Bless us Al … Shut it down

This is a repost with a small amount of editing to bring Al’s actions to current events:

Now that he is the go-to guy for all things racial for Obama, I wish even more that …

Sharpie would shut it down for a while and give the air and earth a break.

DistressedLincoln3WebCR-8_29_13Visit: TerrellAfterMath

Enhanced by Zemanta

At the Banquets of Hate: Dishes for Every Palate

Let me explain:

In Algeria Of The 1990s

In 1998 (January) I wrote regarding terrorism, both state sponsored and cult sponsored.  During the period preceding the article and after the article, Algeria, or more properly elements of the Algerian government weighed in as a heavyweight for human rights violations.  But, their tally for death and disappearance of dissidents and other Algerian citizens paled in comparison to one of the terrorist groups which operated in Algeria with deadly precision.

When the Algerian government overturned or stayed the results of elections held in 1992 ( elections which saw a majority of parliament positions being won by the Islamic Salvation Group [FIS]; the Armed Islamic Group [GIA] started on their methodical path toward the deaths of an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 Algerians and foriegn citizens unfortunate enough to find themselves in the path of GIA.  The GIA chose many methods for death and mayhem, including murder and maiming of women and children along with adult males.  Their actual methods of murder and mayhem included slamming infants and young children against the walls of buildings, disembowelment, disembodiment, rape and other methods of murder.  Many of the victims of the GIA included Algerian politicians, police officers, security force members and journalists; however, the majority of their victims were innocent and ordinary men, women and children.

Comes The Modern Day Banquets of Hate

I first authored a version of the following piece in August of 1998. One would think, given the sixteen years plus, which have since passed, human relations and our general treatment of one another would have improved.  Lest we become complacent, I would urge all of us not to think such … much less believe those areas of our lives have improved.

The world’s three great monotheistic religions — Judaism, Islam and Christianity — have a common tenet.  The salvation of all humanity.  In addition, the Judaic Gehenna, the Islamic Jahannam and the Christian Hell are promised places of eternal punishment for sins unrepented.  Each of these three religions provide for the care of the poor and downtrodden, and for the understanding tolerance of one’s fellow man and other religions, or so they are characterized.

The above mentioned religions share a common patriarchal lineage and each have experienced war and upheaval through the ages.  With the foregoing tenets, lineage and stated tolerance and understanding in common; how is it so much misery has resulted from the hearts, hand and minds of some of the followers of each religion.  Not only as Muslim against Jew, Jew against Muslim, Christian against Jew, Muslim against Christian and all possible combinations among the three; but also Sunni against Shite,  Catholic against Protestant, Orthrodox Jew against reform Jew, or any other sect or sects of the three against another.

How About Those Dishes

Do the doctrines or other teachings (perhaps dishes in other words) set forth in the Christian Bible, the Islamic Koran or Sunna, the Judaic Torah or Talmud of these religions grant room for hate and maltreatment.  While I know adherents of each religion can find severe argument and criticism of the other, I’d like to believe such was not the intent, “in the beginning.”  In other words, do any of the religions find room for religious hate or demagoguery?  Given the  assertion of each religion’s performance of good works and good words during the over two thousand years since the acclaimed establishment of each — that time when their shared patriarch walked the land — how can the present state of hate exist.

The Palates Edure Hate

Look to the charlatans, so-called modern day prophets, plain lazy leaders and ordinary demagogues inside each religion’s inner-sanctum.  Those always failing to offer timely condemnation of killing and hate in Ireland, Africa, Asia, the United States and other locations around this world.  Look for the fringe-elements of each religion where self-described preachers, errant priests, rabid rabbis, imaginary imams and others similarly situated call for the slaying of innocent men, women and children; call for for the establishment of an, “Aryan,” all-white nation; ask for an all-black nation as so-called partial reparation; advocate for the killing of Protestant or Catholic; or how about the expulsion of Jews and Asians from the inner-city.

Finally Through Looking

Perhaps we really aren’t through examining the aspects of hate.  Let us grab our personal hand-mirror and look at the personage peering or perhaps glaring back.   Do we know that man or woman peering out from the glass.  If he or she winks or frowns, maybe, just maybe … we’ve found someone with severe indigestion toward God’s world.

May God bless each of you with pure judgment and the ability to love and forgive.

 

Marita might say, Ethanol is never what it’s cracked-up to be

Marita explains why sensible people and environmentalists agree on ethanol.  And, it’s about time, envios.

You will find valuable link information at the very bottom of Marita’s piece.  Incidentally, she has gained another prominent spot in conservative publication.  Check out Breitbart.com

Now here is Marita’s latest:

Ethanol policy reform–the rare place where environmentalists and energy advocates agree

We all expect to pay a price for missing deadlines—fail to pay a parking ticket on time, and you may find a warrant out for your arrest. People have lost their jobs when they can’t get the work done on schedule. Students, who turn in papers late, get lower grades—maybe even fail the class.

 

But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can apparently miss deadlines (many) with impunity. For the past two years, the EPA has failed to meet the statutory deadline under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), requiring the agency to tell refiners how much ethanol to blend into the nation’s motor fuels.

 

In November 2013, the EPA did make an attempt to announce the proposed 2014 blend levels—which by then were already months past the legally mandated deadline. The EPA surprised and pleased the RFS opponents when it utilized its authority to adjust the mandate and took market conditions into consideration. The EPA set the proposed 2014 standard to a level lower than 2013’s, even though the law requires increasing amounts. Ethanol producers, who were expecting the usual uptick, loudly opposed the reduction. They made so much noise, the EPA agreed to reconsider. To date, the 2014 standards have not yet been announced.

 

Then, on November 21, 2014, the EPA announced it would make a decision next year (2015) on how much ethanol refiners had to add to gasoline this year (2014)—yet, if refiners don’t meet the unknown requirement, they get fined. That’s akin to handing out the class syllabus after the students have failed the final exam.

 

With the goal of a reduction in foreign oil imports, Congress enacted the RFS in 2005 and revised it in 2007—which also provided incentives to America’s fledgling ethanol industry. At the time, gasoline demand was rising to an all-time high and oil imports comprised more than 58 percent of U.S. oil consumption. No doubt Congress believed it was saving American consumers from their addiction to oil.

 

Then the world changed. The U.S. economy plunged into its worst recession ever, unemployment soared, and gasoline demand fell sharply. Meanwhile, advanced drilling technologies, including the long-used hydraulic fracturing and newer horizontal drilling, began producing oil and natural gas from U.S. shale formations—which were previously uneconomic to develop—leading to America’s 21st Century energy boom.

 

Today the U.S. is the world’s largest natural-gas producer and is projected to pass Saudi Arabia as the number one oil producer. With crude oil supplies flooding the market, prices have been cut in half. Although fears over foreign-oil dependence have abated, the U.S. remains stuck with an ethanol mandate that is outdated, unworkable, and even harmful to vehicles, engines, and the environment.

 

Consider just some of the RFS’s flaws.

 

The law requires refiners to cap their blending of corn ethanol and use more cellulosic biofuels. Never mind that very little cellulosic biofuel has ever been produced—even according to EPA’s own data. But that fact hasn’t prevented the EPA from levying millions of dollars in fines against refiners for failing to use the phantom fuel, without any assurance that enough cellulosic biofuel will ever be available. It’s kind of like receiving a bill for something you cannot buy because it doesn’t exist, but you’re being charged anyway.

 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports cellulosic biofuels are: “complex, capital-intensive, and costly.” Given the difficulty of producing them, capacity will “fall far short of what would be necessary to achieve the very rapid growth in the use of cellulosic biofuels required” under the RFS.

 

Then there is the “blend wall” problem. With less gasoline being sold than Congress anticipated, refiners cannot add ever-rising amounts of ethanol to gasoline without exceeding E10—the fuel consisting of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline sold virtually everywhere in the country today. To get around the blend wall issue, the EPA granted a “partial waiver” allowing the sale of E15, a fuel blend containing up to 15 percent ethanol for model-year 2001 and newer vehicles.

 

The EPA’s quick fix made a bad situation much worse, and all at the taxpayers’ and consumers’ expense. Ethanol levels higher than 10 percent can damage or destroy vehicle engines, according to a study conducted by the well-respected Coordinating Research Council. Automakers are voiding warranties and refusing to be held responsible for mechanical problems caused by fuels containing more than 10 percent ethanol. And the marine industry warns of potential engine failures on various types of watercraft powered by the industry’s most common engines.

