Businesses tell Barroso to reshape EU energy policy

Thomas Becker is being far far too polite, you cannot have a dialogue with either deaf people, stupid people or those suffering from clinical cognitive dissonance - which pretty much describes the position of SOME elements in (non)BusinessEurope. I say some, my contacts tell me that some BE members are getting a bit tired of hearing the same old bollocks from the likes of Beyrer. Indeed, so tired that he may find that some high profile members are thinking of leaving and forming their own, more respesentative org to talk to the EC & EP. Of course as the mouth piece of the orf Beyrer has the option of closing his trap, or perhaps trying to talk sense - neither of which, given past BE form is likely.

Nobody - at any rate nobody knowledgeable about it - claims there is any direct correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
For instance, although CO2 levels have continued to rise steadily and monotonically [with small regular annual fluctuations] since the Industrial Revolution and continues to do so at an accelerating rate today, there has been no global warming over the last 14 years. The global temperature peaked in 1998 and has been lower ever since. On the other hand, 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record. It needs complex global models, involving many different geo-physical, geo-chemical and geo-biological interactions, to show that there is a slow rise in global temperatures in the long term, as virtually all Governments agree.
There is wide-spread disagreement on what to do about it. The majority [80%] of countries, including America, China and India, refuse to limit their emissions. The rest, mainly the EU and some other OECD countries, aim to limit their emissions in the hope that, by setting a good example, they will persuade others to follow their lead. They accept that, unless everybody follows suit, such actions will have little effect, apart from damaging their own economies.
Becker has a point. There are many sympathetic expressions of support from all sides, but actions speak louder than words and it is clear that the majority have no intention of limiting their emissions as they continue to subsidise and extend their gas, coal, and oil consumption, safe in the knowledge that reserves [of gas and coal, at least] will last for hundreds of years, according to the International Energy Agency.
On the other hand, everyone, especially America, China and India are installing wind power to save the fuels they are relying on, which automatically reduces their emissions as a side-benefit.

Interesting post Mr Jangdal.

Your first link was to a US site. It mentioned Alpha Ventus – the first German wind farm – shocking over cost (budget @ Euro190m, cost Euro250m) but there we are. Oh but what is this we see, a utilisation factor (2011 and 2012) of more than 50%.

This gives a cost for off-shore wind of around 6 eurocents per kwhr (I assume that Mr Jandal you are capable of doing the maths – the wind farm will last 20 years and add 20% for maintenance). Wholesale prices in Germany wobble around 5 to 6 euro cents suggesting Alpha Ventus produces at wholesale rates (which raises the interesting question – why the subsidy?).

Second article is interesting but omits to consider the efforts in Germany with respect to hydrogen. Admittedly more (effort) is needed but they seem to be heading in the right direction. I agree that batteries cannot provide a solution over 12 hours or so but even there costs are declining and we are probably as near as dammit to a solution.

The second article was also interesting in a different way since it referenced people I know personally and with whom I largely agree and the article you used referenced their work out of context. I have brought this to their attention. The tech with respect to things such as storage and cross border connections is moving on. The stuff you "reference" is old – and in that sense I detect a maginot mentality.

We will integrate wind (and PV) into power networks – that's what I do for a living – I wonder what you do Mr Jangdal – apart from sniping from the sidelines.

Jangdal - mills mill things - wind turbines don't mill things - your terminology betrays your bias.

Source of numbers: data from the wind farm itself. Actually utilisation in 2012 was 55% - amazing or not - that's what it gave.

Your assertion that WTs need very expensive grids (I assume you mean power networks?) is just that - an assertion - where are the numbers? I am a power engineer I used to build networks thus your assertion that "Wind mills require extremely expensive grids to make it possible to feed the generated power in and out in a smooth and uninterupting way" are frankly wierd and make little to no (power engineering) sense - they are quite simply garbage.

Likewise the barmy statement: "Economists and engineers alike say wind just isn't dense enough with energy to make it profitable to extract that energy for practical use" which economists? which engineers?

LCOE of on-shore wind 5 euro cents/kwhr (source BNEF April 2012) - cheap enough for you? certainly competes with the cheapest from of electrical power - that from CCGTs.

I see posts like yours all the time - full of half arsed assertions backed up by ... nothing and silly things such "I don't want my freedom and liberties taken away from me in the name of a green agendaas" eh? I assume this was a joke?