sun will not be shining 24 hours a day in 2050 and the wind will not always blow, enormous storage systems will be needed to ensure security of supply.

This list of requirements clearly shows that the government will never be able to achieve its climate protection targets with this “all electric strategy.” Despite Berlin’s best efforts, ranging from billions in state funding programs to national climate action plans such as NAPE, the reality looks grim.

According to a new monitoring report by the economics ministry, the efficiency targets in the building sector, the projected growth rates for electric vehicles, the necessary expansion of the electrical grid and the climate protection goals will not be achieved by 2020. In addition, CO2 emissions were reduced by just 27 percent between 1990 and 2016, with the pace of reduction coming to a standstill in recent years.

It is clear today that the intermediate target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2020, which had been set by politicians, is unattainable – and the government does not even dispute this.

The reality is that Germany still lacks the grids for transporting electricity from the renewables-dense north to the south, and that in 2016 electricity consumers had to pay around €1 billion to fire up old oil-powered plants in the south when wind power dropped in the north. The fact is that the Federal Network Agency has to instruct more and more coal and natural gas power plants to continue operating in order to guarantee security of supply.

It is also a fact that this situation will deteriorate even further by 2022 if Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants are decommissioned, especially in the south. In this case, German power plants will no longer be sufficient to maintain security of supply, so Germany will have to turn to French power plants, for example, as a report by the FNA shows.

The Energiewende is not a success, especially not for climate protection. That is why the next federal government must rely on facts to shape its energy and climate policy and give innovation a chance. The future is not the foolish expansion of solar and wind-power plants or state-imposed compulsory purchase via the Renewable Energies Act, but system optimization that uses intelligent business models to reduce CO2 emissions as cost-effectively as possible. This is why policymakers should limit themselves to setting sector-specific CO2 reduction targets, which the relevant players must then achieve with the tools that best suit their needs.

It is not the one-sided fixation on electricity, solar and wind that makes sense, but rather the intelligent integration of natural gas systems. Natural gas is a multi-faceted fuel that can be used to generate electricity and heat in co-generation plants, and also to power natural gas vehicles to meet the demands of mobility. We need to provide more space for innovation and an openness to new technology.

>> Traduttore automatico <<

La Germania ha bisogno di gas, non di aria calda

La Germania dovrebbe abbandonare i propri obiettivi nazionali in materia di emissioni di CO2, mettere fine ai piani di espansione dell’energia solare ed eolica e includere invece il gas naturale.

*

Probabilmente in Germania non c’è mai stato un progetto precedente in cui il divario tra aspirazioni, obiettivi e realtà fosse tanto ampio quanto lo è stato con la transizione verso l’energia verde. Quando si parla di “Energiewende” non sono più i fatti a contare, ma l’ideologia e la spinta di scenari che hanno poco o nulla a che fare con la realtà.

Nei cosiddetti scenari target del paese, i modelli di computer sono utilizzati per dimostrare che elettrizzando completamente la Germania, si può raggiungere l’obiettivo politico di ridurre le emissioni di CO2 del 95 per cento entro il 2050. E con l’aiuto di un processo noto come accoppiamento di settore, l’elettricità sarà utilizzata per riscaldare i nostri edifici e far funzionare le nostre auto.

Gli istituti ben rispettati utilizzano scenari complessi per mostrare ciò che occorre fare per raggiungere l’obiettivo del 2050. Ad esempio, si suggerisce che il consumo energetico di tutti gli edifici, compresi quelli molto vecchi, debba essere ridotto del 50-60 per cento. Il fabbisogno residuo di riscaldamento sarebbe coperto da 16 milioni di pompe di calore elettriche e riscaldamento a lunga distanza. Secondo questo scenario, i gasdotti del gas naturale potrebbero quindi essere chiusi, in quanto non sarebbero più necessari né il gas naturale né il petrolio. Allo stesso tempo, il settore della mobilità verrebbe convertito quasi interamente in veicoli elettrici.

Il futuro non è l’espansione folle delle centrali solari ed eoliche “.

C’è un solo problema. Questa strategia richiederà almeno 600.000 megawatt di centrali fotovoltaiche ed eoliche entro il 2050. Per integrare questa enorme potenza, collegare le pompe di calore elettriche e realizzare l’infrastruttura di ricarica elettrica nel settore della mobilità, la rete elettrica dovrà essere ampliata di circa 300.000 chilometri a tutti i livelli di tensione. Poiché il sole non splenderà 24 ore al giorno nel 2050 e il vento non sempre soffierà, saranno necessari enormi sistemi di stoccaggio per garantire la sicurezza dell’approvvigionamento.

Nonostante i migliori sforzi di Berlino, che vanno da miliardi di fondi pubblici a piani nazionali di azione per il clima come NAPE, la realtà sembra triste.

Secondo un nuovo rapporto di monitoraggio del ministero dell’Economia, gli obiettivi di efficienza nel settore edile, i tassi di crescita previsti per i veicoli elettrici, la necessaria espansione della rete elettrica e gli obiettivi di protezione del clima non saranno raggiunti entro il 2020. Inoltre, tra il 1990 e il 2016 le emissioni di CO2 sono state ridotte solo del 27%, con il ritmo di riduzione che si è arrestato negli ultimi anni.

Oggi è chiaro che l’obiettivo intermedio di ridurre le emissioni di CO2 del 40 per cento entro il 2020, fissato dai politici, è irraggiungibile – e il governo non lo contesta nemmeno.

La realtà è che in Germania mancano ancora le reti per il trasporto dell’elettricità dal nord al sud, denso di energie rinnovabili, e che nel 2016 i consumatori di energia elettrica hanno dovuto pagare circa 1 miliardo di euro per accendere vecchi impianti petroliferi nel sud, quando l’energia eolica è calata nel nord. L’Agenzia federale della rete deve istruire un numero sempre maggiore di centrali a carbone e gas naturale affinché continuino a funzionare per garantire la sicurezza dell’approvvigionamento.

E’anche un dato di fatto che questa situazione si aggraverà ulteriormente entro il 2022 se le centrali nucleari rimanenti della Germania saranno smantellate, soprattutto nel sud del paese. In questo caso, le centrali elettriche tedesche non saranno più sufficienti per mantenere la sicurezza dell’approvvigionamento, per cui la Germania dovrà rivolgersi ad esempio alle centrali francesi, come dimostra una relazione della FNA.

Energiewende non è un successo, soprattutto per la protezione del clima. Per questo motivo il prossimo governo federale deve affidarsi ai fatti per definire la propria politica energetica e climatica e dare un’opportunità all’innovazione. Il futuro non è la folle espansione delle centrali solari ed eoliche o l’obbligo di acquisto imposto dallo Stato attraverso la legge sulle energie rinnovabili, ma l’ottimizzazione del sistema che utilizza modelli di business intelligenti per ridurre le emissioni di CO2 nel modo più economico possibile. Per questo motivo i responsabili politici dovrebbero limitarsi a fissare obiettivi di riduzione delle emissioni di CO2 specifici per ciascun settore, che i soggetti interessati dovranno poi raggiungere con gli strumenti più adatti alle loro esigenze.

Non è la fissazione unilaterale dell’elettricità, del solare e dell’eolico ad avere senso, ma piuttosto l’integrazione intelligente dei sistemi a gas naturale. Il gas naturale è un combustibile poliedrico che può essere utilizzato per generare elettricità e calore negli impianti di cogenerazione, ma anche per alimentare i veicoli a gas naturale per soddisfare le esigenze di mobilità. Dobbiamo dare più spazio all’innovazione e aprire alle nuove tecnologie.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Energie Alternative, Unione Europea

Bonn. ‘Clima’. I patetici contorsionismi logici di Frau Merkel.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-13.

Ciminiere Tedesche

Qualsiasi persona con un residuo minimale di buona fede avrebbe dato le dimissioni, piuttosto che rinnegare sé stesso e le proprie idee.

Non è certo il caso di Frau Merkel.

*

«Germany should lead the fight against climate change and cut emissions without destroying jobs, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday»

*

«the dilemma of the center-right leader in tricky coalition negotiations to form the next government. »

*

«Merkel said industrialized countries had a special responsibility to reduce their emission of climate-damaging greenhouse gases»

*

«Due to strong economic growth and higher-than-expected immigration, Germany is at risk of missing its emissions target if the next government does not implement further measures»

*

«But the chancellor insisted that Germany’s “industrial core” should not be put at risk and any further climate measures should not force companies to relocate»

*

«If steel mills, aluminum factories, copper smelters, if they all leave our country and go somewhere where environmental regulations are not as strict, then we have won nothing for global climate»

*

«measures in order to avoid major disruptions and job losses»

*

«The Greens called on Merkel’s conservatives and the FDP to make concessions after the party itself gave ground on Tuesday by dropping its demand for fixed dates to ban cars with internal combustion engines and shut down coal-fired power stations»

*

«Juergen Trittin, another senior member of the Greens, warned Merkel personally that her political future was at stake.»

* * * * * * * *

Da questo discorso non è possibile riconoscere Frau Angela Merkel. È la ammissione che Mr Trump aveva ragione da vendere.

Due i punti nodali, detti in modo da cercare di non perdere la faccia.

«If steel mills, aluminum factories, copper smelters, if they all leave our country and go somewhere where environmental regulations are not as strict, then we have won nothing for global climate»

*

«Germany’s “industrial core” should not be put at risk and any further climate measures should not force companies to relocate»

*

«measures in order to avoid major disruptions and job losses»

* * * * * * * *

In pratica la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel dice che prenderà tutte le misure possibili per il ‘clima’ sotto due condizioni:

– non obbligare le ditte a delocalizzare la produzione;

– evitare ulteriori perdite di posti di lavoro.

*

In poche parole, il ‘clima‘ in Germania è morto e sepolto.

Visto che bel risultato ha ottenuto AfD senza muovere un dito? L’Unione Europea ha cacciato nel tombino in venti anni circa 4,500 miliardi del Contribuente.


Reuters. 2017-11-13. Merkel tries to bridge climate gap as coalition talks heat up

BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany should lead the fight against climate change and cut emissions without destroying jobs, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday, treading a fine line as she tries to clinch a coalition deal with environmentalist and pro-business parties.

Merkel’s comments, made in her weekly podcast in the midst of 200-nation talks on limiting global warming in Bonn, show the dilemma of the center-right leader in tricky coalition negotiations to form the next government.

Merkel’s conservatives, which bled support to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the Sept. 24 election, are trying to forge a coalition government with the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) and the environmentalist Greens.

The unlikely partners have cited progress after three weeks of exploratory talks about a three-way coalition. But the Greens raised the pressure on Merkel ahead of a meeting on Sunday in which party leaders are due to thrash out differences over climate, immigration and euro zone policy.

The Greens want Merkel and the other parties to spell out which additional measures the next government will implement for Germany to reach its 2020 goal of lowering emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels.

In her podcast, Merkel said industrialized countries had a special responsibility to reduce their emission of climate-damaging greenhouse gases, warning that time was running out.

“The urgency, I think we all see this in light of the natural disasters, is great,” Merkel said. Climate change is leading to droughts and famine and this is causing mass migration from poorer to richer countries, she added.

Referring to the Paris climate agreement, Merkel said: “As things stand right now, the target to keep the rise in temperature below two degrees Celsius – ideally at around 1.5 degrees – will be missed.”

WRESTLING

Due to strong economic growth and higher-than-expected immigration, Germany is at risk of missing its emissions target if the next government does not implement further measures.

“That’s why we are also wrestling in exploratory talks for a possible new coalition about this: How can we adopt even more measures in order to try and reach this 2020 goal,” Merkel said.

But the chancellor insisted that Germany’s “industrial core” should not be put at risk and any further climate measures should not force companies to relocate.

“If steel mills, aluminum factories, copper smelters, if they all leave our country and go somewhere where environmental regulations are not as strict, then we have won nothing for global climate,” Merkel said.

The government should therefore adopt a sound mix of regulatory policy, financial incentives and voluntary measures in order to avoid major disruptions and job losses, she said.

“We have to push ahead forcefully with electromobility and alternative drive systems,” Merkel said. She also suggested that the next government should give tax incentives for home owners to improve building insulation.

The Greens called on Merkel’s conservatives and the FDP to make concessions after the party itself gave ground on Tuesday by dropping its demand for fixed dates to ban cars with internal combustion engines and shut down coal-fired power stations.

“Instead of the week of truth, this was a week of disappointment,” parliamentary floor leader Anton Hofreiter told Der Spiegel magazine, adding that the Greens had done their part by offering “painful” compromises.

Juergen Trittin, another senior member of the Greens, warned Merkel personally that her political future was at stake.

“Mrs Merkel, the lead candidate of the conservatives and acting chancellor, she wants to get re-elected – with our votes,” Trittin said. “And for this, she must move now.”

Pubblicato in: Economia e Produzione Industriale, Energie Alternative, Problemia Energetici

Enea. Gas aumentato al 38%, rinnovabili calate di -7%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-16.

2017-10-16__Enea__001

L’Enea, Agenzia Nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile, ha rilasciato il Report:

Energia: ENEA, gas verso i massimi nel mix energetico (38%) e rinnovabili in calo (-7%), disponibile anche in versione pdf.

Anche se ne riportiamo ampi estratti delle parti più significative, suggeriremmo di leggere l’originale per intero.

Sintesi.

«Secondo la stima preliminare ENEA nel II trimestre 2017 i consumi di energia primaria sono rimasti sullo stesso livello dell’anno precedente, nonostante che dalle principali variabili guida (PIL, produzione industriale, temperatura, prezzi) sia venuta una lieve spinta alla domanda di energia. Il dato cumulato relativo all’intero primo semestre dell’anno mostra invece una crescita dello 0,6%.»

*

«In termini di fonti primarie si è registrato un nuovo incremento significativo del gas naturale (+1,2 Mtep, +11% rispetto al II trimestre 2016) e un nuovo calo dei combustibili solidi (-9%) e del petrolio (-1%). Un nuovo calo subiscono anche le fonti energetiche rinnovabili, che scendono di 0,5 Mtep (-7%)»

*

«Nella generazione elettrica è aumentata ancora la generazione da gas naturale (+5,6TWh), …. È ancora in calo il ricorso al carbone, con un -11% che segue il -11% del I trimestre e il -13% dell’intero 2016, anche per il perdurare degli elevati prezzi del carbone sui mercati internazionali.»

*

«I prezzi dell’energia elettrica risultano in aumento per tutte e tre le fasce di consumo analizzate. Nel caso della piccola impresa italiana, dopo il +1,3% del II trimestre, la stima ENEA è di un aumento del 3,7% nel III trimestre»

*

«I prezzi del gas risultano in aumento nell’insieme del primo semestre 2017 (+9% per le piccole utenze), ma si stima una nuova flessione nel III trimestre 2017, che dovrebbe essere sufficiente a riportare i prezzi sui valori del II semestre 2016. Resta il problema del differenziale positivo di prezzo tra piccole e grandi utenze, che si mantiene elevato, attestandosi intorno all’84%.»

*

«la quota di gas naturale sull’energia primaria potrebbe tornare vicino al massimo storico del 38%.»

* * * * * * *

«La ripresa dell’economia italiana si riflette sullo scenario energetico nazionale con l’aumento (+1,6%) dei consumi finali di energia nei primi sei mesi del 2017; questa crescita, tuttavia, ha prodotto anche un aumento delle emissioni di anidride carbonica (+1,9%) con il conseguente rallentamento del percorso di decarbonizzazione. A evidenziarlo è l’Analisi trimestrale del sistema energetico italiano curata dall’ENEA, che individua tra le cause dell’aumento delle emissioni fattori di natura congiunturale come la ridotta piovosità che ha fortemente ridimensionato il contributo dell’idroelettrico.

Per l’intero comparto delle rinnovabili, l’Analisi rileva per il secondo trimestre una diminuzione del 7%, con il risultato che a fine 2017, per la prima volta dopo diversi anni, la quota nel mix energetico di queste fonti potrebbe fermare la sua crescita. Dall’Analisi emerge anche un ulteriore calo dei combustibili solidi (-9%) e del petrolio (-1%) e un nuovo significativo incremento sia dei consumi (+11% rispetto allo stesso periodo 2016) che delle importazioni di gas naturale (+10% nel primo semestre 2017). Questo aumento, insieme alla costante e strutturale diminuzione della produzione nazionale, fa sì che a fine anno la nostra dipendenza dal gas estero potrebbe superare il 92%, un nuovo record, con un ritorno ai massimi storici del peso del gas sull’energia primaria totale (38%).

“Questi fattori hanno determinato un nuovo peggioramento dell’indice ISPRED che misura l’andamento di sicurezza, prezzi e decarbonizzazione nel nostro Paese. Se nel primo trimestre 2017 abbiamo rilevato un calo dell’indice del 10% su base annua, ora siamo a -17%, con -4% rispetto al trimestre precedente”, spiega Francesco Gracceva l’esperto ENEA che ha coordinato l’Analisi. “Il nuovo peggioramento è legato in particolare all’aumento delle emissioni, il terzo consecutivo dopo il +5% del IV trimestre 2016 e il +2,5% del I trimestre 2017. In questo scenario gli obiettivi europei di riduzione dei gas serra al 2020 restano comunque a portata di mano, ma il cambiamento della traiettoria di decarbonizzazione a partire dal 2015 rende più problematico il raggiungimento degli obiettivi al 2030”, conclude Gracceva.

Nello specifico, l’indice ISPRED segnala un peggioramento sul lato sicurezza sia degli indicatori del sistema elettrico che del gas, in uno scenario che negli ultimi anni ha visto riemergere alcune fragilità del passato. Sul lato prezzi, l’Indice evidenzia un peggioramento del 14% per effetto principalmente del prezzo del gasolio che, seppur in discesa, risulta il più caro dell’intera Ue (“primato negativo” in condominio con la Svezia e legato alla diminuzione della fiscalità in altri Paesi membri). Allo stesso tempo, aumentano i prezzi dell’energia elettrica per le piccole imprese (+1,3% del II trimestre con una stima di +3,7% nel III trimestre 2017) e del gas per le piccole utenze (+9% nel I semestre).»

* * * * * * *

«Nel secondo trimestre 2017 la domanda di gas naturale in Italia è ammontata a circa 13,5 miliardi di m3, in aumento di circa 1,3 miliardi di m3 rispetto allo stesso periodo dell’anno precedente (Figura 39), pari a un incremento dell’11%. Si tratta del quinto incremento tendenziale consecutivo, e negli ultimi dieci trimestri, cioè a partire dal I trimestre del 2015»

*

«Dal lato dell’offerta, nel secondo trimestre dell’anno le importazioni hanno seguito la crescita della domanda, aumentando del 9,5% (+1,5 miliardi di m3) rispetto allo stesso trimestre dell’anno precedente (Figura 41).

La Russia resta ampiamente il primo fornitore di gas italiano. Dopo che in due degli ultimi tre trimestri il peso delle importazioni dalla Russia era sceso al di sotto del 40%, nell’ultimo trimestre tale peso è tornato a rappresentare quasi la metà dell’import totale. La forte crescita dei flussi al punto di entrata di Tarvisio (+1,4 miliardi di m3, +20% rispetto all’anno precedente) ha infatti quasi completamente compensato la notevole riduzione dei flussi al punto di entrata di Mazara (-1,7 miliardi di m3, -31%).»

*

«Nell’insieme dei Paesi europei si sono registrate tendenze simili a quelle viste per l’Italia. Dopo i massimi raggiunti nel 2016 dall’export di gas russo verso l’Europa (N.B.: Turchia inclusa), grazie a prezzi ai minimi degli ultimi dodici anni e inferiori ai prezzi spot, le esportazioni russe verso l’Europa sono continuate ad aumentare sia nel I sia nel II trimestre 2017, in concomitanza con un prezzo del gas russo sostanzialmente allineato ai prezzi spot»

* * *

«Come nei due trimestri precedenti anche nel II trimestre 2017 le emissioni di CO2 del sistema energetico italiano sono aumentate in termini tendenziali (cioè rispetto allo stesso periodo dell’anno precedente), sebbene in modo meno marcato»

*

«D’altra parte, nei due trimestri precedenti le emissioni erano state spinte da un importante fattore congiunturale, la crescita della generazione termoelettrica necessaria per rimpiazzare le ridotte importazioni dalla Francia»

*

«La conseguenza è che i dati degli ultimi due anni hanno cambiato in modo significativo la traiettoria di decarbonizzazione italiana, allontanandola dagli obiettivi di più lungo periodo, cioè quelli relativi al 2030 (riduzione del 33% per i settori non- ETS e del 43% per l’insieme dei settori ETS europei)»

* * * * * * *

Una cosa resta inspiegata ed apparentemente inspiegabile

I prezzi degli energetici sono denominati in dollari americani.

Se il rapporto euro / dollaro il 20 dicembre dello scorso anno valeva 1.04, ad oggi esso quota 1.1836.

Sarebbe sembrato sequenziale che i prezzi degli energetici fossero variati di conserva, cosa che non è stata.

Pubblicato in: Economia e Produzione Industriale, Energie Alternative, Finanza e Sistema Bancario

Morgan Stanley. Tesla non sarebbe un buon investimento.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-23.

Banche 0110

«Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) is a leading global financial services firm providing investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services. It is headquartered at 1585 Broadway in the Morgan Stanley Building, Midtown Manhattan, New York City. With offices in more than 42 countries and more than 55,000 employees, the firm’s clients include corporations, governments, institutions and individuals.

Morgan Stanley, formed by J.P. Morgan & Co. partners Henry Sturgis Morgan (grandson of J.P. Morgan), Harold Stanley and others, came into existence on September 16, 1935, in response to the Glass–Steagall Act that required the splitting of commercial and investment banking businesses. In its first year the company operated with a 24% market share (US$1.1 billion) in public offerings and private placements. The main areas of business for the firm today are Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management.» [Fonte]

*

In numeri, Morgan Stanley nel 2016 denunciava ricavi per 37.95 miliardi Usd, reddito operativo 8.5 miliardi, ed un asset under management di 1,300 miliardi. Più tutto il resto.

Di questa banca di interesse mondiale si può dire di tutto tranne che non sappiano guadagnare loro e far guadagnare i propri clienti, che le hanno dato da gestire un qualcosa come 1,300 miliardi di dollari.

Morgan Stanley sa più che bene come l’unico modo di mantener e di accrescere la clientela sia farla guadagnare.

* * * * * * *

«Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them.»

*

«And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material»

*

«the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.»

*

«Morgan Stanley, …. admitted that considering companies on a climate-change basis was not a perfect science»

* * * * * * *

Il risultato delle ricerche condotte dalla Morgan Stanley è riassumibile in due statement:

– se è vero che le automobili elettriche non sarebbero inquinanti, la produzione della corrente necessaria al loro funzionamento risulterebbe essere ancor più inquinante rispetto ai classici motori a combustione.

– Tesla non sarebbe società sulla quale operare investimenti strategici.

* * * * * * *

Ecco qualche spigolatura su Tesla.

Tesla. Vendite -24%, ma tanto lo stato ripiana….

Hong Kong. Tesla. Da grande mercato a zero vendite. Zero.

Denmark Is Killing Tesla (and Other Electric Cars)

Tesla’s sales in Denmark fell a jaw-dropping 94% last year – and Musk could see the crash from miles away

Tesla Bankruptcy Chances Increased Exponentially With The Capital Raise

Tesla: Capital Raise Now, Or Bankruptcy In 4 Months

Tesla Is Going Bankrupt And Is Still A Great Short

*

Trump. Tesla. Toyota fa fagotto e la lascia alla bancarotta


New American. 2017-08-18. Morgan Stanley: Tesla Not as Green as You Think

Morgan Stanley, the international banking behemoth, released the results of its study on the best “green” companies in which to invest. This is based, said the bank, on the assumptions that some, perhaps many, investors who have drunk the “green Kool-Aid” want to invest in ways to “save” the environment and fight against “climate change.” Missing from the top of their list is perhaps the most visible “green” automobile company: Tesla, Inc., formerly known as Tesla Motors.

After comparing the savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) achieved by Tesla’s high-mileage electric vehicles to all the “secondary and tertiary” factors involved in their manufacture, Morgan Stanley said, “The carbon emissions generated by the electricity required … are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.” That Tesla wasn’t nearer to the top, said the bank, was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.

Part of the problem, said the report, is that that electricity is largely generated by burning fossil fuels. With “72% [of electricity produced] in the U.S. [by fossil fuels], the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material,” said the bank.

This echoed conclusions made back in May by British “greenhouse gas” expert Mike Berners-Lee, author of How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything. Said Berners-Lee: “If you are a relatively low-mileage person, you should stick with your gas-powered car.” Enviros at left-liberal Salon magazine interviewed Berners-Lee, who admitted that “green” isn’t just measured by tail-pipe emissions, but by everything involved in building a Tesla:

Important factors in determining carbon emissions include the weight of the vehicle, driving habits and the source of the electricity that charges your car … it can be a much greener choice to keep the perfectly functional car you have, rather than go out and buy a new [green] one.

That CO2 calculation which adds up everything involved a building a Tesla, or any other vehicle, is called “embodied carbon”: all the energy required to build the car from the ground up. That includes the extraction and processing of raw materials and shipping the parts and the vehicles themselves across oceans in oil- or coal-fired tankers. It also includes the cost of building the massive plants to assemble them.

For instance, Tesla received approval last December from the city of Fremont, California, to expand its present facility there by 4.6 million square feet, which includes 12 “growth zones” around the site. This expansion includes the steel, concrete, and plastic not only in its construction but in the production lines and computers that drive the robots. It also must encompass the tax credits that Fremont’s politicians no doubt granted to keep Tesla from building its plant elsewhere.

There’s another cost involved as well — one that neither Berners-Lee nor Morgan Stanley considered: the $7,500 tax credit provided to purchasers of the Tesla which is paid for by taxpayers. These “incentives” distort the market and tilt it in favor of Tesla against its competitors. Without those incentives, credits, and political enticements, Tesla (which, by the way has turned a profit in just two quarters in its 13-year existence) might just be a footnote in history.

In other words, one can never know whether Tesla’s electric car venture would ever pay off, either economically or environmentally. Once the government (state, local, or federal) gets involved in picking winners, it distorts the market because it is also automatically involved in punishing losers (those who don’t get the credits). So one cannot ever be sure whether the free market, driven by consumer choice, would reward Tesla with profitability or even allow its continued existence.

Just how great is that market distortion, thanks to governmental favoritism and media hype? Consider this: Tesla’s market capitalization (its stock price multiplied by shares outstanding) is now greater than that of General Motors! This despite the fact that Tesla lost $773 million in 2016 while GM earned a profit of more than $9 billion. This despite the fact that Tesla sold only 76,000 cars last year while GM sold 10 million.

Tesla just may be “building a better mousetrap” with its lithium-ion battery-powered automobiles. It’s too bad that the free market won’t be allowed to make that decision on its own.


Market Watch. 2017-08-18. Want to fight climate change? Don’t invest in Tesla

Climate change is almost unanimously considered one of the gravest threats facing humanity, with the worst-case scenarios representing massive environmental destruction. Investors hoping to combat it with their portfolio allocations can, but one famous environmentally focused company may actually be doing more harm than good.

Morgan Stanley identified 39 stocks that generate at least half their revenue “from the provision of solutions to climate change,” something it said was a central component of investing to make a difference, as opposed to just a making a buck.

“In our view, impact investing needs to begin with companies whose products and services have a notable positive environmental or social impact,” wrote Jessica Alsford, an equity strategist at the investment bank.

Not surprisingly, alternative-energy companies ranked the highest in terms of their positive impact, and the “top five climate-change impact stocks” were all manufacturers of solar and wind energy: Canadian Solar CSIQ, -9.86% China High Speed Transmission 0658, +0.00% GCL-Poly 3800, +0.00% Daqo New Energy DQ, -5.25% and Jinko Solar JKS, -9.99%

Not among the top companies? Electric-car makers, including Tesla Inc. TSLA, -2.76% Elon Musk’s company has been an investor favorite for years, even eclipsing Ford Motor Co. F, +0.09%  and General Motors GM, +0.23%  in market cap.

Tesla shares are up nearly 66% so far this year, but the good it may have been doing for portfolios may not translate to it doing good for the planet. Morgan Stanley said this was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.

The bank grouped the “climate-change impact stocks” into four sector categories: utilities, renewable manufacturers, green infrastructure companies and transportation stocks. It then analyzed them on a number of metrics, including “the CO2 [carbon dioxide] savings achieved from the products and services sold by the companies,” as well as secondary and tertiary factors centered around the environmental impact of the making of these products.

This is where Tesla, along with China’s Guoxuan High-Tech 002074, +1.30% fall short.

“Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material.”

In other words, “the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.”

Morgan Stanley calculated that an investment of $1 million in Canadian Solar results in nearly 15,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide being saved every year. For Tesla, such an investment adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2.

Morgan Stanley, which in February advocated for looking at gender diversity when analyzing companies, admitted that considering companies on a climate-change basis was not a perfect science.

“Very few if any stocks will have a 100% net positive impact,” read the report. “However, the extra layer of analysis on subsidiary effects must be a subjective judgement call, based on whether the additional impacts (of which there may be many) are sufficiently negative to offset the positive effect created by the core business.”

It added, “We even struggled to find total CO2 emissions data for most companies.”

Investing with an eye toward the environment is part of a growing trend of ESG investing, which stands for evaluating companies on environmental, social and governance grounds. Such investments favor companies that have strong environmental policies, or that treat their employees well, for example.

There are even funds that focus specifically on climate-change issues, like the iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF CRBN, -0.10%  or the SPDR MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF LOWC, -0.12%  . Both exchange-traded funds have outperformed the broader S&P 500 so far this year, whereas the largest ETF to track the energy sector XLE, -0.51%  recently dropped into bear-market territory, defined as a 20% drop from a peak.

The low-carbon funds have seen increased usage over the past year, something analysts credit to the election of President Donald Trump, whose administration is seen as hostile to environmentally friendly policies.