Follow by Email

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Green Energy Can NOT Sustain Itself

Another example of Green Energy NEEDING Propping up by YOU.

Hey folks.

Happy Tuesday to ya. Hope you all had a GREAT Christmas and ARE having a GREAT Hanukkah. We are now counting down to the end of 2011 and heading to 2012 at Warp Speed. Are you ready? But it IS Tuesday, and back to Life and to Reality for most. Well, for a couple of days anyway. There WILL be a Big Sunday Edition this week complete with the Idiot of the Year and Display of Logic Award for the Year this Sunday. The very FIRST day of 2012.

But it IS Tuesday, December 26th 2011, so lets check in at the Energy Front. We have been talking about the Free Market. The fact that the Free Market WORKS. We have been talking a LOT about the Keystone Pipeline and the fact we have a President that would rather NOT increase American Security, DECREASE Energy Costs, and CREATE Tens if not HUNDREDS of Thousands of NEW and long lasting JOBS, in the name of Politics and pushing a FAILED agenda.

No, he and others would rather continue to Push the Green Dream, even know the Green Dream is NOT Sustainable WITHOUT using YOUR Tax Money to prop them up. Well, it not just here. According to the UK Guardian - Bright future for solar dims after feed-in tariff cut guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 December 2011 16.00 EST

It can come as no surprise that the Department of Energy and Climate Change lost the feed-in-tariffs case (Report, 22 December). No matter what the motivation, you cannot make changes prior to the close of a consultation period. However, after the celebrations or commiserations, ministers will hopefully take the opportunity to address the two fundamental problems that still exist: lack of a sufficient budget to support this growing industry, and a proposed structure that disadvantages smaller companies.
OK so basically, all these people were attempting to get Solar Panels installed, not because they wanted to GO GREEN, but because there is a pretty good PAYOUT by the Government to do so. The ONLY reason that most of these people applied and were going to actually BUY the Industry's Product, was because they were going to GET Money from the Government to Pay for them. No money from the Government, or a CUT in the Money from the Government, means that they would NOT want to foot the Expense themselves, therefore no one would buy the Product, {Solar Panels} meaning that the Companies would shut down. So even though there is no money to support this, they Government has been told by this Judge that they CAN'T cut the funding. They are using a Legal Maneuver to keep the Gravy Train going.

The decision to decrease the percentage return on solar photovoltaic to single figures is sensible and expected. However, to base these rates on budget levels calculated as part of the comprehensive spending review, set in November 2010, is out of line with the current economic picture. Since the decision was taken last year to create a fixed budget for the tariff, the government has changed its overall strategy and now recognises the need to inject funds into the economy to stimulate business and create jobs. The emerging renewable energy industry is showing sustained growth, with companies investing millions to satisfy the growing demand for solar microgeneration, creating thousands of new jobs. This is now in jeopardy.
But see this is all nonsense. It really is. IF there IS a "growing demand for solar microgeneration" then funding for it would EXIST. The Free Market WORKS. Look at the I Phone 4S. It isn't cheap. Yet, the Growing Demand for it is insane. People are PAYING full price and lining up to do so. Apple is happy. They can't make them fast enough. No Subsidises needed. No Tax money going out to reimburse people for buying it. The more people buy it, the CHEAPER it will become. THAT is a Demand. That is the Free Market. NOT Government funded PROP.

Second, one of the fastest-expanding industry sectors – small businesses installing solar PV – will be squeezed out of the market if the government's plans on linking feed-in tariffs to energy efficiency measures goes ahead. Most SMEs are specialist installers not geared up to install energy-efficient measures such as cavity or solid-wall insulation. Only larger companies who can invest in the infrastructure necessary to offer a total installed solution would be able to cost-effectively operate in the marketplace.
So what? Apple can afford to make the I Phone 4S. They are reaping the rewards. Smaller companies CAN'T, so they make OTHER things. Not get the Government to give them money to make up the Difference. This is all completely ridiculous. If I build homes and I have the money to invest in building Million Dollar Homes, Marble, Gold Faucets, ETC, then I reap the rewards by people BUYING my Homes. If you CAN'T invest in these things, then you build Modular Homes and sell them. If you can not invest in THAT then you should get out of the building business all together. The Free Market WORKS folks. And YES, those that take chances and INVEST in their Passion and Field of endeavour, sometimes reap the Rewards of their Investments. Sometimes they fail and have to reevaluate.

If the model set out in the consultation goes ahead, the industry will no longer be one dominated by SMEs. It will unfairly favour large organisations which can offer a far more diverse package of products. The sustainable energy industry is one of the few success stories where performance is going in the right direction. With a little care and foresight, it will gather momentum and stimulate economic growth, while contributing to energy security.

Paul Roche
Director of renewables and sustainability, Grafton Group
So what Mr. Roche is saying here is simple. Another example of Green Energy NEEDING Propping up by YOU. There is NO REAL GROWING DEMAND. It is FALSE. Phony. It is a SHOW. It is people being PROPPED UP by Government, funded by YOU, and sustained with handouts. It is NOT Supply and Demand. It is NOT the Free Market. And it IS, just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
UK Guardian - Bright future for solar dims after feed-in tariff cut

No comments: