100% Renewables will Fuel the Growth of Poverty and Homelessness

With Governor Brown signing SB100 into law that sets California on a path toward 100% renewables and “zero-carbon” sources in electricity by 2045, Californians are already paying 40% more for electricity than the national average, and almost a dollar more for fuels.  

Further subsidies for 100% intermittent electricity, and committing huge acreage for renewables will further increase our costs and fuel the growth of homeless and poverty, which are already the highest in the country. Basic math tells us that intermittent electricity from wind and solar, and their huge land mass requirements is not, and will not, be running the California economy. Eliminating fossil fuels in California would virtually shut down the military, airports, Ports, cruise liner industry, transportation of trucks and autos, and raise the costs of 6,000 products from petroleum used by every infrastructure in our daily lives, and stymy the 90 percent of our population that cannot afford an EV, leaving them without transportation.

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2018/09/100-renewables-will-fuel-growth-poverty-homelessness/

100% Renewables will Fuel the Growth of Poverty and Homelessness.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The keep oil in the ground up North in Canada has been bad financially as well.  And the steep Carbon Tax has not helped.

Already across Canada, particularly in the Maritimes, a significant number of households fit the definition of “energy poverty” — that is, 10 per cent or more of household expenditures are spent simply procuring the energy needed to live (to power the home and transportation). In 2016, the Fraser Institute measured energy poverty in Canada and found that when you add up the costs to power the home and cars, 19.4 per cent of Canadian households devoted at least 10 per cent or more of their expenditures to energy.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive how the tables turn. Years ago, the Balkan countries marvelled at the West's low utility bills and dreamed of a day when our utility bills will catch up to theirs as (low) percentage of income. And now they seem to be catching up with us. Ridiculous.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

And it will make everything else more expensive, since making high quality, modern steel alloys like 300M or the maraging steels needs like 5-to-11MWh of electricity the cost of the renewable energy priced betwen 150 and 400U$S per MWh means that in Germany or Denmark making a ton of steel cost between 1500 and 2000 dollars when it sells to 600 to 800 dollars, so there you got higher unemployment and trade deficit thanks to renewable energy.

Again east Asia is going to show the decadence of the west badly maned politics thanks to the bunch of idiotic Utopias supporters from the 70's that now got their hands in the government and make their energy policies to subsidize white elephants. Sure the Chinese subsidized their steel industry but the main cause of their competitiveness is due to their plans of cheap electricity productions, a Mix of Hydro, Nuclear, Coal, Gas, and Oil

Edited by Sebastian Meana
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The keep oil in the ground up North in Canada has been bad financially as well.  And the steep Carbon Tax has not helped.

Already across Canada, particularly in the Maritimes, a significant number of households fit the definition of “energy poverty” — that is, 10 per cent or more of household expenditures are spent simply procuring the energy needed to live (to power the home and transportation). In 2016, the Fraser Institute measured energy poverty in Canada and found that when you add up the costs to power the home and cars, 19.4 per cent of Canadian households devoted at least 10 per cent or more of their expenditures to energy.

And that is exactly why you will see two developments:  (1) the take-over of low-density rail lines by the Provincial Governments, to preserve some rural passenger and freight rail.  You are seeing that in the Gaspe region of Quebec, and in the Eastern Shore of New Brunswick. (2)  A return to a bicycle economy, together with the construction of (relatively cheap) bike paths, about two meters wide, covered with a macadam surface, and used independent of roadways for personal transport.  bicycles will continue to evolve into "cargo bikes" with baskets and even trailers to carry goods such as groceries. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

And that is exactly why you will see two developments:  (1) the take-over of low-density rail lines by the Provincial Governments, to preserve some rural passenger and freight rail.  You are seeing that in the Gaspe region of Quebec, and in the Eastern Shore of New Brunswick. (2)  A return to a bicycle economy, together with the construction of (relatively cheap) bike paths, about two meters wide, covered with a macadam surface, and used independent of roadways for personal transport.  bicycles will continue to evolve into "cargo bikes" with baskets and even trailers to carry goods such as groceries. 

I saw a man in Copenhagen carry his wife and two small kids in a front (covered) trailer on his bike. And he didn't look like he was straining to pedal. Healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ronald Stein said:

With Governor Brown signing SB100 into law that sets California on a path toward 100% renewables and “zero-carbon” sources in electricity by 2045, Californians are already paying 40% more for electricity than the national average, and almost a dollar more for fuels.

Wow...  How is it that Americans can elect people that have absolutely no understanding of economics?  

For those of you who enjoy the occasional refresher, here is a good story that illustrates the value of strong economic principles:

In eighteenth-century India, a famine struck.  Those who had food or were capable of bringing food into India via trade began to do so at greatly inflated prices.  As a result, the Indian government imposed price controls on that food, setting a ceiling on the price for which it could be purchased.  The goal was to make food affordable to the starving Indians.  However, this price-ceiling limited profits for those traders, and so many of them stopped making the difficult and long journey to where there was food available.  Consequently, there was much less food available in India for consumption.  As a result of the government attempting to make "help" the people by making food affordable, they ended up forcing many of those people to needlessly starve to death.  There was plenty of food available at the right price, but the Indian government was there to take the necessary steps to ensure that food couldn't be eaten by the starving Indians. 

Now compare this with a later famine in India during the following when India was under British rule.  After this later famine stuck, the British took a hands-off approach and simply limited their actions to posting in each town the current market price of food in every other town.  This allowed everyone to know the price for food at every place in the country at any time.  As a result, the people knew where they could buy food cheapest and sell it dearest, which caused vast numbers of enterprising people to enter the food-trading business and allowed food to be bought where it was readily available and then brought to places where it was most needed.  Since the first traders to arrive were the ones who got the best prices, this ensured that the needed food always arrived very quickly.  The actions of the British government during this second famine saved the lives of many Indians who would have starved had the British not intervened.  

As you can see from these two examples, the purpose of government action is to better help people take care of themselves.  When the government tries to take care of the people directly, those people end up suffering and dying miserably. 

When elected politicians fail to understand basic economics, those elected politicians end up killing far more people than even the most vile and contemptible terrorists. 

 

...just look at Venezuela.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Epic said:

 

Now compare this with a later famine in India during the following when India was under British rule.  After this later famine stuck, the British took a hands-off approach and simply limited their actions to posting in each town the current market price of food in every other town.  This allowed everyone to know the price for food at every place in the country at any time.  As a result, the people knew where they could buy food cheapest and sell it dearest, which caused vast numbers of enterprising people to enter the food-trading business and allowed food to be bought where it was readily available and then brought to places where it was most needed.  Since the first traders to arrive were the ones who got the best prices, this ensured that the needed food always arrived very quickly.  The actions of the British government during this second famine saved the lives of many Indians who would have starved had the British not intervened.  

 

I would dryly observe that an alternative explanation for British behavior would be that the British, as deeply racist people (especially the military and the Governor General, who referred to the locals as "wogs" and abused them daily), considered them entirely disposable and it was beneath British dignity to offer to bring in food themselves, on British ships, at British expense, to feed some "wogs."  So all they were going to do was some price posting and then turn their backs on it, as the Wogs were not worth making any effort for. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I would dryly observe that an alternative explanation for British behavior would be that the British, as deeply racist people (especially the military and the Governor General, who referred to the locals as "wogs" and abused them daily), considered them entirely disposable and it was beneath British dignity to offer to bring in food themselves, on British ships, at British expense, to feed some "wogs."  So all they were going to do was some price posting and then turn their backs on it, as the Wogs were not worth making any effort for.

If this is the case (and you are probably right), then I certainly pray that the US government would soon become deeply racist toward the American people and start to consider it beneath their dignity to offer to help us any more.  If US politicians would start treating us like Wogs, the American people would soon be much better off.  

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."  -Ronald Reagan

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Epic said:

 If US politicians would start treating us like Wogs,......

They already do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I would dryly observe that an alternative explanation for British behavior would be that the British, as deeply racist people (especially the military and the Governor General, who referred to the locals as "wogs" and abused them daily), considered them entirely disposable and it was beneath British dignity to offer to bring in food themselves, on British ships, at British expense, to feed some "wogs."  So all they were going to do was some price posting and then turn their backs on it, as the Wogs were not worth making any effort for. 

The market still won out!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Epic said:

Wow...  How is it that Americans can elect people that have absolutely no understanding of economics?  

For those of you who enjoy the occasional refresher, here is a good story that illustrates the value of strong economic principles:

In eighteenth-century India, a famine struck.  Those who had food or were capable of bringing food into India via trade began to do so at greatly inflated prices.  As a result, the Indian government imposed price controls on that food, setting a ceiling on the price for which it could be purchased.  The goal was to make food affordable to the starving Indians.  However, this price-ceiling limited profits for those traders, and so many of them stopped making the difficult and long journey to where there was food available.  Consequently, there was much less food available in India for consumption.  As a result of the government attempting to make "help" the people by making food affordable, they ended up forcing many of those people to needlessly starve to death.  There was plenty of food available at the right price, but the Indian government was there to take the necessary steps to ensure that food couldn't be eaten by the starving Indians. 

Now compare this with a later famine in India during the following when India was under British rule.  After this later famine stuck, the British took a hands-off approach and simply limited their actions to posting in each town the current market price of food in every other town.  This allowed everyone to know the price for food at every place in the country at any time.  As a result, the people knew where they could buy food cheapest and sell it dearest, which caused vast numbers of enterprising people to enter the food-trading business and allowed food to be bought where it was readily available and then brought to places where it was most needed.  Since the first traders to arrive were the ones who got the best prices, this ensured that the needed food always arrived very quickly.  The actions of the British government during this second famine saved the lives of many Indians who would have starved had the British not intervened.  

As you can see from these two examples, the purpose of government action is to better help people take care of themselves.  When the government tries to take care of the people directly, those people end up suffering and dying miserably. 

When elected politicians fail to understand basic economics, those elected politicians end up killing far more people than even the most vile and contemptible terrorists. 

 

...just look at Venezuela.  

Should revisit some historical facts re. the famines in India during the 18th century mostly under the British Rule.... and the British response to the famine(s). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36339524

The British didnt do anything to help the plight of the famished Indian population, only make it worse.

However, I do agree with the "intervention" of politicians into "taking control" of peoples lives, livelihood and amenities available. Mostly always in a disaster. Good business people may make good and better politicians but majority of politicians do not make good successful business people, comparable to economic and other academics making wild claims for finance, economy , industry etc to be applied into real life scenarios. Venezuela as you stated is a prime example, a country with vast natural resources crippled, destroyed by socialism-communism malignancy. Look @   USSR and other Commie bloc countries.... recall the lines for bread in Moscow? the despair to have some meat? waiting months for it? Waiting years to get a phone line? or an apartment? or a car?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Good business people may make good and better politicians but majority of politicians do not make good successful business people, comparable to economic and other academics making wild claims for finance, economy , industry etc to be applied into real life scenarios. Venezuela as you stated is a prime example, a country with vast natural resources crippled, destroyed by socialism-communism malignancy. Look @   USSR and other Commie bloc countries.... recall the lines for bread in Moscow? the despair to have some meat? waiting months for it? Waiting years to get a phone line? or an apartment? or a car?

Yup, all true.   It is rare that the voters elect a serious businessman as Leader.  The voters in Vermont have elected a successful businessman, he started as a poor-boy in his uncle's road construction business, eventually bought half of it, made a few million, and then is (Republican)  Governor.  At least he brings a serious level head to the inherent spending problems of (leftist Democratic) legislature. 

You don't see that often; mostly, Governors are people skilled at arguing. I.e. "lawyers."  In contrast, the Governor of neighboring (to Vermont) Connecticut is a lawyer, a former government criminal prosecutor, and he has let that State drift to a $1.8 Billion deficit (and an accumulated state debt now so big that it can never be paid).  The result: total economic stagnation, a deterioration of capital spending, particularly for schools and roads, and an unfunded pension liability that will put the State into economic oblivion.  Last year at least 25,000 wealthy people fled, leaving behind the poor that are too poor to move.  100 years ago, the capital, Hartford, was the richest city in the entire USA.  Today, Hartford is the 4th-poorest, basically bankrupt.  That is what generations of single-party rule accomplishes. 

The bread lines will come soon enough.  You have hidden bread lines, for welfare payments and housing allotments and other social goods, which the govt promises, but cannot deliver, and thus rations.  Nobody with any brains is staying in Connecticut. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yup, all true.   It is rare that the voters elect a serious businessman as Leader.  The voters in Vermont have elected a successful businessman, he started as a poor-boy in his uncle's road construction business, eventually bought half of it, made a few million, and then is (Republican)  Governor.  At least he brings a serious level head to the inherent spending problems of (leftist Democratic) legislature. 

You don't see that often; mostly, Governors are people skilled at arguing. I.e. "lawyers."  In contrast, the Governor of neighboring (to Vermont) Connecticut is a lawyer, a former government criminal prosecutor, and he has let that State drift to a $1.8 Billion deficit (and an accumulated state debt now so big that it can never be paid).  The result: total economic stagnation, a deterioration of capital spending, particularly for schools and roads, and an unfunded pension liability that will put the State into economic oblivion.  Last year at least 25,000 wealthy people fled, leaving behind the poor that are too poor to move.  100 years ago, the capital, Hartford, was the richest city in the entire USA.  Today, Hartford is the 4th-poorest, basically bankrupt.  That is what generations of single-party rule accomplishes. 

The bread lines will come soon enough.  You have hidden bread lines, for welfare payments and housing allotments and other social goods, which the govt promises, but cannot deliver, and thus rations.  Nobody with any brains is staying in Connecticut. 

That will soon be true of CA and now CO the new CA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Should revisit some historical facts re. the famines in India during the 18th century mostly under the British Rule.... and the British response to the famine(s). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36339524

The British didnt do anything to help the plight of the famished Indian population, only make it worse.

Unfortunately, your article is a bit biased.  A close study of the 1866 famine in Bengal and Odisha shows that the British policies of laissez faire resulted in partial alleviation of the famine, but a famine is still a famine.  People die during famines.  By taking a 'hands off approach', the Indian people had their best chance at survival.  If only 1 million died rather than 3 million, I would still call that "saving lives."  Keep in mind that the British eventually did decide to change their minds and provide "assistance" to the Indian people during this famiine, however the British government couldn't figure out how to get the food to where it was needed, and so it rotted while people starved.  Well-done, socialism, well-done.  

Keep in mind, this is not any attempt to excuse the British. 

The famines in British India were not caused by the lack of food in a particular geographical area. They were instead caused by inadequate transportation of food, a problem which would have benefited from a laissez faire system had the Brisitsh rulers allowed such to operate in India.  However, instead of operating under free-market capitalism, the Indians operated under the harsh rule of a monopoly: namely: the East India Company.  It is important not to confuse a monopoly with capitalism.  The two are as far from each other as socialism is from capitalism, maybe even more so. 

Since the East India Company was more interested in preventing declining revenues than they were in feeding starving Indians, they ensured that food continued to be transported from India irregardless of famine conditions.  The real problem was not that capitalism was allowed to exist, but that the monopoly of the East India Company prevented capitalism from taking hold.  As a result, money was drained from the peasants in order to allow the stockholders to increase their dividends.  Had capitalism found its way to India sooner, then that money would have instead been made available to to the producers of food in order to combat these famines. 

The British were right in taking a laissez faire attitude toward price controls on food, as this worked to save lives.

The British were wrong in taking a laissez faire attitude toward monopolies, as this killed millions during the famines.  It makes no sense under free market conditions to export 200 million pounds of rice while your people are starving to death.  But hey, at least the shareholders were happy.  Remember, there was a reason the Americans tossed the East India Company's tea into the harbor. It was because the Americans wanted capitalism, but monopolistic mercantilism was instead being forced down their throats as it was in India.

Socialistic polices of government intervention are superior to monopolistic policies of profit-driven corporations, but both ought to be exchanged for the competition of free market capitalism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Epic said:

It is important not to confuse a monopoly with capitalism.  The two are as far from each other as socialism is from capitalism, maybe even more so. 

Socialistic polices of government intervention are superior to monopolistic policies of profit-driven corporations, but both ought to be exchanged for the competition of free market capitalism.  

A role of government should be to ensure free market capitalism, realizing the captains of industry themselves typically will seek to avoid free market, and instead become oligarchs themselves. The best way to win in a competition is to eliminate the competitions ability to compete. Free markets work best in a many buyer/many seller environment where you really have choices.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/14/2018 at 12:39 AM, John Foote said:

A role of government should be to ensure free market capitalism, realizing the captains of industry themselves typically will seek to avoid free market, and instead become oligarchs themselves. The best way to win in a competition is to eliminate the competitions ability to compete. Free markets work best in a many buyer/many seller environment where you really have choices.

Ah yes, the old "competition is a good thing" chestnut.  And it is.  Once upon a time, I asked one of my customers how business was going.  Their reply was that xyz company had started doing business in "their" region, offering lower prices and newer products, making life hard in the company.  You will note that they did not say anything at all about how their customers were being affected by the new competition.  The fact was that not only were their customers much happier with the choices now offered, but my customer's company also went through a period of expansion that made them a much stronger company, which resulted in my company receiving more business to help them supply new and improved products and services.  Everybody wins.  Weaker players will be weeded out and that is a healthy, if not painful, thing.

Edited by Dan Warnick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will certainly increase poverty and homelessness in California, which is doom-set on being "carbon neutral" before the technology to do so is mature.

Simply wait another 10 years until renewables are cheaper, and people would switch on their own without any government interference.

Typical stupid political grandstanding at taxpayer expense.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oil industry is rightly scared of a 100% renewables era. Why not accept the inevitable and start investing in renewables in preparation for the situation likely to emerge in next10 years? 

Ending up like Kodak and Agfa is not a good option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High energy cost chase away jobs that people with less education depend on.  California is also destroying agricultural jobs by restricting water going to farmers in the central valley to save some tiny fish.  The only options left for people with less education in California will be, move out of state, low paying service jobs, welfare, homelessness,  or career criminal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PeterfromCalgary said:

High energy cost chase away jobs that people with less education depend on.  California is also destroying agricultural jobs by restricting water going to farmers in the central valley to save some tiny fish.  The only options left for people with less education in California will be, move out of state, low paying service jobs, welfare, homelessness,  or career criminal. 

 

You are getting the same profile with the same dismal options in Southern and Southwestern Ontario   (and, I suspect, in Northern Ontario as well).  Electric power costs have gone through the roof, and chased away industry, especially manufacturers, for which there has been no replacement.  That is the result of the Kathleen Wynne fascination with wind electric machines, the costs of which have wrecked the power supplies for cheap electric power, and the subsidies and feed-in tariffs paid to Industrial Wind Developers stand to ruin Ontario for years to come.  Although, apparently the Ford Administration  (the Conservatives who swept out the Liberal Party of Wynne after 15 years in the political wilderness) is about to renounce and repudiate the feed-in tariffs on the grounds that they are ruinous.  We shall see how he makes out. 

In the meantime, the powerhouse province Ontario is a shambles, reduced to beggar status, now receiving economic transfer payments via Ottawa of the resource wealth of Alberta and Saskatchewan.  Altogether, an unpleasant result. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may just need to do better research !   California may have a lot more Geothermal than now developed and can develop billions of KWh of thorium electricity elimination all those risky dams and as Hydro and Thoium LFTR generation are about the same cost per KWH ,and under the cost of the cheapest fossil Fuel based electric power by 1/2 or more what you need to be addressing is how the get both going as fast as California can get cracking! 

Do your research and stop making statements that aren't up to date !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2018 at 5:05 PM, mactheknife said:

You may just need to do better research !   California may have a lot more Geothermal than now developed and can develop billions of KWh of thorium electricity elimination all those risky dams and as Hydro and Thoium LFTR generation are about the same cost per KWH ,and under the cost of the cheapest fossil Fuel based electric power by 1/2 or more what you need to be addressing is how the get both going as fast as California can get cracking! 

Do your research and stop making statements that aren't up to date !

Mac, you did not link your comment to any other poster so there is no way of telling who your comment was directed towards. 

If you want to respond directly to a specific other poster, use the "quote" button on the last line of that poster's memo, and it will create a "box" of that post, which you can partially delete or insert bold script, whatever. Then the others here know who your comment was directed towards!

Cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites