Ouch. Bjørn Lomborg writes in the Financial Post:
Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion,” doling out generous subsidies — totalling more than US$130-billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University — to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s Minister of Economics and Technology, has called the spiralling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”
Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometres, about 2.6% of the Sahara Desert.
Unfortunately, Germany — like most of the world — is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.
In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.”
The rest here.
Both God and Gaia agree, solar's good, fossil's bad. Either that or Episcopalians can't make a moral distinction to save themselves - so to speak. Add that to the LA Times' promotion of skeptics from holocaust deniers to Adolf Eichman. This is quite the week for shark jumping.
External Link
"'... whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.' That is a lie so big that, to quote from "Mein Kampf," it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
External Link
Ummm, excuse me. It seems to be pretty controversial. So no, it's not a lie at all. But thanks LATimes for making your bias crystal clear by jumping on a thinktank (Heartland) so readily with fraudulent information. There's scientific integtity, there's journalistic integrity, and then there's the mainstream press for contrast.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know that it alliterates nicely--Fossil Fuels--and we do love our alliterations, but isn't it time to hang up that phony moniker? I'm not convinced that the earth's vast oil, gas and coal reserves were magically alchemized by dead unicorns--er--dinosaurs and trees. How ridiculous is this? Isn't it time to grow up and find another explanation? "Fossil Fuels" serves one purpose: it is a pejorative term of the left. You can see the sneer when they speak it. Sometimes they spray a little saliva with it. Nobody says, "Honey, did you pay the fossil fuel bill?" Or, "Dear, let's stop on the way to Grandma's for some fossil fuel." It's an anachronism; it's a lie. Stop saying it and let the left find another alliterative sarcastic insult, like Poop Power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse