The Fraser Institute just reported some startling data regarding the real costs of electricity produced from solar and wind facilities, compared to other energy sources.
Net Zero is an idiotic idea put forward ONLY as a method of wealth re-distribution. Voters should have been smart enough worldwide to push back on this from day one. If we had, this destruction of our environment and wildlife would have ended by now.
True. But it really isn't an idiotic idea, it is a deliberate criminal scheme to funnel money away from the taxpayers. The terrible environmental destruction being caused is never considered in the quest to "save the environment" with this so-called "green energy". The only thing green is the money they are stealing and the forests they are destroying. As has been said many times about many things: "You shouldn't have a "cure" that is worse than the disease." In the case of "green energy" to save the environment, the cure is definitely worse than the so-called "disease".
Excellent! I love the concept of LFSCOE - taking in the cost of battery backup as if the renewable being examined had to stand on its own 2 feet and have enough backup to completely make up for intermittency.
However, this still doesn't go far enough! How much backup would we really need? How could an intermittent energy source ever compare with a steady source like coal, gas, or nuclear? How many days without wind should be backed up for? 4 days? A week? 10 days? At present, all I hear about is 4-12 HOURS of backup!
There are lots of other costs still not accounted for - the biggest being the cost of mining, refining, and transporting the minerals for those wind turbines and backup batteries. What about the cost of the loss of thousands of acres of productive land? A complete LFSCOE would factor in a value for the footprint of each system. In that case, conventional power sources would come out smelling like a rose.
One other thing. Backup batteries provide some limited power for when there's no sun or wind - but what about the cost of energy that is still surplus after the batteries are re-charged? That energy is wasted; unused. I'm not sure that's accounted for - is the amount of unused energy counted in LCOE calculations? It shouldn't be. Is that the 'hidden subsidy' mentioned?
Net Zero is an idiotic idea put forward ONLY as a method of wealth re-distribution. Voters should have been smart enough worldwide to push back on this from day one. If we had, this destruction of our environment and wildlife would have ended by now.
True. But it really isn't an idiotic idea, it is a deliberate criminal scheme to funnel money away from the taxpayers. The terrible environmental destruction being caused is never considered in the quest to "save the environment" with this so-called "green energy". The only thing green is the money they are stealing and the forests they are destroying. As has been said many times about many things: "You shouldn't have a "cure" that is worse than the disease." In the case of "green energy" to save the environment, the cure is definitely worse than the so-called "disease".
The end of the road is near.
Excellent! I love the concept of LFSCOE - taking in the cost of battery backup as if the renewable being examined had to stand on its own 2 feet and have enough backup to completely make up for intermittency.
However, this still doesn't go far enough! How much backup would we really need? How could an intermittent energy source ever compare with a steady source like coal, gas, or nuclear? How many days without wind should be backed up for? 4 days? A week? 10 days? At present, all I hear about is 4-12 HOURS of backup!
There are lots of other costs still not accounted for - the biggest being the cost of mining, refining, and transporting the minerals for those wind turbines and backup batteries. What about the cost of the loss of thousands of acres of productive land? A complete LFSCOE would factor in a value for the footprint of each system. In that case, conventional power sources would come out smelling like a rose.
One other thing. Backup batteries provide some limited power for when there's no sun or wind - but what about the cost of energy that is still surplus after the batteries are re-charged? That energy is wasted; unused. I'm not sure that's accounted for - is the amount of unused energy counted in LCOE calculations? It shouldn't be. Is that the 'hidden subsidy' mentioned?
I don't know if you subscribe to the Energy Bad Boys, but they have some excellent data in this area.
The greenies never use the true values in pleading their cases for renewables. We need fiscal accountability at every level to stop the madness.