$Trillions For Nothing…Damning Report: Green Energies Grow Only “Paltry Two Percent in Entire Decade”!

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 18. June 2022

Global transition to green energies stagnates

By Kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

This is reported by various media. Put simply, global energy demand is rising faster than the expansion of renewable energies, or at least so fast that the increases are only marginally reflected in the overall balance. There is, for example, the German taz (emphasis added):

A paltry two percentage points increase in an entire decade: In 2020, only 12.6 percent of global energy demand was met by renewable energies. In 2009, the figure was 10.6 percent. This is the conclusion drawn by the think tank REN21 in a report presented by energy experts on Wednesday.

According to the report, progress is being made in the expansion of power plants that produce renewable electricity, i.e. solar plants, wind turbines, hydroelectric power plants – but fossil capacities are not being reduced. Instead, energy demand continues to grow, eating up the renewables successes.

Otherwise, these would be remarkable. Just last year, there was another record in the addition of renewable power plants: a capacity of 314 gigawatts was connected to the grid. But because fossil fuels still account for around 80 percent of total energy consumption, a real transition to green energies is not taking place, warns REN21. This also jeopardizes the climate targets.

The same report was featured also in Welt. This article is behind a paywall.

The fact that the share of renewable energy is not growing is bad enough from a climate protection perspective. It is also sobering that the 12.6 percent share of eco-energy is largely attributable to the burning of biomass, i.e., to a type of energy generation that is the subject of much environmental criticism.

The second-largest share, 3.9 percent, comes from hydroelectric plants – such as large dams – which are also highly controversial among environmentalists. In the REN21 report, solar and wind power, which are the focus of attention in Germany, together with geothermal energy, are estimated to account for only 2.8 percent of global energy production and are subcategorized under ‘other’.”

5 18 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 19, 2022 3:27 am

I love it!
The only “True” renewables are wind, solar, biomass for a jaw-dropping 2.8%
We remain sooo inpressed.
And they specifically call out hydro as unacceptable to the Greenies, as they should. Of course, with the “Dam-Busters” out in force, hydro may turn out to be a lot less reliable than previously thought. Even though it scales in at 3.9%, well above wind and solar combined.
You just can not please some people.

Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 4:34 am

Not long after the State Labor Government of Victoria organised the closure of brown coal fired Hazlewood Power Station they had leased to a private sector company, there was a drought at the time, the Victoria Government was shocked when they discovered that the Snow Mountains Hydro Electricity dams were low on water supplies and therefore unable to even supply electricity at the average normal supply rate.

Hazlewood generated 20-25 per cent of electricity for the State of Victoria, and South Australia takes electricity from Victoria via an interconnector, so that State also received a wake up call.

In Victoria many diesel generators were quickly purchased and distributed to areas including the Mornington Peninsular to try and avoid blackouts.

The transition to renewable energy in Australia is a farce.

Reply to  Dennis
June 19, 2022 6:09 am

The transition to “renewable” energy has always been a farce, No surprise there. Its always been about money and control of the peons, worldwide.
The left suckered in the useful idiots, who as a group are incapable of rational thought so follow the propagandists over the cliff to the leftist utopia. Which can never exist in the real world.
Just sayin’.

Reply to  RevJay4
June 19, 2022 11:43 pm

I read today that Snowy Mountains Hydro have signed a supply agreement with a wind installation business to supply “renewable energy” to pump water back to the storage dams when Snowy 02 pumped hydro is commissioned, present estimate 2028.

As the Transition To Renewable Energy wind and solar installations continue to be unreliable and when Snowy 02 cannot supply while being pumped when the wind permits the future governments in panic mode will be second to the outcry from consumers.

Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 4:59 am

Unfortunately these stats are only true because the developing countries are ramping up cheap reliable fossil fueled power faster than we are switching to reckless renewables. Great news for them but not so much for us.

Willem post
Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2022 6:10 am

Russia will come out stronger, because it will be supplying the developing countries with oil, gas and coal, who can pay in Rubles or their own currency, because they are friendly countries

Russia will not be supplying oil, gas and coal to Brussels-dominated countries, because they are unfriendly countries; these countries are using NATO to bark at Russian borders and fomenting color revolutions in Belarus and Kazakhstan

Reply to  Willem post
June 19, 2022 12:18 pm

Putin has been using war powers to kill or imprison everyone who has ever opposed him. As a result Putin will undoubtedly come out of this with more personal power. However, this will also result in many talented people deciding that Russia is not a safe place to live.
Russia on the other hand has been shown to be a paper tiger with an, at best, second rate military.
They have lost 10’s of thousands of young men, and 100’s of billions in military equipment, some of which they no longer have the ability to replace.
Russia’s neighbors are now on alert, NATO will gain at least 2 more members, on Russia’s borders, something Putin claimed was his reason for starting this war in the first place.

Willem post
Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2022 2:01 pm

Turkey is more concerned about Sweden harboring terrorists than Putin is about Sweden joining NATO

Reply to  Willem post
June 19, 2022 5:05 pm

Sweden isn’t harboring terrorists.
Sweden has already agreed to make the changes in it’s law that Turkey has demanded.

Putin is so unconcerned, that’s he’s been threatening Sweden with dire consequences.

redhead girl
Reply to  Willem post
June 20, 2022 6:29 am

Another reason for fast-tracking alternate energy sources Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 5:32 am

When the Plannedemic hit and offices were closing and all appearances were indicating the inevitable collapse of Western economies, I was looking at alternative landing sites for expatriation. Uruguay seemed most interesting because it is the most stable of Western Hemisphere countries. The vast bulk of the power comes from hydro, the Globalist Destabilizers added wind and solar, but the government there isn’t as suicidal as English speaking countries and has modernized with thermals, Punta del Tigre B (gas) being a whole new addition.

I’m not sure how much I want to rely on hydro to keep my computers running. The killer is that flying in and out of Uruguay to the former United States is a multi-day affair.

Willem post
Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 6:00 am

My wife said, oh that is like I am busting my tail cleaning the house, but the people living in it are making it just as dirty as before, year after year; a woman’s work is never done!

It would be interesting to determine the turnkey capital cost of the 2% slice, and the increase in cost of household electric rates in countries where the RE madness is raging in full force, such as Germany, Denmark, etc.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Willem post
June 19, 2022 8:10 am

I cannot speak to Germany Energiewende. But some years ago did a post for Judith Curry on California. The US answer is a bit over 2x at wholesale electricity prices.

Willem post
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 19, 2022 2:25 pm

You say, whatever is added as RE electricity has an LCOE a little more than two times traditional.

What is not generally understood, the first additional 2% would be 2.1 times traditional, the second additional 2% would be 2.2 times traditional, the third additional 2% would be 2.3 times traditional, etc., due to expensive increased storage to cover 5 to 7 day wind/solar lulls, which occur throughout the year, and seasonal variations.

Russia is reducing gas to Europe to slowdown/halt its ability to sufficiently fill reservoirs for the 2022/2023 winter.

Russia wants Europe to find out just how difficult it will be without Russian gas, i.e., cause maximum blowback on the EU, due to its various sanctions on Russia. EU unity regarding the expense of Ukraine fighting a proxy war, will further fray

Germany was sending Russian gas to Poland and filling reservoirs, but now Germany has no left-over gas to send to Poland and to fill reservoirs

Reply to  TonyL
June 20, 2022 6:00 am

It’s like going to the opera and then checking my watch…now I’m getting the side-eye from wifey.

Ron Long
June 19, 2022 3:44 am

Trillions and trillions, oh my! This whole CAGW nonsense is going faster and faster down a street that is a dead-end. Environmentalists don’t like hydroelectric? This is like CNN host Anderson Cooper saying he is “holding the rich accountable” (implying that the non-rich can run wild?). This lurch to the left is going to be held accountable some day. Wait for it.

Reply to  Ron Long
June 19, 2022 5:37 pm

Anderson Cooper bad mouthing the rich ?.. haha, now that’s an oxymoron

June 19, 2022 4:05 am

If ‘they’ truly believed greenhouse warming was an existential threat, we would have had a Manhattan Project for safe nuclear technology. IMHO, the main danger is that some nuclear technologies lend themselves too easily to bomb making. As far as I can tell, there are many that don’t.

Even in the light of slow development, there is still progress on small modular reactors. example Since the Westinghouse eVinci technology doesn’t require a scientific breakthrough, we can predict that it’s actually feasible. The goal is power that is a lot cheaper than diesel for remote communities and mines, etc.

A caveat: Over the years all the technologies that I was watching succeeded at the pilot plant stage that never made to the market, mainly because of economics.

Reply to  commieBob
June 19, 2022 4:54 am

some nuclear technologies lend themselves too easily to bomb making. As far as I can tell, there are many that don’t.

Most assuredly. Never miss out on a good opportunity.
Use a program based on graphite moderated U reactors. The resulting plutonium production could used for nuclear weapons and sold to all interested parties within the US, to help offset the cost of fuel reprocessing.
Consider the market.
A “keeping up with the Jones” attitude would sweep through American suburbia and everybody would buy one. A truly American “Must Have” to show off at the summertime family cook-outs.
One side effect would to be making the invasion of the US mainland unthinkable to any foreign competitor.
I can see the marketing now.
Be the first one on your block to have your very own KWZ 400kT nuke. Powerful, of course. And also Sleek, Stylish, affordable. Available in many designer colors, or go for your own custom paint job. Satisfaction Guaranteed.

The future is ours.

Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 7:57 am

I remember my 7th grade Science teacher, Mr. Moody (who was the Maine Long Distance Runner State Champion) saying that the Russians would never invade Maine because every kid over 8 had a gun.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 7:58 am

Your pre-investment marketing survey would’ve probably suggested to replace “nuke” with
“CO2 free” & to use “designer LGBQWERTY+ colors” to cause sales to skyrocket!

Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 19, 2022 9:16 am

Marketing is the magic we use to convince people to buy products they do not need or want with money they do not have. It is powerful stuff. Here, we go with whatever works.
Good suggestions.

Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 12:21 pm

While there are a lot of people who believe this, the vast majority of marketing is used to convince people to buy your stuff instead of someone else’s.

June 19, 2022 4:24 am

Maybe investors have realised that the assets they own are going to need removal and replacement within one more decade?

And the costs involved in renewal will just about wipe out their returns on investment?

Here in Australia the Federal Liberal-National Coalition Government that lost the recent election provided for an end to Labor’s Renewable Energy Target and incentive subsidies for private sector wind and solar installations in 2030. And as a result there have been fewer Development Application received by the State Governments for new projects.

Paul Stevens
June 19, 2022 4:28 am


June 19, 2022 4:47 am

The fastest growing energy source today is Fossil Fuels. Affordable, reliable and PLENTIFUL!

Reply to  Ron
June 19, 2022 11:45 pm

Did you mean old fools elected to parliaments?

June 19, 2022 5:02 am

Infographic of IEA energy stats:

comment image

Reply to  Ron Clutz
June 19, 2022 5:30 am

It could do with a date for this graph, otherwise quite meaningless.

Reply to  Beagle
June 19, 2022 6:11 am

The link in the graphic leads to IEA 2020 report with 2018 the most recent stats, as shown above.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
June 19, 2022 3:48 pm

Thanks Ron

Reply to  Beagle
June 19, 2022 3:46 pm


Reply to  Ron Clutz
June 19, 2022 8:23 am

All primary energy is not equal. Can’t use hydro to fly an airplane, can’t use solar for anything at night. Nukes aren’t going to get you any plastics, paint, fertilizer or other hydrocarbon derivatives (at least not economically)…

Reply to  Fraizer
June 19, 2022 8:55 am

Indeed. That’s why the Build Back Better plan is to electrify everything.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
June 19, 2022 9:40 am

I’m not aware of any method to produce plastic, paint, or fertilizer from electricity.

Reply to  Brad-DXT
June 19, 2022 10:53 am

Me either.
Nor am I aware of any grid that can power everything.

June 19, 2022 5:04 am

It’s only money. /sarc

The obvious green response will be “use less energy” Net Zero and all that

They don’t miss a trick

Dave Fair
Reply to  fretslider
June 19, 2022 8:03 am

Yeah, telling people to lower their standard of living has really worked well in the past. Jimmy Carter comes to mind.

June 19, 2022 5:23 am

I would really like to know, if the answer isn’t “depends”, what is the maximum mix of unreliable/vanity energy sources to be added before the grid is deemed unstable. And by “unstable” I mean to the point where brownouts/blackouts occur at a statistically more significant rate than before being included.

It would also be interesting to know roughly what margins of electricity instability before critical-mission industries (silicon manufacture, data warehouse, etc.) strike areas off as No-Go Zones because the TCO of backup energy makes other locations seem better options.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  AWG
June 19, 2022 6:15 am

“Depends” is as good an answer as any over the short-term, as in depends on how long existing sources of reliable energy can be maintained in operating condition. Over the long-term, the definitive answer is ‘zero’, because over this time frame reliable energy sources will no longer be operable and will not have been replaced, having been starved of capital for political reasons.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 19, 2022 6:19 am

So its not technical will, its political will.

To have reliable energy a society needs to run away from socialized energy and in the case of the former United States, it may only be possible to have reliable energy in the long term with a Constitutional Amendment since political swings and public memory is shorter and more cyclic than the ROI of big ticket energy production.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  AWG
June 19, 2022 6:27 am

‘…, its political will.’

Yes, and more to the point, it’s the political will to defend and uphold the Constitution we already have.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 19, 2022 8:05 am

“… a Republic, if you can keep it.”

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 19, 2022 9:12 am

Depends” is as good an answer as any over the short-term

“Depends” is the answer you get when you ask Joe Biden:
“Boxers or briefs?”

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 10:47 am

See Tony, that’s why you can’t be President – mean tweets!

Rich Davis
Reply to  TonyL
June 19, 2022 11:46 am


Those outside the US may not know that Depends is the brand name of an adult diaper.

Solar Mutant Ninjaneer
Reply to  AWG
June 19, 2022 10:00 am

I recall during solar conferences I attended about 10 years ago (I’m a retired solar engineer) that the break point, determined by running commercial utility-scale computer programs, is around 30%. Of course it “depends” on available interconnects and the utilities’ load profile, etc., but it generally falls out at around 30% renewables max.
Even though I am a solar engineer, I tend to agree with the commenters on this site. The idea of transitioning to 100% renewables is nuts! My training informs me that this whole greenhouse gas theory is totally misapplied, and consequently wrong. The world needs energy. Renewables are only the most recent option. Climate change is not something we need to concern ourselves with.

Reply to  Solar Mutant Ninjaneer
June 19, 2022 1:59 pm

Yes, wind & solar serve remote mining & cattle outstations admirably as supplemental power sources when conditions allow.

Been doing that for decades.

But the industrial scale diesel generators + submarine class battery arrays are still the mainstay power sources.

Reply to  Solar Mutant Ninjaneer
June 19, 2022 2:53 pm

I take it that the 30% in “around 30% renewables max” is nominal capacity, ie. only about 10% of actual generation.

Solar Mutant Ninjaneer
Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 20, 2022 10:20 am

No. It is about 30% total generation, Again, 30% is not hard and fast. It “depends” on lots of factors. 30% is a kind of inflection point, where costs really start increasing and you begin to see reliability issues. (The tradeoff between the cost of extra dispatchable capacity and “fuel saving” from renewable become untenable.)

I have been trying to track this 30% vs. real world experience. I think California is near 30%, for example, which tends to support this rule of thumb 30%. I live in New Mexico, which just made 20% in 2020 and are on our way to 50% by 2030. We are already starting to get warnings of brown outs, maybe this year, but for sure next year. So it seems to be playing out in the real world.

The point is utilities can only support so much weather dependent renewable generation. 100% renewable generation is not going to happen!

Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2022 6:32 am

The ultimate irony is that “green energy” is nothing but a gigantic leach sucking the life out of our energy systems. The bigger the leach gets, the worse off everyone is. It is tragic that humanity has come to this point where, through greed, power-lust and stupidity we undermine our very existence. When will it end, is the question.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2022 8:07 am

It will end when the average person is made aware of the of the leach; consequences.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2022 10:06 am

“sucking the life out of our energy systems” AND reducing the average wealth of all mankind by wasting resources on redundant (renewable) “energy” supplies due to the need to have reliable dispatchable power plants for when the wind does not blow at night.

This, like all leftist, totalitarian, crony capitalist initiatives will just make all people poorer except those in power and their oligarchs/cronies.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2022 10:32 am

“through greed, power-lust and stupidity”….you just provided the definition of the “green energy” phenomenon.

Old Man Winter
June 19, 2022 7:02 am

The 2% increase is the ACTUAL energy delivered, not the high name plate rating given it.
Currently, there’s 14GW nameplate each for wind & solar in the UK. The 2022 average for
wind’s 7GW generated- 50% of nameplate rating. Last yr, it was 5.5GW- 40% nameplate-
average for wind even though the UK’s a wind “hotspot” for Europe.

Solar’s the obvious disastrous waste of $$$ they knew it would be even before the first panel was
installed. The 2022 average’s 1.4GW- 10% of nameplate. Last yr, it <1.2GW- 8% of nameplate.
This is no surprise since the UK’s further N than the Alps & the US & has a lot of
fog/clouds/precipitation. With solar, they had their heads where the sun don’t shine!

June 19, 2022 8:30 am

Net Zero means that you must generate electricity using nuclear power if you want to remain living in the modern world.

There is no reliable alternative as the math shows. Greenies have a sales problem as they can’t deliver on their promises of carbon free power without it. It won’t take long after sitting in the dark for Net Zero proponents to change their tune, which may be the plan anyway.

June 19, 2022 8:43 am

As someone said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

June 19, 2022 8:45 am

Sorry to burden WUWT writers and readers with, you know, actual facts. But as Mark Twain is credited with saying, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”. It all depends upon how you twist, or don’t twist the facts

Such as, failing to mention that “renewable” energy includes some very old and non-growing sectors of energy production, such as hydropower and geothermal, where hardly any new investment has been placed. They never will grow by much, but by including them in the growth calculations, it minimizes the appearance of growth in the newer renewables that have been the focus of most of the actual new investment in renewables.

Well, here’s some facts for you all:

Between 2010 and 2020 the following sectors of energy production (actual production not “capacity”) and their growth percentage over that decade:

Wind – plus 301%

Utility scale solar – plus 26,317%

Hydropower – 0% growth.

There – you see, all that investment did in fact produce humongous growth in wind and solar.

My my, propaganda is so self-defeating. If you want to say that wind and solar are not the sole solution to CO2 emissions and air pollution generally, fine. That is totally defensible. But going way out on an extremely thin branch of propaganda and then sawing it off does not advance your argument.

One can be just like me – a non-believer in CO2 induced global warming – but not hate renewable sources of energy, or electric vehicles, or other technologies that warmunists put all their hopes in for a hopeless cause.

Unfortunately most of you sound just like the age old silly Luddites who opposed every new technology that ever advanced humanity, ever since the birth of the industrial revolution.

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 9:09 am

The author also bemoans the “trillions” invested in renewable energy production, but somehow forgets to mention the vastly more trillions invested in non-renewable oil and gas production. According to other figures, total worldwide cumulative investment in renewables is only $755 billion world wide, a far cry from “trillions”, according to Bloomberg, of which $105 billion was invested by the USA. Of the grand total, the increase in 2021 was 27%, or $203 billion world wide, and $28 billion in the USA.

Let’s see, just taking the USA alone, our average cost of production of crude oil is $36 a barrel. Add in another $30 a barrel for refining the crude oil into useable fuel and petrochemical feed stock. That’s $66 a barrel of crude inclusive of capital investment and operating cost, not counting transportation end users and marketing costs. US crude oil production in 2021 was about 11 million barrels per day, or $4.015 billion barrels a year. Times $66 a barrel, that comes to $265 billion a year.

As compared to $28 billion for renewables last year in the US. That’s nearly a 10 to 1 ratio of investment. However, once the capital investment is made in renewable power plants, all that’s left thereafter is annual O&M costs, which are far cheaper than any fossil fuel plants because, well, the fuel is free. And given the average useful life of a wind or solar plant being somewhere around 25-35 years, it’s only a tiny allowance of a few billion a year to reserve for future replacement. While that $265 billion in invested in oil and gas is a never ending expense, because old oil fields and individual wells have to be constantly replaced with new investments, typically producing at a high rate only a handful of years.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 10:37 am

You forgot to add the cost for energy storage for the “cheap” unreliable RE. One estimate
put it at $60B/1GW reliable solar power for 5 consecutive “dark days”, not including land,
easements, additional grid & maintenance, …. The US uses 450GW/hr electricity. Since
wind & solar are the “Big Kahunas”, 40% of 450GW = 180. 180 * $60B =$11T. That’s just
for solar. Wind may be a bit cheaper as it doesn’t have that nighttime glitch although I’ve
seen up to 7 straight windless days in the UK. Stored hydro’s a lot better but it may not be
where the solar & wind are & it could be scarce in a drought/dry areas like TX.
I’m sure you have a couple of $T in petty cash!


Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 19, 2022 11:54 am

Yes why do utility scale wind & solar proponents ALWAYS neglect to make $0 expense provision for adequate critical dispatchable backup electricity storage?

Let’s for a minute say that they aren’t being deliberately disingenuous, rather they just aren’t capable of thinking through a fairly straightforward practical business solution proposition.

I reckon it’s because the prospect of a prominent place at the taxpayer subsidies trough so clouds their thinking that they discard all traces of basic rationality.

(which is probably the quintessential definition of leftists generally?)

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 20, 2022 6:51 am

He also forgot, as Prof Dieter Helms of Oxford University puts it talking about the UK (Emphasis added)

“In a renewables energy system, there needs to be a lot more capacity to meet any given demand. In theory, if there was no wind, then there would need to be another complete system on standby. As demand keeps going down, in part because of de-industrialisation (industrial demand is down 20% since 2000) capacity has been going up towards the 100GW mark, an increased requirement of over 20GW for a significantly lower total demand. It will need to go up a lot more with 40GW of offshore wind as planned. It seems to have escaped the notice of all those projecting that the costs of transition would be very low, and claiming that renewables are cost competitive with fossil fuels, that all this capacity has to earn a reasonable rate of return. It is a cost of renewables.

Much of this cost shock is disguised when the amount of wind in the system is low. Up to around 20% of total capacity, the existing systems can handle intermittency. But as capacity rises beyond this point, the costs start to rise – more than proportionally.

Professor Helm is by no means a climate change sceptic but he is an expert in energy policy which is his main area of research.

Extracts from ‘Energy Policy’, 30th March 2022


Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 10:59 am

Again a phony comparison. Oil and gas and coal were developed to serve a need by entrepreneurs using their own and other investors money, not the governments/taxpayers money, and the businesses only continued to exist because they MADE A PROFIT selling their product.

And now you are just resorting to flat out lies. Please provide a link to a “peer reviewed scientific paper” showing wind and solar ANYWHERE in the world, reaching 35 years life, much less on average worldwide. 30 years? 25 years? I call BS.

And when “renewable” suppliers are required to provide dispatchable electricity 24/7, then you can start talking about the fuel cost of FF electricity, but you can’t when there is no comparison between dispatchable electric generation and unreliable generation.

So Duane, do you turn off ALL of your electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, you know, walking the walk while you talk the talk?

As to refinery costs, the Brandon policies put in place his first day in office has made it so that many small refineries that were functioning during the TRUMP! administration can no longer affordably operate because regulations suspended by TRUMP! require them to buy “carbon” offsets. Not only that but the Brandon clowns are demanding the waived credit purchases be made up, greatly increasing the costs to operate. I am sure all of this is acceptable to you. Gas at $5.00 a gallon hurting the poorest among us much, you think?

Why do you hate the poor, Duane?

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 12:39 pm

Those trillions invested in non-renewable power have created the power grid and sources of power that work and even better, work when needed.
The trillions invested in Duane’s toys have been entirely wasted. The fact that government has to force people to invest in renewables is all the evidence that anyone needs to prove that renewables are not ready for prime time, and quite probably never will be.

As to Duane’s cost of production numbers, they are undoubtedly as made up as the other numbers he’s been tossing about.

Even if the 10 to 1 number is for once accurate, it’s resulted in a several hundred to 1 ratio in usable electricity.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2022 8:38 am

More importantly, the cost of the fossil fuel industry was paid by private investment and has paid off all of that investment and built much of our existing economy, brought billions out of poverty and into the middle class or more, provided a vast increase in the average life span of every human and at the same time made their lives much easier. Every single thing we need to sustain life has been positively affected buy this industry.

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 5:44 pm

It seems to be you are neglecting to include the cost of fossil fuel backup for wind and solar which must operate 24/7 to maintain the electric grids because wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable. Then, there’s the need to dump electricity when wind or solar generates too much and the need for utilities to buy electricity from other fossil fuel providers, often in other states for the US, when electricity is needed and wind and solar aren’t doing their things.
Plus, because neither wind nor solar work 24/7 and because fossil fuel plants, including nuclear, must back them up with Spinning Reserves in order to maintain the electric grid, pressure is put on the fossil fuel plants increasing their maintenance and operating costs and hastening their life-spans.
In addition, the constant ramping up and down to accept “green” energy increases the very CO2 emissions renewables are allegedly saving and increases real pollutants, to boot.

Duke Energy application points finger at solar for increased pollution

…“After committing $2 billion in tax credits, and more than $1 billion in electricity overpayments for solar power, we now learn from Duke that nitrogen oxides have actually increased, and that CO2 may be headed in the wrong direction,”
…“Renewable energy sounds good, but it performs terribly. If you want electricity available when you need it, you don’t want intermittent, unreliable, renewable energy,” Kish said. “It’s like a cancer on an efficient grid, with its ups-and-downs forcing other sources to pick up the slack in the most inefficient ways, which, in some cases, are more polluting.”

Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 8:52 am

The amounts of electrical capacity may have grown by yuge amounts, but those amounts have yet to over take the increased demand of electricity. Until the amounts of usable and dispatchable power from solar and wind out pace the ever increasing demand, they will never be useful or beneficial.

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 10:18 am

How short-sighted can you get? Petroleum products don’t just produce energy.

Electric vehicles are great for short trips as long as the batteries don’t catch fire. I prefer internal combustion, not spontaneous combustion.

Wind and solar is only a niche method to produce energy. They are not viable for large scale energy production in large part due to the footprint they require. There isn’t enough land available to generate our energy needs without sacrificing land for farming and living.
Not only us not being able to live there, birds and bats will have a hard time around windmills.
Not much can grow beneath solar panels. What does grow around solar panels is subject to heavy metals and chemicals leaching into the soil.
Recycling solar panels and windmill vanes and foundations is a future catastrophe awaiting us.

Depending on wind and solar for a major portion of energy production would require less customers ie. people. That seems to be a popular outcome.

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 10:42 am

As I posted above.

““sucking the life out of our energy systems” AND reducing the average wealth of all mankind by wasting resources on redundant (renewable) “energy” supplies due to the need to have reliable dispatchable power plants for when the wind does not blow at night.
This, like all leftist, totalitarian, crony capitalist initiatives will just make all people poorer except those in power and their oligarchs/cronies.”

Explain to me, Duane, why you hate the poorest of humans? Everything “renewable” is just a total waste of resources. It is not “Luddite” to not support NEW industries that only exist due to government subsidies, rebates and forced use of unreliable outputs by government decrees, as well as government’s actions doing much to tax and regulate successful industries in an attempt make the “renewable” energy and electric car industries to appear affordable by comparison. Tesla and other electric cars would not be be affordable even to “wealthy idealist leftists” in the US were it not for federal tax rebates and the federal CAFE gas mileage standards where the ICE car manufacturers MUST buy the 0 FF usage credits from them. Again, making taxpayers and ICE car purchasers subsidize GREEN!

The use of steam power to run factories during the Industrial Revolution was NOT subsidized by or enforced by government. The use of FF to replace whale oil and coal gas was also not forced on the world by governments. The use of hydroelectric generation was not some leftist touchy feely BS initiative It was entrepreneurs using their own money who ran the transmission lines to distribute the power generated, NOT, as with “renewables” having the expense of running transmission lines to the remote locations subsidized by all utility rate payers, including the poorest among us, so cronies can make big bucks AND ALSO hide the true cost of installing ‘renewables”. INDUSTRY found a better way and developed that better way without all of what “renewables” and electric cars companies get from government, and made a profit doing so.

This, like all leftist, totalitarian, crony capitalist initiatives, will just make all people poorer except those in power and their oligarchs/cronies.

So Duane, try to pick a valid comparison.

The Luddites are those who think “science” is on the side of “renewables” when that is obviously NOT the case. People at WUWT who can see this as it IS realize that “renewables” are NOT a ready for prime time technology, even though TRILLIONS have been thrown at this idiocy.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Drake
June 20, 2022 7:05 am

In the UK Fuel Tax and Vehicle Excise Duty (commonly known as ‘road tax’) produced £37 billion for the Treasury in 2019-20. EVs are currently exempt from paying these.

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 12:30 pm

DuhWayne, a large percentage growth in a tiny quantity is still a tiny quantity.

You remind me of an old George Carlin routine;

Carlin says, “Preparation H shrinks swollen membranes [holds hands 3 feet apart] 301% [moves hands to 1 foot apart].

If this [hands 3 feet apart] is your problem, than this [hands 1 foot apart] is no solution.’

The routine makes it clear that percentages don’t mean a thing all by themselves. It takes a true idiot to not know that.

Oh, and you also remind me of the membrane that Carlin is referring to.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  meab
June 19, 2022 3:34 pm

“a large percentage growth in a tiny quantity is still a tiny quantity.”

That’s the way I was looking at it, too.

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 12:35 pm

What Duane goes out of his way to not say, is that these large percentage increases results in extremely tiny increases in actual power.

Trillions invested, nothing usable out. That impresses Duane.

If we weren’t being forced to pay for it, and if it weren’t ruining the grid, nobody would hate renewable power.
The fact that Duane once again ignores this point just goes to demonstrate that Duane is not interested in an honest debate.
Pointing out a few of the many problems with electric vehicles, is not hate, though the fact that once again the rest of us are being forced to subsidize Duane’s energy and transportation choices is sufficient reason for hatred.

Finally Duane actually believes that new equals good or even better.
Then again, Duane has never shown the ability to think.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 1:49 pm

Duane twists the facts beyond all recognition, then calls us “Luddites”. Hilarious.

Reply to  Duane
June 19, 2022 6:11 pm

“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Warren Buffet

June 19, 2022 9:20 am

Another report last year, from 2009 to 2019, said +0.1%
more primary energy from solar, wind and hydro, far from 2%
from 2010 to 2020.
That suggests the estimates are very rough
or they may be biased.
The goal is reducing CO2 emissions.
Biomass / wood burning DOES NOT QUALIFY.
Perhaps the two “studies” defined biomass differently?

June 19, 2022 9:27 am

And the more renewables added the more reliability decreases.

June 19, 2022 11:11 am

I grew up in Pakistan, a poor country that suffers from “unprecedented” heat every summer. Pakistan also suffered from insufficient and unreliable electricity. Until recently, people in Pakistan learned to live with power failures. Fortunately, Honda, Suzuki, and other Japanese companies began selling low cost generators, which made life more bearable for those that could afford them. Unfortunately, small generators are very polluting, air quality would deteriorate whenever electricity would go out.

I now live in Michigan in a prosperous upper middle class community. We still have somewhat reliable electricity, but that is now in jeopardy because our utilities are being forced to shut down coal fired power plants. Indeed, we have been warned that power cut backs are likely this week because a heat wave is predicted. Most people in my neighborhood have whole house generators so they won’t be impacted. The poorer people in Detroit will suffer from climate change induced heat wave.

Reply to  Mohatdebos
June 19, 2022 11:31 am

“The poorer people in Detroit will suffer from climate change induced heat wave.” It’s called “weather”.

Reply to  Mohatdebos
June 19, 2022 12:44 pm

Are you trying to claim that prior to “global warming”, there were no heat waves in Detroit?

History begs to differ.

Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2022 3:49 pm

Just the opposite. Detroit and the upper Midwest has always had heat waves. But, they were attributed to weather. Now, they are attributed to climate change.

Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2022 6:16 pm

I think he means climate change induced heat wave due to the stupidity of Climate Change idiots making power unreliable and unaffordable and that hits the poor the worst, not the affluent.

Reply to  .KcTaz
June 20, 2022 8:40 am

Yep, like when its hot out and you cant use your AC because the power is out.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mohatdebos
June 19, 2022 3:48 pm

“Unfortunately, small generators are very polluting, air quality would deteriorate whenever electricity would go out.”

Interesting. Easily noticeable?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 20, 2022 8:23 pm

Very much so

June 19, 2022 3:18 pm

Weather energy extractors absorb more energy to make, transport, erect on site and maintain than they can ever produce for an on-demand power system.

Building them in the hope of reducing fossil fuel consumption is futile. After 20 years of building them and observing the result, one would imagine the futility would be clear to all but the slowest of minds.

Reply to  RickWill
June 19, 2022 6:23 pm

When there’s Big Bucks involved, as there are with Gov. subsidized “renewables,” the quickest of minds hone in like bees to honey. That they are futile is irrelevant.

Here are wind’s rent-seekers- AWEA BOD: https://engage.awea.org/About-Us/Our-Board
“When all of the subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees given to the companies on AWEA’s board are counted, the grand total comes to a staggering $5.1 trillion…”


Two years ago, Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett, explained why his companies are in the wind business. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,” he said. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
At least, Buffet is honest.

Andy Pattullo
June 19, 2022 5:47 pm

Such a great thing that the green conspiracists are so incompetent.

June 19, 2022 8:02 pm

It is FINE to use solar energy – it’s ROI sucks – BUT as a mitigation tool for peak energy usage in summer time is a fine use for it.

Wind… Well what can I say. There are SOOOOO many issues with wind power.

Solar I suppose can be bad as well if you go too far with it.

Iain Reid
June 19, 2022 9:38 pm

When these statistics are collected, is the figure for renewable generators name plate (As I suspect) or average output, as the latter is far smaller?

Reply to  Iain Reid
June 19, 2022 11:49 pm

To begin with I doubt that most of our politicians understand the difference between Nameplate and Capacity Factor, and from what I read Nameplate is the preference for sales and marketing purposes to impress the gullible voting public.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dennis
June 20, 2022 7:15 am

Have you noticed all new wind farms are heralded by a media release saying “enough to power X number of homes” but never add “when the wind blows”?

Andy H
June 20, 2022 12:44 am

The issue isn’t just that renewbles are not expanding fast enough. It is that they don’t generate wealth. 20 years ago I worked out that the GDP to oil use ratio was the same for every country in the World, including those that were into renewables in a large way. The only countries that were off the line had messed up economies. Renewables did not make an economy bigger- they were roughly neutral. The claimed benefits of going green in a “green revolution” will not happen.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Andy H
June 20, 2022 8:21 pm

They cannot produce enough energy to replace themselves so they are a negative.

Reliance on them means they dwindle to nothing
Then we all die!!!


redhead girl
June 20, 2022 6:27 am

I imagine that this stagnation would warm your heart so to speak.

Pat from kerbob
June 20, 2022 8:19 pm

$Trillions to create a rounding error.
The very definition of crap

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights