Technocracy: A Clear And Present Danger Of Epic Magnitude
Since the release of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, I have been doing quite a few radio interviews and more are scheduled for the near future. In the process, something has dawned on me that needs to be addressed.
Many people breeze across Technocracy.News and completely misinterpret what it is here for. It is NOT to bash technology, engineers or scientists. It is NOT to scare you with “truth is stranger than fiction” memes.
The chief and only purpose of Technocracy.News is to demonstrate the tentacles of Technocracy around the world in THEIR words, not mine.
There are now over 2,800 categorized and indexed articles posted, which has become a research treasure trove for many. I have included my own comments at the top of each article, in order to provide context.
Let me be very clear about this: I am totally opposed to Technocracy. I support the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and promote them as the best form of citizen-involved government in the history of the world. As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity and dignity of man having been created in the image of God; to put this another way, I do not believe that you are an animal equivalent to a steer in a feed lot.
Many readers don’t have a clue as to what Technocracy is or how it will affect all Americans. This is why I posted a link to my QUICK START GUIDE in plain view on the Home Page, where everyone can find explanations, videos, interviews other links. This is also why there is a big graphic image on the Home Page with pictures of the books I have written on the topic. I have spent thousands of hours researching and writing about Globalization and Technocracy, and published these books for your education.
For anyone who takes shots at me for just “hocking books for my own profit”, get over it. You can join the ignorant masses if you wish, but you will be back some day after the manacle of Scientific Dictatorship clamps around your neck, and you realize that you missed the chance to do anything about it.
For everyone else that takes Technocracy seriously, I salute you and encourage you to keep spilling the beans on it to everyone who will listen.
Was Sustainable Development disingenuous or was it for real? Pratap Chatterjee and Matthias Finger, authors of The Earth Brokers in 1994, were direct participants in the UN meetings leading up to the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992. They were environmentalists of the original order that preceded globalization, and they were deeply disappointed in the entire process and outcome. They concluded that “as a result of the whole UNCED20 process, the planet was going to be worse off, not better.” In further opposition, they wrote,
“We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants. We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.”
Toward the end of the Earth Summit, youth representatives were allowed to give their impressions of the process and proceedings, and they selected a young lady from Kenya, Wagaki Mwangi, who worked for the International Youth Environment and Development Network in Nairobi. Her short, pointed and shocking statement left many attendees in dead silence:
“The Summit has attempted to involve otherwise powerless people of society in the process. But by observing the process we now know how undemocratic and untransparent the UN system is. Those of us who have watched the process have said that UNCED has failed. As youth we beg to differ. Multinational corporations, the United States, Japan, the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund have got away with what they always wanted, carving out a better and more comfortable future for themselves… UNCED has ensured increased domination by those who already have power. Worse still it has robbed the poor of the little power they had. It has made them victims of a market economy that has thus far threatened our planet. Amidst elaborate cocktails, travailing and partying, few negotiators realized how critical their decisions are to our generation. By failing to address such fundamental issues as militarism, regulation of transnational corporations, democratisation of the international aid agencies and inequitable terms of trade, my generation has been damned.”
While this may seem to be a harsh assessment to some readers, I am only setting up to ask this question: If Sustainable Development is not really about saving the planet, then what is it?
Here is the short answer: It is a scam to twist the economic resources of the world out of your hands and give them to the global elite. It is a power grab to take over all means of production while dictating to you what you are allowed to consume. It is a Scientific Dictatorship designed to control you, your thoughts, your behavior, your consumption and your family from cradle to cradle. Property rights, wealth, savings and the right of inheritance will be tossed out the window. Welcome back to the Dark Ages!
If this is true, then it represents nothing less than the biggest heist in the history of man on earth, and there is an abundance of evidence to prove that it is already well underway. It might be stopped before our nation is ravaged, but not while so many Americans still have their head still planted firmly in the sand.
That is why Technocracy.News is here and why I have now published two books on Technocracy to explain the whole picture.
Russia’s ‘Hi-Tech Robot’ Was An Actor In A Suit
Some magic acts fail miserably, as in the case of this fake robot from Russia. More disturbing is that there is a magic act in the first place, which Technocrats design to purposively deceive the population. ⁃ TN Editor
A supposed “hi-tech robot” displayed at a youth robotics forum on Russian state television turned out to be a man in a suit, reports confirmed Wednesday.
