Spain’s government will cut the revenue of most existing solar-power plants by 30 percent, a move that may bankrupt hundreds of companies that produce electricity using photovoltaic panels, a local trade group said.

More at Business Week

CFACT is reporting from the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany. Our display addresses issues of alternative energy and juxtaposes wind turbines with the famed Moai, the carved heads of Easter Island, stating that civilization can’t run for long on superstition or subsidies.

On Saturday and Sunday CFACT met with scientists and policy experts credentialed as members of our delegation in the nearby town of Hennef during a meeting organized by the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).

CFACT is providing publications to every delegation, meeting delegates, briefing the press, raising questions and providing hard information.

Our press conference will be 10:30 AM (CET) Thursday, June 10 hosted by the UNFCCC in room Haydn at the Hotel Maritim.  There will be a live webcast and the video will be later available on demand.   Our press conference will begin with an introduction from CFACT’s Christina Wilson of the U.S.  Lord Christopher Monckton will serve as CFACT’s main press spokesman joined by CFACT Europe Associate Editor Einar Du Rietz of Sweden and Wolfgang Mueller of the German Free Market Institute.

Watch for CFACT’s updates from Bonn and maybe even a little creative fun.

CFACT’s response: Let’s not go back to the dark ages.

CFACT has been participating in an energy debate sponsored by the National Journal.

Commissioner Hedegaard wrote, “Craig Rucker claims that had it not been for Denmark’s oil in the North Sea we could not afford “such feel good luxuries” as renewables like wind. Wrong. Back in 1973 Denmark experienced two oil crises and the last one, when Saudi Arabia cut off oil deliveries, was so bad that it was necessary to prohibit driving private cars on Sundays. I remember this from my childhood. Can you imagine that? That was at a time where we were 99 % dependent on imported energy. Today Denmark is self-sufficient in energy, and has been for many years already. Oil and gas supplies from the North Sea are part of the explanation but definitely also the fact that today around 30 % of Denmark’s electricity stems from wind energy. AND since putting up the first wind turbine back in the mid 70s Denmark has developed a world brand in wind technology. That means not only that the wind sector today creates thousands and thousands of jobs, often mainly in rural areas, but also that is one of our fastest growing export areas, earning billions for Denmark. The sector continued to grow its exports even in the crisis year 2009.”

Here’s Craig Rucker’s response to the Commissioner:

Commissioner Hedegaard reminded us of the restrictions we all faced during the Arab oil embargo of the 1970’s. This is a poignant reminder of the importance of developing our domestic energy resources and those of our allied democracies. Commissioner Hedegaard will surely concede that Denmark’s done quite a bit of offshore drilling during the last three decades and has benefited thereby. The United States should follow that example.

Denmark’s foot prints are not always ones, however, we can recommend others follow. Danish workers carry one of the highest tax burdens in the free world. When you include taxpayer subsidies for wind turbines, Danish families pay among the highest energy prices in Europe. According to the September 2009 study by the Danish Center for Political Studies (CEPOS), the intermittent nature of wind power has forced Denmark to export around half of its wind generated electricity to its neighbors at a loss and made up shortfalls by importing vast amounts of power from those same neighbors. The electricity Denmark exports saves no CO2 emissions as the power it replaces is generated by carbon neutral means. It’s a good thing the perils of CO2 have been exaggerated.

Danish wind power will not alter the climate. If Denmark scrapped its wind turbines tomorrow its power grid would quickly adapt. Its taxpayers, however, would breathe a lot easier. If Denmark cut off its oil and gas, it would find itself in a dark age of a different variety than that endured by the brave Danes of the Viking era.  Let’s not go back.

CRAIG RUCKER

EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard today posed the question, “can the U.S. afford not to have ambitious legislation that paves the way for a more energy-efficient future?”

CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker responded that if the US Congress fails, America wins.

Commissioner Hedegaard’s Denmark may have surrounded itself with wind turbines, but could not afford such feel good luxuries if it were not for the vast income and energy it derives from Danish North Sea oil and gas.  READ MORE

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez is a most innovative man. With his peculiar combination of home made socialism, populist nationalism and impulsive despotism, you never can tell what the next brilliant idea will be.

He decided to change his country’s time zone with half an hour, presumably just for fun. He managed to create a shortage of coffee, in one of the major coffee producing countries in the world, by introducing price controls. And he has managed to stay in power.

He now has noticed that there is a risk of electricity shortage, and that the consumption is far too high compared to other countries in the region. Wonder why. Counter measures now include cutting of power entirely for, presumably randomly selected, institutions, like restaurants, office buildings and others, for 24 hours at a time. A bit like taking the Earth Hour a couple of steps further, and skip that voluntary part.

Moreover, the Easter holidays will be extended by three days, to halt energy consumption in production. Again, most likely creating new deficits in new areas.

As exciting as always. Watch out, maybe in half a year he will decide to cancel Christmas.

If only there was some meaningful electricity to be had from these machines to compensate for the harm they cause.

Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Maldives and the Cook Islands will all disappear soon, say shortly after Christmas according to delegates. (Hence probably today’s pledge by the Danish government to receive some of the 20 million (!) people supposedly left homeless in 2008 by the disastrous effects of climate change; no scientific reference or source was given to back this number up however.)

Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, a Swedish expert on sea level change and in 1999 an expert reviewer to the IPCC, begs to differ. He has extensive experience in field work in most of the areas that are allegedly under threat of becoming the new Atlantis. In a presentation this week, he stated:

“(For the year 2100) our best estimate was + 10 cm (…) significantly lower than the estimates by IPCC (2001). (…) There are physical limits for how fast ice can melt. The maximum rates recorded were those related to the melting glaciers of the last Ice Age. The corresponding sea level rise amounted to (…) 1 meter per century. Consequently, all claims of a sea level rise by 2100 exceeding 1m can directly be discarded as physically impossible.”

Further, no change has been observed in the concerned areas including Bangladesh. Even Venice, once thought to be condemned, is not threatened by chronic “aqua alta” as sometimes thought; a significant deceleration since 1970 has even been recorded.

The conclusion seems obvious: let’s consider the facts and forget about the models, lest we get swamped by science fiction.

It seems obvious then to assume that risk is the opposite of safety. But it isn’t: as inaction also entails risks, we need instead to properly assess the benefits of risk-taking, such as accepting new technologies, medicines or – yes even – accepting that a global government will not avert all risks.

The key in this respect is opportunity costs. By definition we cannot know fully know the results of our actions beforehand. Consider GMO crops: these are largely shunned and condemned in Europe, despite their documented benefits and the absence of any adverse event since they were first put into practice some 20 years ago.

As brilliantly expressed by the director of EuropaBio, it is not GMO products that should bear special labels, but rather the much praised “bio”products; the former have been extensively tested, especially for allergies; the latter have not. It would be reasonable then to have these marked “Warning: does not contain GMO ingredients”.

Monsanto is a prime target in this respect. It has produced numerous seeds capable of resisting insects, droughts, water-poor soils and related problems. Yet the company is constantly attacked – no good deed goes unpunished – for market domination and for defending its patents.

A simple question to the green lobby: how do you propose to feed the world’s starving people once you have eliminated GM crops, fossil fuels and economic development? Nobody can eat CO2 offsets (except perhaps Al Gore).

Photos: freedigitalphotos

One of the largest energy companies in Europe, Swedish state owned Vattenfall has come under heavy media attack recently, and so has the responsible minister for industry, Maud Olofsson. The main reason is that Olofsson failed to disclose details from a deal with the German government in connection with the latest nuclear power project. Under the insurance agreement, Vattenfall would go completely bankrupt if there were a serious nuclear accident.

Let’s start there. Nuclear power is a blessing in many ways a blessing. It’s clean, non polluting, and – yes – it’s safe. Relatively. All energy production carries hassles of some sort. But, and that’s important, if the horrible happens, the results can be devastating. The risk with today’s reactors is very tiny, but in case of a major catastrophe, isn’t it fair that those responsible have to pay?

Vattenfall has for years now tried to come across as a green company (  Vattenfall Song also above with the air guitarr man). One of the difficulties lies in the fact that some of the major activities in Germany are not nuclear, but brown coal mines and burning. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that either, but I’d prefer if they did it on their own turf. One of the major atrocities was committed already under the German Social Democrat and Green government, when the last village of the Sorb minority- including the village church – was destroyed. Current prospects include kicking at least 3 000 people out of their homes. Naturally with fair compensation. How a fair price can be determined in a similar situation remains to me a mystery.

The current situation is that Vattenfall is trying to save face. The CEO was replaced and the green commercials intensified. The Swedish government is also trying to save face while the German government pretends it’s business as usual.

A couple of suggestions: Stop the hypocrisy about beeing Green. Stop destroying people’s homes. Apply strict responsibility for Vattenfall’s  activities, as for all industrial activities, without hiding behind the ministers’ skirts. In other words, privatize!

For some carbon millionaires, lining their pockets legally through taxpayer subsidies and hand outs is not enough.  They choose to cheat even though they’re playing a game that’s already rigged.

The Financial Times reports that:

Oreste Vigorito, head of the IVPC energy company and president of Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy, was arrested on Tuesday in Naples. Vito Nicastri, a Sicilian business associate, was arrested in Alcamo, Sicily.

Two other men were arrested in Sicily and the Naples area, while 11 others were charged but not arrested.

Oreste Vigorito: Arrested Nov. 11

FT reports that these saviors of our planet were building wind farms that were “built with public subsidies but had never functioned.”

Vigorito had ties to Brian Caffyn, founder of the controversial “Cape Wind” project planned for Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, which has been criticized as a poor investment for taxpayers for the energy it will produce.  Vigorito was not an investor in Cape Wind.

According to the Boston Herald:

“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”

The Herald reports that Mr. Caffyn’s 2007 divorce records reveal that “he amassed an $82 million fortune building wind farms around the world.”

Wind power remains an interesting and potentially useful technology.  However, if taxpayers are forced to pay for it they must receive a viable return on their investment.  Conservationists should not be forced to endure wind farms spoiling undeveloped places of natural beauty.  We should not allow wind farms to ruin the habitats of birds and other wildlife in ways we would never permit to established efficient methods of power generation.

It’s time politicians require the “green” business people who will reap fortunes from wind power to bear the financial costs and risks.   It’s time government zoning and environmental regulators ban wind turbines where they threaten wildlife and spoil human enjoyment of natural beauty.

Wind yes, but only when economically viable and only with respect for the quality of life both human and wild.

This article was amended slightly in response to a request from the Cape Wind Project.