Close
Duke shfaqur rezultatin -19 deri 0 prej 4
  1. #1
    i/e regjistruar Maska e HFTengineer
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-04-2016
    Postime
    469

    Si vjedhin leket e popullit taxat cifutet me Green energy, elion musk dhe shune te tjere

    /www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html



    Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

    And he's built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.


    Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

    "He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."

    The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.


    The electric automaker Tesla has a side business. It's called environmental credits.
    A looming question is whether the companies are moving toward self-sufficiency — as Dolev believes — and whether they can slash development costs before the public largesse ends.

    Tesla and SolarCity continue to report net losses after a decade in business, but the stocks of both companies have soared on their potential; Musk's stake in the firms alone is worth about $10 billion. (SpaceX, a private company, does not publicly report financial performance.)

    Musk and his companies' investors enjoy most of the financial upside of the government support, while taxpayers shoulder the cost.

    The payoff for the public would come in the form of major pollution reductions, but only if solar panels and electric cars break through as viable mass-market products. For now, both remain niche products for mostly well-heeled customers.

    Musk declined repeated requests for an interview through Tesla spokespeople, and officials at all three companies declined to comment.

    The subsidies have generally been disclosed in public records and company filings. But the full scope of the public assistance hasn't been tallied because it has been granted over time from different levels of government.

    New York state is spending $750 million to build a solar panel factory in Buffalo for SolarCity. The San Mateo, Calif.-based company will lease the plant for $1 a year. It will not pay property taxes for a decade, which would otherwise total an estimated $260 million.

    The federal government also provides grants or tax credits to cover 30% of the cost of solar installations. SolarCity reported receiving $497.5 million in direct grants from the Treasury Department.

    That figure, however, doesn't capture the full value of the government's support.

    Since 2006, SolarCity has installed systems for 217,595 customers, according to a corporate filing. If each paid the current average price for a residential system — about $23,000, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists — the cost to the government would total about $1.5 billion, which would include the Treasury grants paid to SolarCity.

    Nevada has agreed to provide Tesla with $1.3 billion in incentives to help build a massive battery factory near Reno.

    The Palo Alto company has also collected more than $517 million from competing automakers by selling environmental credits. In a regulatory system pioneered by California and adopted by nine other states, automakers must buy the credits if they fail to sell enough zero-emissions cars to meet mandates. The tally also includes some federal environmental credits.

    On a smaller scale, SpaceX, Musk's rocket company, cut a deal for about $20 million in economic development subsidies from Texas to construct a launch facility there. (Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force.)

    Subsidies are handed out in all kinds of industries, with U.S. corporations collecting tens of billions of dollars each year, according to Good Jobs First, a nonprofit that tracks government subsidies. And the incentives for solar panels and electric cars are available to all companies that sell them.

    Musk and his investors have also put large sums of private capital into the companies.

    But public subsidies for Musk's companies stand out both for the amount, relative to the size of the companies, and for their dependence on them.

    "Government support is a theme of all three of these companies, and without it none of them would be around," said Mark Spiegel, a hedge fund manager for Stanphyl Capital Partners who is shorting Tesla's stock, a bet that pays off if Tesla shares fall.

    Tesla stock has risen 157%, to $250.80 as of Friday's close, over the last two years.

    Musk has proved so adept at landing incentives that states now compete to give him money, said Ashlee Vance, author of "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future," a recently published biography.

    "As his star has risen, every state wants a piece of Elon Musk," Vance said.

    Before his current ventures, he made a substantial sum from EBay Inc.'s $1.5-billion purchase of PayPal, the electronic payment system in which Musk held an 11% stake.

    Soon after, he founded SpaceX in 2002 with money from that sale, and he made major investments and took leadership posts at Tesla and Solar City.

    Musk is now the chief executive of both Tesla and SpaceX and the chairman of SolarCity, and holds big stakes in all three, including 27% of Tesla and 23% of SolarCity, according to recent regulatory filings. The ventures employ about 23,000 people nationwide, and they operate or are building factories and facilities in California, Michigan, New York, Nevada and Texas.

    Tense talks

    The $1.3 billion in benefits for Tesla's Nevada battery factory resulted from a year of hardball negotiations.

    Late in 2013, Tesla summoned economic development officials from seven states to its auto factory in Fremont, Calif. After a tour, they gathered in a conference room, where Tesla executives explained their plan to build the biggest lithium-ion battery factory in the world — then asked the states to bid for the project.

    Nevada at first offered its standard package of incentives, in this case worth $600 million to $700 million, said Steve Hill, Nevada's executive director of the Governor's Office of Economic Development.

    Tesla negotiators wanted far more. The automaker at first sought a $500-million upfront payment, among other enticements, Hill said. Nevada pushed back, in sometimes tense talks punctuated by raised voices.

    "It would have amounted to Nevada writing a series of checks during the first couple of years," said Hill, calling it an unacceptable risk.

    With the deal imperiled, Hill flew to Palo Alto in August to meet with Tesla's business development chief, Diarmuid O'Connell, a former State Department official who is the automaker's lead negotiator.

    They shored up the deal with an agreement to give Tesla $195 million in transferable tax credits, which the automaker could sell for upfront cash. To make room in its budget, Nevada reduced incentives for filming in the state and killed a tax break for insurance companies.


    Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and Musk sealed the agreement in a Labor Day phone conversation. Hill said it was worth it, pointing to the 6,000 jobs he expects the factory to eventually create.

    The state commissioned an analysis estimating the economic impact from the project at $100 billion over two decades, but some economists called that figure deeply flawed. It counted every Tesla employee as if they would otherwise have been unemployed, for instance, and it made no allowance for increased government spending to serve the influx of thousands of local residents.

    A $750-million factory

    Musk has similar success with getting subsidies for a SolarCity plant in Buffalo, N.Y. The company currently buys many of its solar panels from China, but it will soon become its own supplier with a new and heavily subsidized factory.

    An affiliate of New York's College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering in Albany will spend $750 million to build a solar panel factory on state land. SolarCity estimated in a corporate filing that it will spend an additional $150 million to get the factory operating.

    When finished in 2017, the 1.2-million-square-foot facility will be the largest solar panel factory in the Western Hemisphere. New York officials see the subsidy as a worthy investment because they expect that it will create 3,000 jobs. The plant will replace a long-closed steel factory.

    "The SolarCity facility will bring extensive benefits and value to this formerly dormant brownfield that provided zero benefit to the city and region," said Peter Cutler, spokesman for Empire State Development, New York's economic development agency.

    SpaceX, though it depends far more on government contracts than subsidies, received an incentive package in Texas for a commercial rocket launch facility. The state put up more than $15 million in subsidies and infrastructure spending to help SpaceX build a launch pad in rural Cameron County at the southern tip of Texas. Local governments contributed an additional $5 million.

    Included in the local subsidies is a 15-year property tax break from the local school district worth $3.1 million to SpaceX. Officials say the development still will bring in about $5 million more over that period than the local school district otherwise would have collected.

    "That's $5 million more than we have ever seen from that property," said Dr. Lisa Garcia, superintendent of the Point Isabel Independent School District. "It is remote.... It is just sand dunes."

    Crucial aid

    The public money for Tesla and SolarCity factories is crucial to both companies' efforts to lower development and manufacturing costs.

    The task is made more urgent by the impending expiration of some of their biggest subsidies. The federal government's 30% tax credit for solar installations gets slashed to 10% in 2017 for commercial customers and ends completely for homeowners.

    Tesla buyers also get a $7,500 federal income tax credit and a $2,500 rebate from the state of California. The federal government has capped the $7,500 credit at a total of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer; Tesla is about a quarter of the way to that limit. In all, Tesla buyers have qualified for an estimated $284 million in federal tax incentives and collected more than $38 million in California rebates.

    California legislators recently passed a law, which has not yet taken effect, calling for income limits on electric car buyers seeking the state's $2,500 subsidy. Tesla owners have an average household income of about $320,000, according to Strategic Visions, an auto industry research firm.



    Competition could also eat into Tesla's public support. If major automakers build more zero-emission cars, they won't have to buy as many government-awarded environmental credits from Tesla.

    In the big picture, the government supports electric cars and solar panels in the hope of promoting widespread adoption and, ultimately, slashing carbon emissions. In the early days at Tesla — when the company first produced an expensive electric sports car, which it no longer sells — Musk promised more rapid development of electric cars for the masses.

    In a 2008 blog post, Musk laid out a plan: After the sports car, Tesla would produce a sedan costing "half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable."

    In fact, the second model now typically sells for $100,000, and the much-delayed third model, the Model X sport utility, is expected to sell for a similar price. Timing on a less expensive model — maybe $35,000 or $40,000, after subsidies — remains uncertain.

    "Some may question whether this actually does any good for the world," Musk wrote in 2008. "Are we really in need of another high-performance sports car? Will it actually make a difference to global carbon emissions? Well, the answers are no and not much.... When someone buys the Tesla Roadster sports car, they are actually helping to pay for the development of the low-cost family car."

    Next: Battery subsidies

    Now Musk is moving into a new industry: energy storage. Last month, he starred in a typically dramatic announcement of Tesla Energy-branded batteries for homes and businesses. On a concert-like stage, backed by pulsating music, Musk declared that the batteries would someday render the world's energy grid obsolete.

    "We are talking about trying to change the fundamental energy infrastructure of the world," he said.

    Musk laid out a vision of affordable clean energy in the remote villages of underdeveloped countries and homeowners in industrial nations severing themselves from utility grids. The Nevada factory will churn out the batteries alongside those for Tesla cars.

    What he didn't say: Tesla has already secured a commitment of $126 million in California subsidies to companies developing energy storage technology.

    jerry.hirsch@latimes.com

  2. #2
    i/e regjistruar Maska e HFTengineer
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-04-2016
    Postime
    469

    Pėr: Si vjedhin leket e popullit taxat cifutet me Green energy, elion musk dhe shune te tjere


  3. #3
    i/e regjistruar Maska e HFTengineer
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-04-2016
    Postime
    469

    Pėr: Si vjedhin leket e popullit taxat cifutet me Green energy, elion musk dhe shune te tjere

    Al gore (jo cifut por **** denokrate si gjimone qe bashkpunoi per te krijusr industri ku ti rrjepte dhe ku e dominojn cifutet ) si e ndihmoi apo i krioi goldman sach per ETF te carbon tax dhe si e shtyne idene e Carbon tax

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...ment-hype/amp/

    Surprise! Al Gore and his carbon credit huckstering partner David Blood, both principals at Generation Investment Management (GIM), warn in their October 30 Wall Street Journal op/ed feature of peril to fossil fuel investments due to “The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble”. They argue that such “unwise and increasingly wreck less” investment strategies pose three broad risks which will cause carbon assets to become “stranded” and lose economic value: through direct government carbon regulation; as a result of market-share losses to “already competitive” renewable technologies; and due to “sociopolitical pressures” causing carbon-intensive businesses to lose their “license to operate”.


    Of course this carbon regulation is posited upon saving the Earth based upon a “consensus within the scientific community that increasing the global temperature by more than 2oC will likely cause devastating and irreversible damage to the planet.” And where it comes to promulgating and capitalizing upon carbon-climate-crazed sociopolitical pressure, you would be hard-pressed to find two better authorities.

    Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.



    course this carbon regulation is posited upon saving the Earth based upon a “consensus within the scientific community that increasing the global temperature by more than 2oC will likely cause devastating and irreversible damage to the planet.” And where it comes to promulgating and capitalizing upon carbon-climate-crazed sociopolitical pressure, you would be hard-pressed to find two better authorities.

    Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.



    In 2007, following an investigation of the movie, Sir Michael Burton, a judge in London’s High Court, ruled that it can be shown in secondary schools only if accompanied by guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr. Gore’s “one-sided” views. Judge Barton pointed out that its “apocalyptical vision” was politically partisan, and not an impartial analysis. He stated: “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming…It is now common ground that this is not simply a science film- although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is [clearly] a political film.”

    The Browning of those Green Investments:

    As for taking their recent investment advice, it might be worth mentioning that some of GIM’s earlier low-carbon deals haven’t always worked out so great.



    course this carbon regulation is posited upon saving the Earth based upon a “consensus within the scientific community that increasing the global temperature by more than 2oC will likely cause devastating and irreversible damage to the planet.” And where it comes to promulgating and capitalizing upon carbon-climate-crazed sociopolitical pressure, you would be hard-pressed to find two better authorities.

    Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.



    In 2007, following an investigation of the movie, Sir Michael Burton, a judge in London’s High Court, ruled that it can be shown in secondary schools only if accompanied by guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr. Gore’s “one-sided” views. Judge Barton pointed out that its “apocalyptical vision” was politically partisan, and not an impartial analysis. He stated: “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming…It is now common ground that this is not simply a science film- although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is [clearly] a political film.”

    The Browning of those Green Investments:

    As for taking their recent investment advice, it might be worth mentioning that some of GIM’s earlier low-carbon deals haven’t always worked out so great.



    Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

    After all, what better way to reduce evil carbon than to make it a profitable commodity? But unfortunately for GIM and CCX investors, trading hot air credits proved just too good to be true.

    Between May of 2008 and October of 2009 the CCX market value for one metric ton of carbon plummeted from $7 per metric ton to $0.10 along with the shareholders’ investment values. Losers included the Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, and Waste Management, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities, and a number of universities.




    2010, GIM approximately doubled a 9.6% stake it had purchased in Camco International Ltd., a manager of products to limit greenhouse gases. But by October of that year disaster struck again. Republicans took control of the House, dashing all cap-and-capitalize hopes along with huge profit prospects for either Camco or CCX. The latter shut down operations in November of that year.

    On top of that bad news, First Solar Inc., another GIM investment, got squeezed out of the solar panel market by cheaper Chinese products. According to Bloomberg, GIM dumped its last First Solar stock at a $165.9 million loss in 2012.


    Al Gore and David Blood not only emphasize the regulatory risk of fossil fuel investment, they have aggressively worked to ensure it. Their article provides a roadmap to disaster, including: “direct regulation on carbon led by authorities at the local, national, regional or global level; indirect regulation through increased pollution controls, constraints on water usage, or policies targeting health concerns; and mandates on renewable energy adoption and efficiency standards.” They further note that “Even the threat of impending regulation creates uncertainty for long-lived carbon-intensive assets.”


    There can be no doubt that they have found a strong advocate for these strategies in the current White House. The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.5 trillion Washington is currently spending.

    Still, the U.S. Government Accounting Office can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from those many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change. A May 2011 GAO report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”

    The Obama administration’s latest ploy to justify these economic regulatory burdens conjures statistical sorcery purporting to assess a “social cost on carbon.” This is supposed to represent an accounting method to quantify market externalities attached to human fossil- burning emissions, whereby each ton of CO2 leads to a future societal cost of about $40 (in today’s dollars). The idea is that any newly-proposed regulation intended to reduce future CO2 emissions will get to claim an equivalent social cost credit for each ton avoided. This scheme is intended to enable EPA and other regulatory organizations to build stronger political cases for their burdensome policies.


    The plan is already so wildly successful that the administration has raised its previous estimate of social cost-saving benefits by more than 50% from its May assessment. At the same time, even the UN’s alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to finally admit that global temperatures have been flat for at least 16 years despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels. IPCC has also confessed that their theoretical simulation models have grossly exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2. As a result, those social costs resulting from human-caused climate change are at least one-third less (and more likely 100 percent less) than those in the administration’s calculations.

    An even larger glitch in this accounting contrivance is a failure to credit positive social costs of adding atmospheric CO2, (aka. plant fertilizer). A recent analysis by Dr, Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change estimates that over the past 50 years, the value of global food production has increased by $3.2 trillion as a result of those CO2 emissions. This suggests that if anything, those social cost estimates should actually be negative.


    And Regarding those “Competitive” Renewable Alternatives…

    Gore and Blood urge that “Investors should pressure executive teams to divert cash flow away from capital expenditures on developing fossil fuels [which have embedded carbon risks] and toward more productive uses in the context of a transition to a low -carbon economy.” Instead, they urge that portfolios be tilted towards assets with low or no carbon emissions which provide opportunities to capitalize on emerging solutions such as energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal). This, they argue, can help to avoid pitfalls of “carbon stranding” due to market influences of renewable technologies which they claim “are already economically competitive with fossil fuels in a number of countries without subsidies.”



    renewable technologies and countries might those be?

    Europe’s green energy debacles offer teachable lessons for investors everywhere. Slightly more than 12% of Germany’s electricity comes from “renewables”: 7.8% now comes from wind, 4.5% from solar, 7% from biomass, and 4% from hydro. Meanwhile, German households pay the second highest power costs in Europe… as much as 30% more than other Europeans. Only the Danes pay more, and both countries pay roughly 300% more for residential electricity than we Americans do.



    renewable technologies and countries might those be?

    Europe’s green energy debacles offer teachable lessons for investors everywhere. Slightly more than 12% of Germany’s electricity comes from “renewables”: 7.8% now comes from wind, 4.5% from solar, 7% from biomass, and 4% from hydro. Meanwhile, German households pay the second highest power costs in Europe… as much as 30% more than other Europeans. Only the Danes pay more, and both countries pay roughly 300% more for residential electricity than we Americans do.



    Speaking at a June 12 energy conference in Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel called for scaling back renewable energy subsidies to contain spiraling costs. She warned: “If the renewables surcharge keeps rising like it did in recent years, we will have a problem in terms of energy supply.”

    Yet despite huge investments, German wind has produced only about one-fifth of its rated installed capacity. And while half a dozen wind farms are still being built in the North Sea, there are no follow-up contracts due to high consumer utility rates. Ironically, since shutting down some of their older nuclear plants in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, they now have to import nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic.

    If romance with increasing reliance upon renewables isn’t being strained enough by painful electricity costs, power blackouts are adding to buyer’s remorse. The German energy industry group BDEW warns that the surge of renewables is increasingly clogging the power grid operational efficiency.

    A 2009 study reported by CEPOS, a Danish think tank, found that while wind provided 19% of Denmark’s electricity generation, it only met an average 9.7% of the total load demand over a five year period, and a mere 5% during 2006. Since Denmark can’t use all the electricity it produces at night, it exports about half of its extra supply to Norway and Sweden where hydroelectric power can be switched on and off to balance their grids. Still, even with those export sales, high government wind subsidies cause Danish customers to pay the highest electricity rates in Europe.



    In 2011, U.K. wind turbines produced energy at about 21% of rated installed capacity (again, not demand capacity). And this was during “good” wind conditions. As in Germany, unreliability in meeting power demands has necessitated importation of nuclear power from France. Also similar to Germany, the government is closing some of its older coal-fired plants–any one of which can produce nearly twice more electricity than all of Britain’s 3,000 wind turbines combined.

    In Australia, a resounding September right-of-center Liberal Party defeat of the Green Party-backed Labor Party following its six years in power reflected a rude public awakening. It was broadly recognized to be a referendum victory to dismantle and consolidate the myriad anti-carbon global warming-premised schemes spawned under the previous government.

    Inconvenient Truth about Ethics:

    The question now remains how long it will take before majority population segments in America and the rest of the world realize, as Australia now finally does, that they have been duped by unaffordable and unreliable climate benefit-premised “green energy” promotions. For example, perhaps recall when then Vice President and presidential candidate Gore cast a tie-breaking 1994 Senate vote in favor of ethanol mandates.

    Speaking in 2010 at a green energy business conference in Athens, Gore admitted: “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol.” Reuters quoted him saying in retrospect, “First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.” Gore then explained: “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa [the first-in-the-nation caucuses state] because I was about to run for president.”


    renewable technologies and countries might those be?

    Europe’s green energy debacles offer teachable lessons for investors everywhere. Slightly more than 12% of Germany’s electricity comes from “renewables”: 7.8% now comes from wind, 4.5% from solar, 7% from biomass, and 4% from hydro. Meanwhile, German households pay the second highest power costs in Europe… as much as 30% more than other Europeans. Only the Danes pay more, and both countries pay roughly 300% more for residential electricity than we Americans do.



    Speaking at a June 12 energy conference in Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel called for scaling back renewable energy subsidies to contain spiraling costs. She warned: “If the renewables surcharge keeps rising like it did in recent years, we will have a problem in terms of energy supply.”

    Yet despite huge investments, German wind has produced only about one-fifth of its rated installed capacity. And while half a dozen wind farms are still being built in the North Sea, there are no follow-up contracts due to high consumer utility rates. Ironically, since shutting down some of their older nuclear plants in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, they now have to import nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic.

    If romance with increasing reliance upon renewables isn’t being strained enough by painful electricity costs, power blackouts are adding to buyer’s remorse. The German energy industry group BDEW warns that the surge of renewables is increasingly clogging the power grid operational efficiency.

    A 2009 study reported by CEPOS, a Danish think tank, found that while wind provided 19% of Denmark’s electricity generation, it only met an average 9.7% of the total load demand over a five year period, and a mere 5% during 2006. Since Denmark can’t use all the electricity it produces at night, it exports about half of its extra supply to Norway and Sweden where hydroelectric power can be switched on and off to balance their grids. Still, even with those export sales, high government wind subsidies cause Danish customers to pay the highest electricity rates in Europe.



    In 2011, U.K. wind turbines produced energy at about 21% of rated installed capacity (again, not demand capacity). And this was during “good” wind conditions. As in Germany, unreliability in meeting power demands has necessitated importation of nuclear power from France. Also similar to Germany, the government is closing some of its older coal-fired plants–any one of which can produce nearly twice more electricity than all of Britain’s 3,000 wind turbines combined.

    In Australia, a resounding September right-of-center Liberal Party defeat of the Green Party-backed Labor Party following its six years in power reflected a rude public awakening. It was broadly recognized to be a referendum victory to dismantle and consolidate the myriad anti-carbon global warming-premised schemes spawned under the previous government.

    Inconvenient Truth about Ethics:


    The question now remains how long it will take before majority population segments in America and the rest of the world realize, as Australia now finally does, that they have been duped by unaffordable and unreliable climate benefit-premised “green energy” promotions. For example, perhaps recall when then Vice President and presidential candidate Gore cast a tie-breaking 1994 Senate vote in favor of ethanol mandates.

    Speaking in 2010 at a green energy business conference in Athens, Gore admitted: “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol.” Reuters quoted him saying in retrospect, “First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.” Gore then explained: “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa [the first-in-the-nation caucuses state] because I was about to run for president.”



    Then there’s the matter of that estimated $70 million net he received for his 20 percent stake in the January sale of the Current TV network, to the Qatari-owned al -Jazeera Satellite Network. Given that Al Gore is so green and all, it struck many people that buying into the Big Oil-drenched deal might be somewhat hypocritical for someone who for years has inveighed against dreaded fossil-fueled global warming. Yup, this is the very same Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. who said, regarding the proposed Keystone XL pipeline: “there is no such thing as ethical oil”, there’s “only dirty oil and dirtier oil”.

    Daily Show television host Jon Stewart once questioned, “Can mogul Al Gore coexist with activist Al Gore?” And perhaps another question which was highlighted on the screen at the conclusion of his 2006 An Inconvenient Truth science fiction movie is warranted as well.

    Mr. Gore, “Are you ready to change the way you live?”
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga HFTengineer : 30-06-2017 mė 10:42

  4. #4
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    14-09-2014
    Postime
    992

    Pėr: Si vjedhin leket e popullit taxat cifutet me Green energy, elion musk dhe shune te tjere

    They are thieves, once and for all!
    In this world you can be a killer, a lair or a western thief!

Regullat e Postimit

  • Ju nuk mund tė hapni tema tė reja.
  • Ju nuk mund tė postoni nė tema.
  • Ju nuk mund tė bashkėngjitni skedarė.
  • Ju nuk mund tė ndryshoni postimet tuaja.
  •