California to vastly augment electricity costs

California to vastly augment electricity costs

In order to comply with millennial desire to replace reality with an alternative reality California subsidizes far out visionary Elon Musk: 

In what is being considered a major win (loss) to those in the field of next-level of energy technologyTesla was awarded a contract to provide thousands of energy storage units to Southern California.

The Southern California Edison energy company contracted out Tesla last week to provide 20-megawatts of energy storage equipment to their power grid. The equipment will be used to stop blackouts should the grid’s main fossil-fuel based energy sources fail. The Tesla Powerpack energy storage units will be installed at a SCE substation in Mira Loma and must be up and running by the end of December.

The amount of equipment being installed is enough to keep 2,500 homes with power for a day, or enoughto charge 1,000 Tesla cars, the company claimed in a blog post.

The cost of the complete energy storage system isn’t clear. As noted by Bloomberg, a 2-megawatt Tesla energy storage system runs around $2.9 million, and contracts that involve more energy than that are negotiated on a per-situation basis.

In late 2015, the Aliso Canyon natural gas reservoir ruptured, causing a major spill of methane gas and forcing over 8,000 local residents out of their homes. Following this incident, the California government has been attempting to expand its energy-storage storage efforts to prevent any potential loss of power during times of high electricity usage.

Last month, California officials green-lighted two other grid energy-storage contracts that would account for 37-megawatts of storage.

This project is one of the most notable happenings on the energy side of Tesla since the company set out to buy SolarCity in August.

If you’re wealthy

dream on

Keep on dreaming

Why immigrants get confused

Why immigrants get confused

USC students required to detail sexual history before registering for classes

A mandatory online course at the University of Southern California (USC) asks students to disclose the number of sexual encounters they have had over the past three months and teaches students to ask for consent by saying “how far would you be comfortable going?” and “would you like to try this with me?”

In an email obtained by Campus Reform, students were told they must complete the Title IX training in order to register for courses in the spring.

“This course is mandatory, and you must complete it by February 9, 2016. If you do not complete the training by this date you will receive a registration hold until the training is complete,” the email stated.

Many universities require students to complete a course on Title IX, but some students at USC are worried the online course they are required to take is too intrusive.

“It was just full of super personal questions,” Jacob Ellenhorn, a student at USC, told Campus Reform.

Despite some students being uncomfortable with the content of the course, the campus-wide email assured students they would “enjoy the assignment.”

“We believe you’ll enjoy the assignment, and that this training is in line with our shared belief that Trojans care for Trojans. It is an innovative, engaging, and informative online course, created with students for students,” the email stated.

The course begins with a detailed questionnaire that asks students to reveal how often they are having sex and using drugs or alcohol. The survey also asks students to specify the number of sexual partners they have had in the past three months.

After revealing both the number of times they have had sex and with how many different people, students are then asked to state whether or not they used a condom.


“It kept on saying that drunk people cannot give consent. In one scenario both the man and the woman were drunk but the video still blames the male for the assault. I found that a little confusing,” Ellenhorn said.

In a subsequent portion of the course, students are encouraged to “challenge gender stereotypes” and question the validity of “traditional thinking.”

“When someone’s appearance or behavior do not ‘line up’ with traditional thinking, how does traditional thinking ‘line up’ with everyone being born free and equal,” the course states, suggesting “traditional thinking” does not endorse ideas of freedom and equality.

The course also touches on the topic of sexual assault and offers tips to students who have been accused of sexual assault. The first tip suggests students admit they may have “crossed a boundary” even if they don’t remember the event.

Complete idiocracy


Germany hits brick wall: Enough with green power!

Germany hits brick wall: Enough with green power!

Germany’s leading daily in terms of circulation Bild recently featured an op-ed piece that harshly criticizes Germany’s Energiewende (transisition to renewable energies).

Clearly the Energiewende is not even coming close to living up to what is was originally billed to deliver. Despite adding more than 70 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity that will cost consumers some $200 billion, German CO2 emissions have not decreased to speak of. Coal-fired power has actually risen.

