Everyday someone tells us renewables are cheap … But what really matters to every man and his dog, is the cost effect on the whole system, not a cherry-slice comparison of a few sunny-windy hours a day which doesn’t take into account the effect that renewable energy has on the rest of the 24/7 electricity grid.
Greenstone, McDowell and Nath have analysed all 29 states in the US where there are laws demanding a certain percentage of energy be renewable. On average a 4% increase in renewables led to a price rise of 17% and the impost was wildly high compared to any remotely sensible cost-benefit analysis. Renewables are the car insurance bill that costs 3 times as much as your car. Any serious environmentalist would hate renewables.
Michael Shellenberger, Forbes: “The cost to consumers has been staggeringly high: ”All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,” they write.”
Greenstone et al analyze the RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards) in the US. This is like the RET in Australia and the Renewables Obligation in the UK. Like any market destroying rule, it ensures the system finds a more expensive way to supply electricity.
That’s the whole point. Back in the earlier days of tackling alleged catastrophic global warming due to increased carbon dioxide — I used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office — it was explicitly acknowledged: to reduce emissions of CO2, jack up prices.
The whole point of policy is to increase electricity prices, to do whatever it takes to stop us consuming cheap power from coal.
Nowadays they try to pretend that its about transitioning to “low cost” renewables. But that’s just same BS as how “global warming” became ” climate change”. A rose by any other name smells as sweet — Shakespeare would have hated the modern spinmeisters.