Author: Iowa Climate Science Education

Another windfarm surpasses £1 billion in subsidy payments

By Paul Homewood

 

 

London: 14 November 2024
Another windfarm surpasses £1 billion in subsidy payments

The Beatrice Offshore Windfarm has become the fourth windfarm to have received more than £1 billion in subsidy payments. The landmark was reached in just its seventh year of operation, suggesting that it could reach £2 billion over the course of its subsidy agreement.

Beatrice, situated in the Moray Firth, cost £2.2 billion to construct. Thus consumer levies will pay for almost the entire cost of the windfarm. The profits are ultimately shared by SSE plc and the Danish investment house, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.

Net Zero Watch has condemned the waste. Its director Andrew Montford said:

“This level of subsidy is obscene. The Westminster machine is hosing down the green lobby with our money. The consumer interest is nowhere to be seen.”

Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK said:

“Renewable energy subsidies are making people poorer with higher bills. Businesses are less competitive, meaning less growth and fewer jobs. Reform would put a windfall tax on all renewables to the value of the subsidies. We need to copy the US plan and ‘drill baby drill’ to make people better off.”

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/WJCFOca

November 14, 2024 at 10:03AM

Friday

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/FDr3mfd

November 14, 2024 at 08:38AM

Making Themselves Irrelevant

After President Trump was banned from Twitter, he formed his own social media company.  The Guardian is doing the exact opposite, banning themselves because people are allowed to respond to their nonsense. (4) The Guardian on X: “Why the Guardian … Continue reading →

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/v1urz02

November 14, 2024 at 08:09AM

Debate This Evening, 7 pm ET with Steve Koonin: Is Decarbonization Worth the Cost?

In a world where “decarbonization” dominates the political and economic discourse, an upcoming debate promises to question whether the ambitious goals of reducing carbon emissions justify the immense economic, social, and technological price tags attached to them. This pivotal discussion will feature leading experts in atmospheric science, economics, and energy policy, creating a forum to explore the contentious trade-offs inherent in climate change mitigation strategies.

The Panel of Experts

The debate features four distinguished speakers:

  • Kerry Emanuel: A Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Emanuel brings a deep understanding of climate dynamics, likely advocating for the scientific necessity of decarbonization.
  • Robert Pindyck: An economist from MIT’s Sloan School of Management, Pindyck has critically examined the uncertainties in climate models and their use in policy decisions. He will offer an economic lens on the debate.
  • Steven Koonin: A Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Koonin is well-known for his skepticism of mainstream climate narratives and emphasizes the uncertainties surrounding climate data and models.
  • Mark Mills: Executive Director of the National Center for Energy Analytics, Mills often critiques the feasibility of transitioning to a “net-zero” energy future, highlighting the material and energy demands of renewable technologies.

The Moderator

John Tomasi, the President of Heterodox Academy, will moderate. Tomasi’s leadership in fostering open, critical discourse ensures that the debate avoids echo chambers and instead challenges participants to rigorously defend their positions.

When and Where

  • Date: Today Thursday, November 14
  • Time: 7:00 PM
  • Location: Wong Auditorium (E51-115), MIT
  • Admission: Free, though registration is encouraged.
  • Online

For those unable to attend in person, the event will stream live on YouTube (@MITFreespeech).

Why This Debate Matters

The topic—“Is Decarbonization Worth the Cost?”—is arguably one of the most pressing of our time. With the debatable global push toward net-zero emissions, the policies crafted today will shape economic structures, technological innovation, and societal norms for decades. Yet, questions persist about the cost-benefit calculus:

  1. Economic Trade-Offs: Decarbonization requires unprecedented investments in renewable infrastructure, energy storage, and grid modernization. Are these investments yielding tangible benefits, or do they disproportionately burden certain sectors or demographics?
  2. Scientific Uncertainties: How reliable are the climate models underpinning decarbonization policies? Skeptics like Steven Koonin argue that these models fail to capture the complexity of the climate system, overstating risks.
  3. Energy Realities: Mark Mills frequently points out the physical limitations of renewable technologies, including the need for rare earth materials and the environmental costs of mining. Are these challenges adequately addressed in the rush to “green energy”?
  4. Alternative Approaches: Could adaptation strategies, as opposed to aggressive mitigation, offer a more cost-effective path forward?

A Critical Opportunity

This debate is more than an academic exercise. It is an opportunity to scrutinize policies that have far-reaching implications for economic stability, technological progress, and global economies. Decarbonization might be an article of faith for many, but faith is no substitute for rigorous analysis.

Attending or watching this debate will allow you to engage with the arguments on both sides, fostering a more informed perspective on one of the most consequential questions of our era.

Don’t miss this chance to hear from some of the brightest minds tackling one of the thorniest issues of modern policy-making.

For more details and registration, scan the QR code on the event flyer or visit the MIT Open Discourse Society’s website.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/FOm79pN

November 14, 2024 at 08:07AM