Extinction Rebellion spokeswoman quits green movement to become a campaigner for nuclear power saying: 'I changed my mind'
In this newsletter:
1) EU Ministers Exclude Nuclear & Gas From Green Transition Fund
EurActiv, 26 June 2020
2) Good News: Even Radical Greens Can Change Their Mind
Daily Mail, 25 June 2020
3) Why Climate Activists Will Go Nuclear — Or Go Extinct
Michael Shellenberger, Quillette, 25 June 2020
4) ‘Apocalypse Never’ Review: False Gods for Lost Souls
The Wall Street Journal, 21 June 2020
The Wall Street Journal, 21 June 2020
5) Power Play: Race For Czech Nuclear Plant Stirs Geopolitical Stew
Reporting Democracy, 26 June 2020
6) New Paper: Renewables Are Destabilising UK Electricity Grid
Samuel Homan and Solomon Brown, Energy Reports, May 2020
Samuel Homan and Solomon Brown, Energy Reports, May 2020
7) Samuel Furfari: The EU’s Green Deal Has A Legal Problem
European Scientist, 24 June 2020
8) Europe’s Green Flop: CO2 Emissions From New Cars & New Vans Increased Again In 2019
European Environment Agency, 26 June 2020
9) IPCC and Sceptics Agree: Climate Change Is Not Causing Extreme Weather
H. Sterling Burnett, The Epoch Times, 24 June 2020
10) And Finally: Solar Maintenance To ‘Cost $9.4bn By 2025’
reNews.biz, 22 June 2020
European Environment Agency, 26 June 2020
9) IPCC and Sceptics Agree: Climate Change Is Not Causing Extreme Weather
H. Sterling Burnett, The Epoch Times, 24 June 2020
10) And Finally: Solar Maintenance To ‘Cost $9.4bn By 2025’
reNews.biz, 22 June 2020
Full details:
1) EU Ministers Exclude Nuclear & Gas From Green Transition Fund
EurActiv, 26 June 2020
European Union countries agreed on Wednesday (24 June) that the bloc’s flagship fund to wean regions off fossil fuels should not finance nuclear or natural gas projects, despite calls from some Eastern countries for gas to be eligible for EU funding.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive, wants to set up a €40 billion Just Transition Fund, comprised of €30 billion from an EU coronavirus recovery fund and €10 billion from its budget for 2021-27.
The fund aims to encourage a shift from high-carbon industries that would help coal miners to retrain and find new low-carbon jobs, and support regions whose economies depend on polluting sectors to build new industries.
Ambassadors from the EU’s 27 member states agreed on Wednesday that the Just Transition “shall not support the decommissioning or the construction of nuclear power stations” nor “investment related to the production, processing, distribution, storage or combustion of fossil fuels,” according to a document, published on Thursday (25 June).
The position is in line with the Commission’s, making it likely that the final Just Transition Fund will exclude nuclear and gas.
The proposal will be finalised following negotiations between member states, the Commission and EU Parliament, with the latter typically favouring ambitious climate change policies.
With EU leaders still wrangling over the size and shape of the EU’s recovery fund and budget, member states held off agreeing a number for the size of the pot.
While transition money is off the table, fossil gas projects could still seek support from other parts of the EU budget and coronavirus recovery funds – so long as those projects “do no harm” to the bloc’s emissions-cutting goals.
Eight eastern countries last month urged the EU to include natural gas projects in future funding, which they say they need to shift away from coal power.
Full story
2) Good News: Even Radical Greens Can Change Their Mind
Daily Mail, 25 June 2020
Extinction Rebellion spokeswoman Zion Lights quits green movement to become lobbyist for nuclear power saying: ‘I changed my mind’
EurActiv, 26 June 2020
European Union countries agreed on Wednesday (24 June) that the bloc’s flagship fund to wean regions off fossil fuels should not finance nuclear or natural gas projects, despite calls from some Eastern countries for gas to be eligible for EU funding.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive, wants to set up a €40 billion Just Transition Fund, comprised of €30 billion from an EU coronavirus recovery fund and €10 billion from its budget for 2021-27.
The fund aims to encourage a shift from high-carbon industries that would help coal miners to retrain and find new low-carbon jobs, and support regions whose economies depend on polluting sectors to build new industries.
Ambassadors from the EU’s 27 member states agreed on Wednesday that the Just Transition “shall not support the decommissioning or the construction of nuclear power stations” nor “investment related to the production, processing, distribution, storage or combustion of fossil fuels,” according to a document, published on Thursday (25 June).
The position is in line with the Commission’s, making it likely that the final Just Transition Fund will exclude nuclear and gas.
The proposal will be finalised following negotiations between member states, the Commission and EU Parliament, with the latter typically favouring ambitious climate change policies.
With EU leaders still wrangling over the size and shape of the EU’s recovery fund and budget, member states held off agreeing a number for the size of the pot.
While transition money is off the table, fossil gas projects could still seek support from other parts of the EU budget and coronavirus recovery funds – so long as those projects “do no harm” to the bloc’s emissions-cutting goals.
Eight eastern countries last month urged the EU to include natural gas projects in future funding, which they say they need to shift away from coal power.
Full story
2) Good News: Even Radical Greens Can Change Their Mind
Daily Mail, 25 June 2020
Extinction Rebellion spokeswoman Zion Lights quits green movement to become lobbyist for nuclear power saying: ‘I changed my mind’
Extinction Rebellion’s spokeswoman has quit the protest group to become a nuclear power campaigner.
Zion Lights, 36, has left the climate change cause, which brought London to a standstill last year, to join pro-nuke outfit Environmental Progress.
The former XR communications head said she had felt ‘duped’ after being surrounded by anti-nuclear campaigners until she read more into the radioactive fuel.
