The Market, Energy, And Political Page, Part 2, T+35 -- December 10, 2018

Apple: great news. Counter-intuitive.China blocks some iPhone sales after granting Qualcomm an injunction: The ban does not cover the newest iPhones, which were not yet available when Qualcomm filed its patent infringement lawsuit against Apple.

Britain's coal plants called into action due to freezing cold. Spot price? You ask. $1,300/MWh.

Britain’s oldest coal-fired power plants prepared to fire up their hoppers for a price of almost £1,000 per megawatt-hour on Tuesday (December 4, 2018) to avert a power shortfall as temperatures across the country plunge and wind power wanes.

The cold snap ignited the winter’s first warning that Britain would run out of electricity unless idling coal plants ramp up to help meet demand for power.

National Grid said on Monday evening that there was a 100pc probability that the lights would go out within 24 hours unless an extra 2GW of power capacity agreed to help meet demand. The first negative supply forecast of the season spurred the operators of Britain’s oldest plants to offer their power at prices well above the prevailing market rates to fill the gap.

ISO New England? Link here. Spiked to over $150/MWh. Just like clockwork:

• demand surges at 0600; 
• natural gas plants kick in; 
• can't meet demand; 
• renewable energy actually decreases during demand surge (not much, but it does); 
• ISO New England asks for electricity from Canadian hydro, but then before electricity can get too expensive, 
• coal electricity comes to the rescue. 

Generally, any coal use is "bad news" in ISO New England. That tells me that demand exceeds supply. Coal, as a percentage greater than 4% gets my attention. Today it was 5%. This renewable energy scam is a huge tax on middle income and the poor. The elite rich won't feel it.

California "forest" fires: For those interested in one man's opinion on the forest fires in California, Vic Hanson shares his thoughts. His post is in reply to a reader's question. It's not worth one's time reading the question, just go directly to Hanson's response. Incredibly good.

Really? This is another reason why I don't accept manmade global warming. This was one of the agenda items for the folks that are now meeting in Poland:
Reach a binding agreement that wealthy countries (excluding China and other newly rich nations) must transfer at least $100 billion annually to poor countries.

• I doubt there is any rationale for that number, $100 billion; it was most likely pulled out of thin, warm air
• how does transferring $100 billion annually to poor countries help save the world?
• we've gone from sinking islands (that are no longer sinking) to "poor countries"
• why is China excluded? China is no longer an "emerging" country
• obviously, the proponents of that $100 billion see the opportunity for skimming much off the top
• before the US commits, we should see how much France plans to "donate"

Atlantic hurricane season wrap-up: link here. Several graphs at the link. This one is interesting. If, indeed, the data is accurate it appears that there has been an increase in the number of Cat 3 storms in the last 100 years or so. But it appears the real peak was during the ten years after:

• WWII; 
• dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan; and, 
• lots of open-air atomic bomb testing until that was outlawed by international treat. 

Look how benign things were between 1970 and 1990. But, wow, that period from 1946 to 1966 was quite a doozy.

*************************************

Recommended By A Reader's Grandson

You're A Mean One, Mr Grinch, Small Town Titans