Tag Archives: Green energy

BlackRock and Citi Get on Board the Climate Nazi Train, by Chris MacIntosh

China occasionally talks a good “green” game, but it keeps on building coal-fired power plants. From Chris MacIntosh at internationalman.com:

There are some things that bring joy to my soul. My pleasures are simple ones. Peanut butter on toast (the food of gods), witnessing Macron getting a slap, and this…

The awesome thing here is that what is taking place is that our competition on bidding for coal assets has disappeared in a cloud of woke smoke.

This will quickly become geopolitical, and the question is this: can BlackRock, Citi, Prudential, HSBC, and their other woke mates decide the fate of nations?

They are already affecting the fate of nations. Witness Canada and all of Western Europe.

I found a live shot of their respective energy policies:

But will they do the same to China? Will they do the same to Russia?

The answer to that will only be fully revealed in the due course of time, but we don’t really need any crystal balls here as we just watch actions, not words.

“China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.”

Nearly all of the 60 new coal plants planned across Eurasia, South America and Africa — 70 gigawatts of coal power in all — are financed almost exclusively by Chinese banks”

We see all of this on the ground, and while it is taking place, formerly reputable media outlets such as the FT, Reuters, and Bloomberg tell us that: “China’s belt and road initiative creates a problem for China with respect to their climate goals.”

Continue reading→

Magical Thinking About Green Energy, by Charles Hugh Smith

You’ve got to believe in green energy, whether it makes any sense or not. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

The incentives must change from “waste is growth” to hyper-efficiency, conservation, right to repair and manufactured objects engineered to last a generation or longer and be recyclable at scale.

Humans like novelty but don’t like change. It’s easy to confuse the two. When we say, “I need a change,” what we mean is “I’d like to be refreshed by some novelty,” not “I want all the uncertainty, ambiguity and potential for errors and losses that come with change.”

Humans like a new model of truck (novelty) but don’t like their truck is taken away (change).

Since life is change, we all some experience with it. Some changes happen to us, others are the result of conscious choices we make.

Every individual has a mix of aptitudes, strategies and experiences with both kinds of change. Some of us are better at handling one kind or the other, some don’t handle either very well, some handle all change remarkably well.

Very few of us say, “I sure would like to have a health crisis.” We don’t choose the health crisis, but we do choose our response.

Like many of you, I’ve had accidents (health crises), major career changes and multiple moves to different locales.

as a general rule, changes we choose / direct have a push-pull aspect: there’s something negative we want to avoid or end, and something positive we want to obtain.

For example, we might realize that our current job is a dissatisfactory dead-end (the negative) and we need a more satisfying career (the positive).

A health crisis is negative but the prospect of this being a catalyst for a healthier lifestyle is positive.

Being fired or losing our job is negative (not the change we wanted or chose) but once we accept that our life is going to change one way or the other, we can view this negative as a positive catalyst– a move we didn’t choose for various reasons, but a positive move because otherwise we wouldn’t have taken all the risks and uncertainties that go with fashioning another career.

Continue reading→

What is China Buying in the Biden Administration? by Peter Schweizer

You don’t have to do too much sleuthing to unearth a lot of questionable dealings and financial arrangements between China and the Biden administration, starting with Joe and Hunter. From Peter Schweizer at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • The simple fact is that there are large, powerful donors to the Biden campaign that have big financial stakes in these green energy companies. It is a wealth transfer to Biden’s biggest bundlers, and that is a huge and massive problem.
  • For those companies with inside connections to the Biden campaign, it is American taxpayer money that is truly “shovel-ready.”
  • Former congressmen and senators, and former US ambassadors are being paid large sums of money by governments such as China, or by firms directly linked to those governments, which do not have America’s best interest at heart. They are lobbying in Washington to get their paymasters’ voices heard.
  • If you invest a couple of million dollars, let us say, in lobbying, or you invest a couple of million dollars in campaign contributions, often you can get benefits that are worth ten times that.
  • For Wall Street and Silicon Valley, the prospect of doing deals in China is mesmerizing. To do those deals in China, as they have learned, you must play nice with the regime, speak well of them, feather their nests…. It is no less tempting for American politicians…. Of greatest concern are the deals that actually advance Chinese state interests.
  • There is no other way to state this. The only way we can correct this situation is by exposing these people and showing U.S. citizens exactly what they are doing in our society.
  • [J]ust before the 2020 election, the [New York Times ran a piece by its “media reporter” bragging about their role as gatekeepers that would not pursue the Hunter Biden story.
For Wall Street and Silicon Valley, the prospect of doing deals in China is mesmerizing. To do those deals in China, as they have learned, you must play nice with the regime, speak well of them, feather their nests…. It is no less tempting for American politicians…. Of greatest concern are the deals that actually advance Chinese state interests. Pictured: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (second from right) speaks while facing Yang Jiechi (second from left), director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission Office, and Wang Yi (left), China’s Foreign Minister at the opening session of US-China talks in Anchorage, Alaska on March 18, 2021. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

What is China buying in the Biden Administration? A look to the recent past may provide some answers.

If you go back to 2009-10 and look at the “shovel-ready” stimulus package that President Barack Obama pushed through, as most people now know, there were huge amounts of money in the form of direct grants and loan guarantees that went to Solyndra and other “green energy” companies that failed. Yet, the question remained: Where did all that taxpayer money go for green energy?

Continue reading→

Why Californians Have Sky-High Electricity Bills, by Irina Slav

Green energy, the pride and joy of California’s powers that be, is expensive. From Irena Slav at oilprice.com:

Californians pay for some of the most expensive electricity in the United States. They also live in one of the greenest states, at least from an energy perspective. California is only going to get greener. Meanwhile, electricity bills are expected to continue their rise. Some deny there is a link between the two.

The facts show otherwise.

A paper by the California Public Utilities Commission released earlier this year identified the state’s plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adopting more renewable energy as one big factor for bigger utility bills and expectations for further increases in electricity rates in the coming years.

The report said that while the state’s plans to reduce emissions will negatively affect electricity bills, a concerted switch to what the authors call “all electric homes and electric vehicles” could lead to a substantial drop in monthly bills. However, this would require a large upfront investment, which would be impossible to shoulder by medium- and lower-income households.

“In the absence of subsidies and low-cost financing options, this could create equity concerns for low- to moderate-income households and exacerbate existing disparities in electricity affordability,” the report said.

But funding such a hypothetical move to “all electric homes and electric vehicles” is only part of the problem. Another part, ironically, is distributed energy systems.

Continue reading→

The Myths of Green Energy, by Charles Hugh Smith

There are a lot of drawbacks, including environmental ones, to green energy. From Charles Hugh Smith at dailyreckoning.com:

Finance is often cloaked in arcane terminology and math, but the one dynamic that governs the future is actually very simple. Here it is:

All debt is borrowed against future supplies of affordable hydrocarbons (oil, coal and natural gas).

Since global economic activity is ultimately dependent on a continued abundance of affordable energy, it follows that all money borrowed against future income is actually being borrowed against future supplies of affordable energy.

Many people believe that alternative “green” energy will soon replace most or all hydrocarbon energy sources, but this belief is not realistic. All the “renewable” energy sources are about 3% of all energy consumed, with hydropower providing another few percent.

There are unavoidable headwinds to this appealing fantasy…

Reality Check

1. All “renewable” energy is actually “replaceable” energy, analyst Nate Hagens points out. Every 15-25 years (or less) much or all of the alt-energy systems and structures have to be replaced, and little of the necessary mining, manufacturing and transport can be performed with the “renewable” electricity these sources generate. Virtually all the heavy lifting of these processes require hydrocarbons and especially oil.

2. Wind and solar “renewable” energy is intermittent and therefore requires changes in behavior (no clothes dryers or electric ovens used after dark, etc.) or battery storage on a scale that isn’t practical in terms of the materials required.

Continue reading→

Biden Freezes Texas, by Israel Shamir

Go green, go frozen. Renewable power is intermittent power, and it can conk out at the worst times. From Israel Shamir at unz.com:

Freezing Texas should commission a monument: Greta Thunberg and Bill Gates save the Texans from global warming by turning them into icicles. So much for global warming, the reddest herring ever caught in the Gulf of Mexico!

The Texans have got the real New Green Deal, very expensive and uncertain. The deal is “Freeze and pay through your nose!” The green alternative pure cheap and plentiful energy is the stuff the dreams of AOC are made of. It is not likely to work out. Wind and sea are wonderful but hardly a reliable source of energy for heating in sub-zero temperatures.

The destruction of the oil, gas and coal industries (as preached by the Global Warmers) would definitely kill a lot of people, many more than its normal exploitation. The spell of frost in Texas would cause only small discomfort if the local providers weren’t threatened with extinction and unwilling to work on the gas-oil-coal infrastructure. They aren’t likely to invest if warned that this work will soon become obsolete, to be replaced with wind turbines and solar energy. Just compare the poor condition of Texas with that of Russia, where temperatures below -30 Centigrade (-22 F) cause no discomfort to citizens, because the Russians aren’t shy of using gas and oil on top of nuclear power.

If I were a conspiracist, I’d accuse the Biden administration of meddling and intentionally freezing the Trumpist Texans. I’d do it anyway as revenge for them blaming the corona crisis on Trump. Washington definitely didn’t try to force Texan energy suppliers to provide much needed heat for the Republican-dominated state. But Bidenists’ main crime is their declared adherence to the green projects, based on their irrational belief in the Global Warming myth.

