But it’s one of those things, I forget the word, that is so obvious as to not need explanation.
See, the sun and wind and waves exist anyway and are free, right? So harnessing then gives us cheap energy, cos the sun and wind and waves are free.
Non renewables are expensive because we have to give money to evil capitalist companies to dig them out of the ground.
There is a combination of “wind and sun are free”, a lack of understanding of the technology plus there is a general view of business people as deliberately malicious, wanting to pollute, that comes from movie versions of business people.
My take on renewables is that we’re going to do a lot more of it, but you need things like better batteries first. There is no point erecting a ton of wind and solar until that problem gets cracked. And this is happening. Car makers, laptop makers are all trying to improve batteries in various ways. There’s already a powerbank that is semi-solid state. The advantage is that you can make a smaller powerbank. Or a laptop needs less space for the battery. Or a car has longer range. There’s a few people with deep pockets who care about this sort of thing, so let them pay for all the R&D. When it’s good enough, do the solar power.
Or, stick cells in the desert where the sun shines reliably all day, and convert it to kerosene that gets stored and shipped. Already happening a bit. Swiss air are buying some. The sort of people rich enough to fly Swiss can feel smug, and they also fund the R&D for more of it.
All government has to do is that Pigou stuff. Charge a pollution tax, let the market figure it out, find solutions. The biggest green things in the past few decades are remote work and Amazon.
All natural resources are free. They’re just there; no-one had to make them. The cost is in exploitation and distribution. Wind is just farts and sun is just sunburn without a windmill, solar panels, grid, transformers and backup. These cost, a lot more than oil and gas that just spurt out of the ground in some places, or sea-coal you can pick up off the beach in Seaham.
Last edited 1 hour ago by Norman
Addolff
4 hours ago
I wonder what colour the sky is on the planet Spud (and every other proponent of ‘renewables’ and Net Zero) lives?
Esteban
2 hours ago
That’s why they have to be mandated, see?
Ironman
2 hours ago
The answer to Tim’s question is, yes, loads. Renewables are indeed cheaper, for the grafter accessing the subsidy. In other news Motability is amazing value for money. It’s stressing me out just thinking about it, which by pure chance qualifies me to benefit. Result!!!!!
andyf
1 hour ago
Location matters. Solar in sunny places where the prime energy user is for aircon during the sunny days is cheap . In the UK though we need energy most in the cold dark winter months where daly solar panel output is roughly only 6% of the peak summer output. If you build enough solar for the winter it’s going to cost 17 times more even before the cost of batteries.
andyf, if solar is so good in sunny places, why did those people in Spain who put solar panels on their roofs (62,000 of them) go bankrupt? Oh yeah, because the government stopped paying subsidies. Wind and solar do not work anywhere without subsidies, end of story.
Nonsense, Addolff; they can work just fine with “incentives” and “credits”.
Gamecock
1 hour ago
When the wind stops blowing, your meter stops running.
Wink. Wink.
Quite simply, the variable cost with weather dependent power is quite low. The fixed cost with them is EXTREME. Economics 101. Commie dick Murphy gives us Political Economics 101. It’s what he tells us it is.
Van_Patten
1 hour ago
Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence! We don’t need no evidence! I don’t have to show you any stinking evidence!
I’m guessing he’ll just present his ‘sustainable Cost accounting’ (SCA) idea as unassailable.
Mohave Greenie
30 minutes ago
The problem with solar and wind is you currently need a battery the size of a football stadium (American or European? Yes!) to make renewables reliable. The cost is in the tens of billions (dollars or pounds? Yes!). The fire hazard is immense, as these things burn fiercely (centigrade or fahrenheit? Doesn’t matter).
Can you help support The Blog?
If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our sites and every penny goes towards our fight against for independent journalism. We don't take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.
Can you help support The Blog??
If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our site and every penny goes towards our fight for free and fair journalism. We don’t take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.
But it’s one of those things, I forget the word, that is so obvious as to not need explanation.
See, the sun and wind and waves exist anyway and are free, right? So harnessing then gives us cheap energy, cos the sun and wind and waves are free.
Non renewables are expensive because we have to give money to evil capitalist companies to dig them out of the ground.
Axiom?
There is a combination of “wind and sun are free”, a lack of understanding of the technology plus there is a general view of business people as deliberately malicious, wanting to pollute, that comes from movie versions of business people.
My take on renewables is that we’re going to do a lot more of it, but you need things like better batteries first. There is no point erecting a ton of wind and solar until that problem gets cracked. And this is happening. Car makers, laptop makers are all trying to improve batteries in various ways. There’s already a powerbank that is semi-solid state. The advantage is that you can make a smaller powerbank. Or a laptop needs less space for the battery. Or a car has longer range. There’s a few people with deep pockets who care about this sort of thing, so let them pay for all the R&D. When it’s good enough, do the solar power.
Or, stick cells in the desert where the sun shines reliably all day, and convert it to kerosene that gets stored and shipped. Already happening a bit. Swiss air are buying some. The sort of people rich enough to fly Swiss can feel smug, and they also fund the R&D for more of it.
All government has to do is that Pigou stuff. Charge a pollution tax, let the market figure it out, find solutions. The biggest green things in the past few decades are remote work and Amazon.
All natural resources are free. They’re just there; no-one had to make them. The cost is in exploitation and distribution. Wind is just farts and sun is just sunburn without a windmill, solar panels, grid, transformers and backup. These cost, a lot more than oil and gas that just spurt out of the ground in some places, or sea-coal you can pick up off the beach in Seaham.
I wonder what colour the sky is on the planet Spud (and every other proponent of ‘renewables’ and Net Zero) lives?
That’s why they have to be mandated, see?
The answer to Tim’s question is, yes, loads. Renewables are indeed cheaper, for the grafter accessing the subsidy. In other news Motability is amazing value for money. It’s stressing me out just thinking about it, which by pure chance qualifies me to benefit. Result!!!!!
Location matters. Solar in sunny places where the prime energy user is for aircon during the sunny days is cheap . In the UK though we need energy most in the cold dark winter months where daly solar panel output is roughly only 6% of the peak summer output. If you build enough solar for the winter it’s going to cost 17 times more even before the cost of batteries.
andyf, if solar is so good in sunny places, why did those people in Spain who put solar panels on their roofs (62,000 of them) go bankrupt? Oh yeah, because the government stopped paying subsidies. Wind and solar do not work anywhere without subsidies, end of story.
Nonsense, Addolff; they can work just fine with “incentives” and “credits”.
When the wind stops blowing, your meter stops running.
Wink. Wink.
Quite simply, the variable cost with weather dependent power is quite low. The fixed cost with them is EXTREME. Economics 101. Commie dick Murphy gives us Political Economics 101. It’s what he tells us it is.
Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence! We don’t need no evidence! I don’t have to show you any stinking evidence!
I’m guessing he’ll just present his ‘sustainable Cost accounting’ (SCA) idea as unassailable.
The problem with solar and wind is you currently need a battery the size of a football stadium (American or European? Yes!) to make renewables reliable. The cost is in the tens of billions (dollars or pounds? Yes!). The fire hazard is immense, as these things burn fiercely (centigrade or fahrenheit? Doesn’t matter).