UNRELIABLES Rip-Off: Despite $4 Billion in Annual Subsidies, Wind & Solar Delivers a Trivial 2% of Australia’s Power DemandPosted: April 30, 2018
“Ex-Nationals senator Ron Boswell wrote in “The Australian” today, (19 April 2018), making the point that the RET is failing us and forcing electricity prices through the roof, putting ordinary folk in energy poverty and destroying businesses.
Total renewable MWh for the period and the associated subsidies are:
• Wind: 74,100,000 at $80/MWh = $5.93 billion.
• Hydro: 245,800,000 at $80/MWh = $19.7 billion
• Large PV: 614,000 at $40/MWh = $24.5 million.
• Small PV: 25,300,000 at $40/MWh = $1 billion.
The total extra cost to consumers is about $27 billion for 9% of the total consumption.”
BASED solely on output and reliability, without massive subsidies and government intervention, there would be no unreliable-energy ‘revolution’ to pad the egos of the climate-theory-obsessed, virtue-signalling politicians.
PRIVATE investors will not go near large-scale wind and solar. The German’s are learning this, hard and fast, right now >> http://joannenova.com.au/2018/04/bloodbath-in-the-german-solar-industry-without-subsidies-80000-solar-jobs-are-gone/
EXPECT more ‘green’ energy meltdowns as the subsidy crutch dries up.
In any bargain, those stumping up their own cash, tend to ask what they’re getting in return. When it comes to the billions in subsidies thrown at windmills and solar panels, the answer is: not much.
Including domestic, rooftop solar annual subsidies to wind and solar add up to a staggering $4 billion. The cost of which is added directly to retail power bills. The greatest government mandated rort in the history of the Commonwealth, started in 2001 and runs until 2031.
Now, the value minded might forgive the scale and duration of that forced ‘largesse’, if there were a commensurate increase in the output said to be drawn from nature’s wonder fuels, sunshine and breezes. Except, as David Bidstrip points out, the combined contribution of wind and solar generation to Australia’s energy demand remains risible, and little more than a rounding error.
Money for nothing
View original post 834 more words
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the demonisation of essential trace gas and plant fertiliser, carbon dioxide. A by-product of hydrocarbon energy production that “has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality” and remains the grand patsy and key driver of the climate crisis industry…
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
FOR years, unreliable-energy advocates have repeatedly claimed that wind turbines and solar panels are essential to the fight against carbon dioxide emissions and catastrophic climate change. Here’s the reality: Wind turbines and solar panels are nothing more than token gestures to the folly of green madness.
THE proliferation of
renewables unreliables over the past decade has not, and will not, result in statistically significant reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions. That point can easily be proven by analysis of the country that has poured more money into ‘green’ energy than any other – Germany…
Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions … “Bitter Result”
As we have been hearing recently, global CO2 emissions continue their steady climb, despite the trillions of dollars committed to green energy sources worldwide and efforts to curb CO2 emissions.
Looking at countries individually, Germany, a self-designated “leader” for carbon free energies, saw its equivalent CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 fall only a measly half a percent. Read the rest of this entry »
“WHERE are they this year?
This year has been possibly the quietest tornado season in recorded history. Kansas and Oklahoma would expect to see close to 19 tornadoes between the start of the year and now, with around 13 or 14 in April alone.
But this April, there hasn’t been one!”
Mother Nature, flipping the bird at garbage-in-garbage-out climate models and the extreme weather parrots!
In a twist that would ruin the storyline to the Wizard of Oz, the USA’s ‘Tornado Alley’ has been strangely quiet this year, says BBC Weather.
In fact, if there are none reported in Oklahoma or Kansas on Thursday, 2018 will officially be the quietest start to the tornado season in both states …on record!
View original post 313 more words
“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read.
The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think.
The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is;
he confuses it with feeling.”
– Thomas Sowell
Five U.S. Olympians will be on Capitol Hill Wednesday to brief lawmakers on how climate change is impacting winter sports and recreation.
“We still have a chance to be able to kind of salvage whatever is left of our winters, and kind of get back to a more sustainable way of life,” said Arielle Gold, who won a bronze in the halfpipe snowboard event in the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics — and will be on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
Gold — along with cross country skier, freestyle skier David Wise, biathlete Maddie Phaneuf and alpine skier Stacey Cook — are expected to highlight climate solutions they’d like to see implemented.
A recent study by a team of researchers, led by the University of Waterloo, found that climate change poses a threat to the Winter Olympics — and that by the end of the century, only eight of 21 sites that have hosted the Winter Olympics in the past will have temperatures low enough to host again unless greenhouse gases emissions significantly drop.
“The climate in many traditional winter sports regions isn’t what it used to be, and fewer and fewer places will be able to host the Olympic Winter Games as global warming accelerates,” Daniel Scott, a professor at Waterloo, said in a January news release on the study.
The Paralympics is also particularly vulnerable, according to researchers.
“The traditional scheduling of the Paralympic Winter Games, approximately a month after the Olympic Winter Games, poses additional climate challenges as temperatures are warmer and the probability of rain instead of snowfall increases in most of the host locations,” Scott said.
The briefing Wednesday follows the introduction of House Resolution 825, which supports policies addressing the causes and effects of climate change and recognizes its impact on outdoor recreation.
NO doubt these graphs were presented to Congress, as evidence, by the CO2-complainants…
INFORMATIVE piece written not by a climate change “denier” but by energy and environment expert Michael Shellenberger – a democrat and climate change activist, no less.
ALWAYS refreshing reading Shellenberger’s work and commentary on twitter. Like Bjorn Lomborg, the other well-known ‘warmist’, they both provide reasoned analysis of environmental issues, focusing on costs and outcomes of climate and energy policy, rather than blind ideology so common in mainstream media environmental reporting that only poisons and polarises the debate leading to unnecessary alarmism resulting in overarching climate policy and misguided allocation of public money.
This is a problem of bias, not just energy illiteracy. Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn’t because they don’t know how to report critically on energy — they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources — but rather because they don’t want to.
That could — and should — change. Reporters have an obligation to report accurately and fairly on all issues they cover, especially ones as important as energy and the environment.
A good start would be for them to investigate why, if solar and wind are so cheap, they are making electricity so expensive.
Read on here…
If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
“Those fantasists claiming that we’re heartbeat away from running entirely on sunshine and breezes, need to keep up the line about giant batteries being the simple solution to a glaring problem. Except, that they will never put a number on what their purportedly quick and simple fix might cost. And that’s because the number is in the many $trillions, as detailed by Francis Menton below.”
AND on the third day BILLIONS became TRILLIONS! Taxpayers hard-earned money sacrificed at the alter of “climate change” all to try to create some kind of perfect climate nirvana.
It took the proletariat a nanosecond to work out that wind power can, and will never, work as a meaningful power generation source.
Graphs like the one above – depicting the entire output of every wind turbine connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid (spread across four states, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia) – quickly gave the game away.
Challenged with the inherent unreliability and obvious intermittency of wind power, those pushing it have been reduced to chanting mantras about mega-batteries saving the day.
The way they tell it, it’s as if they simply left grid-scale battery storage off their shopping lists – like some muddle-headed shopper returning home without milk and bread – and all they needed to do was pop back to the shops to collect some.
The world’s largest battery cuts a lonely figure in a paddock…
View original post 1,154 more words
CLIMATE change alarmists conveniently ‘deny’ the existence of the 1970’s “global cooling” scare because such panic, a mere 40 years ago, threatens the legitimacy of the current “global warming” scare.
HOWEVER, climate experts and government agencies of the day were indeed warning of impending climate doom and that we must take immediate “action” to avoid catastrophe.
WARMING alarmists rebut the 1970’s global cooling scare with claims that the phenomenon wasn’t “peer-reviewed” or that a “consensus” of “97%” of “scientists” didn’t agree. However, it doesn’t take Einstein to realise that the fashionable eco-scare of the day was indeed very real…
IN 1976 the CIA warned the cooling climate would bring – “drought, starvation, social unrest and political upheaval” :
C.I.A. WARNINGFrom a correspondent in Washington
MAJOR world climate changes were under way that would cause economic and political upheavals “almost beyond comprehension”, an internal report of the Central Intelligence Agency has warned the US Government.
“The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world”, the report warns.
The report, which contends that the Climate changes began in 1960, is based on a study by Mr Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin.
Its basic premise is that the world’s climate is cooling and will revert to conditions prevalent between 1600 and 1850 — when the earth’s population was less than 1,000 million and its rural, pre-industrial era civilisations were largely capable of feeding themselves.
The report, which- was concerned with possible political and economic threats the United States could expect from such drastic events, said the starvation and famine would lead to social unrest and global migration of populations.