Green Tech and the climate crisis syndicate

Manufactured climate crisis fears and renewable energy schemes create gold mine for the rich

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Renewable Portfolio Standard advocates recently held their 2015 National Summit. The draft RPS agenda suggests it was quite an event – populated by bureaucrats, scientists and consultants who have jumped on the climate and “green energy” bandwagon, to follow the money.

Indeed, they are no longer content with 10% corn ethanol in gasoline, or some wind and solar power in the electricity mix. Now they want to convert the entire electrical grid from fossil-fuels to renewable sources and, if Catholic bishops get their way, totally eliminate hydrocarbons by 2050, despite the horrendous impacts that would have on workers, families and the world’s poorest people.

There’s certainly a lot of money to be made. The green revolution is estimated at $1.5 trillion per year, which means potentially huge profits for those with political connections. Many who are making big bets on green technologies are ultra-wealthy people who say they are protecting the planet, when they really seem to be “protecting their wealth for future generations” of family members and cronies.

One is Ward McNally, great-great-great grandson of the founder of Rand McNally maps. He and 11 other billionaire families created theGreen Tech Syndicate in 2010. So far they have invested $1.4 billion in green schemes – for a greener environment, but mostly to put still more green in their bank accounts.

Wags might suggest that “syndicate” is a perfect name, as it recalls Capone, Cosa Nostra, yazukas and tongs. But what they are doing seems perfectly legal, if not always in the public interest. And the “climate crisis” foundation of this vast enterprise seems increasingly based on exaggerated, manipulated, even fabricated science, data, computer scenarios and official reports – and on silencing CAGW skeptics.

President Obama is the piper leading the nation and world to a green Shangri La. As he continues to impose policies that move the US economy away from fossil fuels and toward pseudo-alternatives, he is calling for public and private investments. The Clean Energy Investment Initiative, for example, seeks investors who will plow $2 billion into wind, solar and other infrastructure projects – all of them augmented with money from taxpayers and consumers who have no voice in the decisions.

There’s another problem: Fossil fuels remain more affordable than renewable energy, a better value for consumers and generally better for the environment. For green investors and the Administration, this means coal, oil and natural gas must be made more costly, so that renewables can compete. What to do?

As a 2014 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff investigation revealed, a cabal of billionaires, millionaires, foundations and “charitable” organizations are colluding to smear fossil fuels and scare Americans about fracking and climate change. They funnel millions of dollars into far-left environmentalist groups, which launch campaigns and create phony grassroots groups that hold protests and spread more anti-fossil fuel propaganda, to kill projects and jobs and reduce living standards.

Using an Amazon-sized river of cash, these 0.1 Percenters buy the services of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, American Lung Association and many similar groups, to stir up fear, loathing and opposition among the 99 Percenters. They want to make the electorate feel guilty about pseudo-problems: the plight of polar bears, rising asthma rates, and “environmental injustice” – the claim that minorities are disproportionately affected by fossil fuels and “dangerous manmade climate change.”

Their “charitable” contributions fund 350.org and its battles against fossil fuels. Founder Bill McKibben has called the organization “a scruffy little outfit” with “almost no money.” But between 2011 and 2014 it received multiple six-figure grants from outfits like the Park Foundation, Marisla Foundation, Tides Foundation, Climate Works Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation and Rockefeller Family Foundation – with much of the money passed through the Sustainable Markets Foundation.

The Senate report says such pass-throughs allow secretive donors to remain anonymous and get tax deductions for contributing to a supposed charity. Last year, 350.org spent more than $8.3 million on anti-fossil fuel activities around the globe.

But 350.org pales in comparison to the Energy Foundation (EF), the “quintessential example of a pass through.” The report says EF receives huge sums from the Sea Change Foundation, which gets money from Vlad Putin cronies and whose other “major donors are heavily invested in renewable technologies.”

Sadly, this is not the first time a greedy few have elevated their interests over the needs of working-class consumers. A prime example is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). With its ethanol mandate, the RFS was pitched to the public as a way to wean America off foreign oil, which fracking does much better. But one of its primary goals was to “incentivize” the U.S. ethanol industry. It certainly did that.

Corn farmers and ethanol producers grew fat, while American families footed the bill. Forcing ethanol into motor fuels caused food pricesto climb, vehicle engines to be damaged, and motorists to get fewer miles-per-gallon. Ohio motorists alone paid $440 million more in additional fuel costs during 2014.

Since the RFS was passed ten years ago, the clever racket that gives influential 0.1 Percenters sway over environmental and energy policy has become increasingly sophisticated and less transparent. The RFS was negotiated openly, but today’s policies appear to be generated by a group of insiders who put profits over honesty and fairness, and rabid environmentalism over the well-being of our nation and citizens.

Indeed, EPA justifies the ethanol mandate by claiming it reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). However, even the Environmental Working Group says ethanol puts more carbon dioxide into the air, not less. In October, the EPA Inspector General said it would investigate ethanol’s impact on GHGs.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not comprehend the huge self-interest behind the green movement, nor its harmful effects and minimal benefits. EPA’s anti-coal Clean Power Plan, for example, will sharply hike electricity rates and lower household incomes by $2,000 a year – but reduce global temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C (0.03F) over the next 85 years, assuming CO2 actually drives climate change!

In reality, global temperatures haven’t warmed in 19 years, no category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States in ten years, Antarctic sea ice is expanding, and seas are rising at just seven inches a century. But anyone who questions climate chaos mantras faces vilification, and worse. Famed French meteorologist Philippe Verdier was fired from his TV job after calling climate change hype a “global scandal.” A Paris journalist says Verdier was the victim of an “outrageous, unjust, ridiculous” climate “fatwa.”

But these critically important facts get short shrift in the radical world of climate cataclysm. They will certainly be ignored at the upcoming UN climate gabfest in Paris. Legions of bureaucrats and activists will gather there to plot global governance, energy restrictions and wealth redistribution – while crushing debate and free speech, to prevent the world from learning the truth about climate chaos deception.

Returning to the RPS conference, its agenda notes that Day Two was closed to the public and open only to selected federal and state officials. That’s because a major discussion topic was the scheduled reduction in federal solar tax credits, from 30% to 10% at the end of 2016. Green investors are up in arms, have launched a TV ad blitz, and wanted to lobby officials privately for expanded government largess.

Wake up, America. The ruling class and rich elites are picking your pockets. Don’t get snookered by the president’s claim that climate change is the biggest threat to future generations. Don’t blithely assume the government is working in your best interests. (That’ll be the day.) Don’t buy claims that the enemy is corporate greed. That ancient diversionary tactic is designed to make you look the other way, while the Green Cabal, Climate Crisis, Inc. and renewable opportunists enrich themselves at your expense.

Above all, pay attention to next year’s elections. Your own and your children’s futures are at stake.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Green Tech and the climate crisis syndicate

  1. What never ceases to amaze me is that after you have made a billion (that you could never spend in your life time) why try to get more? These people are sick. If they were truly interested to make the planet “green” it should happen in a few years. They are actually disgusting.

    • Ward McNally, great-great-great grandson of the founder of Rand McNally maps

      Ward McNally didn’t make the money, he inherited it.

    • totally eliminate hydrocarbons by 2050
      ========================
      so why not simply make fossil fuels illegal today? If climate change is the greatest threat we face, why are we allowing them to be sold?

      Surely climate change is a greater threat than crack. Yet we pass laws making it illegal to sell crack. Hell we even have laws making it illegal to sell sex, but we don’t hear anyone saying that sex is more of a threat than climate change.

      So why wait? Pass a law today making fossil fuels illegal if they are such a threat. Seriously. Any politician that says that Climate Change is the biggest threat we are facing has absolutely no excuse not to make fossil fuels illegal today.

      Put Up or Shut Up. If you are telling us that Climate Change is the biggest problem then put your money where your mouth is and make fossil fuels illegal today, with penalties as least a stiff as those for drug trafficking.

      To do anything less is proof that you don’t actually believe Climate Change is the threat you say it is.

      • “so why not simply make fossil fuels illegal today? If climate change is the greatest threat we face, why are we allowing them to be sold?”

        For exactly the same reasons tobacco products are still being sold: money in government coffers via taxes.

      • Better still, have fossil fuel companies make a statement on the lines of:

        “As it has been determined by the UNIPCC and the USEPA plus many other reputable sources that fossil fuels are destroying the Earth, as from now we fossil fuel companies undersigned are stopping all activities.

        Thank you
        (signatures)

        I would give it a day before all of the “responsible authorities” were demanding the resumption of fuel (and derivatives) supply and claiming that they had been misled.

        p.s. It is my understanding that a ontract that requires either an illegal or immoral activiy is not enforcible. What could be more immoral than the destruction of our only planet by fossil fuel use?

  2. I”m afraid the Green Cabal AND corporate greed are acting in concert, if not in partnership.

    Anyone who has analysed the enormous rigging of the tax system in both the USA and the EU knows that at precisely the time that Governments are going bankrupt, corporations (the traditional ones like Apple et al) have stashed mountains of cash the like of which has never been seen in the history of industrial capitalism. They have done it in off shore tax avoidance schemes and have done so by corrupting the tax collection agencies and, in the case of the EU, buying the EU Presidency for a Luxumbourgian trougher called Juncker. The cost to the UK Treasury is in the hundred billion pound range, no doubt in the USA, you will talking the trillion dollar range.

    If ordinary Americans want to complain, they need to complain about all the things that are doing them down.

    What is being suggested here is ‘you either have to choose the Green Cabal or ‘the Corporate Cabal’ as your enemy’.

    As the tax avoidance is their enemy and the Green cabal is their enemy, the choice is not the right one to make.

    The choice they have to make is between a democracy where politicians must represent the majority, not the money. In the USA you do not have democracy, because both Democrats and Republicans have been bought by old money, big money, whatever you want to call it. The only difference is which corrupt politician has been bought by what. Big money/old money wins whoever wins. That’s the way the game has been set up.

    Unfortunately, the last time you had that sort of choice, you had the War of Independence.

    I’m afraid you can’t blame Queen Elizabeth II this time, so you’ll have to decide what you want to do about your new oppressors……

    • It’s not about cheap it’s all about variability and there’s no better site to demonstrate that than an average home, albeit with a swimming pool- https://mediaserver.avenard.org/power/home
      Do familiarize yourself with the menus and have a play

      As for all the Green enthusiasm to overcome that problem some sage words here-
      http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_103a_battery_breakthroughs_myth_or_fact

      “The battery is increasingly seen as a green energy solution to liberate society from the dependency of oil. While this crusade is noble and right, the battery has not yet matured to assume this obligation. Pushing the boundaries reminds scientists of the many limitations in the battery being an electrochemical power source that is slow to fill, holds limited energy, runs for a time like a wind-up toy, and has a defined life span of only a few 100 cycles before it becomes a nuisance.”

      • observa-

        I visited your website. What a great job overall! Very clear presentation of data and the photos of your installation and modifications to collect the data are very helpful.

        Thanks for posting the link!

      • observa,
        Thanks. Good stuff.
        From the local time, I guess you’re in or near Adelaide, but that guess at your latitude (about 35S) could be well adrift.

        Auto – heading into a winter at 51 plus N.

      • …the battery has not yet matured to assume this obligation

        Of course, the Climate Ninnies will claim that the reason for this is that Big Oil (or some other nefarious, secret, all-powerful cabal) is suppressing new battery technologies. And they will claim this while accusing the climate realists of believing in conspiracy theories.

      • Thomas Alva Edison very nearly went bankrupt trying to develop, manufacture and sell batteries. He and pal Henry Ford dreamed of a future with electric cars. Work to conceive a reliable storage battery has been ongoing for over a century.

    • Whilst the article may be correct that one day solar will be viable, it is presently based upon a false premise, namely that: “In places such as Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia, and the Southwest United States, residential-scale solar production has already reached “grid parity” with average residential electricity prices” This is not so at all.

      One often see this claim being made about both wind and solar, but it fails to take account of the non despatchable nature of wind, and solar, and completely ignores the costs of backup power, and the costs of coupling the new renewables to the grid.

      The fact is that for every GWh of wind, or solar, one has to build a GWh of conventional fossil fuel back up generation. This immediately more than doubles the cost of generation from wind or solar. Further, wind turbines and solar panels have a life expectancy of less than half that of conventional fossil fuel generation, so one has to rebuild the wind farm, or solar farm twice or even three times during the life cycle of the conventional fossil fuel generation so that again doubles the cost.

      In the UK 1/4 of the electricity bill is made up of coupling the wind farms (and to a less extent solar) to the grid. This is trillions of pounds, and whilst this will substantially be a one off expense, it is not included in the cost of generation by wind and solar. It needs to be taken into account before one can begin to argue the parity costing point.

      But the real problem is this the fact that solar will never be a 24/7 source of energy, There will always be times when the sun does not shine (night being one such time) and times when little power is generated due to cloudiness and low solar irradiance, eg., in winter seasons etc. The same is so of wind. Wind will never be a 24/7 energy provider.

      Accordingly, until such time as there is cheap and available storage of energy, renewables of this nature will never be capable of providing our energy needs, nor providing energy as cheaply as fossil fuel generation which will always be required for backup purposes so that expense can never be avoided until such time that there is cheap and available backup storage. This is an obstacle that renewables will never be able to overcome, and one which will always make renewables an expensive and unreliable option.
      ,

      • Yes, Mr. Verney. Solar energy, until there is a MAJOR technological break through (I mean a discovery on the order of that which enabled silicon to replace copper wire), is a CLIMATE CON GAME.

        “Solar Cells and Other Fairy Tales” — Ozzie Zehner

        (youtube)

      • Fact: Solar energy is not close to being viable and is NOT “green”

        “Green Illusions” — Ozzie Zehner

        (youtube)

        My notes on the above video (until around 23:00 when he goes off the rails a bit into his anti-consumerism philosophy):

        1. Solar Cell Overlooked Costs

        [4:15 – 5:20] Solar Cells require cutting down trees which are more efficient at reducing energy costs than “green” options. Shade = cooler in summer = lower AC demand.

        [5:25 – 6:22 ] Solar Cells cost per KWH does NOT go down over life of installed cells – this is an illusion:
        (1) taxpayers or customers of other types of power are paying the costs.
        (2) [6:00] That costs of some of the raw materials which comprise small amounts of total are going down, e. g., polysilicon (less than 5% of total) will never reduce cost of production to break-even.

        [6:23 – 6:54] Raw materials include many not “green” things, e.g., petroleum products, and [6:35] cadmium, per greens, a “toxin,” required to make thin-cells (must store carefully when dispose – ME: this is not per se a problem, just shows that it is hypocritical for “greens” to say solar is “green.” – Zehner does not mention what cadmium half-life would be and the safe dry storage options.)

        2. Solar Cell Tech Is Not Currently Able to Meet Economy’s Energy Demand

        [6:55] As of 2012, less than ONE TENTH OF 1%, i.e., less than .001% (< .1 Quads), of total energy (114 Quads. for N. America) is supplied by solar.
        [7:11] Graphic of N. American total energy v. solar (tiny dot v. big bucket).

        3. Solar Cell Technology Has Not Solved These Problems:

        [7:25 ] Masdar City, UAE (United Arab Emirates) solar cell comparison project discovered problems common to all solar cells:
        (1) [7:56] Haze and Humidity — even in a desert – reflected and dispersed TSI? (“sun’s rays”).
        (2) [8:02] Dust – almost daily removal needed.
        (3) [8:06] Heat – reduced ability to produce energy.

        4. Solar Cell Aging – Output Down ~ 1%/year

        [8:18] Output down ~ 1%/year (and “newer technology can degrade even more rapidly.”)
        [8:33] Useful life of Solar Cells Limited by Inverter Failure – must be replaced every 5-10 years. (Cost: approx.. that of a new house furnace)

        CO2 Reduction to Avert “Climate Change” is Worth High Costs – This Is Pure Ignorance

        [9:24] Discussion of above.
        [9:40] Rebuttal: All other CO2 reduction technologies are significantly more cost effective than solar.

        “Greenhouse Gases” (Me: in quotes because ridiculously small percent compared to H20) Produced by Solar Cells (just to show solar not = “green”)
        [10:10]
        – Hexafluoroethane (C2F6)
        – Nitrogen triflouride (NF3)
        – Sulfur hexaflouride (SF6)

        [10: 15] Per IPCC, these are 10,000 to 23,000 more potent than CO2 (me: in highly controlled laboratory conditions ONLY) as greenhouse gases.
        (me: And no proven effect on Earth’s climate.)

        [10:22] Solar power industry = one of fastest growing emitters of above gases.

        Costs of Installing Solar Panels for Zehner’s Client (with old D.C. house)

        – Cleaning
        – Inverter Replacement (every 5-10 years)
        – Trees cut down (as per above)
        – Expensive “burial” at end of life

        [11:00] LED Lighting Much More Cost-effective Than Solar

        [11:45] Solar Installers Cut Down Thousands of Trees
        – Ontario, New York, New Jersey – claiming solar is more “green” (me: again, not that logging isn’t’ a viable farming method, trees — are — a — crop, but to show hypocrisy of the “green” assertions of solar hustlers)
        [me: those trees were a CO2 sink – thus, net CO2 increase with solar]

        [15:20] No Evidence that “Alterative Energy” Offsets Fossil Fuel Use

        ****************************************************************
        {From here on, my notes copied to WUWT just FYI — Zehner’s anti-consumerist philosophy leads him to some non-fact based, pseudo-science, conclusions — just posting my comments mainly so you won’t think I advocate ALL Zehner believes.}

        My Notes cont.:

        Zehner goes off the rails, here…. He erroneously cites the fact that coal fired electric plants supply most of the N. American energy demand to “prove” that, to a small extent, hydropower and, even far more, nuclear power (which COULD if industry not hamstrung by gov’t. regs/artificial/imposed costs) could not supply far more energy.
        NUCLEAR CAN DO THE JOB!
        – just wants to artificially lower demand for petroleum….
        Ignorant of how scarce resources play out over time… less = more expensive… alternatives are invented… .

        IGNORES NANOTECHNOLOGY/nanocars – synthetic fuel (see James Tour and others)
        BUT, Z. IS BETTER LATER…
        About [18:00] he does point out wind power/solar are utterly dependent on petroleum for cost subsidizing and their raw materials and transportation (fossil fuel powered economy generates the tax subsidies and the factories to build, etc…).

        He is a fool v. a v. consumption/economics, BUT, makes a good point about hypocrisy of solar/wind. They promote not reduce fossil fuels/CO2 = not “green” = hypocrisy.

        THEN, OFF THE RAILS AGAIN… [around 23:00]

        He is against producing more energy, just because…
        JUST HATES CONSUMPTION… whatever..
        The End.

      • Fact: Solar energy is not close to being viable and is NOT “green”

        “Green Illusions” — Ozzie Zehner

        (youtube)

        My notes on the above video (until around 23:00 when he goes off the rails a bit into his anti-consumerism philosophy):

        1. Solar Cell Overlooked Costs

        [4:15 – 5:20] Solar Cells require cutting down trees which are more efficient at reducing energy costs than “green” options. Shade = cooler in summer = lower AC demand.

        [5:25 – 6:22 ] Solar Cells cost per KWH does NOT go down over life of installed cells – this is an illusion:
        (1) taxpayers or customers of other types of power are paying the costs.
        (2) [6:00] That costs of some of the raw materials which comprise small amounts of total are going down, e. g., polysilicon (less than 5% of total) will never reduce cost of production to break-even.

        [6:23 – 6:54] Raw materials include many not “green” things, e.g., petroleum products, and [6:35] cadmium, per greens, a “toxin,” required to make thin-cells (must store carefully when dispose – ME: this is not per se a problem, just shows that it is hypocritical for “greens” to say solar is “green.” – Zehner does not mention what cadmium half-life would be and the safe dry storage options.)

        2. Solar Cell Tech Is Not Currently Able to Meet Economy’s Energy Demand

        [6:55] As of 2012, less than ONE TENTH OF 1%, i.e., less than .001% (< .1 Quads), of total energy (114 Quads. for N. America) is supplied by solar.
        [7:11] Graphic of N. American total energy v. solar (tiny dot v. big bucket).

        3. Solar Cell Technology Has Not Solved These Problems:

        [7:25 ] Masdar City, UAE (United Arab Emirates) solar cell comparison project discovered problems common to all solar cells:
        (1) [7:56] Haze and Humidity — even in a desert – reflected and dispersed TSI? (“sun’s rays”).
        (2) [8:02] Dust – almost daily removal needed.
        (3) [8:06] Heat – reduced ability to produce energy.

        4. Solar Cell Aging – Output Down ~ 1%/year

        [8:18] Output down ~ 1%/year (and “newer technology can degrade even more rapidly.”)
        [8:33] Useful life of Solar Cells Limited by Inverter Failure – must be replaced every 5-10 years. (Cost: approx.. that of a new house furnace)

        CO2 Reduction to Avert “Climate Change” is Worth High Costs – This Is Pure Ignorance

        [9:24] Discussion of above.
        [9:40] Rebuttal: All other CO2 reduction technologies are significantly more cost effective than solar.

        “Greenhouse Gases” (Me: in quotes because ridiculously small percent compared to H20) Produced by Solar Cells (just to show solar not = “green”)
        [10:10]
        – Hexafluoroethane (C2F6)
        – Nitrogen triflouride (NF3)
        – Sulfur hexaflouride (SF6)

        [10: 15] Per IPCC, these are 10,000 to 23,000 more potent than CO2 (me: in highly controlled laboratory conditions ONLY) as greenhouse gases.
        (me: And no proven effect on Earth’s climate.)

        [10:22] Solar power industry = one of fastest growing emitters of above gases.

