Gay and Expensive…Green energy can’t exist without subsidies

Green energy sucks…loads of cash. Unfortunately politicians haven’t got the stones to knock it on the head.

There are numerous examples worldwide of failing green energy…but have a look at the UK!

Every British household will pay an average of more than £400 in higher bills over the next six years to pay for subsidies under controversial Government plans to hit green power targets.

The money will go solely to paying for otherwise uneconomic offshore wind turbines, onshore wind farms, biomass plants, landfill gas sites and hydro power plants, new figures show.

Green energy is supposed to be the wave of the future. Who on earth wants a future that is rapaciously expensive and doesn’t work?

If it is uneconomic then shut it down and get rid of it, don’t keep subsidising it.  Only terminalyy retarded people keep on pouring money in a scam or ponzi scheme like green energy.

The first analysis of newly agreed prices paid to “green” generators, carried out by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, shows that the total subsidy will be nearly £22 billion by 2020.

The subsidies are paid for by consumers and businesses through their annual bills and passed to the green energy generators.

Half of energy bills are paid by business, with the other half by domestic consumers, and the total subsidy divided among British households equals £425 per household.

Many, however, will pay more because they have bigger bills.

As well as recouping the cost of renewable subsidies through domestic bills, households will also foot the bill for the carbon floor price tax and the Energy Company Obligation efficiency scheme, where suppliers are supposed to fit out homes with roof insulation and better boilers.

The other schemes suggest the possibility of further increases to the cost of electricity.

The green taliban ratbags who foisted all this crap on us need to be held to account.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • JC

    Here’s the evidence why environmentalism and feminism can’t win.. we dont like greenies and feminists:

    http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/feminism-maybe-feminists-ewww-66918/

    JC

  • DLNZ

    Yes they are filthy and ignorant people with habits that the majority of people don’t care for, but please don’t be derogatory to the gay community by associating them with those disgusting Greens :P

    • Garbageman

      Filthy habits that the majority of people dont care for sounds exactly like the gay community to me (not the ignorant part) the greenies have that title sown up

  • Team ENZ

    them numpties do not know that the taliban greenies owned most of the shares in them inefficient ” green ” energy, and that they are subsidising the greenies. It is the same here, the green talibans are shareholders in wind technology , that is why they are pushing for more wind farms which are very inefficient source of energy.

  • Goldie

    In a sane world, nuclear reactors would be providing the UK with more than enough electricity for minimal environmental impact. But according to Green dogma, nucelar power is evil. As on fracking, GM, offshore drilling, and other issues, there is no sane debate possible with Greens as they are fundamentalists. The Greens are religious zealots.

  • Polish Pride

    oh the hypocrisy given the subsidies and tax breaks the petroleum industry have received over the years.

    • Yes lets ignore it. Because even though they might get them (I don’t actually know) subsidies and tax breaks aren’t REQUIRED to keep it afloat, unlike the uneconomical ‘green energy’ projects.

      • Polish Pride

        So if it aint required to keep them afloat (which we know it isn’t………………… why the fark are they getting them!?!

      • Polish Pride

        Just as point of interest…. Closed loop Nuclear was developed and banned in the US. Why? It would have destroyed big oil.
        (yes this is from a conspiracy type article but I read about this years ago and this is the best I could do with a 2 min search ;)

        .“I started in the American nuclear program all the way back at the time of the Manhattan project, and have been involved in reactor design and nuclear engineering my whole life. There was one answer we all searched for, and it was how to close the nuclear loop.

        When a reactor such as a boiling water reactor uses fuel, the waste products, which are highly radioactive isotopes that have a different fission characteristic than the original fuel, build up in the fuel and change the nature of the nuclear reaction.

        A reactor such as a boiling water reactor can only use the fuel until it gets contaminated by these isotopes enough to change the nature of the nuclear reactions taking place. The reaction environment inside a boiling water reactor is only one such environment which will work to trigger a chain reaction, and if that spent fuel is put into a reactor made from different materials, those materials can favor the burning of the isotopes which interfere with the chain reactions in the boiling water reactor and use these interfering isotopes as fuel until they are consumed.