 

The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) is so concerned about safety hazards that it has launched a campaign telling consumers to “Look Before You Pump.” OPEI says equipment ranging from lawn mowers to “jaws of life” devices could be damaged by ethanol’s corrosive properties if used in concentrations above 10 percent. Do want your expensive new lawn mower to quit the third time you use it? You certainly want life-saving devices to work on demand.

 

And that’s not all. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, forcing motorists to fill up more often, thereby causing more consumer expenditures. Ethanol production has driven up food prices here and abroad. Additionally, some studies indicate ethanol usage increases greenhouse gas emissions. Politico reports: “Some green groups have vocally abandoned their support for corn ethanol, blaming the crop for polluting water supplies, wiping out conservation land and even increasing carbon emissions.” According to Craig Cox, director of the Ames, Iowa, office of the Environmental Working Group, an environmental group that opposes the mandate as it is now structured: “Corn ethanol’s brand has been seriously dented in the last 18 months. …it certainly doesn’t occupy the same pedestal that it occupied two years ago.”

 

But then, despite the fact that the EPA says decisions are made on merits, politics entered the scene. Rumors flew that the announcement of the 2014 blend levels was delayed to help Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-D) in his Senate bid. Braley was pushing for an increase in the proposed levels and was hoping that he would be able to influence the White House to raise the targets. Additionally, a Republican-controlled Senate would be more likely to pass legislation to reform or repeal the RFS. Braley was quoted in Politico saying: “Voters in Iowa look at where I stand on this issue and where my opponent stands, who’s supporting me in this campaign and who’s supporting [Ernst].” The Politico story states: “Iowans say wavering on corn ethanol once would have been certain political suicide in a state where 90 percent of the land is farm acreage. So Braley sought to capitalize on Ernst’s expressed qualms about big government, portraying her as someone Iowans can’t trust to fight for them.” Yet, Ernst, a Republican, won the Senate seat formerly held by Democrat Tom Harkin by 8.5 percentage points.

 

The EPA’s unwillingness to do its job by setting ethanol volumes—along with ethanol’s loss of “political heft”— should provide the impetus for ending the complex and wasteful RFS program. Ethanol is a rare topic where environmentalists and energy advocates agree. Now is the time to get our elected officials all on board. As soon as the new Congress convenes in January, it should give the RFS an “F” and reform, revise, or even repeal it.

 

(A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com)

 

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Here are the extra links referred to at the beginning of this page:

Ethanol policy reform
  RFS Timeline.jpg
1 MB  View  Download
zip Download all attachments

Marita Noon

Edgewood Food Pantry (date changed)

For those who may have read advertisements  for the food pantry occurring on this coming Tuesday, please note it will be held on Monday (12.22.14) as stated at the November food pantry.  Please keep in mind, we will open the doors for your entrance as soon as possible, but we ask that folks not come any earlier than 2:00 PM, unless absolutely necessary.  Distribution will start at the usual time of 4:00 PM.

Thank you for your understanding and we look forward to serving you.

foodpantry

Flying with King O

Back in October King O traveled to Los Angeles at sap taxpayers expense. Absolutely amazing how we have continued to put up with such imperial actions and the views which allow ignorant spending of our money. Here’s the story from Judicial Watch:

DECEMBER 17, 2014
Lavish fundraiser hosted by Hollywood star Gwyneth Paltrow marked Obama’s 30th fundraising visit to Los Angeles County, CA
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on December 8, 2014, it obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force revealing that the October fundraising trips by President Obama to Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA, cost taxpayers $1,176,120.90 in flight expenses alone.

On October 9, Obama attended a fundraiser party hosted by Hollywood actress Gwyneth Paltrow in Los Angeles. He also attended a closed-door “roundtable” fundraiser at the home of restaurateur Michael Chow. A second event shielded from the public was scheduled for October 11 in San Francisco.

The documents came from the Department of the Air Force in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on October 20, 2014. According to the newly released records obtained by Judicial Watch:

Transportation for Obama to Los Angeles, California on October 9, 2014, for the Paltrow fundraiser cost taxpayers $1,011,051.30
Transportation for Obama to San Francisco, California on October 10, 2014, for the secret fundraiser cost taxpayers an additional $165,069.60
Are you back from throwing-up whatever meal you last had? Here’s the rest of the sickness that has come to accompany such stupid acts:

Click here:

Related articles
Los Angeles Traffic Woes

California: Feds Lose Bid to Seize Medical Marijuana Club’s Land

Where is New Mexico and who knows it

Sometimes it is difficult to tell if publishers, other government entities and ordinary citizens really know or care where New Mexico is located.  As an almost life-long citizen of this high desert place,  I can provide solid reasons for my having the effrontery to ask such a question.  But first a question.  What significance does the image below have to or for the State of New Mexico:

Saguaro Cactus

The image is, of course, that of a Saguaro Cactus.  Native to Arizona, the Saguaro in the image above, reminds one of the motto of Ferguson, Missouri protestors … “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”  What happened in Ferguson was traumatic to many people and there is no intent on our part to diminish that trauma.  We are trying to fix something in the minds of errant users of the Saguaro to help them remember the Saguaro does not grow in New Mexico. Unless a Saguaro is transferred here by some cactus rustler for transplanting atome millionaire’s mansion or ranch, you should never see one in New Mexico in a state of growth.

You will see the Saguaro used in New Mexico for many forms of advertising; including magazines, small and medium signs, storefronts, billboards, t-shirts, and other locations wherever folks might be in the business of promoting or selling.  Many of the examples of such uses can be attributed to ignorance (not stupidity) or just plain shoddy research.  Advertisers from other states and countries are the chief perpetrators and guilty parties in using the Saguaro to advertise for all things New Mexico.  Such use is doubly sad, whether accounted to ignorance or laziness, and the Saguaro is likely used more than any other icon to advertise in New Mexico.  This use is especially bad since New Mexico has a native cactus which is both stately and beautiful.  Besides, it has the distinction of being the state flower of New Mexico. Below is an example of our state flower:

yucca-new-mexico-state-flow

Nice and handsome and it goes with the terrain, unlike the silly Saguaro (sorry Arizonians) which just stands with its arms in the air and its nose misplaced.  Anyway I want to show you another egregious use of the Saguaro in advertising New Mexico.

DossierNewMexicoYucca

Some of you may be familiar with Dossier, a supplement to United Airlines in-flight magazine, Hemispheres.  The supplement in this case, contains many nice photographs and accurate articles about New Mexico and its growth and advantages for business, living and tourism.  They certainly deserve accolades for what they got right, but they deserve a flat of raspberries for what they got wrong.  Wrong is the twenty-eight Saguaro cacti ensconced on the cover of the above issue.

Whether New Mexico paid for any part of the advertising in the supplement or everything was gratis, courtesy of United Airlines, I won’t speculate.  It is a nice effort with lessons to be learned by advertising executives and their sales staff.

This Is How Police Are Able to “Harass”

This is humor about something police get accused of frequently.  I have no idea if the story is true or if it belongs to the urban legend repository.  None-the-less it certainly could be true and it could give us pause to reflect when we pile on the police for undeserved reasons.

Date: Thu, 11 Dec Police Harassment

Recently, the Chula Vista, California Police Department ran an e-mail forum with the local community (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being, “Community Policing.” One of the civilian e-mail participants posed the following question:

“I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?” From the “other side” (the law enforcement side) Sgt. Bennett, obviously a cop with a sense of humor replied:
“First of all, let me tell you this…it’s not easy. In Chula Vista, we average one cop for every 600 people.

Only about 60% of those cops are on general duty (or what you might refer to as “patrol”) where we do most of our harassing. The rest are in non-harassing departments that do not allow them contact with the day to day innocents.

At any given moment, only one-fifth of the 60% patrollers are on duty and available for harassing people while the rest are off duty.

So roughly, one cop is responsible for harassing about 5,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 10,000 or more people a day. Now, your average ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds long. This gives a cop one second to harass a person, and then only three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass.

This is not an easy task. To be honest, most cops are not up to this challenge day in and day out. It is just too tiring.

What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those people which we can realistically harass. The tools available to us are as follow: PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment.

“My neighbor is beating his wife” is a code phrase used often. This means we’ll come out and give somebody some special harassment. Another popular one: “There’s a guy breaking into a house.” The harassment team is then put into action. CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars with no insurance or no driver’s licenses and the like.

It’s lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light.

Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, they are drunk, or have an outstanding warrant on file. RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours to determine why they didn’t want to talk to us. STATUTES: When we don’t have PHONES or CARS and have nothing better to do, there are actually books that give us ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called “Statutes”; Criminal Codes, Motor Vehicle Codes, etc…They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people.

After you read the statute, you can just drive around for awhile until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy trying to steal a car. Well, there’s this book we have that says that’s not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It’s a really cool system that we’ve set up, and it works pretty well.

We seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it. Why? Because for the good citizens who pay the tab, we try to keep the streets safe for them, and they
pay us to “harass” some people. Next time you are in my town, give me the old “single finger wave.” That’s another one of those codes. It means, “You can’t harass me.” It’s one of our favorites.

Hopefully sir, this has clarified to you a little bit better how we harass the good citizens of Chula Vista.

 

Chuck’s Note:  I’m pretty sure this is an urban legend because I found reference to it back to 2008 after which I quit looking.  Incidently, the “single finger wave,” has been ruled to be a form of speech and not a violation of law.

Marita Noon: Germany’s Energy Transformation

Marita Noon

Link to: Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system (I’d really appreciate it if you would click on this link to RedState.com and select the “recommend” option. If a column on RedState gets a lot of “Recommends,” it gets the editors’ attention and has a higher likelihood of being posted on the front page where the readership is much higher. After all, I work so hard to produce good content each week so people will read it and be informed, and act, on the issues. The option? Gruber is right about the people.)

Greetings!

This year’s climate change talks in Lima, Peru, ended yesterday with a watered down compromise and virtually no major news coverage—leading one to believe that they’ve become almost irrelevant. My column this week, Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system (attached and pasted-in-below), uses the talks and Germany’s recent decision to ratchet up its commitment to carbon dioxide reductions as the launching place to discuss what the U.S. should be learning from Germany’s renewable energy experiment. After all, our legislators are currently wrestling with whether or not to extend subsidies for renewables.

Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system features many quotes and observations from a report done by a Swiss group that closely analyzed Germany’s Energiewende and offered important lessons the U.S. and other countries should learn from—whether or not we will remains to be seen. But, as I say in my closing remarks, an educated constituency is important! My writing, and your sharing of it, is part of the education process.

Thanks for posting, passing on, and/or personally enjoying Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system. Once again, I’ve attached both the full-length- and 900-word versions. If you post my work, please use whichever you feel is best for your audience.

Merry Christmas!

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

 

Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system

Perhaps when Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was a child, she attend a party and was the only one who came without a present, or wearing inappropriate attire—and the embarrassment she felt haunts her to this day. That’s how psycho-dynamic psychology (Freud) might explain her December 3 decision spend more money on Germany’s failing energy experiment to avoid, as Reuters puts it: “the embarrassment of missing her government’s goal of a 40 percent reduction of emissions by 2020.”

As Europe’s biggest economy, Germany has also embraced the biggest carbon dioxide reductions through a program known as “Energiewende”—or, in English, also called energy change, shift, or transformation. Energiewende was launched in 2000 under Merkel’s predecessor who offered subsidies for any company that produced green energy.

While the European Union (E.U.) has committed to carbon dioxide cuts of 40 percent by 2030, Germany’s national goal aims to get there a decade sooner—which may have seemed achievable early in the program. After the 1990 reunification of Germany, the modernization of East Germany brought rapidly reduced emissions. However, the program’s overall result has raised costs and the emissions the expensive programs were designed to cut.

A few months ago, Bloomberg reported that due to increased coal consumption: “Germany’s emissions rose even as its production of intermittent wind and solar power climbed fivefold in the past decade”—hence Merkel’s potential embarrassment on the global stage where she’s put herself in the spotlight as a leader in reducing emissions.

On December 3, while 190 governments were meeting for two weeks of climate change talks in Lima, Peru (which, after 30 hours of overtime, produced a compromise deal that environmental groups see “went from weak to weaker to weakest”), Merkel’s cabinet agreed to a package that continues Germany’s optimistic—though unrealistic—goal and increases subsidies for measures designed to cut emissions. Regarding Germany’s “climate protection package”, Barbara Hendricks, Environment Minister, admitted: “if no additional steps were taken, Germany … would miss its targets by between five to eight percentage points.”

The results of the German agreement will require operators of coal-fueled power plants to reduce emissions by at least 22 million tons—the equivalent of closing eight of them. The Financial Times (FT) believes the plan will “lead to brownouts in German homes.”

With the goal of generating 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050, Germany has aggressively pursued a green dream with unsustainable subsidies that have produced an unstable system described by FT, on November 25, as: “a lesson in doing too much too quickly on energy policy.”

So, what are the lessons? What should the U.S., and other countries, learn from Germany’s generous subsidy programs and rapid, large-scale deployment and integration of renewable energy into the power system? These are the questions U.S. legislators should be asking themselves as they argue over a tax extender package that includes a retroactive extension for the now-expired Production Tax Credit for wind energy.

Fortunately, the answers are easy to determine. Finadvice, a Switzerland based advisor to the utility and renewable industry, did an exhaustive study: “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy—Lessons Learned from Germany.” The introductory comments of the resulting report, includes the following statement: “The authors of this white paper would like to state that they fully support renewables as a part of the power portfolio. …a couple [of the authors] have direct equity interests in renewable projects.” The author’s viewpoint is an important consideration, especially in light of their findings. They wanted Germany’s experiment to work, yet they begin the Executive Summary with these words:

“Over the last decade, well-intentioned policymakers in Germany and other European countries created renewable energy policies with generous subsidies that have slowly revealed themselves to be unsustainable, resulting in profound, unintended consequences for all industry stakeholders. While these policies have created an impressive roll-out of renewable energy resources, they have also clearly generated disequilibrium in the power markets, resulting in significant increases in energy prices to most users, as well as value destruction for all stakeholders: consumers, renewable companies, electric utilities, financial institutions, and investors.”

After reading the entire 80-page white paper, I was struck with three distinct observations. The German experiment has been has raised energy costs to households and business, the subsidies are unsustainable, and, as a result, without intervention, the energy supply is unstable.

Cost

We, in the U.S., are constantly being told that renewable energy is close to cost parity with traditional power sources such as coal and natural gas. Yet, the study clearly points out the German experiment has resulted in “significant increases in energy prices to most users”—which will “ultimately be passed on to electricity consumers.” Germany’s cost increases, as much as fifty percent, are manmade not market-made—due to regulation rather than the trust costs. The high prices disproportionately hurt the poor giving birth to the new phrase: “energy poverty.”

The higher costs hurt—and not just in the pocket book. The authors cite an International Energy Agency report: “The European Union is expected to lose one-third of its global market share of energy intensive exports over the next two decades due to high energy prices.”

Subsidies and instability are big factors in Germany’s high prices.

Subsidies

To meet Germany’s green goals, feed-in tariffs (FIT) were introduced as a mechanism that allows for the “fostering of a technology that has not yet reached commercial viability.” FITs are “incentives to increase production of renewable energy.” About the FITs, the report states: “This subsidy is socialized and financed mainly by residential customers.” And: “Because of their generosity, FITs proved capable of quickly increasing the share of renewable power.”

Germany’s original FITs, “had no limit to the quantity of renewables to be built” and “lead to unsustainable growth of renewables.” As a result, Germany, and other E.U. countries have “had to modify, and eventually phase out, their program because of the very high costs of their renewable support mechanisms.”

Germany has also begun to introduce “self-generation fees” for households and businesses that generate their own electricity—typically through rooftop solar, “to ensure that the costs of maintaining the grid are paid for by all consumers, not just those without rooftop PVs.” These fees remove some of the cost-saving incentive for expensive solar installation.

Section four of the report, “Unintended Consequences of Germany’s Renewable Policies,” concludes: “Budgetary constraints, oversupply and distortion of power prices, transaction-specific operational performance, market economics (i.e. Germany proposing to cut all support for biogas), debt structures, and backlash of consumers paying higher prices were all factors contributing to regulatory intervention. Projecting past 2014, these factors are expected to continue over the next several years.”