Zion Lights, pictured in mask and speaking at an event, has quit Extinction Rebellion after deciding nuclear power is the future
Mother-of-two Zion said: ‘The facts didn’t really change, but once I understood them I did change my mind.’
Zion, who was born in the West Midlands and given her unusual name as a baby, said: ‘I have a long history of campaigning on environmental issues, most recently as a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion UK.
‘Now, I have quit the organisation to take up a position as a campaigner for nuclear power.’
Full story
GWPF Report: Dangers Of Nuclear Energy ‘Much Less Than Previously Thought’
Zion Lights, 36, has left the climate change cause, which brought London to a standstill last year, to join pro-nuke outfit Environmental Progress.
The former XR communications head said she had felt ‘duped’ after being surrounded by anti-nuclear campaigners until she read more into the radioactive fuel.
Zion Lights, pictured in mask and speaking at an event, has quit Extinction Rebellion after deciding nuclear power is the future
Mother-of-two Zion said: ‘The facts didn’t really change, but once I understood them I did change my mind.’
Zion, who was born in the West Midlands and given her unusual name as a baby, said: ‘I have a long history of campaigning on environmental issues, most recently as a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion UK.
‘Now, I have quit the organisation to take up a position as a campaigner for nuclear power.’
Full story
GWPF Report: Dangers Of Nuclear Energy ‘Much Less Than Previously Thought’
see also The Green God That Failed – Almost
3) Why Climate Activists Will Go Nuclear — Or Go Extinct
Michael Shellenberger, Quillette, 25 June 2020
In October 2019, the British climate activist group Extinction Rebellion carried out two weeks of civil disobedience in London and other cities around the world. Six thousand activists blocked the five main bridges that cross the River Thames, which flows through London, preventing people from getting to work or home.
An Extinction Rebellion spokesperson went on national television and made a series of alarming claims. “Billions of people are going to die.” “Life on Earth is dying.” And, “Governments aren’t addressing it.”
Some journalists pushed back. The BBC’s Andrew Neil interviewed a visibly uncomfortable Extinction Rebellion spokesperson in her mid-30s named Zion Lights. “One of your founders, Roger Hallam, said in April, ‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years,’” said Neil. “What’s the scientific basis for these claims?”
“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” Lights said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying that they’re simply not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”
“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent reports] and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children going to die in under 20 years… How would they die?”
Responded Lights, “Mass migration around the world is already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, also Siberia, the Arctic.”
“These are really important problems,” Neil said, “and they can cause fatalities. But they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t mean that our young people will all be dead in 20 years.”
“Perhaps not in 20 years,” acknowledged Lights.
“I’ve seen young girls on television, part of your demonstration… crying because they think they’re going to die in five or six years’ time, crying because they don’t think they’ll ever see adulthood,” said Neil.
“And yet there’s no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making.”
“I’m not saying that because I’m alarming children,” replied Lights. “They’re learning about the consequences.” [...]
In December, I interviewed Lights, by phone. A lifelong environmentalist, Lights is the author of the 2015 book, The Guide to Green Parenting, which has been praised by climate activist Bill McKibben and former British Green Party leader Natalie Bennet.
Shortly after she told me her history, we started to argue.
“Let’s talk about the claims,” I said.
“Billions are going to die?”
“I didn’t say that,” Lights said. “Roger [Hallam] said it.”
“But he’s the Extinction Rebellion’s founder!” I protested.
“It doesn’t matter!” she said. “They have as much power as I do. So it’s not fair to say he represents us.”
Lights explained that Extinction Rebellion is not an organization in the normal sense. It is officially leaderless. [...]
Lights then said something that caught my attention. “I’m like you,” she said. “I think we need nuclear.”
Lights said she had quit the Green Party 10 years earlier over its opposition to nuclear.
“I was in Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and got sucked into this idea of nuclear not being safe,” she explained.
Lights told me she changed her mind after a scientist told her nuclear energy was, in fact, safer than other energy sources. “I said, ‘That’s not what I’ve been told.’ And he said, ‘Don’t just listen to what people tell you.’ And so I looked it up and he was right. The data shows it is safe. And I realized solar panels and batteries are not going to meet demand. The more I read the more I realized, ‘Oh no! These things I believed aren’t true!’”
Full post
4) ‘Apocalypse Never’ Review: False Gods for Lost Souls
The Wall Street Journal, 21 June 2020
By John Tierney
There is a recurring puzzle in the history of the environmental movement: Why do green activists keep promoting policies that are harmful not only to humans but also to the environment? Michael Shellenberger is determined to solve this problem, and he is singularly well qualified.
He understands activists because he has been one himself since high school, when he raised money for the Rainforest Action Network. Early in his adult career, he campaigned to protect redwood trees, promote renewable energy, stop global warming, and improve the lives of farmers and factory workers in the Third World. But the more he traveled, the more he questioned what Westerners’ activism was accomplishing for people or for nature.
He became a different kind of activist by helping start a movement called ecomodernism, the subject of “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.” He still wants to help the poor and preserve ecosystems, but through industrialization instead of “sustainable development.” He’s still worried about climate change, but he doesn’t consider it the most important problem today, much less a threat to humanity’s survival—and he sees that greens’ favorite solutions are making the problem worse.
He chronicles environmental progress around the world and crisply debunks myth after gloomy myth. No, we are not in the midst of the “sixth mass extinction,” because only 0.001% of the planet’s species go extinct annually. No, whales were not saved by Greenpeace but rather by the capitalist entrepreneurs who discovered cheaper substitutes for whale oil (first petroleum, then vegetable oils) that decimated the whaling industry long before activists got involved. No, plastics don’t linger for thousands of years in the ocean; they’re broken down by sunlight and other forces. No, climate change has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.
In 2002, Mr. Shellenberger proposed the New Apollo Project, a precursor to the Green New Deal. Many of its ideas for promoting renewable energy were adopted by the Obama administration and received more than $150 billion in federal funds, but Mr. Shellenberger was disillusioned with the results. A disproportionate share of the money, as he documents, went to companies that enriched donors to the Obama campaign but failed to yield practical technologies.
APOCALYPSE NEVER
By Michael Shellenberger
Harper, 413 pages, $29.99
He now considers most forms of renewable energy to be impractical for large-scale use. Windmills and solar power are too expensive and unreliable as a primary source of power for people in poor countries, and they cause too much environmental damage because they require vast areas of land and harm flora and fauna. He faults Western activists and governments for trying to force these technologies on Third World countries and prevent them from building hydroelectric and fossil-fuel power plants.
“Rich nations,” he writes, “should do everything they can to help poor nations industrialize.” Instead “many of them are doing something closer to the opposite: seeking to make poverty sustainable rather than to make poverty history.”
While industrialization causes a short-term rise in carbon emissions, in the long term it’s beneficial to the environment as people move to cities, allowing farmland to revert to nature, and as prosperity enables them to switch to cleaner and more compact forms of energy. Carbon emissions decline as people move from wood to coal to natural gas, and then ultimately to what Mr. Shellenberger calls the safest and cleanest source: nuclear energy, the only practical technology for drastically curtailing carbon emissions, if only green activists would stop trying to shut down nuclear plants.
Mr. Shellenberger blames the anti-nuke movement partly on fearmongering by activists and journalists, partly on instinctive hostility to new technology, and partly on financial self-interest. “Every major climate activist group in America,” he writes, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, “has been seeking to close nuclear plants around the United States while taking money from or investing in natural gas companies, renewable energy companies, and their investors who stand to make billions if nuclear plants are closed and replaced by natural gas.”
Mr. Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of “environmental colonialism.” He realizes, though, that rational arguments alone won’t convince devout environmentalists.
“I was drawn toward the apocalyptic view of climate change twenty years ago,” he writes. “I can see now that my heightened anxiety about climate reflected underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.”
For him and so many others, environmentalism offered emotional relief and spiritual satisfaction, giving them a sense of purpose and transcendence. It has become a substitute religion for those who have abandoned traditional faiths, as he explains in his concluding chapter, “False Gods for Lost Souls.” Its priests have been warning for half a century that humanity is about to be punished for its sins against nature, and no matter how often the doomsday forecasts fail, the faithful still thrill to each new one.
“The trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating,” he writes. “It leads its adherents to demonize their opponents, often hypocritically. It drives them to seek to restrict power and prosperity at home and abroad. And it spreads anxiety and depression without meeting the deeper psychological, existential, and spiritual needs its ostensibly secular devotees seek.”
Full post
5) Power Play: Race For Czech Nuclear Plant Stirs Geopolitical Stew
Reporting Democracy, 26 June 2020
Chinese, Russian, US and other firms are all in a race to bid to construct the first new nuclear plant in the Czech Republic in years that will have major political implications.
The Czech government hopes in the coming weeks to open negotiations with the EU to get a green light to construct a new reactor at its Dukovany II nuclear power plant costing some 6 billion euros, government officials told BIRN.
The country is finally moving ahead with long-delayed plans to expand its collection of nuclear plants.
But the race for the job of building the first new reactor in years is set to stoke geopolitical and domestic tensions, experts say.
Talks with Brussels will focus on the financial model for the project, which is being finalized by the government, and is expected to include “repayable financial aid” and an offtake contract – i.e. a loan to the state-controlled energy group CEZ and a price guarantee on power, Stepanka Filipova, from the Czech industry ministry, told BIRN.
“The government is not looking for cash,” Ondrej Houska, an editor at the Hospodarskenoviny broadsheet, explained.
“They know that’s impossible, especially with Austria and Germany so opposed to nuclear [power]. But if the Commission agrees to call nuclear an ‘emission-free source’, that should convince Brussels to be relaxed on the state aid issue and also help with private financing.”
It is widely accepted that building new nuclear capacity in Europe without significant state support is all but impossible.
The Czech government has spent years demanding that CEZ finance new nuclear capacity on its own. The government’s U-turn to offer financial support comes as it struggles to get new nuclear projects up and running. The Czech Republic’s long-term energy strategy states that expanding nuclear power is vital to ensure energy security while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The strategy calls for the construction of up to four new reactors by 2040. But those ambitions are behind schedule. In May, the government announced it hopes to see construction of the first reactor start in 2029, going into operation by 2037.
On top of the deadline and cost problems that haunt any new nuclear builds, amid tightened security and safety requirements, the Czechs face two other hurdles: winning EU approval and navigating a geopolitical minefield in choosing a supplier.
Full story
Abstract: With increasing penetration of wind and solar generation on electricity grids around the world, concerns are being raised about the effect this has on system stability. One measure of system stability is the volatility of the grid frequency. In this paper, an analysis is performed using one second resolution frequency data from Great Britain. We demonstrate that the number of frequency events has increased dramatically in the last couple of years, which coincides with the rapid increase in renewable penetration (wind and solar). We further demonstrate that the number of times the frequency is too high, corresponding to periods of more generation than demand, occurs roughly twice as often as when the frequency is too low. The different types of events (high and low) occur, on average, at different times in the day. The change in event severity and correlation between rate of change of frequency and settlement period boundaries is also presented. This study provides a useful insight into the state of stability of the electricity grid in Great Britain and when the system is at its most vulnerable.
Full paper
An Extinction Rebellion spokesperson went on national television and made a series of alarming claims. “Billions of people are going to die.” “Life on Earth is dying.” And, “Governments aren’t addressing it.”
Some journalists pushed back. The BBC’s Andrew Neil interviewed a visibly uncomfortable Extinction Rebellion spokesperson in her mid-30s named Zion Lights. “One of your founders, Roger Hallam, said in April, ‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years,’” said Neil. “What’s the scientific basis for these claims?”
“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” Lights said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying that they’re simply not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”
“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent reports] and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children going to die in under 20 years… How would they die?”
Responded Lights, “Mass migration around the world is already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, also Siberia, the Arctic.”
“These are really important problems,” Neil said, “and they can cause fatalities. But they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t mean that our young people will all be dead in 20 years.”
“Perhaps not in 20 years,” acknowledged Lights.
“I’ve seen young girls on television, part of your demonstration… crying because they think they’re going to die in five or six years’ time, crying because they don’t think they’ll ever see adulthood,” said Neil.
“And yet there’s no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making.”
“I’m not saying that because I’m alarming children,” replied Lights. “They’re learning about the consequences.” [...]
In December, I interviewed Lights, by phone. A lifelong environmentalist, Lights is the author of the 2015 book, The Guide to Green Parenting, which has been praised by climate activist Bill McKibben and former British Green Party leader Natalie Bennet.
Shortly after she told me her history, we started to argue.
“Let’s talk about the claims,” I said.
“Billions are going to die?”
“I didn’t say that,” Lights said. “Roger [Hallam] said it.”
“But he’s the Extinction Rebellion’s founder!” I protested.
“It doesn’t matter!” she said. “They have as much power as I do. So it’s not fair to say he represents us.”
Lights explained that Extinction Rebellion is not an organization in the normal sense. It is officially leaderless. [...]
Lights then said something that caught my attention. “I’m like you,” she said. “I think we need nuclear.”
Lights said she had quit the Green Party 10 years earlier over its opposition to nuclear.
“I was in Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and got sucked into this idea of nuclear not being safe,” she explained.
Lights told me she changed her mind after a scientist told her nuclear energy was, in fact, safer than other energy sources. “I said, ‘That’s not what I’ve been told.’ And he said, ‘Don’t just listen to what people tell you.’ And so I looked it up and he was right. The data shows it is safe. And I realized solar panels and batteries are not going to meet demand. The more I read the more I realized, ‘Oh no! These things I believed aren’t true!’”
Full post
4) ‘Apocalypse Never’ Review: False Gods for Lost Souls
The Wall Street Journal, 21 June 2020
By John Tierney
There is a recurring puzzle in the history of the environmental movement: Why do green activists keep promoting policies that are harmful not only to humans but also to the environment? Michael Shellenberger is determined to solve this problem, and he is singularly well qualified.
He understands activists because he has been one himself since high school, when he raised money for the Rainforest Action Network. Early in his adult career, he campaigned to protect redwood trees, promote renewable energy, stop global warming, and improve the lives of farmers and factory workers in the Third World. But the more he traveled, the more he questioned what Westerners’ activism was accomplishing for people or for nature.
He became a different kind of activist by helping start a movement called ecomodernism, the subject of “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.” He still wants to help the poor and preserve ecosystems, but through industrialization instead of “sustainable development.” He’s still worried about climate change, but he doesn’t consider it the most important problem today, much less a threat to humanity’s survival—and he sees that greens’ favorite solutions are making the problem worse.
He chronicles environmental progress around the world and crisply debunks myth after gloomy myth. No, we are not in the midst of the “sixth mass extinction,” because only 0.001% of the planet’s species go extinct annually. No, whales were not saved by Greenpeace but rather by the capitalist entrepreneurs who discovered cheaper substitutes for whale oil (first petroleum, then vegetable oils) that decimated the whaling industry long before activists got involved. No, plastics don’t linger for thousands of years in the ocean; they’re broken down by sunlight and other forces. No, climate change has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.
In 2002, Mr. Shellenberger proposed the New Apollo Project, a precursor to the Green New Deal. Many of its ideas for promoting renewable energy were adopted by the Obama administration and received more than $150 billion in federal funds, but Mr. Shellenberger was disillusioned with the results. A disproportionate share of the money, as he documents, went to companies that enriched donors to the Obama campaign but failed to yield practical technologies.
APOCALYPSE NEVER
By Michael Shellenberger
Harper, 413 pages, $29.99
He now considers most forms of renewable energy to be impractical for large-scale use. Windmills and solar power are too expensive and unreliable as a primary source of power for people in poor countries, and they cause too much environmental damage because they require vast areas of land and harm flora and fauna. He faults Western activists and governments for trying to force these technologies on Third World countries and prevent them from building hydroelectric and fossil-fuel power plants.
“Rich nations,” he writes, “should do everything they can to help poor nations industrialize.” Instead “many of them are doing something closer to the opposite: seeking to make poverty sustainable rather than to make poverty history.”
While industrialization causes a short-term rise in carbon emissions, in the long term it’s beneficial to the environment as people move to cities, allowing farmland to revert to nature, and as prosperity enables them to switch to cleaner and more compact forms of energy. Carbon emissions decline as people move from wood to coal to natural gas, and then ultimately to what Mr. Shellenberger calls the safest and cleanest source: nuclear energy, the only practical technology for drastically curtailing carbon emissions, if only green activists would stop trying to shut down nuclear plants.
Mr. Shellenberger blames the anti-nuke movement partly on fearmongering by activists and journalists, partly on instinctive hostility to new technology, and partly on financial self-interest. “Every major climate activist group in America,” he writes, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, “has been seeking to close nuclear plants around the United States while taking money from or investing in natural gas companies, renewable energy companies, and their investors who stand to make billions if nuclear plants are closed and replaced by natural gas.”
Mr. Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of “environmental colonialism.” He realizes, though, that rational arguments alone won’t convince devout environmentalists.
“I was drawn toward the apocalyptic view of climate change twenty years ago,” he writes. “I can see now that my heightened anxiety about climate reflected underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.”
For him and so many others, environmentalism offered emotional relief and spiritual satisfaction, giving them a sense of purpose and transcendence. It has become a substitute religion for those who have abandoned traditional faiths, as he explains in his concluding chapter, “False Gods for Lost Souls.” Its priests have been warning for half a century that humanity is about to be punished for its sins against nature, and no matter how often the doomsday forecasts fail, the faithful still thrill to each new one.
“The trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating,” he writes. “It leads its adherents to demonize their opponents, often hypocritically. It drives them to seek to restrict power and prosperity at home and abroad. And it spreads anxiety and depression without meeting the deeper psychological, existential, and spiritual needs its ostensibly secular devotees seek.”
Full post
5) Power Play: Race For Czech Nuclear Plant Stirs Geopolitical Stew
Reporting Democracy, 26 June 2020
Chinese, Russian, US and other firms are all in a race to bid to construct the first new nuclear plant in the Czech Republic in years that will have major political implications.
The Czech government hopes in the coming weeks to open negotiations with the EU to get a green light to construct a new reactor at its Dukovany II nuclear power plant costing some 6 billion euros, government officials told BIRN.
The country is finally moving ahead with long-delayed plans to expand its collection of nuclear plants.
But the race for the job of building the first new reactor in years is set to stoke geopolitical and domestic tensions, experts say.
Talks with Brussels will focus on the financial model for the project, which is being finalized by the government, and is expected to include “repayable financial aid” and an offtake contract – i.e. a loan to the state-controlled energy group CEZ and a price guarantee on power, Stepanka Filipova, from the Czech industry ministry, told BIRN.
“The government is not looking for cash,” Ondrej Houska, an editor at the Hospodarskenoviny broadsheet, explained.
“They know that’s impossible, especially with Austria and Germany so opposed to nuclear [power]. But if the Commission agrees to call nuclear an ‘emission-free source’, that should convince Brussels to be relaxed on the state aid issue and also help with private financing.”
It is widely accepted that building new nuclear capacity in Europe without significant state support is all but impossible.
The Czech government has spent years demanding that CEZ finance new nuclear capacity on its own. The government’s U-turn to offer financial support comes as it struggles to get new nuclear projects up and running. The Czech Republic’s long-term energy strategy states that expanding nuclear power is vital to ensure energy security while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The strategy calls for the construction of up to four new reactors by 2040. But those ambitions are behind schedule. In May, the government announced it hopes to see construction of the first reactor start in 2029, going into operation by 2037.
On top of the deadline and cost problems that haunt any new nuclear builds, amid tightened security and safety requirements, the Czechs face two other hurdles: winning EU approval and navigating a geopolitical minefield in choosing a supplier.
Full story
6) New Paper: Renewables Are Destabilising UK Electricity Grid
Samuel Homan and Solomon Brown, Energy Reports, May 2020
An analysis of frequency events in Great Britain
Samuel Homan and Solomon Brown, Energy Reports, May 2020
An analysis of frequency events in Great Britain
Number of UK frequency events each year.
Abstract: With increasing penetration of wind and solar generation on electricity grids around the world, concerns are being raised about the effect this has on system stability. One measure of system stability is the volatility of the grid frequency. In this paper, an analysis is performed using one second resolution frequency data from Great Britain. We demonstrate that the number of frequency events has increased dramatically in the last couple of years, which coincides with the rapid increase in renewable penetration (wind and solar). We further demonstrate that the number of times the frequency is too high, corresponding to periods of more generation than demand, occurs roughly twice as often as when the frequency is too low. The different types of events (high and low) occur, on average, at different times in the day. The change in event severity and correlation between rate of change of frequency and settlement period boundaries is also presented. This study provides a useful insight into the state of stability of the electricity grid in Great Britain and when the system is at its most vulnerable.
Full paper
7) Samuel Furfari: The EU’s Green Deal Has A Legal Problem
European Scientist, 24 June 2020
The EU’s Green Deal seems to be in contradiction with the EU’s Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)
Despite COVID-19, many in Brussels – including a green recovery alliance in the EU Parliament and 13 EU Environment Ministers – are pressuring the European Commission (EC) to pursue the rapid implementation of its Green Deal strategy. The EC’s vice-president is insisting in various international newspapers that the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the necessity to change our society to its Green Deal blueprint.
The EU Green Deal And Carbon Neutrality: A Sheer Utopia?
Let us recall briefly that the EU Green Deal imposes a drastic decrease of CO2 emissions by 2030 and a ‘carbon neutrality’ by 2050. Behind this expression, there is the hope that most of the energy used in 2050 will be renewable and that the as-tiny-as-possible use of natural gas emissions will be trapped and stored underground by a carbon-and-capture technology. Therefore, what the EU is planning is to reach near-zero emissions in the next 30 years. The drawback is that, although intermittent renewable energies have been strongly promoted by international organisations and countries for almost 50 years (since the first oil crisis), they only account for 3.1% worldwide and 2.5% of the EU primary energy demand. It does not take an expert to understand that moving to 100% is not just a challenge but a sheer utopia. Only a partial cut will be possible and at a high cost.
Past economic models and the current crisis show that degrowth can indeed cut energy consumption and contribute to reducing CO2 emissions. After the confinement period imposed to resist COVID-19, it is likely that such a degrowth-based path will not be the accepted way to achieve the Green Deal. The history of energy clearly shows that nuclear power has made a major contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions; even the UN-IPCC recognises that nuclear power is a valid solution for decarbonation. Yet the EU does not mention nuclear energy at all in its green strategy.
Francois Mitterand and Article 194
In the past there was no question of impinging on the sovereignty of Member States regarding primary energy sources.
When the Maastricht Treaty was negotiated, Italy, Belgium and the EC, proposed the introduction of a chapter on energy in the new treaty. However, arriving in Maastricht, François Mitterrand, president of the French Republic at the time, had this chapter removed from the draft treaty, arguing that there was no question of leaving the decision on the French nuclear power future to Brussels officials. Subsequently, particularly following the gas crises between Russia and Ukraine in 2006 and 2009, attitudes changed and an inter-ministerial conference succeeded in introducing an article on energy into the Lisbon Treaty.
Article 194(1) of the current EU treaty authorises a series of energy policy provisions such as the promotion of renewable energies and energy efficiency, the creation of a single energy market and the development of interconnected energy infrastructures. But still in the spirit of François Mitterrand, Article 194(2) states clearly that the choice of energy mix remains the responsibility of Member States.
A Green Deal in contradiction with Energy Charter Treaty?
Conversely, renewable energy is and will be strongly promoted by all means and all EU Institutions. The European Investment Bank announced that it intends to support EUR 1 trillion of investment in climate action and environmental sustainability – read “renewable energy” – in the period from 2021 to 2030. The next Multiannual Financial Framework will significantly contribute to climate action – read “renewable energy” again. The EC announced that its forthcoming proposals will aim at facilitating EUR 100 billions of investment through the “Just Transition Mechanism”. These efforts must continue after 2030 to one aim : supporting renewable energy.
This indeed imposes – even if it is not de jure – renewable energies. Is this, ultimately, not imposing de facto the choice of the energy mix? Is this compatible with Article 194(2) of the Lisbon Treaty?
Furthermore, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) signed in 1994, also by the EU and Euratom, aims at protecting foreign fossil fuel investments. It promote energy efficiency but not the use of renewable energy. By far, not all the 53 Signatories are interested in the Green Deal and its aim to abandon the use of fossil fuels.
Therefore, the Green Deal seems to be in contradiction with the ECT. This is one more legal difficulty and the simple solution would be for the EU and its member states to collectively withdraw from the ECT. This will have strong consequences for many countries, including former Soviet Union Republics exporting oil and gas. Clearly, this is a legal imbroglio.
Everything with the Green Deal is so rapidly decided. Would it be useful to take a pause in order to allow legal scholars not belonging to the EU institutions to verify that the implementation of the Green Deal complies with the Lisbon Treaty and to properly weight a potential ECT withdrawal?
Full post
European Scientist, 24 June 2020
The EU’s Green Deal seems to be in contradiction with the EU’s Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)
Despite COVID-19, many in Brussels – including a green recovery alliance in the EU Parliament and 13 EU Environment Ministers – are pressuring the European Commission (EC) to pursue the rapid implementation of its Green Deal strategy. The EC’s vice-president is insisting in various international newspapers that the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the necessity to change our society to its Green Deal blueprint.
The EU Green Deal And Carbon Neutrality: A Sheer Utopia?
Let us recall briefly that the EU Green Deal imposes a drastic decrease of CO2 emissions by 2030 and a ‘carbon neutrality’ by 2050. Behind this expression, there is the hope that most of the energy used in 2050 will be renewable and that the as-tiny-as-possible use of natural gas emissions will be trapped and stored underground by a carbon-and-capture technology. Therefore, what the EU is planning is to reach near-zero emissions in the next 30 years. The drawback is that, although intermittent renewable energies have been strongly promoted by international organisations and countries for almost 50 years (since the first oil crisis), they only account for 3.1% worldwide and 2.5% of the EU primary energy demand. It does not take an expert to understand that moving to 100% is not just a challenge but a sheer utopia. Only a partial cut will be possible and at a high cost.
Past economic models and the current crisis show that degrowth can indeed cut energy consumption and contribute to reducing CO2 emissions. After the confinement period imposed to resist COVID-19, it is likely that such a degrowth-based path will not be the accepted way to achieve the Green Deal. The history of energy clearly shows that nuclear power has made a major contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions; even the UN-IPCC recognises that nuclear power is a valid solution for decarbonation. Yet the EU does not mention nuclear energy at all in its green strategy.
Francois Mitterand and Article 194
In the past there was no question of impinging on the sovereignty of Member States regarding primary energy sources.
When the Maastricht Treaty was negotiated, Italy, Belgium and the EC, proposed the introduction of a chapter on energy in the new treaty. However, arriving in Maastricht, François Mitterrand, president of the French Republic at the time, had this chapter removed from the draft treaty, arguing that there was no question of leaving the decision on the French nuclear power future to Brussels officials. Subsequently, particularly following the gas crises between Russia and Ukraine in 2006 and 2009, attitudes changed and an inter-ministerial conference succeeded in introducing an article on energy into the Lisbon Treaty.
Article 194(1) of the current EU treaty authorises a series of energy policy provisions such as the promotion of renewable energies and energy efficiency, the creation of a single energy market and the development of interconnected energy infrastructures. But still in the spirit of François Mitterrand, Article 194(2) states clearly that the choice of energy mix remains the responsibility of Member States.
A Green Deal in contradiction with Energy Charter Treaty?
Conversely, renewable energy is and will be strongly promoted by all means and all EU Institutions. The European Investment Bank announced that it intends to support EUR 1 trillion of investment in climate action and environmental sustainability – read “renewable energy” – in the period from 2021 to 2030. The next Multiannual Financial Framework will significantly contribute to climate action – read “renewable energy” again. The EC announced that its forthcoming proposals will aim at facilitating EUR 100 billions of investment through the “Just Transition Mechanism”. These efforts must continue after 2030 to one aim : supporting renewable energy.
This indeed imposes – even if it is not de jure – renewable energies. Is this, ultimately, not imposing de facto the choice of the energy mix? Is this compatible with Article 194(2) of the Lisbon Treaty?
Furthermore, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) signed in 1994, also by the EU and Euratom, aims at protecting foreign fossil fuel investments. It promote energy efficiency but not the use of renewable energy. By far, not all the 53 Signatories are interested in the Green Deal and its aim to abandon the use of fossil fuels.
Therefore, the Green Deal seems to be in contradiction with the ECT. This is one more legal difficulty and the simple solution would be for the EU and its member states to collectively withdraw from the ECT. This will have strong consequences for many countries, including former Soviet Union Republics exporting oil and gas. Clearly, this is a legal imbroglio.
Everything with the Green Deal is so rapidly decided. Would it be useful to take a pause in order to allow legal scholars not belonging to the EU institutions to verify that the implementation of the Green Deal complies with the Lisbon Treaty and to properly weight a potential ECT withdrawal?
Full post
8) Europe’s Green Flop: CO2 Emissions From New Cars & New Vans Increased Again In 2019
European Environment Agency, 26 June 2020
According to provisional data, published today by the European Environment Agency (EEA), average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new passenger cars registered in the European Union (EU), Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom (UK), increased in 2019, for the third consecutive year. The average CO2 emissions from new vans also increased slightly.
© Ingram Pinn/Financial Times
The EEA has published the provisional data for the average CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and vans registered in the EU, Iceland, Norway and the UK in 2019. The provisional 2019 data on new registrations can be explored through a new EEA data dashboard.
After a steady decline from 2010 to 2016, by almost 22 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g CO2/km), average emissions from new passenger cars increased in 2017 and in 2018 (by 2.8 g CO2/km in total). According to provisional data, the upward trend continued with an additional increase of 1.6 g CO2/km in 2019, reaching 122.4 grams of CO2 per kilometre. This remains below the target of 130 g CO2/km that applied until 2019 but well above the EU target of 95 g CO2/km that phases-in this year.
The reasons for the increase in car emissions include the growing share of the sport utility vehicle (SUV) segment. The market penetration of electric cars remained slow in 2019.
Vans registered in the EU, Iceland, Norway and the UK in 2019 emitted on average 158.4 g CO2/km, which is 0.5 g/km more than in 2018. This remains well below the target of 175 g CO2/km that applied until 2019 but is still 11 g CO2/km higher than the EU target of 147 g CO2/km that applies from this year on. Several factors affected this emission increase, including an increase in the average mass and only a limited increase of the share of electric vans (BEV sand PHEV) from 0.8 % in 2018 to 1.3% in 2019.
Full story
9) IPCC and Sceptics Agree: Climate Change Is Not Causing Extreme Weather
H. Sterling Burnett, The Epoch Times, 24 June 2020
A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired Oxford physicist Ralph Alexander supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusion there is limited scientific evidence linking human caused climate change to increases in extreme weather.
Alexander’s conclusions are also confirmed by recent documents produced by Heartland Senior Fellow Anthony Watts on the website “Climate at a Glance.”
Alexander’s paper begins by remarking, “[t]he purported link between extreme weather and global warming has captured the public imagination and attention of the mainstream media far more than any of the other claims made by the narrative of human-caused climate change.”
This is surprising because data and analyses from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the UN body that climate alarmists in academic, political, and media circles continually cite as the authoritative source of information on climate change—confirm that “if there is any trend at all in extreme weather, it’s downward rather than upward. Our most extreme weather, be it heat wave, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado, occurred many years ago, long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate,” writes Alexander.
“Recent atmospheric heat waves in western Europe,” writes Alexander, “pale in comparison with the soaring temperatures of the 1930s, a period when three of the seven continents and 32 of the 50 US states set all-time high temperature records, which still stand today.”
Nor has IPCC discerned or identified any long-term trend in drought patterns, either in the United States or globally. And even though rainfall has modestly increased in recent years, there is no evidence floods are becoming more frequent or severe. Alexander notes, many recent flood events can be traced almost entirely to land-use changes, including channelization, deforestation, destruction of wetlands, and the building of dams.
“Climate at a Glance: Floods” confirms Alexander’s assessment, citing data showing there has been no evidence of increasing flooding frequency or severity in the United States or elsewhere over the past century and a half. Indeed, IPCC writes it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to state it has “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes. In other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe.
On top of that, a 2017 study on the climate impact of flooding for the United States and Europe, published in the Journal of Hydrology, found, “The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone,” and
“Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.”
Alexander notes hurricanes and tropical cyclones actually show a decreasing trend around the globe, with the frequency of land-falling hurricanes of any strength (Categories 1 through 5) remaining unchanged for at least 50 years. While the frequency of major North Atlantic hurricanes, which are the most studied, has increased during the past 20 years, the current heightened activity level is merely comparable to the 1950s and 1960s—a period when the earth was cooling, not warming.
Full story
10) And Finally: Solar Maintenance To ‘Cost $9.4bn By 2025’
reNews.biz, 22 June 2020
Wood Mackenzie analysis predicts 4.2GW of PV assets will run into premature failures in 2020
Solar energy repairs and maintenance costs are expected to grow to over $9bn by 2025, according to research by Wood Mackenzie.
The analysts said costs will hit $9.4bn by mid-decade as PV power systems nearing inverter end of life rise to 16% of the market (227GW) from about 5% currently.
Wood Mackenzie said Asia-Pacific will account for $4.1bn, Europe, Middle East and Africa $3.5bn and the Americas $1.8bn.
Wood Mackenzie principal analyst Daniel Liu said: “Inverter repowering is especially important in Europe, as more than 16GW of systems are currently over 10 years old. By 2025, that number will grow to 100GW.
“Ageing solar systems are an opportunity for repowering activities, while new projects can take advantage of advanced analytics.”
Solar inverters are estimated to need replacing every 10 years, but some systems present earlier faults, the company added.
Wood Mackenzie estimated that approximately 4.2GW of solar assets will run into premature failures in 2020, with this annual total jumping to 36GW in 2025.
Full post
European Environment Agency, 26 June 2020
According to provisional data, published today by the European Environment Agency (EEA), average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new passenger cars registered in the European Union (EU), Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom (UK), increased in 2019, for the third consecutive year. The average CO2 emissions from new vans also increased slightly.
© Ingram Pinn/Financial Times
The EEA has published the provisional data for the average CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and vans registered in the EU, Iceland, Norway and the UK in 2019. The provisional 2019 data on new registrations can be explored through a new EEA data dashboard.
After a steady decline from 2010 to 2016, by almost 22 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g CO2/km), average emissions from new passenger cars increased in 2017 and in 2018 (by 2.8 g CO2/km in total). According to provisional data, the upward trend continued with an additional increase of 1.6 g CO2/km in 2019, reaching 122.4 grams of CO2 per kilometre. This remains below the target of 130 g CO2/km that applied until 2019 but well above the EU target of 95 g CO2/km that phases-in this year.
The reasons for the increase in car emissions include the growing share of the sport utility vehicle (SUV) segment. The market penetration of electric cars remained slow in 2019.
Vans registered in the EU, Iceland, Norway and the UK in 2019 emitted on average 158.4 g CO2/km, which is 0.5 g/km more than in 2018. This remains well below the target of 175 g CO2/km that applied until 2019 but is still 11 g CO2/km higher than the EU target of 147 g CO2/km that applies from this year on. Several factors affected this emission increase, including an increase in the average mass and only a limited increase of the share of electric vans (BEV sand PHEV) from 0.8 % in 2018 to 1.3% in 2019.
Full story
9) IPCC and Sceptics Agree: Climate Change Is Not Causing Extreme Weather
H. Sterling Burnett, The Epoch Times, 24 June 2020
A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired Oxford physicist Ralph Alexander supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusion there is limited scientific evidence linking human caused climate change to increases in extreme weather.
Alexander’s conclusions are also confirmed by recent documents produced by Heartland Senior Fellow Anthony Watts on the website “Climate at a Glance.”
Alexander’s paper begins by remarking, “[t]he purported link between extreme weather and global warming has captured the public imagination and attention of the mainstream media far more than any of the other claims made by the narrative of human-caused climate change.”
This is surprising because data and analyses from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the UN body that climate alarmists in academic, political, and media circles continually cite as the authoritative source of information on climate change—confirm that “if there is any trend at all in extreme weather, it’s downward rather than upward. Our most extreme weather, be it heat wave, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado, occurred many years ago, long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate,” writes Alexander.
“Recent atmospheric heat waves in western Europe,” writes Alexander, “pale in comparison with the soaring temperatures of the 1930s, a period when three of the seven continents and 32 of the 50 US states set all-time high temperature records, which still stand today.”
Nor has IPCC discerned or identified any long-term trend in drought patterns, either in the United States or globally. And even though rainfall has modestly increased in recent years, there is no evidence floods are becoming more frequent or severe. Alexander notes, many recent flood events can be traced almost entirely to land-use changes, including channelization, deforestation, destruction of wetlands, and the building of dams.
“Climate at a Glance: Floods” confirms Alexander’s assessment, citing data showing there has been no evidence of increasing flooding frequency or severity in the United States or elsewhere over the past century and a half. Indeed, IPCC writes it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to state it has “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes. In other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe.
On top of that, a 2017 study on the climate impact of flooding for the United States and Europe, published in the Journal of Hydrology, found, “The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone,” and
“Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.”
Alexander notes hurricanes and tropical cyclones actually show a decreasing trend around the globe, with the frequency of land-falling hurricanes of any strength (Categories 1 through 5) remaining unchanged for at least 50 years. While the frequency of major North Atlantic hurricanes, which are the most studied, has increased during the past 20 years, the current heightened activity level is merely comparable to the 1950s and 1960s—a period when the earth was cooling, not warming.
Full story
10) And Finally: Solar Maintenance To ‘Cost $9.4bn By 2025’
reNews.biz, 22 June 2020
Wood Mackenzie analysis predicts 4.2GW of PV assets will run into premature failures in 2020
Solar energy repairs and maintenance costs are expected to grow to over $9bn by 2025, according to research by Wood Mackenzie.
The analysts said costs will hit $9.4bn by mid-decade as PV power systems nearing inverter end of life rise to 16% of the market (227GW) from about 5% currently.
Wood Mackenzie said Asia-Pacific will account for $4.1bn, Europe, Middle East and Africa $3.5bn and the Americas $1.8bn.
Wood Mackenzie principal analyst Daniel Liu said: “Inverter repowering is especially important in Europe, as more than 16GW of systems are currently over 10 years old. By 2025, that number will grow to 100GW.
“Ageing solar systems are an opportunity for repowering activities, while new projects can take advantage of advanced analytics.”
Solar inverters are estimated to need replacing every 10 years, but some systems present earlier faults, the company added.
Wood Mackenzie estimated that approximately 4.2GW of solar assets will run into premature failures in 2020, with this annual total jumping to 36GW in 2025.
Full post
The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment