Study: Green-Energy Sources Not The ‘Panacea’ Climate Alarmists Claim

Posted: October 17, 2020 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, Energy
Tags: , ,

The mythology of human-caused climate change is leading the world up the garden path, and renewables are at the forefront of the visible evidence of that. The hardware itself is expensive, resource-hungry, obviously not renewable, and difficult or impossible to recycle.

H/T Climate Change Dispatch
– – –
A study done by Irish and U.S.-based researchers is calling into question the efficacy of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar in dealing with the so-called climate crisis, says the New American.

In fact, the study found that such energy sources are extremely costly and may be causing as much climate change as they purport to mitigate.

Entitled Energy and Climate Policy — An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011-2018, the study raises grave questions about the feasibility and cost of switching to an energy grid powered mainly by wind and solar farms.

The study also points out several of the flaws of wind and solar energy, including the negative impacts on local environments they present.

Despite spending jaw-dropping amounts of money on wind and solar power globally since 2011, the study shows that climate alarmists and the nations that defer to them have definitely not gotten their money’s worth.

“Since 2010, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has been publishing the annual Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports.

According to these reports, US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011-2018.

Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period.

Meanwhile coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder.”

The study’s lead author Coilin OhAiseadha points out: “It cost the world $2 trillion to increase the share of energy generated by solar and wind from half a percent to three percent, and it took eight years to do it. What would it cost to increase that to 100 percent? And how long would it take?”

At the same time, the world was spending these ghastly amounts of money on green projects that have proven to be about as useful as a scuba diving suit in the desert, only five percent of global climate spending was used for adapting to extreme weather events and other alleged results of anthropogenic climate change.

Moreover, the study also found that wind and solar farms and other green energy schemes are contributing to the problem they were meant to solve or otherwise damaging the environment.

Continued here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    Slightly off-topic:

    LeasePlan Asks Customers To Please Stop Leasing Plugin Hybrid Company Cars
    October 17th, 2020

    What happens in real life?

    The real fuel costs of plug-in hybrids are on average 2 to 3 times higher than previously estimated. Take, for example, the Mitsubishi Outlander, which has a fuel consumption of 2 litres per 100 km. From analysis by the fuel card supplier Travel Card and testing done by TNO (Dutch National Laboratory for applied scientific research), a consumption of 7.21 liters per 100 km is measured. That’s 260% more! Oops, there goes the cost and environmental benefits.

    The lease driver often does not drive small distances and cannot always charge when parking the car. Charging requires discipline. Being first in line when arriving at a charging station when visiting the beach is of course pleasant, but looking for a charging station and then a walk, that’s not what most lease drivers choose. The result is more kilometers on environmentally unfriendly fuel and higher costs.

  2. tom0mason says:

    “According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period.”

    And the costs have been outrageous!
    Costs in children working in very hazardous mines, costs of increases in pollution in manufacturing these devices (from the ecological mess of refining rare earth metals, to the chemicals used to make solar cells – see ) and when these short lived devices expire, the mountains of waste and unrecyclable dross that is left for landfill. The costs these wind and solar devices have on nature as vast areas of the countryside are industrialized, when trees and forests are striped out for windparks with their access roads and vehicles, and those manmade ecological deserts for solar cells. And always there’s the rising electricity bills everyone has to endure as the electricity grid system becomes evermore unstable.
    But that is the whole nonsense of the ‘Green’ paradigm — regardless of cost, regardless of pollution, regardless of overall efficiency or reliability just do it because ‘sustainability’!

    The true ‘Green’ message is that ordinary people deserve less, must live with less and be monitored more to ensure that they follow the ‘Green’ rules, but the ruling ‘Green’ elites who profiteer from this system, deserve the full unfettered benefit of industrialization.

  3. boudicaus says:

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    H/T gds44

  4. Gamecock says:

    ‘US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011-2018.’

    Atmospheric CO2 went up from 390 ppm April 2011 to 407 ppm April 2018.

    ‘In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm per year. Between 2009-18, however, the growth rate has been 2.3 ppm per year*.’

    So, for US$3660 billion, the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase went up! Money well spent.


  5. oldbrew says:

    US$3660 billion globally is small change in climate terror-land. China alone needs to spend more than that, according to this…
    – – –
    15 OCT, 2020
    The Great Energy Non-Transition

    A Google search of the term “energy transition” yields over 5 million hits, many accompanied by terms such as “unstoppable” and “irreversible”. But is this transition actually taking place? Three arguments are generally offered – none of them valid.
    . . .
    The world may someday transition away from fossil fuels, but it’s not happening yet. All we have so far are predictions, wishful thinking and the waste of large amounts of money for a small impact on a non-problem. I predict that the public will grow tired.
    – – –
    Tesla survives on selling emissions credits to other car makers, which won’t work if/when they’re all selling BEVs only. But there’s no profit in actual BEV sales.

  6. Gamecock says:

    “I predict that the public will grow tired.”

    Oh, no. They will be incensed when their electricity goes off.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Fires at wind farms ‘underreported over fears of reputational damage’
    20 October 2020

    A turbine fire at the 120.6 MW Buffalo Gap wind farm in Texas in August 2019 sparked the 1 km^2 Rhodes Ranch 3 Fire in Mulberry Canyon.

    In July 2020, another turbine fire in Texas caused a 13 km^2 wildfire in Nolan County.

    And in July 2019, a turbine fire at the 151.2 MW Juniper Canyon Phase 1 wind farm in Washington state ignited the surrounding grass and brush after melted sections fell to the ground. The blaze sparked a 1 km^2 wildfire.

    The research points to such fires exposing operators to legal claims from neighbouring landowners even if there was no negligence by the operator, potentially provoking legal battles between insurers, manufacturers and operators.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s