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.

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

Sweden Decides Electricity Might Be Nice

Every once in a while somebody in Europe actually has to confront reality.  In this case, it is Sweden realizing that if they decommission all their nuclear power stations they will either a) freeze or b) open lots of nice coal-fired power plants.  They have been able to pretend since 1980–when they first passed their law outlawing new nuclear power plants–that they will phase out all nuclear power plants.  But now its coming down to the time when they are supposed to actually shut them down.

In 1980, Sweden was on the vanguard. In that year, a referendum passed calling for a ban on the construction of new nuclear reactors in the country and the ultimate phase out of existing reactors. It was a model that was eventually emulated by Germany and seen as the way of the future.

On Thursday, the country once again took a step into the future — by abandoning the ban on new nuclear power plants. Stockholm said the move was necessary to avoid energy sources that produce vast quantities of greenhouse gases. While Sweden has been a leader in developing alternative energy sources, they still have not been enough to completely replace nuclear power, which supplies half the country’s energy.

The new proposal, presented by the country’s center-right coalition, calls for the construction of new reactors as the old ones are taken out of service. Parliament will vote on the bill on March 17.

Its always interesting how the prospect of freezing to death concentrates the mind wonderfully.  Of course, the ecoNazis are going ballistic:

The decision has angered the Swedish opposition as well as environmentalists around the world. “To rely on nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions,” Greenpeace spokeswoman Martina Kruger said, “is like smoking to lose weight. It’s not a good idea.”

There are no ideas from the ecoFreaks about how to replace 50% of your country’s energy (the amount now provided by nuclear power).  Sweden subsidizes the ever-lovin’ snot out of every “renewable” energy source they can think of, and it only amounts to 14% of their energy use.  And no matter how much the ecoCrazies yell, people still want things like electricity and heat and cars and food and medicine and all the things that are part of civilization today.

I have an idea.  Perhaps they could breed lots and lots of little hamsters and then put them on cages and have them run around and around.  And just connect generators to them and you will have non-nuclear power.

Your future power generator

Your future power generator

Wonderful Recommendation For Destroying The Economy

From some twittet working for McKinsey (and heading up a non-profit corporation) in London:

If Barack Obama gets his way we could see the unleashing of a green revolution which will lift the economy.

Mr Obama and his team are strong supporters of a cap-and-trade scheme, similar to that operating in Europe, to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama version would auction permits to pollute, among companies which burn fossil fuels. Over time the number of permits would fall, ratcheting down the “cap” on total pollution. It’s a simple idea, invented in the US in the 1980s, to combat acid rain.

This is the wonderful idea that even the High and Self-Important one admitted would “cause electricity costs to skyrocket”.  But that’s not a concern to somebody who’s energy costs are completely paid for by the government:

Old economy pundits fear that a cap-and-trade scheme will hit the economy when it is down, by raising electricity prices and slashing energy company profits. Mr Obama doesn’t seem to buy that line. Asked by Time magazine a few weeks ago whether he wouldn’t need to go slow on introducing cap-and-trade, he said that part of the revenue raised by auctioning permits should go straight back to the consumer, maybe through a rebate on payroll tax. John Podesta, the head of Mr Obama’s transition team, has suggested that the revenues could be used to build new clean-energy transmission lines, and to insulate homes, thus giving a short-term stimulus.

Why do I believe that the government will simply keep all the money to spend on things it thinks are important – rather than actually sending any of it back to the peasants.  Because its all right there for everybody to take:

A cap-and-trade scheme could raise around $150 billion a year. The American pipe-fitters union supports carbon caps because they are likely to mean non-exportable jobs in laying a new energy infrastructure. “Weatherisation” (insulating homes) could be the centrepiece of a green new deal that creates “green collar” jobs and simultaneously saves people money on their energy bills. This is FDR in triplicate: creating jobs, cutting energy bills, and boosting hundreds of small companies which are already manufacturing everything from solar components to LED lighting to high-tech coatings for wind turbines (some of which are incidentally, being made from old car parts). Far from being a one-way drain on the economy, green regulation could boost the economy in straitened times.

Your future awaits.  Union thugs stuffing insulation into houses no one can afford because electricity and a mortgage are too expensive, hunched over your latest tax bill reading by the light of your teeny tiny LED and simply hoping the wind blows for another 10 minutes before you go completely dark.

The next generation will really be happy about that.  They won’t even be able to play their iPods since the green taxes on any electronics will be 1000%.

Are you stocking up on candles people?

You Will Have Tide Power!

Or my name isn’t Gavin McTide Newsom!:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday he still wants to submerge giant turbines below the waters of the Golden Gate Bridge as a way to generate energy for the city, despite a study that recently concluded the idea would cost tens of millions of dollars and is not financially feasible.

And this boils the whole eco-fanasty movement down to one representative item. These things would be huge, expensive, and produce power that costs over 1000% more than you can generate elsewhere.

A study paid for by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission found that the turbines would cost as much as $15 million each and $750,000 a year to maintain.

Power generated from the tides would cost between 80 cents and $1.40 per kilowatt hour, according to the study. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s commercial rate for power, for example, is 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

But does that mean anything to Mayor McTide? What does he care – he’s rich. If his electricity bill goes from $3,000 to $30,000 a month it wouldn’t bother him at all. His trust fund generates more than that per day. In fact, he’s already fired one insolent toady who refused to believe in the power of McTide:

The mayor’s push to drop turbines below the bridge became part of the recent controversy surrounding the high-profile firing of San Francisco PUC General Manager Susan Leal, who said she backed away from the proposal when she received the results of the study commissioned by her agency. City Hall insiders said her disagreement with Newsom over the future of tidal power was part of the reason Leal was ousted from her job late last month.

If you refuse to follow in the enlightened green and socialist pathways of the glorious leader you are eliminated to the greater good. Today its mostly figurative (just loss of income and status and such) but tomorrow it will be facing the wall and a bullet through the back of the head. Perhaps they will be as merciful as the Germans during WWII who would allow their Italian execution victims to turn their heads and view the ocean one last time before they were murdered – but since this is a GREEN issue probably not. Kneel down and take it in the back of the head – you denier.

And what’s most impossible about the whole thing is where they are actually proposing to put these huge turbines:

If officials eventually decide to submerge turbines in the bay, the hilly underwater topography in an area east of the Golden Gate Bridge, near the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito, makes for the best location, the study found.

It has been 8 years since I was in Sausalito, but even back then while walking down the street in the space of 30 minutes we saw two different Rolls Royces. These people are seriously rich liberals. Do you think people with that kind of money are going to sit still and let some Socialist punk from San Francisco drop great big turbines in their ocean and spoil their view? This thing would be litigated until the next Big One shoves most of the place about 20 miles to the west and under water – and probably until the Big One after that as well.

This proposal has as much possibility of being realized as your odds are of finding a tap dancing snake. But pushing the idea sure enhances Mayor McTide’s green credentials.

UK Government Plans 2 Wind Turbines for Every Mile of Shorline

Its hidden down at the end, but the ugly little fact about wind power is down there. You must have some backup power plant (like coal or natural gas or nuclear {GASP!}) because you can’t have 100% reliance on wind power. At least if you want electricity all the time.

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk
There could be more than two offshore wind turbines per mile of UK coastline under plans being set out by ministers.

Wind farm

Business Secretary John Hutton says he wants to open up British seas to allow enough new turbines – up to 7,000 – to power all UK homes by the year 2020.
He acknowledged “it is going to change our coastline”, but said the issue of climate change was “not going away”.
“It is going to change our coastline, yes for sure. There is no way of making that shift to a low carbon technology without there being change and without that change being visible and evident to people.
The other choice was, he said, whether it was “easier to have these developments offshore rather than onshore”.
Asked what would happen if there was no wind for a few days, Mr Hutton said that was why there had to be a mix of energy sources – including nuclear power – to cover for calmer weather periods.
Wind turbines have proved to be controversial onshore and offshore.

  blog it