Advertisements

CLIMATE ACTIVIST : If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?

Unreliables - The Green Road To Energy Poverty.png

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.

Shellenberger concludes…

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?

https---specials-images.forbesimg.com-dam-imageserve-831349992-960x0.jpg?fit=scale

Clipper yacht Liverpool 2018 passes the Burbo Bank Wind Farm on August 14, 2017, off Liverpool, England. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

OVER the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines.

People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become.

And yet that’s not what’s happening. In fact, it’s the opposite.

Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percent while the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.

And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.

Electricity prices increased by:

What gives? If solar panels and wind turbines became so much cheaper, why did the price of electricity riseinstead of decline?

https---blogs-images.forbes.com-michaelshellenberger-files-2018-04-GermanyApril2018.003

Electricity prices increased by 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy.

One hypothesis might be that while electricity from solar and wind became cheaper, other energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas became more expensive, eliminating any savings, and raising the overall price of electricity.

But, again, that’s not what happened.

The price of natural gas declined by 72 percent in the U.S. between 2009 and 2016 due to the fracking revolution. In Europe, natural gas prices dropped by a little less than half over the same period.

The price of nuclear and coal in those place during the same period was mostly flat.

https---blogs-images.forbes.com-michaelshellenberger-files-2018-04-CaliforniaDeck.036

Electricity prices increased 24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017.

Another hypothesis might be that the closure of nuclear plants resulted in higher energy prices.

Evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that nuclear energy leaders Illinois, France, Sweden and South Korea enjoy some of the cheapest electricity in the world.

Since 2010, California closed one nuclear plant (2,140 MW installed capacity) while Germany closed 5 nuclear plants and 4 other reactors at currently-operating plants (10,980 MW in total).

Electricity in Illinois is 42 percent cheaper than electricity in California while electricity in France is 45 percent cheaper than electricity in Germany.

But this hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the price of the main replacement fuels, natural gas and coal, remained low, despite increased demand for those two fuels in California and Germany.

That leaves us with solar and wind as the key suspects behind higher electricity prices. But why would cheapersolar panels and wind turbines make electricity moreexpensive?

The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.

In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.

The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.

Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.

And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to payneighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.

Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent.

https---blogs-images.forbes.com-michaelshellenberger-files-2018-04-download-1200x564

Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind would decline 40% once it reached 30% of electricity, and that the value of solar would drop by 50% when it reached 15% of electricity.

In 2017, the share of electricity coming from wind and solar was 53 percent in Denmark, 26 percent in Germany, and 23 percent in California. Denmark and Germany have the first and second most expensive electricity in Europe.

By reporting on the declining costs of solar panels and wind turbines but not on how they increase electricity prices, journalists are — intentionally or unintentionally — misleading policymakers and the public about those two technologies.

The Los Angeles Times last year reported that California’s electricity prices were rising, but failed to connect the price rise to renewables, provoking a sharp rebuttal from UC Berkeley economist James Bushnell.

“The story of how California’s electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one,” Bushnell wrote, but “the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation.”

Part of the problem is that many reporters don’t understand electricity. They think of electricity as a commodity when it is, in fact, a service — like eating at a restaurant.

The price we pay for the luxury of eating out isn’t just the cost of the ingredients most of which which, like solar panels and wind turbines, have declined for decades.

Rather, the price of services like eating out and electricity reflect the cost not only of a few ingredients but also their preparation and delivery.

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.

 

Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment.”

If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive? | Forbes

•••

See also :

Energy Poverty related :

Energiewende Fail related :

World Coal-Fired Power Surge related :

Advertisements

ECONOMIC Fantasy: Battery ‘Solution’ to Intermittent Wind & Solar Would Cost $Trillions

“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.

Out-of-control…

STOP THESE THINGS

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.

A bargain struck by economic vandals: $150,000,000 for 4 minute’s power.

The world’s largest battery cuts a lonely figure in a paddock…

View original post 1,154 more words


REALITY Check: Nunatsiavut Wildlife Manager Says Polar Bears Not Starving, Public Misinformed

“Goudie points to one post he saw recently from National Geographic that showed what appeared to be a starving polar bear, but in reality was an animal that was sick.”

NAT Geo pops up again with another blatant falsehood designed to deceive its audience. 100+ years building a publication of reputation and integrity only to have it destroyed in as little as a decade thanks to a religious zeal to the doctrine of CAGW.

REAFFIRMS the old adage that reputation takes a long time to build but can be destroyed overnight.

RIP Nat Geo. Viva La Polar Bears!

Watts Up With That?

Inconvenient rebound in polar bear numbers.

Polar bears not starving, says Nunatsiavut wildlife manager

Geoff Bartlett · CBC News

One of the people who oversees an Indigenous hunt of polar bears says the population is doing well, despite heart-wrenching photos online suggesting some bears are starving.

Every year, the Nunatsiavut government awards polar bear licences to Inuit hunters living in the northern Labrador settlement area.

The Inuit set a quota of 12 polar bears this winter. Nunatsiavut wildlife manager Jim Goudie said all 12 were taken within the first seven days of the season.

Goudie said it’s just the latest evidence that polar bears are on the rebound in northern Canada — a trend he said officials have been recording for years.

“There are lots of signs of bears,” he told CBC Radio’s Labrador Morning. “Lots of bears and a continuation of what we’ve seen over the last three or four years.”

The Nunatsiavut hunt takes place over an area stretching from Cape…

View original post 151 more words


LESS Svalbard Polar Bear Habitat During The Early Holocene Than Now

“Bottom line: Barents Sea polar bears are loyal to this region because the eastern portion has the habitat they require to thrive even when sea ice cover in the western portion essentially disappears for thousands of years at a time.”

RATHER ‘inconvenient’ research that would, no doubt, come as very unwelcome news to the polar bear catastrophists … Harvey et al.!

polarbearscience

Svalbard in the western Barents Sea has recently had less sea ice extent than it had in the 1980s, especially in the west and north, but this is not unprecedented.

Svalbard polar bear_Aars August 2015-NP058930_press release

New evidence from clams and mussels with temperature-sensitive habitat requirements confirm that warmer temperatures and less sea ice than today existed during the early Holocene period about 10.2–9.2 thousand years ago and between 8.2 and 6.0 thousand years ago (based on radio carbon dates) around Svalbard. Barents Sea polar bears almost certainly survived those previous low-ice periods, as they are doing today, by staying close to the Franz Josef Land Archipelago in the eastern half of the region where sea ice is more persistent.

As this sea ice chart for 18 April 2018 shows, ice this month has been virtually absent from the west and north coasts of the Svalbard Archipelago, while Franz Josef Land to the east is surrounded…

View original post 1,130 more words


18 EXAMPLES of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around the first “Earth Day” in 1970

“EARTH DAY” 22nd of April. Also the Birthday of Russian communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin. Obviously rather fitting with the motives and parallels between the “climate change” ideology and the totalitarian intent of dictator Lenin, far too intertwined to be a coincidence!

Watts Up With That?

Tomorrow, Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day 2018

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 48th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 18 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey.

Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around…

View original post 874 more words


GREENLAND No Warmer Now Than The 1880s 🇬🇱

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t NoTricksZone

As I have shown many times, data from long running stations show that temperatures recently in Greenland have been no higher than the 1930s.

A new paper, which uses Reanalysis data from KNMI, pushes the record back further.

image

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/39/2018/tc-12-39-2018-supplement.pdf

As we can see, Greenland temperatures were also at a similar level to now as long ago as the 1880s.

Indeed, it is noticeable that the really anomalous period was that extremely cold interval, which began in the 1950s and lasted till the 1990s.

View original post


GREAT BARRIER REEF Hysteria : Exaggerated Claims And Blatant Falsehoods, Designed To Spread Fear And Belief In A Man-Made Climate Apocalypse

GBR HYSTERIA CLIMATISM2

IT hasn’t been the best start to the year for the global warming doom industry. Three consecutive Beast From The East’s caused by super-cold Arctic air have resulted in 48,000 non-heat related deaths in the UK alone, as the 2017/18 Northern Hemisphere mega-winter rages on, well into spring.

THE ‘extreme’ cold has seen Iguanas frozen solid in Florida, alligators in a state of cryogenic freeze, sharks washed up in Cape Codstranded due to cold shock, the coldest Super Bowl on record, Niagara Falls frozen over, a thermometer in the world’s coldest village breaking as temperatures plunge to -62C, the lowest temperature ever recorded in Bangladesh, frozen crops creating a food crisis in Europe, even a mass die-off of sea creatures as UK ocean temps plunged 1-3 degrees centigrade, cold temperatures smashed across Saskatchewan’s central and south regions in the spring of April, and the list of non-heat ‘extremes’ goes on.

RECORD cold temperatures have dumped unprecedented amounts of the white fluffy stuff that was, by now, meant to be “a very rare and exciting event”, something that Children just aren’t going to know what (snow) is”. Dr Viner’s “thing of the past” covered all 50 states in North America, with rare falls experienced in Rome, Monaco, the Sahara desert and the first snow in 50 years dusting Southern Morocco. And, it’s been a rough old winter for Gavin Schmidt’s NASA GISS Temp New York office – home of the Hottest Year(s) Evahsausage factory – with the city that never sleeps experiencing its “fifth consecutive season that at least 30 inches of snow has fallen” with CNN reportingIt’s official: NYC hasn’t seen snow like this in 130 years“!

DON’T LOOK THERE, LOOK HERE!

IN what appears to be another well-timed, and well-orchestrated plan to thaw out the inconvenient noise of the brutal NH winter still raging deep into Spring, the mainstream media, in concert with the climate crisis industry, has wheeled out an old favourite that always guarantees a juicy headline and an eco-emotional response – The “Death” of The Great Barrier Reef…

A new study, published in Nature by serial reef alarmist Prof Terry Hughes, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, examines the link between the level of heat exposure from the 2015/16 super El Niño, resulting in coral bleaching and ultimately coral death.

***

A TASTE of this morning’s mainstream media reef hysteria following the Hughes et al release: Read the rest of this entry »