Based on an article from zerohedge.
Investor Confidence Wanes in Renewable Energy
A recent article highlights a notable shift in investor sentiment away from renewable energy.
“Reuters reports that renewable energy funds suffered a net outflow of $1.4 billion in the July to September 2023 quarter.”
This marks the largest-ever quarterly outflow, signaling a significant retreat from the sector. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index, which encompasses major renewable energy companies, has also seen a decline of 30 percent this year, further illustrating the dwindling investor confidence in the net zero mission.
Political Skepticism Surrounds Net Zero Goals
Political voices across the globe are expressing skepticism and concern regarding the feasibility and impact of net zero policies. Australian Nationals Senator Matt Canavan, for instance, has described net zero as a “soundbite” and “totally insane,” emphasizing the extensive reliance of various sectors on fossil fuels.
““Almost everything we grow, we make, we do in our society relies on the use of fossil fuels,” he said.”
Global Shifts in Energy Policies
Various countries seem to be subtly shifting away from aggressive net zero targets, reflecting a more pragmatic approach to energy policies. For instance, the UK has delayed the banning of new petrol and diesel cars and residential gas heating, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stating,
“We’re not going to save the planet by bankrupting the British people.”
Similarly, France’s President Macron has refrained from setting a definitive date for phasing out fossil fuels.
Questioning the Science Behind Net Zero
Critics are also questioning the scientific basis of net zero policies. Geologist Professor Ian Plimer has criticized the manipulation of temperature records, stating,
“The fundamentals of science are you do not tamper with the original evidence. That has happened with our temperature record, where the past has been cooled and it makes it look as if we’re warming. That is fraud.”
Conclusion: A Reevaluation of Net Zero?
The article paints a picture of growing skepticism and reevaluation of net zero policies across various sectors, from investment to politics. The retreat of investors, coupled with political voices advocating for a more balanced and practical approach, suggests that the net zero ship might indeed be navigating through turbulent waters.
H/T Yooper
In a Green Economy, Net Zero is your take home pay
A “green economy” cannot sustain the humans alive today.
“Net zero” cannot sustain even a small fraction of the humans alive today.
They are part of the agenda of the depopulation cult.
Not to mention that CO2 is actually good for the planet and it’s inhabitants and does not contribute to warming the planet – that’s the sun’s job
A dreadfully expensive cure for a problem that does not exist is up there on the scale of folly.
The Little Ice Age ended about 1850, which is also the start of “global warming”. The LIA was hardly a Golden Age, better characterized by famine, war, and plague. And of course, any warming from that low point must be a bad thing, because?
Wind and solar are only attractive to either the terminally innumerate, or those seeking to destroy industrial civilization.
“…or those seeking to destroy industrial civilization.”
_____________________________________________
See my post above.
Below Duh!
As a former head of the UNIPCC stated – the environmental environmental movement is more about the destruction of capitalism the Climate
This is a good article but I have damn little confidence in Wall Street or politicians. Both of them will follow a dollar wherever it leads them. It is the average guy realizing net zero and CAGW for what it is. You haven’t seen anything yet. When a strong minority of average guys sees the light CAGW is history.
Bob the “average guys” seeing the light are now growing in numbers at a rapid rate. And we are informed too thanks to sites such as this one. We are speaking out and we are relentless.
Ask the car manufacturers what the “average guys” are buying today. EV sales are going down, not up. That should be an indication of “something” going on with the “average guys”.
What? I think you misunderstood my comment! I saw the light years ago thanks to WUWT and others and I’ve been speaking out against the ‘green’ industry for years! I am a part of the “average guys” who woke up long ago and we’re actively spreading the truth.
You can always rely on politicians and Wall Street to lie, but their actions always betray them.
The long massively profitable GreenFraud is ending.
Oh dear, someone has pressed “paste” twice.
______________________________________________________________
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations – Source
The man is some kind of dictatorial idiot. All of the UN seems to be communist in outlook.
Yes but it’s hard to suck up to Putin and the gang at present and they have to be a bit mindful of the Yellow Vests and deplorables. Their Hamas pals aren’t doing them any favours either in that regard.
Russia is far more against Islamic extremists than most western nations, given the moslem population of many of it’s states. The ‘pals’ of Hamas are Qatar, Iran, Turkiye and large parts of most of the middle east countries’ populations. It’s a powder keg that Hamas are eager to light the fuse of and most other countries are hoping to put out, Russia included.
Russia may be against local Muslim extremists, but Russia has a long, long history of supporting Muslim extremists in other countries.
As to Russia wanting to put out the fuse, Moscow was quite quick to condemn Israel as being the cause of all the violence earlier this week.
I hope all the renewable energy companies go bust. The renewable energy companies involved in all the renewable energy projects I have objected to were serial liars just in the business of getting hold of subsidies for environmentally damaging projects.
Without the subsidies they cannot survive and a bankrupt world cannot continue the subsidies
Oh no!!!
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Yep, It is such a pity, isn’t it 😉 😉
I really want to see AlanJ’s take on this.
I rather like slap-stick comedy ! 🙂
Good,
Plenty coming up. Seen the polls?
b.
Oh yeah.. In Australia, and NZ ! 🙂
See comment below. ! 🙂
Yesssss, all very nice but: Apart from Bonanza Time for lawyers, how’s this going to pan out for Little People?
Groan: Missed the picture
Link
As I keep saying it’s essential for government to repeal the Climate Change Act
I absolutely agree. There is no need to keep it, it was the most important reason to leave the EU.
It can be demonstrated with a single piece of paper and a pencil that Net Zero by 2035 is simply impossible. There’s not enough land area, wind sites, copper, steel, lithium, locations for self-immolating batteries, cement, etc., etc., to make it possible. There’s no possible political law that can change this. Just ask the ‘leader’ who decided to pass a law to make pi an even 3.0 so kids would have an easier time with geometry. It might be possible to solve one or two of the shortages with an extreme effort, but certainly not all of them. Never mind that by then it will be obvious to all but the ‘fellow travelers’, that CAGW ain’t C, and likely isn’t even A.
After 30 years, of subsidies, costing the UK, somewhere in the region of £250Bn+. Renewables are still not taking the strain on energy supply. Yet, our myopic politicians, cling desperately to the wreckage of a net-zero policy. I fear, they will never see the ‘light’, whether by intention or stupidity. Delaying ‘cut off’ dates, doesn’t change the agenda, or timescales.
I guess we should have anticipated this. The social cost of carbon is highly dependent on the discount rate. It is very high when interest rates are low justifying the capital expense of infrastructure build out and the social cost of carbon is very low when interest rates are high justifying keeping the current infrastructure.
Who knew the Federal reserve setting more rational interest rates that are 2% above the rate of inflation coupled with recurring $trillion deficits driving inflation higher, would be the agency putting the brakes on the energy transition. In other words the previous decade’s free money fed the green energy fantasy.
WOW..
“Voice” totalitarian racism DEFEATED in Australia.
Labor DEFEATED in New Zealand.election.
WINNING !!!!!
Signs of a return to our normally-sensible attitudes, which have taken a battering in recent years with Lefties in control. Unfortunately the Greenies seem to have had good results from today’s New Zealand election, so we must now rely on Northern Hemisphere sensible folk like the Germans (and even perhaps Sunak) to reject that CAGW / EV nonsense!
In NZ, looks like the National+ Act will be able to govern as a coalition,..
No Greens support needed 🙂
Labour.. gone !! 🙂
“The latest vote count projects that National would win 50 seats, Labour 34, the Greens 13, Act 12, NZ First 8 and Te Pāti Māori with four seats.”
“sensible folk like the Germans”
ROFLMHO
Slimon’s heroes go down in flames, so sad.
The net zero dogma has been wounded by a global price shock. How badly remains to be seen. Need to keep the pressure on.
From the article: ““The fundamentals of science are you do not tamper with the original evidence. That has happened with our temperature record, where the past has been cooled and it makes it look as if we’re warming. That is fraud.”
Every bit of this Net Zero insanity was spawned by the fraudulent Hockey Stick global temperature record.
Those who created this fraudulent global temperature record should be held accountable for their fraud, and the tremendous damage their fraud has done to the Western world.
Net Zero is failing because of economic issues. It should never have been implemented, had the science been followed, since “the science” does not show that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.
The Public and Politicians have been fooled into thinking we are living in the hottest times in human history, when the facts show this is not true. The only thing saying we are living in the hottest times in history is the fraudulent Hockey Stick global temperature chart.
The damages are in the TRILLIONS!, from this bogus, fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.
A very clear and concise message to the climate zealots – tampering with, and not preserving, the raw data is not science it is fraud.
Every climate zealot posting on this site needs to be aware that they are posting from a fraudulent, anti-scientific position as a starting point, and therefore the huge burden of proof is on them, not us.
Every climate zealot posting will likely need to provide clear and unambiguous proof of why they want to overturn a scientific position, not just to perpetrate the usual fraudulent, anti-scientific religious dogma.
Will they? Of course they won’t, they’re just ignorant little trolls!
“Every climate zealot posting on this site needs to be aware that they are posting from a fraudulent, anti-scientific position as a starting point,”
Yes, anyone who posts a bogus Hockey Stick chart as part of their argument is starting from an anti-scientific position.
They are basing their whole argument on a provable lie.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates financial entities and instruments in the USA, has very strict control over the truth and completeness of statements and claims of fact by these entities. Yet the use of the words “renewables” and “green” are both rampant and seemingly allowable in naming and operating the entities which the SEC regulates.
I see no proof whatsoever that the products and services on offer here are “renewable” or “green”. They are universally net energy and net CO2 production negative.
Prove my claim wrong, show me a single product or service in this category which uses the energy of this sector solely to construct more of its own product.
There are other ways to show the falsity of these “renewable” and “green” claims, but the SEC shows no interest in pursuing this fraud.
When I said net CO2 negative, I meant negative in the sense of negativity affecting CO2 levels, or more CO2 produced.
I’m no great fan of zerohedge, but this time the data is accurate: investors are dumping ‘green’ technology stocks faster than a nun on senna.
Well, as fast as they can find some other poor shmuck to unload them onto. What, may I ask, happens to the stock you hold if no-one is willing to buy it?
What happens to stock if no wants to buy it?
Nothing. It’s still a stock, which means you still have a ownership share in the company, for as long as the company continues to exist.
You still have voting rights at shareholder meetings.
If the company goes bankrupt, as a shareholder you will be sent a check for your share of the remains. A very small check indeed.
Exactly. Chances are a very, very small cheque.
Once again for the climatard morons too stupid to understand reality. The only “renewable” energy sources on this planet are coal, oil, gas, hydro and nuclear. Wind and solar are failures AND THEY ARE INTENDED TO FAIL.
As I’ve mentioned before, affordable energy supplies are the bedrock of modern, developed, civilizations. Currently, so-called renewable energy supplies are more expensive than fossil fuels,mainly, as I undrestand, because of the intermittency problem, the necessity of fossil fuel use in the production of renewable-energy devices, and the expensive, rare-earth materials required for current battery storage.
During the past several decades of development of renewable technology, it’s clear that the problem is ‘very challenging’. It could take another 50 years or more before we develop an affordable, safe, and energy-intensive battery for BEVs and general battery storage, and more efficient and durable solar panels that will produce much more energy than the energy required to produce and install them, and recyle them.
Is it not better to begin this transition to renewables now, rather than wait a hundred years when fossil fuels become really expensive due to diminishing reserves?
Attached is a graph of the escalating use of fossil fuels in recent decades. Imagine what the future use of fossil fuels would be if there were no scare about CO2 emissions.
See my statement above. The “renewables” on offer at present consume more energy and produce more CO2 than if they were never constructed and operated. So, no, unless a thermodynamic and CO2 proof is shown, these systems should not be implemented.
The only true “renewables” extant are hydropower and nuclear. They are both shown to be able to power 24/7 aluminum production facilites, which are a good indicator that they work.
“See my statement above. The “renewables” on offer at present consume more energy and produce more CO2 than if they were never constructed and operated.”
This is an important point that should be given more detailed analysis. Does a renewable device, during its lifetime, produce less or more energy than the amount of energy that would have been produced if all the fossil fuels associated with its production and installation, had been used to produce energy by conventional means?
A precise answer is difficult to produce because of the many variable conditions that exist where ‘so-called’ renewables have been installed. For example, I suspect that windmills located in regions that are unusually windy most of the time, will produce much more energy, during their lifetime, than the energy required to mine the minerals needed, and to manufacture and install the windmill.
However, there is probably no place on Earth where the wind blows constantly 24 hours a day, so their is always a problem with intermittency, to some degree, so the additional cost of providing a reliable and continuous of supply of electricity should be included in the cost analysis.
However, if the windmills which are located in a windy place are also located close to rivers and dams which are ideal to produce hydropower, then it’s quite feasible that a community that lives in the area could have a reliable supply of electricity which is cheaper than any alternative supply from fossil fuels or nuclear.
A similar situation could also apply to solar energy from PVPs. Imagine a new housing estate located in a sunny area, such as many parts of Australia. All the houses are designed to maximize the capture of solar energy. The roofs are all made with ‘solar tiles’, and the entire roof of each house is flat and tilted towards the sun, so, in effect, the entire housing estate is the equivalent of a ‘solar farm’ which doesn’t take up any additional space which could be used for other purposes.
Furthermore, all the houses have a room for cheap, safe and affordable battery storage, such as Sodium-Ion instead of Lithium-Ion, and most of the householders recharge their BEVs, free of any additional cost. What could be better?
You understand so-called renewables (actually not renewable) don’t work at present. They also wear out and need replacing in 15-20 years. Why would you think spending trillions on something that doesn’t work is a good idea? If there is some technological breakthrough that allows solar or wind power to actually work for modern society in a cost-effective manner, then people will choose to build those. Until then, it’s a massive, massive grift off of taxpayers and ratepayers, period.
“You understand so-called renewables (actually not renewable) don’t work at present. They also wear out and need replacing in 15-20 years. Why would you think spending trillions on something that doesn’t work is a good idea?”
They all work, but some work better than others. In order to find out which work well and which don’t work well, one has to spend money to produce them and trial them. This is basic science. We are currently in the process of a masive and expensive scientific experiment, outside of the laboratory.
However, those of us who are smart, understand that there are many politicians and administrators who seem unable to learn from history and continue to repeat the mistakes of history, whether it be starting another war, or continuing to build renewables in locations that are not ideally suited for their efficient performance.
This is just the nature of humanity, throughout history.
“Trialing them” is not what we’re talking about. “Basic science” is not spending trillions to build near-useless garbage. Researching them and making experiments is one thing; attempting to build utility-scale offshore/onshore wind and solar projects is another. I’m not sure I would pour money into research on wind/solar since those are both mature technologies that don’t seem to be too promising in terms of breakthrough – although if venture capitalists want to do that with their money, feel free! Risk your own and not those of us taxpayers/ratepayers.
You have made the case for continuing research, on the other hand you have proven that actually trying to install using today’s technology is a fool’s errand.
The point I’m trying to get across is that the continued escalation of the use of fossil fuels, as shown in the graph I attached in my previous post, needs to be addressed, sooner or later.
I’m posing the question, is it better to begin addressing this issue now, when fossil fuels are cheap and abundant, or wait until fossil fuel reserves become very expensive due to the depletion of reserves?
There are many commenters on this site who repeatedly claim that we have hundreds of years of fossil fuel reserves in the ground, but that’s at the current rate of useage. If the rate of increased consumption between 1950 and 2022 were to continue to increase at the same rate during the next 70 years, the annual consumption would be around 6 times the current consumption, before the end of this century.
Whilst I agree that Nuclear Energy is currently the best solution for electricity production, if one ignores all the potential dangers from accidents of all types, I find it strange that many commenters on this site raise the problem of the rare, spontaneous combustion of Lithium-ion batteries, as a reason why one should avoid buying a BEV, but ignore the dangers from nuclear accidents which could be far worse.
Compare the lives directly lost from those rarely reported battery fires and the lives directly lost from nuclear accidents. Weirdly, as you will no doubt find out, more lives have been lost as a result of Lithium-ion battery fires than from nuclear accidents.
Can you provide a link to the number of people, world-wide, that have died as a result of Lithium-ion battery fires from BEVs and energy storage?
I’ve found a link to the number of people who have died from nuclear accidents, but according to Wikipedia, the total numbers are disputed. There is apparently great uncertainty, which is something which true skeptics, with regard to AGW, should appreciate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
Another issue is the reduced use of nuclear power as a result of the few, but devastating, nuclear accidents. If the number of nuclear power plants were to expand, world-wide, as the sale of BEVs has, then imagine the increase in deaths from nuclear accidents.
The net outflow from renewable energy funds is real, but the analysis is much less well supported.
Let’s not forget we have almost generationally high interest rates in the US and Europe now. The last time interest rates were higher than today was December 2000, and it is far from clear the Fed is done since inflation is clearly not done.
Crypto, renewable, non-renewable, pretty much all speculative categories are suffering.
The fact that we must patiently wait for many “leaders” and wealthy elites in the Western world to catch up with what science, economics and social fundamentals have been telling us for many decades is sad. But that is our problem. We’ve had a great improvement in our quality of life over the past century, but it has been accompanied by a loss of interest in critical thinking, personal discipline and hard work. We are living with the results.
The Marxists sense the waning of AGW fear and are already laying the groundwork for their next catastrophe narrative ….. fresh water.
With enough energy, you will always have fresh water.
Well this is going to upset IRENA .
In their latest report the International Renewable Energy Agency bewail the fact that only 300GW of unreliables were added in 2022 whereas to meet the 1.5C target annual deployment of 1000GW was necessary.
And global investment in fossil fuels were almost twice those in unreliable energy over the same period
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy
EXCERPT:
New York State bureaucrats have signed contracts for offshore wind projects.
Sometime later, the owners said, we request up to 66% more, for our spreadsheets to make business sense.
The increase for the below four projects amounts to $25.35 billion, per Wind Watch.
New York State denied the request on October 12, 2023; “a deal is a deal”, said the Commissioner
Owners want a return on investment of at least 10%/y, and bank loans for risky projects are about 6.5%/y.
The 3.5% is a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project
Below contract prices, paid by Utilities to owners, are after a 50% reduction, due to US subsidies provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, NYS contracted at $110.37/MWh, needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, NYS contracted at $118.38/MWh, needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, NYS contracted at $107.50/MWh, needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, NYS contracted at $118.00/MWh, needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-wind-electricity-price-increases-by-66-wake
IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost
EXCERPT
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) provides politicians and media with false information, based on faulty models, the same as the IPCC does for the climate, instead of dealing with real-world measured data, as advocated by various Nobel price recipients, and hundreds of professors and engineers, who are members of CLINTEL, etc.
IRENA claims, it’s difficult get hold of hard data on the subject of onshore wind projects.
This is absolute nonsense.
Allow me to introduce you to “Companies House”, where you will find the audited financial accounts for every UK offshore wind project, and at least half of the onshore ones.
Hard data, freely available to download!
Offshore Wind in Deep Trouble in the US and UK
About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were awarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
No bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023; European companies protesting low UK subsidies.
No bids were submitted for a new floating offshore wind project off the coast of Scotland.
The Pro-Wind bureaucrats and Media, in the poor state of Maine, should pay attention
The bids were made under ‘contracts for Difference’ (CfDs) that guarantee future minimum prices to wind turbine producers.
The price offered by the UK government was around £60/€69 per megawatt hour (MWh)
Apparently, it is much too low to attract investors, who want at least £120 – £138/MWh, i.e. about 100% more.
Item 1
Levelized Cost of Energy, £/MWh, is Underestimated by IRENA
Many have tried to re-wright the laws of economics but sooner or later they float to the top unchanged. Reality sure is a hard pill for communists and net zero nutters. It is heartening to see the long march back to sanity has begun.
The US conservatives moved most of the large manufacturing to communist China to avoid environmental regulations. Communist China has done well after that.
US Conservatives had nothing to do with the overbearing rules and regulations, absurd tax policies, or the lessening of trade barriers put in place to level the playing field. That was the democrats, Joe, Barack, and Hillary have been faithfully keeping their commitments to China. Trump was making great strides in getting manufacturers to return to the US. BTW, corporate taxes were given as the number one reason corporations preferred building facilities in other countries.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Nut-Zero — IT-WILL-NEVER-HAPPEN
Investment flows are determined by the perception of profits; they are not fundamentally tied to the soundness of the underlying activity. If a product or service makes money in a free market investors will flock to it. If a product or service which cannot possibly be profitable is propped up by subsidies, mandates or other market distortions investors will still flock to it.
Warren Buffet made this clear. He is not a fool, but he invests in foolish activities because foolish subsidies make them a good investment.
It is also the case that with rising interest rates money will tend to migrate away from equities, as the smaller profit difference between equities and zero-risk fixed-rate instruments does not justify the increased risk.
In addition sometimes investors are caught up in a mass delusion and do stupid things because everyone around them is caught up in the same delusion. See the Dutch tulip mania in the early 17th century. Ditto all the people that gave Bernie Madoff their money.
All that being said, “renewable energy” — principally wind and solar — have significant problems detailed here many times and absent government subsidies and mandates would achieve minimal market penetration. The problems are so significant that at least some investors have gotten off the train and are looking for energy projects that can actually succeed on their own.
This is why Keven O’Leary (Shark Tank’s Mr. Wonderful) wants to build a new oil refinery.
Money can flow to bad ideas for a bunch of reasons. Likewise money can flee good ideas. Investors are never omniscient, and sometimes are even stupid.
Where money goes is not in and of itself a good indication of what makes sense.
The World Bank is in talks about a potential $1 billion loan to help enable South Africa to reform its energy sector……
The loan, which would be directly to the government rather than to state utility Eskom, is “under discussion”….
The World Bank loan would also support South Africa to make a “just transition” away from coal,
South Africa may get $1 billion loan from World Bank to tackle power crisis (msn.com)
The problem being the usual corruption with another leftist Utopia going down the gurgler
Some of these last minute doubters are disingenuous. The evidence they now claim to see has been there from the beginning. Anyone with an analytical mind could see faulty conclusions, questionable data, circular reasoning, wishful thinking, etc. We need our political leaders to be flooded with this information.