Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
President Donald Trump has initiated the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), often described as the “bedrock” global climate treaty.
President Donald Trump has initiated the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), often described as the “bedrock” global climate treaty.
The agreement in question is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, which the US joined, and Congress ratified in 1992, when George H.W. Bush was in the White House. The agreement does not require the US to cut fossil fuels or pollution but rather sets a goal of stabilizing the amount of climate pollution in the atmosphere at a level that would “prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-caused) interference with the climate system.”
It also set up a process for negotiations between countries that have come to be known as the annual UN climate summits. It was under the UNFCCC’s auspices that the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1995, and the Paris Agreement in 2015 — two monumental moments of global cooperation and progress toward limiting harmful climate pollution.
In addition, the agreement requires the submission of an annual national climate pollution inventory, which the Trump administration notably skipped this year.
President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement for a second time on his first day in office. With Wednesday’s move,the US will now become the first country to withdraw from the climate treaty, since virtually every country is a member, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
Because the Senate ratified the UNFCCC in 1992, it is a legal gray area as to whether President Donald Trump can unilaterally pull the country out of it. However, if Congress plays a role, the Republican majority would presumably back the move.
If successful, the withdrawal would prevent the US from officially participating in subsequent annual climate summits and could call into question the country’s commitment to other longstanding agreements to which it is a party. It may also prompt other nations to reevaluate their commitments to the UNFCCC and UN climate talks, risking not just US climate progress but that of others.
A US withdrawal could make it difficult for a future president to rejoin the Paris Agreement, since that agreement was struck under the auspices of the UNFCCC.
Trump also moved to withdraw the US from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC — a Nobel Prize-winning group that publishes reports on global warming. While the president likely can’t bar US scientists from participating in IPCC reports, the move could have ramifications for federal scientists who would otherwise contribute. A White House fact sheet stated:
“Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.”
So, it’s a trifeca: UNFCC, IPCC, and Paris Accord
“The Paris Parrot is not dead, it’s just resting.”
Storm Goretti has been making the headlines this morning.
From the BBC’s summary late last night:
Snow has been the main problem, though the tip of Cornwall suffered from strong winds:
The Scillies bore the brunt of them, as the strongest band of winds stayed offshore, but in terms of the mainland, wind gusts were in the 70 to 90 mph range, 60 to 78 kts.
To put Goretti into perspective, we only have to look at the infamous Burns Day Storm in January 1990:
These are all the locations with more than 60 kt winds. Down in Cornwall, they hit 93 kts, which is 107 mph.
BBC2 News reported two days later:
Less well known is the fact that the Burns Day Storm continued wreaking death and destruction on the Continent:
Swiss Re reported later that year:
A year of severe storms and great expense for primary insurers and reinsurers, 1990 has gone down in history. Cyclone Daria began on 25 January, the birthday of Scottish poet Robert Burns, and so became known as the Burns’ Day Storm. Storms Wiebke and Vivian followed later that same year.
A storm of new proportions
Even today, Cyclone Daria remains one of the most devastating and expensive storms the world has ever seen. In Northern and Central Europe, some 95 people died as a result of Daria and Swiss Re estimated the total cost of property damage to be around EUR 6 billion. The storm cost UK insurers in particular a considerable amount of money, with companies paying out almost GBP 3.37 billion. As the Daria travelled from Ireland to Denmark, around three million trees were felled, half a million households lost electricity and there were severe floods in the UK and western Germany in particular.
Strong winds caused devastation
The storm was preceded by a considerably warm winter. In Germany, for example, temperatures reached 20 degrees before Christmas. Daria started out as a cold front over the North Atlantic. On the morning of 25 January, the storm made landfall over Ireland and then moved east over Great Britain. Daria caused major damage along its path, mainly in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Denmark. The strongest sustained winds recorded were between 110km/h and 120km/h, though strong gusts of up to 170km/h were reported – these gusts were responsible for the most extensive damage.
The next major storm is bound to come
The 1990 storm cluster brought several companies or entire markets to the limits of their financial capabilities. This underlines how important it is to prepare for these peak events. Experience has shown that several areas are critical.
One other comment. The Met Office have claimed the 99 mph winds at Scilly St Marys is a new record at the site – see here. This seems highly unlikely, given the 107 mph winds at Gwennap Head in 1990.
It turns out that the Met Office did not publish data from the Scillies back then!
2025 marked a significant turning point for the markets of plant-based “fake” meat and insect-based protein products, with widespread reports of declining sales, major corporate struggles, and high-profile failures.
2025 marked a significant turning point for the markets of plant-based “fake” meat and insect-based protein products, with widespread reports of declining sales, major corporate struggles, and high-profile failures.
The insect protein sector saw notable setbacks, most prominently with Ÿnsect, Europe’s largest insect-farming company. Despite raising over €600 million, it entered judicial liquidation in December 2025 due to unsustainable capital costs and failure to secure further funding.
The plant-based meat sector, led by companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, faced ongoing declines throughout 2025.
As the calendar flips to 2026, shoppers are doubling down on the real deal.
Despite the globalist narrative drive and the mainstream media push, consumers are choosing real meat and dairy products and passing on lab-grown steaks and cricket protein snacks. After years of hype around futuristic food tech, signs show that people aren’t buying what the experts are selling.
Some recent stories show that 2026 will see the return to real food options. To begin with, Ÿnsect, once the largest insect‑protein producer in Europe, is essentially bankrupt after failing to secure the financing needed to continue its operations and execute its restructuring plan.
Ÿnsect said via a statement that it “has been unable to secure the necessary financing for its continuation plan within the required timeframe,” citing “difficulties faced by startups in climate-related or agricultural sectors in raising funds.”
Ÿnsect will close its industrial-scale facility near Dole. The Keprea facility will continue, with a new focus on producing fertilizers from insect waste.
In a statement, Emmanuel Pinto, president of Ÿnsect, said the company “now has solid technologies and an operational model, even though the required funding could not be secured in time.
“We hope that the significant technical and industrial skills developed by the teams at Ÿnsect, along with the established business relationships, will find productive use and contribute significantly to both Europe’s protein independence and the fight against climate change.”
As PJ Media’s Catherine Salgado notes, it is at least one positive sign that the population of Europe has not completely rolled over to the globalists yet:
But when people have a choice, only a very small number of them will willingly eat worms and scorpions and ants instead of hamburgers and roast chicken and bacon. Certainly, the elites never follow their own advice by cutting meat entirely in favor of crickets and grasshoppers. And globalists have not yet succeeded in so impoverishing and crushing European citizens that most of them cannot afford meat and have to grub up alternatives. So naturally, the insect production company went out of business.
Eerst Meatable en nu dit. Wat een geweldig nieuws zo laat in het jaar.
Next on the list of related stories is an Israeli‑founded cultivated meat startup that developed cell‑based meat products, which also ran out of funding.
A lab-grown cultivated chicken breast made by Israeli-founded startup Believer Meats. (Courtesy)Israeli-founded startup Believer Meats, a biotechnology firm that creates chicken, lamb and beef products made from animal cells, has been forced to shut down its operations after running out of funds.
The decision was announced by Believer Meats global HR & talent leader Anne Schubert, who wrote on LinkedIn: “After two years of building something truly bold and special, Believer Meats made the difficult decision last week to cease operations.”
“While the outcome is not what any of us hoped for, I am incredibly proud of what we accomplished together,” Schubert said.
Believer Meats, formerly known as Future Meat Technologies, which has operations in Israel and the US, did not explain or share further details about the closure, and did not respond to requests for comment when contacted by The Times of Israel.
Italy and Hungary have Banned Lab-Grown Meat.
"Our land is fertile, livestock healthy, our people will not be poisoned with fake meat."
Finally, over the last week, Meatable (a Dutch cultivated meat startup) is closing after failing to secure sufficient new financing.
The company was founded in 2018 in Delft and later moved its operations to Leiden. Agronomics, which invested millions of euros in Meatable, said the startup faced a mix of expected and unexpected risks and uncertainties this year and was unable to obtain adequate funding from existing shareholders or new investors.
“Although this outcome is disappointing, we believe the decision has been taken responsibly and in the best interests of all stakeholders,” Agronomics CEO Jim Mellon said in a statement.
I predict that in 2026, grocery aisles will reflect “back-to-basics” eating and a “return to real” when it comes to meat and dairy.
Hopefully, the American cattle and poultry markets will be protected and expand in 2026 to meet the needs of the "return to real" meat. https://t.co/FQu2vgGAvo
The article “Africa’s Pipeline Rejects Climate Dogma and Foreign Control” by Vijay Jayaraj is published first on the American Greatness.
Western “climate lectures” (net-zero pressures, ESG rules, and restrictions on fossil fuel financing from the UN, EU, and others) teach again saving the planet.
The article “Africa’s Pipeline Rejects Climate Dogma and Foreign Control” by Vijay Jayaraj is published first on the American Greatness.
Western “climate lectures” (net-zero pressures, ESG rules, and restrictions on fossil fuel financing from the UN, EU, and others) teach again saving the planet.
Political powers in the United Nations and European Union have spent decades lecturing Africa on climate “virtue.” Net-zero pledges, renewable targets, ESG frameworks, and more make up the ever-growing list of prescriptions for “healing the planet.”
Having already industrialized through the use of fossil fuels and enjoying full bellies, stable power grids, and unprecedented luxury, the so-called elite of the developed world present a “low-carbon” economy as morally superior. African nations are pressured to use “sustainable” energy sources—mostly wind and solar technologies—to effectively prevent the development of the Dark Continent’s rich deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas and engender dependence on foreign governments.
Now, when an African entrepreneur moves decisively to break the chains of this dependency, the climate crusaders are revealed not as guardians of the planet, but as guardians of geopolitical control.
In November 2025, Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest businessman, signed a $1 billion development agreement with Zimbabwe’s president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, to build a 1,300-mile fuel pipeline stretching from Walvis Bay in Namibia through Botswana to Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. Teams are working on routing, logistics, land procurement, and regulatory details.
The project is Zimbabwe’s government policy, and the pipeline has become the country’s moral imperative. To understand why, we must look at the catastrophe of the status quo.
Few modern economies have collapsed as swiftly as Zimbabwe’s did under the government of the late Robert Mugabe, which was known for corruption and disastrous land reforms. A nation that once fed Southern Africa became a cautionary tale.
Although Mugabe was forced from office in 2017, Zimbabwe still faces 18-hour daily power cuts, which cause the country to lose more than 6% of gross domestic product every year, according to World Bank estimates. Removing that economic drag would create space for actual growth.
Green activists want the government to rely on the Kariba Dam, a hydroelectric facility that environmentalists consider “renewable.” But nature is not reliable. An El Niño-induced drought has reduced Kariba to a pitiful 9% capacity. The dam is drying up, and with it, the economic future of a nation.
More promising is the pipeline. Its route—from the Atlantic coast of Namibia, through the stable democracy of Botswana, into Zimbabwe—creates a new strategic energy corridor for Southern Africa. It integrates the 10 economies of the Southern African Development Community in a way that decades of political summits failed to do.
There is an irony in the geopolitics of this pipeline deal. For years, the West has warned Africa of the dangers of “Chinese debt traps,” while offering no viable alternative for energy infrastructure. Now, a pipeline is creating Pan-African commercial cooperation that bypasses both Western climate lectures and Beijing’s loans.
Estimates of the project’s job opportunities range from 50,000 to 100,000 positions across the project’s construction phase and operational lifetime. In nations with unemployment exceeding 20%, these are transformative numbers.
The Dagonte pipeline offers attractive economics: Foreign contractors, anticipating the expenses of regulatory compliance and “green” tape, would likely quote tens of billions for a similar corridor. Dangote is delivering the pipeline, a cement plant, a fertilizer factory, and power infrastructure for a fraction of that cost.
The project will make Dangote’s refinery in Lagos one of the world’s largest single-site refining operations, growing from a current 650,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 1.4 million bpd by 2028.
These developments draw a new energy map in the region and threaten external interests. China and the West compete for influence over African resources. A regional fuel artery weakens their leverage. They cannot dictate terms to countries that supply their own energy.
For Zimbabwe, the implications are immediate. The economy pays punishing premiums for imported diesel delivered by truck. Every liter moves across multiple borders, each with tariffs and delays. Being landlocked leaves Zimbabwe exposed. The pipeline breaks that pattern. Once fuel flows from Walvis Bay to Bulawayo and onward to Zimbabwe’s capital at Harare, costs fall, and the manufacturing sector finally stops running on expensive fuel for running electricity generators.
This sends a terrifying signal to the climate czars that the developing world is waking up. Leaders like President Mnangagwa and industrialists like Dangote are realizing that the “Green Energy Transition” is a luxury good—likely a bogus one—they cannot afford. They are choosing the path of India and China—rapid industrialization fueled by whatever works. And what works, undeniably at this time, are fossil fuels.
This commentary was first published by American Greatnesson January 8, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels has increased for the first time in four years, dealing a major blow to Ed Miliband’s Net Zero hopes of decarbonising the grid by 2030.
Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels has increased for the first time in four years, dealing a major blow to Ed Miliband’s Net Zero hopes of decarbonising the grid by 2030. The Telegraph has more.
Gas-fired power plants generated 26.8% of power in 2025, a rise of 1.1% from the year prior, according to new figures from the Government’s National Energy System Operator (Neso).
This stemmed largely from reduced nuclear output across Britain, as the country’s nine remaining reactors were hit by technical faults and unplanned blackouts.
The latest figures also revealed that the UK relied on imports for up to 14% of its electricity last year, with London and the South East frequently powered by energy from France.
Increased reliance on fossil fuels and continued imports from overseas will raise fresh scrutiny over the Energy Secretary’s goal of attaining clean power by 2030.
To achieve this, Mr Miliband has vowed to spend billions of pounds on intermittent renewables such as wind and solar farms, with the cost of this expansion set to be passed through to households and businesses.
Claire Coutinho, the Shadow Energy Secretary, has accused Mr Miliband of needlessly driving up bills and putting the country’s energy security at risk.
She said: “What this data shows is that we need reliable, 24/7 power for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine – and that means more nuclear and more gas.
“Ed Miliband’s plan to build more wind and solar farms than ever before will do nothing to power our economy on a cold, windless, cloudy day.
The Energy Department hit back by blaming the previous government for “years of dither and delay on new nuclear”, with a spokesman claiming that this left the country reliant on power plants dating back to the 1960s.
Total nuclear output fell from 13.7% of UK generation in 2024 to 11.8% last year, the latest Neso figures show, with a string of plant failures to blame.
A recent post at the website Energies Media, titled “It became the first nation 100% powered by solar energy — Now climate change threatens its survival this very century,” claims that the Pacific island territory of Tokelau went 100 percent solar and is threatened by rising seas due to climate change. This is false on multiple counts. Tokelau neither runs 100 percent on solar electricity, nor is it under threat from rising seas.
Energies Media claims “Tokelau, located in the South Pacific, became the first worldwide to achieve self-sufficiency with solar energy,” and the island’s “very existence is being threatened” by rising seas. Energies Media goes on to claim that solving Tokelau’s “submergence” problem is “becoming increasingly impossible by the day.”
Tokelau may have been the first to achieve 100 percent solar power electricity for a short period in 2012, but that isn’t saying much.
Since then, the island nation has not maintained this status as their small energy demand grew, requiring other sources of electric power. Tokelau only has 2,664 people on their tiny island nation and currently runs on about 90 percent solar while the rest is covered by diesel (including coconut oil biodiesel) backup. The article conveniently leaves this out and fails to mention that a 2020 study found “the actual supply [of solar] is now about 90% with supply difficulties under cloudy conditions or with battery failures.” Some sources report that the percent of solar has declined even more since then, to as low as 75 percent by 2020.
Tokelau’s economy relies nearly entirely on subsistence agriculture and fishing, having an extremely small energy demand compared to other nations, so small that Our World In Data has hardly any data beyond reporting that Tokelau’s installed solar capacity is around 0.001 GW. For comparison, the state of Rhode Island has less than 0.872 GW installed solar capacity. Granted, the population of Rhode Island is more than one million people, with major industry and a much higher standard of living.
But problems with the Energies Media post don’t end at disagreement over the definition of “100 percent.” Tokelau is also not sinking under the waves. It is actually the opposite, according to a 2021 land survey study “Global-scale changes in the area of atoll islands during the 21st century,” by Holdaway et al. The study examined the landmass area of atoll islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and reported that no major reduction has occurred, even as average sea level has modestly, slowly, risen over the past decades. It gets worse for Energies Media’s claim, because the study found “Tokelau and Tuvalu, both small landmasses (9.65 km2 and 25.14 km²respectively), both increased by ∼7%.”
This is because these islands, as coral atolls, grow as the seas rise as corals reach towards the sunlight, and storms and waves deposit sand on the coastlines.
The problem of Tokelau’s “submergence” cannot be increasingly impossible to solve when it is not submerging in the first place.
As an aside, it seems likely this article was written using AI, based on its structure and vagueness but also because it contained no links to relevant sources, and failed to note that the most recent data on Pacific atoll type islands, including Tokelau, are not losing land but rather gaining it.
The author, “Anke,” suspiciously has no biography whatsoever.
Energies Media seems to have relied on a lot of very outdated information to make their fearmongering claims about Tokelau. If the media outlet was really interested in the facts rather than pushing climate alarmism, it would know the status of Pacific atolls and the discrepancy between the claims of 100 percent solar self-sufficiency and the reality of 75 to 90 percent, with the island’s inhabitants accepting intermittency and limited electric power availability on demand and at night.
A Germany-wide power outage is not a light switch problem – but the moment when the physical limits of green energy policy become ruthlessly visible
Who does not remember the promises? The energy transition should not only save the climate but also guarantee security of supply. Wind, sun and batteries – the holy triumvirate of the green future. Decentralized, democratic, digital. What is often concealed is that in the event of a nationwide blackout, this future system will turn into a pile of expensive electronics that do not produce a single volt. Not because the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine – but because the physical foundations are missing to bring the grid back to life in the first place.
The current power outage in Berlin, which paralyzed about 50,000 households for four days, provides a taste of what is in store for Germany when the last conventional power plants are taken off the grid. And no, it’s not about scaremongering – it’s about physics.
The grid is not a power distributor, but a machine
First, let’s look at the technical reality of a blackout. The European power grid runs at a grid frequency of 50 hertz – a precisely synchronized machine in which all generators rotate in unison. After a total collapse, there is: no reference frequency, no voltage, no communication over the network. Everything has to be synchronized from scratch, step by step, like a house of cards that you build in absolute darkness.
This is not a “reboot” as you know it from the computer. It is the laborious reconstruction of a highly complex system, lasting several hours to several days, in which the slightest miscalculation leads to an immediate renewed shutdown.
Black Start: The Underrated Ability
Only a few power plants can start without an external power supply. According to the Federal Network Agency, there are 174 black-start capable turbines with a capacity of at least 10 MW (as of 2020) in Germany – sounds like a lot, but of these, only 26 are actually earmarked by the transmission system operators for grid reconstruction. This is the strategic reserve for an emergency.
The following are primarily:
Hydroelectric power plants
Some gas turbines (with battery support)
Few specially equipped power plants
On the other hand, the following are not eligible for black starts:
Nuclear power plants (irony of history: long since shut down)
Most coal-fired power plants (in the process of being shut down)
Wind and photovoltaic systems (grid-following)
Large battery storage systems (without upstream supply)
You read that right: The entire infrastructure of the energy transition is useless in the event of a blackout. Not restricted use. Useless.
Why is the reconstruction taking so long?
A large power plant needs between 5 and 10 percent of its nominal output as its own needs to start up – for pumps, lubrication, cooling, control and control technology. Without mains or black start source: standstill. And even when the first power plants are up and running, the real problem begins: the balance between generation and load must be exactly right. Too much burden? Frequency drop, shutdown. Too little load? Frequency surplus, shutdown.
That’s why consumers are being connected gradually: first critical infrastructure, then household’s region-by-region, industrial companies come to the very end. The net is built up like a fragile house of cards – one wrong move, and everything collapses again.
In addition, there are failed protection relays in substations that have to be reset manually. Cables must be tested for short circuits. Communication is now only via emergency power generators. Typical time frames for Germany-wide reconstruction: 24 to 72 hours – under ideal conditions. With consequential damage, much longer.
The problem of renewables: grid-following instead of grid-forming
Now it gets interesting. Almost all of today’s wind and photovoltaic plants are grid-following. They need an existing voltage and frequency to attach themselves to. After a blackout, the following applies: No grid, no feed-in. Even in bright sunshine and strong winds: 0 megawatts.
At this point, the argument regularly comes: “Then let’s just take battery storage as a buffer.” Nice theory. Practical reality: Batteries do not provide physical inertia. They stabilize the frequency only via control algorithms – highly sensitive to load jumps, highly software-dependent. Who sets the first cycle after a total failure? Who synchronizes thousands of inverters so that they do not regulate against each other? A bug, a communication failure, a misparameterization – and the chaos is perfect.
Grid-Forming Inverters: The Theoretical Solution Without Practical Proof
The answer of the energy transition engineers is: “Grid-forming inverters.” These are intended to digitally replicate the lack of network formation of synchronous generators. Sounds good. However, as of today, it only works in theory and in small pilot projects.
The problems:
Hardly tested on a large scale so far
No long-term experience for national networks
Extremely complex protection and coordination issues
Highly software-dependent
This is not a physical anchor like a rotating flywheel, but a digital replacement model. A software update can stabilize the system – or cause it to crash. Although the European grid codes discuss requirements for grid-forming functionalities, Germany is miles away from a comprehensive, tested implementation.
Fraunhofer ISE and other research institutions are diligently developing algorithms and testing prototypes. But there are worlds between a test setup and a nationwide system change – and years, if not decades.
Dark doldrums plus blackout: The worst-case scenario
Now imagine the following scenario: A cold January day, little wind, no sun, the storage facilities are already partially empty (because they had to support the supply in the days before). Then: blackout.
What happens? No feed-in from wind and solar. No inertia in the system. No safe reconstruction path.
In such a system, Germany would de facto be dependent on neighboring countries – French nuclear power plants, Scandinavian hydropower, Polish coal – to “pull” voltage and frequency into the German grid and enable a new start. Energy sovereignty? Not given. Green independence ends where physics begins.
What politicians conceal
The Federal Network Agency classifies the risk of a long-lasting power outage in Germany as “very unlikely”. This may be statistically correct – Germany has one of the most reliable power grids in the world with an average of 11 minutes of outage per year. But this statistic applies to today’s system of conventional baseload power plants that serve as anchors.
What happens when these anchors disappear? When the last coal-fired power plants are taken off the grid and replaced by software-controlled inverters? Will the grid become more stable – or more vulnerable?
Herbert Saurugg, Austrian blackout expert, has been warning for years: “Just because you can start a power plant illegally does not mean that you can also manage grid reconstruction.” And further: The smaller the turbines, the more difficult and lengthy the start-up.
A 100% RE system would have, in the event of a nationwide blackout:
No robust black start capability
No physical mesh formation
High software and coordination risks
Extreme dependence on weather and foreign countries
Significantly longer reconstruction times than today
In extreme cases, the network could no longer be safely started up independently.
Berlin as a portent?
The current power outage in Berlin – caused by a fire at a cable bridge – is an example of how fragile even well-developed urban grids are. It took four days for all 45,000 households to have electricity again. Four days of cold, four days without functioning heaters, without hot water, without light. According to the network operator, the complete repair will take weeks or months.
And that was only a regionally limited outage with a functioning environment that could help. What would happen in the event of a Germany-wide blackout? Who will help then?
Conclusion: Physics beats ideology
A Germany-wide blackout does not last long because German engineers are incompetent. It takes a long time because the power grid is a high-precision, synchronously running machine – and you can’t start machines cold at the same time.
The energy transition ignores this reality. It replaces rotating masses with algorithms, physical inertia with virtual inertial systems, proven black start capability with theoretical concepts. And hopes that everything will work in an emergency.
This is not energy policy – this is Russian roulette with the security of supply of an industrialized country.
The inconvenient truth is that a power grid needs inertia, synchronicity and startability. These are characteristics of rotating machines, not inverters. As long as this basic truth is not accepted, the energy transition will remain an expensive experiment at the expense of security of supply.
The next blackout is sure to come. The only question is: How long will it take for the light to come back on?
You must be logged in to post a comment.