Monday, December 10, 2018

Another Wonderful Piss Take

This time it's the Polish government which arranged to welcome the THIRTY FOUR F***KING THOUSAND delegates to a climatistas' wankathon by giving them a concert from the Polish Coal Miners' Band.    Conference logistics were organised by Poland's largest coal mining company and souvenir stalls do a roaring trade in knick-knacks carved from high quality black coal.

Highly developed economies such as Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo sent 406 and 267 delegates respectively while uncivilized shitholes like Australia and New Zealand could only manage 32 and 21 delegates.

In his welcoming address, the Polish PM reminded delegates of coal's importance and let them know eighty percent of Poland's energy is generated from clean burning coal.

Priceless.    The poor dumb bastards still can't see the joke.


pdm said...

I cannot understand why we sent any delegates - the so called climate change meetings are just a junket for all of the wannabes.

Duncan Brown said...

PDM You just answered your own question

Snowflake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I thought some of these idiots might make it as far as Christmas but I'm afraid I've had enough of Snowflake and his snark.

Off with his head!

Snowflake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

From....."Cities with worst air pollution Europe"

Air pollution causes the premature death of about 50,000 people in Poland every year. On February 22, 2018, the European Union’s top court ruled out that Poland has repeatedly breached the EU’s air pollution standards. According to WHO, Poland is home to half of the top 30 most polluted cities in Europe starting with Zywiec and Pszczyna, which both measure at 59 micrograms per cubic meters. WHO’s report confirmed that 33 Polish urban areas out of the 50 most polluted European cities are the ones affected by smog the most. The leading cause of air pollution is the use of coal to warm people’s houses during winter.

Clean coal??


Adolf Fiinkensein said...


Did you stop long enough to realise the subtle difference between burning coal in your open fire (which you are talking about) and burning coal in a well designed power station (which I am talking about)?

No I didn't think so. Probable too subtle for you.

Judge Holden said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Judge, Adolf thinks that clean coal is the lignite burned in Poland's mostly 40+ year old power stations. Dirty coal being burned in power stations close to the end of their life cycle. These are Soviet era coal burners, built without thought to longevity or pollution.

But Adolf will keep right on denying reality until it bites the arse of his poor, godforsaken grand children.

Anonymous said...

70% of Polands coalfired power stations are more than thirty years old and meet none of the old EU standards let alone the new ones of which even some German stations fall foul. Coal emissions are poisonous

You really don't like research do you?


David said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RosscoWlg said...

Oh dear Henry.. give me the name of one Pole who has died prematurely in Poland due to air pollution. Cant can ya, coz its a fake statistic for the Greens and Globalists. Its a derived figure made on assumptions. They certainly lived a hell of a lot longer than having no power at all to heat their house, to cook their meals, to live in cormfotable western stlye life.

and "Katowice is the centre of Poland’s coal industry, which provides 82 percent of all its electricity. It provides a cheap, reliable and effective source of energy."

By the way Henry cheap in the above quote means economic because Poland is a relatively poor country. They cant afford your windfarms and solar panels the go to solution for the elites like you who want a globalist solution from people who know best!! Yeah right

Hers some more bad news for ya too..
1. UK powering up the coal plants due to energy poverty (no wind and no sunlight results in what Henry??? )
2.Germany has put on hold its plan to exit coal
3. Japan is to build 30 new coal stations
4. OZ is set to boom with coal exports to India
5. And then you have China
6. And lets not forget Mr 18% Macron whos rolled over on new energy

Tom Hunter said...

Strange decision to have the meeting in Poland. The Poles have not exactly been secret about their opposition to shutting down the old coal burners.

It's also strange that the likes of Germany have not offered more technology to help upgrade or replace the plants, but then they're not exactly progressive when it comes to restricting the burning of lignite themselves.

So for the Poles the choices would seem to be:
- buy gas from Vlad the Impaler to switch the coal plants (yeah, being more dependent on the Russians will fly)
- buy gas from the USA (too long and unstable a supply chain with giant LNG ships strung along the Atlantic & Baltic)
- buy gas from the Middle East (Vlad problems but less so, probably)
- buy power from France's clean, green nuclear plants (probably not enough spare)
- build nuclear (can't afford that yet)

Looks like coal for the forseeable future, although as they get richer they can start to convert as the Chinese are trying to.

RosscoWlg said...

Good post Tom your forgot one option though
-buy power from the new German coal plants (but yeah being more dependant on Germany that wont fly either).

You also forgot Henry's solutions:
1. Windfarms (but most countries will pull them out)
2. Solar Panels (this is Count Ergbut's favoured solution)the fact that Poland is covered in snow and ice for a large portion of the year.. well draw your own conclusion.
3. Tesla storage batteries, refer 2 above

Perhaps investing in upgrading the existing plants to a cleaner standard maybe a sensible alternative (economic and affordable for the Polish people) over the next 10-30 years.?

Anonymous said...

Always look for the lie.....UK powering up old stations...fake news..

Poland has he opportunity to go nuclear but the lure of cheap coal and powerful unions have deterred them but they will .....

I wish you would reference your wild assertions Wigg, They are dismantling old wind farms all over Europe. Thaey ald tech and time expired and are replaced sometimes in a different location sea based wind turbines usually are the first to go...

Good question....can I name one person who has died prematurely of lung disease caused by I can't but then nor can the doctors because cancers etc don't come with a cause stamped on them. What can be identified is that the Polish cities mentioned have the highest death rate in the EU, just a coincidence?...maybe they smoke to much....

Japan building 30 plants, you just make stuff up as you go..

Trouble is that you and young Tom just read stuff off the Kremlins white board.


Tom Hunter said...

Good to see Henry has been Googling:
By 2023, its owners plan to stop burning coal entirely. They hope that instead their plant will consume only natural gas and biomass – wood pellets crushed into powder.
By 2023.
Hope to.

Sounds like Kiwibuild.

Oh, and notice that it's biomass and natural gas. In other words, not that green. In fact they're just doing the now standard coal-to-gas conversion: the bit about wood pellets is just thrown in for Green PR.

The Japanese government will put a halt to new construction of small coal-fired power plants that do not meet efficiency requirements
Of the 33 coal-fired facilities that are in the works across Japan, 11 fall under this category, according to the Environment Ministry.

So they're actually building 22 new large coal-burning power plants, because they're able to use this particular method to increase efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions compared to older and smaller plants.

You liar Wigg!!! You said 30, not 22 new coal-fired plants. How dare you!!!!! :)

"Wind Farm+Shutdown"
Goes with this story of a wind farm in Wisconsin being decommissioned ten years ahead of the thirty year schedule.

In fact, the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory itself says the useful life of a wind turbine is only 20 years. This does not seem to be widely known, but as more are pulled down regularly it may seep into wide public knowledge.

It should make some for some interesting results in re-calculating the classic levelized-cost-of-energy (LCOE) numbers on cost-per-megawatt generated, since the assumption has been a thirty year payback for all power-plants - whereas nuclear or fossil fuel plants actually have lifetimes of 30-60 years.

And since each wind farm has to have dedicated transmission lines, that cost has to be included too, each time you smash down the old one and re-build, unless you stay on the same site, which the Swedish and Wisconsin folks say they're not doing, having "learned". I wonder how often we're going to hear that phrase from the renewable folks in the future?

Anonymous said...

Of course they replace wind turbines after a period of time. The time differs with usage and manufacturer. They get a bloody great crane and lift the new, modern, more powerful turbine onto the existing mast.....

As each power company in the US is a private company what they do is up to the board of directors and not any Govt policy....bad way to run things.

They are not "smashing down" old old masts except the old ones at sea which I beleive was mistake due to corrosion problems and high maintenance costs.

The Japanese have a a problem with a distrust of nuclear due to the Fukishima incident but at least their coal fired stations are very low emission but more costly to run.

Bottom line is Polish coal power is bad and Japanese coal power is better.

Here is everything you want know about the world renewable situation and the huge advances made in the last ten years, but I doubt whether you will read it...


Anonymous said...

I must be getting slow....the big lie was in front of me all the time. Adolfs Thirtyfour F----CKING thousand delegates is actually 11,000 with 8,000 accredited media, university people etc who pay their own way.....

Gosh..I'm less offended now by a factor of 3.


David said...

It must be particularly galling for Adolf that even his favourite right wing rag sings the praises of renewables.

The Hornsdale wind farm and associated battery has stabilised the grid, prevented power shedding, saved consumers $Millions AND has recouped 25% of its cost in 1 year.

Adolf, you may keep shaking your fist at the clouds, but renewables are the future.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

It must be particularly galling for David that all his 'green' boodoggles need continuous feedstock of other peoples' money.

David keeps barking at the moon but coal, gas and oil will be doing the job long after his mortal remains have been burnt to create electricity.

David said...

It must be particularly galling for David that all his 'green' boodoggles need continuous feedstock of other peoples' money.

Poor Adolf, in his dotage has forgotten that capitalism is based on continuous feedstock of other people's' money. He is ignorant of how a business raises capital to invest. Elon Musk did not use his own money to build the Hornsdale battery, he used shareholders' funds, aka, other people's money.

He also seems to forget that the ageing coal fired power stations in Oz were built by the various state governments, once again, using other people's money. Well, actually, using the money of the state's taxpayers to build infrastructure that was of benefit to those same taxpayers.

When subsequent state governments sold the generators, the purchasers did not use their own money, they used a mixture of shareholder funds and debt - aka other people's money.

As Adolf knows, I own a small business. I funded the purchase with debt, aka other people's money.

If the flow of other people's money were to cease, capitalism would become extinct.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Poor David

Too dumb to understand the difference between debt finance and subsidies.

Can't tell shit from clay.

David said...

Shifting Goals posts again, Adolf. You used the term "other people's money", not subsidy.

Most of capitalism survives on subsidies. Have you ever heard of Apple? Did they invent the internet? GPS? Touch screens? WiFi? No, but they have built a very successful business by piggybacking on the technology subsidised by US and Australian taxpayers.

Perhaps you could tell the Australian farmers to stop putting their hands out for subsidies; must be a few near you who could benefit from your wisdom.

Unknown said...

I wish people would stop calling me Wigg... its Rossco WLG which means Rossco Wellington !!!

I got Adolfs meaning straight off the bat, other peoples money is subsidies, as the the whole Eco energy crap is founded on subsidies otherwise the power would not be economic!

And while David raves on about eco energy and its gain in market share they only tables on cost /kwh I have seen dont make easy reading, let alone the potential costs of energy poverty!

And David only morons are still trying to do stuff with wind... you found a way to get those concrete blocks outta the ground?

And for ole Henry telling me and Tom that we are getting stuff of the Kremlin white board.... he must be a kid with a current NZ education.. which means a real bad education as Communists, Socialists, and all their pinko friends look to the Kremlin white board. Capitalist like me are right wing, mate, not pinkos....gosh what shit do they teach in school these days.


David said...

the whole Eco energy crap is founded on subsidies otherwise the power would not be economic!

Please enlighten me about the so called subsidies. And WTF do you mean by "the power would not be economic"? Is renewable energy in some way outside the economy?

And while David raves on about eco energy and its gain in market share they only tables on cost /kwh I have seen dont make easy reading, let alone the potential costs of energy poverty!

Then you didn't read the links I provided above.

You could also go directly to the AEMO website for their praise for the wind/battery combo at Hornsdale.

As for your dig at Henry, it would seem your education is lacking, incapable of coherent thought, difficulty with terminology, unable or unwilling to assimilate new knowledge; but of course, you're right wing, and all that goes with the territory.

David said...

One further Q for Wigg - if renewables are so bad, why aren't you campaigning to have NZ Hydro replaced with coal?

Make NZ Green Again

Unknown said...

David..... sigh.... David
One further Q for Wigg - if renewables are so bad, why aren't you campaigning to have NZ Hydro replaced with coal?

Oh Gawd... a kid doing entry level economics in our rapidly declining education system could answer that question for you.

1. is sunk costs
2. is simple economics
3. At the margin it maybe hydro or coal (at the margin means the next power plant needed, by the way)

Then whammmo..gottcha big time.... say but what about gas... and guess what I say
whammo big boy we dont have any coz we aint investing no more. (refer Green Govt, captains call, idiots, morons, stupid little girl)

WIGG with pleasure
(Dont Make NZ Green)

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


You must make allowances. You are dealing with a fellow who thinks debt finance needs not be repaid. You know, just like subsidies.

Anonymous said...

At the end of that rather childish exchange by Wiggy and Adolt it becomes patently obvious that my link remains unread.

Here it is again.....everything you want to know about renewables but were afraid to ask... .


RosscoWlg said...

325 pages of bullshit. A wishlist of targets for the next 20-30 years written by no hopers like the EU and the IPCC.
Who reads this crap.
Even mentions China and they aint doing renewables..only on the surface, they are building coal as fast as they can plus 20 + nuclear stations and a another 20 to come once they have the trained people.
This is what you call propaganda.

Anyway here's something to educate you...its more erudite. Once you start reading you will realise what camp you are in but you never know you may grow and develop a critical mind if you can understand. Starts with Malthus, economics and philospy.

Good back in the morning.

Count Ergbut may find it of use too


Anonymous said...

Wiggy........A report or study on anything is fact based. What is available what has been done and what is hoped to be achieved. So you post an opinion that is not fact based and expect us to step back in admiration.

Nuclear power, natural gas and low emission coal power will be with us for a long time yet working hand in hand with renewables. As you can see from the fact based report each year the renewable supply more and more power lessening the load on fossils until eventually in 50 years technology will allow us to phase out fossil altogether.

The Luddite view that you espouse is not really your view it?


Anonymous said...

"China ain't doing renewables" what a crock Rossco. The Chines solar farms could power the whole of the UK several times over Get real Mate

The watcher

RosscoWlg said...

The Watcher..

First comment is that the BBC don't know sheet...think CNN, NBC, etc the BBC aint what it used to be.

Secondly suggest you read a dedicated web site, and just fortuitously I have one for you:

A little exert "Satellite imagery reveals that many coal-fired power projects that were halted by the Chinese government have quietly restarted."

You Greenies like to think China is going green energy, like a lot of things in China what you hear is not necessarily true of what is happening on the ground. This is backed by satelite imagery.


Anonymous said...

Funny that, I don't see any correspondence where I referred to myself as a "Greenie" or indeed a lefty or righty. Ah yes, you have to label, ridicule and insult in order to make a point. Only said that you were wrong when you stated that the Chinese were only paying lip service to solar power.

Not only can Chinese solar output run the whole of the UK several times over there are more fluent English speakers in China than the US.

The Watcher

RosscoWlg said...

Bur Watcher you just don't see the point....

Who cares if their so called solar output can run the UK several times... they aint running their country on it, never will, its coal, coal and more coal, followed by atoms, atoms and more atoms.

I also doubt your statement or the BBC's statement is true, Chinese green energy is just for show, some commentators maintain it is not even hooked up.

And what is India building, yes coal, coal and more coal.

I apologise for calling you a was a pretty low insult but your fixation on Chinese so called green energy led me to that conclusion.


Anonymous said...

It's their country and it's their coal and long as they burn their anthracite in low emission plants I have no objection nor do I care. I only care when people use the blogs to push a false agenda and frequently lie. Your fixation with dissing "green" energy makes you a Luddite by proxy. A lower insult and no apology.

The Watcher

RosscoWlg said...

Sorry Watch but I'm an unabashed capitalist, so by definition I cant be a luddite, so no offense taken.
Green energy is uneconomic energy, supported on a web of lies and deceit as to its performance, propped up by never ending taxpayer subsidies.
Apart from that I have no issue with it.


Anonymous said...

Energy subsidies from Wiki ..."Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers. Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies. The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support."

Wait, there is more, you will love this........"A 2016 IMF study estimated that global FOSSIL fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP. The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."

I can see where watcher is coming from about you trashing renewables......Bet you can't even lie straight in bed.

Lord Egbut

David said...

Here's another one for the Luddite posing as a capitalist. The real capitalists are investing in solar. Australia’s largest investment in solar for shopping centres. Covered parking for customers, cheaper electricity for centre, and no taxpayer subsidy.

Then there is this other capitalist stumping up money <i>He described renewable power as the "ultimate liberator" to energy-intensive industries like the Whyalla steelworks.</i>

Coal is the past, renewables the future, and Rossco just doesn't get progress. Everything must be done today as it was 200 years ago.

RosscoWlg said...

Solar shopping centre... what a load of crap..did you read the article, here is the salient point

"The energy generated by the solar and battery systems will be used on-site, reducing "reliance on the grid" and helping give our retailers and our business a buffer from a "volatile" energy market,” Mr Kelley said."

Reading between the lines, the Victorian Govt has screwed the energy market, things are so bad, we are doing our own thing, and to humour you the Govt (and probably to get a subsidy as well) we'll stick in some solar panels.

The point is Victoria, Sth Australia and Tasmania have f**ked up their energy markets, the most expensive and unreliable energy in Australia.

Being a private sector company they are reacting to this clusterf**k in the best way they can.

Meanwhile Australia's coal exports to India soar!!

Whats up next David?

David said...

RATHER THAN "READING BETWEEN THE LINES". aka making shit up, just read what was written.

Reducing reliance on the grid reduces costs.

Helping build a buffer from a volatile energy market means avoiding their crap pricing by the gentailers.

And the mall is doing this without a cent of taxpayer subsidy, shooting you're crap out of the park.

Odd how you, living in Wellington, seem to know more about the SA energy market than I, living and running a business in Adelaide.

Blackouts in the last 12 months in my shop / home - 1, caused by a car smash.

Cost of power on my last business bill, 18% less than same period last year.

And you seem to have been too overwhelmed by Mr Gupta's rapid move to renewable for steel making.

How does it feel to be a loser?

RosscoWlg said...

Geez David must have been imbibing too much of that red stuff from McLaren Vale tonight but a simple Google search gives me the following:

Can give you the source too but I guess the sun has gone down in Adelaide now and the electricity has been shut off till morning?

"Electricity usage rates can vary from state to state, and even within different parts of the same state. There are a number of reasons for this, but for the purposes of this article it’s enough to know that the average price of electricity per kWh in Victoria won’t be the same as in New South Wales. Below we’ve listed the typical electricity usage rates across QLD, VIC, SA and NSW. This was done by calculating the average usage rates of flagship market offer contracts from six leading electricity retailers – AGL, Origin Energy, EnergyAustralia, Red Energy, Click Energy and Alinta Energy. Prices are shown in cents per kWh.


Average Electricity Usage Rates (per kWh)

QLD 27.6246c/kWh
VIC 28.2461c/kWh
NSW 33.1118c/kWh
SA 42.8816c/kWh

David said...

A bit behind the times, Knuckfuckle.

34 cents kWh

RosscoWlg said...

"The closure of the Northern and Playford coal-fired power stations has left South Australia reliant on expensive generation from gas-fired power stations, which are needed especially when wind and solar are not producing energy.”

And there you have it. Close coal-fired generation stations increases electricity prices."

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


You forgot to remind David about Weatherill's One Thousand.

No, it's not a motor race, It's the number of diesel generators Adelaide has to use when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine.

Tom Hunter said...

"A 2016 IMF study estimated that global FOSSIL fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP. The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."
I can see where watcher is coming from about you trashing renewables......Bet you can't even lie straight in bed.
Lord Egbut

I realise that this is online blog argument and that people often don't read, let alone think, about what they link to - being too eager to DESTROY an argument with a Wiki link or some other argumentum ad verecundiam. But even by that low standard, this is an shamefully stupid thing to link to without reading further.

Here's the actual 2013 IMF Report, from which Mr Eggbutt took his Wiki quote. If you actually read the damned thing you find that it has two targets.

The first are the sort of Muldoonist subsidies we used to have in NZ. Venezuela is a classic example, where Chavez's idea of helping the poor was to sell petrol for a few cents-per-gallon.
Pre-tax subsidies
In summary, pre-tax subsidies are pervasive and impose significant fiscal costs in most developing and emerging regions. They are most prominent in Middle East and North Africa, especially among oil exporters.

All very Rogernomics. Basically this is a layman's understanding of subsidies and it's correct in both analysis and conclusion that such subsidies of fossil fuel use are bad. It's recommendations are also sensible in - for example - just basically making cash transfers to the poor so they can buy the energy and fuel they need, instead of stuffing up the whole market by buggering around with artificial prices (which unfairly benefits the rich).

But then the bait-and-switch argument comes in:
Post-tax subsidies
Rough estimates of corrective taxes, drawing on other studies, were made to account for the effects of energy consumption on global warming; on public health through the adverse effects on local pollution; on traffic congestion and accidents; and on road damage

In Appendix Table 1 they actually quantify the additional tax the US should put on its petrol - $1.37 per gallon. Note that the price of a gallon of gas in the US varies between $1.20 and $2.00 depending on location, so we're talking a BIG increase. But note that of that $US 1.37 the following "negative externalities":
- 23 cents for CO2 AGW impact
- 12 cents for pollution.
- $1.02 for traffic congestion and accidents.

Wait! WTF? "traffic congestion and accidents"? Those are the main drivers to produce these bullshit estimates of fossil fuel subsidies in the case of US petrol use. And what logic would lead you to think that electric vehicles would lead to less road congestion and accidents? By the logic of the IMF the USA should never have subsidised EV sales.

Economists playing around with such calculations is one thing - it's quite another to have other people who are either ignorant or liars, ignore all the caveats and assumptions built into such calculations.

But worse, the IMF and its allies have pulled a shabby rhetorical trick by using language about a “corrective” tax on coal, oil, and natural gas to get to some neutral baseline - and then arguinf that the failure to have that tax is an implicit subsidy. They've taken good economic concepts like ending subsidies and promoting economic efficiencies in fuel use, and then used that trick of rhetoric to transformed those good idea into calls for giant tax increases.

Tom Hunter said...

I should also add that exactly the same rhetorical trick is being used here in NZ with regard to our "contributions" to AGW emissions, by taking into account methane from farming (I think we're the only IPCC nation to do so) - and then arguing that our failure to tax this is a "subsidy" to farmers.

And the National Party never opposed that argument during their recent nine years in power.