The Lie of Cheap Renewable Energy

The emperor has no clothes.
Giant Utility Rejects Net Zero Power, Big Fight Follows
Guest Blogger
Dominion is saying they don’t think we can service this enormous new load and comply with the VCEA net zero mandate. . . .

 

New York Urgently Needs To Confront the Contradiction of Trying To Electrify Everything While Also Eliminating Fossil Fuels
September 13, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  In New York, politicians are selling the public a narrative that electricity is going to be the solution to climate change.
  
  
• We will eliminate all CO2 emissions by banning gasoline-powered cars, banning natural gas infrastructure, banning gas heat in buildings, and banning gas for cooking. All of these are to be replaced with supposedly “green,” emissions-free, alternatives – which in practice consist of only one thing, electricity. We’ve been told that this is how we are going to protect the planet for future generations.
  
  
• But there is nothing emissions-free about the way electricity is currently generated in New York. About half of our electricity comes now, as it traditionally has, from burning fossil fuels.
  
  
• New York has announced plans to eliminate those from electricity generation by 2030, but as of now has no realistic plan to replace them. Meanwhile, it is forcing its citizens to convert essential systems like heating to electricity, with no basis to believe that the electricity will be available to prevent people from freezing in the winter only a few years from now.
  
  
• This is a glaring contradiction, that needs urgently to be addressed before we suffer a self-inflicted catastrophe.
  

READ MORE

 

at least you admit that, I agree

 

There's nothing to admit. It's like saying water is wet.

 

same here, but many won't admit that

 

I'm not aware of that.

 

Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.
Germany’s Energy Crisis: The Perils of Delusional Virtue Signaling
Charles Rotter
As Germany confronts its energy challenges, one can only hope that it serves as a lesson for other nations to prioritize pragmatism over popular but misguided narratives. . . .

 

To believe in renewable energy you have to stop believing in mathematics (or even arithmetic).
L A Times “Green China” Latest News
Guest Blogger
…each operating for 25 years to save an amount of coal equivalent to the yearly increase of China’s coal use just between 2021 and 2022. . . .

 

Nothing renewable about driving species to extinction.
Not Just Birds and Whales: Windmills Threatening Extinction for Jaguars and Pumas in Brazil
Guest Blogger
The carbon cult is inflicting awful damage on the Mother Gaia it pretends to protect. Even on its own terms, it is fraud. . . .

 

Desperate governors beg for offshore wind cost relief
Guest Blogger
Six Atlantic shore Governors are begging the Feds to bail them out of a huge looming offshore wind cost overrun. . . .

 

Fake Science + Payola = Another Big Boondoggle

"The Berkeley Lab report, like the NREL report, focuses primarily on the cost of wind power to the wind project developer. While expenses faced by wind project developers are an important element of the overall cost of wind power, addition of wind power to the power grid involves a number of other costs. If a more reasonable estimate of the installed cost of capital is $88 per MWh and operating costs are $21 per MWh, we can estimate a reasonable LCOE for wind power near $109 per MWh rather than NREL’s estimate of $72 — a more than 50 percent increase. Such costs include the expense of transmission expansions needed to develop wind power, other grid integration expenses, and added grid reliability expenses. Both the costs to the developer and the other costs are examined in this study."
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH, Assessing Wind Power Cost Estimates, By, Dr. Michael Giberson, 11/13.
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Giberson-study-Final.pdf

Abandoned wind towers will eventually have to join statues of Confederate Generals in the dustbin of history's worst mistakes.

 

The Kiwis have had enough.
New Zealand Farmers Fed Up with Extreme Climate Policies
Eric Worrall
Reuters is predicting the possible election of a right wing government on a platform of repealing climate policies which are devastating the countryside. . . .

 

"Free" is expensive.
The six ways renewables increase electricity bills
Guest Blogger
There is only one way a wind farm will push your power bills, and that’s upwards.”. . . .

 

Save the whales! Switch to fossil fuels.
Offshore wind is systematically violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Guest Blogger
Clearly a thorough investigation is called for. In the meantime this illegal harassment must cease. Active IHAs should be suspended and no more issued until this issue is resolved. . . .

 

Abandoned windmill farms are monuments to human folly and official corruption.

 

It is necessary not to develop green energy, but to reduce the population on the planet. And in undeveloped countries. In Europe, its population is almost not increasing, but there is a huge growth due to Africa and Asia. They need more and more energy and food, so no matter how much you save, consumption will grow. And in the end, people will devour the whole planet, only rats and cockroaches will remain.

Did you know that Easter Island was once covered with forests? And when the Europeans discovered it, there was not a single tree left - the overgrown population of the island cut them all down for firewood.

 

So saying it another way, what's necessary to reduce climate change is to kill off the surplus population. And who gets to decide who the surplus population is? Rich people like you apparently.

 

China beat you to it. Population growth is slowing over most of Asia and indeed the world

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-growth-is-slowing-down-heres-one-reason-why/

 

Don't fantasize! I did not write that it is necessary to physically destroy the population. I meant that it is necessary to reduce the birth rate.

If the population of the earth grows unnecessarily, then in any case it will be physically destroyed, not by me, but by other people in the struggle for food.

 

Slowing down growth is not enough! We need a reduction in numbers. We have been living for a long time borrowing from the Earth

 

Yes! But the first step, unless you want to start a pogrom, is to reduce the “replacement rate”. Smaller families and for that the first thing we need to do is drown all those “religious leaders” encouraging followers to out breed other religions. (And it ain’t just the Catholics)

we also have to accept the consequences. China has just hit a wall. The property market just crashed because there was not the younger market to buy, the population is ageing which means not only those people are lost to the workforce but often an offspring is lost as a career.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/18/china/china-population-drop-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=The country's population fell in,Tuesday briefing on annual data.

You want to reduce the population? Overturn abortion restrictions worldwide

 

Of course it is necessary to reduce the population. Instead of introducing quotas for CO2, it is necessary to introduce quotas for population size. We need a new worldwide agreement.

And it is necessary to help poor countries both in regulating the birth rate and in raising the standard of living so that they do not emigrate to richer countries. Then the problem of mass immigration will be solved by itself.

 

Okay you have just identified the one issue MORE unpopular than CO2 reduction

You have done bugger all research on this as far as I can tell - I might be wrong but so far….. shakes head
Now I am going to point you in a direction and give you something to think about

What use is reducing the population if the remaining population produces more CO2 per person? It is called a “Carbon Footprint
https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/

Get back to me AFTER you have read the rest of that article and done further research

 

Understand what I want to say: it is impossible to significantly reduce consumption per 1 person if we want to maintain the existing standard of living. It is impossible to reduce CO2 emissions tenfold. And besides CO2 emissions, there are dozens of other factors: the amount of food per person, the amount of water, the amount of clothing, the amount of cultivated land, the amount of fish produced, and so on - you can list endlessly. And since these needs are now quite low in poor countries, they will only grow, which means that the total volume of consumption will grow as the product of population growth multiplied by the growth of each person's needs. So only green energy will not save our planet!

 

And one more thing: now all countries are competing who has the most economic growth. But economic growth means increased exploitation of the planet's resources. This is crazy! It's time for us to fight not for economic growth, but for the reduction of economies!