Nick de Cusa

Budget de l'UE : les eurodéputés vont s'écraser. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100202752/will-meps-dare-to-vote-for-a-higher-budget-at-a-time-of-austerity/

Ah ben si tu tiens à nous ressortir toi même l'épisode où un type qui s'y connait si bien nous expliquait pourquoi l'Inter ne pouvait pas battre l'invincible Barca, volontiers. Avec plaisir.

Moi aussi alors.

Mais pas du tout :

Alors, la réponse savante à ça, c'est : "arrogant, pleureuse".

Quel âne, qui pense que c'est "la société" qui est complexe.

Non, cette fois-ci il semble que les coupables sont vraiment des grands singes roux.

Dans l'AR5 du GIEC en préparation, les question de la sensibilité du climat (en cas de CO2 x2) est traitée par un article PNAS interrogeant un petit groupe d'experts, plutôt que par des recherches validées publiées sur les données collectées. Ce qui est piquant, c'est qu'un de ces experts a avoué en réunion mentir, pour "justifier l'action politique" : http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/02/14/114743-au-giec-il-faut-mentir-pour-jsutifier-laction-politique

Aussi un slide show. http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2014-alfa-romeo-4c/med/#photo-5636804/

C'est un slide show : http://www.autoblog.com/photos/porsche-911-then-and-now/med/#photo-5632044/

Encore un coup de tonnerre majeur. J'en étais resté au stade où c'était techniquement infaisable. http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=1183

Hm. Tentant. Loyer pas nécessaire, on prend un silo désaffecté du plateau d'Albion ou quelque chose. C'est pas espaces vides sous-terrains qui manquent.

Le capitaine du funiculaire flottant de l'île du bois de la Cambre sauvé un faucon de la noyade cet été. Le vilain s'était dit que cet oison grassouillet et bêta ferait un met de choix. Papa et maman oie ne l'ont pas entendu de cette oreille.

Faudrait savoir.

Admirez la plaque d'immatriculation. Et le reste

Noooooooooooon.

Wow, pas mal

Nigel vs. Nelson, la revanche !

