WHHAASSZAPROBLEM? Sunlight is FREE.
Investing in installations at home will no longer be attractive to British families and could now take more than 20 years for upfront costs to be recouped, critics said.
The announcement comes just days after Paris climate change summit where David Cameron committed to bringing down greenhouse emissions.
Tens of thousands of jobs are now at risk in the industry.
Sooner or later reality bites. If they aren’t self sustaining then they have to go.
20 year payout on something with a 10 year life
Mirrors our experience with solar hot water perfectly
The panels won’t last 20 years, their output diminshes over time.
I’d like to hear your experience Mr. Ian
yeah, why would anyone buy solar panels from a country that can’t manage to make baby formula that won’t kill your newborn.
Rach and the dippers take out another
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-grower-food-fight-bill6-1.3368376
Most entertaining are the socialist genius in the comments. Double the price to support jobs etc
“You can avoid reality, but you can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding reality” Ayn Rand
“If they aren’t self sustaining then they have to go.”
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies have been estimated in the range of US$300-500 billion annually (excluding negative externalities such as air pollution).
@KT, you are full of it. Fossil fuel subsidies are a myth perpetrated by big eco.
They get their tax credit for capital spending like any other company and pay taxes on their income like any other company.
“Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/
But look on the bright side, you helped save Gia.
I took a look at Ontario’s system this week. To be fair to solar (which is more than the warmunists ever are to critics), I chose 1PM, instead of say, 7am (when families are getting ready for the day) or 7pm (when they are probably getting dinner), when there is no solar:
Effeciency (i.e., output divided by capability)
NUCLEAR Total 98.9%
GAS Total 14.6%
HYDRO Total 70.3%
WIND Total 35.9%
SOLAR Total 30.4%
BIOFUEL Total 40.4%
% of total energy supplied:
NUCLEAR Total 57.0%
GAS Total 6.5%
HYDRO Total 29.0%
WIND Total 6.3%
SOLAR Total 0.2%
BIOFUEL Total 0.9%
BTW, the warmunists are now eating themselves, as revolutionaries do: the more rational (of warmunists, not actual people) want more nukes. The less rational (i.e, most of them) are now calling THESE guys “deniers”.
KT : I don’t normally feed trolls – a lower life form I have yet to encounter – but make an exception in your case.
For your information (which is seemingly desperately lacking), subsidies in the Energy Industry are those that pay companies for producing power by such a means that it could not do so otherwise without said subsidy: Wind and Solar. Both of which are, for all intents and purposes – USELESS on an industrial scale as they are completely incapable of producing BASELOAD Power, must be kept afloat using Taxpayer dollars, must be supported by Backup generation and at the same time provide pretty much ZERO as far as jobs go – A socialists wet dream I guess. Fossil Fuels however ,besides providing the highest energy return on investment at 8 to 1, also provide a huge tax base and employ 100’s of thousands. You lose.
As for CO2 and all that emissions and other assorted Climate Change stupidity…nothing but a SCAM as it has been proven to be. You lose again.
As to your comment, you show the typical arrogant esponse of a marxist – totally incapable of providing anything substantive or positive….just derogatory ramblings filled with lies, obfuscation and what is otherwise know as unmitigated pure BullShit. You lost.
Take a hike pea brain…
pure BullShit….
–
(pea brain) couldn’t produce enough energy to pull a razor blade..
–
Amazed he is able to type cognitive sentences using the prison library computer keyboard..
Based on some of his comments, I’m pretty sure he’s our old friend LAS.
Kt might be correct but the stat is misleading. Using “global” gives it away. Most subsidies are consumption subsidies in the Middle East and North Africa. Only a fraction are production subsidies in G8 countries. Which is why activists will sometimes use G20 or global numbers. They also fail to report the other side. Production subsidies for renewables in G8 countries are much, much bigger than for fossil fuel. In their most creative use of math, starts and definition of subsidy they consider CO2 “pollution” as an indirect subsidy.
http://euanmearns.com/the-appalling-truth-about-energy-subsidies/
“The renewables subsidies are paid to producers by the consumers and are the exact opposite of the consumer subsidies described above. These are apples and oranges and it is appalling that Bloomberg and the IEA (?) do not understand the deception of conflating the two.”
The link also has a nice graphic and explanations.
Laughable that for the only real solution to the “climate change crisis” they propose technologies that depend entirely on the vagaries of the weather. The warm-mongers claim that the weather will become even more unpredictable.
The sun is rising as I write this, and it will set 8 hours from now, so 2/3 of the day will have no sun at all, and of the eight hours the sun will be above the horizon, for maybe half will it be high enough to gather useful energy from with a solar panel. However, today will be cloudy, so no solar electricity available today (local temperature -14 degrees).
Cornwall U.K is 5 degrees of latitude farther north than Cornwall Ontario, and the Cornwall peninsula is the farthest south portion of the U.K., so no wonder that the government is ending subsidies for solar panels. They will never be much use in the winter, when homes need more energy.
The stupidity is contemptible.
The climate industry’s abuse of stats, spurious corrections to historical data, hiding data and methods are why I became a skeptic/lukewarmer. That combined with the politicalization, moral panic, character assassination and academic reprisals against scientists who question them, and “we’re all going to die if you don’t give us trillions” rhetoric has destroyed any credibility, IMO.
They are unintentionally amusing sometimes. For example:
Headline 1 : unprecedented ice/snow/glacier melt.
Headline 2 : researchers find ancient remains of flora, fauna and humans under recently melted ice/snow/glacier.
Think about that.
But, they counter, it’s the rate of change that’s unprecedented and catastrophic. Modern flora, fauna and humans are like fragile newborn kittens that cannot adapt to changes of 2C or more over 150 to 200 years.
Yeah, you could be right. I kinda forgot about L’ASshole.
You know…I’ve actually lived in igloos for the Nov to May and withstood temperatures at -50ºC (or lower–can’t be sure but it was mid-Feb on the north-east side of Hudson Bay and I was riding a skidoo into the wind at the time). I’ve also been to Afghanistan and weathered temperatures hovering around 45ºC wearing a tac vest, helmet, etc. The human animal is probably the most adaptable creature on earth. As I am enjoying the “balmy” weather Eastern Ontario is experiencing at the moment…I can’t help but ask–how exactly is Global Warming (TM) bad for Canada?
Robert
We had two in about 19 years. The first lasted about seven years and we got the second as a replacement at about the cost of going off peak electric. The tanks were glass lined steel and both rotted out. The second one definitely had NOT run out of sacrificial anode.
We decided that solar hot water was a very expensive hobby that we could not support, even though we get bodaceous amounts of sunshine.
District experience said on-demand gas was the way to go. The plumber that installed ours only knows of about two solar systems left in the district.
So “theoretically sound but practically imperfect”.
Annual temperature extremes in Saskatchewan are normally -35C to +35C. Everything and everyone that lives here can survive the swings. An increase in temperature would undoubtedly be beneficial due to fewer cold related deaths and lower energy bills. Highlighting any benefits of AGW is politically incorrect, of course. As is mentioning that the predicted warming will not be distributed evenly. The most warming will occur in temperate and polar regions, the least amount of temp change will be in the equatorial regions. So, the (human habituated) parts of the earth that will be most affected are also the regions that would benefit from additional heat. Other parts of the globe may have a different mix of positive and negative effects from AGW (or natural warming) but the catastrophic part of CAGW is, IMO, highly exaggerated.
Annual temperature extremes in Saskatchewan are normally -35C to +35C. Everything and everyone that lives here can survive the swings. An increase in temperature would undoubtedly be beneficial due to fewer cold related deaths and lower energy bills. Highlighting any benefits of AGW is politically incorrect, of course. As is mentioning that the predicted warming will not be distributed evenly. The most warming will occur in temperate and polar regions, the least amount of temp change will be in the equatorial regions. So, the (human habituated) parts of the earth that will be most affected are also the regions that would benefit from additional heat. Other parts of the globe may have a different mix of positive and negative effects from AGW (or natural warming) but the catastrophic part of CAGW is, IMO, highly exaggerated.
tens of thousands of jobs are at risk. should have said, tens of thousand of subsidized make work positions are at risk.
Relax everyone!
The Unitarians are on the job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WHIW1820aI
WARNING: HIGH LEVELS OF CHEESINESS!