        Costs of Installing Solar Panels for Zehner’s Client (with old D.C. house)

        – Cleaning
        – Inverter Replacement (every 5-10 years)
        – Trees cut down (as per above)
        – Expensive “burial” at end of life

        [11:00] LED Lighting Much More Cost-effective Than Solar

        [11:45] Solar Installers Cut Down Thousands of Trees
        – Ontario, New York, New Jersey – claiming solar is more “green” (me: again, not that logging isn’t’ a viable farming method, trees — are — a — crop, but to show hypocrisy of the “green” assertions of solar hustlers)
        [me: those trees were a CO2 sink – thus, net CO2 increase with solar]

        [15:20] No Evidence that “Alterative Energy” Offsets Fossil Fuel Use

        ****************************************************************
        {From here on, my notes copied to WUWT just FYI — Zehner’s anti-consumerist philosophy leads him to some non-fact based, pseudo-science, conclusions — just posting my comments mainly so you won’t think I advocate ALL Zehner believes.}

        My Notes cont.:

        Zehner goes off the rails, here…. He erroneously cites the fact that coal fired electric plants supply most of the N. American energy demand to “prove” that, to a small extent, hydropower and, even far more, nuclear power (which COULD if industry not hamstrung by gov’t. regs/artificial/imposed costs) could not supply far more energy.
        NUCLEAR CAN DO THE JOB!
        – just wants to artificially lower demand for petroleum….
        Ignorant of how scarce resources play out over time… less = more expensive… alternatives are invented… .

        IGNORES NANOTECHNOLOGY/nanocars – synthetic fuel (see James Tour and others)
        BUT, Z. IS BETTER LATER…
        About [18:00] he does point out wind power/solar are utterly dependent on petroleum for cost subsidizing and their raw materials and transportation (fossil fuel powered economy generates the tax subsidies and the factories to build, etc…).

        He is a fool v. a v. consumption/economics, BUT, makes a good point about hypocrisy of solar/wind. They promote not reduce fossil fuels/CO2 = not “green” = hypocrisy.

        THEN, OFF THE RAILS AGAIN… [around 23:00]

        He is against producing more energy, just because…
        JUST HATES CONSUMPTION… whatever..
        The End.

      • Whilst I agree with every else that you have said, and would like to thank you for clarifying these points,
        I certainly don’t think that we should go as far as saying that, “this is an obstacle that renewables will never be able to overcome”.
        Storage will head towards cost-effectiveness over time, driven by growing demand for a low cost alternative to massed batteries or pumped hydro.
        This is not technically unfeasible or inconceivable. i.e. it would not contravene the basic laws of physics.
        I wouldn’t be especially surprised if the whole bundle – i.e. solar PV + storage + additional infrastructure costs fall below grid parity by say 2060.
        That’s assuming that the west is not taken over by fundamentalist Islam by then!!

      • indefatigablefrog,

        Well it will be a very long time. Solar with batteries and inverter will will have to come down to about 25 cents a watt (in today’s dollars) to be cost effective. We are currently at $1 a watt for the cells alone.

        Never is a pretty good approximation of how long it will take.

    • First problem I have is that the base assumption is that energy will be free if there are no fuel costs. Fuel costs are in fact only a part of the cost of electricity. Capital investment, transmission and distribution actually costs more and those costs are increased with large numbers of small generators

      The other small issue they have to solve is the small issue of the sun not shining at night. This cannot e currently solved as the technology simply doesn’t exist to do this on a large scale. The only cost effective way is pumped storage and I don’t think the Sierra Club would approve of hollowing out the rockies. Even if they did the costs would be considerable,

      Then there is the ‘clean’ aspect. Making solar cells is neither environmentally friendly nor low energy, Its an energy intensive process that requires large scale mining for minerals such as Boron

      You can see what a boron mine looks like by inputting these coordinates into Google Maps
      34.999444,-117.649722

      While boron is an essential trace element for animal health in larger quantities it can cause nasty symptoms ranging from mild nausea through birth defects and even death, According to the EPA the lethal doses of boron range from 15 to 20 grams for adults, 5 to 6 grams for children, and 2 to 3 grams for infants.

    • can deliver ubiquitous cheap solar power
      ===============================
      a house uses about 30kwh of power a day. About the same as a gallon of gasoline. You might be able to generate this if you live in a sunny place and cover your roof with panels, but it will be anything but cheap.

      Your investment of 10 thousand dollars will save you 1 gallon of gasoline a day. Gasoline will need to become very expensive before you see any decent sort of payback. However, the real killer will be the batteries, because they have a very short lifespan and need regular replacement. The solar panels will be only a minor portion of your cost if you actually need to store the power until it is required.

      As for free energy from the sun. Coal is free energy from the sun. In a convenient solid form, sort of like a disposable battery. In many places on earth it costs a whole lot less to dig for coal than to build solar panels and batteries.

  3. Below is an imbecilic letter from new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to his Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, giving her direction to drive up the cost of energy to Canadians with NO net benefit to the environment.

    Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of our society. It IS that simple. When you get energy wrong, like Justin, Catherine, Dalton, Barack, Angela, Tony and so many others, nothing else you do matters.

    Regards, Allan

    References:

    1. The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility On Global Warming September 6, 2015
    by Allan MacRae
    https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/the-uns-ipcc-has-no-credibility-on-global-warming-6sept2015-final.pdf

    2. Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather September 4, 2015
    by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
    https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

    Subject: Re: MINISTERIAL MANDATES (AGW ICSC)

    If you have had any doubts about Canada’s new direction for energy, the following indicates that Canada will follow Ontario.

    Please note that when Trudeau refers to “clean energy”, he wrongly includes CO2 as a pollutant. By 2030, we will hoping for “a greater-than-two-degree increase”.

    Needless to say, “carbon pricing” means higher taxes and bigger government.

    EXCERPT FROM MANDATE LETTER FROM TRUDEAU TO CATHERINE MCKENNA
    http://pm.gc.ca/eng/ministerial-mandate-letters
    http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-environment-and-climate-change-mandate-letter

    Your key priority will be to ensure that our government provides national leadership to reduce emissions, combat climate change and price carbon. I expect you to help restore Canada’s reputation for environmental stewardship.
    In particular, I will expect you to work with your colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory, and Cabinet processes to deliver on your top priorities:
    • In partnership with provinces and territories, develop a plan to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with our international obligations and our commitment to sustainable economic growth. You will attend the Paris climate conference with me and, upon our return, we will set a date to meet with provincial and territorial leaders to develop a pan-Canadian framework for addressing climate change.
    • In partnership with provinces and territories, establish national emissions-reduction targets, ensuring that the provinces and territories have targeted federal funding and the flexibility to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies. These targets will recognise the economic cost and catastrophic impact that a greater-than-two-degree increase in average global temperatures would represent, as well as the need for Canada to do its part to prevent that from happening. As part of this effort, support the Minister of Finance in creating a new Low Carbon Economy Trust to help fund projects that materially reduce carbon emissions under the new pan-Canadian framework.
    • Treat our freshwater as a precious resource that deserves protection and careful stewardship, including by working with other orders of government to protect Canada’s freshwater using education, geo-mapping, watershed protection, and investments in the best wastewater treatment technologies. Work with the Minister of Finance to fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.
    • Work in partnership with the United States and Mexico and the Ministers of Natural Resources and Foreign Affairs to develop an ambitious North American clean energy and environment agreement.
    • Support the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities in protecting our communities from the challenges of climate change and supporting them in the transition toward more sustainable economic growth by making significant new investments in green infrastructure.
    • Enhance protection of Canada’s endangered species by responding quickly to the advice of scientists and completing robust species-at-risk recovery plans in a timely way.
    • Work with provinces and territories to set stronger air quality standards, monitor emissions, and provide incentives for investments that lead to cleaner air and healthier communities.

    • It seems that one can invariably count on Trudeau Jr. to never miss an opportunity to fail to marshall any facts in support of his mantra-driven self-importance and utterly inadequate “knowledge” of matters upon which he (and or his speech/letter writers) depends.

      Oh, Canada … Brace yourself for four years of Jr’s dimple-driven selfies and mindless inanities, along the lines of his oh-so-profound explanation of his 50/50 Cabinet: “Because it’s 2015”

      • 50/50 Cabinet
        =============
        I would have thought “because they were the best qualified to do the job” would have been a better reason to pick someone for cabinet.

        The date seems more like a politically correct response. The candidates were not selected on the basis of ability, they were selected on the basis of gender.

        I was taught that if you pick someone on the basis of gender, that is sexual discrimination.

        So, it would appear the Trudeau, in picking his cabinet, feels that Sexism is OK in Canada.

        Sexism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
        Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex or gender.

      • Precisely, ferdberple.

        Trudeau is pandering, plain and simple.

        Choosing based on gender or race or any other irrelevant characteristic is wrongful discrimination.

        I would say, rather: It’s 2015. WHEN are we going to begin judging “based on the content of [one’s] character” {or bona fide job related qualifications}? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made his “I Have a Dream Speech” over 55 years ago.

        Affirmative Action is the self-defeating, short-sighted, idea of those whose personal credo includes that warped concept called: “social justice.” It, to borrow a Biblical metaphor, goes down like honey, but turns one’s stomach sour. Getting that job is sweet, but, later, no matter how highly qualified that individual truly is, and even if no affirmative action was involved in their hiring, their career achievements are forever tainted. They, IOW, “sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.”

        Equality of opportunity, not of results, would be truly “progressive” or “liberal” thinking.

      • Legalizing cannabis will remove a whole swath of lefties from the voting next time around. If only the Republicans in America were so smart.

    • Some of the Canadian billionaires backing this like Balsillie, John Roy, MacBain, Desmarais family and then there is Greenpeace.

      Greenpeace has been involved in this fiasco all over the world and most Canadians don’t even realize this. Then include all the Americans who don’t know this either.

      These issues involve both Canada and the U.S. and are inter-tied.

    • No problem putting together a pan-Canadian framework.

      Check out Preston Manning ( Alberta) and carbon tax or cap-and-trade plus his association with the Pembina Institute.

  4. I don’t think the voting public has any idea how bank-leveraged investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation for “green” projects multiplies the returns on investment for wealthy investors. And that multiple return is all paid out of the federal till using other taxpayers money. Investment in an 80% leveraged solar plant yields $3 to the investor’s pocket for every $2 invested THE DAY THE PLANT ENTERS COMMERCIAL OPERATION. The investor extracts an additional $4 return for every $2 invested over the next 5 years via accelerated depreciation (assuming a 50% combined marginal tax bracket). That entire $7 return is paid by other U.S. taxpayers and has nothing to do with plant revenue and bears virtually no risk for the investor. The risk gets shifted to electric power rate payers who must pay off that 80% bank loan via obscene power purchase rates. A “green machine” is the investment banker’s wet dream – all upside and no downside with the general public paying all the freight.

    • Quite so.

      If only the MSM would reveal the true cost of renewables, and who bears the costs of this and who receives the benefit.

      The public do not understand how they are being shafted.

      • They will get it eventually.

        BTW NINJA car loans are about to crash the US economy. 2008 all over again. This time as “industrial policy” and auto unions. China has a similar problem. Only it is their whole economy.

  5. Speaking of Green Energy that might actually work…
    Did you see that someone is actually building a Carlson Tower?

    Reliable wind energy with a smaller footprint makes all the current wind turbines obsolete overnight.
    It’s potentially a Dreadnought moment for the Wind Industry.

    • Interesting. Would be good to see how the protype performs in everyday operation, especially at night..

      Of course, if one needs near desert environments, it will not be a solution for all countries

      • All renewable energy is restricted by geography.

        The energy ultimately comes from a nuclear reaction in the Sun or the Earth’s core. To be economical the energy needs to be concentrated up by some process that we don’t need to pay for.
        For Fossil Fuels that process is geological time. For Hydro that process is the shape of the water margin. For Geothermal that process is the movement of magma near to the consumer.

        For this case that process is the land use creating areas of generally low humidity. It’s another tool in the toolkit.
        And it is vastly more reliable than conventional Wind. If it works.

    • A smaller footprint, M Courtney? It’s a 680+M high tower! It’s enormous! And, as far as I can see, a perpetual motion machine con.

      • It’s enormous but so are wind turbines.
        And they spread over a much larger area.

        Also, it is not a perpetual motion con. It’s the same principle behind Newcomen’s steam engine.

        It may not be economic but it’s worth investing in a prototype. Better than throwing good money after bad in diffuse unreliables like Wind and Solar.

      • Harry Passfield, I’m with you – a perpetual motion machine con. The people who will benefit are the investors who will launder millions of dollars into their pay checks and produce nothing useful at the end of it.

  6. Make that “…an additional $5 return over the next five years…..” and “That entire $8 return….”

  7. still shilling for trillions:

    16 Nov: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Climate Spending Surges 18% in Year Before Paris Deal Planned
    Total expenditure rose to $391 billion in 2014 from $331 billion a year earlier, with almost three quarters of the cash raised and spent in the same country, the CPI said Monday in a report. About $292 billion of the cash went on solar parks, wind farms and other renewable energy projects, whose falling costs mean “investments are achieving more impact than ever before,” the San Francisco-based analysis group said…
    The expenditure is still short of what the International Energy Agency says is needed for the world to restrict warming since pre-industrial times to the international target of 2 degrees Celsius…
    The IEA said last month that expenditure of $16.5 trillion from 2015 through 2030 would keep the planet on a path where the temperature goal can still be achieved. That works out to just over $1 trillion a year…
    “Overwhelmingly, it is national self-interest that is driving climate action,” Barbara Buchner, a director at the CPI and lead author of the study, said in a statement…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-16/climate-spending-surges-18-in-year-before-paris-deal-planned

  8. Paul, we need an effective ground campaign. Voters understand graft when its put to them by their neighbors.

    In Tennessee we funded a solar supply chain which is now a smouldering ruin. Not a word analysis in our state press or from our politicians. It was a bi-partisian effort.

    The deal was so sweet that the incumbent governor secretly started his own solar company along with the heads of the department of revenue and economic development.

    I’ve been blowing this horn for several years without success but think we are missing a great opportunity. This story has it all. Al Gore, computer climate modeling, big promises, and complete financial collapse. Please have a look.

  9. Mr. Driessen,
    Your credibility continues to erode. The article you reference in the Washington Times – mouthpiece of the Moonies – which then references the Washington Free Beacon – in turn one of the most intrusive web sites I’ve ever seen – lists the original article which shows nothing more than a group of American hedge funds which have interests in Russia.
    This is a far cry from Vladimir Putin sticking his oar into American politics.
    Thus while the rest of what you write above “might” be correct, its credibility is damaged by this specific case where you clearly did NOT do your homework.
    If you wish to be seen as a true analyst as opposed to a repeater of the worst of Fox News/Murdochian hysteria, I would strongly recommend the reading of original source articles.

    • Ticketstopper

      Maybe a good look at how the US uranium deal went down would help you understand the game being played better. Ad hominem attacks against sources doesn’t address the information presented.

      Then again not looking is the end goal right.

      • How amusing, I wrote an extremely specific complaint: that Driessen clearly did not read the material he sourced. Said material links Putin to anti-fossil fuel environmental groups only through American hedge funds which happen to invest in Russia.
        And you call this ad-hominem?
        Coupled with the rest of the article – which specifically links other American hedge funds and hedge fund managers with funding of environmental groups, seems to me that you are primarily referring to yourself in your complaint.
        Thanks for self identifying into the zero cred list.

  10. Claude. That is as good an explanation of the rigged investment opportunity as I have ever read. Easy to understand.

    • All one needs to pull off the treasury raid is a power sale agreement fat enough to pay off the bank loan. That generally means a power purchase price WAY above current average wholesale rates “at the fence”. If you have a project so bad that it doesn’t pencil out for the bank, you go for a federal loan guarantee. In that case, the bank has no skin in the game, after five years the investors have reaped all the federal tax benefits they’ll ever get and you can forget about a “cash call” to those investors or relief from the bank. At that point, odds are overwhelming that the plant is going down, leaving taxpayers holding the entire financial bag.

  11. My approach is to build cheaper than coal new Molten Salt Reactors for $.03KWh emission free energy. Working on my first 5.5 GW plant in an Asian country. Too bad, California has its head up its collective ass on energy. They don’t even count nuclear or hydro power as emission free energy. for the $125 Billion we will spend off of carbon credits, we will build non effective, intermittent low low ERoEI energy that requires fossil fuel backup, or pumped water storage of racks of Tesla garage batteries to make up for the solar duck. The state could build 80 to 100 GWs of 24/7 energy and co-generate desalination, petrochemical, smelting or toilet to tap water treatment with the massive thermal of the MSR.

    Investors are welcome for the $800 Million round. visionar@comcast.net

  12. And wind power is also a permanently negative ROI but for taxpayer/conventional power ratepayer subsidies:

    1. Permanently Negative ROI
    “Electricity Costs: The Folly of Windpower” — http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

    2. Windpower Is Inefficient
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/10/theres-a-reason-the-modern-age-moved-on-from-windmills/

    {Continued in next post due to WordPress’ inability to handle multiple links per post}

  13. Well imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
    The climate syndicate duplicates our current government bureaucracies.
    Steal from the many to enrich the well connected few.
    Any surprise it is mostly the same people?
    CAGW is just the latest and most expansive graft, by our entitled parasites.

    The parable of the straw that broke the camels back, comes to mind.
    Our kleptocracies need a whole bunch of fearful,ignorant peons to keep them in power.
    Have you seen what is coming out of our public schools?

    However at the risk of ranting, the backdoor funding of quasi-government agencies, government funding of NGO’s, the obscuring of the money trail from special interest to public propaganda..
    Who benefits?
    Besides those who specialize in living off of the productivity of other people.
    And the best way to ensure a monopoly is government force.

    Once upon a time we were lead to believe that journalism, an independent investigative body, had its interest in following the money flows to see who is manipulating who…
    Likely story, it turned out to be mighty selective in its outrage…and cheaply bought off.

    Mass hysteria requires an educated rational citizenry to prevent madness, we no longer have sufficient of such, as a consequence this current outbreak will have to crest and crash injuring millions of people.
    Maybe enough will learn not to entrust their responsibilities to fools and bandits.

    • Re: “Maybe enough will learn not to entrust their responsibilities to fools and bandits”.
      They mostly thought that they had learned this lesson quite adequately.
      What they have to learn this time is “not to entrust their responsibilities to fools and bandits, who are dressed up in the garb of experts, academics, scientists. engineers and innovators.”

      Someone clearly forgot to warn people that sometimes the modern bandit doesn’t want you to discover that he is the bandit. Sometimes the bandit cleverly gains your trust and warns you about other bandits.
      Most people are fooled by this. They imagine, that no bandit would construct such a ruse.
      Yes they would. That’s exactly the sort of thing that a scurrilous bandit would do.

  14. Nobody can comprehend the vast scale of green corruption.
    So many companies are pulling in so many tax-payer funded financial “gifts”, loan insurance and dead investment money from so many quarters that the totality of this catastrophe could not be conceived of by the human mind.
    I have only ever attempted to chase down a very small number of hoaxes and the millions lost in their name.
    The situation is equivalent to that moment in heavy rainfall where even the highest setting on your windshield wipes cannot remove the rain as fast as it is pouring onto the glass.
    Here is the best attempt to catalogue this vast new industry of theft and deception:
    http://greencorruption.blogspot.co.uk/

  15. I was just briefly looking for an ARPA renewables investment grant success story.
    My search lead me to this piece of apparently positive news:
    “DOE’s Success Story
    ARPA-E likes success stories, and one of them—at least potentially—is about its grant recipient Envia Systems, which startled the known world by announcing that not only could its lithium-ion battery packs greatly increase range and cut costs in half, but they’d be in cars in a relatively short time frame.
    The company’s CEO, Atul Kapadia, told me last February that its cells will cost 45 percent of those available today, will weigh less and have almost triple the energy density. “We will be able to make smaller automotive packs that are also less heavy and much cheaper,” he said.”

    Wow – a real life success story. But only one catch… it isn’t actually real yet.
    Call me totally unimpressed. How many billions will go down the toilet before people wake up to what is being done with their money in the name of saving the planet? http://www.plugincars.com/doe-awards-43-million-battery-tech-123554.html

  16. Please fix – yazuka to Yakuza – it’s making me think of little children running around with kazoos and is distracting me from an otherwise interesting article.

    [Reply: where is it? Please don’t make us search. Thanks. ~mod.]

    • Well, since DN refuses to answer… (lol), here ya go, O Longsuffering Mod:

      (Paragraph 5 in Driessen article above) “Wags might suggest that “syndicate” is a perfect name, as it recalls Capone, Cosa Nostra, yazukas and tongs.”

  17. The World Media lurches these days from hyping one Green scam or fraud to another without pausing to draw breath or think. They mix this with a wild misrepresentation of the causes of Islamic terrorism and fraudulent economic analyses. We would probably get more accurate reporting from a campaign of Chinese Whispers.

  18. 350 org was mentioned in the article. Follow Bill McKibben’s internet trail to the Trocaire Ireland organization and its connection to the Vatican.

    McKibben also involved in the Tar Sands Solutions Network which he co-founded in Canada with Tzeporah Berman, Greenpeace.

  19. “Don’t buy claims that the enemy is corporate greed.”

    But isn’t that what this article demonstrates? Or is the author making a distinction between corporations and the billionaires who run those corporations?

  20. The Argosy Foundation ( Milwaukee,WI ) founded by John Abele was one of the original funders of the Colorado New Energy Economy/CNEE.

    Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado, Board of Trustees includes:

    John Abele, billionaire from Vermont
    Jose Figures Olsen, brother of Christina Figures, UNFCCC
    Jigar Shah, Board of Greenpeace USA 2010-2013
    Jules Kortenhorst

    http://www.rmi.org

  21. the claim that minorities are disproportionately affected by fossil fuels and “dangerous manmade climate change.”

    Well, that’s true. They have been affected enormously for the better. Both by the change itself and the Electricity Thing.

  22. The city of Paris, the UN, and the IPCC at COP21 should set an example first before making demands, by being the first to plan and implement the conversion of a whole large city to renewable energy sources.

    Let the City of Lights be the first to completely convert to renewable energy sources – no fossil fuels allowed – as a demonstration project to prove it actually can be done, before anyone demands we all commit to their risky unproven plans. Let’s see proof of concept first.

Comments are closed.