To no surprise, the real winter cold enfolded most of Europe. Again.

In parts of Europe, people have died. Travelling is out of the question, as trains are stranded and the roads are dangerous. How comforting then to be able to enjoy the heating at home, cook  up a warm soup, or even venture outside in solid armour, buy a paper around the corner and escape into an even cosier corner with a hot drink.

That’s because, regardless of the extreme weather, where I am, energy works. In many places it doesn’t. As half of the nuclear plants here are down, rivers frozen and – quite naturally – all windmills are standing still, it’s a blessing to be able to, at least partly, trust that different forms of energy will somehow find their way into my hide out.

A private energy market is simply a necessity on days like this.

However, be careful not to let someone else pick up that tab. To my surprise, EU Comissioner Hedegaard has issued a warning against the general enthusiasm over bio fuels. Reports Euractiv:

A draft Commission impact assessment, obtained by EurActiv last week, indicates that the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels such as palm oil, soybean and rapeseed may exceed those of fossil fuels when wider factors are considered.

This is because tropical forests and wetlands are often cleared to compensate for lands taken to grow biofuels elsewhere, a process known as indirect land use change, or ILUC.

“Personally, I’ve always been very cautious on biofuels,” Hedegaard told EurActiv in an interview. “It’s great to see the potential in new technologies, but we should take very much care in Europe that we are now not establishing a new big industry that we then – after some time – say, wow, that was not so good.”

Well worth considering in our cosy corners.

Prof. Nir Shaviv at the 2010 International Climate and Energy Conference

For the 4th time, the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), the Berlin Manhattan Institute, CFACT and a few others host an International Climate and Energy Conference, this time in in the Bavarian capital Munich, Nov. 25.-26 (program below).

Renowned scientists such as Professors Svensmark, Shaviv, Veizer and Patzelt, as well as bestselling authors such as Donna Laframboise, Andrew Montford and Christopher Horner confirmed their participation. As in previous years, the event is going to be Europe’s no.1 meeting and debating point for climate and energy realists, bloggers, and their friends from all over Europe and beyond.

Registration works through the EIKE-page, www.eike-klima-energie.eu, or by mail, info@eike-klima-energie.eu, or by fax: +49-2641-32 79 858. Regular participation fee for this 2-day-event is 140 Euro (including 3 meals, 4 coffee breaks, 1 evening reception, conference materials, and simultaneous translation English/German and German/English). More technical details below the program.

Program (updated 10th November)

Friday – November 25

08:00 a.m. Registration

 09:00 a.m.

Welcome

Wolfgang Müller

Berlin Manhattan Institute (BMI), European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)

 09:10 a.m.

The IPCC – Almost nothing you’ve been told about this organization is actually true

Donna Laframboise

Blog nofrakkingconsensus.com

 09:45 a.m.- 12:30 p.m.

Panel: Measuring vs. Modelling

Real temperature measurements vs. climate alarmism

Prof. em. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke

Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes

 Glaciers- and forest development in high altitude alpine areas during the last 10,000 years

Prof. em. Dr. Gernot Patzelt

University of Insbruck

 Anthropogenic sea level rise: from scenario to panic

Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus-Eckart Puls

Press spokesperson EIKE

 11:30 a.m. – 12.00 a.m. Break

 Mission impossible – geological facts of carbon capture and storage in Germany

Prof. em. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert

Universität Paderborn

12:30 p.m.  – 2:00 p.m. Lunch – conference venue

 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Panel: Cosmic Rays, CO₂ and Climate

 Climate, water, CO₂ and the sun

Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer  

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

The cosmic ray climate link – evidence and implications to the understanding of climate change

Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv

Racah Institute of Physics – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

 The impact of solar activities and cosmic rays on the world climate

Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark  

Centre for Sun-Climate Research des Danish National Space Centre

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Break

 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Panel: Update on the CERN Study Cosmic Rays and Climate Change

Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer, Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv, Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark  

 5:30 p.m. – 19:00 p.m.

Panel: How scientists and project developers deal with truth

 Climategate – The story of a cover up

Andrew Montfort

Bishop Hill Blog

Not at face value – tricky contracts in wind power investments
Tilman Kluge
Bad Sonden am Taunus

 Followed by dinner

Saturday – November 26

 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

Panel: Forecasts vs. Scenarios

 Climate change between statistics, models and substitute religion

Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein

Institute of Geography, Leipzig University

 Accurate long term weather forecasts are possible

Piers Corbyn

Weather Action, London

 11:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Break

 11:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.

The urban legend of the Hockey Stick

Andrew Montfort

Bishop Hill Blog

 12:15 p.m. – 13:00 p.m.

Investing wisely– opportunities and dangers in alternative energy   

 13:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Lunch – at conference venue

 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Panel: Climate- and Energy Policy – Wish and Reality

 The green economy: Crony capitalism’s newest big idea

Dr. Christopher C. Horner

Center for Energy and Environment – Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC

The costs of Germany’s green energy agenda – plan vs. reality

Prof. Dr. Gerd Ganteför

University of Konstanz

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Break

 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Covering their tracks: the IPCC and transparency

Dr. Christopher C. Horner

Center for Energy and Environment – Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC

 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.

Climate policies – a threat to liberty

Prof. Dr. Gerd Habermann

Universität Potsdam, Hayek Society

 6:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Closing remarks

Dr. Holger Thuss

President Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)

7:00 p.m. Reception and end of conference

7:00 p.m. Reception and end of conference

Venue: Maritim Hotel München, Goethestr. 7, 80336 München, Germany

Registration Fees:

80 € Day Tickets

140 € Private Individuals (2 days)

290 € Company Representatives (2 days)

Registrations after November 18, 2011 are subject to a surcharge of 30 € per Ticket.

All prices include VAT.

The registration fees include the conference materials, meals and coffee breaks.

Registration

Via the EIKE Website or with your full name, address and institution via fax or email.

Email: info@berlinmanhattan.org

Fax: +49(0)30 69 20 800 39

or via mail:

Registration EIKE

P.O. Box 110111

07722 Jena

Germany

Please make your registration payment payable to EIKE e.V.

Bank: Volksbank Saaletal Rudolstadt

Account: 42 42 92 01

BLZ: 830 944 54

IBAN: DE34 8309 4454 0042 4292 01

BIC: GENODEF1RUJ

Yesterday, I watched that widely acclaimed movie by Nora Ephron about Julia Childs and her later follower. Marvelous. And somehow, all about butter.

I seldom use butter, as I prefere olive oil, but for certain dishes it’s the best option. All sorts of fish, for example.

How interesting then that there is a current butter crisis in the stores. The cows to blame? Some people have actually suggested that.

But then there is this peculiar thing called the Butter Mountain in the EU. Simply put, a surplus (according to the politicians), calling for regulations within the CAP system, and – surprise – you suddenly have a shortage.

Let’s see what comes next. In Venezuela, one of the largest coffee been producers in the world, there is currently a coffee shortage.

In all cases of shortages, my Professor once told me, look for the price mechanism. And if a politician has meddled with it.

Sure, I can live without butter (after all there are substitutes), maybe even coffee, but there are worse situations out there, where regulations, or simply playing around with the market, cause real starvation.

The Daily Telegraph Reports

We’re not making this up.

This is part of an astonishing £523 million in subsidy payments British ratepayers sent to foreign wind corporations.

Foreign oil was not enough?  Foreign wind?

_____

UPDATE:

Telegraph Editorial:  Wind power: a policy spinning out of control

1,000 land-based wind turbines stand to be scrapped if government follows through and slashes millions of pounds in subsidies.  A report commissioned by ScottishPower concludes that reducing subsidies 25 percent will render the turbines a loss maker for investors instead of just rate and taxpayers.

CFACT continues to conclude that alternative energy sources such as wind and solar should only be deployed when they can compete effectively with other sources of energy.  Locking in inefficient power generation and the subsidies and guarantees that goes with it will have a terrible long term impact on industry as well as family finances.  Sadly, under current policy, wind turbines are more efficient at generating handouts from working people than electricity.

Scotland is plagued with unemployment numbers that keep rising to the north side of eight percent.  Industry continues to bypass regions like Scotland seeking out places to produce where costs and regulatory burdens are less.  Unfortunately, scrapping these land-based turbines could lead to relocating them offshore, where the subsidy pot is still full, at great cost to rate and taxpayers.  Scotland should instead lead the way, drop the subsidies and schemes and enable all forms of power generation to compete in the marketplace.  Efficiency and low cost is how to keep Scotland working.  The prosperity that results will green the environment more than top down mandates ever will.

Reuters reports that with half of major energy suppliers in the UK announcing double digit price increases for electricity and gas the British public has had enough.  75 percent now favor abandoning Britain’s green agenda if it means higher prices.

The problem of course is after you thwart efficient nuclear, coal and gas generation and lock in guarantees, subsidies and high prices for alternative energy profiteers it is almost impossible to go back.

Developed nations like the UK already price their labor out of the marketplace with the high costs of their social welfare states.   Affordable energy is one area in which developed nations should have the edge, yet they toss that advantage away in the name of useless carbon initiatives.   A government study predicts energy costs for British business will rise 58 percent by 2030.  Who will be able to afford to work or produce in such a wasteful environment?

CFACT has consistently pointed out that this combination of high energy prices, inefficient generation and massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers to corporations cashing in on alternative energy is unsustainable.

Will nations which have not yet locked themselves into the same energy cage as Britain wake up in time to avoid a similar trap?  Will China, India and Brazil generously grant work visas to workers from (one-time) developed nations who need a job?

The Guardian reports that “world-class research into future sources of green energy is under threat in Britain from an environmental tax designed to boost energy efficiency and drive down carbon emissions.”  Researchers at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy complained to The Guardian that, “considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill…  We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that.”

We sympathize.  The power of taxation and control to thwart human  progress is no surprise to CFACT.  However, unlike The Guardian we do not restrict our sympathy to those on the receiving end of carbon funding.  We’re sure that there are still some hardy UK folks making useful products (their jobs as yet, not outsourced to China) who also need “electricity to run the machine” and can find “no way of getting around that.”

The carbon reduction commitment scheme is a prosperity destroying mistake and should be abandoned.  Only those seeking a direct handout or competitive advantage over British industry have reason to love the perverse CRC.

German Chancellor Merkel’s announcement that all nuclear plants will be shut down within ten years has, rightly caused both joy, confusion and fear. Not just in Germany, but all over Europe.

That the announcement was triggered by the resurrected anti nuclear campaign, smelling fresh blood after the – no doubt – catastrophic accident in Japan is self evident. Another word for this is populism. Or, maybe, panic.

Once that public and apparently governmental panic has settled, it’s a fair guess that this hasty decision will be revoked in a few years time. Until then, the problems remain.

Germany is not Japan and also not a dangerous area for earthquakes. Chernobyl was a Soviet plant, with all what that contains of old technology and bad security measures.

The problem with nuclear power is that it carries – or should carry – high insurance costs. The solution is to let the industry, not the half or full governmental companies, run the plants. And, naturally, pay the insurance premium. The technological development for both the reactors and the post handling has developed enormously, but is hindered by regulations, and in this case hasty decisions. Virtually safe, smaller installations have been developed, but what’s the incentive to continue working when your project can be stopped any second by populist politicians?

A fair estimate is that due to this, electricity prices will double, having an impact on both industry and households, not only in Germany, but in most of Europe. That is no walk in the park.

One question remains. Will the Merkel government now follow in the footsteps of the previous Social Democrat/Green government and start ruining villages to make way for coal mines, as for example in Horno, the last Sorbian village? If that would cost less in popularity, something is definitely wrong.

German electricity prices a barrier to business

EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger has told the German government that its taxes and fees on electricity have doubled since 1998, now stand at 41 percent and will continue to increase due to subsidies for alternative energy.  Oettinger warned that this has moved the gradual process of de-industrialization into full swing and is forcing business and industry to flee the country. German electricity costs were described as at the upper edge of what is socially reasonable.  How much more will German ratepayers tolerate before they reach their breaking point?

MORE (Auf Deustsch) AT HANDELSBLATT