Fracking Will Kill Renewables Stone Dead

Shale Gas will cause renewables to be just a distant bad economic memory by 2035

The International Energy Agency(IEA) is warning that the global dash for shale gas will kill the financially unviable renewables of wind and solar, unless governments and tax payers continue to pour billions into the Green renewable energy money pit.

To back up the continued demands for Green subsidies the IEA is peddling a new fear story that if renewables die off the temperature of the planet will rise several trillion degrees by 2070, or something equally unlikely.

A “golden age of gas” spurred by a tripling of shale gas from fracking and other sources of unconventional gas by 2035 will stop renewable energy in its tracks if governments don’t take action, the International Energy Agency has warned.

Gas is now relatively abundant in some regions, thanks to the massive expansion of hydraulic fracturing – fracking – for shale gas, and in some areas the price of the fuel has fallen. The result is a threat to renewable energy, which is by comparison more expensive, in part because the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are still not taken into account in the price of energy.

Carbon emissions should never be taken into anything, and most certainly not more Green taxation for a problem that does not exist, the major driver of climate on this planet is the sun, not a trace gas that is essential to plant life (and our life) on earth and is just 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Fatih Birol, chief economist for the IEA, said the threat to renewables was plain: “Renewable energy may be the victim of cheap gas prices if governments do not stick to their renewable support schemes.”

Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA, told a conference in London: “Policy measures by governments for renewable energy have to be there for years to come, as it is not always as cost-effective as it could be.”

Renewable energy has already added £200 a year to every energy bill in Britain, it is a similar story from other countries where Green subsidies have produced no lasting real jobs, but have instead cost jobs, forced industry to relocate to avoid the crushing burden of Green taxation and driven millions into energy poverty in the industrialised world.

As always the realities of the financial crises should be ignored this is after all, politically correct Church of Climatology Green energy generation under threat of extinction.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on May 29, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Green Jobs Lie, Green Lies, Renewables, Sustainable Development, Wealth Redistribution, Wind Power. Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. Brian G Valentine

    I would be willing to let enviro mentals have their own country in California

    They would be a foreign aid case, but I would gladly pay for it to keep them away.

    I really think it is coming to this. There simply must be a way to keep them from trying to tell normal people what to do

  2. You really are imbecilic in your claims about carbon dioxide. Yes, the sun is the major driver. Second is water vapour. Third is CO2. To claim that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere is tantamount to claiming that heat-seeking missiles work by magic, because the science that makes the missiles work is the same science that supports CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
    Carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million and you claim it has no influence, yet CFCs are measured in parts per trillion and have a proven effect, thus negating your concentration argument.
    You happily crow on about green subsidies, but don’t criticise fossil fuel subsidies – making you a hypocrite.
    @Valentine – you people are the abnormal ones. You have conservatism and nimbyism confused to the detriment of the rest of us. Shame on you.

    • Brian G Valentine

      Twenty years after CFC bans we learn that stratospheric ozone is all solar related, four billion years of Earth history has proven that climate change is all related to the Earth’s orbit, one hundred years ago scientists at the Royal Society published on AGW as junk science, and it remained in the junk pile until Jim Hansen learned that liberals could be played like a fiddle at the suggestion of AGW. Tone deaf to all reason, AGW is the only tune they know.

      Shame on you for being stupid. You must be a disappointment to your mom.

      [Move out of her basement by the way, before she throws you out. Throw out your Star Trek toys on moving day

  3. You make wild and nonsensical comments and claims, but do not support them with citations or evidence. Please don’t be a fool and try to proffer blog posts as evidence of anything – published scientific research is satisfactory evidence. It took a few seconds to find: which is produced by experts within the field and provides clear data which contradicts your claim of stratospheric ozone being “all solar related”.
    One hundred years ago the Royal Society was not informed by the mountains of data that have been collected analysed and clearly show that AGW is not junk science. However, I can’t find a reference to this refutation that you cite, so perhaps you could share it? (The source please, not a blog post)
    Your need to resort to personal attack in response to a more general criticism of deniers and their methods, illustrates a lack of intelligence and objective thought processes.

    • Brian G Valentine

      It became expedient for whatever reasons, to snatch AGW out of the junk science graveyard.

      CFCs “destroy” ozone when people want to find evidence that they do. Contradictory evidence is ignored. CO2 “causes” AGW by the simple mechanism of ignoring contradictory evidence.

      For any other than environmental issues, the “scientific” method is usually applied, excepting by cranks and psychopaths who are fixated upon “cause and effect” relationships that do not exist.

      This by the way, is not my fault.

  4. Brian G Valentine

    The referenced refutation of Wood by the way, is not correct. Can you tell why?

    • Wood is just plain wrong, because even though the mechanism is called the Greenhouse Effect, it is known that greenhouses work by stopping the free movement of air whereas the atmosphere doesn’t. I learned this on day one of my MSc. Yes, the mechanism is badly named, but then so many other mechanisms are too – people and agents of the print media in particular, like to use punchy terms even if they have no bearing on the actual physical interactions taking place.

  1. Pingback: New Fracking Process Uses No Water « Tory Aardvark

  2. Pingback: Green Company Joins The Dash For Gas « Tory Aardvark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: