“We’re told “clean” energy is a viable and cost effective. But cut the government subsidies, and 97 percent of investors vanish…!”
UNRELIABLES, the great scam within the scam crumbling under the weight of its own BS.
(Do feel for the 80,000 now unemployed – sucked in by the lies and blatant falsehoods spread by climate change zealots – politicians, ‘green’ lobby groups and sycophant lamestream, fake news media)
Remember all those stories about the wind & solar industries providing millions of groovy, well-paid ‘green’ jobs – as secure as Fort Knox? No?
Sure, you’ll hear those pitching RE promise loads of ‘sustainable’ jobs, as they wail about dreaded ‘uncertainty’ – causing bankers to baulk and investors to flee; and as they demand (with menaces) that governments maintain essential, massive and endless subsidies until the end of time.
But, this is the same crowd who tell us that the ‘transition’ to nature’s wonder fuels is ‘inevitable’ and that they’re not really getting any subsidies at all.
There are a few inescapable truths: cut subsidies to wind and solar power and the jobs those ‘industries’ have ‘created’ evaporate like snow in Summer. Funny about that!
Bloodbath in the German solar “industry” — without subsidies 80,000 solar jobs are gone
Jo Nova Blog
View original post 438 more words
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 »
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
“HOWEVER, it turns out that Reneweconomy, in its zeal to promote new power sources, shifted the goalposts so that the battery output was exaggerated over one hundred fold. The correct measure is as follows with the battery contribution comprising the almost invisible yellow at the bottom of the following chart.
A mixture of mainly fossil fuel stations expanded output and filled the gap within one minute.
Morals of the story: (i) batteries may have a role but they are dear; (ii) always seek verification of assertions made by propagandists!”
A must read post by Alan Moran and STT…
With Australia’s renewable energy crisis running totally out of control, whenever you hear the word ‘battery’ you know you’re being conned.
Pumping power into and then taking it out of a battery results in inevitable exchange losses, power gets chewed up during that process and is dissipated as heat energy. And then there’s the enormous capital cost of the battery: SA’s 100 MW tiddler cost taxpayers $150 million. Even if renewable electricity delivered from batteries were available, retailers would be paying north of $600 per MWh to get it.
And so do the wind and sun worshippers over at Ruin-economy. Here’s Alan Moran unplugging some of their more exuberant hype.
View original post 1,997 more words