National Renewable Electricity Standard: Why raise electricity prices?

clip_image002

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.

clip_image004

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.

clip_image006

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dr Burns

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”.

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

John F. Hultquist

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

“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 http://www.eia.gov.) 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.

This renewable energy shortfall was predicted by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and me in September 2002, at:
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“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.

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.

higley7

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.

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

BW2013

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

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 http://www.catmmgwscam.com

Ian W

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

Nice post! Thank you Steve Goreham

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.

Chad Wozniak

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?

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.

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

bobl

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

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.

bobl

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”

SideShowBob

Solar is going to take over anyway, regardless of these laws, it’s on a phenomenon growth rate,
take a look here
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-the-worlds-top-10-solar-countries-29363
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
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/solar-and-storage-means-game-over-for-traditional-utilities-10680
storage and solar = game over for traditional utilities

Eric Barnes

“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

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.
Why?
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.
Why?
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

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!

gbaikie

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

SideShowBob,
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.
GREAT!!!!

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

Peter Miller

“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”.

Robertvd

– Mythbusters Golf Ball Car.
http://youtu.be/eR5SlwNf4K0

Robertvd

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.

Old'un

DON’T DO IT GUYS!
Just read this cautionary tale about Europe, and the UK in particular, written by Oxford Prof. Dieter Helm in today’s ‘Times’.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3954009.ece

Robertvd

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.
http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/wind-energy/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Electricity_prices_for_households_consumers_2012s1.png&filetimestamp=20130219105040
If you can pay it.

RichardLH

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.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/going-going-gone-the-role-of-auctions-and-competition-in-renewable-electricity-support?category_id=24
“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

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

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

Alfred Deakin of the Commonwealth of Australia

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.)

Old'un

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.

Patrick

“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!

pat

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…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10528157/Hundreds-of-businesses-to-be-paid-to-switch-off-to-prevent-blackouts.html
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
http://www.theguardian.com/connect4climate-partner-zone/communicating-climate-change

Patrick

“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).

pat

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…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action-policy-explained/5067188

hunter

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.

Patrick

“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!

Snotrocket

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…..

D.I.

The madness and the sadness of ‘Green’ policies.
“Firms may be paid to turn out lights: Four- hour curfew to save Britain from blackouts”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526772/Firms-paid-turn-lights-Four-hour-curfew-save-Britain-blackouts.html

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

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

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.

Patrick

“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.

SideShowBob

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 !

sherlock1

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…