In summary German electricity prices have skyrocketed and poor consumers are being hit hard. Energy-intensive industries are off-shoring operations – and jobs!

A number of experts are calling the Energiewende the greatest wealth redistribution from poor to rich scheme in Germany’s history as wealthy property owners cash in with subsidized zero-risk wind and solar installations. The poor consumers are forced to cough up the money.


The Lausanne deal: Exercise in spin and counter-spin

The Lausanne deal: Exercise in spin and counter-spin

A whole setup only for the greater glory and self gratification of the worlds most dangerous narcissist …. Apres moi le deluge

Hours after Washington published a “fact sheet” in Lausanne Thursday, April 2 – which enumerated “the parameters of the agreed framework” hammered out by the US world powers and Iran – Tehran countered with its own version the next day, after the lead Iranian negotiator Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, dismissed the American accounting as “spin.”
The Iranian version departs substantially from President Barack Obama’s assurance of “a deal that meets our core objections,” and statement,: “There is no way Iran can get around it to build a bomb or produce plutonium at its Arak plan…verification mechanisms built into the agreed framework will ensure that if Iran cheats, the world will know it.”
Tehran’s version had two objects: 1) To refute Obama’s presentation of the outcome of the Lausanne talks, and 2) To show the Iranian people how successful its negotiating team had been in defending its national interest.

The battle of versions, fought just hours after both sides claimed victory in the diplomatic contest played out at Lausanne, makes it obvious that the gaps between the world powers and Iran are far wider than admitedt. They could not even find a common definition of what if anything was achieved in the talks: “a framework deal” in US terms; or “a package of solutions leading up to a future Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action” – in Iranian parlance.
The gaps on such key issues as enrichment, sanctions, research and development, means of verifying compliance (described by Obama as intrusive”) could no longer be papered over after Tehran issued its version. It was a short document and here are its main points:

Iran’s version of the Lausanne deal

  • Iran’s nuclear program including enrichment will continue.
  • None of Iran’s nuclear facilities or related activities will be stopped or shut down or suspended and activities will continue at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak.
  • There is no confirmation of Obama’s claim that the Arak plant will not be allowed to produce plutonium. The Iranians say: The Arak heavy water research reactor will remain – enhanced and updated with re-modifications as a joint international project. In addition to decreasing the amount of plutonium production, the efficiency of the Arak reactor will be increased significantly.
  • After the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all the UN Security Council resolutions will be revoked, and all the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of the EU and the unilateral ones of the US (which are detailed) immediately removed.
  • After the preparatory phase and the start of Iran’s nuclear-related implementation work, all the sanctions will be automatically annulled on a single specified day. Furthermore, all P5-1 members are committed to restrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.
  • There is no word in the entire Iranian document on inspections of any kind, which counters the “verification mechanisms built into the agreed framework” referred to by President Obama.
  • Instead, the Iranian version says that violations “by any one party” will have “predetermined mechanisms of response.”
  • Sanctions were ruled out by the previous point.

The devil is in the equivocations


When Politics Come Up Against Reality

sigh… How to destroy your nation 101


By Paul Homewood


PEI report on the mess that Germany has made with nuclear power:

The prospect of the German taxpayer paying to cover nuclear reactor shutdowns is a live one as utilities continue to struggle, according to a government report.
As part of the country’s
Energiewende (energy transition) policy, Angela Merkels government decided to phase out nuclear power by 2022 but the expense involved in storing the waste and decommissioning the plants may prove beyond power companies.
Utility executives say more specifics on plans are needed.


“There are still no clear answers to many fundamental questions involving final and intermediate storage, dismantling [reactors] and transporting radioactive waste,” said Frank Mastiaux, chief executive of EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, one of Germany’s largest utility companies. “Concrete concepts have long been promised, but there is nothing yet in sight.”
That move forced EnBW and Germany’s other big…

View original post 216 more words



It is hard to understate the implications of the UK’s growing exposure to wind for its electricity. According to the Royal Academy of Engineering, which is sympathetic to renewables, it requires ‘a fundamental shift in society’s attitude to and use of energy.’ Success, the Academy says, depends on the ability to manage demand to reflect the output from wind, going on to note that despite increasing efforts to research demand management techniques (to match consumption to the variability of the weather), ‘there is still much uncertainty on how effective it will be and at what cost.’ So called ‘smart grids’ will be vital, the Academy says, but their potential and effectiveness at scale ‘are yet to be proven.’

Electricity has a set of uniquely demanding characteristics:
◾It cannot be stored, except to a limited extent, with batteries and pumped hydro, and that storage is limited and incurs a cost;
◾Supply must respond almost instantaneously to demand;
◾If too little is produced, there is a danger of degraded quality and, eventually, of power cuts, which are costly to users;
◾Too much production can damage the transmission system, leading to wires becoming deformed or even melting;
◾Failing to equalise demand and supply can also lead to changes in the frequency of the power supply – too high, and it can damage appliances; too low, equipment can underperform.

Wind and solar technologies pose huge integration challenges. They are difficult to predict, particularly wind, which is highly variable – on gusty days, wind speeds can vary enormously over a few minutes or even seconds. According to Malcolm Grimston of Imperial College, London, low wind speed tends to be weakly correlated with high power demand (cold, windless winter evenings and hot, windless summer days). Depending on how wind-generated electricity is connected to the grid, large amounts of wind power can reduce system inertia and make it less stable.


Full article

How EU projects blow billions of euros amidst austerity talks

How EU projects blow billions of euros amidst austerity talks

The tiny island archipelago, located some 2,000 kilometers northeast of Brisbane, Australia, was the home to an EU mission of seven lucky diplomats, who also had the bonus of being some 15,700 kilometers distant from HQ in Brussels.

A decision to maintain an EU diplomatic presence on the island was a strange and certainly costly decision. Only four nations, France, Australia, China and New Zealand have permanent embassy’s on the island, while from 2008 to 2013, the EU spent €23.2 million ($26.4 million) to help boost economic growth and to create jobs. From 2014 to 2020, a further €31 million ($35.3 million) has been earmarked for Vanuatu, according to the EU External Action website.

The permanent diplomatic mission was finally shut down after 29 years at the end of 2013. However, it managed to spend $184,000 on teaching the locals how to play cricket… This was presided over by the charge d’affaires Robert de Raeve, a Belgian national, who after benefits were thrown in, took home a salary of around $200,000, while paying a paltry 15 percent tax.


Spain’s desalination conundrum
A desalination plant built in one of the driest areas of Europe would seem like a good idea. However, changes in the economic climate together with political mismanagement have made Europe’s largest desalination facility, built in Spain, one of the continent’s biggest white elephants.

The project started in 2007, with the aim of being completed in 2009. Six years on, the plant has finally been finished. It is just lacking power, and perhaps more crucially customers to make the expensive facility viable.

The project has already lost €55 million ($62.6 million) worth of EU funding because it wasn’t completed on time. This sum was to be provided by Europe as a subsidy to help fund the cost of the €300-million ($341-million) facility. It won’t receive this money until the plant is operational.


Tunnel vision: Does Lyon need underground link to Turin?
It has been hailed as the final link in connecting Barcelona and Bucharest – a rail network spanning the continent. However, the Turin to Lyon tunnel is proving to be a headache for the EU, which has pumped billions into the project.

Work began on the 57-kilometer tunnel in 2013, designed to link Lyon and Turin. The EU has agreed to provide around €3.4 billion ($3.87 billion) of the €8.5 billion ($9.6 billion) needed for construction costs. The overall cost for the project has risen to €26 billion ($29.6 billion), the Euractiv website reports.

However, the project has proved unpopular with locals and environmentalists and Green MEP’s have managed to get the EU’s anti-fraud office, OLAF, to investigate the spiraling costs of the tunnel, with the French and Italian governments providing the rest. They see the project as a complete waste of taxpayer money.

and on and on and on….. Spending other peoples money really is a nice job, especially if you get paid royally for doing it.