Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘"Green" Energy’ Category

By Peter Foster
FINANCIAL POST
May 10, 2011

Rearguard UN action will fail to ­prevent retreat of the new green order

etween the world wars, when the march of Communism suffered a local setback, a representative of the Comintern, the organization set up by Lenin to spread global revolution, would turn up to rally the non-uniformed troops. This week, Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Program, UNEP, turned up in Toronto to put some backbone into the cadres down at the editorial boards of The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.

Mr. Steiner’s visit was no doubt timed to provide stiffening in the wake of Stephen Harper’s victory, but he also seemed to be here on Monday to support Ontario’s Green Energy Act. His timing turned out to be a little off. On Tuesday, provincial Conservative leader Tim Hudak promised to deep-six both feed-in tariffs and the Liberal government’s sweetheart deal with Korean giant Samsung if he becomes premier after the provincial election on Oct. 6.

Mr. Steiner has become a prominent source of green alarmism and a leading shill for rent-seeking green energy companies, who were already in mourning at Mr. Harper’s victory.

According to the Globe, Mr. Steiner suggested that those who complained about green energy’s enormous costs were using a “simplistic argument” to undermine “a crucial policy in boosting Ontario’s economy.” The Globe did not report whether his nose started to lengthen when he claimed that the green shift was going smoothly “and in a less costly manner” in places such as Germany.

Complete Story

UNEP was set up by Canada’s own Maurice Strong — perhaps the leading figure in trying to save socialism from the dustbin of history by painting both socialism and the dustbin green. He created it after his first great UN environmental doomfest in Stockholm in 1972. Its importance was indicated by the man Mr. Strong selected to be its first head: himself.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Book Outline in Thirteen Chapters

Calvin Luther Martin, PhD
Associate Professor of History (retired)
Rutgers University

Updated November 17, 2009

The following contains profanity, vulgarity, and obscenity.
None of it gratuitous or slovenly used but, rather, used
because the Big Wind Onslaught is so outrageous that
precisely this rich imagery is inevitable and, yes, appropriate.
When you, too, are forced to abandon your home to turbines,
you will see my point. Keep this image—abandoned home—
before you as you read.

Yesterday I turned 61. I’ve been fighting the wind bastards well over 4 years. Four years devoted to almost nothing else. Put a big book on hold with Yale Univ. Press for this. In those years I’ve answered thousands of emails from people around the world. Japan. Cyprus. Norway. Sweden. Czechoslovakia. Australia. New Zealand. Ireland. England. Wales. France. Canada. Many states of the Union. On and on.

In those years, which included years of fighting the wind thugs in three or four different iterations in my backyard and beating the sons of bitches (at least for now), I’ve learned some valuable lessons. I oughta write a book.

Download full .PDF here. How to Fight the Big Wind Onslaught

Read Full Post »

Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it

By Christopher Booker
The Daily Mail

February 28, 2011

Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government’s obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time.

Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines.

But the penny is finally dropping for almost everyone — except our politicians — that to rely on windmills to keep our lights on is a colossal and very dangerous act of self-deception.

Take, for example, the 350ft monstrosity familiar to millions of motorists who drive past as it sluggishly revolves above the M4 outside Reading.

This wind turbine performed so poorly (working at only 15 per cent of its capacity) that the £130,000 government subsidy given to its owners was more than the £100,000 worth of electricity it produced last year.

Meanwhile, official figures have confirmed that during those freezing, windless weeks around Christmas, when electricity demand was at record levels, the contribution made by Britain’s 3,500 turbines was minuscule.

Complete Story

Read Full Post »

By Paul Chesser
The American Spectator
Jan. 25, 2011

Scrutinize the realities of costly and inefficient wind energy projects (and most alternative energy projects, for that matter) in public spheres where tough questions can be asked — like in court — and it’s amazing what you will learn. Such was the case with California utility PG&E, which had a $900 million deal in place to purchase a wind farm from Iberdrola, until an administrative law judge wanted it nixed. From the court decision:

“We reject the application because we find that the Manzana Wind Project is not cost-competitive and poses unacceptable risks to ratepayers. We find that the proposed cost of the Manzana Wind Project is significantly higher than other resources PG&E can procure to meet its RPS program goal. Moreover, it will subject the ratepayers to unacceptable risks due to potential cost increases resulting from project under-performance, less than forecasted project life, and any delays which might occur concerning transmission upgrades and commercial online date. As a proposed utility-owned generation project, ratepayers would pay a lump sum cost rather than a performance based cost for the Manzana Wind Project. Therefore, ratepayers would be at risk if the project underperforms. In particular, if the Manzana Wind Project fails to achieve production as expected for any reason such as construction delays or curtailments as a result of a collision with a California condor, shareholders face no risks while customers could incur increased costs. In contrast, under a power purchase agreement, project owners rather than ratepayers bear the risk of project performance….

“In short, although the project would contribute to the California renewable generation goals, given the availability of other lower-priced renewable projects in the competitive market that could impose far less risks on ratepayers, PG&E has failed to demonstrate a need for this project.”

So you’ve got every problem with wind energy in one judgment: high costs, unreliability, underperformance, and bird-battering. This runs counter to what environoiacs and alternative energy schemers tell us on a daily basis. What’s that matter — can’t California and the federal government find enough taxpayer dough to subsidize this boondoggle too, to make it “feasible?” A wind farm of this size should be the environmentalists’ dream.

Complete Story

Read Full Post »

Austerity pulling plug on Europe’s green subsidies

By ERIC REGULY
Globe and Mail
Jan. 26, 2011

The Spanish and Germans are doing it. So are the French. The British might have to do it. Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback. Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates. But the real victims are the investors who bought into the dream of endless, clean energy financed by the taxpayer. They forgot that governments often change their minds.

Complete Story

Read Full Post »

By Ross McKitrick
Letter to the Editor
Lucknow Sentinel

Anyone remember the Sprung Greenhouse fiasco? In 1987, Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford attempted to boost local employment by subsidizing the building of a massive hydroponic greenhouse operation that its inventor, Philip Sprung, said would turn the province into a world leader in green produce. His plan had failed in Alberta, but in Peckford he found a gullible partner willing to abandon common sense and start signing over other people’s money. During the construction phase the premier pointed with pride to the hundreds of jobs apparently created. Meanwhile the province kept signing cheques and promising that cucumbers and economic renewal were on the way in equal measure.

Cucumbers did start appearing. The problem was each one cost $1.10 to grow, and the wholesale market price was just over 50 cents. The greenhouse went bankrupt and ceased operations by 1990. The jobs vanished, and the tiny province was left with $14 million in debts to pay.

Never forget: jobs are created by profitable businesses, period. Industries reliant on subsidies do not generate jobs, they destroy them. Subsidies create short-term jobs that have to be financed by new taxes on profitable activity, which drives away long-term investment and ends up costing jobs.

Complete Story

Ontario was not the first region to fall for the scam. Spain did years ago. Recently an independent analysis showed the plan destroyed 2.2 jobs for every one created. Over the past month Spain has slashed subsidies for green power producers and capped the size of the sector. France has also begun eliminating subsidies in the wake of a report showing that, after the temporary, subsidy-driven construction jobs end, the price hikes and tax increases will lead to long-term declines in jobs and growth.

Read Full Post »

Thursday, January 15, 2009
By Steven Milloy
FOXNEWS.COM

Browner: Redder than Obama Knows

Incoming White House energy-environment czar Carol Browner was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International. While that revelation has been ignored by the mainstream media and blithely dismissed by her supporters, you may soon be paying the cost of Browner’s political beliefs in your electricity bill.

Socialist International is precisely what it sounds like — a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause. Founded in 1951, its organizing document rails against capitalism, asserting that it “has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the world’s population … unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment … produced social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor … [and] resorted to imperialist expansion and colonial exploitation.…” Socialist International also asserts, “In some countries, powerful capitalist groups helped the barbarism of the past to raise its head again in the form of Fascism and Nazism.” So Socialist International at least partly blames Adolph Hitler on capitalism.

Complete Story

Decoupling involves government guaranteeing electric utilities steady or steadily increasing profits for selling less electricity. That means implementing one of three basic scenarios: (1) consumers paying more for less electricity; (2) electricity prices remaining steady and taxpayers being called upon to subsidize the difference between the profits from actual electricity sales and the profits guaranteed by government; or (3) some combination of the two. There are no other possibilities.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »