Regressive Renewables: Chaotically Intermittent Wind & Solar Deliberately Designed to Destroy Wealth & Prosperity

Posted: June 2, 2019 by oldbrew in Energy, Subsidies
Tags: , ,

Expensive, unreliable, ineffective, hard or impossible to recycle – what was the point of large-scale renewables again?


Australia’s Renewable Energy Target reads like a National suicide note, but the land of Oz is no orphan in that regard. If the enemies of state were looking for insidious, all-pervasive policy perfectly designed to wreck an economy from within (while barely raising a murmur amongst the proles), they need look no further than ratcheting up subsidies, mandates and targets for intermittent and unreliable wind and solar.

Australia’s wind and solar capital, South Australia set and met its very own 50% RET: it pays the world’s highest power prices, as a result; little wonder it’s an economic backwater, critically dependent upon make-work schemes funded by Commonwealth taxpayers. Once upon a time, it enjoyed the cheapest power prices in Australia and was a manufacturing powerhouse.

Places like South Australia, Denmark and Germany put paid to the lie that wind and solar are both cheap and reliable.

But, as Michael Shellenberger…

View original post 1,716 more words

  1. Phoenix44 says:

    The problem with doing the opposite of what the Stern Report and others said to do. Replace non-renewable plants when they reach the end if their lives and use a proper carbon tax to use markets to provide new generation at equal or lower cost.

    Instead the virtue-seekers have set wholly delusional arbitrary targets and forced needless closures.

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    these greenies and their useful idiots stem in modern times from Paul Ehrlich and ‘The Population Bomb’.

    As usual, libs NEVER check the results of their grand ideas nor their predictions. Teachers are still ‘teaching’ that nonsense. One of my granddaughters got proselytized. She started talking about “and inch of topsoil” and no more nutrients left in the ground, and the classic running out of land to farm as the population “explodes”. Of course none of that is true and the nutrient dodge is a half truth. Crops take nutrients out of the soil to grow, then the farmers put them back by way of fertilizers. duh.

    I have come to the conclusion that many if not most teachers are pig ignorant of the world they live in. Take a day flight to just about anywhere over a couple hundred miles and look at the big empty below you. Talk to a farmer. Etc. But no, that would explode their “sky is falling” scare stories and leave them with nothing but the mundane existence outside of crusading to save the planet.

  3. Gamecock says:

    “use a proper carbon tax to use markets to provide new generation at equal or lower cost”

    Wut?!?! A tax is markets? You do Alinsky very well.

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    California is close behind!

    IIRC we are set on a 30% level in a couple of years, have high and rising prices too.

    But the kicker? The goal is 100% wind and solar. Present when it is hot, dry, and windy. To mitigate fire risks, PG&E have announced blackouts up to 48 hours when fire risk is high… when it is hot, dry, and windy…

    So we won’t be allowed to use power when they are allowed to make it…

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    Washington state put itself in the hurt locker. They went big for windmills and added solar. As most folks here know, the windmills produce peak output when we don’t need it. So, they sell it cheap to the Canadians who use it to pump water up into the reservoirs. Then when demand rises the Canadians sell us back the hydro power at peak hour rates, raking in a tidy couple millions a day off the swap.

    Of course that cash comes out of the pockets of the consumers. I have no pity on them though. They voted over and over for the sort of government that would implement this stupidity.