[image credit: beforeitsnews.com]
Conspiracy, mass delusion or a bit of both? Whatever it is, it’s not doing electricity consumers any favours.
– – –
There is a conspiracy of silence about wind power costs, says Andrew Montford @ Net Zero Watch.
I know, I do tend to be a bit repetitive about the cost of wind power.
How many times have I explained that the data is completely clear: that it’s expensive; and that if it’s getting any cheaper, it’s only doing so very slowly. In fact, for onshore wind the trend is clearly upwards.
My determination on the subject is prompted by the refusal of anyone in official circles to accept the facts.
To a man (and woman) they are absolutely resolute in their insistence that wind is staggeringly cheap because windfarms have agreed staggeringly low-priced “strike prices” for power. And because industry bodies and Whitehall says it is.
The fact that nobody has ever delivered power at such a price cuts no mustard with these people.
Nor does the observation that windfarm developers are all saying that new construction will not go ahead without further handouts.
And of course, if you point to the hard data in windfarm financial accounts, they really, really do not want to know at all.
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Renewables are going to be much more expensive than the CCC forecasts.
EVs are going to be much more expensive than the CC forecasts.
Batteries are not going to be anywhere near as efficient as the CC forecasts.
Demand is not going to drop anywhere near as much as the CCC forecasts.
Hydrogen will never happen on the scale the CCC forecasts.
So when this becomes undeniable, what is going to happen?
Och, for the sake of REPEATING myself so often: WHERE is the Windpower today? Never mind the cost if you are getting some benefit…. but we ARE NOT! Scrap the equipment, FIRE the Ppl who keep porposing & sponsoring it.
Never heard the Lead being administered yet!
P44 – and carbon capture is a white elephant.
They’re going to be so confused when it all goes pear-shaped 🙄
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
“It is the true believer’s ability to ‘shut his eyes and stop his ears’ to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.” p80 The True Believer
Please consider the following simple accessible proof that CO2 – be it ours or anything else’s – has no effect on Global temperatures.
The Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming (AGW); the proponents of which tell us that we are in big trouble: requires it to be the case that human CO2 emissions dangerously accelerate the Greenhouse Effect (GE) which is understood to be a thermally potent phenomenon, though there is no empirical evidence for that assertion.
Having said that, both sides of the argument agree that if we had no atmosphere the planet would be at least 33C cooler and uninhabitable in point of fact.
This 33C is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE), and the IPCC say that the ATE is; of itself: proof of the thermal potency of the GE, because there can be no other explanation for the ATE.
If there was indeed no other explanation for the ATE then we could sympathise with IPCC claiming it as proof even though the normal requirement of science for corroborating empirical proof is not met.
The problem – the big problem – is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE and that is as follows.
If pressure was lower then the atmosphere would be less compressed and therefore larger, but still fed with the same quantity of thermal energy from the surface of course.
This means that the thermal energy per unit volume would be lower because there are more volume units to share the same thermal energy and the atmosphere would be cooler.
This means that the state of compression of the atmosphere is the cause of the ATE which has nothing whatsoever to do with the GE accordingly.
Atmospheric Compression is the result of the weight of the atmosphere’s own weight acting at the surface -currently 1 ton per square foot and that weight – is determined by the strength of gravity.
This not only means that the GE makes no known thermal contribution tot the planet, despite the plausibility of the claim that it does, but that all changes in temperature are due to variations in net insolation.
This simple truth has been completely missed by science, though anyone who has a school qualification in physics should easily determine that it is incontrovertible.
Sic Transit AGW.
We need people to talk about this since the AGW is a devastating rod with which to beat us devised for the use of politicians who wish to control us and we need to snap it in two.
Pete Rogers says: ‘If pressure was lower then the atmosphere would be less compressed and therefore larger’
– – –
Doesn’t the pressure depend on mass+gravity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#Surface_pressure
People are convinced that all these wind subsidy farms are all delivering at £35/MWh.
Half the work of running an international propaganda news cartel is conspiring to decide which stories/information will simply be buried. If no [formerly] reputable news outlet mentions it, the problem simply doesn’t exist!
The California renewables plan isn’t working…
JUN 5, 2023
California’s Renewable-Heavy Grid At Risk Of Blackouts, Needs Diesel Backup
… when California’s almost inevitable heat waves come in the summer and residents crank up their home air conditioners, officials turn on massive diesel-powered generators to make up for the state’s energy shortfall and to avoid rolling blackouts.
“We laid out the markers on solar and wind, but we recognize that’s not going to get us where we need to go,” Newsom said during a recent news conference. “The issue of reliability has to be addressed.”
The summertime problem is especially acute in the early evenings when electricity from solar is not as abundant, according to the Associated Press.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/californias-renewable-heavy-grid-at-risk-of-blackouts-needs-diesel-backup/
There’s am unspoken belief that renewables can increase geometrically, that it can just keep increasing 5% a year, but the capital invested goes up arithmetically. Basically it’s as easy to go from 20% wind to 50% as it was to 2 to 4. Although no one ever puts in such explicit terms the concept is implicit whenever some Green says wind power is increasing at such and such per year. It’s all bollox, 5000MW of installed capacity in 2033 isn’t going to be half the cost it is now just because there’s twice as much wind power already in place. There’s no Moore’s Law for wind power.
Dear Oldbrew,
Thanks
Agreed that pressure depends on Mass+Gravity, and; furthermore: that it is the pressure of the atmosphere which determines its state of compression and therefore dictates its particular volume.
The less the volume of an atmosphere the greater the thermal energy content per unit volume and the higher the temperature, accordingly, and vice versa of course.
It is therefore the strength of gravity that determines the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement, not the Greenhouse Effect thereby shown to make no contribution to planetary temperature after all.
This simple fact is proof that the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming is false.
It also means that the ATE is stable, so the fluctuations experienced in planetary temperature are caused by variations in net insolation – as has been the case for the last 4bn years and more
Please confirm that you now agree, or let me know which of the particulars of this argument are wrong in your view.
With kind regards and appreciation
Pete Rogers
PR – ‘The less the volume of an atmosphere the greater the thermal energy content per unit volume and the higher the temperature’
Mercury has a thin atmosphere and is nearer the sun than Venus, which has a thick atmosphere but is far hotter than Mercury is?
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/681/solar-system-temperatures/
I need someone to explain how the steady rise of the Moana Loa sawtooth is to be checked? 27 COPs since 1995 haven’t.
liardetg says: June 7, 2023 at 9:02 pm
– – –
Moving the Earth further from the Sun hasn’t been suggested yet 🙂