Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative

Italia. Energie alternative in calo, ma promettono 2.7 milioni posti lavoro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-16.

Animali_che_Ridono__006_Muli

Nessuno si stupisce più di tanto che cessati gli incentivi statali le energie alternative in Italia stiano ristagnando.

E poi iniziano a mordere le spese di manutenzione e rinnovo degli impianti, che non son cifre da poco.

Ma ciò che lascia sempre più perplessi è la levità espressiva dei supporter.

«sono circa un milione gli impianti tra elettrici e termici installati»

*

«creazione di 2,7 milioni di posti di lavoro»

* * * * * * *

A parte il fatto che in italiano ‘creare‘ significa trarre dal nulla, prerogativa della Divinità non certo della stirpe umana, 2.7 milioni di nuovi posti di lavori sono più del 10% dell’attuale forza lavoro italiana.

Per promettere di generare 2.7 milioni di posti di lavoro serve un fegato grosso così.

Poi, essendo il numero degli impianti eguale ad un milione, ci sarebbero tre addetti per ogni impianto: un numero fantasmagorico.

Poniamo anche di pagarli una miseria, 1,500 euro al mese, 18,000 euro l’anno.

Ogni impianto dovrebbe sobbarcarsi l’onere di 48,600 euro l’anno per mantenere i nuovi posti di lavoro.

Roba da pazzi.

* * * * * * *

Poi certa gente si lamenta che non li si stia più a sentire.


Ansa. 2019-05-14. Cala dopo 12 anni la produzione di energia pulita in Italia

ROMA – Cala per la prima volta dopo 12 anni, in Italia, la produzione di energia da fonti rinnovabili – in particolare solare, eolico e bioenergie – e vanno lentissimi gli investimenti nel settore, sia perchè non ci sono più incentivi a sostenerlo, sia per le barriere autorizzative ai progetti nei territori. Lo rileva Legambiente nel rapporto ‘Comuni rinnovabili 2019’, sottolineando che “lo sviluppo delle rinnovabili in Italia è praticamente fermo”, mentre “molto di più dovremo fare per stare dentro l’Accordo di Parigi sul clima”, fra i cui obiettivi c’è la riduzione del 55% delle emissioni di gas serra al 2030. I benefici sarebbero pari a 5,5 miliardi di euro all’anno e alla creazione di 2,7 milioni di posti di lavoro (secondo una ricerca realizzata da Elemens per Legambiente).

Tuttavia, nella nostra Penisola sono circa un milione gli impianti tra elettrici e termici installati in tutti i comuni italiani. Grazie al mix fra fotovoltaico, solare termico, mini idroelettrico, eolico, bioenergie e geotermia distribuiti su tutto il territorio, sono 3.054 i comuni diventati autosufficienti per i fabbisogni elettrici e 50 per quelli termici, mentre sono 41 le realtà già rinnovabili al 100% per tutti i fabbisogni delle famiglie.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata, Devoluzione socialismo

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

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-05-31.

Fotovoltaico. 001

Tutto è nato da uno dei tanto reclamizzati spin-off, che trasferirebbero scienza di avanguardia all’industria. Lo sa anche l’ultima Brachycera Tabanomorpha che gli spin-off sono il futuro delle economie occidentali, recitano in coro i fautori delle alternative.

Solo gli imbecilli ci cascano, ma purtroppo sono tanti: davvero tanti.

«Suniva is a US manufacturer of high-efficiency crystalline silicon photovoltaic (PV) solar cells and high-power solar modules. Headquartered in metropolitan Atlanta, with manufacturing facilities in Georgia and Michigan, Suniva sells its PV products globally.

Their distribution network for solar panels covers over 53 distributors and wholesalers, across over 7 different countries.

Suniva spun out of Georgia Institute of Technology’s University Center of Excellence in Photovoltaics and the work of Dr. Ajeet Rohatgi in 2007. Dr. Rohatgi is the founder and director of the photovoltaic (PV) research program at Georgia Tech (since 1985) and the founding director of the U.S. Department of Energy-funded University Center of Excellence in Photovoltaics (UCEP). Suniva built its first manufacturing plant in Norcross, GA in 2008, which had an initial production capacity of 32 MW and has since expanded to over 400 MW. In July, 2014, Suniva announced its 200 MW module facility in Saginaw, Michigan.» [Fonte]

*

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

* * *

«Troubles at Suniva, one of the largest U.S. solar manufacturers, are a blow to Georgia’s nascent solar industry. The company had been growing rapidly since its 2007 founding at Georgia Tech – much of it with the help of millions in tax credits for new jobs, grants and other incentives.»

*

«Suniva is largely owned by Chinese solar panel maker Shunfeng International Clean Energy, which in 2015 bought a nearly two-thirds stake in Suniva in a bid to boost U.S. sales and avoid tariffs on panels made overseas.»

*

«An AJC analysis at the time of the announcement found the company could stand to receive up to $11 million in state incentives»

*

«Suniva, the Norcross-based builder of solar cells and modules, has filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy, according to documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

In the filing, the company cites tariffs issues in the industry with causing its financial hardship.

“Whereas Chinese and Taiwanese manufactured solar cells are subject to U.S. tariffs, solar cells manufactured elsewhere are not. It is solar cells manufactured in southeast Asia and included in solar modules or panels that are flooding the United States market, driving down prices.”» [Ajc]

* * * * * * *

Ricapitolando.

Questa pregevole ditta, scaturita da uno dei prestigiosi centri di ricerca avanzata, il Georgia Institute of Technology’s University Center of Excellence in Photovoltaics, che aveva ricevuto immani finanziamenti pubblici dall’Epa, fiore all’occhiello dei liberals democratici e delle loro politiche ecologiche, è fallita.

Fin qui nulla di strano.

È fallita nonostante i sussidi pubblici alle installazioni, miliardi prelevati dai contribuenti per alimentare i portafogli dei liberals democratici. Ma anche questo non dovrebbe far più notizia: è la norma.

L’Amministrazione Obama aveva provvidamente messo dei dazi sui pannelli prodotti in Cina ed a Taiwan. Si noti che quando agiva da protezionista Mr Barak Obama era atto giusto, doveroso ed in linea con le più avanzate teorie economiche. Se lo avesse fatto Mr Trump sarebbe stato atto ingiusto, illiberale e condannato e condannabile da ogni teoria economica.

Adesso la Suniva, in un ultimo disperato tentativo di sopravvivere e mantenere così i suoi sodali, richiede la ulteriore estensione dei dazi a tutti i produttori esteri.

Come al solito in casa liberal democratica, le questioni di vile bottega sono prospettate come beneficienza alla umanità. Ufficialmente tale azione protezionistica è fatta “per salvaguardare i posti di lavoro“.

*

«This Could Be the Biggest Disruption the U.S. Solar Industry Has Ever Seen. Donald Trump could end up deciding the fate of America’s solar industry only a few months from now»

*

«When Suniva filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, it made a petition under Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs to be placed on an industry that’s seeing “significant harm” from imports»

*

«Suniva requested a duty of $0.40 per watt on imported solar cells, and a price floor of $0.78 per watt on solar modules»

*

Ma i conti non tornano lo stesso.

Supponiamo che Mr Trump consenta a mettere dazi sopra il 60% del valore del prodotto.

La levitazione dei costi di acquisto da parte dell’utente finale metterebbe immediatamente fuori mercato il fotovoltaico, anche tenendo conto dei sussidi pubblici e delle tariffe agevolate.

Ben difficilmente la gente comune farebbe la fila per spendere un occhio della testa e poi essere sicura di continuare a perderci sopra.

Dazi o non dazi il cuore del problema è che il fotovoltaico è fallito, e con lui sta agonizzando quella colossale truffa denominata “clima”.


The Motley Fool. 2017-05-27. This Could Be the Biggest Disruption the U.S. Solar Industry Has Ever Seen

Donald Trump could end up deciding the fate of America’s solar industry only a few months from now.

*

The most consequential trade ruling in the short history of the American solar industry could be coming in the next few months, brought on by a manufacturer most U.S. consumers have never heard of. When Suniva filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, it made a petition under Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs to be placed on an industry that’s seeing “significant harm” from imports.

Suniva requested a duty of $0.40 per watt on imported solar cells, and a price floor of $0.78 per watt on solar modules. Today, the open market has modules selling for less than $0.40, so this could be a huge negative for every developer from residential installers like Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), Sunrun (NASDAQ:RUN), and Vivint Solar (NYSE:VSLR) to larger developers like NRG Energy (NYSE:NRG) and NextEra Energy (NYSE:NEE). And while it would definitely be a major negative for Chinese manufacturers like Canadian Solar (NASDAQ:CSIQ), JinkoSolar Holding Co. (NYSE:JKS), and JA Solar Holdings (NASDAQ:JASO), we don’t know if U.S.-based First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) and SunPower (NASDAQ:SPWR) would have a net benefit.

As you can see, a lot of players could be impacted by this trade case. Here’s what we know and what we don’t.

Suniva’s case is moving forward

In a first step, the U.S. International Trade Commission has officially accepted Suniva’s petition and will hear the case on Aug. 15, make a recommendation by Sept. 22, and recommend an action for President Trump to take by Nov.13. Yes, the solar industry’s future could be in the hands of Donald Trump, so the range of possible outcomes is enormous.

What we don’t know is the scope of the case. If it includes only Chinese solar cells and modules, the impact, even to Chinese manufacturers, could be minimal. And previous tariffs have been written narrowly enough that there’s been little impact on solar panel prices in the U.S.

But if the trade case is broadened to include all imports, it could sweep First Solar and SunPower, which both manufacture most of their cells overseas, into the mix. And every solar developer would see costs rise dramatically. Analyst Ben Gallagher of GTM Research (a subsidiary of Wood Mackenzie, a subsidiary of Verisk Analytics) said utility-scale single-axis tracker pricing could rise from $1.08 per watt to $1.56 per watt overnight.

Who takes the brunt of this trade case?

Developers would definitely be hurt most by solar tariffs. Residential and commercial solar installations would drop, and utility projects signed in the last couple of years would have little chance of being completed. From an investment standpoint, Tesla could be spared, depending on where it’s sourcing solar cells for its Buffalo plant. But Vivint and Sunrun would definitely see costs rise sharply.

As I mentioned, Chinese manufacturers would also feel a negative impact, but they have a global customer base, so the impact would be muted. And depending on how rules are written, they might not be affected at all.

Wouldn’t this be a boon for First Solar and SunPower?

As two leading U.S. solar companies, First Solar and SunPower should hypothetically benefit from tariffs on solar imports. But if rules are written too broadly, they could be swept up in the ruling as well with their Asian manufacturing.

First Solar’s CEO Mark Widmar said this of his company’s flexibility in adapting to solar tariffs :

Now if the trade case were to get some traction, could we look to continue producing some Series 4 in Perrysburg, as an example, potentially? Again … it’s a longer date of horizon, depending on what happens with this case. We have the optionality of adding incremental capacity in Perrysburg if need be. Again, the toolset accommodates production volume that is closer to 1.1 gigawatts versus the currently planned 550 megawatts, so a lot there to be evaluated.

SunPower doesn’t have the same manufacturing capacity in the U.S., but it could adapt if tariffs are put in place. Here’s what CEO Tom Werner said during SunPower’s first-quarter conference call:

… we’re an American company, we source a lot of materials from America, and so it’ll of course be relevant if things were to play out, how they would play out in terms of what’s considered American content and what isn’t, but we have a significant supply chain in America. And we, of course, have produced models in America previously. Our supply chain is a worldwide supply chain, so we have flexibility and we’ll evaluate options as we need to.

While I don’t think tariffs would be good for First Solar and SunPower unless they were written very specifically to hurt Chinese manufacturers, both companies could see an incremental benefit in their North American manufacturing and production flexibility. And they could even make massive investments in the U.S. if it would mean more market share here.

Overall, tariffs are bad for U.S. solar jobs

What’s interesting in all of this is that the Solar Energy Industries Association is fighting tooth and nail against the Suniva petition, a change from taking a fairly neutral stance in previous trade cases because the group represented all sides. But most U.S. solar jobs are in installing solar panels, not manufacturing, so a big tariff like Suniva wants could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

If this case reaches Donald Trump’s desk he’ll be deciding between those jobs and the potential for more U.S. solar manufacturing. And no one knows which side he’ll take.

Travis Hoium owns shares of First Solar and SunPower. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool owns shares of NRG Energy and Verisk Analytics. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Pubblicato in: Problemia Energetici, Sistemi Economici

Francia. Nucleare. Via i socialisti, via le rinnovabili.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2016-05-23.

 generatore_energia_elettrica_gratis_video

Lo sapevano anche le pantegane di Parigi. Ma non lo si poteva dire a voce alta e chiara.

Chi settant’anni or sono avesse osato dire che gli Ebrei erano brava gente sarebbe finito in campo di sterminio a meditare sul fatto che non è mai prudente dire la verità sotto una dittatura.

Anche se questa verità fosse stata lampante.

Adesso che il partito socialista francese sta andando incontro all’estinzione, la gente inizia a tirare un respiro di sollievo ed a poter di nuovo dire che due più due fa quattro, e non quello che fa guadagnare il partito (socialista).

*

«Renewable energy is far from being able to replace nuclear energy in France’s electricity mix»

*

«Dominique Miniere said a 2015 study by state energy agency ADEME, which showed France could switch to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 for the same cost as relying on nuclear for half of its power, was not realistic»

*

«A certain number of points in that study are not based on technological realities»

* * * * * * *

Ma la mazza ferrata cade senza pietà sui crani di dura cervice.

«Germany’s 80 gigawatt installed renewable energy capacity is about 1.3 times installed French nuclear capacity, but produces three to four times less power per year because solar and wind operate only about 15 percent of the time compared to about 80 percent for nuclear»

*

Riassumiamo.

(1). I tedeschi hanno speso un occhio della testa in aiuti di stato (soldi dei Contribuenti) per installare rinnovabili per una potenza 1.3 volte maggiore quella del nucleare francese, e questi impianti rinnovabili rendono non più del 25% – 30%.

In altri termini, i costi sono quattro volte tanti a parità di energia prodotta.

(2). Grande scoperta, da Premio Nobel per la fisica. Senza vento gli impianti eolici non producono nulla e senza luce gli impianti fotovoltaici diventano meri ornamenti architettonici inerti.

Ma chi mai avrebbe potuto immaginarsi una cosa del genere?? Chi mai??

E così, se non tirasse vento o fosse nuvolo nelle ore di punta, tutti al buio e tutti gli impianti industriali chiusi. Ecologicamente perfetti.

* * * * * * *

Siamo chiari.

Solo la povera mente dei socialisti e dei verdi non ci sarebbe mai arrivata da sola.

 

Reuters. 2015-05-21. Renewables cannot replace nuclear in France yet : EDF exec

Renewable energy is far from being able to replace nuclear energy in France’s electricity mix, utility EDF’s head of nuclear said on Thursday.

Dominique Miniere said a 2015 study by state energy agency ADEME, which showed France could switch to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 for the same cost as relying on nuclear for half of its power, was not realistic.

“A certain number of points in that study are not based on technological realities,” EDF executive committee member Miniere told reporters in reply to a question.

Energy minister Segolene Royal delayed publication of the controversial study until after parliament voted last summer for the energy transition law, which pledged more support for renewables but maintained reliance on the atom for about three quarters of French electricity.

“We do not believe in a 100 percent renewables mix by the horizon (ADEME) indicates. However, we want to extend the lifespan of our reactors in order to allow a gradual increase of renewables in the mix,” Miniere added.

He said replacing nuclear with renewables too quickly, citing Germany as an example, ends up boosting carbon emissions from fossil fuel.

He said Germany’s 80 gigawatt installed renewable energy capacity is about 1.3 times installed French nuclear capacity, but produces three to four times less power per year because solar and wind operate only about 15 percent of the time compared to about 80 percent for nuclear.

Miniere said that in 2010 French power production emitted 10 times less carbon than Germany’s, but that as Germany has switched on more coal and lignite plants to compensate for closed nuclear reactors, France now emits 30 times less carbon.

Miniere – whose name was not on a letter of EDF engineers supporting EDF’s project to build nuclear reactors in Hinkley Point, UK – denied he did not back the project.

He said the letter was signed by staff who had worked on Hinkley Point or EDF’s new nuclear plant in Flamanville, France.

“These people had the credibility to sign,” he said, adding there was no internal opposition between managers of the existing fleet and managers in charge of new nuclear projects.

EDF’s unions and some of its senior staff want the company to delay Hinkley Point by several years in order to avoid further stretching EDF’s balance sheet.