National Renewable Electricity Standard: Why raise electricity prices?


Guest essay by Steve Goreham

Originally published in The Washington Times

Earlier this month, Representatives Jared Polis (D Colorado), Ben Ray Luján (D New Mexico), and Ann Kuster (D New Hampshire) introduced the National Renewable Electricity Act of 2013 (RES Act), into the US House of Representatives. The act mandates that all US retail electrical suppliers buy an increasing amount of electricity from renewable energy sources, or pay fines for the shortfall. But if the law is passed, it will raise electricity prices for Americans for questionable environmental gains.

The act calls for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewables to provide 6 percent of US electricity in 2014, rising to 25 percent by the year 2025. Representative Kuster says, “This common-sense bill will help create good middle class jobs, cut pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil—all while saving consumers money on their utilities.” Unfortunately, Ms. Kuster’s statement is not supported by actual industry experience and economic data.

Forcing consumers to buy a product that is more expensive, like renewable energy, never saves them money. A prime example is the recently completed California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo County that was constructed under the 33 percent renewables mandate of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) law. The solar ranch covers a huge area of 1,500 acres, more than 100 times the area of a typical natural gas-fired power plant, but produces an average output of only about 55 megawatts, less than one-tenth the output of a typical gas-fired plant, at the exorbitant price of $1.6 billion.

Consumers will pay twice for the California Valley Solar Ranch. Electricity from the ranch will be priced at 15 to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour, four times the price of current California wholesale electricity and over 50 percent more than projected prices during the next 25-years. Consumers also paid for a tax subsidy package totaling $1.4 billion, including a 30 percent federal investment tax credit worth $462 million, a $1.2 billion US Department of Energy loan guarantee worth $205 million, and other tax benefits.


Representative Kuster’s comments about reducing “our dependence on foreign oil” are nonsense. Today only 0.7 percent of US electricity comes from petroleum. Claiming that a national renewable electricity standard will reduce foreign oil imports is about accurate as claiming that it will promote world peace.

Politicians repeatedly state that subsidies and mandates for renewable energy will produce “green jobs.” But the Beacon Hill Institute developed more than ten studies on the impacts of state RPS laws, including Colorado and New Mexico, the home states of Representatives Polis and Luján. In all cases, the implementation of RPS laws was found to increase electricity prices, reduce real disposable income, reduce investment, and cause a net reduction in jobs.


Today, 29 states follow renewable portfolio standards laws and another 8 states pursue renewables goals for electricity. The sponsors of the RES Act want to force mandates on the remaining 13 states, the only states with a sensible energy policy. Note that in 2012, citizens in states without RPS mandates paid 10.7 cents per kw-hr for residential electricity, about 19 percent less than the 12.7 cents per kw-hr paid by citizens in states with RPS laws or goals. Higher electricity prices disproportionately impact the poor, as a larger part of their family budget.

Neither is a reduction in pollution a good reason for a national renewable electricity standard. According to Environmental Protection Agency data, all real air pollutants, including lead, ozone, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and carbon particulates have been falling for more than 40 years and continue to decline. US air pollution levels have fallen an aggregate 72 percent since 1970. At the same time, US electricity production from coal is up 115 percent and from natural gas is up 230 percent.

The unmentioned reason for the RES Act is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for man-made global warming. But carbon dioxide, a harmless, invisible gas that trees use for photosynthesis, has been wrongly labeled a pollutant. By forcing the construction of expensive wind and solar plants, proponents of the theory of dangerous climate change believe that they can save polar bears, reduce the strength of storms, curb droughts and floods, and probably promote world peace.

But RPS laws don’t even reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Installation of wind systems creates stop-and-go electrical utilities. Output from wind turbines is erratic, forcing back-up coal and natural gas plants to inefficiently ramp power up and down to maintain continuity of energy supply. Studies of utilities in Netherlands and Colorado show that combined wind and hydrocarbon systems use more fuel and emit more CO2 than stand-alone hydrocarbon-fired plants.

Rather than enacting a national renewable electricity law, we should instead roll back our costly state RPS laws. Suppose we return to energy policy based on economics and common-sense, rather than global warming ideology?

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr Burns
December 19, 2013 8:38 pm

You may find a repeat of the Australian experience. As soon as consumers see their electricity bills skyrocketing, they will vote those responsible out of power. Our wonderful new PM and Rhodes Scholar, Tony Abbott, describes AGW as “absolute crap”.

December 19, 2013 8:48 pm

Steve: Why raise electricity prices?
To make people poorer and more manageable through welfare?

John F. Hultquist
December 19, 2013 8:54 pm

Polis, Luján , and Kuster are members of the SJMSU* sect.
*Simply Just Make Stuff Up

December 19, 2013 9:20 pm

“This common-sense bill will help create good middle class jobs, cut pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil—all while saving consumers money on their utilities.”
That statement is almost total crap. Although I really don’t have much of a problem with electricity from geothermal and biomass (which is also polluting), solar and wind is a waste of time, money and resources. This bill will do little or nothing that its supporters claims in any meaningful way. When oh when will those idiot politicians in Washington get it through their thick Neanderthal skulls that crude oil is not used for generating electricity in this country? (See It is used primarily for refining into surface and air transportation fuels, petrochemicals, and artificial materials like plastics and nylon. Only 1% is used for generating electricity, so this bill will do next to nothing to reduce our dependency on imported oil.
To reduce pollution from coal plants and reduce our dependency on imported oil, we need to make a major effort in this country to switch to safe, fourth generation Liquid Fluoride Thorium fueled molten salt reactors. The excess heat from these NPPs can be used for coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids production alongside the nuclear plant for our transportation needs. THAT will reduce pollution and our crude oil dependency.
Fortunately, with Republicans in control of the House, this idiotic bill will hopefully not get very far before it dies the death it so richly deserves.

December 19, 2013 9:20 pm

This renewable energy shortfall was predicted by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and me in September 2002, at:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
This was NOT a high-risk prediction – we knew this with confidence over a decade ago.
Since then, a trillion dollars has been squandered on renewable energy nonsense.
Scientific conclusion: We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.
Regards, Allan
P.S. We may still find some sources of renewable energy that make sense economically and environmentally and we should keep trying – but not continue to delude ourselves with energy nonsense. To date, grid-connected wind and solar power and corn ethanol are energy nonsense.

December 19, 2013 9:34 pm

In California we have “green” power companies that are non-tax paying parasites drawing government subsidies operated by tax-funded employees using PG&E’s distribution system. And still they not competitive. They are bird- and bat-killing eyesores on our hilltops, and huge blights on pristine deserts. Through it all they cost more while producing even more CO2 than conventional generation. The same groups that support this mess oppose tracking, even though they should be at least knowledgeable that restricting natural gas production forces increased use of coal. There is not other way to achieve the greatly increased world need for rapid, massive electrical power increases than coal, if natural gas production is discouraged. These environmentalists have met the enemy, and it is them.

December 19, 2013 9:38 pm

Good, they are promoting a broken window economy. Hire some one to break windows and we can hire people to fix them. Nothing real is created.
Promoting renewable, more expensive, unsustainable energy sources to create jobs is the same thing. They are pushing energy sources that if they were so good we would be using them already. The middle class jobs? They hate the middle class. Most such “green” jobs are actually maintenance and manual labor. Yeah, that’s what we want, a middle class of maintenance workers.

December 19, 2013 9:41 pm

Why is there always a “D” behind the name of every government representative that wants to get more money out of me?

