At Greece’s largest coal mine, controlled explosions and the roar of giant excavators scooping up blasted rock have once again become routine.
Coal production has been ramped up at the site near the northern Greek city of Kozani as the war in Ukraine forced many European nations to rethink their energy supplies. [bold, links added]
Coal, long treated as a legacy fuel in Europe, is now helping the continent safeguard its power supply and cope with the dramatic rise in natural gas prices caused by the war.
Electricity generated by coal in the European Union jumped by 19% in the fourth quarter of 2021 from a year earlier, according to the EU’s energy directorate, faster than any other source of power, as tension spiked between Russia and Ukraine and ahead of the invasion in late February.
Russian gas made up more than 40% of the total gas consumption in the EU last year, leaving the bloc scrambling for alternatives as prices rose and the supply was cut off to several nations.
Russia also provided 27% of the EU’s oil imports and 46% of its coal imports.
The crisis caught Greece at a difficult moment in its own transition.
For decades, the country relied on the domestic mining of lignite, a low-quality and high-emission type of coal, but recently accelerated plans to close down older power plants, promising to make renewables the main source of Greece’s energy by 2030.
Currently, renewables account for about a third of the country’s energy mix.
A newly-completed solar park (pictured above), one of Europe’s largest, is just a half-hour drive from the country’s biggest open-face lignite mine, near the northern city of Kozani.
While inaugurating the new solar facility, Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, announced a 50% hike in lignite production through 2024 to build up reserves. Plans to retire more coal-fired power stations were paused.
“Not only Greece but all European countries are making minor amendments to their energy transition programs with short-term ‒ and I stress short-term ‒ measures,” Mitsotakis said at the April 6 event.
Read rest at The Independent
I asked “How many deserts are shrinking and for how long?” You refused to answer.
I posted “For plants to grow due to higher CO2 they need lots and lots of extra water and large amounts of additional nutrients,. which are not readily available, are they.” Your response “Some green house operators enhance their houses to 1,800 ppm carbon dioxide for better plant growth.”
So? Why not respond honestly.
Also, my original response with links was deleted.
Since the Paris Agreement, the government has provided £13.6 billion in subsidies to the UK oil and gas industry. From 2016 to 2020 companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, including £15 million of direct grants for exploration, and £3.7 billion in payments towards decommissioning costs.
Colin, you need to do some scientific research, as I have done for many, many years The comments are not correct but extremely disingenuous at best. All extant flora and fauna evolved when CO2 was around 200 ppm, then with the onset of the Industrial Revolution it started to rise, to 295 ppm a hundred years ago to c415 ppm today and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, isn’t it.
For plants to grow due to higher CO2 they need lots and lots of extra water and large amounts of additional nutrients,. which are not readily available, are they.
Basic facts deniers somehow don’t understand.
“CO2 at 150ppm is when plant life stops.” Don’t be disingenuous. Only dishonest deniers make statements like that. Tell us, how you are going to reduce CO2 below 150 ppm?
I urge you to stop believing dishonest people and get a scientific education. This site is to science and climate what Answers in Genesis is to science and reality.
The accumulated scientific knowledge of all reputable scientists, including geologists is what AGW is, Colin. FYI Geologists are scientists.
Plants that are not cultivated have been doing better due to the higher level of carbon dioxide. Satellite images show that the deserts are shrinking. Higher CO2 levels reduce a plant’s need for water. That is because to get the same carbon dioxide they have to have their pores open for shorter periods of time so they lose less water.
“Satellite images show that the deserts are shrinking” How many deserts are shrinking and for how long?
“That is because to get the same carbon dioxide they have to have their pores open for shorter periods of time so they lose less water.” Don’t be daft.
The greening is thought to be due to a temporary increase in rainfall due to AGW.
You also fail to point out all the droughts that are being experienced and increase in deserts. Nut then that ios the nature of deniers, cherry pick and ignore the rest, i.e. the antithesis if science.,
Droughts are not increasing and have remained fairly constant.
https://alarmistclaimresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/ac-rebuttals-droughts-and-floods-042621.pdf
The greening of the earth is something that is happening world wide. The Sahara Desert has sunk 8%.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/new-nasa-satellite-data-prove-carbon-dioxide-is-still-greening-the-earth/
Some green house operators enhance their houses to 1,800 ppm carbon dioxide for better plant growth. One climate alarmist group did a study where they increased the carbon dioxide in a test forest and discovered increase growth. How they did it on that large scale I don’t know. Some pet stores sell kits to add carbon dioxide to aquariums to enhance plant growth. There is a preponderance of data showing that increased levels of carbon dioxide enhances plant growth. Claiming otherwise is truly being a denier.
Five hundred million years ago single cell organisms were evolving into more complex life forms. It is estimated that the carbon dioxide concentration at that time was 5,000 ppm. I have had this information on my computer for a long time so I am not repeating what some oil company said. I don’t do this anyway.
Five hundred million years ago etc.” What has that got to do with modern evolution? You are referring to the Cambrian Explosion, something widely cited by deniers for some obscure reason. Yes, the CO2 at that time was around 5,000 ppm, in the atmosphere, but the Cambrian Explosion was an explosion of aquatic life, not terrestrial and is totally irrelevant. At the end of the Cambrian aquatic plants started to become terrestrial and release O2 into the atmosphere, then hundreds of millions of years later life as we know it started to evolve. So why are you citing something totally irrelevant to life as we know it?
” I am not repeating what some oil company said. I don’t do this anyway.” Bless. You are but you don’t realise it. They have been spreading mis and disinformation for nearly 50 years and once it is in the deniersphere it is never questioned by the faithful.
You cited Spencer as a reliable source. Did you know he encouraged, the use of his data set as an icon for global warming sceptics, but he had committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. He did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done. His basic “mistake” was not allowiong for satellite decay. Very, very naughty!
Roy Spencer. “Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.” Which is a blatant lie, as he well knows, but the gullible believe him without question, don’t they.
That was a pretty good regurgitation of ther fossil fuel indutries miswinformastion.\
“any addition to an atmosphere below 2,000ppm (current levels remain at starvation level lows) makes life greener, stronger, more drought-tolerant, and abundant.” Totally wrong.
David, you need to come up more proof of your claim. “Totally wrong” – is just not good enough. I urge you do some scientific homework before you respond. Being offensive to others whom you disagree with isn’t what we do in this forum.
FYI.. The comments by Barry Bateman are 100% correct and that’s not my opinion. It’s the accumulated scientific knowledge of a number of highly regarded scientists and geologists. And one final fact for you to contemplate. CO2 at 150ppm is when plant life stops.
Finally, a return to energy sanity. In thirty years of howling over a fake climate crisis, “journalists” and politicians haven’t learned even the basics of environmental science Consequently, they have NO idea that fossil fuels are our ONLY GREEN ENERGY, because all life is made of little carbon sacks of water called cells. NO idea that all life dies without CO2. Because we are literally made from the stuff. And as the science of CO2 fertility makes clear, any addition to an atmosphere below 2,000ppm (current levels remain at starvation level lows) makes life greener, stronger, more drought-tolerant, and abundant.
“a fake climate crisis” Reality and science disagree with you. Rewmkembner Tim Ball? Laughed out of court for his dishonesty and now a broken, discredited old man.
Let’s look at reality. There is the claim that heat waves are more frequent and extreme. The fact is heat waves have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally.
https://alarmistclaimresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/ac-rebuttal-heat-waves-072321-1.pdf
Consider the claim that hurricanes have been increasing. The real data doesn’t support this. If anything, hurricanes are on the decline.
https://alarmistclaimresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/ac-rebuttal-hurricanes-042621-1.pdf
There is the claim that droughts and floods are getting worse. These have remained fairly constant over time.
https://alarmistclaimresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/ac-rebuttals-droughts-and-floods-042621.pdf
Consider the claim that tornadoes are increasing. The reality is they are declining.
https://alarmistclaimresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/ac-rebuttals-tornadoes-042621.pdf
The most basic justification for the “climate crisis” is in the climate computer models. Yet these “have failed miserably and have universally, stupendously exaggerated warming trends.”
https://thenewamerican.com/scientists-debunk-climate-models/
David, I have come up with credible sources. If you disagree, then show your own sources that have come to a different conclusion.
The fact is the climate crisis is truly fake.
Joseph D’Aleo and Roy Spencer “We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
Says it all doesn’t it.
William Happer, a Heartland hack wgo admitted to providing “evidence” for cash.
Freeman Dyson, another Heartland hack who admitted he didn’t know anything about the subject
If you want sources rather than people trying to make science fit their faith you can try NASA, NOAA, the MetOffice, the American Met.Soc, the Royal Meteorological Society and so on rather than known shills.
Freeman Dyson. “As measured from space, the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, it’s increasing the forests and it’s increasing growth in the biological world, and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate.”” It seems that Dyso doesn’t knpow very much, but then he did admit that when asked.
More cherry picking and misinterpretation of data.
I specifically asked ““Satellite images show that the deserts are shrinking” How many deserts are shrinking and for how long?: You cited just the one which is explained by changing rainfall patterns.
I am obviously fully aware that plant growth can be increased by the addition of CO2 which you wilfully igpred for some reason : “For plants to grow due to higher CO2 they need lots and lots of extra water and large amounts of additional nutrients,. which are not readily available, are they”
“One climate alarmist group” Bless.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2013/the-climate-crisis-tracking-change-predicting-trouble
https://news.mongabay.com/2016/06/rising-co2-is-reducing-nutritional-value-of-food-impacting-ecosystems/
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-co2-rice-nutritional.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-millions-protein-deficiency-result-human-caused.html
Note, You cite unpublished claims ny known shil;ls, I cite reputable sources.
Why is it that the eminent scientists you cite, who normally publish in reputable journals etc. are not doing the same with all the wild claims you cite? Very, verty suspect, to say the least. Could it be they don’t want to be shot down in public by their peers?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming
https://www.universetoday.com/142324/nasas-long-term-climate-predictions-have-proven-to-be-very-accurate-within-1-20th-of-a-degree-celsius/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#7e88813a6614
Time to end this nonsense on so called renewibles and concentrate on Energy Independence
Renewables are the definition of energy independence,l or di8dn;t you read the article?
The European Union has been very aggressive in attempting to move to weather dependant energy. Yet, they have had to increase electric generation by coal by 19%. They get 40% of their natural gas from Russia. Perhaps your definition of energy independence is different than mine.
Why don’t you give the facts rather than the political propaganda, Germany abandoned its atomic energy and as a consequence had to increase the usage of coal and reliance on Russian gas.
Renewables are energy independence, fossil fuels are energy dependence as you proved.
“Why don’t you give the facts rather than the political propaganda.” Are you saying that my statement that “The European Union has been very aggressive in attempting to move to weather dependant energy.” is political propaganda?
I have been closely following the climate fraud for twenty years. When Germany closed its nuclear plants the plan was to replacement the power with renewable energy. That failed. This has forced them to use coal and Russian natural gas.