It's not about "Climate". It's not about "Carbon". It's not about 'Renewables". There is no altruism involved.
All the statistics in the world will not change a thing. All the pointing to the economic damage this is causing means nothing. All the comparisons between this for of energy generation and that form of energy generation is a waste of time. This is purely and simply about money.
There are a very few well-connected people who are sitting at the end of a huge pipeline that is gushing an ever-increasing flow of cash courtesy of the government. Cash that the government is stealing from us, the taxpayers. The recipients of all this cash know dang good and well that the Net Zero fantasy is exactly that and they know dang good and well that solar and wind are parts of this fantasy, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. (Anybody remember Solyndra?)
The politicians involved don't care what you or I think. They know it's a scam and they absolutely don't care that you and I know it's a scam too, because as long as the balances in their offshore bank accounts keep rising like an incoming tide, they will keep on keepin' on and our anger at the overt nakedness of their theft will not even rise to the level of a minor irritation. And worse, they know we can do nothing about it.
A counter argument might go something like this... Renewables are in still in the early stages of development. Therefore, it’s expected that the subsidies they receive per unit of energy produced will be comparatively high. Overtime, this will come down as deployment shifts to production... how might you refute this?
For one, the sheer existence of these massive subsidies should make one at least question “renewables are cheaper” arguments.
Additionally, it would be interesting to see subsidies per energy produced plotted annually. How is this number changing over time? How does it compare to annual growth (aggregate growth, not just growth rate).
Just some thoughts!
Ps love the “that’s where the money is” connection for this piece 😁
May Microsoft’s newly announced plans to explore using small modular nuclear reactors to power its datacenters lead to a more sane and efficient green energy policy future. Can’t happen too soon.
Mr. Bryce - Might I suggest you promote the concept that Wind And Solar should have to stand up a multi-billion dollar decommissioning fund , just like Nuclear, because we can not trust these fly by night cancers will be in business when they need to pay to clean up toxic wind and solar installations.
I recently contracted to put solar on my house. I did extensive math before I did it. My assumption is the solar panels, inverter and all the equipment are subsidized, which makes them cheaper. I ran the numbers. In Nevada where I live, you can only put 98% of your total power on your roof. I found that when I make the assumption that power will go up in cost by 30% next year(which is predicted and it's gone up 45% this year so far) along with the 30% tax credit my system will payback in 4.96 years.
If global warming was indeed a crisis, why aren't we letting billionaires and businesses buy solar for anyone or any business and get a 100% tax credit?
Seen a different way, the current renewable energy policies of the US are a collective delusion that is sacred. As a sacred text it cannot be questioned. Regardless of the accuracy of the boondoggle cost, or the legitimate criticism of the effectiveness of becoming energy independent via the IRA subsidies for wind & solar - none of this impacts or dissuades believers from there rhetoric. Arithmetic related to the true cost and effectiveness is labeled “heresy”. This at a time when we can I’ll afford a wild goose chase down a dead end alley as time runs out. What happened to our scientific method of legitimate peer review?
A question for anyone, including Mr. Bryce: what would the cost of nuclear power be if a new 1,000 MW plant received the same tax incentives as a wind or solar facility? Is it even a valid comparison or question?
The advantage of GGE over kW-hr (let alone EJ), is that most people have some idea of what a gallon of gasoline costs (although most are blissfully unaware that a huge chunk of that cost is tax). Almost no one knows what a kW-hr costs. I am in the energy business and, of course, an electricity consumer and even I don't know what it costs. The city of Austin charges x for the first tier of monthly kW-hr. Then x+y for the next tier, then x + y + z for the tier after that. And there's one more tier after that. And then there's various surcharges on top of all that. It appears to me that the first kW-hr that I buy in a month is about $0.03. But the last one I buy in a billing month is at least $0.15. So, can someone tell me how much do i pay per kW-hr? Because I know only with +/- 500% certainty.
You mentioned GW and MW, but most or all residential consumers pay in kW-hr. I.e., they pay for energy, not power.
I suggest converting your excellent chart into $/GGE (Gallon Gasoline Equivalent). With GGE = 116,090 BTU, then 1 EJ = 8.16 billion GGE. Converting your chart:
A Canadian, eh! Bruce is about to be eclipsed by Barakah in U.A.E. where they have built 4 nuclear units generating 1,400 megawatts each. Fourth one coming online soon. SNF contains numerous fission products. The longest lived one is Plutonium, with a half-life of 24,000 years, but Pu is mainly an alpha emitter and thus not a radiation threat. I don't have the exact numbers right here, but SNF does decay away fairly quickly -- 20 years or so -- until it is no longer a huge radioactive source. In any case, it's all surrounded by a lot of shielding, and is currently stored safely on concrete pads at the reactor plant sites in the U.S. Of course, we ought to recycle SNF, but that's another story. My Substack is free and you can read all about nuclear power there: https://breckhenderson.substack.com/p/nuclear-power
In 2014, Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway CEO) told an audience of his investors "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit.
Seems pretty clear to me. A classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Yes - you are right municipalities do have zoning laws and regulations - counties have no authority over solar, wind or battery installations.. Solar (except maybe community) don't want to build in the city areas, they need larger swaths of land. What other ways do you know of that wind and solar can be rejected? There are hundreds of people in Texas who would like to know, because we haven't come up with it yet! Passing more authority to the counties is not on the agenda for our legislators. In Texas as you know - landowner rights trump everything else.
There's an interesting correlation, which may be part of the reason if not the whole reason. Solar and wind are made in China. Natural gas and nuclear plants are made in Russia. We've been at war with Russia since 1918, and we've been owned by China since 1975.
It's not about "Climate". It's not about "Carbon". It's not about 'Renewables". There is no altruism involved.
All the statistics in the world will not change a thing. All the pointing to the economic damage this is causing means nothing. All the comparisons between this for of energy generation and that form of energy generation is a waste of time. This is purely and simply about money.
There are a very few well-connected people who are sitting at the end of a huge pipeline that is gushing an ever-increasing flow of cash courtesy of the government. Cash that the government is stealing from us, the taxpayers. The recipients of all this cash know dang good and well that the Net Zero fantasy is exactly that and they know dang good and well that solar and wind are parts of this fantasy, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. (Anybody remember Solyndra?)
The politicians involved don't care what you or I think. They know it's a scam and they absolutely don't care that you and I know it's a scam too, because as long as the balances in their offshore bank accounts keep rising like an incoming tide, they will keep on keepin' on and our anger at the overt nakedness of their theft will not even rise to the level of a minor irritation. And worse, they know we can do nothing about it.
A counter argument might go something like this... Renewables are in still in the early stages of development. Therefore, it’s expected that the subsidies they receive per unit of energy produced will be comparatively high. Overtime, this will come down as deployment shifts to production... how might you refute this?
For one, the sheer existence of these massive subsidies should make one at least question “renewables are cheaper” arguments.
Additionally, it would be interesting to see subsidies per energy produced plotted annually. How is this number changing over time? How does it compare to annual growth (aggregate growth, not just growth rate).
Just some thoughts!
Ps love the “that’s where the money is” connection for this piece 😁
May Microsoft’s newly announced plans to explore using small modular nuclear reactors to power its datacenters lead to a more sane and efficient green energy policy future. Can’t happen too soon.
Does any really believe the return on solar over nuclear power will be 200 times safer and better?
Mr. Bryce - Might I suggest you promote the concept that Wind And Solar should have to stand up a multi-billion dollar decommissioning fund , just like Nuclear, because we can not trust these fly by night cancers will be in business when they need to pay to clean up toxic wind and solar installations.
I recently contracted to put solar on my house. I did extensive math before I did it. My assumption is the solar panels, inverter and all the equipment are subsidized, which makes them cheaper. I ran the numbers. In Nevada where I live, you can only put 98% of your total power on your roof. I found that when I make the assumption that power will go up in cost by 30% next year(which is predicted and it's gone up 45% this year so far) along with the 30% tax credit my system will payback in 4.96 years.
https://jeffreycarter.substack.com/p/solar-calculator. Without the credits subsidies and expected increase, it's 10yrs+.
I invested in early seed stage companies for years. Virtually every solar deal I saw never worked without subsidies. I never invested in one. Currently, there are millions of dollars being raised by venture capital funds to "combat global warming". They will all end in tears. https://jeffreycarter.substack.com/p/this-will-end-in-tears?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fgreen%2520energy&utm_medium=reader2
If global warming was indeed a crisis, why aren't we letting billionaires and businesses buy solar for anyone or any business and get a 100% tax credit?
Damn. Damn damn damn!
Seen a different way, the current renewable energy policies of the US are a collective delusion that is sacred. As a sacred text it cannot be questioned. Regardless of the accuracy of the boondoggle cost, or the legitimate criticism of the effectiveness of becoming energy independent via the IRA subsidies for wind & solar - none of this impacts or dissuades believers from there rhetoric. Arithmetic related to the true cost and effectiveness is labeled “heresy”. This at a time when we can I’ll afford a wild goose chase down a dead end alley as time runs out. What happened to our scientific method of legitimate peer review?
A question for anyone, including Mr. Bryce: what would the cost of nuclear power be if a new 1,000 MW plant received the same tax incentives as a wind or solar facility? Is it even a valid comparison or question?
The advantage of GGE over kW-hr (let alone EJ), is that most people have some idea of what a gallon of gasoline costs (although most are blissfully unaware that a huge chunk of that cost is tax). Almost no one knows what a kW-hr costs. I am in the energy business and, of course, an electricity consumer and even I don't know what it costs. The city of Austin charges x for the first tier of monthly kW-hr. Then x+y for the next tier, then x + y + z for the tier after that. And there's one more tier after that. And then there's various surcharges on top of all that. It appears to me that the first kW-hr that I buy in a month is about $0.03. But the last one I buy in a billing month is at least $0.15. So, can someone tell me how much do i pay per kW-hr? Because I know only with +/- 500% certainty.
You mentioned GW and MW, but most or all residential consumers pay in kW-hr. I.e., they pay for energy, not power.
Sub MW nukes? Huh?
I suggest converting your excellent chart into $/GGE (Gallon Gasoline Equivalent). With GGE = 116,090 BTU, then 1 EJ = 8.16 billion GGE. Converting your chart:
$/GGE
Nuclear $0.0017
Hydrocarbon $0.0017
PTC $0.066
ITC $0.322
A Canadian, eh! Bruce is about to be eclipsed by Barakah in U.A.E. where they have built 4 nuclear units generating 1,400 megawatts each. Fourth one coming online soon. SNF contains numerous fission products. The longest lived one is Plutonium, with a half-life of 24,000 years, but Pu is mainly an alpha emitter and thus not a radiation threat. I don't have the exact numbers right here, but SNF does decay away fairly quickly -- 20 years or so -- until it is no longer a huge radioactive source. In any case, it's all surrounded by a lot of shielding, and is currently stored safely on concrete pads at the reactor plant sites in the U.S. Of course, we ought to recycle SNF, but that's another story. My Substack is free and you can read all about nuclear power there: https://breckhenderson.substack.com/p/nuclear-power
In 2014, Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway CEO) told an audience of his investors "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit.
Seems pretty clear to me. A classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Yes - you are right municipalities do have zoning laws and regulations - counties have no authority over solar, wind or battery installations.. Solar (except maybe community) don't want to build in the city areas, they need larger swaths of land. What other ways do you know of that wind and solar can be rejected? There are hundreds of people in Texas who would like to know, because we haven't come up with it yet! Passing more authority to the counties is not on the agenda for our legislators. In Texas as you know - landowner rights trump everything else.
I don’t know about the amounts, but the subsidies should be the same in proportion ot the amounts of zero CO20emitting energy produced.
There's an interesting correlation, which may be part of the reason if not the whole reason. Solar and wind are made in China. Natural gas and nuclear plants are made in Russia. We've been at war with Russia since 1918, and we've been owned by China since 1975.