Roof-Top Solar Is Putting Our Electrical Grid at Risk

If elected, Hillary Clinton plans to deploy another half-billion solar panels by the end of her first term.  But, there is a serious problem with solar, as both California and Germany are finding out.  Too much roof-top solar can actually fry the power grid by generating more power than the grid can handle; causing a catastrophic power outage.

As an unreliable, independent, and distributed power source, roof-top solar output can't be controlled by the power companies.  Thus, they must closely monitor the load on the grid to insure that there is just enough supplemental conventional power (nuclear, natural gas, or coal) to avoid brown-outs.  For this reason, the power companies are always running their conventional generators; even if 90%+ of the power is being generated by solar.  The simple fact is that conventional power generators can't be shutdown because it can take up to 8 hours to restart them and bring them back on line on a gradual basis.

However, the real problem is when solar produces more than 100% of the needed power.  This will cause an overload condition that will literally do serious damage to the electrical grid.  In fact, Germany just found that out in May of this year when it was forced to have its citizens "waste" as much power as possible in order to avoid a collapse of the grid.

California is approaching this same problem.  What to do when too much solar is produced.  In their case, the contemplated plan is to sell their excess to other western states who depend more heavily on natural gas and coal for energy.  Sounds logical, but the truth is, that just puts California's excess power problems in the laps of the power companies in the other states who must constantly adjust their output to account for California's excesses.

While some say the real solution to the problem is the "storage of excess electricity", that is easier said than done.  There is no economical way of accomplishing that task.  Therefore, I think California and the other states that are pushing roof-top solar with heavy subsidies, have to rethink the policies and back off this risky push to supposedly save the planet from global warming.

Our politicians, especially on the political left, need to stop listening to the climate change activists and start listening to the power companies and electrical engineers regarding the risks of too much solar.

References:

Germany Forcing People To Waste Traditional Electricity To Prevent Green Energy Meltdown: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/germany-forced-people-to-use-traditional-electricity-to-prevent-green-energy-meltdown/

What Will California Do With Too Much Solar?: https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-do-with-too-much-solar/

Clinton: ‘Deploy Half a Billion More Solar Panels by End of My First Term’: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/clinton-deploy-half-billion-more-solar-panels-end-my-first-term

First France Then Belgium. Is Germany Next?

All together, there are 14 million Muslims in Europe.

However, in France, Germany, and Belgium, three countries in close proximity to one another, there are 10.2 million or 73% of all the Muslims in Europe.  There have been 2 significant terror attacks, one in France and one in Belgium, in just a span of months.  But, be aware that it is Germany that has the highest Muslim population of all three, at 4.8 million or 38% of all Muslims in Europe.  That is significantly higher than the U.S. whose Muslim population of 3.3 million is in a country with a population 4 times greater than Germany's.

What we know is that radicals within Islam are somewhat proportional to the size of the Muslim population and not necessarily size dependent on the social environment they live in.  One study believes, that modestly, 1% of Muslims in Europe are radicalized. Therefore, in Germany, there could be as many as 53,000 radicals who would be either willing to die for their cause or carry out some type of terrorist attack.

So, this begs the question.  Is Germany the next to be significantly hit in Europe?

References:

5 facts about the Muslim population in Europe: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

How many Muslim extremists are there? Just the facts, please: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2015/0113/How-many-Muslim-extremists-are-there-Just-the-facts-please

German airports on high alert after Brussels explosions: http://www.thelocal.de/20160322/germany-tightens-airport-controls-after-brussels-explosions

Terrorism in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany 

Why the Syrian Refugee Influx Might Help Germany

About 1 million Syrian refugees have entered Germany seeking asylum.  It is estimated that this will cost the country up to $60 billion annually.  However, there may be an actual benefit to that influx.

Like most advanced nations, Germany is seeing a lowered birthrate with an ever-growing aging population. In fact, in early 2015, they became the country with the lowest birthrate in the world.  This presents a perplexing problem: How to sustain age-related social programs with fewer and fewer tax revenues from an increasingly smaller number of younger and non-retired workers?

This is where the Syrian refugees come in.  If they can be successfully integrated into the German workforce, the effects of a lowered birthrate can be offset.  In the long term,  this could change refugees from a financial burden, to the saviors of the age-related social programs that Germany is sure to face in the future.

References:

Merkel Defends Open-door Policy on Refugees: http://www.voanews.com/content/merkel-defends-open-door-pollicy-on-refugees/3100337.html

Germany becomes land with the lowest birthrate in the world: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/fast.shrinking.country.germany.becomes.land.with.the.fewest.babies.in.the.world/55008.htm

On ISIS, is History Repeating Itself?

Europe and Russia should thank God for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, because without it, a war weary America, might never have joined the fight against Hitler in Europe.  Essentially, before Pearl Harbor, America was willing to sit it out on the belief that it was their war to win.  Not ours.  As a consequence, Hitler's domination of all of Europe, including Russia, may have come to pass. But, because Hitler had a verbal agreement with Japan to defend them in the event that the United States attacked, he was forced to declare war on the U.S. just 4 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Certainly, Hitler never thought that an attack on Japan would ever occur, or that it would be the result of them attacking the U.S.

Today, the United States is in a similar position as in the years prior to Pearl Harbor.  We, like then, are war weary following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  When Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the possibility of our increasing involvement in fighting against ISIS, his response was:

“The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq

Read More: Chad’s Morning Brief: The White House Says ISIS is Iraq’s Problem and Other Top Stories | http://kfyo.com/chads-morning-brief-the-white-house-says-isis-is-iraqs-problem-and-other-top-stories/?trackback=tsmclip

“The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq

Read More: Chad’s Morning Brief: The White House Says ISIS is Iraq’s Problem and Other Top Stories | http://kfyo.com/chads-morning-brief-the-white-house-says-isis-is-iraqs-problem-and-other-top-stories/?trackback=tsmclip

“The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq

Read More: Chad’s Morning Brief: The White House Says ISIS is Iraq’s Problem and Other Top Stories | http://kfyo.com/chads-morning-brief-the-white-house-says-isis-is-iraqs-problem-and-other-top-stories/?trackback=tsmclip

“The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq..."

So, essentially, like the war in Europe prior to World War II, ISIS in Iraq is their problem and not ours.  Similarly, by extension, ISIS in Syria is a Syrian problem; which explains why we have done nothing in that country to support the free-Syrian rebels.  I suppose if ISIS takes both Iraq and Syria, and then sets its sights on Jordan or Saudi Arabia, we will continue to ignore it all until, and unless, we have another Pearl Harbor or an ISIS version of 9/11.  Do we ever learn?

References:

Germany declares war on the United States: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states

U.S. and Iraq vs. ISIS: http://kfyo.com/chads-morning-brief-the-white-house-says-isis-is-iraqs-problem-and-other-top-stories/

Krugman Decries Austerity, Again!

On Sunday, in the article: Austerity Is So Wrong!, New York Times economic columnist, Paul Krugman. once again argued that government spending, not austerity, will "easily and quickly" cause an economy to grow.  But, the best example of why Krugman is "so wrong" is to merely look at Germany as part of the EuroZone.  In 2008, when the recession hit most of the world, Germany suffered greatly because 1/3 of its economy was dependent on exports and the export market had weakened significantly.  Within months however, the economy snapped back quickly.  Today, Germany is the only shining spot in all the EuroZone.  Most of the rest of the countries are either in the throws of recession or teetering on bankruptcy.

Germany flourished when others were still struggling because of the economic recovery programs of Angela Merkel. While it is true that she spent $72 billion dollars in stimulus, it is also true that she cut government spending by nearly twice that amount -- $123 billion -- in austerity programs.  She also convinced labor unions to give up or reduce benefits in what can only be defined as even more austerity.

Germany is now in better shape because they didn't buy into the Keynesian belief that you can simply spend yourself out of a recession.  Something that the likes of Paul Krugman can't get through their heads.

Obama's Fairy Tale: The United Nations

Wednesday's assemblage of many of the world's leaders at the United Nations was truly a spectacle to behold. On one stage, you had some of the biggest despots of the modern world -- like Ahamdinejad and Khadafy -- and, at the same time, many leaders of the free-world such as Barack Obama. All were competing "equally" for the ears of the General Assembly. What a display of harmony.

I was especially impressed when Obama spoke these words as part of his speech:

"No nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold..."

Certainly, these are noble ambitions. But, in terms of practicality, especially when it comes to the United Nations, those words are naive.

All you have to do is look at the United Nation's Security Council to know that Obama's words were flights of pure fancy and a complete fairy tale.

Among all the nations in the world, there are just a chosen few who have all the power. These are the nations who have been elevated above all others. These are the permanent members of the Security Council. And, contrary to Obama's fantasy world, these 5 countries --- Russia, China, Germany, France, United Kingdom, and United States --- hold veto power above all others.

This is why the United Nations is so benign. When push comes to shove over the need to punish a nation for being exceptionally bad, one of these permanent member countries will always play their veto card and nothing will get done. Iran is always being protected by Russia's veto power. North Korea thwarts punishment by hiding behind China and their veto. Hugo Chavez and Venezuela have Russia as their shield. And, so it goes.

If you are a bad guy in the world of nations, all you have to do is link up economically with one of the permanent members. During the run-up to the Iraq war, it was Germany, France, and Russia who threatened to veto if actions were two harsh or if war was to be contemplated against Iraq. Each had oil, arms, and other trading concerns with Iraq and it came down to protecting their self interests. That's the real reason that America had to go it alone in Iraq.

The U.N. is a hypocritical organization. The exposed fraud regarding Iraq's "Oil for Food Program" just proves how corrupt this organization is and can be. Contrary to Obama's words, at the U.N. it's all about "who you know." Like any other political organization, you have power, corruption, and greed. For Obama to say that "no one nation should dominate another" and "no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed" is a complete antithesis of what the U.N. is all about. The United Nations is literally a "world order" that places a select few countries above all others.

That is why Obama's words are so hollow and nothing more than a fairy tale. A fairy tale that only a fool or a liberal could believe in.

The Obama "WE"

The word "we" is such a small word in our language. But, depending how it is used, it has at least two very distinct and powerful connotations. When used by anyone in behalf of a peer group, a group of like-minded people, it expresses a form of "solidarity" among all those in that group.

The word "we" is also used by a "leader" in order to "soften" the harshness of his or her "authority" by slyly asking his subordinates to "agree" to do something; even though, any real disagreement wouldn't actually be tolerated. This is opposed to that same leader giving a direct command. Certainly, "we can do this" is much more acceptable to an employee than "I want you to do" this, or that, or the other thing. This is really a form of reverse psychology and one that is used constantly in business by supervisors/managers and in the social world by teachers, counselors, doctors, psychologists, etc. But, make no mistake, the use of the word "we" in this context strictly implies a form of boss/leader and subordinate relationship.

Barack Obama uses "we" constantly in all of his speeches. Clearly, he uses it in the form of "a leader" asking for people to follow in some endeavor. I suspect it is a technique that Senator Obama learned, quite well, in his role as a community organizer; working in Chicago. This plays well to the domestic crowds that come to see him at his various campaign venues. They clearly see him as their leader and they enthusiastically want to follow him in "all" his "we" and "we can" directives. They certify this committment by loudly erupting in cheers for him.

Yesterday, Barack Obama gave his speech in Berlin, Germany. As usual, he used his "we" and "we can" word technique throughout that speech (Click to see the full text from the Drudge Report). But, unlike here, the crowds weren't in riotous agreement. They were generally subdued; except, of course, when he talked about getting out of Iraq. I think Obama made a mistake by using the "we" technique in that speech. His leadership was being implied in its use and the Germans aren't hardly his subordinates. In fact, most of Europe reacts negatively to America's leadership in anything. And, they don't need another American telling them what to do. In a way, I believe the bloom may have come off the rose in that speech; as far as the Europeans are concerned. But, only time will tell as they finally figure out how presumptive that speech really was.