BREAKING: Leaked Doc Proves Spain’s ‘Green’ Policies — the Basis for Obama’s — an Economic Disaster (PJM Exclusive)
Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain’s Zapatero administration. The assessment confirms the key charges previously made by non-governmental Spanish experts in a damning report exposing the catastrophic economic failure of Spain’s “green economy” initiatives.
On eight separate occasions, President Barack Obama has referred to the “green economy” policies enacted by Spain as being the model for what he envisioned for America.
Later came the revelation that Obama administration senior Energy Department official Cathy Zoi — someone with serious publicized conflict of interest issues — demanded an urgent U.S. response to the damaging report from the non-governmental Spanish experts so as to protect the Obama administration’s plans.
Most recently, U.S. senators have introduced the vehicle for replicating Spain’s unfolding economic meltdown here, in the form of the “American Power Act.” For reasons that are obvious upon scrutiny, it should instead be called the American Power Grab Act.
But today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy.
Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.
The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study.
This document is not a public report. Spanish media has referred to its existence in recent weeks though, while Bloomberg and the Washington Examiner have noted the impact: Spain is now forced to jettison its plans — Obama’s model — for a “green economy.”
Remarkably, these items have received virtually no media attention.
An item which has been covered widely, however, is that President Obama is now pressuring Spain to turn off its spigot of public debt in the name of averting a situation similar to that of Greece.
Also covered widely is Obama’s promotion of the American Power Act — the legislation which would replicate Spain’s current situation in the United States.
Put simply, Obama is currently promoting a policy in the U.S. which is based on a policy that he wishes to see Spain abandon. Welcome to Obamaland, the particulars of which are explained in a fashion grandly more illuminating than this Obama-Zapatero dance in Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.
A translation of the leaked Zapatero government internal slide presentation: “Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010”
1) Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010
2) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity affects household welfare
According to EuroStat data, the cost of electricity for households in Spain moved from below the European average to slightly above the average (+5% higher)
3) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry
Energy is a key input in industrial production processes. In basic industries (cement, industrial gases, metals, basic chemicals and steel), energy costs are three times the labor cost. The electrical cost for the Spanish industry is well above the European average (+17% higher).
4) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables
The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry
Historical evolution of the prices of light and pool price [Appears above a graph showing a 77% price spike in industry's price for electricity]
A price increase cannot be explained by the evolution of electricity market price (pool), which has even fallen since 2005
5) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables
The increase in the over-cost paid for renewable energy explains more than 120% of the variation of the electric bill, and has offset the reduction in production costs of conventional electricity (25%)
To these direct costs of renewables must be added indirect costs, as the need for additional investment in networks to integrate renewables (about 10% of planned investment in the planning) and capacity payments to the modular backup facilities (coal and gas) that are running a smaller number of hours
6) Situation of renewable energy: renewable energy has had a positive impact …
Thanks to the increase of renewable energies in the mix:
The rate of energy supply has increased by 3 points since 2005, to 23%, and the import of energy products has been reduced 5.500M Euro (including hydraulics).
Emissions have been reduced significantly, thanks primarily to the mix of electric generation being much cleaner (less than 120 tons of CO2 emissions per GWh of oil produced).
7) Situation of renewable energy: but its evolution in recent years has been too fast
From 2004-2010 the amount of premiums [over-cost paid for renewable energy; the subsidy] has increased fivefold. Only in 2009 it doubled over the previous year to reach 5.045M€, equivalent in amount to the entire public investment in R + D + i in Spain. [The renewables subsidy equaled the entire cost of producing electricity in Spain]. The forecast for 2010 is 6.300M€ (although 5.800M€ budgeted in January). This should add 1.000M€ for cogeneration.
With operational facilities, the renewable sector will receive in the next 25 years more than 126.000M€. In this factor, it adds a commitment to continue providing input to the renewable energies in the mix to meet the European objectives, which will increase this figure significantly.
8 ) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: costs
In 2009, the solar photovoltaic technology accounted for 53% of the extra cost of renewables, while they contributed only 11% of energy generated from these sources.
9) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Impact on the external sector
Exports: Net exports of Spanish wind industry 1.300M€ contributed to the trade balance in 2008 and, besides, wind generation avoids fossil imports of 3.6M€.
Imports: By contrast, the PV industry growth was not gradual, hampering the formation of an auxiliary Spanish industry. In 2008 imports of photovoltaic cells and modules in Spain amounted to 5.182M€ (28.6% of net imports of crude and derivatives) as long around the 62% were imported.
10) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Technical problems
Network Management. The proliferation of small plants and fluctuations in the availability of technologies hinder the management of the network.
11) Situation of renewable energy:
Regulatory mechanisms to support renewables have been:
– Pioneers in the world, which has allowed us to stay ahead of the industry, learn from the experience and finding some excesses.
There are numerous examples of these high returns: analyst reports, premiums accepted in other countries, over-subscription in the pre-records, facilities willing to accept lower premiums, “paper market” …– Overly cautious about the ability of cost reduction technologies
– Inflexible, thereby preventing adjust remuneration to market signals and technological advancement
– Hardly told them by the administration in setting prices initially and have no control over the amounts … Which has caused a “bubble effect,” such as seen with photovoltaics in 2008 and the emergence of the thermal bubble (which would have continued in 2010 and successively had it not been for the pre-registration requirement imposed), as well as a sharp increase the over-costs [subsidies] paid to renewables in the form of a feed-in tariff.
12) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: International comparison
In wind power, our rates are in line with Europe. However, solar photovoltaics, Spanish retribution has been the most high, despite the higher number of hours of sun and more solar radiation.
Spain Wind € 75-84/MWh Solar €265/295/350/450/MWh
China Wind € 56-67 Solar € 121/MWh
Japan Wind € 73-89/MWh
Germany Wind € 92/MWh Solar € 287-395/MWh
France Wind € 82/MWh Solar €310-380
Italy Wind € 85/MWh Solar € 350-390
Poland Wind € 90/MWh
13) Situation of renewable energy: Recent technological developments
The investment costs of renewable energies mainly depend on its technological learning curve
The plots have experienced tremendous technological development in recent years, reducing their investment costs
Not being mature technologies, have much future room for improvement, which informs a decision to slow its current expansion
14) Situation of renewable energy: What have we done?
The Government has adapted the following initiatives:
– A new framework for PV in 2008 (RD1578/2008) that brings order to the pace of installation and marking signs ecstatic that transfer with May fast technological development gains to consumers
– Creation of a technology pre-registration for the remainder of May 2009 has allowed us to avoid the “bubble” that was generated in thermal and prevent the system being made even more untenable in 2010.
– Package of measures for the reduction to the tariff deficit with input from the traditional electric companies, consumers and government (without the contribution of renewable energy).
15) Situation of renewable energy: Difficulties in reducing the tariff deficit
– The Government is committed by law to eliminate by 2013 the tariff deficit
– Despite the evolution of the wholesale market (pool), the balance of certain items (the Iberian peninsula, nuclear waste) and higher light, the rate deficit was only slightly reduced.
16) Objectives
– Reaching 20% of final energy and 40% of electric generation from renewable sources by 2020.
– Reducing the deficit and preserve the competitiveness of industry and household welfare.
– Transfer gains in technological developments to consumers.
– Avoid speculation caused by excess profits, which damages its image and retards the construction of the plants pre-assigned (with an adverse effect on the industry).
– Mitigate the incentive for fraud that can generate the current differential between the rate and the price of the pool.
– Promote technological improvement and cost reduction, advancing the attainment of “grid parity,” which will allow greater installation of renewables until 2020.
i wonder why we do no see this kind of documents on wikileaks…
“Remarkably, these items have received virtually no media attention.”
A bit of humor is always appreciated.
I too zeroed in on that phrase.
It is not surprising that the MSM hasn’t offered this information up to the unwashed masses – Obama is still pushing his ‘green’ agenda. Trouble is – as we who bother to read the ‘real’ news here and elsewhere know – ‘green’ is only for pals of Obama. ‘Pals’ meaning those whom have already graced Dear Leader with their own ‘green’ up front.
Looks like the 5/10 year plans of Dear Leader (a la USSR et al) may hit the skids – assuming of course that cooler heads prevail. On that I am not convinced – even if the repubs manage to overtake the House once again. I’m advocating (and practicing it too) that we vote ALL incumbents out. This will have the effect of giving the repubs control of the House of Reps – but everyone – with few exceptions – will be greenhorns. Should take quite a while to find their direction. By that time we’ll have voted them out too. Short message – this will keep happening unless and until you decide to do the work of the people – not the corporations.
At least Spanish people knowingly voted this socialist in (translation, European socialism pretty much means communism / marxism). There hasn’t been any deceiving part on this Zapatino guy, nor the deceiving part from their media.
What is Obama’s and our MFM’s excuse?
Why would the U.S. encourage Greece to abandon the government health care system that’s helping to bankrupt the country but encourage government health care at home? Why would the U.S. encourage Spain to give up green policies that are causing catastrophic economic problems yet pursue such policies itself? Because Liberal elites in the U.S. think that they are much smarter (talented, discerning, etc.) than their European counterparts. Consequently, Liberal elites in the U.S. believe they will be able to successfully implement all the socialist policies that are failing in Europe. It’s the Liberal Elite’s version of American Exceptionalism: they see themselves as exceptional socialists. I hear it everyday, especially from Professors who say that Marxism hasn’t triumphed because it hasn’t been perfectly implemented. Of course, those Marxist Professors believe that they would be able to achieve the perfection that has eluded everyone else in the world.
Could it also be that by undermining what works in the U.S., it enables the socialist agenda to go further with less obstruction?
Faster, not further. With less obstructions, they wouldn’t be slowed down. But the cliff itself isn’t moving. It’s just that it’s quicker to go careening over the edge.
When humanity itself becomes perfect, Marxism will soon follow. Until then, I’m sticking with what works.
Facts are never appreciated or indeed even acknowledged by pseudo-intellectuals.
Has anyone noticed that successful businessmen are completely lacking in government now? People with real world success are not tolerated apparently. (I don’t mean the Goldman Sachs and AIG types but the ones who’s companies have made real tangible useful products.)
It just isn’t time for large scale “alternative” energy sources to produce large amounts of electricity. In time maybe, either the cost of “fossils” must rise or the cost of the “alternates” must fall, simple as that (without any gov’t subsidies). With this down the tubes (real world test) and MMGW biting the dust, what are carbon traders going to trade? Pork bellies?
It really is just that simple!
there was this interesting article a few month ago
http://tinyurl.com/yd7h4ah
“how wind turbines are pomping your taxes”
I forwardd it to my deputees
The surprise, of course, is that the Spanish government realizes the problem internally, if not publicly. Obama has already told us that electric rates will skyrocket. Unfortunately, he hasn’t mentioned the coming job losses. Are we surprised at that?
Obama is not thinking. He is pushing rail. It is the most expensive in terms of economy . More, much more than air travel. For national rail to work, They would need to tripple the number of trains and fill them. It can’t be done. Electric cars are a joke. Who wants to drive 40 minutes and sit at a charger for 3 hours? No a/c or heater in the electrics and they add a few miles.
I don’t think this is quite the smoking gun you think it is, but what I get from this is:
1. Solar is absurdly expensive, and using it at all is completely gonzo,
2. Wind is Spain works out to about US $0.10/kWH, which appears reasonable until you consider that a) that’s a wholesale price FOB the wind farm, and transmission and distribution adds a lot to that, and b) that’s more than likely not including the substantial costs of rolling reserve.
I also find it funny that they’re complaining that excess subsidies have created excessive profits, which are creating a “bubble”. Who’da thunk?
Also, just in: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/wind/trouble-brewing-for-wind?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+IeeeSpectrum+(IEEE+Spectrum)
It would appear that American costs, including O&M are around US $0.27/kWH, and that number’s likely to rise as more generators fail prematurely due to gearbox problems.
It is impossible to squeeze the energy industry, foist excessive rate hikes on consumers while limiting the venues of power generation, and not have concurrent job losses. The flip side of Obama’s coin when he stated that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket was that jobs would be lost in the process. He knew it but just didn’t bother to drop the other shoe. That’s reality in the real world.
While it is never fruitful to assign ‘conspiracy’ theories, it appears to be the case that Obama and his gang of marxist/socialist wannabes are deliberately collapsing the system as mandated by Cloward-Piven.
How else to explain his public chastisement of Spain, yet forging full steam ahead with PROVEN ruinous policies at home? What is puzzling is why Lieberman, a man who usually has his head screwed on, is part and parcel of the misnamed, American Power Act, which should be called instead, the American Collapsing Act.Strange indeed.
Lieberman, and a number of Republicans, have bought the “this will reduce dependence on imported oil” line. Until there are tens of millions of electric cars on the road, all this will do is put American coal out of business. Carbon caps will, at best, marginally reduce oil imports, but environmentalism as a whole has hugely increased oil imports.
Do you really think Obama cares about any of the facts?
Do you really think Obama knows any facts?
