The Lie of Cheap Renewable Energy

Exxon says NetZero degrades global standard of living so much there’s only a remote chance it will happen
By Jo Nova

Exxon was told to jump through circus hoops like a performing seal and report the risks of NetZero to Exxon shareholders. But Exxon pushed back by pointing out that NetZero-by-2050 is so impossible it will never happen, and therefore the risks are not even worth assessing. Furthermore, and rather damningly, Exxon said, society would be unlikely to “accept the degradation in the global standard of living required“. Exxon has taken was was supposed to be another PR win for the narrative and turned it into a media weapon.

This is exactly why the Big-Gov-Corporatist cartel wants to co-opt or destroy independent profitable corporations. In this case, companies that don’t need Big-Gov are free to point out the hypocritical inanity and absurdities which the lap-dog dependent industries like wind power and solar cannot.

Sadly, companies like Exxon still need to be brave because Big-Gov is so big, it is always the largest potential client and holds the sword of mendacious legislation, licensing and regulation as well.

Exxon Crushes Progressive Dreams That “Net Zero” Has Any Chance By 2050: It Would Mean Collapse In “Global Standard Of Living”
By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge

The US supermajor pushed back against investors pressing the company to report on the risks to its business from restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and potential environmental disasters when in a reply to proxy advisor Glass Lewis, Exxon said the prospect of the world achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is remote and should not be further evaluated in its financial statements.

A shareholder proposal seeking a report on the cost of having to abandon projects faces a shareholder vote on May 31. Glass Lewis backed the initiative, concluding Exxon could face material financial risks from the net-zero scenario.

Exxon disagreed, and said the world is not on a path to achieve net-zero emissions in 2050 as limiting energy production to levels below consumption demand would lead to a spike in energy prices, as observed in Europe following oil sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

Exxon, is of course, correct however that won’t stop the green fanatics from beating the drum that somehow the world can transition to “green” energy (at a cost of some $150 trillion mind you) in the next 27 years without an energy cataclysm. . . .

 

More Carbon Credit Fraud Uncovered: CEO of Verra Resigns
Guest Blogger
CEO of biggest carbon credit certifier to resign after claims offsets worthless . . . .

 

Gas is the fuel of the future.
Column: This is the Century of Natural Gas
Guest Blogger
So what happens when some genuinely terrified yet curious teenager finds out that the whole world is rushing madly towards a fuel they’ve been told will kill them all? . . .

 

Surging New England Energy Prices: No Surprise
Guest Blogger
New England homeowners, better get yourself a backup electric generator and prepare for further rises in home heating and electricity prices. . . .

 

“We have no reason to be against nuclear energy other than prejudice & stupidity” – Dr Patrick Moore
Charles Rotter
Moore argues that we should conserve the most precious fuels we have, which are fossil fuels, by replacing them with nuclear energy where feasible. . . . .

 

The South African Energy Crisis: A Battle between Power Needs and Environmentalists
Charles Rotter
…the vehement objections from environmental groups continue to cause gridlock driving the South African economy into a ditch. . . .

 

India cracks down on critics of coal
By Gerry Shih, Karishma Mehrotra and Anant Gupta

 

World·The Telegraph
Britain’s green energy disaster should be an awful warning to Americans

 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Mark Christie: Power Grid is Facing ‘Dire Consequences’ Due to Coal & Gas Retirements
Guest Blogger
The problem is the subtraction of coal and gas and other dispatchable resources which are the ones we need during this transition to keep the lights on. . . .

 

Rural Welsh Rebel Against the Wind Farm Blight
Eric Worrall
“… we’re being used as a dumping ground for our neighbours’ energy needs …”

 

Replacing Coal Power with Wind and Solar Increases Net CO2 Emissions
Guest Blogger
The most significant effects of adding wind and solar power to any grid are to destabilize it and greatly to increase the cost of electricity for homes and businesses everywhere. . . .

 

"Stranded Assets": Who Will Have The Last Laugh?
June 19, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  It’s been a persistent drumbeat for many years: Fossil fuels are obsolete, and the facilities that produce them, along with any further facilities that might be built for that purpose, will shortly become worthless.
  
  
• These facilities will be “stranded assets.” And any energy company stupid enough to make further investment in fossil fuel extraction or use will inevitably suffer a total loss.
  
  
• Do you believe that prediction?
  
  
• Those making it are among the aggressive promoters of an energy transition to supposedly superior sources like the wind and sun. The prediction has been widely used in the attempt to bludgeon energy companies into reducing or ending their coal, oil and gas investments.
  
  
• But if fossil fuels were really obsolete, and renewables superior and cheaper, why would such bludgeoning be needed?
  

READ MORE

 

I don't know about that. Wind, solar, hydro can be used to compliment existing sources like nuclear or natural gas, and they pretty much share the same grids.

 

The problem with renewables other than hydro is intermittency. Baseload fossil fuel generating capacity has to be sustained.

 

Complimenting means they provide power when possible, and it saves fossil fuels during those time windows. We have lot of sunny States in US. IMO nuclear and renewables is the way to go.

 

In order to provide power as needed the fossil fuel generating plants must run continuously.

 

Top U.S. Grid Official Says Fossil Fuel Power Plant Closures Could Have “Catastrophic Consequences”
ECONOMICS AND POLICY JUNE 20, 2023

 

A Comprehensive Critique Of Net Zero Fantasies
June 22, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  As yet another example of a bureaucracy gone completely nuts, consider the International Energy Agency. IEA started out in the 1970s as a consortium of Western nations organized to counteract the oil price shocks imposed by OPEC in those years. That seemed reasonable enough.
  
  
• But somewhere along the line, gradually, the mission, let us say, evolved. Today, IEA is fairly described as a center of advocacy for elimination of fossil fuels from the world’s energy supply.
  

• In May 2021 IEA published a big Report with the title “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” You might get the impression from the title and some of the text that this could be just a few helpful “how to” tips on reducing emissions. But you don’t need to get too far into the document to figure out that it’s really another one of those crazed demands for immediate desperate action to save the planet from impending doom — the difference being that this one is directly funded by essentially every major Western government.
  
  
• Now, two years later, along comes a serious group with a comprehensive critique of the IEA’s Report.
  

READ MORE

". . . The Energy Policy Research Foundation’s analysis conclusively demonstrates that the IEA’s assumptions are unrealistic, internally inconsistent, and often support the case for increased hydrocarbon fuel production. The whole of the IEA net zero roadmap pivots on the assumption that the plunging cost of wind and solar will destroy demand for oil and gas. If that does not hold, the whole roadmap goes up in smoke. But as this report shows, the IEA’s own analysis contradicts its assumption on the economic superiority of renewable energy. In reality, the IEA’s “net zero roadmap” is a green mirage that will dramatically increase energy costs, devastate Western economies, and increase human suffering. As such, investment managers and banks that use other people’s money to advance this anti-investment agenda are violating their fiduciary obligation to maximize returns for retirees, investors, and shareholders. . . . "

 

Sweden axes Renewable Energy Targets, shifts back to nuclear power
By Jo Nova

Sweden has thrown away the sacred renewables talisman and opened the escape valve from the Temple of WindySolar-Inc. They’ve done the obvious thing anyone who was worried about CO2 would have done in 1992 — aimed for nuclear.

They have switched their 100% “renewables” target by 2045 to a 100% fossil-free target. It’s still a pagan antipathy of the sixth element of the periodic table. But at least it’s a more pragmatic version.

Sweden topped the EU list for renewables share of energy in the last tally — albeit with mostly biomass and hydropower. It was a star of the renewables set — number 1 on the Climate Council list of the “11 countries leading the way“. Yet here they are effectively giving up on the unreliable generators. Surely this must hurt?

The team at NetZeroWatch applaud the Swedish shift, and suggest the UK follow.

Sweden adopts new fossil-free target, making way for nuclear
Florence Jones, Power Technology

Sweden’s parliament adopted a change to its energy targets on Tuesday, which will see it become 100% fossil fuel-free by 2045.

The change means that nuclear generation can count towards the government’s energy targets. Sweden’s Government voted to phase-out nuclear power 40 years ago, but in June 2010 parliament voted to repeal the policy. The government elected last year seeks to promote nuclear power. . . .

 

Sure, but they'll run at lower capacity which means less fuel.

 

Nope.

 

Yes......obviously

 

Climate Change Weekly #437: Persistent Lies about Green Power
Misleading advertising and outright fraud are all too common among companies and politicians promoting green energy schemes. . . .

". . . Wind and solar power are particularly unsuited to supply modern, interconnected power systems because they work only when the weather conditions are just right.

A large-scale power grid consists of two segments: baseload power and peaking power. Baseload power is the minimum amount of energy needed for the grid to function properly while delivering power on demand to every user who needs it during a normal day. The grid requires a fairly consistent flow of power. Coal, nuclear, and to a lesser extent natural gas have, for a century or more, served developed nations’ baseload demand because they operate full-time, with onsite backup to provide power during routine maintenance or breakdowns.

Peaking power is the additional power needed when the system is faced with unusually high demand, such as during the summers in the southern United States, Asia, and India, and during the cold winters in northern states and Scandinavian countries. Natural gas, where available, often serves to provide peaking power because natural gas plants can be built to scale, fuel can usually be delivered as needed, and facilities can be cycled on and off quickly as needed.

Neither wind nor solar can be relied on for either baseload or peaking power. Wind turbines generate power only when the wind blows between certain speeds, and the power they generate fluctuates constantly with wind gusts. Solar provides no power at night or when the cells are covered by snow, ice, or soot, and it provides reduced power on cloudy days and during storms. Except on completely cloudless days with clear skies, the power generated by solar panels fluctuates second-by-second with the passage of clouds.

Both solar and wind require baseload power systems to run constantly at less-than-peak levels, to regulate the flow of fluctuating power delivered to the grid from turbines and solar panels when they are operating and to take up the slack during periods when either or both sources of weather-dependent power shut down. . . ."

 

Coal To The Rescue In Britain As Solar Panels Also Work Too Poorly In The Summertime
By P Gosselin on 23. June 2023

Share this...
Those who refuse to learn by reading will end up learning by feeling. Great Britain is finding out that going without coal power is a lot easier said than done.



They don’t work well in the winter either. Photo: P. Gosselin

Summer temperatures in the UK have boosted the demand for electricity, and so the country has “started burning coal again for electricity generation for the first time in a month and a half,” reports Blackout News here, citing the Telegraph, June 13, 2023.

Apparently in the summery weather, Britain’s solar panels have refused to cooperate. In the heat, their efficiency dropped considerably and so the country’s electricity demand could not be met without coal power.

Coal to the rescue

“On Monday 12 June, a unit at the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire, owned by German energy company Uniper, went back online in the UK after a weeks-long break. Another coal-fired power station was kept on standby in case additional power demand arose in the early afternoon,” according to Blackout News. “The yield of solar energy the previous weekend was almost a third less than the weekend before. This was due to the high temperatures, which exceeded 30 degrees Celsius in many parts of the country,”

Solar’s many technical drawbacks

This represents yet another technical drawback solar energy faces. It not only works extremely poorly in the wintertime, when energy is really in high demand, but also in the summer when temperature climb in the range of 30°C. The only time solar panels seem to work is when they are not really needed.

Work only when you don’t need them

Solar panels are designed to work best when their surface temperature is 25″C. But in the summertime, their surfaces can easily reach 60 or even 70°C. According to the rule, every degree temperature over 25°C means a 0.5% loss in efficiency. That means at 65″C, the panel loses 20% of its rated efficiency.

25% less output

“Alastair Buckley, Professor of Organic Electronics at the University of Sheffield, explained that the higher temperatures have contributed to much of the decline in solar energy production. Compared to a cool, cloudy day, solar panels could be more than 25 per cent less efficient,” writes Blackout News.

In Germany, where nuclear power has been phased out, the country is coping with its energy troubles in its own brilliant way: importing nuclear power from France!

So well green energies are working here in Europe!

 

Offshore Windfarms Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts
Guest Blogger
The wheels are falling off the offshore wind bandwagon: . . .