Odlično predavanje Larsa Schernikaua, ki bi ga morali pogledati vsi, da bi sploh razumeli, kaj pomeni, da bo našo prihodnost poganjala elektrika. Da bi razumeli napačne predpostavke in zavajujoče LCOE izračune, na katerih je zgrajen balon “zelenega prehoda”. Toliko blefa in zavajanja, kot ga je v “električnem zelenem balonu”, težko najdete. Dobro je, da to slišite od strokovnjaka na tem področju.
Category Archives: gospodarstvo
Ko se Krugman razjezi na svoje: How Biden blew it on debt
Vsaka država je nesrečna na svoj način in vsaka država ima svoje norce. Le da se z nesrečniki in norci velikih držav, hočeš nočeš, mora ukvarjati ves svet. No, v tem ameriškem šovu med demokrati in republikanci glede meje zadolžitve se zdi, da sta Biden in Yellenova slabo odigrala svoji vlogi.
As soon as Republicans took control of the House last November, it was obvious that they would try to take the economy hostage by refusing to raise the federal debt limit. After all, that’s what they did in 2011 — and hard as it may be to believe, the Tea Party Republicans were sober and sane compared to the MAGA crew. So it was also obvious that the Biden administration needed a strategy to head off the looming crisis.
More and more, however, it looks as if there never was a strategy beyond wishful thinking. I hope that I’m wrong about this — that President Biden will, at the last minute, unveil an effective counter to G.O.P. blackmail. He may even be forced to do so, as I’ll explain in a bit. But right now I have a sick feeling about all of this. What were they thinking? How can they have been caught so off-guard by something that everyone who’s paying attention saw coming?
Robert Lucas: the rationality of capitalism
Prispevek Roberta Lucasa (pogostega “infamous gosta” na tem blogu) k ekonomski teoriji:
“Lucas was widely acclaimed because he furthered mainstream theory that markets could work without crises or distortions as long as individuals has sufficient information to make ‘rational decisions’ on their own interests. So the reality of crises and inequalities was due not to capitalist markets but to ‘irrational’ decisions by authorities or unions interfering with markets.
In particular, Lucas attacked the Keynesian ‘aggregate demand’ theory of economies, namely the Keynesian conclusion that total demand could fall below total supply in an economy, leading to periods of high unemployment. Lucas argued that if governments intervened to increase money supply or increase spending to boost aggregate demand, they would distort the ‘rational expectations’ of individuals and only make things worse.”
Njegov vrh triumfa ter kako je končala njegova napoved:
“Given his victory over the Keynesians; given the apparent success of the advanced capitalist economies in the 1990s; and given the neoliberal policies of reduced government ‘interference’ and ‘independent’ central banks, Lucas was confident that harmonious capitalist development was here to stay. In 2003, he made the now infamous statement that “macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.” As Romer remarked it “Using the worldwide loss of output as a metric, the financial crisis of 2008-9 shows that Lucas’s prediction is far more serious failure than the prediction that the Keynesian models got wrong.””
Ampak o mrtvih vse dobro.
Robert Lucas has died at the age of 85. Lucas was a leading mainstream neoclassical economist at the University of Chicago – the bastion of neoclassical equilibrium economic theory. In 1995, Lucas received a ‘Nobel prize’ for his theory of ‘rational expectations’. He was regarded by Greg Mankiw, the author of the main mainstream economics textbook used in universities, as “the most influential macroeconomist of the last quarter of the 20th century.”
It is an irony, given the body of his work, that when Lucas started studying economics, he considered himself a “quasi-Marxist” because he reckoned that it was the economic foundation of society that was the driver of history, not the ideas of individuals. The irony is that his main contribution to mainstream economics was eventually to present a theory that economic change was driven by the ‘rational’ action of ‘agents’ i.e, individuals as consumers.
What is ‘rational expectations’…
View original post 845 more words
Umazanija, v katero so se potopili nemški zeleni
Nmeški zeleni ne samo, da niso imuni za “bolezni vladajočih” (klientelizem, korupcija, kronizem…), ko enkrat pridejo na oblast, pač pa izgleda, da so zelo dobri v tem. Poročilo iz Nemčije.
The German Greens are in several big crises right now, all directly related to Robert Habeck. First came the legislation to force homeowners to upgrade their oil and gas heating system from January onwards. From next year onwards, it will no longer be legal to instal new gas and oil heaters. And from 2030, all existing ones will have to be replaced by heat pumps. As the sale of Viessmann has demonstrated, this is not a business in which German companies can compete. The legislation, a centre-piece in the government energy transition, effectively amounts to a tax on home owners, something people did not have on the radar screen before.
Skriti stroški obnovljivih virov energije (2)
Spet primer iz Velike Britanije, ki OVE vire bazira na vetru, ki je sicer precej bolj izdaten in stabilen vir energije od sonca (piha tudi (predvsem) ob oblačnem vremenu, ponoči in pozimi). Vendar pa veter, podobno kot sonce, prinaša velike skrite stroške. Ljudje preprosto ne razumejo, politiki pa zamolčijo, da večji kot je delež OVE v energetskem miksu, več nadomestnih virov rabimo za nadomestitev izpada energije, ko sonce ne sije in kot veter ne piha, in za izravnanvanje frekvence v omrežju. Za vsak megavat inštalirane moči vetra ali sonca potrebujemo še vsaj en megavat inštalirane moči v plinsko-parne elektrarne (ker so fleksibilne in poceni) ter dodatne zmogljivosti za kratkoročno izravnavanje omrežja. Več kot dodamo zmogljivosti sonca in vetra, več nestabilnosti dodamo omrežju in večji so stroški za njeno ublažitev – ker sistem nikoli ni bil zasnovan za obvladovanje prekinitev dotokov energije. Več kot vlagamo v sonce in veter, večji postaja problem za elektroenergetski sistem in večji račun za njegovo odpravo.
Zato, če smo pošteni, povečana vlaganja v zmogljivosti vetra in sonca zgolj preusmerjajo prepotrebne naložbe stran od zanesljivejših in stroškovno učinkovitejših virov energije. V majhnem obsegu so te investicije v zmogljivosti sonca in vetra koristno dopolnilo, da malce zmanjšamo izpuste CO2 poleti, v velike obsegu ali celo kot glavni vir pa so narodnogospodarsko škodljive (destabilizirajoče, drage in uničujoče za gospodinjstva in industrijo), da o njihovem negativnem vplivu na okolje in socialne razmere v nerazvitih državah (kjer pridobivajo potrebne kovine in minerale) ne govorimo.
Nonsens forsiranja razogljičenja prek fotovoltaike in baterij
Tudi iz najnovejših izjav predstavnikov ministrstva za okolje, podnebje in energijo, da NEK2 naj ne bi bil odgovor na manjko električne energije v nasledndjem desetletju, ker je še dve desetletji ne bomo imeli, je zelo očitno, (1) da v vladi aktivno zavlačujejo z odločitvijo glede NEK2 (odločitev o tem potiskajo na referendum šele leta 2027; izgovarjajo se na manjkajoče dokumente, namesto, da bi z JEK skupaj pospešili pripravo dokumentov, ki naj bi menda manjkali), (2) da nimajo nobene rešitve za izpad električne energije iz TEŠ6 leta 2033, in (3) da forsirajo bodisi tehnično povsem neustrezne tehnologije (fotovoltaika in baterije) ali še neobstoječe tehnologije iz vidika potrebno velikega formata (vodik). Na pobude glede izenačitve tehnologij razogljičenja proizvodnje električne energije ne odgovarjajo.
Spodaj je komentar enega izmed državljanov s tehničnim predznanjem, ki je plastično pojasnil, zakaj je forsiranje fotovoltaike in baterijskega shranjevanja poletnih viškov tehnično absolutni nonsens.
Russia Hawks and China Hawks | Robert Wright & John Mearsheimer
The Epic Failures of US Foreign Policy | Robert Wright & Jeffrey Sachs
O neodgovornosti za energetsko politiko
Državna sekretarka na ministrstvu za okolje, podnebje in energijo, je v ponedeljek na Strateškem svetu za energetski prehod v okviru GZS glede novega Nacionalno energetskega podnebnega programa (NEPN) z nekaj izjavami poskrbela za precej razburjenja med prisotnimi. Naj navedem zgolj dve. Prva izjava je bila, da naj slovenska podjetja premislijo, ali bi plačevala dvakratno sedanjo ceno električne energije, kot jo proizvaja jedrska elektrarna Krško v primeru izgradnje drugega bloka v Krškem, medtem ko bo za nemška podjetja cena električne energije iz obnovljivih virov (sonca in vetra) enaka nič evrov na megavatno uro.
Druga izjava pa, da so stroški električne energije iz fotovoltaike, vključno s stroškom shranjevanja, nižji od cene energije iz nove jedrske elektrarne. Pri čemer se je sekretarka sklicevala na poročilo svetovalnega podjetja Lazard in njegovo oceno »izravnanih stroškov električne energije« (LCOE).
Prisotni energetski strokovnjaki in gospodarstveniki so iz obeh izjav sekretarke ter izjav resornega ministra, da je treba najprej preveriti ceno električne energije iz nove nuklearke, seveda takoj doumeli, da resorno ministrstvo ni naklonjeno gradnji nove nuklearke, ampak da preferira drugo opcijo. Pustimo ob strani, kakšne dejanske namene ima ministrstvo in ali res zavlačuje politično odločitev glede nove nuklearke ter predpripravljalne postopke, in se posvetimo strokovnim argumentom.
DAMIJAN blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.