More Power Blows

There are recent solar electricity records set in Germany, and Spain has recently seen a huge increase in wind power production. Meanwhile, SaskPower has solar power research from 13 years ago on its website, claims solar isn’t viable in the northern hemisphere, and is eyeing up more coal fired generation. The U of R has 0 solar panels in productive research (or otherwise), while my parents have 15 solar panels in productive research for the Sask. Research Council. Canada, and Saskatchewan are lagging behind, we’re becoming the technological 3rd World of G8 nations.

Here’s what a Brit thinks about their country, which apparently is ahead of Canada:

The Spanish average output is 60% higher than our highest ever peak output. That’s embarrassing.

“German wind energy industry association BWE said it expects developers to add between 3GW and 3.5GW of capacity this year”

Again, comparing to your figures of UK installed capacity of 7.77GW – Germany might install 45% of our entire wind capacity in 2013 alone.

It’s about time we became serious as a country and stopped dithering.

The UK is dithering? Oh, my. What are Saskatchewan “leaders” thinking? Are they even living on this planet? When those of us who are, attempt to talk to them about it, they’re more likely to arrest people than listen, apparently.

Here’s what the UK grid looks like right now.


26 responses to “More Power Blows

  1. Funny that Germany now imports electricity from France and the Czech Republic, both flush with nuclear energy! Yet Merkel (a nuclear physicist no less) shuts down Gemany’s nukes because of Fukushima fears!!!! Tsunami’s!!!! In Bavaria???

    Here’s what the Bank of England say’s about Britain’s enviro-energy policy… “Sir Mervyn blamed the Government for the overshoot, claiming that the Coalition had scored an “own goal” by damaging household incomes with a range of environmental and education policies that have pushed up energy bills and tuition fees… He said: “It’s a bit of an own goal as it looks as if inflation is worse without any change in the underlying behaviour of the economy. Prices charged by utilities – to pay for green charges, green policies – are pushing up administered prices in a way that [is] … self inflicted in terms of damage done to real take home pay.”

    Ontario is bleeding jobs because of it’s asinine provincial energy policy. So is California. Both are North American ‘Green Leaders’.

    You want the same for Saskatchewan????????????

    For God’s sakes don’t be so foolish as to fall into the economic pit we’ve dug for ourselves.

    • I was expecting a useless comment from you on this subject, and you didn’t disappoint. It’s much easier to find financially minded people to explain how renewable energy is a money saver, then eventually a money maker (because the source of power is in the public commons).

      • The comment was from Sir Mervyn King, Governor of The Bank of England… certainly he qualifies as “financially minded” since the Pound Sterling dropped in value on his news.

        The only way renewables could possibly be seen as a “money saver” is to artificially inflate the cost of existing power generation. Through taxation. But even that’s not enough! In addition subsidies as high as 80 cents per kWhr for solar is the NORM… for a product that sells for (here in Ontario) 17 cents per kWhr, price ALL IN!!! That’s a “money maker” all right… for the wealthy!!! Further assumptions are based on the cost of natural gas quadrupling in price. Yet here we are with the reality that gas has DROPPED in price over the last 6 years. dubya dubya dubya dot Thanks to the de-coupling of oil and natural gas prices through fracking On top of that renewables are positioned as first to market priority (crony capitalism at its best) and for further economic damage require baseload backup… either coal, gas or nuke.. Here is a realistic business analysis of the reality Mind you, it is from “financially minded people”.

        The fact that renewables are powered with free fuel “public commons” as you say and STILL need massive government support should tell you something.

    • Redjefff, your world view is primitive & destructive. You don’t promote hope, just ooze the same old arguments for supporting the failing established economy. You are depressing and you write too much!

      • Sorry Al, I believe in fiscal reality as opposed to emotional extortion. Despite my detailed facts, I have yet to see anything other than off-handed ad hominem responses. Promoting hope is bringing people out of poverty, promoting the already wealthy is renewables.

        Feel free to look at the World Health Organizations list of 3rd world mortality factors (as listed for year 2000). Note that “climate change” ranks 18th on the WHO mortality factor list. Note equally that “indoor smoke from solid fuels” (ie wood, dung and the like) ranks 7th, with over 8 times the impact.

        Al, the poor use these “solid fuels” to heat their home and cook with. It CAUSES their deaths. They have no other choice because cheap, efficient and relient energy is not within their grasp.

        Congratulations Al, the policy’s you support help keep the poor in third world conditions.

        Question… do you support renewables in order to keep 3rd world people in high mortality environments? Is this your way of enforcing population control? Sure seems like it.

      • no one bothers to counter your alleged facts because there is no chance of changing a mind closed to emotion and believing in an illusionary ‘fiscal reality’

        there are limits to growth, just ask your local planet…

        debate is not simply a long list of ‘facts’ but a logical argument which yours is not

      • Actually Al, the evidence raises the facts above the “alleged” category. That’s why it’s important to provide links to said evidence… to allow objective people to discuss the merits. I value your opinion, even if you can’t back your own position. Further, if you’ve read the WHO link, surely you must have that emotion EMPATHY for the worlds poor and the conditions they live under. Or are you as you say “closed to emotion”?

        I totally understand your position tho’, “debate is not simply a long list of ‘facts’” seeing as how both of your comments to me are devoid of any. I guess it’s always easiest to marginalize those things that don’t support your position.

        Another question (you can avoid like the other one), seeing as you are a proponent of “illusionary ‘fiscal reality’” how much debt do you have?

      • you can find all the links by checking @rastalam

        debt is magical financial tool – if you are corporate you declare bankruptcy, make a profit, avoid responsibilites to your workers, and continue – if you are poor, you can’t afford bankruptcy, continue to pay huge interest rates, and live in fear

      • “Redjefff, your world view is primitive & destructive. You don’t promote hope, just ooze the same old arguments for supporting the failing established economy. You are depressing and you write too much!”

        That’s pretty much his biography.

      • Third comment Al, you’re still saying nothing. Perhaps a bit less sloganeering and a bit more ‘numbereering’ might help.

        Just to let you know, once a company declares bankruptcy, (not bankruptcy protection) thats it over for them. They don’t “continue”.

        As for the poor Al, maybe a bit of reality might pop this fantasy bubble of yours… here goes… “Consumer Bankruptcies were down by 7.9% for the year ended November 30, 2012 compared with the previous year (72,668/78,920). Business Bankruptcies were down by 11.8% for the year ended November, 30 2012 compared the previous year. (3,272/3,711).” “One of the most significant changes in bankruptcies over the last few years is the remarkable decline in business bankruptcies and the even more remarkable increase in the consumer bankruptcy rate… In the years 1990 to 2011 business bankruptcies declined 68.7%, while consumer bankruptcies, in the same period increased a whopping 122%”

        See the numbers Al? 72,000 to 3,000? Do you even have a clue Al? Does it even matter to you? Raising the cost of energy helps this situation how?

        Fact: solar producers are paid up to 82cents/kWhr generated.
        Fact: consumers pay on average 17cents out of pocket/kWhr used

        Solar makes money all right… for the wealthy.

        Come on boys, lets hear some more slogans!!!!!! ;)

      • Sorry, but you simply don’t know what you are talking about. As a co-founder of a major Canadian internet company (with $70 million of venture capital) that declared bankruptcy & continued operations under the same name, I happen to know from personal experience as an insider, exactly how it works, who benefits, and who suffers.

        So yes, I do have a clue. You obviously don’t.

      • Good Lord man, you helped blow a $70,000,000 company and now you give advice on bankruptcy????? Are you kidding????? I do remember, quite clearly, the bursting of the dotcom bubble… where companies with no fundamental business plan, method or product went to their financial graves. As an ‘astute’ bankrupt businessman, you know that a company’s name is an asset and can be sold to the highest bidder… don’t you? Most solvent companies don’t bother to purchase said name because of the lingering stench of failure associated with it. Guess based on your exceptional financial prowess it didn’t matter.

        Nor does it matter that the Industry Canada numbers make your statements clearly false.

        Question (which you can avoid like all the previous ones)… does it bother you, in any way, to take advantage of the very same financial laws that you are critisizing others using? Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?

        PS Al… I took care of my own financial future and retired at 45. My wife is a professional accountant and the head of finance for a large multi-national (global in fact) company. I had her look at what you’ve said. Her response? “No wonder he went bankrupt”!!!!!!! Mind you her company isn’t bankrupt, they increased profit by 9% this year and distributed 15% as financial bonuses to all the staff. Ummmmmmm think I’ll take her advice thank you.

    • Really doesn’t have much to do with the colossal waste of money we like to call renewables does it? Bit of (a bit too obvious) deflection isn’t it?

      PS… I like the way you associate Chinese arrests with an article about Germany, Saskatchewan and the UK.

      • All the while you deflect from the point that real electricity is being generated, from non-fossil sources, because your point is to obscure that simple, beautiful fact. Because it isn’t on your terms, and doesn’t meet your ridiculous, crazy ideals, you rant against windmills. And they are blowing you and your denialist ilk away.

      • It’s pretty obvious that electricity is being generated by something other than fossil fuels. Very obvious.

        The fact is that it’s unaffordable. Those with least income suffer the most. Perhaps you missed my price comparisons… the numbers and word “cents” are used.

        Wonderful tho’ how you both deflect and now strawman your arguements.

        If windmill social impacts are what you’re looking for, read of the effects of windmills in Southwestern Ontario. See for yourself the difference in safety setbacks between rural and urban areas. See how laws are enacted that CREATE two classes of citizens here in Ontario. See how municipalities are forbiden BY LAW to have a say in their own development. See how environmental laws enforcible on everyone else are not applicable to windmill developments.

        Yet you talk of “the Chinese” suing in Canadian courts!!!! I wish my county had the SAME right!!!

  2. Looks like Spain is trying to extricate themselves from the same predicament you want Saskatchewan to fall into. “Foreign investors in renewable energy projects in Spain have hired lawyers to prepare potential international legal action against the Spanish government over new rules they say break their contracts. It is unclear how much claims might be worth, but international funds have more than 13 billion euros ($17 billion) of renewable energy assets in Spain and say that the government has reneged on the terms of their investment. The Spanish Parliament approved a law on Thursday that cuts subsidies for alternative energy technologies, backtracking on its push for green power.” They talk about the “green bubble” also if you’re interested. WOW $17,000,000,000 talk about the 1%’ers you want to make wealthier.

    You remember Spain don’t you? That’s the country Obama used to use as an example of solar energy “sucess”. They used deisel powered arc lights at night to produce solar power to sell back to the government untill Spain made THAT practice illegal!!!!!!!!!

    Not everyone has failed with renewables tho’… only those who have tried it.

      • Why don’t you tell your readers the honest truth John? Specifically about Germany and Spain. “Fearing a voter backlash from anger over the lopsided financing of green energy, Ms. Merkel’s government on Thursday proposed putting a cap on the green-energy surcharge until the end of 2014 and then restricting any rise in the surcharge after that to no more than 2.5% a year. The government also plans to tighten exemptions, which would force more companies to pay, and achieve a cut in green subsidies of €1.8 billion ($2.42 billion). The plan is a quick fix pending comprehensive reform after the election, government officials said… The Spanish parliament took a similar step on Thursday, passing a law that aims to curb rising household electricity costs by cutting aid to the renewable-energy industry. Renewable-energy producers “are going to receive less revenue, but these measures are better for consumers” said Energy Minister José Manuel Soria.” Wall Street Journal (“financially minded people”)

        This is a goal to achieve?

  3. Just a little German update… “Germany’s plan to transform its energy system to one reliant on renewable power as it phases out nuclear energy could cost up to €1 trillion ($1,300,000,000,000 US), German energy and environment minister Peter Altmaier has publicly admitted.” “Feed-in tariffs – guaranteed electricity prices designed to support the adoption of renewables such as wind and photovoltaics – would alone cost some €680 billion ($910 billion) by 2020… The country intends to establish a renewable generation share of 20% by 2020”

    Based on a population ratio this scheme would only cost Saskatchewan $1,600,000,000 !!!

    All of this based on the fear of tsunami and Godzilla… “Germany’s Energiewende, or energy transition, was introduced after the country’s government decided to phase out nuclear power in reaction to the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011.”

    Well, not really Godzilla.

      • Sadly it doesn’t. They now buy their electricity from nuclear supplied France and the Czech Republic. In addition over 600,000 German homes had their power turned off because they couldn’t pay their bills last year.

        I DID make a mistake, based on population ratio it would cost Saskatchewan $16,000,000,000. Ten times as much. Sorry for the error.

        That amounts to $16,000 for every man, woman and child in the province. Got 4 kids? your share is $96,000 between now and 2020. Please note this is ONLY the renewable portion of the energy costs. The other 80% of fossil fuel power generation must still be paid out in addition.

        “money’s worth” doesn’t really do justice to this fiasco. Ontario is already so far down this rat hole it may never see daylight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s