Continue reading→

Winter Storm Threatens Germany’s Power…Freezing Hell Threatens If Already Rickety Grid Collapses! by P. Gosselin

Whatever the merits of solar and wind power, they unambiguously weaken power grids. Germany may pay the price for its infatuation with green technologies. From P. Gosselin at wattsupwiththat.com:

Green energy and COVID-19 lockdowns are playing energy Russian roulette with people’s lives. Perfect winter storm brewing. 

A winter blizzard is set to strike Central Europe, bringing with it the potential to wreak power outage havoc. Temperatures will plummet to as low as -15°C accompanied by bone-chilling high winds. Closed shops due to COVID-19 are leaving citizens unprepared. A protracted power outage would be devastating. 

In the coming hours, a high pressure system situated over Scandinavia and storm Tristan to the south will collide over central Europe and develop into dangerous weather conditions over one of Europe’s most populated regions, North Rhine Westphalia Germany.

There are some major problems with this storm that will test the German power grid stability and even possibly the citizens’ ability to fend for themselves.

Power grid at risk: hours of freezing rain

First will be the band of freezing rain that is forecast across the Ruhr region of North Rhine Westphalia. According to Kachelmannwetter.de, the freezing rain period could last hours and thus lead to heavy weight loads on power transmission structures as ice builds up. Lines could collapse.

High winds – even heavier loads

To make matters worse, high winds will further exacerbate the loads on the already ice-coated power transmission infrastructure – thus increasing the probability of power line structural failure and an ensuing power blackout, which in turn could cascade and threaten the European power grid.

Continue reading→

One Little Problem with the “All-Electric” Auto Fleet: What Do We Do with all the “Waste” Gasoline? by Charles Hugh Smith

Charles Hugh Smith with an insight I haven’t seen anywhere else. From Smith at oftwominds.com:

Regardless of what happens with vaccines and Covid-19, debt and energy–inextricably bound as debt funds consumption– will destabilize the global economy in a self-reinforcing feedback.

Back in the early days of the oil industry (1880s and 1890s), the product that the industry could sell at a profit was kerosene for lighting and heating. Since there was no automobile industry yet, gasoline was a waste product that was dumped into streams.

Why couldn’t the refiners produce only kerosene? Why did they end up with “worthless” gasoline?

The answer is a barrel of oil produces a variety of products. While there is some “wiggle room” to produce more diesel and less gasoline, etc., it isn’t possible to turn a barrel of oil into only one product.

John D. Rockefeller became very wealthy by cornering much of the oil market in the 19th century. But he didn’t become fabulously wealthy until the 20th century, when the rise of automobiles created a market for all the “waste” gasoline.

Rockefeller became super-wealthy when all the products of each barrel of oil could be sold at a premium rather than just a portion of the products.

This reality has been forgotten: the price that can be fetched for a barrel of oil depends on the demand for all the products, not just a few of the products.

Those demanding an all-electric auto-truck fleet as a “green” alternative will re-create the dilemma of what to do with the “waste” gasoline. The world will still want fuel for all those container ships bringing all the goodies of a consumerist society, all those cruise ships visiting ports of call, jet fuel for all those exotic vacations enabled by 550 mile-per-hour aircraft, and oil-based lubricants, plastics and petro-chemicals, and so oil will still be pumped and refined, and almost half of it will be gasoline.

We can either use it or throw it away but we can’t magically turn a barrel of oil into only one product.

This is a topic worthy of your understanding, so grab a vat of your favorite beverage and turn off all distractions.

Continue reading→

Plans for a global Dystopia, by Alasdair Macleod

The globalist financial powers intend to use what’s not working on a national level on a global scale. What could go wrong? An excellent article from Alasdair Macleod at goldmoney.com:

Global policy planners intend to deliver replacements for both dollar hegemony and fossil fuels. Plans may appear uncoordinated and in their early stages, but these issues are becoming increasingly linked.

A monetary reset incorporating state-sponsored cryptocurrencies will enable exchange controls to be introduced between nations by separating cross-border trade payments from domestic money circulation. The purpose will be to gain greater control over money and to direct its investment into green projects.

The OECD will build on current tax disclosures to make everyone’s income and capital known to governments and therefore readily taxable, money destined to kick-start economic growth. Under the guidance of supranational organisations, governments will redirect investment into green technology. The objective, particularly for Europeans, is to neutralise Russia’s increasing dominance of the global energy market by becoming carbon neutral by 2030.

But perhaps as Robert Burns put it, “the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley”. They are based on Keynesian fallacies, but cannot be ignored.

Introduction

There appear to be policy areas being driven by statist responses to events, encouraging global institutions to take on a coordinating role. It means deeper levels of centralised planning by unaccountable bureaucrats. Assuming their plans continue to gain credence, we could end up with a dystopian world where supranational bodies direct individual governments to conform. We are already on this road to perdition. The OECD has coordinated attempts by governments to restrict the freedom of their citizens to avoid taxes by forcing over a hundred jurisdictions to automatically supply information on the financial affairs of every citizen, irrespective of nationality and where they reside.

Continue reading