Stability

Hopefully, by now, most people—especially my readers—understand that the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar energy means that in order for us to have the lights go on every time we flip the switch (stability) every kilowatt of electric capacity must be backed up for times when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. But, what most of us don’t think about, that the report spotlights, is that because the favored renewables benefit from “priority dispatch”—which means that if a renewable source is generating power, the utility company must buy and use it rather than the coal, natural gas or nuclear power it has available—the traditional power plants operate inefficiently and uneconomically. “Baseload thermal plants were designed to operate on a continuous base. …they were built to operate at their highest efficiencies when running 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” Now, due to renewables, these plants operate only a fraction of the time—though the cost to build and maintain them is constant. “The effect of fewer operational hours needs to be compensated by higher prices in these hours.”

Prior to the large integration of renewables, power plants earned the most when demand is high—in the middle of the day (which is also when the most solar power is generated). The result impacts cost recovery. “There are fewer hours in which the conventional power plants earn more than the marginal cost since they run fewer hours than originally planned and, in many cases, provide back-up power only.”

This translates into financial difficulties for the utilities that have resulted in lower stock prices and credit ratings. (Note: utility stocks often make up a large share of retirement portfolios.) Many plants are closed prematurely—which means the initial investment has not been recovered.

Because the reduced use prevents the power plants from covering their full costs—yet they must be available 24/7, power station operators in Germany are now seeking subsidies in the form of “capacity payments.” The report explains that a plant threatened to close because of “economic problems.” However, due to its importance in “maintaining system stability” the plant was “kept online per decree” and the operator’s fixed costs are compensated.

*****
Anyone who reads “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy” will conclude that there is far more to providing energy that is efficient, effective and economical than the renewable fairytale storytellers want consumers to believe. Putting a solar panel on your roof is more involved than just installation. The German experiment proves that butterflies, rainbows and pixy dust won’t power the world after all—coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are all important parts of the power portfolio.

Why, then, did Merkel continue Germany commitment to an energy and economic suicide? It is all part of the global shaming that takes place at the climate change meetings like the one that just concluded in Lima, Peru.

If only U.S. legislators would read “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy” before they vote for more subsidies for renewable energy, but, heck, they don’t even read the bill—which is why calls from educated constituents are so important. I am optimistic. Maybe we could learn from Germany’s experience what they haven’t yet learned themselves.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Stuck Between ObamaCare And A Republican Congress

If you are a fan of ObamaCare, you can keep it, if you can afford it. If you like the Republican congress that just helped insure amnesty and ObamaCare is with us, at least for the short-run, you are stuck with them for at least two or more years.

If you read the article following the link pasted below, you may decide your Ocare is not be so wonderful. I’m sad to say, “Merry Christmas, anyway.” No really; “Merry Christmas,” and follow the link below for your lump of coal.

The article you will access comes from Hillsdale College‘s house organ, Imprimis. You’ll need to click twice.

Obamacare_2014_11

 

Conspiracy Brews 12.13.14

If you like your coffee and your politics flavorful, served with a heaping dose of civility by a diverse group of interesting people from all parts of the political spectrum then you should be joining us every Saturday. Started in 2007 over coffee and lively conversation by a group of concerned friends and neighbors, ‘Conspiracy Brews’ is committed to finding solutions to some of our State’s toughest problems. Our zest for constructive political discourse is only equaled by our belief that the only way forward is to exchange our views in a relaxed and friendly setting. For additional information or to be added to our e-mail list contact: ConspiracyBrews@aol.com.
Conspiracy Brews

“Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none.”

Benjamin Franklin

Not your average political discussion group!
December 13, 2014
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
at
Southwest Secondary Learning Center
10301 Candelaria Rd NE
(northwest corner of Candelaria and Morris)

We think that government should be open and honest at all times.
People from all political parties are welcome.
*** Quotes of the Week ***

                           “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”

Mahatma Gandhi

“Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.”

Dr. Seuss

Suggested Topics

— What, the NM Supreme Court got it right?

— So, what do you think of the Congressional budget deal?

— What is your wish list for the Round House next year?

(Light Quotes of the week)

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

Albert Einstein

“You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.”

Mae West

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

Thomas A. Edison

——-