The Renewable Industry’s Dirty Little Secret Has Just Been Exposed

 The cat is out of the bag, says Diana Furchtgott-Roth in the Telegraph. The vitriolic reaction to Congress’s plans to cut tax credits for renewables lays bare how ‘cheap’ wind and solar really are, and how the endless subsidies are never enough. Here’s an excerpt.

Electricity made from renewable sources is not as ‘cheap’ as its advocates sometimes claim. It evidently cannot survive without billions annually in tax credits.

That’s the message from the latest skirmish over America’s renewable energy future, where the House and Senate have unveiled duelling visions for the rollback of energy tax credits – each with its own tempo and tone. The vitriolic reaction from the green lobby, and the predictions of disaster for renewables should any of these changes be passed into law, have exposed just how economically unsustainable even the fiercest backers of these energy sources clearly accept them to be.

Supporters of renewable energy have assured us for years that the wind blows and the sun shines free of charge. But although these technologies have received hundreds of billions in subsidies globally over the past 20 years, proponents still demand more – for a few years, we’re told, until renewables can stand on their own feet.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “Eliminating these tax credits radically and irresponsibly rolls back all the progress we have made in recent years. It turns America’s clean energy boom into a bust.”

But the boom was always something of an illusion. It is often asserted that electricity in the United States made with wind and solar is less expensive than electricity made by natural gas and coal. But rather than declining, average American electricity prices have risen considerably over the past 20 years as wind and solar have entered the electricity mix.

One dirty little secret is that, on a state-by-state basis, nine out of the top 10 states in electricity prices in the United States in 2024 required renewable energy as part of their electricity mix. The bottom 10 states generally did not require renewable energy.

It can cost utility companies more to provide people with electricity using intermittent sources than continuous sources such as natural gas, coal and nuclear power. The utility company is likely to need to put other energy sources in place, to provide back-up should demand not be met when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. …

Taxpayers are paying multiple times for renewables. In their electricity bills, they pay not only for wind and solar, but for the backups to the wind and solar. In their tax bills, they pay for the energy tax credits. They also give up faster economic growth when electricity prices rise....<<<Read More>>>....

Mad Ed’s Net Zero plan is so expensive that the UK economy cannot survive it

 Because Ed Miliband refuses to produce an estimate of how much his Net Zero plan will cost, Gordon Hughes, former Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh, has had to produce his own cost estimates.

Writing for The Telegraph, Hughes said, “On average my calculations show that the Net Zero grid would be a remarkable £15 billion per year more expensive than our current one … It is clear that Net Zero is a voyage that the United Kingdom simply can’t afford to take. We will have to turn back if our economy is to survive.”

The UK government’s plan to achieve Net Zero, as outlined in the Clean Power 2030 document, is highly unlikely to become a reality on the proposed timescale due to the lack of access to the necessary capital and engineers to build the required generation plants and grid connections.

Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, has refused to produce a credible estimate of the costs of the Net Zero electricity system. He has also cancelled a system costing commissioned by his predecessor, Claire Coutinho. Frustrated by Miliband’s inadequacies, Hughes has had to do his own calculations to fill the gap. His calculations reveal the true expense of Miliband’s plan.

The plan will be extremely expensive, with Hughes’ calculations indicating that the Net Zero grid would cost approximately £15 billion per year more than the current grid, which translates to an extra £925 per year for every household, likely paid through higher electricity bills, potentially forcing consumers to reduce their energy consumption either voluntarily or through compulsion.

The high cost of decarbonising the grid is not due to the cost of generating wind and solar power, which is relatively low, but rather the need to build, maintain and replace a large amount of machinery and grid connections, as well as the extra costs associated with balancing the grid....<<<Read More>>>...

Warning to workers: you are the carbon that your trade unions want to reduce

 As Donald Trump crashes like a bull in a china shop through the Woke and Green edifices of progressive governance, here in the UK we are heading in the wrong direction. Ed Miliband, architect of the Climate Change Act 2008, is back and pushing Net Zero as fast as he can. But this is not enough for the climate cult. Driven by their apocalyptic fears for the planet, and perhaps the promise of some great reward, backbench MPs have presented the Climate & Nature Bill, for debate in parliament tomorrow.

Although few private members’ bills become law, this has a higher likelihood of success. About two hundred MPs are backing it, and opposition to this green-leftist move is weakened in a chamber dominated by Labour and like-thinking parties.

If passed by the House of Commons, the consequences will be severe for ordinary British citizens, already struggling with the cost of living, punitive taxes and the pressures caused by uncontrolled immigration. Food shortages will be threatened by the Net Zero attack on farmers. Motorists will face local charging schemes that target older vehicles, just as many poor Londoners were forced off the road by Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ.  And millions of jobs are at risk from the decarbonising wrecking ball....<<<Read More>>>....

1,000 km of Pylons Needed to Hit Net Zero Targets

 To meet its legally binding Net Zero target by 2030, Britain needs to construct a staggering thousand kilometres of new power lines and pylons. The Telegraph has the details.

A further 4,500 km (2,800 miles) of undersea cables will be needed so ministers can hit their clean energy targets, analysis from the National Energy System Operator (Neso) reportedly says.

It comes after years of warnings that Britain’s legally binding Net Zero targets, which aim to “decarbonise” the electricity generation system, risk triggering blackouts and forcing people to switch off electrical appliances at times when the grid can no longer meet demand.

Commissioned by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, a new Neso report suggests the electricity grid needs £40 billion of investment per year in new cables and renewable energy sources to deliver Mr. Miliband’s Net Zero demands, according to the Sunday Times. …

The U.K. is importing record amounts of electricity from Europe just to keep the lights on, the Telegraph revealed this week, with net imports of 26.3 terawatt-hours between January and September setting a new record. …<<<Read More>>>...

There will never be a zero-emissions electricity system powered mainly by wind and sun - here's why

"Net Zero" — That's the two-word slogan that has been adopted as the official goal of every virtuous state or country for decarbonizing its energy system. The "net" part is backhanded recognition that some parts of the energy system (like maybe air travel or steelmaking) may never be fully de-carbonized. Thus some kind of offsets or indulgences may need to be accepted to claim achievement of the goal.

But the "net" thing is not for the easy parts of decarbonization. And by the easy parts, I mean the generation of electricity, and the powering of anything that can be run on electricity or batteries. In electrifiable parts of the energy system, there is to be no tolerance for "net"; only "zero emissions" will do. The official line is that zero emissions electricity is easy and cheap because it can be provided by the wind and sun.

The official line is wrong. As the build-out of these wind and solar generation systems continues to progress, it has become increasingly obvious that there will never be a zero-emissions electricity system powered mainly by wind and sun.

The reason should be obvious to everyone although, for some reason I cannot understand, it is not. The reason is that the intermittency of wind and solar generators means that they require full back-up from some other source. But the back-up source will by hypothesis be woefully underused and idle most of the time so long as most of the electricity comes from wind and sun. No back-up source can possibly be economical under these conditions, and therefore nobody will develop and deploy such a source.

This issue has already arisen in many places, as increasing generation from wind and sun has put natural gas power plants into back-up mode, running half or less of the time....<<<Read More>>>...