December 19, 2013 10:01 pm

What would happen to all these “green energy sources” if they had to compete on an open market? They would die a quick death….

December 19, 2013 10:01 pm

A suggestion: Anyone concerned by the misalignment of government policy and the state of the science relating to global warming/climate change may now be able to do something about it. Check out my blog

Ian W
December 19, 2013 10:04 pm

This is about leveling the remaining States down with a federal mandate so that they are forced into the uneconomic mess that the others are in and are not competitive on energy prices. All the other claimed reasons are just smoke and as others have pointed out totally fallacious reasons.
What this mandated use of renewables will do is lead to people dyingof coldin energy poverty, the same as has happened in UK; where people are dying in thousands per winter month, and in Germany where hundreds of thousands of families are living without electric power as they cannot afford it. It will also undoubtedly as in UK, make politicians supporting the bill extremely rich.

Mario Lento
December 19, 2013 10:15 pm

Nice post! Thank you Steve Goreham

December 19, 2013 10:27 pm

Here’s how to get rid of fossil fuel electricity and increase employment by millions:
Replace all coal & gas generators with human operated generators. This would employ millions and solve our unemployment problems. It will bring instant prosperity though full employment.
Sadly most greens and too many politicians would jump at that idea.
Lets look at the cost of electricity:
At 200watt per person and $10/hr, we get 5 people at $10/hr to make one kilowatt for one hour:
$50/kw-hr. A 500:1 difference over current rates!
We might say fossil fuels reduce the cost of doing work by a factor of 500 and is one of the foundations of our prosperity.

December 19, 2013 10:37 pm

Steve makes several key points, not the least of which is that “renewables” actually result in more fossil fuel burning than if there were no “renewables.”
Another thing to keep in mind is that electricity costs inflated by renewables subsidies (consisting not only of higher rates, but also heavy inputs of taxpayer monies) not only cause hardships for lower- and middle-income people – and can be deadly to those forced to choose between feeding the grandkids they’re trying to raise on minimum wage, or heating and lighting their homes – they are a very effective method of wealth redistribution – from lower-income people paying higher electricity rates and middle-income taxpayers to billionaire investors in “renewable” energy who only profit because of those higher rates and extra taxes.
Of course, ALL such “wealth redistribution” schemes really only transfer from poorer to richer, and the king of them all is the demand that, in effect, middle-income American taxpayers should fork over billions of their tax money to super-rich kleptocrat dictators in Third World countries – the intent and effect of the proposed UN climate treaty.
And in this comment I haven’t even broached the subject of the wildlife murdered by these bird-chopping and water-appearing contraptions – yes, not only are wind turbines killing eagles (and Duke Energy, one of Obama’s great crony capitalist buddy companies gets a free pass to kill eagles for 30 years, in direct violation of the Endangered Species Act)) – solar panels are killing brown pelicans by the thousands, because the birds think they are diving into water.
Can it get any worse?

December 19, 2013 10:41 pm

America, please wake up. In the UK, poor people are dying at tragically high rates when they are forced to choose between heating and eating. All this policy will deliver is misery and ruin – and more expense than even you appreciate.
Because what do you think happens, when gas power companies are forced to play second fiddle to renewables, yet still expected to maintain capacity? They demand a subsidy as well.

December 19, 2013 10:55 pm

I used to think “Mad Max” was a fantasy future. Dang!

December 19, 2013 11:02 pm

Basedon our experience here in Oz youdon’want this, our version the “Renewable Energy Target” has added 17%d

December 19, 2013 11:04 pm

Michael Combs said:
December 19, 2013 at 9:34 pm
In California we have “green” power companies…
Also in California, hydroelectric, by law, is not counted as a renewable energy resource. If it were, it would put them closer to their “sustainability” goal, and they don’t want that.
They want to keep giving tax money away to their buddies via green energy swindles, and to have more leverage to ban evil petroleum products.
The warmunists don’t want solutions, they want permanent revolution.

December 19, 2013 11:12 pm

Oops something went wrong. As I was saying the Renewable Energy Target has added 17 % to power bills, made us uncompetitive, shut down energy intensive industries, like aluminium. It’s been a disaster, don’t go there.
Obiwan to US government.
“These aren’t the states you’re looking for”

December 19, 2013 11:23 pm

Solar is going to take over anyway, regardless of these laws, it’s on a phenomenon growth rate,
take a look here
Plot this on an exponential/log scale and it’s perfect straight line !
in 5-10 years forget it, say goodbye to traditional utilities, as they will be unprofitable.
China is investing big, now that solar is cheaper, it’s only going to push prices down even further, then there is storage, already we are seeing electric car to building technology … and it doesn’t take much storage to even out the solar peak… no I agree with this article
storage and solar = game over for traditional utilities

Eric Barnes
December 19, 2013 11:57 pm

“National Renewable Electricity Standard: Why raise electricity prices?”
The progressives will squeeze the lemon until the pips squeak It’s about political power and nothing else

December 20, 2013 12:21 am

I looked into global warming when I retired & had some spare time. I quickly found it was nonsense, a pack of trendy sounding lies promoted by idiots afraid of their own shadows, & shameless profiteers. The “We’re all doomed” crowd had previously been enthralled by the ‘coming ice age’ scares, or ‘acid rain’ or the ever popular fable that the world is overpopulated. It’s not. We have a food distribution problem, not a human numbers problem. This is not helped by you mad yanks shoving the produce of millions of acres into your gas tanks as ethanol. Even the World Health Organisation will confirm this.
Scares=fear=control. That simple. You can control a populace through fear.
When you’ve got a bought & paid for mainstream media, you can promulgate any nonsense you like. When politicians & “scientists” are mostly second raters at best, you can get any sort of nonsense painted as truth. This is what is happening.
Because the dumb & greedy politicians are not running the world, they’re glove puppets. They are up front for a few years, spouting what’s popular, filling their pockets, then leaving the next generation to mend the holes in the dyke. Forget them. The scaredy cat “scientists” can be disregarded also. they are cowards producing what their masters require to meet their mortgages.
Apart from the few ‘True Believers’ at the top, the fanatics, most scientists are button counters.
Then why?
Control, that’s why. Control of our world.
The money men are running our world, & for short term profit, they’re running continuous wars. War = profit. War also equals depopulation, which is a long term goal of the money men. Every US war, since & including Vietnam, has been a failure, apart from this depopulation aspect.
The FED is not part of the US govt. It’s a consortium of privately owned, & anonymous banksters who create money out of thin air & loan it AT INTEREST to the US treasury. Ron Paul,sterling chap, tried for 20 of his 23 years as a Texas senator, to secure an audit of the FED. He failed.
Who’s running America? Not its senators, that’s for sure. Too Big To Fail? That’s who’s running America. & the vast majority of Americans have been too dumbed down to see it.
The Bank of England’s exactly the same.
Interesting fact:
There are 3 city states on this planet which pay no taxes, are not subject to the laws of the countries in which they are situated, & have their own police/army.
These are:
The City of London. = BOE
Washington DC. =FED
The Vatican. =Vatican Bank. (Which owns Bank of America).
Some perspective here:
The gargantuan US debt is ~ $17 trillion. Fancy getting yourselves in to such debt to the interest-charging money men that your children & grandchildren will be slaving away to pay it off, you dummies. The UK debt is ~£1 trillion + ‘off balance sheet’ PFI & pensions of possibly as much again. We’re as dim over here.
Assets now:
UK Royal Family, & BOE, ?£6 trillion?
FED = Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs etc etc, ?$500-$1000 trillion?
Vatican = Jesuits, God only knows. The Holy Roman Church has been in business way longer than the Rothschilds, who’re only Vatican bag carriers, by comparison.
You get the picture I’m trying to draw? The money men have enslaved us, our kids & grandchildren, to pay them interest on fiat money. In short, the banks have run wild since deregulation in the 80s, & gone bust, big style. Except they’re too big to fail, right, so our politicians have lumped those debts onto the already overburdened taxpayers, & QE is the printing of money to rebuild the banks balance sheets. It’s not coming out to the general public, right? But the banksters are still getting huge bonuses, yes?
To simplify via comparison: the banks have come to us & said,”sorry, we’ve screwed up & need
money big time”. We’ve bailed them out, & are paying off their debts, while they’re driving by in their new porsches, flipping us the bird. Make sense?
On the subject of fiat money:
This means that our money is backed by nothing. Since Tricky Dicky took America off the gold standard 1971, I think, to fight the Vietnam war, your US dollar is backed only by the word of your US pols & banksters, which isn’t worth sh1te. For example, since the FED was established in 1913, your US dollar has devalued to a present worth of ~ 3 cents. Our English Pound has devalued since the 70s to a present value of ~ 7p. Your pols & banksters are paying off huge debts for Chinese manufactured goods in dollars constantly being devalued towards toilet paper value through monthly QE “printing” of £85 billion. The Chinese are rightly annoyed at being paid in false coin, & are justifiably working towards an alternative world reserve currency, with the BRICS countries. & all the while your slavish Main Stream Media are decrying the Chinese for currency wars! UNBELIEVABLE.
I’ve strayed way far here, so I’ll get back to the energy/ecology question we started with.
Thank you Steve for a solid article, full of facts & common sense. Most valuable. Shame you don’t have control of the Media.
What I’m long-windedly trying to say is this is part of a much larger picture:
The Banksters are trying to assume control of the world, through stealth, via the “Green Environmentalist Movement” The madness of our present times makes sense once this piece of the jigsaw slots into place. They are using the UN, & the EU is seen as the first step.
Their plot is laid out in UN Agenda 21, & includes the elimination of 13 of 14 people now alive, the abolition of the family & also private property. Google Agenda 21 for dummies.
Look after your children.

Leo Smith
December 20, 2013 12:22 am

storage and solar = game over for traditional utilities?
what storage would that be then?
Tell you what, YOU invest in it, and when its competitive with coal/gas/nuclear you can sell it to me cheaper.
Until then frack off!

December 20, 2013 12:29 am

Solar energy is no more a startup, than a tax increase is a startup.

December 20, 2013 12:54 am

You bring very good news.
We can NOW (ie:TODAY) quit subsidizing solar power with higher electric bills and government money to build the farms.

December 20, 2013 12:56 am

I forgot:
We cans also drop all renewable power mandates – We have already succeeded!

Peter Miller
December 20, 2013 1:00 am

“Suppose we return to energy policy based on economics and common-sense, rather than global warming ideology?”
Regrettably that is not the scenario for most parts of our planet, the reason?
Answer: Left leaning politicians tend to ask the question: “Does it work in theory?”, whereas right leaning ones tend to ask: “Does it work in practice?”. Hence, the goofy legislation proposed here.
At least in the USA, you are reaping the benefits of the fracking boom. In Europe, the EU is about to introduce legislation which will make fracking almost impossible, because of myriad rules and regulations, plus make it prohibitively expensive. A classic example (in economic terms) of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Renewable energy only makes sense for uses/users in remote areas. It might eventually make some sense if we could discover a cost effective way of storing electricity, but that may never happen.
This is typical of so much greenie legislation: because we do A, we shall have the supposed benefit of B. However, the proponents of A, ignore the fact that B will cause the adverse effects of C, D and E, which can be guaranteed to way outweigh the supposed benefits of B. Some call this “The Law of Unintended Consequences”.

December 20, 2013 1:11 am

– Mythbusters Golf Ball Car.

December 20, 2013 1:24 am

Solar power is great for heating the water you use at home if you have a water storage . Heating your water takes a lot of energy.

December 20, 2013 1:25 am

Just read this cautionary tale about Europe, and the UK in particular, written by Oxford Prof. Dieter Helm in today’s ‘Times’.

December 20, 2013 1:43 am

It’s windy in Denmark, which helps explain why Denmark is so skilled at capturing the power of the wind. With 28 per cent wind power in the electricity system, Denmark is a nation that many others are looking to in order to discover sustainable energy solutions for the future.
If you can pay it.

December 20, 2013 1:53 am

Why not let the market decide the price for energy from renewable sources? Perhaps the below should be extended to other renewable source such as solar.
“Renewable subsidies – especially for offshore wind – should be cut if they fail to come down in cost under strict time limits.”
“In Brazil, prices for onshore wind have dropped to world record lows since auctioning was introduced. Last year the cost of onshore wind was as low as £27 MWh compared to £95 MWh in the UK.”

michael hart
December 20, 2013 2:03 am

Robertvd says:
December 20, 2013 at 1:24 am
Solar power is great for heating the water you use at home if you have a water storage . Heating your water takes a lot of energy.

Robert, have you ever been to the UK? We don’t get a lot of sunshine, especially in December. It’s even worse than Seattle.

Mike Lowe
December 20, 2013 2:11 am

Something to remember when these turkeys come up for re-election!

Alfred Deakin of the Commonwealth of Australia
December 20, 2013 2:15 am

SideShowBob, I read the articles, they are just pipe dream predictions based on increases from low bases and which have been generated by uneconomic skewing of markets by government.
Yeah, you can have 100% of people peddle-powering the only electricity they can access. Even more environmentally friendly. (Actually, not funny – that’s probably phase 2 of what you really believe in.)

December 20, 2013 2:18 am

Unfortunately, ‘The Times’ article that I referred to is pay-walled to non subscribers. This is a very short sighted policy for individual opinion pieces but if I posted a copy of it, I could be ‘done’ for breach of copyright.
This Is a great pity, as it should be required reading for legislators in the USA.

December 20, 2013 2:49 am

“SideShowBob says:
December 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm
storage and solar = game over for traditional utilities”
How do you store enough energy for a block of say 20, 2 – 3 bedroom, units (Apartments) when there is not enough sunlight? How big would the solar array have to be to provide regular power supply, or, as it has been recently here, on a hot day with temperatures at ~42c when consumers turn on their aircon? I have seen another poster at the Sydney Morning Herald claim there is now 24hr 240v battery storage. Really?
I call your post and links rubbish!

December 20, 2013 3:01 am

this could be everywhere if we don’t stop the CAGW scam:
19 Dec: UK Independent: Emily Gosden: Hundreds of businesses to be paid to switch off to prevent blackouts
Businesses could be paid to shut down from 4pm and 8pm on winter weekdays, under plans approved by regulator Ofgem
Hundreds of businesses could be paid to switch off their power between 4pm and 8pm on winter weekdays as soon as next winter to prevent blackouts, under plans approved by regulator Ofgem.
Mothballed old gas-fired power stations will also be paid to come back to stand-by so they can be fired up to prevent the lights going out when demand is high…
the MSM cheer-leaders:
20 Dec: Guardian: Tan Copsey: Communicating climate change
Reaching new, broad audiences requires diverse, innovative communication strategies
On a frosty November morning in Warsaw, a workshop entitled Be the Movement brought together a wide variety of global climate change professionals to discuss practical strategies for building a stronger and more far-reaching global movement to combat climate change.
My contribution focused on the question of how people can communicate better about climate change and reach new audiences. To answer this, I started by asking my workgroup a series of smaller questions…
In our morning discussion group, we used BBC Media Action’s Climate Change Communication Toolkit, which includes Climate Communication Cards to stimulate discussion of how to reach diverse audiences, ranging from farmers in Kenya to voters in the United States. It was immediately apparent that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ communication approach does not work…
Content is also crucial. As Eliza Anyangwe of the Guardian Development Professionals Network said later, “A lot of effort is spent on trying to tell people that climate change is happening, but not very much on trying to give the people […] a sense of what they can do.”…
The workshop, which was co-hosted by Connect4Climate and the University of Warsaw drew a number of Polish academics and climate change experts, as well as scores of Polish students from both the university and surrounding high schools. Some of the Polish participants expressed concerns that Poland’s need to rely on coal for the foreseeable future is a real challenge to climate action…
As a young Kenyan climate activist pointed out, “I believe one person can make a difference.”
This idea was picked up by Rachel Kyte, vice president for sustainable development at the World Bank Group, in her motivational address. She encouraged the youth present to take action and join the global climate change movement. “If you want to make change, you’re going to have to take the brave fork in the road. That’s your challenge,” she said. (see the video of her talk here)…
(Tan Copsey – the author – is research manager for the BBC Media Action project Climate Asia.)
This content is produced and controlled by Connect4Climate

December 20, 2013 3:03 am

“jdseanjd says:
December 20, 2013 at 12:21 am”
The Bank of England (BoE) was originally set up to tax money/people and raise revenue to support the British war machine as it was then. The first and fully funded military. It soon became a system of interest bearing debt which, that debt, was eventually passed on to “customers”. This was ~300 years ago. It’s been pretty much copied by all money systems (Banks). So, the Britain has the BoE. The US has the FED (With thanks to the Rothchilds and the BoE).
So it is not surprising that the City of London (Royals and all with all “their” assets – and I bet you will find all other assets NOT in the City of London, CoL, are incorporated in the CoL) is in fact, as you state, a corporation.
The French had the right idea so too did Guy Fawkes (And the gang he was in).

December 20, 2013 3:06 am

anyone thinking the new Australian Govt is more sceptical of CAGW –
20 Dec: ABC Australia: Daniel Miller: What is the Coalition’s direct action climate change policy?
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has released the Government’s Green Paper for its direct action climate change policy.
The paper released today is open for consultation until February, after which time a White Paper will be developed…
The Green Paper details how the Coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund will operate.
The scheme is budgeted to cost $300 million, $500 million and $750 million over three years, starting on July 1, 2014…
Mr Hunt says new figures show Australia needs to to reduce its emissions by less than thought to achieve the targetted cut of 5 per cent by 2020.
“It’s going to be easier to achieve that figure now because of changes in Australian manufacturing,” he said.
“That’s not a desirable cause, but it’s a reality.
“We’ve seen a number of coal mines and a number of manufacturing businesses either not proceed or close down.” …
The main feature of the direct action policy is the creation of an Emissions Reduction Fund, which will cost $3 billion over four years.
The fund will call for businesses to submit tenders for projects that will either lower emissions or offset them.
It will operate as a reverse auction, where businesses compete and undercut each other to win a contract and with it, the Government’s money…

December 20, 2013 3:09 am

The studies that support windmills and solar power are from the same sort of people who the tobacco companies hired to tell us smoking was OK. The UK is being crippled by this sort of sleazy legislation at this very moment. The political hacks who promote this sort of tax payer funded, legally mandated rent seeking need to be at the least removed from office.

December 20, 2013 3:29 am

“pat says:
December 20, 2013 at 3:06 am”
The difference being is the Direct Action Plan has not been implemented and can be turned on or off at will, without support from the Senate. Unlike the carbon tax it would not need both houses to support a change in legislation. Abbott is treading a fine line. He needs to wait until the new Senate is installed in ~June 2014 before he can try to abolish the carbon tax for good. If legislation is not passed by the Senate, he would need to take the country to a double dissolution election. Abbott WILL lose that if he does.
We now have various environmental groups calling fowl on Greg Hunt approving the Abbot Point coal project. This project, if you read the documents, has had the approval of all groups and ministers and conforms to the 1999 legislation for such projects. This was all drawn up under the ALP/Green coalition before September 2012. It just needed the final “rubber stamp” approval. It was going to be approved anyway! And yet Hunt (LNP) get’s the environmental “baddie” label by the very people who supported it in the first place!

December 20, 2013 3:39 am

It used to be a scare tactic to ask: ‘What would happen if a 747 crashed into a nuke facility?’ – Well, I figure there’s more chance of damage, collateral and otherwise, if one landed on this PV facility.
Actually, it wouldn’t need to be a 747: what about a microlight pilot blinded by the glare from the PV crashing into some key part of the installation…..

December 20, 2013 3:59 am

The madness and the sadness of ‘Green’ policies.
“Firms may be paid to turn out lights: Four- hour curfew to save Britain from blackouts”

December 20, 2013 4:18 am

Here’s some back up for my post above:
Google or youtube Lord Monckton Agenda 21 globalist death plan for humanity
Google Bill Still the money masters
Google Karen Hudes. For 20 years a World bank employee, & for 12 years the Chief Legal Counsel, she was sacked for trying to expose corruption at the World Bank, which is a cooperative bank owned by 188 member nations.
She is fighting back, & seems to think she is winning. We can only pray she is right.

Coach Springer
December 20, 2013 4:26 am

If at first your massive credits and mandates don’t succeed, try doubling down. Again. And Again. Because, ummm …., ‘sustainable.” Hint: If you can’t sustain it with significant government interference, just exactly what is it that’s unsustainable?

Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2013 4:35 am

Kuster and her cohorts are liars and traitors for introducing such a bill. Unfortunately, the D’s (which stands for douchbags) will keep on winning because 1) most voters are of the low-information variety and 2) not enough people really care enough to be bothered to drag themselves to the polls. Kuster will almost certainly be re-elected because the one chance of beating her, the well-known and respected former House Speaker Bill O’Brien who was going to run against her has dropped his bid, having gotten a dream job offer he couldn’t refuse. Relatively unknown Gary Lambert will be running instead.

December 20, 2013 4:53 am

“Snotrocket says:
December 20, 2013 at 3:39 am”
No need to strike the PV panels en masse, just the point at which they connect TO the grid.

December 20, 2013 4:56 am

Leo Smith says:
December 20, 2013 at 12:22 am
what storage would that be then?
Tell you what, YOU invest in it, and when its competitive with coal/gas/nuclear you can sell it to me cheaper.
Electric cars, and oh boy I wish I invested in Telsa motors back then !

December 20, 2013 4:57 am

You read it here, guys – we in the UK, with the enticing prospect of a sustainable recovery from recession, are likely to have it snuffed out by our lunatic politicians.
Coal-fired power stations being shut – or converted to burning wood pellets, from – guess where..? North Carolina..! Happy about that, are you – having your forests trashed to feed a politically-correct/stupid policy in the UK..?
Wind and solar being supported with massive subsidies and unrealistic ‘feed-in’ tariffs, which of course on a calm winter’s afternoon will provide – zilch.
No new nulear station – and then at a ridiculous price/kWh – until at least 2026. We used to lead the world in generating electricity from nuclear power. Since then of course the ‘greens’ have taken over.
Finally – as we all know, man-made global warming (as ‘proven’ by the IPCC – set up simply to prove it) is a complete scam – dependent on climate models using ‘subjective priors’ (in other words, enter the starting point data of your choice)…
I need to lie down now…

December 20, 2013 5:05 am

Patrick says:
December 20, 2013 at 2:49 am
“How do you store enough energy for a block of say 20, 2 – 3 bedroom, units (Apartments) when there is not enough sunlight? How big would the solar array have to be to provide regular power supply”
It doesn’t have to be that big to hurt the grid providers, solar takes the cream of the profit and (electric vehicle based) storage extends it out to cover the afternoon peak, you don’t need much storage for that … The issue is that solar is a no brainier for people NOW (in oz) without subsidies (almost all have been removed here anyway) but what happens when solar falls even more in price and people start moving off the grid… that’s the problem grid providers will need to solve…
what they should have done is invest in big centralized solar, they should have destroyed the wholesale price at peak solar production times and removed the intensive from the domestic customer to get solar… but it’s too late now

Just an engineer
December 20, 2013 5:24 am

SideShowBob says:
December 20, 2013 at 4:56 am
$100,000 auto is pretty expensive storage device. Of course since you discharge it at night to feed back the stored solar energy you can’t drive it to work anyway. Yep, real bright idea that.

Gail Combs
December 20, 2013 5:36 am

SideShowBob says: @ December 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Solar is going to take over anyway, regardless of these laws, it’s on a phenomenon growth rate…
What are you a marketing rep for a solar company? Even Huff & Puff does not agree with you!

…Solar sales began to decline for the first time just this year. Residential sales are down nine percent compared to last year, while commercial sales have plummeted by 50 percent…
…The power company sometimes seems like the greatest obstacle to innovation because the electric company can only accommodate so much intermittent solar power on their grids before engineers fear that too much of the energy will cause power disruptions and put utility workers’ safety at risk.
As the situation has worsened, some solar company executives have even warned of a possible collapse or at least a significant contraction of the industry.
Some prominent solar executives say that the moment of grid saturation is nearly here. “I’m super duper pessimistic,” Mark Duda, an executive at Honolulu-based RevoluSun, said at a panel discussion on the solar industry in downtown Honolulu on Thursday. “I think this is actually the event we have all been worried about in the past, but I think now we have hit it.”
…One reason for the sudden lag in solar sales is likely the increasing constraints that the utilities place on those who are trying to hook up their solar systems to the electric grids…
In such a situation, the game changer would involve affordable battery storage technology that can hold large amounts of energy from solar panels on a home or business….

From MIT tech review: Battery breakthroughs could lower costs and improve performance for electric vehicles and renewable energy storage–but commercializing these new technologies will be challenging. We have been hearing that the holy grail of light,low cost effecient and safe batteries is just around the corner here at WUWT for years. This is the last look: Claim: Let’s put batteries on wind and solar farms, Posted on September 9, 2013
A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”
The real reason behind the push for ‘Renewables’ is MONEY:
From the November 11, 2011 New York Times Energy and Environment section entitled A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search that describes in great detail the “financials” of a large commercial solar project in California. Pay particular attention to the attending graphic. This is not a concentrated solar project. The money quotes:

The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009….
“P.G.& E., and ultimately its electric customers, will pay NRG $150 to $180 a megawatt-hour… that was about 50 percent more than the expected market cost of electricity in California from a newly built gas-powered plant. While neither state regulators nor the companies will divulge all the details, the extra cost to ratepayers amounts to a $462 million subsidy, according to Booz, which calculated the present value of the higher rates over the life of the contracts …”
This project will cost 1.6 Billion and the return to investors is 384 Million before construction even begins….

As Obama Promised: Energy Prices to Soon Skyrocket

Obama’s war on coal hits your electric bill
The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt…. These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.

As Richard Courtney said:

….Costs are the sum of price and subsidies. And being “cheaper” is having lowest costs.
Renewables such as wind and solar cannot be cheaper than coal or other fossil fuel energy: it is physically impossible. I explain this as follows.
All energy is free. It was all created at the Big Bang. But it is costly to collect energy and to concentrate it for conduct of useful work.
Fortunately, nature has collected and concentrated energy for us.
For example, the little energy available in sunlight has been collected by photosynthesis over geological ages, and the collected energy exists in dry, compressed stores known as fossil fuels, notably coal.
The energy available in sunlight as it falls, or the solar energy collected as biomass is in such small amounts that collecting it costs much more than collecting the energy concentrated in fossil fuels.
Wind is also energy supplied by the sun but it is also too feeble in normal winds to make its collection affordable when the solar energy collected by fossil fuels is so much and is so concentrated.
However, hydropower is solar energy collected by evapouration over large areas which is concentrated when it falls as rain and is routed to rivers by geography. This large collection area makes hydropower affordable in competition with fossil fuels and nuclear power. (Nuclear power is energy concentrated by now long-dead stars).
The high concentration of energy in fossil fuels is why windpower and muscle power (from animals and slaves) were abandoned when the high energy intensity in fossil fuels became available for use as power by using of the steam engine….

I suggest you read the rest of what he says HERE

Gail Combs
December 20, 2013 5:46 am

jim says:
December 19, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Here’s how to get rid of fossil fuel electricity and increase employment by millions:
Replace all coal & gas generators with human operated generators. This would employ millions and solve our unemployment problems….
Want your unemployment or welfare check or SS or VA benefits you have to put in 10 hours a day on the treadmills . Forget medicating school kids to calm them down. just install those treadmills or hand cranks to utilize all that excess energy….
Time to write an updated version of J. Swift’s “Modest Proposal”
(Elected officials, state and federal bureaucrats and academics should be drafted for the pilot study of course.)

December 20, 2013 5:49 am

“SideShowBob says:
December 20, 2013 at 5:05 am
Patrick says:
December 20, 2013 at 2:49 am
“How do you store enough energy for a block of say 20, 2 – 3 bedroom, units (Apartments) when there is not enough sunlight? How big would the solar array have to be to provide regular power supply”
It doesn’t have to be that big to hurt the grid providers…”
Hurt? What need for that hurt? You do realise that the “hurt” you so want, will, impact the people you want to help (LOL Least of all in say Africa). The “grid providers” provide a means, like roads, to transport energy. And you want to “hurt” that? I suggest you move to Africa to find out what that is really like.

December 20, 2013 5:53 am

Everyone should go and read the bill. HR 3654.
Electric Utilities that don’t have enough ‘renewable’ energy can meet the requirements by buying ‘credits’ from others. ‘Renewable’ energy generator on Indian land is eligible for 2 credits and a ‘renewable’ energy facility of less than 1 MW that consumes the electricity onsite to offset electricity from the grid is eligible for 3 credits.
So get a subsidy to generate ‘renewable’ energy, get paid to supply the ‘renewable’ energy and sell the excess credits. No way that system will be abused. (sarc off)
Also the bill only calls ‘incremental hydropower’ as ‘renewable’. It then defines this as ‘additional generation that is achieved from increased efficiency or additions of capacity made on or after the enactment of the bill’. So all currently existing hydropower (the largest source of renewable energy) is not considered ‘renewable’ by this bill.

December 20, 2013 6:21 am

Sideshowbob says: “Electric cars, and oh boy I wish I invested in Telsa motors back then !”
Bwhahahahahaha!!!!! (And it’s TESLA, you……….)

December 20, 2013 6:25 am

“The solar ranch . . . produces an average output of only about 55 megawatts . . . at the exorbitant price of $1.6 billion”
Let’s see: $1.6 billion / 55 MW = $29,000 / kW. The EIA says solar photovoltaic costs only $4000 / kW. Now, that’s before interest and presumably before the cost of additional transmission lines. Still, it’s a factor of 7 difference.

December 20, 2013 6:38 am

And yet failed to mention that California is spending even more : pumped storage facilities in the mountains that can provide at most 1000 MW for 12 hours or so , at a cost not much less than a nuclear power plant. And that puny 55 MW average wil decrease over the years as the panels deteriorate and will ned a total replacement at the 20 year mark. A nuclear plant built today will certainly have an 80 year operational lifespan, at a cost of roughly $4 million per MW capacity, not the $6 million per MW capacity of solar panels, which will last 1/4th as long. Solar build costs. including pumped storage, must be on the order of 7 times greater than nuclear, which is the cheapest form of generation today, cheaper than gas, cheaper than coal. .
If the purpose of the law is to provide carbon emission free power, then why specify “renewable” rather than , you know, “carbon free emission power” ??? Nuclear has a far smaller carbon footprint than solar. These representatives are too stupid to be supplied with a salary and allowed to wander the streets believing the same thing that the idiot Senator from Montana, Max Baucus
that we make any significant amot of electricity from oil. Only Hawaii uses lots of oil, from necessity. . The idea that “jobs will be created” is absurd. Jobs are created any time money is spent. This is spending money for no purpose except to lower standards of living by increasing the prices people must pay for electricity.

December 20, 2013 6:40 am

19 Dec: Huffington Post: Carol Pierson Holding: Is Carbon Pricing a Diversion From the Real Story?
Certainly, the media has recommitted to environmental coverage. In her mea culpa for being one of many publications to scale back green coverage, The New York Times’ Public Editor Margaret Sullivan ended her impassioned recommitment to environmental reporting with a quote from Al Gore, “The survival of human civilization is at risk. The news media should be making this ***existential crisis the No. 1 topic they cover.” The heat is on…
18 Dec: AUDIO: BBC Business Daily: Justin Rowlatt: The Brains Behind the Human Brain Project
Dr Henry Markram, director of the Human Brain Project, has bagged the biggest scientific grant ever awarded – 1 billion Euros – to build a virtual human brain.
(LISTEN FROM 5:45): Rowlatt: audacious amount of money. world faces an ***existential crisis of climate change, why should you get the money?
Markram: well, this was a competition, everyone was invited to compete, the climate people didn’t submit a proposal…but i do think climate change is the only project that i would say is a more important initiative, & i would suggest they adopt a similar strategy of re-constructing very detailed, every tree, every river, the stratosphere, & get it real, & make real predictions. if they would do that, that is great.)

December 20, 2013 6:43 am

Solar panel folks’ claims would indicate that 40,000 acres of solar panels would be required to
produce the same gross amount of power as a modern 1500 MW nuclear plant. I think those claims are overly optimistic and the amount of land required will be significantly greater. My
personal estimate, calculated months ago, was closer to 80,000 acres. In My experience, renewable folks produce gross exaggerations in their claims. I don’t believe a word they say.

December 20, 2013 6:44 am

Dear SSB,
You do realize that the side show was the circus home of oddities, quirks and malfunctions don’t you? Your demonstration of such is in the spotlight and on display. Of course you’re not far behind the nutballs that inhabit our state government here in California who have decreed that electricity providers must come up with AC storage or else. (Article here: ) Never mind that it has never been done, do it!
And as to the storage devices being electric cars? Wow! Like I said, you’re on display and clearly demonstrating your abilities with each and every post. Might be a place you could find a new taxpayer / ratepayer funded job. Be sure to take ‘Doc’ Brown back to the future with you. I’m sure he could help out.

December 20, 2013 6:47 am

Correction: Never mind that it has never been done in an economically feasible way.

Gail Combs
December 20, 2013 7:02 am

pat says: @ December 20, 2013 at 6:40 am
Al Gore and existentialism? What a hoot! I can not think of anything that are more direct opposites philosophically since Al Gore’s goal is serfdom for all..
Definition: Existentialism is a philosophical outlook that stresses the importance of free will, freedom of choice, and personal responsibility. link

December 20, 2013 7:15 am

‘Our wonderful new PM and Rhodes Scholar, Tony Abbott, describes AGW as “absolute crap”.’
No, he doesn’t. Much as the Greens would like to verbal him he believes that some AGW has occurred and will (subject to cooling cycles against the trend) likely continue.
The mythical quote came when a woman put to him the proposition “Julia said the science is settled” and he replied “that’s absolute crap.” Since he said that, scientists have revised sensitivity downwards, the IPCC has acknowledged that earlier claims about droughts, floods, wind events and other weather could not be substantiated and temps have dropped into a downtrend over this century. So he was spot on. But he did not go further to attribute ZERO climate sensitivity to CO2 and become a d****r.

David Wells
December 20, 2013 7:39 am

Justifying renewables on the basis of energy security and independence is complete crap. If Obama and the EU had half a brain between them then you would use everyone else’s energy first and when that expired begin using your own. The reality is that if you use your own down to the last drop then if everyone else has some left then you really are in trouble. Wind and solar can never give you energy independence and security because they are manufactured products and once fossil fuel expires – as it will one day – how precisely do you find, mine and refine and manufacture the raw materials necessary to build turbines and solar panels? There are many who are broad but few who are deep hence the ubiquity of quiz programs. Journalists and politicians share the same genetic code, shallow, superficial, gifted with the abundant but undesirable trait of spot bandwagons and being only too willing to jump on to make money!!

more soylent green!
December 20, 2013 8:23 am

Want to reduce dependency on foreign oil? Finish the Keystone pipeline, support fracking and horizontal drilling and open up more “off-limits” federal lands to oil exploration and drilling.
But we can’t do that, because reducing dependency upon foreign oil isn’t the objective, anyway. The objective to fulfill a utopian vision.

Tom G(ologist)
December 20, 2013 8:24 am

Hey CD (@CD153):
“When oh when will those idiot politicians in Washington get it through their thick Neanderthal skulls that crude oil is not used for generating electricity…”
I invite you to
before you go using the epithet “Neanderthal” in a derogatory manner
On another note, stating this bill would reduce our dependence on imports is not only specious because we don’t generate electricity from oil (as mentioned by others) but our own natural gas will make us energy independent by about 2020 if the eco-communists don’t derail the entire thing first.

December 20, 2013 9:16 am

The link provided by Old’Un was to a paywalled snippet. Here’s a link to the whole thing:
Date: 20/12/13

Ann Banisher
December 20, 2013 9:35 am

Now I know why he calls himself Sideshow Boob.
They are typically people who know nothing of a subject, read an article, and think they are experts.
Do you have solar? I do.
Do you know how much it costs or what the payback time is? I am an energy consultant and help people with this every day. It makes sense for me in So Cal because our gov’t has mandated our way to high electric costs. Surprisingly, it is a tough sell in sunny AZ because off-peak electricity is about $.03/kwh.
So to ask people to trade their cheap electricity for $15,000 solar panels and a $100,000 Tesla and declare ‘game over’ is somewhere between delusional and frightening.

December 20, 2013 10:09 am

SideShowBob says December 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Solar is going to take over anyway, regardless of these laws, it’s on a phenomenon growth rate,

Slide-slip Bob, how does that work when it is overcast for a straight week and our temps in Tejas dip below 20 degrees F multiple days in a row?
Are you prescribed strong hallucinogenics for some mental or medical condition?

December 20, 2013 10:40 am

“storage and solar = game over for traditional utilities”
IF these laws and various subsidies aren’t required for Solar to take over, then I’ll jump on the solar bandwagon because then it truly will be cost competitive and a great method of energy manufacture. However, I don’t see that happening for 20 years or more.
China is getting in on this because of foolish western governments willing to shovel money at them. 🙂

December 20, 2013 11:06 am

From my research comes the following calcuation of the cost of nuclear power for a plant built
today , assuming a 70 year lifespan , per kilowatthour : the cost of building the plant ($5 billion) works out to roughly .7 cents, operational and maintenance costs (includes decomissioning costs) – 1.60 cents, fuel costs – .75 cents, .10 cents – nuclear waste disposal (if needed), for a total of
3.15 cents per kilowatthour. That’s cheaper than gas and coal and every other means of producing power.

December 20, 2013 11:53 am

The EIA estimates for power plants entering service in 2018 are listed here:
Coal is showing the regulatory hit and ranges between $100.1-$135.5/MWh ; Natural gas $67.1-$108.6/MWh; wind $86.6(???)-$221/MWh, solar $144/MWh, biomass $111/MWh and Nuclear $108.4/MWh. They do not mention petroleum based electricity, but typical heat rate for petroleum based is ~11,000 Btu/kWh or, at today’s price of oil, ~$275/MWh, just for the fuel cost. We aren’t going to save much foreign oil by renewables because it is so expensive as an electrical fuel it is only going to be used for emergency generators or for generators distant from cheaper electricity.
Renewables come with all sorts of subsidies to make them “profitable.” These include selling renewable energy credits (RECS), subsidized payments for being part of a renewable energy standard or sold as green energy. Electricity generated from landfill gas is green and renewable and can be produced relatively inexpensively because, quite often, the fuel price is based on the price of natural gas.
I’m surprised by the lower price of wind.
In general, the whole renewables energy market is propped up by subsidies. It doesn’t compete on quite the level playing field. Remove the subsidies and the windmills stop. Also, your local utility can advertise how green they are by renewables because they get to pass the additional cost on to the rate payers.

old construction worker
December 20, 2013 1:39 pm

‘This common-sense bill will help create good middle class jobs, cut pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil—all while saving consumers money on their utilities.’
This always cracks me up “…..all while saving consumers money on their utilities.”
I wish I had their business model. Sale less and charge more to a “captive” consumer.
Last year we had an increase in water rate. The reason, as stated by a water department head,” people are not using enough water.

December 20, 2013 1:57 pm

Gail Combs says:
December 20, 2013 at 5:36 am
“Solar is going to take over anyway, regardless of these laws, it’s on a phenomenon growth rate…
What are you a marketing rep for a solar company? Even Huff & Puff does not agree with you!”
I’m just point out the obvious, solar is growing exponentially, while you point out the conditions in America only, what do you think will happen when solar prices fall further?

December 20, 2013 2:08 pm

McComberBoy says:
December 20, 2013 at 6:44 am
“And as to the storage devices being electric cars? Wow! ”
Lot of people here seem to immediate extrapolate a suggestion to infinity to disprove it… so suggest solar is growing and people here state “solar can’t do it 100% cos it too intermittent”… well who’s taking about anywhere near 100% !
Solar is going to be a large part of the future energy supply but that is all… ultimately all it will do is shave the day time peak to touch zero. I’m not talking about storing for the night, all I’m talking about is storing it for a couple of hours for the mismatched between the demand peak and solar peak. It won’t take much storage just for that…
The main part of future energy will still be base load coal, but it’ll be marginalized there will also be a lot of wind and gas, new wind is already cheaper than new coal or new gas in most countries

December 20, 2013 2:10 pm

Jim says:
December 20, 2013 at 10:09 am
Slide-slip Bob, how does that work when it is overcast for a straight week and our temps in Tejas dip below 20 degrees F multiple days in a row?
Can’t be over cast every where and I’m not suggesting you throw out all other energy means

Robert of Ottawa
December 20, 2013 3:38 pm

The whole of the Western world is suffering this scam. Developing nations, if not colonized by Western NGOs, are too smart to fall in line.
The scam: Enviro-zealots hate energy production, of any kind. Unreformed Communists hate Western civilization. The is nexus is a great excuse to destroy Western Civilization
Given this, the only acceptable forms of energy generation are those that don’t work.

Arno Arrak
December 20, 2013 7:24 pm

I have said that stupidity annoys me, and it still annoys me. There is no warming now and by latest count this means seventeen years. This is not the only no-warming period because in the eighties and nineties there was another 18 year period of no-warming. Put them together and you have 35 years of no- warming, more specifically no greenhouse warming. As a scientist I can tell you that 17 years is enough to tell anyone that greenhouse warming does not exist. Thirty-five years is not needed for that but it is a nice icing on the cake. In case you don’t know where that 18 years comes from, it was hidden by a false warming called “late twentieth century warming” in official temperature curves. Doing research for my book “What Warmng?” I determined that this warming was fake and even said so in the preface to the book. It took two years but eventually the big three of temperature – GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NCDC – withdrew it. They aligned their data with satellites that do not show this warming. It was done secretly and no explanation was offered. And since greenhouse warming is the life blood of the alleged anthropogenic greenhouse warming it follows that there is no such thing as AGW. These amateur electricians want us to pay more for our electricity to stop the non-existent AGW from boiling off the oceans as Hansen warned us. What they are doing is complete stupidity but what their supervisors who permitted this have done is not just stupidity but totally stupid and irresponsible leadership. We are supposed to be a democracy but somehow irresponsible stupidity in high places has taken over.

December 21, 2013 5:46 am

Jim says December 20, 2013 at 10:09 am
Slide-slip Bob, how does that work when it is overcast for a straight week and our temps in Tejas dip below 20 degrees F multiple days in a row?
SideShowBob says December 20, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Can’t be over cast every where and I’m not suggesting you throw out all other energy means

Are you familiar with the Greek word “idiotes”, from which the English word idiot was derived?
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A layman, person lacking professional skill
3. A person of subnormal intelligence
4. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.
People like you, Bill, repeatedly making stupid assertions and dumb, baseless claims which the pols (politicians) pay attention and are the crux of our present problem.
Thank you for the living example of same. With the advent of the internet we see more and more of this absolute idiocy and foolishness on display. This is a SURE example that you never worked out the ‘impractical’ at an earlier age on your own time or when attending school at multiple levels or maybe even at a uni later on … instead, you drag these vestiges of youthful, fanciful, totally impractical thinking into adulthood and out into the open and light of day for all to see …
FOR the week of which I alluded to in my intial response to you above, the entire state of Texas and the southwest was under cloud cover … which would have REQUIRED and ENORMOUS reserve to have powered the ‘grid’ for that period of time w/o ‘sun’ …
See, Bill, you just can’t THINK. AT ALL. No critical cognitive or rational thinking power AT ALL.

Richard Ilfeld
December 21, 2013 6:57 am

re: wood pellets for UK, mentioned earlier. From private land, managed forests, grown …. well I won’t use “sustainable” because that word has been captured and distorted… grown in a businesslike way such as to preserve the business and cash flow without depleting the resource. Primary alternate use is pulp for paper (powered primarily by waste generated in the process). Yes, its probably silly for the UK to buy and import wood pellets instead of using their domestic coal, but hey, it’s a free market. They aren’t “our” wood chips; they are a privately produced resource put on the open market by Plum Creek, among others. In a smarter world, commodities with highest energy density/cost ratios would be prized — that is — in the world outside government.

December 21, 2013 8:10 am

Why raise the prices of dependable, efficient and cheap electricity???
“Sunshot Vision Study”
The only way to make the green programs economically viable is to destroy gas/nuke/coal.

December 21, 2013 10:01 am

A perfect example of the ever increasing numbers of prima donna scientists and politicians slapping each other on the back with one hand while picking the pockets of tax payers with the other.

December 21, 2013 11:30 am

SideShowBob says:
“Lot of people here seem to immediate extrapolate a suggestion to infinity to disprove it… so suggest solar is growing and people here state “solar can’t do it 100% cos it too intermittent”… well who’s taking about anywhere near 100% !”
Well SideShow, numerous eco-groups ARE claiming that renewables can provide us with 80% of our energy needs. If wind and solar are major components of that claim, then the claim is nearly as irrational as a 100% claim.
SideShow, you need to understand that (here in the U.S. anyway) the solar energy campaign dates back to the late 1970s when the first government bureau or agency (I can’t find the reference to it now offhand) was created to start the solar energy ball rolling. In the 35 years time since then, the solar industry has made remarkably little inroads into the U.S. energy market. The government’s energy website ( tells us that solar only provides 1% of our energy needs — after 35 years! Maybe I’m wrong here SideShow, but I think that if solar was capable of making meaningful inroads into this country’s energy markets, we would be seeing it by now. 1% after 35 years doesn’t cut it, and I for one am not impressed by it.
The reasons why this is so shouldn’t be hard to understand. Solar is a weak, low density, and diffuse (spread out) energy source, especially in the northern parts of the U.S. The panels provide decreasing amounts of energy as they age, and are usually kaput after 20 years if not sooner. Traditional power plants (including nuclear) last much longer. For these and other reasons, the energy return on our investment (EROI) in solar energy is a really lousy one compared to other energy sources. A good EROI number matters for economic reasons among others.
Nuclear is the ONLY clean, green and worthwhile energy source that can completely displace our fossil fuel power plants. The energy density of nuclear (especially thorium, see has solar beat by a million miles. The ONLY reason the solar energy industry is still alive today is because of the political clout that it’s supporters enjoy in Washington. Thus we have the government financial support and legal mandates that feed into its one and only lifeline that keeps it going. If and when Uncle Sam’s support for it dies someday, so will the industry itself. It’s time for you to understand all of this and move on.

December 21, 2013 2:36 pm

CD (@CD153) says:
December 21, 2013 at 11:30 am
_Jim says:
December 21, 2013 at 5:46 am
“See, Bill, you just can’t THINK. AT ALL. No critical cognitive or rational thinking power AT ALL.”
I’m telling you, generators are in deep trouble from cheaper and getting cheaper still wind & solar, if you don’t believe me maybe you’ll believe a utilities analysts at investment bank UBS
Meanwhile nuclear is getting ridiculously expensive with ever greater safety regulations and multiply redundant systems they have to put in.

Reply to  SideShowBob
December 21, 2013 3:55 pm

You obviously haven’t heard of new generation nuclear plants, or of the rapid progress made by the US, China, and India on Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors. Wind and solar are getting more expensive because when they constitute a higher percentage of total power on grids they destabilize the grids and still require spinning backup, which in total is inefficient and produces more GHG than without the wind and solar. Wind generates less than 30% of rated capacity, and solar only about 12%. You have to build a lot to get a little.

Barbara Skolaut
December 21, 2013 5:41 pm

Why raise electricity prices?
Because they can. And WE have to pay for THEIRS. 🙁

December 21, 2013 5:58 pm

Barbara Skolaut says:
December 21, 2013 at 5:41 pm
“Because they can. And WE have to pay for THEIRS. :-(”
So do something about it, buy a solar PV system like Anthony did, pay it off in a few years and get free electricity after that.
You should insulate yourself because i see bad things happening to the grid and utilities and electricity prices…

Reply to  SideShowBob
December 21, 2013 8:54 pm

SideShowBob – The only way solar PV prices out is with government rebates and tax credits, which is another way of saying taking the money from other peoples’ pockets with no benefit to them. Cost without rebates is $60,000, useful life is less than 240 months, cost is $250 per month, or almost double the average per household in Northern California. To install on my coastal property among the redwoods I would have to cut down an acre of CO2-hungry redwoods. 90% of my neighbors would have to do the same.

December 22, 2013 1:20 pm

You scratch the shiny green off a progressive and underneath you find a dark authoritarian.

December 22, 2013 11:04 pm

As far as I can determine, not one of the names at have ANY science based qualification least of all anything relating to climate science. About as useful as t%$ts on a bull.

December 23, 2013 6:02 am

“The main part of future energy will still be base load coal,”
“but it’ll be marginalized”
Those two statements are not compatible with each other. One or the other must be wrong, so to put them in the same sentence is untenable.
“Meanwhile nuclear is getting ridiculously expensive with ever greater safety regulations and multiply redundant systems they have to put in.”
Yes Bob, it is being regulated out of the competition (well at least in most Western economies, meanwhile China, Russia and India seem to be able to build them much cheaper). Many of the ‘safety regulations’ and ‘redundant systems’ aren’t needed and don’t add to safety. They have been added by regulators in what is either the most massive show of stupidity ever by any government in all of history OR they are added with full knowledge and intention to make nuclear power uneconomical.

December 26, 2013 11:56 am

@Jim: Don’t forget central valley California. Home of tulie fog. Comes on in fall. Leaves in spring. MONTHS of no wnd and no sun… when heating and light demand is highest… Never knew the sky could be sunny in November until I moved several hundred miles away…
@D.D.Palmer: I took the “marginalized” to mean social emotional, not energy quantity…
Nat gas was the darling of greens as a marginal “trasitional” fuel. Now they are starting the vilification since it threatens the wind and solar dogma… Thorium will be made significant by
China, with old US designs.

December 26, 2013 12:17 pm

SideShowBob says:
December 21, 2013 at 5:58 pm
“So do something about it, buy a solar PV system like Anthony did, pay it off in a few years and get free electricity after that.”
Make sure to plan for inverter failure; they don’t last as long as the panels.
When the price of grid electricity is increased enough through taxation, at a certain point self-generated electricity becomes economic; that’s a no-brainer; a different question is whether it will be allowed to generate electricity for yourself without paying another tax. Perishing states have lots of ideas. Spain already instated a tax on solar generated electricity.
The unviability of solar and wind is only caused by competition. Holland became a superpower in the 17th century by increasing the efficiency of their windmills, using them for sawmills
to build their fleet.
If you can convince all other nations to use only windpower, windpower is sufficient to be competitive. Same for solar obviously. If you can’t, it isn’t. You can still go isolationist though; at least until somebody forces your borders open.

%d bloggers like this: