The stunning 37% plunge in Siemens Energy’s stock value should serve as a reality check for climate change alarmists. The cause, an escalating crisis in their wind turbine division, shows us that massive resources are being poured into a sector that is, in many ways, still uncertain and unproven. Instead of funneling resources towards potentially flawed green technology to tackle a problem that might not even exist, we should be focusing on optimizing reliable and efficient energy sources that have served us well for centuries, and a greater reliance on nuclear to provide base-load power.
The problem at Siemens Energy arose from a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components,” leading to a significant technical review and repair process expected to cost upwards of 1 billion euros ($1.09 billion). This is not just a company-specific problem but one that underlines the broader challenges facing the renewable energy sector.
The scale of these costs serves as a stark reminder of the vast amounts of money currently being funneled into green energy technology. While it might be considered commendable to explore new ways to generate power, it becomes problematic when the resources allocated towards these efforts are massively disproportionate to the measurable benefits they deliver, as well as proving to be unsustainable without massive government subsidies.
A significant portion of these investments is driven by the perceived need to combat climate change. However, there’s considerable debate around the magnitude and urgency of this issue. Is it truly necessary to disrupt entire sectors of the economy, invest trillions of dollars, and place our faith in unproven technologies to address a problem whose severity is far from unanimously agreed upon?
Siemens Energy’s troubles highlight the potential pitfalls of this approach. Despite enormous investments in wind energy, the technology is still prone to significant failures, leading to massive unforeseen costs. This raises questions about the overall effectiveness of this green transition and the wisdom of prioritizing these technologies over traditional energy sources.
Focusing on optimizing our existing energy infrastructure could lead to more immediate and cost-effective results. For example, improving the efficiency of traditional power plants, modernizing the electricity grid, and expanding nuclear power could all contribute to cleaner, more reliable energy without the risks and uncertainty associated with renewable technology.
Moreover, focusing on economic growth and technological innovation can also deliver environmental benefits. Prosperous societies have more resources to allocate towards environmental conservation, and technological advancements often lead to more efficient use of resources. Rather than rushing headlong into a green transition, if only saner heads could prevail, we could reconsider our approach to energy policy.
In conclusion, the fall in Siemens Energy’s stock value is a sobering reminder of the risks and costs associated with the foolhardy rush towards renewable energy. Instead of investing vast resources into a potentially overhyped climate change problem, we should take a more balanced approach, focusing on tried-and-tested technologies, economic growth, and innovation. This would ensure reliable, affordable energy for all, while still addressing environmental concerns in a realistic and economically sustainable way.
HT/resourceguy and Richard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unsustainable without Government subsidies? Please explain how Government subsidies converts a source of electricity which is erratic and at time zero and is not synchronous into a sustainable source. As near as I know, money will not cure either of these fatal shortcomings, regardless of the amount provided.
Story tip.
Paul Homewood has this related story online, as noted on twitter here.
<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>Just another £200 billion!<a href=”https://t.co/LMTkVqeaTJ”>https://t.co/LMTkVqeaTJ</a></p>— Notalotofpeopleknowthat (@Notalotofpeopl1) <a href=”https://twitter.com/Notalotofpeopl1/status/1672997437923901440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>June 25, 2023</a></blockquote> https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
That post is garbled and unintelligible.
Research idea: Do large tax incentive encourage large scale over promises in both engineering specs and financial assumptions?
The Wind Energy Index shot up in 2020, as a Biden win was becoming increasingly likely.
All his policies favoring wind energy with subsides, tax breaks, rebates and mandates to force diffuse, intermittent, anti environmental, fake green wind energy on the market for crony capitalism and politics.
Then, in January 2021, it was buy the rumor, sell the crap since Biden was inaugurated.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/wind
We identified this issue in these pages many years ago, unless I am having false memories.
Stated more succinctly, it was plainly obvious quite some time ago that these turbines were failing in far less than the stated lifespan of the units.
Some were going bad right out of the gate. And they kept failing at a steady clip, from the get go.
Next, it will be found out that the one’s mounted offshore in a salty environment will do very badly indeed.
Even most kinds of stainless steel do very poorly in a marine environment.
Add in some electricity for galvanic effects, and…oopsy daisy! So solly…not gonna get no 25 years, no how, no way.
And even 25 years is a very short lifespan for critical industrial infrastructure.
To author, a day later: “Instead of funneling resources towards potentially flawed green technology to tackle a problem that might not even exist, we should be focusing on “
“we” or “they”? The flow of the writing had a corporation as the primary actor.
“still uncertain and unproven.”
Not sure those are the correct adjectives. Walking across the street can be described that way, but usually the person applying those words is …