I think we’re approaching a point where this will simply be accepted by the people who have long pushed the opposite view – that because the sun and the wind are free, and solar panels and windmills are getting cheaper – because it will no longer be deniable and they’ll figure they’ve got past the tipping point against all the “deniers”.
TINA, in other words.
I’d already covered the Australian situation in the post, Lessons for National from the Australian Power Crisis, which contained a graph showing the steady increase in real power prices there since the big push into renewable energy started in the early 2000’s – after a steady decline since the 1950’s (graph ran 1955-2017). But the graph above focuses on a smaller slot of time from 2008 and is up to 2023, showing the plateau in 2017 was a short-term trend blip.
This should have come as no surprise as the same dynamic is seen in Germany.
Also worth noting is the post, Learning from other’s mistakes, which showed that other nations, particularly the G7, despite all the hot air, are pulling back from the renewable world because the costs are starting to bite voters too hard:
For years, I chased utopian energy. I promoted solar, wind, and energy efficiency because I felt like I was protecting the environment. But I was wrong! Feeling like you’re doing the right thing doesn’t mean you are. I just couldn’t admit it. My sense of identity was tied to my false beliefs about energy—myths that blinded me to what really does—and doesn’t—help the planet. – Brian Gitt, founder of several Green energy companies.
As Goldman Sachs recently had to admit:
“$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to 81% of Overall Energy Consumption’ in 10 Years”
And that was before the recent, massive increase in the cost of materials for wind and solar farms that has seen projects canceled from Rhode Island...
The state’s largest utility company has decided not to move forward with a massive offshore wind project in Rhode Island, arguing that rising costs have made the deal too expensive for ratepayers and out of line with state law.
…
In between Rhode Island and New Jersey, Equinor and BP are seeking a whopping 54% hike in New York offshore wind power payments. The price hike for Empire Wind 1 would be $159.64 per Megawatt-hour (MWh) from $118.56; for Empire Wind 2, the bump would be $177.84 per MWh from $107.50, and for Beacon Wind, the enhanced price would be $190.82 from $118.00. These are huge increases.
None of the companies hoping to build big offshore windfarms in UK waters took part in the government’s annual auction, which awards contracts to generate renewable electricity for 15 years at a set price.
The companies had warned ministers repeatedly that the auction price was set too low for offshore windfarms to take part after costs in the sector soared by about 40% because of inflation across their supply chains.
That last is not a surprise. Siemens and GE’s wind divisions have lost a lot of money recently:
- Siemens lost nearly $1 billion on wind last year; pure-play Vestas saw an operating profit decline of 369%.
- GE Renewable Energy posted a loss of $2.24 billion for 2022, compared to a decline of $795 million the previous year.
- [wind turbine builder] Vestas saw an operating profit decline of 369%.
But they’re actually pretty relaxed about all this – because Big Sugar Daddy is here to rescue them:
Nonetheless, today there’s an air of optimism within the industry, driven in large part by billions of dollars in new tax credits and subsidies toward clean energy investments included in the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act.
What a great business to be in: governments bail you out both with tax credits and subsidies ($300 billion from the “Inflation Reduction Act” alone) and allowing you to massively increase power prices – voter/consumers get screwed both ways.
But clearly the Aussies haven’t learned, and judging from recent policy announcements, neither have any of our political parties here.
No Minister 
Global cooling/warming, now climate change is an obvious hoax and politicians are using it for control. Look at the real figures which show that wind and solar pollute more than coal, so what is the real point.
I am watching the Solar/Wind obsession driven by something akin to ”Tulip Mania” – a madness of crowd belief in something that is quite obviously wrong, when considered in the round. The world is not ending!!!
The constant stream of biased views via Social Media platforms, traditional news media and via schools (frightening kids with no real world experience of politicians and activists lying) on the climate change bs has warped peoples ability to do sensible cost/benefit analysis.
IF Climate Change is real (not proven and lots of predictions have been horribly wrong since 1990)
AND it is going to drive large changes in which areas are habitable for humans,
THEN the options to be considered NEED to be balanced between Cost and ease of execution
Clearly moving human economies off hydrocarbon fuel sources in the near to medium term is going to be prohibitively expensive and highly destructive of peoples standard of living (not for the laptop class of course and the masters they serve, but just us proles of course).
So the actual responses should be adaptation – move people to higher ground, build sea walls etc coupled with a slow, steady move of energy source from hydrocarbon heavy to reliable renewals (Hydro!), new sources (Tidal) and existing alternates that are improving in safety and efficiency (Nuclear!).
And make the change all the while considered human suffering in moving to rapidly and questioning relentlessly the constant flow of bs TINA arguments put forward by activists and especially those people and companies seeking super profits via wealth transfers from taxpayers
Well it is quite clear to the intelligent reader that man made climate change has a probability close to zero.
Currently we are in a long term warming phase, at least 10,000 years, that maybe interrupted by short term climate cooling, such as Medieval mini ice age. I guess a probability of this event is a postive number between 25 and 75%. Not a great outlook for wind and solar if it gets noticeably cooler.
By looking back to recent history we can see the horse dominated transportation systems. In 1876 Otto invented the modern engine, shortly followed by Benz with the car. (Please note no Government or Govt depart or politician had any involvement)
In 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure, as it was estimated there were at least 25,000 horses in London and 100,000 in New York.
By 1912 Ford was starting on his ideas of mass manufacture of cars.
In the 40 years from 1876 the problem was solved.
History shows once more that if New Zealand takes a neutral policy stance on these matters the problem will solve itself. Giving tax breaks and all sorts of other distortionary benefits to batteries is dumber than standing a torque wrench for PM.
As there are probably 75 – 100 years of oil reserves left I would not be panicking,
Capitalism, if it still exists will provide the answer.
I bet in 75 years we will be driving something interesting unless the elites win, in which case it will be a bicycle. A bicycle, an interesting technology given a new lease of life by a battery, but still a dead branch on the tree of the history of transportation.
Personally, I think little nuclear pellets that drives a very efficient steam engine. The pellets being side benefit of modern nuclear power stations. Ummmmm
Spot on rossco – if fossil fuels really are the ”devil incarnate” then fission energy is the only realistic option. The fact that nuclear is currently a non event says something about the nature of the ‘devil’. Unfortunately there is too much money in the current non-solutions of wind, solar and batteries. Until the money supply gets cut off the grift will continue.
The current obsession with “Renewables” or more accurately “Unreliables” seems to ignore the laws of thermal dynamics.
The often touted solution to intermittency is “storage”, either of the relatively benign pumped hydro, or of the unstable giant battery packs variety.
Then there’s the question of how large you need your storage to be.
Given the (not so) apparent instability of weather systems from climate change how much energy storage is required, so that assuming full capacity said storage can continue to provide uninterrupted supply to meet normal demand.
Given that unreliables rarely meet normal demand at the best of times, we must now accept that after such a prolonged event, there will be sufficient surplus energy to recharge the batteries before another (inherently unpredictable) event occurs.
So even if storage is magically filled on construction/manufacture, it’s highly unlikely that it will ever reach that state again relying on wind and solar.
Storage is only feasible if your generation capacity exceeds gross demand and is predictable. Storage can then contribute to meeting a predicted demand curve which may exceed immediate generation and storage can then be reliably recharged in a predictable demand trough.
There seems to be an invisible perpetual motion machine recharging all the storage needed to make wind and solar useable.