Australia’s obsession with chaotically intermittent wind and solar has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. Although, you could be forgiven for thinking the $70 billion in subsidies set to be squandered on that pathetic pair must have some kind of environmental benefit. Otherwise, what’s the point?
When the sun sets and/or calm weather sets in, wind and solar are as useful as a chocolate teapot. So, clearly, the point is not generating meaningful electricity.
Leaving aside arguments about whether CO2 is a toxic pollutant or a naturally occurring beneficial trace gas which plants crave, the primary object of Australia’s effort to power itself on bluster and breezes is reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the electricity generation sector.
Assuming some economic benefit from such a reduction, any trained economist might reasonably ask a few pointed questions about the cost of doing so.
One Australian economist who’s been asking the…
View original post 1,112 more words