No.
Humorous cartoon on Obama’s Energy agenda titled “The One Promise He Will Keep” at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/truthfulness/
If Obama wants Spain to “turn off its spigot of public debt” and wants to emulate Spain’s green power template…am I the only one to smell a whiff of doublethink here?
Similar to Glen Reynolds running joke at the expense of the always “unexpected” bad economic news coming out of the Obama administration. Remarkable? Unexpected? Only to those whose job it is to keep our slide into Socialism as subtle as possible to avoid detection. Not that I don’t get the irony in how it is used here.
The link attached to the phrase “damning report” connects not to an article discussing the non-governmental Spanish experts’ report but instead to the same article on Cathy Zoi that is linked by the phrase “serious publicized conflict of interest issues.” Please correct the first link, as I am very keen to read it. Thank you.
In the early years, there was much to debate between the supporters of communism and those of capitalism. Which was better, a free market or one controled by central planning?
But it is insane that we still are having that debate after a century or more of real-world examples.
I am the American CEO of an international renewable energy company in Poland. I think that some balance on the renewable energy experience in Spain and what is proposed in the US is necessary. Spain went for very high feed-in tariffs that created the price and budget problems. For solar energy, their tariffs (assured prices to producers) have been enormous.
High feed-in tariffs have also been problems for Denmark and Germany in wind energy.
However, other mechanisms that have more modest effects can be effective in promoting alternative energy. The green certificate program makes all renewables compete with each other and involves more modest support for producers. This is in effect in Poland. There has been a Senate bill in the US to do the same thing (in fact, 26 states have already done so). The Bush Administration Energy Information Agency found that this approach (called the portfolio standard, requiring minimal levels of alternative energy by suppliers phased in over time) would allow the US to reach 20% alternative electricity by 2020 at a cost of less than 1% of consumer retail prices for electricity.
Without some more aggressive national program in the US, Americans will likely be dependent on foreign producers of technology in alternative energy in the coming decades. The price tag of 1% is not trivial, nor is it anything like Spain. It is also disingenuous to call such a program a jobs creator, since the renewable technologies tend to be more capital intensive than the fossil-fuel technologies that they augment. But none of these points detrack from the real benefits of diversified electrical production (the EIA found increased competition would be a major factor in holding down prices, hence the 1% minimal increase).
I hope that Republicans will be logical and rational on this issue and not allow the grand-standing and bravo sierra from the Obama Administration to “poison the well.” This is not about carbon taxes or cap-and-trade or crazy high feed-in tariffs. Anyone familiar with the business can tell you the difference. You should probably care enough to find the answers.
Randy Mott
CEERES
Warsaw, Poland
Chairman of Republicans in Poland
If so called renewables can’t compete without subsidies, then they should be allowed to die. Smaller subsidies just mean that less economic damage is done. The reality is that no economic damage is acceptable.
We use government regulation to internalize some external costs, such as environmental impacts. We also used governent policy and tax policy to create the US oil industry via the oil depletion allowance (which cost about $140 billion to taxcpayers). http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3704&mode=threaded&pid=56558
http://www.allbusiness.com/business-finance/equity-funding-private-equity-venture/111252-1.html
So it is a straw man to say that the government has not interfered with the energy market. Maybe one of the least informed statements that someone could make on the subject.
If we can create our impressive oil industry with government stimuli, then it is logical that we should consider (at far lower cost) creating alternative energy sources and technology in the US. Otherwise, when oil hits $200 a barrel again, we will be buying those Spanish windmills and German solar panels instead of having US firms in that market as players. 1% is not a big price for a jump start….
The portfolio system sets a maximum energy price for each unit of renewable, so there is a cap and this creates competition to produce the energy within the limits. Solar, right now, cannot compete with other forms of renewable electricity, for example. It is a way to use market forces to get alternative energy into the mix.
Other than selective ideological rigidity, it is difficult to argue with the result or the price.
Randy Mott
Most so called environmental costs are invented in the first place. Actual damage is handled through civil and criminal courts as well as requiring restitution and remediation.
As to depletion allowances, shouldn’t a company get credit for the fact that their primary asset is becoming less valueable? Depletion allowances are no different than depretiation allowances in other industries.
You want your favorite industry to be subsidized and you are trying to invent an excuse for doing so.
If you actually believe other energy industries are being subsidized, then work to eliminate those subsidies.
Help me understand what you are saying. The power suppliers will be required to get a certain percentage of the energy they supply from “renewable” sources. Doesn’t this mean that the suppliers will have to pay whatever price the “renewable” producers demand? This seems to me like the government telling me and all my neighbors that we have to buy a certain percentage of our food from only one grocery store, even though other stores are less expensive. That one store will have high demand and be able to charge whatever it wants. It makes no sense to require suppliers to purchase more expensive, less efficient energy.
My husband works for a wind company, and he makes all sorts of claims about the future of wind. I’ll believe it when I see it.
What he’s saying is that he knows he can’t compete unless govt hands him oodles of money.
He’s the president of a company that exists primarily to milk the taxpayers.
MarkTheGreat, you’re just TOO sensible! All business “endeavors” should rise or fall on their own merits. There’d always be someone around willing & ABLE to build a better, cheaper mousetrap if govt would just keep its “helping” hands off.
1. Our company does not do business in the United States and would not benefit from any government support in the US.
2. The level of support actually needed to jump start alternative electricity in the US is small – less than 1% of consumer prices. No rebuttal posted here, just ideological, knee-jerk stuff.
3. Most new technologies got some kind of early break. The depletion allowance was an accelerated depreciation policy that cost $140 billion more than normal tax rules. The US is also now providing some extra support for new nuclear plants as well.
4. Without US government support -even modestly – alternative technology in this area will be foreign. When oil hits $200 a barrel, it will be too late to decide that maybe we should have thought about some alternative energy policies earlier.
5. If you believe that no government intervention in energy is ever warranted, then I will not convince you. If you think that we ought to look at whether our policies might be making things worse in the future, then you should spend a moment educating yourself on the issue.
Randy Mott
Warsaw, Poland
Words you never hear associated with the ‘green energy scam’ — It costs less to be green. Not even after the alarmists have jacked up conventional costs as high as they dare.
Anybody heard from an ethanol company lately? Seen their P/L statements?
“If Obama wants Spain to “turn off its spigot of public debt” and wants to emulate Spain’s green power template…am I the only one to smell a whiff of doublethink here?”
More like a whiff of treason.
American Power Act = Crime Inc. & Agenda 21. ”Green” hasn’t worked in Kalifornia either.
Here in Kalifornia they pretend to clean the air with gas that knowingly pollutes the groundwater systems. They just turn a blind eye to it and tout their clean air gas. Typical of everything they do here. I would move in a heartbeat, but I’m stuck.
As with all failed economic programs, the real reason it didn’t work is that they didn’t do it right.
The evidence continues to accumulate; it suggests that the President is on a disastrous course for the people of the United States. Even more telling is the fact that he is in self denial. His foreign policy (if that term can be used) is a disaster and will result in great loss of life and hardship for the citizens of the United States. His domestic policy, if he has one, is no less a disaster.
This is old.
Backwards, misguided and failed policies never stopped Liberals from replicating them before. Heck, that describes Libism!
Just more proof that Libs are childish, out-of-touch idiots bent on grabbing power…
…childish, out-of-touch idiots bent on grabbing power…
Describes just about any politician, no matter the label. It’s really about who gets to control the future of the US.
One time while out comping, I warmed some Ramen noodles in a ziplock w/water and margerine hanging from a clothesline. It took a few hours due to the weather. Seems to me that people are forgeting you have to invest to reap the profits. But it also seems to me that after all these decades, the US should at least have the solar power thing down. There has to be demand to make the investment pay off, which I’m sure we all know but it seems to me people are being impatient sometimes. And also, when the word is ‘renewable’ energies, doesn’t that mean the stuff that keeps happening, not money? Like how the sun has been shining for billions of years, like how we could be using the electrical energies of space but no, we couldn’t keep developing the Tesla technologys in peaceful ways.
Are you actually trying to argue that if we try long enough, it’s inevitable that eventually something should happen?
The reason why solar doesn’t work has nothing to do with people not trying hard enough. It doesn’t work because there is nothing that anyone can do to make it economical. Wishing doesn’t count.
As a partner in a construction firm which integrates solar PV and solar thermal (hot water heating) systems in new construction (and retrofits existing structures), it is our belief that the model is wrong. Trying to build huge, capital intensive alternative energy “plants” is as inefficient as building huge, capital intensive coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear plants. The model should be to build (or retrofit) each structure with it’s own systems. We can build a new structure with solar pv and solar thermal systems integrated for the same price per square foot as conventional building. We’ve done so in Roswell, GA where we built the first Platinum LEED certified home in GA and the most energy efficient residence in North America according to HERS (Home Energy Rating System). The first home had a first year energy bill of $152 or approximately $12.67 per month for a 3900 square foot home…at a per square foot cost of slightly below the Georgia average. Alternative energy can be done. We just need to be smarter about it. Retrofits are more complex and still do require subsidy to bring the ROI under 10 years. However, with the Federal Investment Tax Credit, a robust Renewable Energy Certificate market, (as mentioned by an earlier poster), and a new technology to dramatically cut labor and material cost ROI can be brought under 3 years in many circumstances for residential, commercial and industrial retrofits.
Dan Downey
Cadmus Construction
cadmusconstruction.com
cadmussolar.com
Roswell, GA
Man, the taxpayer leeches are coming out in droves on this article.
Are you actually serious when you try to claim that large scale oil/nat. gas/etc power plants are less efficient than home scale units?
Are you crazy, or do you just hope everyone else is?
As to your house that uses $152/yr in energy costs. What you fail to mention is that without the govt subsidies, the homeowner would be paying $10K per year in extra mortgage payments to cover the costs of the gadgets you added to his home.
You are misinformed on large scale oil/gas/nuclear plans projects. And as for the $152 monthly payment, well, consider a homeowner, in colder climates, with very few sunny days, expensive labor, material cost and …..
Well, you get the point. One thing is to build something to make a “splash”, another thing is commercial practicality.
I thought the following keen observation in point 14 of the report was particularly poignant:
Indeed. Gotta hand it to ‘em, this is brutally honest.
The translation could be improved in a few places. Presumably the document was first published in English. Among others the following phrasing jumps out as incomprehensible:
If the Spanish version is extant, perhaps a spanish speaking reader with time on his/her hands could improve the English version in some places. Also, this appears to be a university study. Is it government-commissioned? What is it’s “official” status as a guide to policy?
My Spanish isn’t very good, but I think that sentence really means:
“- (creation of a) new framework in 2008 for the photovoltaic industry that’s bringing order to the rate of installation and extracts market signals so that increased profits from technological development are transferred more quickly to consumers”
Um, I mean “first published in Spanish”
Um, I meant “first published in Spanish”.
This whole debate is so bassackwards… As of yet the “alternative” energy sector cannot economically handle the load of an industrial nation and its citizens, though I think the tech will be there eventually (because people are good at figuring that stuff out). However I would go a different route. Companies should be trying to perfect things like windmills and solar panels for personal use, being able to eliminate your need to be a part of the “grid” at all, thus increasing your personal liberty.
What has happened to our spirit of independence, individualism and inventiveness? If the private sector could get its head around the idea of increasing personal freedom through the use of energy tech, we could vastly reduce our perceived dependence on gov and big energy.
In fact if done properly We the People could sell our energy to the gov for them to keep their lights on, and forcing them on a shorter leash.
There is an alternate reality version of 1984… and that is We the People as Big Brother, watching our politicians at every moment forcing them to enact OUR will. Posters adorning every public office, each showing a different citizens face…”We are watching you” they all say.
I’m not a fan of LeRouche but he’s coined the phrase correctly on this subject. “Environmental Fascism” is what this is all about.
The study that is referenced in this article is totally biased and lacks of grounds. Please read the NREL response:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf
May I point out that nuclear power has received far far more government funding that any renewables have ever done. It’s a shame to read so many uninformed people comment on something they know nothing about. Makes me very sad, cuz all you people want to do is knock other ppl for trying to find a better way. Instead of just dissing ppl, why not put forward a better solution ? As far as energy goes – you won’t find one that makes any more sense than renewables.
Most alternate energy arguments refer to the (false) global warming premise & the wasted power of the sun being reflected away from earth. If we collect huge amounts of solar energy & convert it to electricity, then this must increase global warming. The sun’s energy that would have been reflected is captured, and any use of electricity creates heat which is not dissipated from the earth.
We spaniards, naively, are willing to pay more for enviromentaly friendly energy.
Now the Spanish government cant borrow any more and hopefully they will look better after our Euros.
In spain, not the indignados, not PP.. No one talks of the scandal, no one links the huge debt to the funding of green energy, or the size of electricity bills. Not now in crisis and even less when things were merry.
My take is that wind and hydro power are worth their price. Photovoltaic is a total rip-off and nuclear is really plutonium factories for weapons of mass destruction.