The renewable energy scam.
Have you ever noticed how Democrats brag that renewable energy — i.e., Green Jobs — will create more jobs than traditional — i.e., petroleum — energy jobs? If so, have you extrapolated the next question: “Why is that?” Simple, because green energy is so inefficient it will take more workers to produce the same kilowatt of energy than that created from oil and gas! Thus the Democrats curious definition of progress becomes taking up energy sources — wind, solar, water — that we had already progressed past a couple hundred years ago.
Driving this point home are a pair of articles, the first from a Heritage Foundation study on wind power:
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis projects that an RES (renewable electricity standard) would:
• Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry;
• Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
• Cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four;
• Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and
• Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.The reality is if electricity created by wind and other renewables were cost competitive, consumers would use more of it without a federal law to force consumption.
Call this the “A-Ha” moment!
Recent experience with the mandate for renewable fuels like corn ethanol also suggests significant cost increases as well as technical shortcomings. Proponents for wind and solar argue that the two energy sources are still in the infant industry phase and that more reliable sources of energy such as coal and natural receive preferential treatment. But solar and wind have been around for decades and receive subsidies of over $23/Mwh compared with the $0.44/Mwh for conventional coal and $0.25/Mwh for natural gas. The Energy Information Administration crunched these numbers before the passage of the stimulus bill that allocated billions more for clean energy production. At any rate, we believe we should peel back the subsidies for all energy sources (including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear) so the government does not give preferential treatment to any one over another.
So, in other words, without the backing of government subsidy — that is, without the underwriting of your tax dollars where the federal government, and not the 300 million American consumers, get to pick what’s a good product and what isn’t a good product — renewable energy doesn’t stand a chance.
But with that backing, does it stand a chance? Well, let’s look to a country that already uses it for just a small portion of their electricity:
[UK Telegraph] Energy firms will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing.
It raises the prospect of hugely profitable electricity suppliers receiving large sums of money from the National Grid just for switching off wind turbines.
Critics of wind farms have seized on the revelation as evidence of the unsuitability of turbines to meet the UK’s energy needs in the future. They claim that the ‘intermittent’ nature of wind makes such farms unreliable providers of electricity [because they require traditional sources of energy to power them when the wind isn't blowing!].
The National Grid fears that on breezy summer nights, wind farms could actually cause a surge in the electricity supply which is not met by demand from businesses and households.
The electricity cannot be stored, so one solution – known as the ‘balancing mechanism’ – is to switch off or reduce the power supplied.
The system is already used to reduce supply from coal and gas-fired power stations when there is low demand. But shutting down wind farms is likely to cost the National grid – and ultimately consumers – far more. When wind turbines are turned off, owners are being deprived not only of money for the electricity they would have generated but also lucrative ‘green’ subsidies for that electricity.
The first successful test shut down of wind farms took place three weeks ago. Scottish Power received £13,000 for closing down two farms for a little over an hour on 30 May at about five in the morning.
Whereas coal and gas power stations often pay the National Grid £15 to £20 per megawatt hour they do not supply, Scottish Power was paid £180 per megawatt hour during the test to switch off its turbines.
Now that’s the epitome of central planning! Boy, am I in the wrong business! Instead of driving to work with the rest of you fools I could start a wind farm and be paid your tax dollars to not run them! What a deal!
Talk to you later, I’ve got to run to Home Depot to pick up my windmill building supplies.