Tu peux, très chère Citronne. A part ça, L'énergie verte ne profite qu'aux éco-millardaires. Huge expenditures achieving no measurable effect A misnomer scam called energy U-turn In the field of power generation, an enthusiastic Germany has set itself high stakes. A reality check reveals severe doubts seem justified. Together with the fight against CO2 - dubbed as climate killer- Germany has also decided to renounce using Nuclear Energy, despite the fact that in the 90s of the last century, the technology contributed about 30 % to the country's electricity generation. Looking at the development since 2000, one finds that the energy U-turn has in the meantime absorbed astronomical sums – without any tangible return on investment in the form of reductions in CO2 emissions. But at least, there’s also a positive side to this: Germany now has some new eco-billionaires. To fight climate change, Germany wants to reduce its CO2 emissions from electricity generation. Decisive instrument for this endeavor is the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) introduced in 2000 by the then-ruling red-green coalition. It was meant to provide for a breakthrough for converting the country's electricity generation to allegedly CO2-free renewable energy technologies. The incentive of a twenty-year purchase guarantee for electricity generated from normally unprofitable technologies such as wind and solar or by burning foodstuff (sorry, I meant to say biomass) should motivate private investors to inject capital into related projects. The success was tremendous: related expenses have since risen year on year from initially € 883 million to € 16.763 billion in 2011. But even as impressive as they are, these are not the actual sums at stake. Hidden behind the pure annual amounts lurk total commitments imposed by the 20-year purchase guarantee, which have grown by 2013 to an impressive € 435 billion, picture 1. Even if one would decide to pull the plug with immediate effect by stopping any new installations, the German consumer is liable to continue paying operators of existing facilities for up to 20 years. Picture 1. Lurking behind the EEG annual payments are total commitments that are likely to reach an impressive total of € 435 billion in 2013 (Graphic: Author) A mountain in labor… When asking for the return on this investment, one is presented with figures that at first glance look quite impressive. Significant progress has been achieved in increasing the share of electricity generated using "CO2-free" renewable technologies, picture 2. Thanks to the aforementioned € 435 billion, the percentage of electricity generated from wind, solar and food has increased from about 2 % in 2000 to some 17 % in 2012. Not included in these figures is the share of hydropower, which is only marginally affected by the EEG. In the analysis presented here, we will only focus on EEG-related exploits. Neither did we take into account the share of electricity from waste incineration. On the one hand, this share of about 1.5% is more or less negligible, and on the other hand, even this small figure has to be considerably diminished since waste contains many plastics and other components that should not be classified as "renewable". The conclusion is therefore that € 435 billion had to be spent to convert just 16.5 % of Germany's electricity generation to the three dominant “renewable” technologies. This 16.5 % figure results when one subtracts the 1.2 % share reached before 2000 (i.e. before the EEG was introduced) from the 17.7% reached in 2012. Using these figures as input, one can thus easily deduct that in order to reach the desired final score of 76 % (80 % minus 3.3 % hydro and 0.8 % "biogenic" waste), the energy transition would cost Germany a total of around € 2000 billion. In addition, significant costs in the way of network configuration, power storage and other measures will have to be added. Quite an impressive mountain of money… Picture 2. The percentage of electricity generated in Germany from wind, solar and bread has now reached more than 17 % (Graphic: Author) but where’s the return? Looking at the figures, one should keep in mind that in order to justify these expenditures, the citizen had been told they should ultimately serve the purpose of saving us from global warming by reducing emissions of the "climate killer" CO2. This still remains the decisive argument for promoting the century project "energy revolution", aiming at nothing less than the complete revamp of one of the world's hitherto most reliable power systems. Therefore it makes sense to verify the impact all this had on the generation of electricity from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. A recording of electricity generated from such “dirty” sources in the years since the introduction of the EEG is shown in picture 3. Even at first glance one can immediately detect that the amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels has not decreased since the introduction of the EEG. Apart from a very small dent caused by the global financial and economic crisis in 2009, the level remained largely unchanged from 2000 to 2012. Picture 3. The amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels (given in TWh/y) has not decreased in the 12 years since the introduction of the EEG (Graphic: Author) Not the slightest reduction in CO2 emissions This sobering picture remains unchanged if instead of looking at the amount of power produced, one accumulates the related CO2 emissions. This approach makes sense because in this respect, the different fuels and power plant technologies have specific characteristics. For example, generating a kWh using an open cycle gas turbine causes significantly lower CO2 emissions than if coal was used instead. Such calculations can be easily carried out on the basis of appropriate characteristics. After having performed such a conversion to CO2 emissions (picture 4), it becomes obvious that the latter have remained virtually unchanged despite the increased share of electricity from solar, wind and biomass in the last 12 years: While in 2000, German power stations emitted 342 million tons of CO2, this figure was 349 million tons in 2012. In this calculation, all types of power plants - with the exception of biomass and municipal waste - were considered. In the case of biomass, the exclusion was made because burning biomass is considered to be more or less neutral with respect to CO2, while the small amount of household waste can be viewed as negligible here as well. In order to maintain fairness, the calculations also took into account "hidden" CO2 emissions both from nuclear power as well as from water, wind and solar energy. As can be seen, in spite of the huge investments in “renewable energy” plants made in the past 12 years, not a single ton of CO2 emissions has been saved. The main reason is the "cannibalism" of low-CO2 technologies in German power production: the "renewables" are not making coal, gas and oil redundant, but rather nuclear power. Due to the long-term disregard for this technology cumulating in massive shutdowns of nuclear power plants in 2011, the amount of electricity generated from this source decreased from approximately 169.6 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2000 to just 99 TWh in 2012. Picture 4. Despite the increased contribution of electricity from solar, wind and biomass, the annual CO2 emissions (in million tons CO2) remained virtually unchanged over the last 12 years (Graphic: Author) not even in the next 10 years From the perspective of CO2 reduction, the real bad news is that this picture will remain more or less unchanged over the next 10 years even if the current pace of installing "renewable" power plants remains unchanged. A significant increase of “renewables” is possible only with respect to wind and solar power. Hydropower will stagnate due to a lack of suited locations. The growth of biomass usage will soon reach limits for two reasons: as long as millions of people die of hunger every year, neither the burning of food nor converting arable land from food to energy crop production will be ethical. Secondly, the available arable areas are limited. Since the remaining nuclear power plants currently still in operation will be shuttered within the next nine years, their contribution of 99 TWh must therefore be almost completely replaced by wind and solar power. Since wind and solar systems installed to date have delivered in 73.5 TWh of electricity in 2012, one would have to increase their capacity again by around 135 % just in order to replace share of nuclear power. In addition to the present cumulative cost of € 435 billion, one would therefore again have to add another estimated € 500 billion, still without being able to present the scalp of even a single fossil fuel plant. By the way, in this context one might note that the hidden CO2 emissions of photovoltaic per generated kWh are about five times higher than in the case of nuclear power. Immense costs without any CO2 reduction So if after 12 years of EEG law application, one is asked to provide an initial assessment, it can be stated that German politicians have played with marked cards. In reality, nothing has been done with respect to stopping climate change. If the trend remains unchanged, the German population will by 2022 have been subjected to a financial burden of over € 1000 billion without achieving any noteworthy reductions in CO2 emissions. Instead, the whole enormous effort will virtually exclusively result in the abolishment of nuclear energy. Given the enormous sums at issue here, one might certainly be allowed to qualify this as the most expensive misnomer scam of all times. While the EEG and the energy U-Turn policy are labeled "climate salvation ", the box itself only contains 100 % "Nuke-Ex-spray". For this sole purpose, every German citizen has been and will be charged with € 10,000,- altogether, or more then € 40.000,- for the typical 4-person household. But this rather hefty grain of salt comes with a small solace, for a good purpose was achieved in all cases: Germany's new eco-billionaires can jauntily pursue their hobbies such as the collection of luxury castles. Fred F. Mueller

Avec un krach majeur pour demain ou dans 10 ans, ou jamais, on ne sait pas. Quand c'est le GIEC qui nous fait ce coup là on répond qu'ils ne savent rien prédire, point à la ligne. Tout ce que je sais c'est que l'augmentation de la dette aura une fin. Mais dit comme ça c'est suffisamment vague pour être sans intérêt.

...

Après, les commentateurs de sport, c'est toujours exagéré. On lit "du grand match" ou au moins grande 1ère mi-temps, mais Ibra a raté presque toutes ses passes, Pastore en a manqué beaucoup et reste nonchalant sur ses 50% de ses actions (un type bizarre). Bref, avec ce niveau de jeu contre une grosse cylindrée, Juve compris, ils auraient pris un vilaine claque. Il ne faudrait vraiment pas lire la presse. Ce qui compte c'est que Carlo, lui, a bien vu tout ça, et saura leur dire s'ils doivent jouer un vrai gros match.

Je ne te donne pas tort sur la robustesse du système oligarchique. Etats + Banques Centrales + Syndicats + Universités + Institutions Internationales + ONG + Communiquants-Lobbys + Banques + Capitalistes Copains + Presse-Medias, il y a là un écosystème qui a bâti une vraie stabilité, on le constate. Question : les arbres montent-ils jusqu'au ciel ? Le diamètre de la bulle peut-il atteindre l'infini ?