Your Future – Australian Electric Bills Rise 75% in 2 Years

This is what the ecoNazis have in mind for you – as currently being experienced in Australia:

HOUSEHOLDS face even higher power prices from January 1 as electricity retailers recover the $360 million cost of the federal renewable energy scheme.

About 370,000 AGL electricity customers will be the first hit.

From next week a 3.8 per cent increase in charges will push up customers’ annual bills by $54.

It’s the first case of a NSW provider jacking up charges to recoup the cost of buying small-scale technology certificates, or STCs, which the Federal Government is introducing to help fund a shift towards green energy.

Can’t you just hear the green weenies saying “hey its only 3.8 Percent.  Everybody can afford that to SAVE THE PLANET!”.  Of course, the media in Australia is even more liberal than that in the US (if that is actually possible).  The actual, real news is in the last sentence:

By next winter, electricity will be about 75 per cent more expensive than just two years ago, meaning a typical family’s annual bill will be more than $1000 higher.

How many people would lose their homes to foreclosure if their electric bill came close to doubling in 2 years.  And this is just the start of a long, long list of ecoFantasy energy wishes.  The Ozzies still want a carbon tax and all the other green fantasies.  Soon they will all be living like the aborigines who were there in the 1700s when Europeans first came to the continent.

Bribing You With Your Own Money

Aren’t you just so excited that the Energy Secretary announced spending another $34 million bucks we are borrowing from our great-grandchildren?

Colorado will get more than $34 million in federal stimulus money for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday.Of the total, $9.5 million will be used to expand the Renewable Energy Rebates and Grants Program, Chu said. The other $24.6 million will go to the State Energy Program.

I know that in the context of federal spending $34 million is peanuts, but take a minute to think about it.  If you assume the average family in Colorado has an income of $50,000 that would mean that this is the equivalent of taking the entire working wage for a whole year of 680 families (assuming they actually netted $50,000) just to pay for this silly scheme.  And what will it buy this wonderful $34 million?

“This funding will allow Colorado to make major investments in energy solutions that will strengthen America’s economy and create jobs at the state and local level,”

Without the political baloney please

Part of the money will be used for rebates that will reimburse homeowners for a portion of the cost of activities such as energy audits or the installation of attic insulation, air sealing, duct sealing, and high-efficiency furnace replacements.

Energy audits, insulation, and furnace replacements.  Just how many furnace replacements will this buy?  At $5000 per for the highly efficient ones they will subsidize – believe me I know since we were forced to replace our furnace – and assuming they took the entire $34 million and paid for the whole thing that would be 6800 furnaces!  That would also assume none of this will go to the bureaucrats and bean counters and porn surfers in the state government.  So at max 6800 homes affected in this way – with approximately 2 million total homes in the state.  A whopping .34% of Colorado homes could be helped with your tax money!

What is that?  People will replace their furnaces without government subsidies?  Oh you silly goose.  People would sit in the homes and freeze to death without the government coming and telling them that their furnace needed to be replaced.

But it isn’t all being spent on furnaces what about all those energy audits and insulation and duct tape – so that .34% overstates the impact a bit.  And don’t forget that there’s much more:

It will also be used for incentives for residents and businesses that use onsite renewable energy technology, particularly home heating systems, and the state will also offer $400 rebates for the purchase and installation of efficient biomass-burning stoves that can make use of the state’s wood-pellet resource.

Biomass burning stoves?  There is an EPA restriction on the whole of Denver that pretty much outlaws the burning of anything in order not to offend Mother Gaia, so Denver and its surrounding counties don’t get this lovely benefit.  And I think the ecoFreaks consider the cutting of any tree as the equivalent of murder.  But I know I want to get in line for my $400 stove subsidy.  Well, except for the fact that putting it into my house would mean completely redoing the heating system and putting in a chimney and it would probably end up costing me thousands of dollars to actually get my $400 bucks.  So I guess I will pass – as will anybody who actually has a brain and thinks will also do.

And there’s even more:

The money will also be used for programs to help state agencies, including public schools, reduce their energy use and carbon emissions. The state says it will promote greater energy efficiency in new and existing homes with programs such as a “whole house tune up” that bundles efficiency incentives.

Note that first sentence there – state agencies will use it.  How they will use it is not specified, but it will be used I’m sure.  But somehow you just know that when it comes time to actually account for how this money is used (and we all know that will happen when pigs develop the ability to levitate) all these wonderful audits, and insulation programs, and wood pellet stoves, and furnace replacements will be a drop in the ocean.  This money is going to help keep your state government running and interfering in your life.

This isn’t about energy or carbon credits or anything.  Its just a transfer of your federal tax dollars to the state government for them to pay people to run around piously proclaiming their green credentials.  Aren’t you so glad your taxes are being used in this way?  Because children unborn will be paying interest on this useless waste of money.

Trojan House: New poster-child of solar failure

Yeah, but shouldn’t the first clue of failure have been the very idea of building an 800 square-foot house in Troy, MI that cost $900,000 — that is, $1,125 per square foot? The median price of homes in Troy is about $159,000 and that’s for an 1,800 sq. ft home — about $88 per square foot.

Even if the solar system hadn’t malfunctioned, who in their right mind would consider the house a success?

I suppose it’s fitting that this tragi-comedy occurred in a place called Troy — the greens are trying to deceive us in adopting their nutty policies and goofy technologies with a Trojan House.

Beware of greens bearing grifts.

clipped from greenhellblog.wordpress.com
It was supposed to be a shining example of the green movement — a completely independent solar-powered house with no gas or electrical hookups.
Seven months ago, officials gathered for a ribbon-cutting ceremony to celebrate the $900,000 house owned by the city of Troy that was to be used as an educational tool and meeting spot.
But it never opened to the public. And it remains closed.
Frozen pipes during the winter caused $16,000 in damage to floors, and city officials aren’t sure when the house at the Troy Community Center will open…
“The system was designed to kick a heater on to keep water from freezing,” [the superintendent of parks for the city] said. “The heater drew all reserve power out of the battery causing the system to back down and the pipes froze.”

blog it

Wind Power Blows

clipped from www.energytribune.com
Wind has been the cornerstone of almost all environmentalist and social engineering proclamations for more than three decades and has accelerated to a crescendo the last few years in both the United States and the European Union.
But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.
Independent reports have consistently revealed an industry plagued by high construction and maintenance costs, highly volatile reliability and a voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies.
In the journal Energy Policy gas turbine expert Jim Oswald and his co-authors, came up with a series of damning conclusions: not only is wind power far more expensive and unreliable than previously thought, it cannot avoid using high levels of natural gas, which not only it will increase costs but in turn will mean far less of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has been claimed.
blog it

Energy Nonsense

In an April 4 Newsweek guest editorial, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu also proved that — his Nobel Prize notwithstanding — common sense and rudimentary knowledge are lacking. First he did not offer one sentence on securing the 87 percent of energy supplies that the US needs other than to discuss “advanced biofuels.”

Not to be outdone in slogan-style exaggeration, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar chimed in…Salazar, the Wall Street Journal reported, “raised eyebrows when he said offshore wind farms could replace 3,000 coal-fired plants.” Never mind that the US only has 600 of them. He also claimed that offshore wind in the Atlantic could deliver 1,000 gigawatts of capacity – approximately equal to the entire electric generation capacity of the US…Salazar’s statement should raise a lot more than eyebrows.

clipped from www.energytribune.com
The Obama Administration seems to be unmoved by the fact that according to almost all estimates, by the year 2030, while the world energy demand will increase by 50 percent, oil, gas and coal will still account for 87 percent of world energy.
The EPA of course does not offer solutions to the 87 percent problem and defers to Congress to do so. Surely Congress will find the right solution from a position of knowledge as demonstrated by the honorable Nancy Pelosi who on NBC’s Meet the Press said “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” and lest one thought she misspoke, she went on to say in the same interview that natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels.”
Let me make two predictions which for most who understand energy may generate chuckles for the dearth of daring: By the end of Obama’s first term, oil consumption in the US will rise and the imported portion of that consumption will increase.
blog it

New Zealand’s Biofuel Requirements To Be Axed

Gerry Brownlee says there is no way to prove imported biofuels are sustainably produced and he says the government’s view is that using the current arrangement could cause more environmental harm.

Brownlee sees a future for locally produced biofuel but says importing it to create a problem is not what the government wants to do.

Biofuel requirements to be axed (0:45)

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/2416055

clipped from tvnz.co.nz

Mandatory biofuel requirements are to be axed by the
government.

ONE News)

The Energy Minister says legislation passed in September forcing
oil companies to use proportional levels of biofuel in their
products will be repealed.

The Biofuel bill was been passed into law in September with the
then-government aiming to increase the amount of biofuel such as
dairy and beef by-products to power motor vehicles.

The bill passed with a 20 vote majority and meant biofuels would
have to make up 0.5% of oil companies’ sales this year.

  blog it