Solar Company On Verge Of Spain’s Largest Bankruptcy


They’ve spent too much on running diesel-generators i gues. Didn’t they show power output at night?

Originally posted on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT:

By Paul Homewood


Stranded assets, Mr Carney?

El Pais report:

Spanish renewable energy company Abengoa on Thursday applied for preliminary protection from creditors and called in lenders to start negotiating the terms of an agreement that would prevent a definitive suspension of payments.

In accordance with Spanish insolvency laws, the company has four months to reach an out-of-court agreement with its creditors.

Abengoa is on its way to becoming the biggest bankruptcy case in Spanish business history – even bigger than the fall of real estate giant Martinsa-Fadesa.

While the Seville-based firm desperately seeks a new deal with its creditors or a new investor to shoulder part of its €8.9 billion of gross financial debt, it is also asking bondholders to group together into a committee to renegotiate the debt.

“The committee is necessary in order to manage our commitments in an efficient manner,” said a company spokesperson.

View original 1,302 more words

Blood sugar levels in response to foods are highly individual


Which is more likely to raise blood sugar levels: sushi or ice cream? According to a Weizmann Institute study reported in the November 19 issue of the journal Cell, the answer varies from one person to another. The study, which continuously monitored blood sugar levels in 800 people for a week, revealed that the bodily response to all foods was highly individual.


The study, called the Personalized Nutrition Project, was conducted by the groups of Prof. Eran Segal of the Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Department and Dr. Eran Elinav of the Immunology Department. Segal said: “We chose to focus on blood sugar because elevated levels are a major risk factor for diabetes, obesity and metabolic syndrome. The huge differences that we found in the rise of blood sugar levels among different people who consumed identical meals highlights why personalized eating choices are more likely to help people stay healthy than universal dietary advice.”

Indeed, the scientists found that different people responded very differently to both simple and to complex meals. For example, a large number of the participants’ blood sugar levels rose sharply after they consumed a standardized glucose meal, but in many others, blood glucose levels rose sharply after they ate white bread, but not after glucose. Elinav: “Our aim in this study was to find factors that underlie personalized blood glucose responses to food. We used that information to develop personal dietary recommendations that can help prevent and treat obesity and diabetes, which are among the most severe epidemics in human history.”

David Zeevi and Tal Korem, PhD students in Segal’s lab, led the study. They collaborated with Dr. Niv Zmora, a physician conducting PhD studies in Elinav’s lab, and with PhD student Daphna Rothschild and research associate Dr. Adina Weinberger from Segal’s lab. The study was unique in its scale and in the inclusion of the analysis of gut microbes, collectively known as the microbiome, which had recently been shown to play an important role in human health and disease. Study participants were outfitted with small monitors that continuously measured their blood sugar levels. They were asked to record everything they ate, as well as such lifestyle factors as sleep and physical activity. Overall, the researchers assessed the response of different people to more than 46,000 meals.

Taking these multiple factors into account, the scientists generated an algorithm for predicting individualized response to food based on the person’s lifestyle, medical background, and the composition and function of his or her microbiome. In a follow-up study of another 100 volunteers, the algorithm successfully predicted the rise in blood sugar in response to different foods, demonstrating that it could be applied to new participants. The scientists were able to show that lifestyle also mattered. The same food affected blood sugar levels differently in the same person, depending, for example, on whether its consumption had been preceded by exercise or sleep.

In the final stage of the study, the scientists designed a dietary intervention based on their algorithm; this was a test of their ability to prescribe personal dietary recommendations for lowering blood glucose level responses to food. Volunteers were assigned a personalized “good” diet for one week, and a “bad” diet – also personalized – for another. Both good and bad diets were designed to have the same number of calories, but they differed between participants. Thus, certain foods in one person’s “good” diet were part of another’s “bad” diet. The “good” diets indeed helped to keep blood sugar at steadily healthy levels, whereas the “bad” diets often induced spikes in glucose levels –all within just one week of intervention. Moreover, as a result of the “good” diets, the volunteers experienced consistent changes in the composition of their gut microbes, suggesting that the microbiome may be influenced by the personalized diets while also playing a role in participants’ blood sugar responses.

The scientists are currently enrolling Israeli volunteers for a longer-term follow-up dietary intervention study that will focus on people with consistently high blood sugar levels, who are at risk of developing diabetes, with the aim of preventing or delaying this disease. To learn more, please visit

Go Green, Get Diesel!!


we need another word than mere ‘hypocrisy’ for this.

Originally posted on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT:

By Paul Homewood

h/t 1saveenergy


As we know, many operators have been signing up to provide standby generating capacity, for when intermittent renewables fail to supply power.

Many of these rely on parks of diesel generators for this. Now it appears that green power companies are getting in on the act. The Sunday Times (unfortunately paywalled) reports:

BRITAIN’S green energy barons are getting huge taxpayer subsidies to install diesel generators — exactly the kind of polluting energy source their wind and solar farms are meant to replace.

Wind and solar power firms are being encouraged to install the generators, which pour out CO2, a greenhouse gas, and toxic nitrogen dioxide, on their sites in order to provide standby generating capacity and prevent the lights going out during periods of peak demand.

The giant Roundponds solar farm, near Melksham, Wiltshire, is among the first green generators to take advantage…

View original 588 more words

Climate hypocrisy in Paris (and elsewhere)

Climate hypocrisy in Paris (and elsewhere)

The United Nations will tell us to consume less, while leaving behind a carbon footprint that could choke a horse

TORONTO – A week from now, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a gaggle of provincial premiers, territorial leaders and opposition politicians will fly in to the United Nations’ latest international meeting on climate change in Paris.

The conference, to be attended by more than 80 world leaders and 50,000 participants, including 25,000 official delegates, will run from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11.

In those 12 days, including air flights to and from Paris, this meeting, ostensibly devoted to reducing man-made global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change, will generate enough GHGs to power a small African country for a year.

While the UN will no doubt claim the purchase of “carbon offsets” will reduce the meeting’s massive carbon footprint, the truth is that if these people actually believed their rhetoric that the world faces an imminent, existential threat from climate change caused by GHG emissions, they would stay home and hold the meeting by videoconferencing.

As it is, the example they are setting for the world is appalling in its hypocrisy — a UN meeting that is an ostentatious display of excessive consumption, whose message is we must consume less in order to save the planet and ourselves.

Instead of walking the walk on reducing consumption, the UN will repeat what it has been doing for almost a quarter century on climate change, ever since its Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

That is, holding meetings in virtually every popular tourist destination on earth, including Geneva, Kyoto, The Hague, Montreal, Bali, Copenhagen, New York, Buenos Aires, Berlin, Nairobi, Marrakech, Milan, New Delhi, Cancun, Durban, Doha, Lima, Bonn and now, Paris.

In other words, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, the definition of insanity.

Because the UN’s approach to addressing climate change by imposing top-down, global treaties to reduce GHG emissions, has been an abject failure.

Between 1990 — the base line year for global GHG emissions established by the Kyoto accord — and 2011, global emissions increased 42%. (Canada’s, 19%.)

Nothing that has come out of these endless UN meetings — from the international carbon credit system which is overrun by fraud and organized crime, to carbon pricing schemes like cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, to wind and solar power — has worked.

The only time global GHG emissions slowed — briefly — since 1990, was in the wake of the 2008 global recession, caused by massive financial fraud by Wall Street banks in the subprime mortgage derivative scandal.

That led to a global credit freeze and a world-wide recession.

The reason the 2008 recession slowed emissions — as opposed to the UN holding endless meetings anywhere there are five-star hotels and three-star restaurants — is that in a recession people have less money to buy the goods and services produced using fossil fuel energy that generates GHGs.

Thus, when consumption declines, so do GHG emissions.

While Europe portrays itself — and will again in Paris — as the global leader in reducing GHG emissions, the only reason it can make that claim is through smoke and mirrors.

That’s because Europe crafted the 1997 Kyoto accord — which expired in 2012 — to recognize 1990 as the base year for reducing GHG emissions.

By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its industrial GHG emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by European countries.

It was an accounting trick. Nothing more.

The purpose of the Paris meeting is to produce a new global treaty on reducing GHG emissions to replace the Kyoto accord.

Because such political heavyweights as U.S. President Barack Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending, the UN will declare whatever deal comes out of it a great success that will save the planet.

Then the more than 80 world leaders scheduled to attend — including Trudeau — will return home and pretend to implement whatever it is they agreed to, without actually lowering GHG emissions.

Canada has been doing that ever since Jean Chretien was prime minister.

That’s why, if Trudeau was to implement Canada’s current GHG reduction plan that has been submitted to the UN, he’d have to shut down the equivalent of 58% of Canada’s oil and gas sector by 2020 and 100% by 2030.

Which is a good illustration of the fantasy world the UN lives in when it comes to climate change.


One Million German Households Have Had Power Shut Off – Spiegel


I’m following Germany since the ill conceived decision to go for ‘renewables’ (in other word perpetuum mobile) and have by now a vast collection of public newspapers links to show how it failed. And going even worse than failure. Another few years and reality will catch up

Originally posted on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT:

By Paul Homewood


Pierre Gosselin has news of how a million German households have had their power cut off because they cannot afford to pay ever rising bills:

The online Spiegel has an article that really drives home the energy hardship that German consumers are suffering, “due to the rising costs of electricity“, brought on by the country’s hasty rush into green energies.

It is not only Germany’s power companies who are bleeding to death financially, but so are many private citizens, who are unable to pay for their power. A shocking situation in one of the world’s most technically advanced nations.

According to the German flagship news magazine, citing the federal Bundesnetzagentur (German Network Agency), more than 350,000 households saw their power get switched off in 2014. Spiegel blames the “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energy), writing in its sub-title:

The social problems of the Energiewende are growing:…

View original 81 more words

Fast Food is Not Driving the Rising Obesity Trend

Fast Food is Not Driving the Rising Obesity Trend

Soda, candy, and fast food are often painted as the prime culprits in the national discussion of obesity in the United States. While a diet of chocolate bars and cheese burgers washed down with a Coke is inadvisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods are not likely to be a leading cause of obesity in the United States according to a new Cornell University Food and Brand Lab study conducted by the Lab co-directors David Just, PhD, and Brian Wansink, PhD. The study, published in Obesity Science & Practice,finds that intake of these foods is not related to Body Mass Index in the average adult.

Researchers Just and Wansink reviewed a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States and found that consumption of soda, candy and fast food is not linked to Body Mass Index (BMI) for 95% of the population. The exception is those who are on the extreme ends of the BMI spectrum: those who are chronically underweight and those who are morbidly obese. Given that there was no significant difference in consumption of these indulgent foods between overweight and healthy weight individuals, the researchers concluded that the overwhelming majority of weight problems are not caused by consumption of soda, candy and fast food alone. “This means,” explains Dr. Just, “that diets and health campaigns aimed at reducing and preventing obesity may be off track if they hinge on demonizing specific foods.” He adds, “If we want real change we need to look at the overall diet, and physical activity. Narrowly targeting junk foods is not just ineffective, it may be self-defeating as it distracts from the real underlying causes of obesity.”

These findings suggest that clinicians and practitioners seeking to help individuals obtain a healthy weight should examine how overall consumption patterns, such as snacking, and physical activity influence weight instead of just eliminating “junk foods” from patient’s diets.