Pred nekaj dnevi sem prebral, kaj se dogaja na Nizozemskem. Leta 2015 se postavili tri termoelektrarne, skupaj 3.470 megavatov, danes pa se že bijejo bitke, kako jih zapreti. Zagovorniki zaprtja takole računajo: neto bonitete 4,7 milijarde evrov, 5,6 milijarde so vredne emisije ogljikovega dioksida, 4,2 milijarde evrov znašajo lokalne škode zaradi emisij, potrošnikov presežek je 3,1 milijarde evrov, izguba proizvajalca oziroma lastnika elektrarn dosega 1.9 milijarde evrov. Investicija je bila šest milijard evrov, danes pa ocenjujejo, da je vredna 3,5 milijarde evrov. Če zadnji podatek uporabimo v našem okolju, slovenska termoelektrarna ni vredna več kot kot med 290 in 435 milijonov evrov, kupca zanjo pa verjetno ni.

Ni mi ušlo, da gre za izračune zagovornikov zaprtja, kar pomeni, da so podatki kaj lahko onkraj meje realnega, so lahko manipulativni in že padejo v polje religije. Kljub temu naj poskusim povzeti bistvo te klobase neznanskih in kar počez nametanih številk.
Nizozemska: cca 2,5 let stara investicija 6 GEUR v 3470 MW = vrednost danes menda 3,5 GEUR
Slovenija: 3 leta stara investicija 1,42 GEUR v 600 MW = vrednost danes po Fiusu 290-435 MEUR ???
6 GEUR / 3470 MW = 1,73 MEUR/MW (čezpalčna nizozemska cena TE na MW)
1,73 MEUR * 600 MW = 1,037 GEUR (čezpalčna cena za TEŠ6, v resnici je bila menda 1,43 GEUR, malo najbrž zaradi lignita, malo pa tudi zaradi deželnih razvad, npr. presihajočega zlata ipd.)
3,5 GEUR / 6 GEUR = 0,58 oz. 58% (ohranjena vrednost treh nizozemskih TE)
1,037 GEUR * 0,58 = 605 MEUR (današnja vrednost TEŠ6 preračunana po nizozemski analogiji)
Še enkrat: Fius trdi, da TEŠ6 "ni vredna več kot kot med 290 in 435 milijonov evrov"!?

Tako računamo pobalini. Naj gospod Fius, ki se je do danes navadil vsaj minimalnega navajanja virov, razčleni svoj izračun današnje vrednosti TEŠ6 - če čisto zanemarim tiste njegove silne milijarde za "bonitete, emisije, lokalne škode in potrošnikove presežke". Mimogrede lahko navede še, koliko gozdov (naravnih ponorov CO2) ima Nizozemska in koliko Slovenija. Ker to je pri nacionalnih bilancah emisij in mešetarjenju z odpustki pač treba upoštevati. Če v bratski in enotnostni EU ni tako, pomeni, da razviti in bogati parazitirajo na naravnih bogastvih (aka gospodarski nerazvitosti) perifernih hostarjev.

Drugi od navedenih Fiusovih virov pravi:

As Climate Home reported, by 2016 they were already losing value, having failed to anticipate low demand, competition from renewables and campaigner pressure.

Za TEŠ6 ne velja majhno povpraševanje (poraba elektrike pri nas presega proizvodnjo), ne velja konkurenčnost obnovljivih virov (glej podatke ELES), torej velja samo politikantski pritisk aktivističnih skupin z javnosti nepoznanimi ozadji in motivi!

Gerard Wynn, an analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the decision “sent a dramatic signal to electricity markets today that no investment in coal-fired power in Europe is safe”.

No, tole si pa zasluži komentar hišne furije ali kar boga in batine Financ, ki tako rada pridigata o pomenu pravne države in tem, da posel rabi stanovitno okolje, predvidljive pravno-politične okvire, nizke davke itn. Pozor, gre za odločitve zmerno desne vlade v EU podjetniškem raju!

They are aiming for the Netherlands to cut emissions 49% below 1990 by 2030. Closing coal plants will provide a large chunk of the savings, cutting 12 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 emissions each year. But the goal hinges on developing carbon capture and storage (CCS), which the agreement said would save 18Mt.

