Thursday, 7 November 2019

How a Texan town`s push for renewable energy turned into a nightmare

How 100% renewables backfired on a Texas town.  Georgetown pays the price!

Edward Klump, E&E News reporter
Energywire: Monday, November 4, 2019
An inconvenient truth is hanging over Georgetown, Texas: Its celebrated shift to renewable energy doesn’t look like a national model these days.
Electric rates are up. Critics are blasting the costs. And the city north of Austin is trying to figure out how to mitigate the situation.
Georgetown, whose green push gained global attention thanks to former Vice President Al Gore and others, can claim to have 100% renewable power thanks to a credit system tied to electricity purchases. In 2018, the city bought enough power from wind and solar projects to account for all of the community’s consumption. It also pays for power fueled by natural gas.
In all, the city contracts for more electricity than its municipal utility needs to serve customers — and that’s been a problem. Surplus power is sold into a market hampered by weak prices, often delivering financial losses instead of the returns Georgetown expected.
“It’s unfortunate that the Georgetown experiment went so quickly from being a success story to being something of a cautionary example,” said Adrian Shelley, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group.
Georgetown declined to discuss many of the details of its renewable contracts, but said on its website that the city “is still obligated to pay the price for energy we secured in our contracts” when the price of energy decreases. It also talked about looking to change its ongoing financial obligations related to energy contracts.

Georgetown recently filed suit against Buckthorn Westex LLC, an affiliate of Clearway Energy Inc. The city is seeking the cancellation of a solar contract over the alleged nondisclosure of information about the expected performance of the facility. In a statement, Buckthorn said it “strongly disputes all claims in the complaint made by the City of Georgetown.”
“Buckthorn has and will continue to honor all terms of its contractual agreement with the City and any claims to the contrary are inaccurate,” the company said.
The monthly bill for an average home in Georgetown that uses 1,000 kWh per month climbed about 22% to $144.35 in 2019 compared with 2018, according to the city. Much of that jump, though not all of it, is related to a higher power cost adjustment.
Read more:
My question – why do renewable energy providers need contracts with lock-in clauses?
Climate advocates regularly assure us that renewable energy is cheaper than coal, yet green energy fans like the Mayor of Georgetown seem to feel an obligation to sign long term contracts to purchase renewable energy, with no clawback option if the price of that renewable energy is significantly higher than the prevailing electricity spot price.

Tuesday, 5 November 2019

United States bids adieu to the Paris Climate Agreement


Adieu, adios, addio, tschuss, sayonara, goodbye.

Hopefully not, "see you later."

On Monday the United States formally notified the United Nations that it is withdrawing from the ill-conceived Paris climate agreement.  

CFACT is the preeminent organization reporting on international climate diplomacy from a freedom perspective.  We've been reporting on this every step of the way.  We were at Kyoto, Paris, Copenhagen and all the rest.  We're headed to Spain in December.

It will take a year to get out of Paris.  Multiple presidential candidates have announced their intention to quickly jump right back in if elected.

The U.S. Constitution requires Senate ratification of treaties.  The U.S. did not ratify the prior Kyoto Protocol.  The Paris document was styled as an "agreement" rather than a treaty by making key provisions, such as emissions targets, nonbinding.  This was designed to enable President Obama to sign it without submitting it to the Senate. 

Binding or not, the Paris Agreement is riddled with defects.  Getting out is the right move.

The Paris Agreement would barely impact global temperature, even assuming that the most extreme climate computer models are correct, which they never have been.

It would cost a staggering fortune, potentially hundreds of trillions of dollars, while achieving next to nothing, even under its own assumptions.

It would empower a vast, international climate bureaucracy that does not value individual freedom, would undermine national sovereignty, and would redistribute vast sums to dictators and kleptocracrats around the world. 

The Paris Agreement places all the pressure on the United States, Europe and the developed world, while giving China, India, Brazil and other tremendous CO2 emitters a pass.  China and India are building new coal plants and industrial capacity as fast as their economies will allow.

The main impact of the agreement is to shift manufacturing from American and the West to China and the East with the added environmental "benefit" of shipping goods across oceans on diesel-powered container ships. 

America and other countries are buying vast quantities of intermittent, inefficient wind turbines and solar panels that are unable to provide the power we require.  China has used predatory trade practices to ensure that if we insist on making this mistake, we buy the wind and solar from them. 

The Paris Agreement will not meaningfully alter the temperature of the world, but it would redistribute money and power, not to our benefit.

President Trump was correct to pull us out.  We should stay out.

For nature and people too,
Craig Rucker

Thursday, 31 October 2019

Chile cancels UN climate conference COP25.

Mass protests in Chile because of rising energy costs are a result of subsidies given to renewables to promote man made climate policies.  Clearly the public will not have it.  The same is happening in Lebanon and with the yellow vests in France and in other countries across the world.

Saturday, 26 October 2019

Coal capacity in India growing! Independent gets it wrong!

A recent article in the Independent by Ian Johnston highlights a growth in solar energy.  Analyst Tim Buckley in the Institute for Energy Economics mentions this.   however the Indian government paints a totally different picture of increasing coal capacity for the next three years.
G Prasad chief engineer at the Indian Federal Power ministry said
    Solar power definitely has a role to play, but as Mr Prasad noted in the article above:
“If we have to meet demand and address the intermittencies we have with solar and wind, we have no choice but to keep depending on coal-based generation in the near future.”
India Expects coal capacity to swell by a fifth in three years to 238GW!    The independent have got it wrong!
    acknowledgement to Paul Homewood blog