| | | We constantly hear how solar and wind is already cheaper than fossil fuels. Yet, they aren't.
Bloomberg just a couple of months ago, told us that "wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies."
Now, a new study from the very same Bloomberg shows that if subsidies are phased out by 2020, the renewable industry will dry up and drop off a cliff.
...
Well, you can't have it both ways. This just simply shows that once again, renewables are *not* competitive and need subsidies for a long time. As the International Energy Agency shows, even in 2040, the average cost of renewables will be *higher* than the average cost of any other energy form, oil, gas, nuclear, coal and hydro, both in the developed and developing world. The subsidies we pay to solar and wind, even in 2040 will be about the same as the subsidies we pay today!
With formidable doublespeak, Greenpeace manages to say that renewables are both competitive *and* need subsidies for many years after 2020: "Wind and solar energy are at the point of becoming really competitive with fossil fuels, but failure to support them for another few years will result in huge losses of potential jobs.”
This is the story we've heard since the 1970s – just a few more years. In 1976 Lovins told us that "a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward soft technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic." And it still isn't.
Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/…/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewable…
IEA: https://twitter.com/bjornlomborg/status/664185198515482624
Lovins 1976: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/…/energy-strategy-road-not-t…
http://www.independent.co.uk/…/britains-renewable-energy-in… |
|
