Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

...
---
There is also a nearly non-existent 4th group:

  4)  the so-called 'sound money' crowd.  This would be finite-source-backed monetary solution.  Gold and crypto-currency are in this category.  Although it is very possible to 'sweep the table' by controlling gold in a gold-backed system, gaming more flexible systems makes it easier and more durable to keep the game going.  

Crypto, on the other hand, is a nasty beast.  When one player accumulates all the crypto, the rest of the players just make a new one and start playing again.

A crypto based on the random mathematical output of Jupiter's cloud shapes could be the answer for another 4 billion years. Until  players create a new crypto based the Sun's light rays.

Climate change cryptos

In fact the blocks of a blockchain could be locked by anything.  It is interesting to me that Satoshi choose an energy backed POW method, and indeed it is probably the strongest of the relatively weak indications that Bitcoin was a project of bankster/CIA scum or whatever.

Again, the thing which really fascinated me about crypto early on is that, paradoxically, it's strength is that it CAN easily fail.  Failure is inevitable if it is abused in the real world.  In a capitalist system any solution will see the winners ending up with all the chips, but the chips in crypto-land can be turned into piles of shit at will by the losers.  This differentiates it from gold (where although possible, the failure mechanics are simply less practical.)

The hopeful outcome in a distributed crypto-currency environment is that the currency itself is a neutral force of nature free of manipulation.  This levels the play field to a degree.  The 'chips' in this case weigh to some other form (land, resources, intellectual property, etc.)

Yes. Nothing is forever. People used to show off how rich and powerful they were by the amount of aluminum they owned, hundreds of years ago. The same could happen with gold if Alphabet Corp can mine asteroids as they plan to do, for example. The "system" wants you to be ready all the time, or you die. Same game since the creation of everything. Everything will fail eventually.

What would happen if / when off planet mining starts is that materials mined would be valued for their local value, not for Earth value.

For example on the Moon carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen are extremely rare. If carbon was found in a deep crater near the pole, and it was mined and moved to a location with more sunlight, say the mid latitudes, it would have a very high value. Gold and silver have a value as conductors but not as precious metals.

Almost nothing in space will have a value in excess of the cost to return it to earth, so valuable stuff will not be returned to Earth. Value in space is subject to an odd limitation, kinetic energy of position and energy costs to change that, e.g. to effect orbital changes.

Value, of course, is value, where ever it is found and assessed.

[1715614799]

1715614799

[1715614799]

1715614799

[1715614799]

1715614799

[1715614799]

1715614799

[1715614799]

1715614799

[1715614799]

1715614799

[Spendulus]

Why are we discussing this in terms of cryptocurrency.
It really has nothing to do with it you're talking about a totally different website and not this website.

Well, if the forces behind "Climate Change" had their way / won at their power games, they would definitely have a global currency, and anything such as bitcoin would be outlawed.

Nuff said?

[robbylove]

...
---
There is also a nearly non-existent 4th group:

  4)  the so-called 'sound money' crowd.  This would be finite-source-backed monetary solution.  Gold and crypto-currency are in this category.  Although it is very possible to 'sweep the table' by controlling gold in a gold-backed system, gaming more flexible systems makes it easier and more durable to keep the game going.  

Crypto, on the other hand, is a nasty beast.  When one player accumulates all the crypto, the rest of the players just make a new one and start playing again.

A crypto based on the random mathematical output of Jupiter's cloud shapes could be the answer for another 4 billion years. Until  players create a new crypto based the Sun's light rays.

Climate change cryptos

In fact the blocks of a blockchain could be locked by anything.  It is interesting to me that Satoshi choose an energy backed POW method, and indeed it is probably the strongest of the relatively weak indications that Bitcoin was a project of bankster/CIA scum or whatever.

Again, the thing which really fascinated me about crypto early on is that, paradoxically, it's strength is that it CAN easily fail.  Failure is inevitable if it is abused in the real world.  In a capitalist system any solution will see the winners ending up with all the chips, but the chips in crypto-land can be turned into piles of shit at will by the losers.  This differentiates it from gold (where although possible, the failure mechanics are simply less practical.)

The hopeful outcome in a distributed crypto-currency environment is that the currency itself is a neutral force of nature free of manipulation.  This levels the play field to a degree.  The 'chips' in this case weigh to some other form (land, resources, intellectual property, etc.)

Yes. Nothing is forever. People used to show off how rich and powerful they were by the amount of aluminum they owned, hundreds of years ago. The same could happen with gold if Alphabet Corp can mine asteroids as they plan to do, for example. The "system" wants you to be ready all the time, or you die. Same game since the creation of everything. Everything will fail eventually.

What would happen if / when off planet mining starts is that materials mined would be valued for their local value, not for Earth value.

For example on the Moon carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen are extremely rare. If carbon was found in a deep crater near the pole, and it was mined and moved to a location with more sunlight, say the mid latitudes, it would have a very high value. Gold and silver have a value as conductors but not as precious metals.

Almost nothing in space will have a value in excess of the cost to return it to earth, so valuable stuff will not be returned to Earth. Value in space is subject to an odd limitation, kinetic energy of position and energy costs to change that, e.g. to effect orbital changes.

Value, of course, is value, where ever it is found and assessed.

I agree with that logic, if the out of world mining companies cut their connections with the corporations on Earth. A corporation's prospect of spending so much energy, money, but not getting rich on Earth, with zero or negative ROI?

King of England
Colonies
Tax
Tea party
War
USA...

The same logic will apply in the future.

[robbylove]

Report: Renewable Energy Is Bigger ‘Scam’ than Bernie Madoff and Enron



The greatest scam being perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers is renewable energy, according to a new analysis published by the Australian, greater even than Ponzi, Madoff and Enron.
While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, writes Judith Sloan, a renowned Australian economist who has served on the Australian government’s Productivity Commission.

“With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.

In Australia, more than 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year are funneled to renewable energy handlers by virtue of the operation of the renewable energy target and the associated renewable energy certificates, Sloan observes.

At the same time, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency “shovels out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidise renewable energy companies, many of which are overseas-owned,” she states, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was given $10 billion in equity by the Gillard Labor government “to lend or grant money to renewable energy companies.”

Despite this enormous taxpayer “investment,” so-called renewable energy has yet to pay any dividends or to suggest it will be economically viable for the foreseeable future.

Sloan’s grim analysis of the state of renewable energy as a financial sinkhole in Australia is mirrored by other countries such as the United States.

According to Forbes, on a total dollar basis, wind and solar together get more from the federal government than all other energy sources combined, despite the fact that neither is anywhere close to self-supporting. Wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second.

Based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), however, solar energy “has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind,” writes energy expert and planetary geologist Dr. James Conca.

During the Obama years from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54 percent—from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion—despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23 percent during the same period, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

In absolute terms, between 2010 and 2013 solar energy alone saw a 500 percent increase in federal subsidies from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion.

In this same period, subsidies for fossil fuels decreased by 15 percent. from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and subsidies for nuclear energy fell by 12 percent, from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

One of the more pernicious side-effects of the enormous government subsidies for renewable energy, Conca found, is that they actually increase the cost of energy. This cost, however, is transferred from the energy consumer to the taxpayer, “and so goes unnoticed by most Americans,” he stated.

While during the period between 2010 and 2014 nuclear energy cost about 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce, solar energy cost between 80¢ and 100¢ per kWh, or 20 times as much to produce. This despite the fact that nuclear energy is “as renewable as wind” but doesn’t enjoy the same star status among environmental activists.

Returning to the case of Australia, Sloan argues that if one were to sum up all the taxpayer-funded subsidies, grants, concessional loans, guarantees and the like the aggregate amount “dwarfs any other government industry assistance aid.”

Something similar has happened in Germany, Sloan states, where Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to shut down all the country’s nuclear power plants, to be replaced with “renewable energy.” The target for 2030 is for 50 percent of the nation’s power to come from renewables.

The ill-fated Energie­wende, the country’s program for energy transition, has hit serious hurdles, Sloan notes, not least the extraordinary cost that now totals some €650 billion.

In an odd twist of fate, late last year the wind simply didn’t blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of Germany, and thus the output from renewables fell to just 4 percent of total demand. It was Poland, “with its black coal-fired electricity plants,” that came to rescue Germany from its self-induced energy crisis.

The best approach for the future, Sloan concludes, entails “acknowledging that enough is enough when it comes to subsidising renewable energy.”

The sector has been showered with favors with little to show for it, she observes, and it is high time “it stood on its own two feet without any preferential treatment or financial assistance.”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/09/report-renewable-energy-is-bigger-scam-than-bernie-madoff-and-enron/

[777asianinvasian]

Report: Renewable Energy Is Bigger ‘Scam’ than Bernie Madoff and Enron



The greatest scam being perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers is renewable energy, according to a new analysis published by the Australian, greater even than Ponzi, Madoff and Enron.
While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, writes Judith Sloan, a renowned Australian economist who has served on the Australian government’s Productivity Commission.

“With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.

In Australia, more than 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year are funneled to renewable energy handlers by virtue of the operation of the renewable energy target and the associated renewable energy certificates, Sloan observes.

At the same time, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency “shovels out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidise renewable energy companies, many of which are overseas-owned,” she states, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was given $10 billion in equity by the Gillard Labor government “to lend or grant money to renewable energy companies.”

Despite this enormous taxpayer “investment,” so-called renewable energy has yet to pay any dividends or to suggest it will be economically viable for the foreseeable future.

Sloan’s grim analysis of the state of renewable energy as a financial sinkhole in Australia is mirrored by other countries such as the United States.

According to Forbes, on a total dollar basis, wind and solar together get more from the federal government than all other energy sources combined, despite the fact that neither is anywhere close to self-supporting. Wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second.

Based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), however, solar energy “has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind,” writes energy expert and planetary geologist Dr. James Conca.

During the Obama years from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54 percent—from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion—despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23 percent during the same period, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

In absolute terms, between 2010 and 2013 solar energy alone saw a 500 percent increase in federal subsidies from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion.

In this same period, subsidies for fossil fuels decreased by 15 percent. from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and subsidies for nuclear energy fell by 12 percent, from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

One of the more pernicious side-effects of the enormous government subsidies for renewable energy, Conca found, is that they actually increase the cost of energy. This cost, however, is transferred from the energy consumer to the taxpayer, “and so goes unnoticed by most Americans,” he stated.

While during the period between 2010 and 2014 nuclear energy cost about 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce, solar energy cost between 80¢ and 100¢ per kWh, or 20 times as much to produce. This despite the fact that nuclear energy is “as renewable as wind” but doesn’t enjoy the same star status among environmental activists.

Returning to the case of Australia, Sloan argues that if one were to sum up all the taxpayer-funded subsidies, grants, concessional loans, guarantees and the like the aggregate amount “dwarfs any other government industry assistance aid.”

Something similar has happened in Germany, Sloan states, where Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to shut down all the country’s nuclear power plants, to be replaced with “renewable energy.” The target for 2030 is for 50 percent of the nation’s power to come from renewables.

The ill-fated Energie­wende, the country’s program for energy transition, has hit serious hurdles, Sloan notes, not least the extraordinary cost that now totals some €650 billion.

In an odd twist of fate, late last year the wind simply didn’t blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of Germany, and thus the output from renewables fell to just 4 percent of total demand. It was Poland, “with its black coal-fired electricity plants,” that came to rescue Germany from its self-induced energy crisis.

The best approach for the future, Sloan concludes, entails “acknowledging that enough is enough when it comes to subsidising renewable energy.”

The sector has been showered with favors with little to show for it, she observes, and it is high time “it stood on its own two feet without any preferential treatment or financial assistance.”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/09/report-renewable-energy-is-bigger-scam-than-bernie-madoff-and-enron/

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Breitbart said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

[tvbcof]

...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/09/report-renewable-energy-is-bigger-scam-than-bernie-madoff-and-enron/

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Breitbart said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

Sadly, brieghtbart.com is among the most credible information outlets here in 2017.  Most of the mainstream outlets were stupid/desperate enough to 'burn the books' (to use a stockbrocker's term) in a failed attempt to get Hillary in as POTUS.

The most sure-fire way to 'get a rise out of people' is to have an element of fundamental and undeniable truth to an idea.  Any troll who is worth his/her salt will testify to this reality.  This is because 'truth hurts', and pain is what gets a response.

[Spendulus]

.....

I agree with that logic, if the out of world mining companies cut their connections with the corporations on Earth. A corporation's prospect of spending so much energy, money, but not getting rich on Earth, with zero or negative ROI?
....

Not quite. Suppose you had access to hydrogen and oxygen, and a pump system that would refill rocket fuel tanks. You are at the L5 or L4 langrange point, suspended there. (The "You" is likely an automated station not humans.). Basically that's about a quarter million miles out from Earth.

The value of your refilling tanks is easy to calculate. It's the amount of launch mass not needed. Just get the empty exploration spacecraft to the refuel station, and off it goes to Saturn or Jupiter.

That's value on Earth, clearly.

The real payoff comes when someone can mine raw materials and 3d print off world.

[robbylove]

.....

I agree with that logic, if the out of world mining companies cut their connections with the corporations on Earth. A corporation's prospect of spending so much energy, money, but not getting rich on Earth, with zero or negative ROI?
....

Not quite. Suppose you had access to hydrogen and oxygen, and a pump system that would refill rocket fuel tanks. You are at the L5 or L4 langrange point, suspended there. (The "You" is likely an automated station not humans.). Basically that's about a quarter million miles out from Earth.

The value of your refilling tanks is easy to calculate. It's the amount of launch mass not needed. Just get the empty exploration spacecraft to the refuel station, and off it goes to Saturn or Jupiter.

That's value on Earth, clearly.

The real payoff comes when someone can mine raw materials and 3d print off world.

Business as usual will be fine, at the start of the story. Happy people, etc.
Who's the owner of the automated space gas station? Can it be shut down remotely? Once people will want to visit worlds far away physically, not just via their avatar, some may want to never return on Earth. A need for a local and independent government will arise. That gas station could be taken over (The Gas Station Tea Hydrogen Party).

The rest is history repeating itself.

[robbylove]

Report: Renewable Energy Is Bigger ‘Scam’ than Bernie Madoff and Enron



The greatest scam being perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers is renewable energy, according to a new analysis published by the Australian, greater even than Ponzi, Madoff and Enron.
While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, writes Judith Sloan, a renowned Australian economist who has served on the Australian government’s Productivity Commission.

“With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.

In Australia, more than 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year are funneled to renewable energy handlers by virtue of the operation of the renewable energy target and the associated renewable energy certificates, Sloan observes.

At the same time, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency “shovels out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidise renewable energy companies, many of which are overseas-owned,” she states, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was given $10 billion in equity by the Gillard Labor government “to lend or grant money to renewable energy companies.”

Despite this enormous taxpayer “investment,” so-called renewable energy has yet to pay any dividends or to suggest it will be economically viable for the foreseeable future.

Sloan’s grim analysis of the state of renewable energy as a financial sinkhole in Australia is mirrored by other countries such as the United States.

According to Forbes, on a total dollar basis, wind and solar together get more from the federal government than all other energy sources combined, despite the fact that neither is anywhere close to self-supporting. Wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second.

Based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), however, solar energy “has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind,” writes energy expert and planetary geologist Dr. James Conca.

During the Obama years from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54 percent—from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion—despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23 percent during the same period, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

In absolute terms, between 2010 and 2013 solar energy alone saw a 500 percent increase in federal subsidies from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion.

In this same period, subsidies for fossil fuels decreased by 15 percent. from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and subsidies for nuclear energy fell by 12 percent, from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

One of the more pernicious side-effects of the enormous government subsidies for renewable energy, Conca found, is that they actually increase the cost of energy. This cost, however, is transferred from the energy consumer to the taxpayer, “and so goes unnoticed by most Americans,” he stated.

While during the period between 2010 and 2014 nuclear energy cost about 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce, solar energy cost between 80¢ and 100¢ per kWh, or 20 times as much to produce. This despite the fact that nuclear energy is “as renewable as wind” but doesn’t enjoy the same star status among environmental activists.

Returning to the case of Australia, Sloan argues that if one were to sum up all the taxpayer-funded subsidies, grants, concessional loans, guarantees and the like the aggregate amount “dwarfs any other government industry assistance aid.”

Something similar has happened in Germany, Sloan states, where Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to shut down all the country’s nuclear power plants, to be replaced with “renewable energy.” The target for 2030 is for 50 percent of the nation’s power to come from renewables.

The ill-fated Energie­wende, the country’s program for energy transition, has hit serious hurdles, Sloan notes, not least the extraordinary cost that now totals some €650 billion.

In an odd twist of fate, late last year the wind simply didn’t blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of Germany, and thus the output from renewables fell to just 4 percent of total demand. It was Poland, “with its black coal-fired electricity plants,” that came to rescue Germany from its self-induced energy crisis.

The best approach for the future, Sloan concludes, entails “acknowledging that enough is enough when it comes to subsidising renewable energy.”

The sector has been showered with favors with little to show for it, she observes, and it is high time “it stood on its own two feet without any preferential treatment or financial assistance.”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/09/report-renewable-energy-is-bigger-scam-than-bernie-madoff-and-enron/

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Breitbart said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something HuffPo said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something MSNBC said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something CNN said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Daily Kos said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Al Jazeera said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something BBC News said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

Everyone has a bias. If you know that and you are not afraid to read everyone's POV you'll be fine, using LOL source less often. Maturity it is called.

[Spendulus]

Report: Renewable Energy Is Bigger ‘Scam’ than Bernie Madoff and Enron



The greatest scam being perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers is renewable energy, according to a new analysis published by the Australian, greater even than Ponzi, Madoff and Enron.
While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, writes Judith Sloan, a renowned Australian economist who has served on the Australian government’s Productivity Commission.

“With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.

In Australia, more than 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year are funneled to renewable energy handlers by virtue of the operation of the renewable energy target and the associated renewable energy certificates, Sloan observes.

At the same time, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency “shovels out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidise renewable energy companies, many of which are overseas-owned,” she states, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was given $10 billion in equity by the Gillard Labor government “to lend or grant money to renewable energy companies.”

Despite this enormous taxpayer “investment,” so-called renewable energy has yet to pay any dividends or to suggest it will be economically viable for the foreseeable future.

Sloan’s grim analysis of the state of renewable energy as a financial sinkhole in Australia is mirrored by other countries such as the United States.

According to Forbes, on a total dollar basis, wind and solar together get more from the federal government than all other energy sources combined, despite the fact that neither is anywhere close to self-supporting. Wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second.

Based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), however, solar energy “has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind,” writes energy expert and planetary geologist Dr. James Conca.

During the Obama years from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54 percent—from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion—despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23 percent during the same period, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

In absolute terms, between 2010 and 2013 solar energy alone saw a 500 percent increase in federal subsidies from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion.

In this same period, subsidies for fossil fuels decreased by 15 percent. from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and subsidies for nuclear energy fell by 12 percent, from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

One of the more pernicious side-effects of the enormous government subsidies for renewable energy, Conca found, is that they actually increase the cost of energy. This cost, however, is transferred from the energy consumer to the taxpayer, “and so goes unnoticed by most Americans,” he stated.

While during the period between 2010 and 2014 nuclear energy cost about 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce, solar energy cost between 80¢ and 100¢ per kWh, or 20 times as much to produce. This despite the fact that nuclear energy is “as renewable as wind” but doesn’t enjoy the same star status among environmental activists.

Returning to the case of Australia, Sloan argues that if one were to sum up all the taxpayer-funded subsidies, grants, concessional loans, guarantees and the like the aggregate amount “dwarfs any other government industry assistance aid.”

Something similar has happened in Germany, Sloan states, where Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to shut down all the country’s nuclear power plants, to be replaced with “renewable energy.” The target for 2030 is for 50 percent of the nation’s power to come from renewables.

The ill-fated Energie­wende, the country’s program for energy transition, has hit serious hurdles, Sloan notes, not least the extraordinary cost that now totals some €650 billion.

In an odd twist of fate, late last year the wind simply didn’t blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of Germany, and thus the output from renewables fell to just 4 percent of total demand. It was Poland, “with its black coal-fired electricity plants,” that came to rescue Germany from its self-induced energy crisis.

The best approach for the future, Sloan concludes, entails “acknowledging that enough is enough when it comes to subsidising renewable energy.”

The sector has been showered with favors with little to show for it, she observes, and it is high time “it stood on its own two feet without any preferential treatment or financial assistance.”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/09/report-renewable-energy-is-bigger-scam-than-bernie-madoff-and-enron/

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Breitbart said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something HuffPo said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something MSNBC said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something CNN said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Daily Kos said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Al Jazeera said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something BBC News said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

Everyone has a bias. If you know that and you are not afraid to read everyone's POV you'll be fine, using LOL source less often. Maturity it is called.

what I got out of that was this.

during the period between 2010 and 2014 nuclear energy cost about 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce, solar energy cost between 80¢ and 100¢ per kWh, or 20 times as much to produce

[robbylove]

Report: Renewable Energy Is Bigger ‘Scam’ than Bernie Madoff and Enron



The greatest scam being perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers is renewable energy, according to a new analysis published by the Australian, greater even than Ponzi, Madoff and Enron.
While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, writes Judith Sloan, a renowned Australian economist who has served on the Australian government’s Productivity Commission.

“With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.

In Australia, more than 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year are funneled to renewable energy handlers by virtue of the operation of the renewable energy target and the associated renewable energy certificates, Sloan observes.

At the same time, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency “shovels out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidise renewable energy companies, many of which are overseas-owned,” she states, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was given $10 billion in equity by the Gillard Labor government “to lend or grant money to renewable energy companies.”

Despite this enormous taxpayer “investment,” so-called renewable energy has yet to pay any dividends or to suggest it will be economically viable for the foreseeable future.

Sloan’s grim analysis of the state of renewable energy as a financial sinkhole in Australia is mirrored by other countries such as the United States.

According to Forbes, on a total dollar basis, wind and solar together get more from the federal government than all other energy sources combined, despite the fact that neither is anywhere close to self-supporting. Wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second.

Based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), however, solar energy “has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind,” writes energy expert and planetary geologist Dr. James Conca.

During the Obama years from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54 percent—from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion—despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23 percent during the same period, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

In absolute terms, between 2010 and 2013 solar energy alone saw a 500 percent increase in federal subsidies from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion.

In this same period, subsidies for fossil fuels decreased by 15 percent. from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and subsidies for nuclear energy fell by 12 percent, from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

One of the more pernicious side-effects of the enormous government subsidies for renewable energy, Conca found, is that they actually increase the cost of energy. This cost, however, is transferred from the energy consumer to the taxpayer, “and so goes unnoticed by most Americans,” he stated.

While during the period between 2010 and 2014 nuclear energy cost about 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce, solar energy cost between 80¢ and 100¢ per kWh, or 20 times as much to produce. This despite the fact that nuclear energy is “as renewable as wind” but doesn’t enjoy the same star status among environmental activists.

Returning to the case of Australia, Sloan argues that if one were to sum up all the taxpayer-funded subsidies, grants, concessional loans, guarantees and the like the aggregate amount “dwarfs any other government industry assistance aid.”

Something similar has happened in Germany, Sloan states, where Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to shut down all the country’s nuclear power plants, to be replaced with “renewable energy.” The target for 2030 is for 50 percent of the nation’s power to come from renewables.

The ill-fated Energie­wende, the country’s program for energy transition, has hit serious hurdles, Sloan notes, not least the extraordinary cost that now totals some €650 billion.

In an odd twist of fate, late last year the wind simply didn’t blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of Germany, and thus the output from renewables fell to just 4 percent of total demand. It was Poland, “with its black coal-fired electricity plants,” that came to rescue Germany from its self-induced energy crisis.

The best approach for the future, Sloan concludes, entails “acknowledging that enough is enough when it comes to subsidising renewable energy.”

The sector has been showered with favors with little to show for it, she observes, and it is high time “it stood on its own two feet without any preferential treatment or financial assistance.”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/09/report-renewable-energy-is-bigger-scam-than-bernie-madoff-and-enron/

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Breitbart said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something HuffPo said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something MSNBC said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something CNN said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Daily Kos said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something Al Jazeera said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.....look at that great source you have above ^^. LOL source. Cmon man dont try and put off something BBC News said as news now. All they post is stuff to get a rise out of people, this story seems no different.

Everyone has a bias. If you know that and you are not afraid to read everyone's POV you'll be fine, using LOL source less often. Maturity it is called.

what I got out of that was this.

during the period between 2010 and 2014 nuclear energy cost about 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce, solar energy cost between 80¢ and 100¢ per kWh, or 20 times as much to produce

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyOImGHyJtQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj6BotyeDjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ

[Spendulus]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?

That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.

[robbylove]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?

That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.

Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?

[notbatman]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?

That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.

Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?

Bad cow!

[robbylove]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?

That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.

Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?

Bad cow!

Cows can't read.

[notbatman]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?

That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.

Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?

Bad cow!

Cows can't read.

[robbylove]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?

That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.

Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?

Bad cow!

Cows can't read.

They can't read but they don't want to go to Mars. That's smart.

[anon_giraffe]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

I much prefer living in a valley with a coal powered plant and watching my family all die from lung diseases

[robbylove]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

I much prefer living in a valley with a coal powered plant and watching my family all die from lung diseases

Can I watch too?

[yoseph]

....

Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise

But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?

That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.

Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?

Bad cow!

Maybe they are warning people who are warning people who are stupid enough to come close to the electrified fence. We all know that cows can't read and the fence was not made for them but they rsk being electrocuted coming to the fence.