Footage broadcast live on Russia-24 showed television anchors praising the ersatz android during coverage of a technology forum held in Yaroslavl, a city about 150 miles north-east of Moscow, boasting that “Robot Boris has already learned to dance and he’s not that bad.”
“It’s entirely possible one of these [students] could dedicate himself to robotics,” one anchor said. “Especially as at the forum they have the opportunity to look at the most modern robots.”
“I know mathematics well but I also want to learn to draw,” Boris responded, before dancing to the Little Big song Skibidi.
Other footage from the event showed Boris taking part in banter with people on stage and performing various dances. His level of sophistication was used to encourage children to develop an interest in robotics and as proof of the country’s technological breakthroughs.
However, many viewers were left unconvinced by the robot, with the Russian website TJournal posing a series of questions about the robot’s performance, including the location of his external sensors and why he made so many “unnecessary movements” while dancing. Later on, Some photographs posted on social media even showed the robot’s very visible neckline.
A photograph published by MBKh Media, an anti-Kremlin agency founded by the Vladimir Putin opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky, appeared to show the man wearing the robot suit ahead of the forum.
As the questions mounted, it emerged that Boris was a £3000 costume made by the company Show Robots designed to give the “near total illusion that before you stands a real robot,” equipped with microphone and tablet display.
The event’s organizers did not claim that the android was anything other than a man in a suit, according to local reports, so it is not clear why the state television station chose to do so. On Wednesday morning, the television report was removed from Russia-24’s YouTube channel but was uploaded again by early afternoon.
It is obvious that the U.S. alternative energy industry is moving forward on two wooden legs: 1) cheap imports from China and 2) tax subsidies. In this case, solar energy installations where immediately whacked by 50% when tariffs were raised. ⁃ TN Editor
Utility solar photovoltaic (PV) installations fell nearly 50% in the U.S. from the second to the third quarter of 2018, according to the Q4 U.S. Solar Market Insight released Thursday by Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), highlighting the impact of tariffs imposed in January.
But Q4 will see the most utility solar installations since 2016 — 3.5 GW, up from 678 MW in Q3. With utility solar “projects getting pushed out” into Q4, project developers focused on starting construction by 2019 to maximize advantage from the declining investment tax credit, according to WoodMac analyst Colin Smith.
Solar capacity additions are expected to decline in 2019, due to the January tariffs, after an “astronomical amount of announcements” of solar procurement in 2018, Smith said.
As a large part of the U.S. solar project pipeline remains on hold, the third quarter showed the largest impacts from tariffs imposed in January under Section 201 of the Trade Act. Installations during previous quarters this year had been planned before tariff possibilities were established.
“[The] biggest impact of the tariff, really, was pushing projects out. That has resulted in a net loss and project loss overall,” Smith said.
While a loss of project volume is “significant,” and can translate to fewer jobs and less money into the economy, Smith said projects are just being delayed.
By the time the more recent Section 301 tariffs took effect — covering a much broader range of Chinese goods — much of the solar cells and modules that would be installed in the third quarter were already in the country, allowing the analysis to focus on the significance of the earlier Section 201 tariffs.
Total U.S. solar installations reached 1.7 GW for the third quarter, and while the utility market dropped from Q2, residential market installations were essentially flat, as they have been every quarter this year.
TSA’s New Tech Can Screen Multiple Passengers From 25 Feet Away
This new scanning tech can scan crowds at a time and will become ubiquitous everywhere security is deemed necessary. Coupled with facial recognition software, it would give the government total human domination and control. Technocrats see no ethical or Constitutional problem with this. ⁃ TN Editor
The Transportation Security Administration has given the go-ahead to test technology that is designed to screen multiple airport passengers at the same time from a distance of up to 25 feet away.
The technology, described as “passive terahertz” screening, is one of several advances that the TSA and airlines hope will help U.S. airports handle the growing demand for air travel that is already creating bottlenecks and frustration at airports across the country.
The TSA has purchased several terahertz screening devices from Britain-based Thruvision to test in a TSA facility near Arlington, Va. If the devices pass the initial tests, they may be used on a trial basis at U.S. airports, said Kevin Gramer, vice president of Thruvision Americas.
The screening device, which is about the size of an old-fashioned PC computer tower and weighs about 50 pounds, reads the outline of people to reveal firearms and explosives hidden under their clothes.
Unlike the TSA’s existing full-body scanners that bounce millimeter waves off of passengers to spot objects hidden under their clothes, Gramer said, the passive terahertz technology reads the energy emitted by a person, similar to thermal imaging used in night-vision goggles.
“It’s 100% passive. There is no radiation coming out of our device,” he said. “You don’t have to stand directly in front of the device.”
As a result, Thruvision boasts that its technology can screen up to 2,000 people an hour and detect a concealed device at a distance of up to 25 feet. Initially, the system can be used in addition to the existing full-body scanners already deployed at airports, but Gramer said the device can eventually replace parts of the TSA’s security screening system.
Gramer said the system was used last year to screen people attending a tribute concert organized by singer Ariana Grande after her Manchester concert of May 22, 2017, ended in a suicide bombing that killed 23 people and wounded 139 others.
Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Bill To Make California 100% Carbon-Free By 2045
California rate-payers will soon understand the insanity of their state leadership’s drive to kill carbon. California is rich in oil and natural gas resources which has adequately powered the state for many decades. Gov. Brown intends to scrap that entire infrastructure in return for an economically unsound system of ‘renewables.’ ⁃ TN Editor
Senate Bill 100 speeds up the state’s timeline for moving to renewable energy sources like solar and wind, and requires that all retail electricity be carbon-free by 2045. California is the second state to adopt such a goal, after Hawaii.
“It’s not going to be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done,” Brown said at a signing ceremony in Sacramento. “California is committed to doing whatever is necessary to meet the existential threat of climate change.”
The measure is a symbolic strike against the Trump administration, which has pulled back from United States efforts to confront climate change by withdrawing from an international accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, loosening fuel economy standards and weakening rules to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants.
“Today California sends an unmistakable message to the nation and the world: Regardless of who occupies the White House, California will always lead on climate change,” state Sen. Kevin de León, a Los Angeles Democrat who carried SB 100, said.
The bill was initially introduced last year, but stalled in the Legislature amid heavy resistance from electric utilities, oil companies and labor unions. Opponents argued that SB 100 would not make a substantial difference to global emissions as the planet continues to warm, while harming workers in fossil fuel industries and raising electricity prices for consumers.
With the backing of political heavyweights like former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Vice President Al Gore, it finally won approval from lawmakers late last month. Supporters noted that the state’s largest utilities have already surpassed a mandate to generate a third of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, while most other retail sellers are on track.
SB 100 increases to 60 percent, from 50 percent, how much of California’s electricity portfolio must come from renewables by 2030. It establishes a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045, which could include other carbon-free sources, like nuclear power, that are not renewable.
The Global Climate Action Summit, which he will host later this week in San Francisco, was organized to encourage regional bodies, such as cities and states, to step up their own efforts to fight climate change where national governments have failed to act.
At the SB 100 signing ceremony, Brown also announced an executive order directing California to achieve carbon neutrality, meaning it would remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it emits, also by 2045. The state has previously committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Bay Area City Halts 5G Development Over Health Concerns
5G Technocrats who blatantly ignored early health warnings are now embroiled in conflict with cities who are blocking installation over those same concerns. As the news cycle spreads these development, other cities are further encouraged to throw up stop signs. It’s going to be a tectonic battle. ⁃ TN Editor
The city council of Mill Valley, CA, a wealthy city north of San Francisco, voted unanimously to effectively halt installation of new small cell towers to accommodate 5G technology over health concerns. The “urgency ordinance” will bar applications for 5G towers while the city drafts a more permanent rule.
The city council had received 145 pieces of mail concerned about negative health impacts, reports TechCrunch, compared to just five letters in support of small cells. The concern is over the impacts of exposure to electromagnetic fields, although the small cell antennas for 5G emit less radiation than those used for 4G.
With the vote, Mill Valley became the third community in Marin County to pass a similar ordinance, following San Anselmo and Ross.
The health concerns about 5G are exacerbated because the service will require more small cells placed throughout cities, closer to residents than have been necessary for other wireless technologies. Critics have said that the radiation could cause increased risk of cancer, fatigue, headaches and other effects, although research has been inconclusive (that has not stopped the California Department of Public Health from issuing controversial warnings about the health effects of personal cell phones). The National Cancer Institute summed up the field by saying a “limited number of studies” showed evidence of a “statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks,” but added that “most studies have found no association.”
Wireless communications trade association CTIA echoed the lack of evidence in an emailed statement to Smart Cities Dive: “We follow the guidance of the experts when it comes to antennas and health effects. Following numerous scientific studies conducted over several decades, the FCC, the FDA, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and numerous other international and U.S. organizations and health experts continue to say that the scientific evidence shows no known health risk to humans due to the RF energy emitted by antennas or cell phones. The evidence includes analysis of official federal brain tumor statistics showing that since the introduction of cell phones in the mid-1980s, the rate of brain tumors in the United States has decreased.”
France’s Clean Nuclear Energy Leapfrogs Germany’s Solar And Wind
In the battle for ‘clean’ energy, France has whipped Germany by a margin of 3 to 1 with its use of reliable nuclear power. However, most environmental zealots hate nuclear energy as much as fossil fuels, so their collective global lobby has blocked development of new nuclear power plants. If it is allowed to continue, this foolishness will set humanity back 100 years. ⁃ TN Editor
France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion (€290 billion). The complete buildout of the 58 reactors was less €400 billion. Germany would need 50% more nuclear energy than France to completely replace all other power generation. This would cost €600 billion if Germany could match France’s build from the 1980s. Costs and safety regulations have increased even though France’s nuclear power has operated without incident for over 30 years. 80 nuclear reactors would now cost €1600 billion euros for Germany. This would still be cheaper than the estimated costs for the solar and wind buildout that is underway.
France built its nuclear power in less than 15 years.
Estimates of the total amount of Germany’s annual investment vary from 15 to 40 billion euros. Consumers in Germany pay about 25 billion euros per year in higher energy bills.
A BDI study (by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the consultancy Prognos) says that cutting emissions by 80 percent by 2050 (the lower end of Germany’s climate targets) – would require cumulative total investment of 1.5 trillion euros. Reducing emissions by 95 percent (the high end of Germany’s 2050 climate targets) would require total investment of about 2.3 trillion euros.
A study conducted by the Energy Systems of the Future (ESYS) at the National Academy of Science and Engineering (Acatech) shows comparable results, arguing that a successful energy transition, including the decarbonisation of transport and heating, will require annual investment of between 30 and 60 billion euros over the next 3 decades.
Germany’s investment in the power sector alone would amount to 520 billion euros by 2025, with the renewables surcharge being the largest driver of costs by far.
Germany is 2% of the world carbon dioxide emissions.
Down Under: The Green Energy Elephant In The Snowy Mountains
The global nature of energy insanity (all continents, both hemispheres) demonstrates the orchestrated push for global Technocracy, which cannot exist without a fully controllable pool of energy. Thus, fossil fuel is the enemy because it is abundant, cheap and uncontrollable. ⁃ TN Editor
Canberra breeds many white elephants, but now they are breeding a gigantic new breed of pachyderm in Australia’s Snowy Mountains – a Green Elephant. Grandly named “Snowy 2.0 Hydro-Electric”, it has the compulsory green skin, but it is just another big white elephant under a thick layer of green paint.
Snowy 2.0 plans a hugely expensive complex of dams, tunnels, pumps, pipes, generators, roads and powerlines. Water will be pumped up-hill using grid power in times of low demand, and then released when needed to recover some of that energy. To call it “hydro-electric” is a fraud – it will not store one extra litre of water and will be a net consumer of electric power. It is a giant electric storage battery to be recharged using grid power.
This is just the next episode in an expensive and impossible green dream to run Australian cities and industries, plus a growing electric vehicle fleet, on intermittent wind and solar energy and without coal, gas, oil or nuclear fuels.
The first stage of Australia’s green dream was to demonise coal and nuclear power, set onerous green energy and CO2 emissions targets, subsidise and mandate the use of intermittent energy from wind and solar, and give electric cars financial and other privileges. All of this costs Australian electricity users and tax payers at least $5 billion per year. This destructive force-feeding of solar and wind power is well advanced.
Solar energy peaks around mid-day, falls to zero from dusk to dawn and is much reduced by clouds, dust and smoke. Over a year it may produce about 16% of name-plate capacity. Thus a solar-battery system would need installed solar capacity of six times the demand. These solar “farms” are very land-hungry per unit of usable energy, often sterilising large areas of agricultural land.
Wind energy is much more erratic – it can produce about 35% of peak capacity but often produces peak power during the night when there is low demand. It may produce zero power for several days. A sudden high wind can send wind power surging onto the grid, and it falls to zero as the wind dies. Wind power driving a wind-battery system would need installed wind capacity of triple the expected demand, but even that may not cope with a long windless spell. There can be days with zero production from either wind or solar, and neither can increase output to meet demand which often peaks around dinner time and breakfast time when green power is scarce. Wind “farms” are a blight on the landscape and are often built in scenic areas where farming and forestry are prohibited.
The price of electricity fluctuates wildly as these floods and droughts of intermittent green energy surge into the grid. This creates instability, increases the chance of blackouts and destroys the viability of reliable coal-fired generators which are unable to ramp up fast enough to profit from soaring power prices during green energy droughts and are forced to keep running while accepting close-to-zero prices during the green deluges. To speed up this destruction of reliable energy, politicians are still using subsidies and targets to encourage more green energy to be dumped randomly onto the grid.
Warren Buffett puts it bluntly:
“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.”
The solution to green energy disruption is simple. Do not allow any new spasmodic generators like wind and solar to connect direct to the grid. They must construct or contract for battery or other backup to moderate their fluctuations and increase reliability and predictability. Existing wind-solar farms already connected to the grid should lose all subsidies and be paid what their second class product is worth at the time it floods onto the grid.
Backing up and taming green energy is simple in principle – it can be done using lithium batteries like the Musk monster in South Australia, or giant pumped-hydro schemes like Snowy 2.0. Or conventional reliable generators like hydro, gas, oil, coal or nuclear can be operated intermittently to fill green energy gaps.
Other ways to store and release energy would also work in principle – hydrogen generation, molten salt, compressed air or giant flywheels – all look smart when sketched on the doodle pads of green politicians and then modelled on academic computers. But they become progressively more complicated and expensive as they progress to engineering design, costing, construction, operation and maintenance. Reality will reappear when the bills start hitting consumers and tax payers, but by then it is too late to recover all those wasted resources.
To make things worse for consumers and industry, widely scattered green energy installations usually need new roads for construction and maintenance and new transmission lines to transport their unreliable product to where it can be used (some 30 new transmission lines are currently planned in Australia alone to connect green energy facilities, and more will be needed.) Those who profit from this green infrastructure get guaranteed returns based on capital, maintenance and operating costs, not on the value of its contribution to consumers, and as usual consumers and taxpayers pay the bills.
Industry and households are now waking up to the costs and blackout risks facing them as more coal-fired generators are forced to close as evermore intermittent generators de-stabilise the grid and cause wild price swings. But politicians have yet another plan to paper over the growing supply problems from un-reliables as they try to meet the self-imposed emissions targets.
Recently the Turnbull Federal Government committed over $7 billion in studies and purchase price to buy the existing Hydro-electric complex in the Snowy Mountains from state governments. This valuable project conserves water which is used for irrigation and electricity generation. However they plan to burden this useful profitable project with another green dream – a Giant Battery.
Snowy 2.0 will consume electricity mainly from distant generators in the Hunter and Latrobe Valleys to pump water from lower dams to upper dams, and then recover part of this energy by releasing the stored water back downhill to drive turbines. The electricity recovered will be sent mainly to the big but distant demand centres of Sydney and Melbourne thus incurring more transmission losses. All of these unavoidable losses mean that Snowy 2.0 will only recover about 60% of the energy it takes from the grid. (This low recovery is one reason that existing pumped hydro facilities like Tumut 3 in the Snowy and Wivenhoe in Queensland are seldom used).
The system also imprisons Snowy water which could be used to generate new power and then flow into Snowy irrigation schemes. This Canberra-bred green elephant aims to profit from fluctuating wind-solar supply and prices, but it will make things worse for electricity consumers in the long run by helping to destroy low-cost, reliable base-load energy from coal.
Electricity supply will then become a lottery – every time the wind drops, the panels are shaded and the Giant Battery is flat, the lights will go out. South Australia has shown us how easy this is.
If there is also a long drought affecting hydro-electric supply in the Snowy and Tasmania, base load electricity supply will rely on a few geriatric coal generators. If a major transmission line is then damaged or fails, we will all need all the diesels in our sheds. Tasmania has provided a lesson for us all – they had a hydro drought and then a broken transmission cable and were forced to hurriedly purchase 200MW of diesel engines at a cost of $64M to keep their lights on.
In the coming brave new electric world, compulsory smart meters will decide which suburbs, homes, heaters, coolers, pumps, dairies, draglines or factories are switched off when power supply fails to meet demand.
Snowy 2.0 will be the biggest and most expensive storage battery in Australia with some 2,700 times the capacity of South Australia’s lithium Green Elephant. It will probably require upgrading of the transmissions lines to the big demand centres of Sydney and Melbourne and to the remaining real power stations which will supply most of the electricity to run its pumps.
All of this is supposedly being constructed to help Australia meet its costly but self-imposed emissions target. However there will probably be an increase in emissions if this Green Elephant is created. The project will require a huge amount of concrete, steel, copper, diesel and electricity to manufacture, transport and install the pipes, pumps, generators, roads and transmission lines and to bore 27 km of new tunnels. Pumping all that water up-hill regularly and repairing and maintaining the system in the coldest place in Australia will not be cheap in dollars, energy or emissions. Careful accounting of all long term effects will probably show no emissions savings whatsoever.
Snowy 2.0 is being constructed to moderate the fluctuations in green energy production and to kill coal power faster. It will do this. But will not be able to guarantee electricity supply with any certainty – if we have a week of windless cloudy weather, and there is not enough coal or gas power, the demand for electricity will quickly drain the Snowy 2.0 reservoirs. Then where does the power come from to pump the Snowy water back up the hill and keep the lights on? SA’s giant lithium battery may keep Adelaide powered for a few minutes, but what about Townsville, Toowoomba and Tamworth?
However, if politicians are determined to build Snowy 2-0, it could be put to much better use than pumping water uphill to run down again. Our electricity would be more secure and cheaper if we ceased all force-feeding of wind-solar un-reliables, used coal, gas or nuclear power running continuously at capacity to supply the stable “base load” of electricity demand, and used schemes like Snowy 2.0 to cover peak load fluctuations above this base load. This would create a stable grid providing reliable low-cost power (so it has little chance of happening with green gremlins in charge of energy.)
All of this is motivated by the carbon dioxide/global warming scare. This is a planned distraction and that story is wearing thin. But the green energy mess is undeniable – the Snowy 2.0 proposal is proof that some politicians can at last see the increasing dangers of grid instability.
Australia is a land of droughts, and large areas can be affected by seasonal or longer droughts in water, wind or solar energy. We may get regular rain, steady winds and bright sunshine for long periods over large areas, but that is not the best way to place our bets.
The graph below shows how more green energy, produces higher electricity costs.
Source: Fred Rumak: www.friendsofscience.org
There is no longer a cost-free, risk-free energy option for Australia but the risks and costs will rise for each day’s delay. About 40% of Australia’s coal and gas plants are likely to close by 2030, but that will not make the sun shine at night or keep the wind blowing steadily, or keep the dams full.
We need to withdraw from all Paris/Kyoto Treaty obligations, abolish NEG, RET and all subsidies, mandates and tax breaks given to wind and solar power. No new wind or solar farms should be connected directly to the grid until they have established sufficient battery storage to produce a guaranteed supply. Finally all political obstacles to reliable power such as coal, gas or nuclear must be removed.
And if we have spare mega-billions to speculate on Snowy Green Elephants we should first investigate whether there are better plans for water, wind and electricity, such as:
Find sites on either side of the Great Dividing Range that can catch and hold lots of runoff water.
Use the water first for electricity generation, then for irrigation.
Find a way to send that water to the western side of the Great Dividing Range. That could be done using gravity via tunnels or pipes or using electric pumps, wind pumps or syphon-assisted electric pumping (which avoids needing expensive tunnels).
Use the water for irrigation and agriculture in the dry inland. Failing that, use it for towns and irrigation on the more populated eastern side.
Romans, Incas and others could build aqueducts 400-700 km long without jack hammers, diesel engines, boring machines, dozers, draglines and concrete. We can build big dams and long traffic tunnels. Surely we can capture water along our well-watered and often-flooded east-coast, get it over or through the mountains, and then generate electricity as that water is released to drought-proof land west of the divide.
Our grandparents’ generation built an electricity system that was the envy of the world – black coal in Qld and NSW, brown coal in Victoria and SA, plus hydro in Tasmania and the Snowy. It was efficient, resilient and decentralised, and it gave industry and consumers reliable low-cost power.
SB 100: California Legislation Demands 100% Clean Energy Within 13 Years
California lawmakers and their radical environmental followers seem to all live in an alternative universe where the goal is to destroy every abundant and cheap source of energy and replace it with projects that are doomed to fail even before they are started. ⁃ TN Editor
The California Senate on Wednesday passed legislation that would set the state on a path to eliminate carbon emissions from its electricity generation, after the state Assembly approved it on Tuesday.
S.B. 100 would set a state goal to supply 100% of retail electricity sales from carbon-free resources by 2045 and direct state agencies to begin planning for the target. The bill would also boost the state’s current 50% renewable portfolio standard to 60% by 2030 and mandate that California’s actions do not “contribute to greenhouse gas emissions increases elsewhere in the western grid.”
Utilities in the state oppose the effort, with Pacific Gas and Electric telling the Wall Street Journal the legislation is “poorly timed.” The bill must be passed by the Senate before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown, who supports the effort and is likely to sign it.
California has made serious commitments to lower greenhouse gas emissions this year, whether it aims to electrify its transportation by coordinating vehicle charging infrastructure or moving electric generation away from natural gas.
Those efforts took a big step forward in the Assembly on Tuesday with the passage of the state’s first 100% clean energy target.
“The goal of 100 percent clean electricity is ambitious, but well within reach, and is critical to reducing global warming pollution from other sectors like transportation,” Laura Wisland, manager of western states energy for Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.
Some utilities in the state, however, are not pleased. San Diego Gas & Electric told the Journal Tuesday it would like to see California do more to reduce emissions from transportation, rather than imposing more utility mandates, and PG&E said lawmakers are moving too quickly.
“Lawmakers in the Assembly have put the cart before the horse by approving a long-term procurement mandate that will affect utilities and their customers for more than 25 years without any assurance that the state’s utilities will remain financially stable and able to shoulder these new mandates in the face of growing wildfire risk,” a PG&E spokesperson told the paper.
Wildfires are currently blazing in California and a state report estimates an increase in wildfire frequency if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. The report also painted a grim picture about coastal erosion and flood risk and negative water supply impacts.
Colorado Plans To Retire Coal, Shift To Renewables And Storage
Colorado says it must invest $2.5 billion for renewable energy capacity in order to save ratepayers $213, and people fall for it. The fact is, consumer rates have consistently gone up, some radically so, whenever alternative energy is introduced to the mix. These promoters are reminiscent of carnival barkers at a county fair. ⁃ TN Editor
Colorado’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) voted unanimously on Monday to give preliminary approval to Xcel Energy’s Clean Energy Plan, which would see the utility close 660 MW of coal-fired generation a decade earlier than scheduled and shift to renewable resources.
Under the plan, Xcel will close units 1 and 2 at the Comanche Generating Station in Pueblo and invest $2.5 billion in renewable energy and battery storage. The utility expects the plan to save ratepayers $213 million.
In January, the utility solicited notably low bid prices for wind-plus-storage, $21/MWh, as well as $36/MWh for solar-plus-storage, some of the lowest bids for renewable energy plus storage on record.
Xcel’s Clean Energy Plan is part of its years-long “steel for fuel” strategy in which the utility is shifting away from fossil fuel generation and investing in renewable energy.
“We’re looking at [wind prices] in the low teens to low 20s [in dollars/MWh] — not starting prices, but levelized across the 25-year life of the project,” he said. “That beats gas, even at today’s prices.”
By 2021, Xcel forecasts that wind will be its single biggest resource in terms of generation output. Environmentalists cheered approval of the plan that will help the utility get there.
“The plan is a clear rebuttal to the notion that we have to choose between affordable electricity rates and clean air,” said Zach Pierce, senior campaign representative for Colorado Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign in a statement.
Retiring the coal units was “the most contentious part,” of the plan, according to the Pueblo Chieftain, which noted two out of the state’s three commissioners originally worried the plan relied too much on solar-plus-storage.
Coal made up 44% of Colorado’s electric generation last year, and the proposal would decrease that generation to 24%, according to the Denver Post.