After wasting tens of billions $ on stupid solar and wind energy Germany only produced ( 2011) 2,2% of their energy from geo thermal, solar and wind. And stuffed up their grid as well.
Lomborg told the USA senate last week Germany will now build 10 more CF plants in the next two years. So if s&w worked why wouldn't you just keep building more of them? DUH?
This shows that OZ only derived 0.7% of our energy from geothermal+ solar+ wind in 2011.
Of course Luke and bazza thinks this is good value for money after wasting all those billions $ down the drain for nix change to the climate for thousands of years.
The SLR story caught my interest, sea level rising slowing, but I'm more curious about the Antarctic and Arctic numbers.
Why is it so?
After wasting tens of billions $ on stupid solar and wind energy Germany only produced ( 2011) 2,2% of their energy from geo thermal, solar and wind. And stuffed up their grid as well.
Lomborg told the USA senate last week Germany will now build 10 more CF plants in the next two years. So if s&w worked why wouldn't you just keep building more of them? DUH?
http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/GERMANY4.pdf
Just thought I'd link to the IEA energy pie chart for Australia in 2011.
http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/AUSTRALI4.pdf
This shows that OZ only derived 0.7% of our energy from geothermal+ solar+ wind in 2011.
Of course Luke and bazza thinks this is good value for money after wasting all those billions $ down the drain for nix change to the climate for thousands of years.
Another new 2014 SL study finds no difference in the rate of SLR between the 20th century and the 1970 to 2008 period.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2014/may/20may2014a1.html
The 20th century rate of SLR was 1.9mm per year and the later 1970 to 2008 period was 1.8mm per year.