Carbon capture and storage se po slovensko lahko pove s samo štirimi črkami: gozd. Dokler ima Slovenija veliko gozdov, Nizozemci pa veliko (lepo subvencioniranih in ogrevanih) kmetijskih površin, ki skoraj 1000 km oddaljeno Mojo Deželo 365/365 zalagajo s paradižniki, papriko, korenjem, cvetjem itn., hočem, da se Sloveniji vsaj nekje splača, da za celo EU ohranja zajeten naravni ponor CO2.

Dokument (ameriškega) IEEFA, na katerega napotuje Fius, je iz novembra 2016. Zanimiv je zaradi podatkov oz. grafov o virih energije, o povzročiteljih emisij in spremembah od leta 1990 na Nizozemskem. Vendar je ta dokument, ki lahko služi verski vojni proti TEŠ6 & co., za diskurz o nevarnostih in priložnostih obnovljivih virov energije po mojem manj pomemben od kakšnih drugih in novejših (2018) dokumentov iz istega vira.

"Power-Industry Transition, Here and Now - Wind and Solar Won’t Break the Grid: Nine Case Studies".

ieefa.org/wp-content...y-2018.pdf
ali
Briefing Note: Cheap Renewables Are Transforming Global Electricity Business - Record Uptake and Record-Low Bid for Solar and Wind
ieefa.org/wp-content...y-2018.pdf

Kapaciteta v Sloveniji registriranih fotovoltaik v režimu samooskrbe je približno en megavat. Če vzamemo pravo vrednost električne energije, pridobljene iz sonca, dobimo vrednost 0,2682 evra za kilovatno uro.

Fius spet zavaja in manipulira. Ni važno, kakšna je kapaciteta postavljene fotovoltaike in računska vrednost njene energije in zmešane številke, ki jih navaja v ničemer ne pobijejo Valenčičevih (najbrž malo pretiranih) trditev. Za odjemalce in cel elektro sistem je važno, koliko te energije je na voljo omrežju/odjemalcem in kdaj. Ponavljam: naj Fius namesto recitala iz svojega katekizma kaj pove o podatkih ELES. Ali pa razmisli, kaj bi se zgodilo, če bi v Sevnici imeli dve špeceriji, od katerih bi ena imela sadje, mleko in kruh le občasno, kakor bi naneslo, druga pa bi skrbela za skoraj stalno zalogo, neprekinjeno oskrbo. Fiusovi trgovini želim veliko sreče, samo mene naj ne vleče vanjo.

In zaključek? V tem je Fius še najbolj evidenten lažnivi Kljukec z Ostržkovim nosom.

v samooskrbi je ob implementaciji visoko učinkovite toplotne črpalke možno realizirati za en evro električne energije 75 kilovatnih ur toplote ali hladu

V samosokrbi koga, s čim in od kod? V zimskem mrazu, ko najbolj rabiš toplotno črpalko, se električno samooskrbuješ od/iz...? Za en evro?!

Podobno je z električnimi avti: en evro elektrike nam omogoči prevoz celo 110 kilometrov daleč. O pomanjkanju elektrike ne moremo govoriti

Cena električne energije je zame mesečni račun deljen z mesečno porabo. Razdelitev po postavkah je za to kalkulacijo čisti larpurlartizem. Jasno? Po tem računu sem za februar kWh plačal po 0,215 evra. Ne vem za noben električen avto, ki bi februarja porabil manj kot 20 kWh za 100 km, to pa je 4,3 evra. Tako izračunan Fiusov faktor lažnivosti™ znaša 4,73.

Za takšne tiče, kot je Darko Fius, si je treba čas vzet!

Še malo sveže polemične hrane za radovedne možgane:

Upon reading Greenpeace International Executive Director Jennifer Morgan’s response (“Don’t Abandon the Paris Temperature Target,” February 28) to my recent Foreign Affairs article (“The Two-Degree Delusion,” February 8), one might think the world had made great headway in its efforts, dating back to the early 1990s, to stabilize global emissions. “It would be wrong,” she writes, “to become indecisive or to consider no longer pursuing the goals that to date have driven climate action.”

In reality, global emissions have risen faster in the 20 years since the world ratified the two-degree target at Kyoto in 1997 than they did over the 20 years before. Global clean energy as a share of total primary energy consumption has seen no increase. The long-term carbon intensity of the global economy, the amount of carbon emitted for every unit of economic production, also fell faster before Kyoto than after. Most nations, in fact, are not even on track to meet the commitments they made at Paris barely two years ago, targets that would have allowed temperatures to rise well past three degrees Celsius over the course of this century.

In the face of two decades of evidence that these sorts of goals have not produced any measurable progress toward mitigating climate change, Morgan nevertheless insists upon upping the ante on the two-degree target, asserting that the even more preposterous mark of 1.5 degrees remains within reach. This is possible, she argues, because the world is on the cusp of a disruptive energy technology revolution. Falling costs of solar, wind, and electric vehicles mean the targets are achievable.

The argument itself is innumerate. Solar and wind combined account for four percent of global electricity generation, and the electrical sector in total accounts for only about a fifth of global emissions. Electric vehicles represented 1.5 percent of global vehicle sales in 2017, and light-duty vehicles accounted for nine percent of global emissions in 2014. Morgan has nothing to say about heavy-duty transportation, steel, agriculture, chemical manufacturing and refining, or cement production, which together account for over 40 percent of global emissions. The technologies that Greenpeace and most other climate warriors worship offer no plausible pathway to decarbonize those sectors of the global economy on any time frame consistent with limiting warming to two degrees, much less the more radical target of 1.5 degrees.

But Morgan, like so many environmental generals, continues to fight the last war, despite having already lost it decisively. Back in the early 1990s, when the basic framework that has guided international efforts to address climate change was established, it was possible to imagine that determined and coordinated action might limit warming to two degrees. Perhaps China, India, and other developing nations might take a fundamentally different development path from that of Western nations. Even then, environmental nongovernmental organizations imagined that a world powered primarily by wind and solar energy was close at hand.

But almost 30 years later, we are long overdue to reconsider the path that we are on and how we are going to manage the quite considerable risks that climate change is going to present to human societies. China and, increasingly, India are industrial behemoths, each boasting middle classes that are larger than the entire U.S. population while still hosting, together, a billion more people living in deep subsistence poverty. Solar and wind have made great progress but represent 0.5 percent and 1.6 percent of global primary energy production, respectively. Morgan insists that climate resilience can be achieved for poor populations without further fossil energy development but offers no suggestion as to how poor nations are going to build modern housing and infrastructure—the key ingredients that make rich nations more resilient to climate change than poor nations—without steel or cement.

In a world in which, Morgan asserts, we are already facing serious climate disruption, she takes most of the tools that we have to manage that disruption, including carbon removal and geoengineering, off the table. China, India, and other developing nations, despite laudable efforts to deploy renewable and nuclear energy, are also planning to build hundreds of new coal plants over the next decade, yet Morgan rejects out of hand carbon capture and storage. And she avoids mentioning nuclear energy altogether, even though nuclear closures around the world are the primary reason that total global clean energy has stagnated despite hundreds of billions invested in renewable energy over the last decade.

Wise and pragmatic action to address the issue still holds much promise. Redoubled efforts to reduce emissions by deploying renewables, nuclear, and promising new carbon capture technologies can significantly reduce climate risk, even if we are unable to limit temperature increase to two degrees. Greater clarity about what adaptation really entails can help ensure that poor populations are better able to weather natural disasters. With foresight and research, carbon removal and geoengineering may buy us time to avoid worst-case scenarios. But Morgan’s unwillingness to even acknowledge the difficult tradeoffs that the climate issue inevitably will require demonstrates, rather than rebuts, my contention that continuing to insist that the two-degree threshold is both sacrosanct and achievable creates greater moral hazard than it avoids.

TED NORDHAUS is Executive Director at the Breakthrough Institute.
www.foreignaffairs.c...ree-target

Breakthrough Institute: en.wikipedia.org/wik...#Reception