        After this process, which restores the fuel to it’s original state is complete, the fuel can go back into the boiling water reactor and used as new with no reprocessing – the exact same rods can be exchanged between reactors.

        We perfected the second reactor design which used liquid sodium as a coolant and the reactor ran much hotter – 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor instead of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which produced steam outside the reactor for use in producing electricity.

        The temperature difference and coolant characteristics in the complimentary reactor facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction – the boiling water reactor produced electricity while producing unwanted isotopes, and the sodium cooled reactor produced electricity while burning the unwanted isotopes out.

        This process could be repeated 20 times, and when it was finished the fuel was DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it’s radiological potential was used up. It was a clean energy dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!” (VN: how come we didn’t know about this before now? That meant it was a conspiracy of large proportions, and not just one man.)

        He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all, and after I questioned him about exactly how safe, said you could safely sleep on it. I questioned him several times, saying he must be exaggerating, but he said ALL radiological potential was used, and the fuel was completely inert at the end of the final cycle.

        Many people know about the liquid sodium breeder reactor developed by General Electric in the late 1970′s but few people know the real story about this reactor, which this engineer developed. To back stab the public image of this reactor, it was stated that it’s rods would stick and that liquid sodium was too dangerous to use as a coolant. But this engineer, the man who developed it, stated that this media
        campaign was a pure psy op which like many things the media and government says had no truth to it at all.

        He then went on to lament about what a waste of money it was to have the technology banned because nuclear fuel is expensive and they were only able to use it to about five percent of its total potential without implementing this technology.

        He lamented the fact that his life’s greatest accomplishment got banned for no good reason, and it was a tremendous waste of money to not use the technology his team developed. Electricity would have been cheap. So cheap that homes would not have been heated with oil or natural gas, electricity would have been the only sensible choice.

        Furthermore, with a reduction in the price of electricity by at least 10X, electric cars would have quickly become a standard.

        This would have been America’s free energy future, with the only real cost being maintenance of infrastructure.

  • kehua

    Has anyone conducted an unbiased costing of the `Green Energy` projects here in New Zealand ?

  • Ant

    Check out this greenie project. 36 grand to give 6 families biogas for cooking and lighting.
    https://www.pledgeme.co.nz/1491

    • DLNZ

      I did some further reading on this – I don’t quite get how their feasibility report harps on about CO2 emissions and global warming, and yet they’re promoting a product that burns gas and produces CO2 anyway. On searching around the internet – I read that their storage system involving inflatable bladders has a useful life of 5 years before it needs to be replaced. If the whole system consists of a gas cooker, gas light and some inflatable PVC bags and garden hose then someone will be making a nice profit somewhere.

      • DLNZ

        Exactly the same bag based system is available in South Africa for 9500R or NZ$1400. Or there’s a larger tank system for 35,000R = $4200 including installation.

        I smell a big fucking scam from a supposedly non-profit organisation.

        http://www.biogassa.co.za/products.html

        Or to save even more money you can order direct from the Chinese manufacturer (again same brand)

        http://puxinbiogas.en.alibaba.com/productgrouplist-210329529/Biogas_Equipments_and_Fittings.html

        • Ant

          It does mention that a fair amount of the cost is to fly a team over from NZ to do the installation. You don’t expect people to work for nothing do you?
          The project looks to be carbon neutral, since the carbon comes from waste that would be emitted into the environment anyway and doesn’t use fossil fuels. Methane from composting material is thought to be a more potent gas in terms of climate change, although it only lasts about 9 years in the atmosphere. Burning methane would actually reduce the overall effect when you compare methane and carbon dioxide from composting.

          • DLNZ

            I just checked – its the identical system to the South African supplier for NZ$1143 not including the gas stove and light. Lets just make it $2k for shits and giggles. 6 homes = $12000 material costs – that leaves $24000 which doesn’t quite add up to me for travel costs for a non-profit organisation. Wood and coconut husks are used for heating in the villages over there according to their website, so that would be classed as carbon neutral anyway wouldn’t it??

            edit: added “travel costs”

38%