Lefty journo pushes green solar scam
Gerard Jackson
Suzy Freeman-Greene is another lefty journo who does not believe in fact checking. I mean to say, if she cross-checked her so-called facts she might be forced to change her opinion — and we can’t have that, can we? This genius quotes Erwin Jackson of the Australian Conservation Foundation to the effect that unless an Australian government throws buckets of dollars at that green fantasy called solar energy we will all be “rooned” (The Age, It’s clean and it’s green, but Howard isn’t interested in it, 26 September 2006). And what does our intrepid investigated reporter throw up as evidence? The fact that other governments subsidise solar energy. And that’s the key — subsidies. If solar energy was superior to centralised electricity generation subsidies would not be necessary.
Solar generated electricity is a disgusting scam that has successfully tricked millions of people into believing that solar energy is a realistic alternative to power stations. It is not. It is physically impossible for a solar energy plant to compete successfully against any form of centralised electricity generation. This is a scientific and economic fact and not just an opinion.
This green nonsense has been going on for years. For example, in 1996 Citipower, motivated by what I can only describe as a public relations attempt to curry favour with greens and their half-witted media mates, installed 24 solar-voltaic panels on a family of four’s Brunswick home at a cost of $A25,000. The company threw in $A20,000 while the lucky couple put in the remaining $A5,000. The couple claimed that this reduced their previous winter bill to only $A16.67. The inference being that the sun was setting on the quarterly electricity bill.
Now before readers start thinking that little Miss Suzy did get it right after all, I have to inform them that unless this lucky couple’s idea of electricity consumption was two 75 watt globes then the above figures are complete bunk. Let us start with a fundamental physical law. The maximum amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun under optimum conditions is just under 1 kWh per square metre (11 square feet). Optimum conditions mean that the sky must be clear and the sun must be perpendicular to the collecting area. These conditions are the exception and not the rule. A child with a hand calculator can easily work out from the above facts that the diluteness of solar energy means huge collecting areas. This natural limit is why even desert regions have failed to provide the necessary conditions to make solar operations profitable1.
At one square metre per panel (a total of 264 square feet), and assuming 100 per cent efficiency and optimum conditions, the installation will generate 24 kWh. Terrific! No it ain’t. The sun cannot remain perpendicular to the panels for a significant time, unless the roof could be rotated. We also have to take into account the obvious fact that the skies are not always brilliant and cloudless (remember: this is Melbourne) and that night must always fall. As far as I know, the maximum efficiency achieved under laboratory conditions has been 24 per cent. Citipower’s panels, however, generated a maximum 83 Wh. That’s right — miserable 83 watts. This translates into a wretched 8 per cent efficiency. A maximum of 83 Wh times 24 gives us 1.9 kWh. (Would you pay $A25,000 for this?) So how did the family cope on 2 kWh of electricity? Well, the heating was virtually all gas, including the hot water, and they also cooked with gas. The system has been designed so that at night or when it is cloudy it automatically switches into the electricity grid2.
Economists have a saying: there is no such thing as a free lunch. And so it is with solar panels. If the family “saved” a hypothetical $A100 a quarter in electricity bills that would have worked out at $A400 p.a.. This means that it would take this ‘investment’ 62 years and 6 months to break even. But when we discount the return (as we must because a present dollar is worth more than a future dollar) by, say, 10 per cent this ‘investment’ will never pay for itself. It wouldn’t even repay the family’s $A5000 investment. Then of course we have depreciation. If this is set at 10 per cent, for example, then the installation last for 10 years. Even if you run it till it falls to pieces, it still cannot pay for itself at these prices. This is what is called a lousy investment. It’s also lousy science and lousy PR.
Citipower would have done much better for its shareholders and Victorians in general if ithad directed more of its efforts to countering the Australian Conservation Foundation’s lying anti-nuclear propaganda instead of trying to suck up to it with Mickey Mouse energy-saving scams that deliberately convey the false impression that solar panels are a realistic alternative to power stations. The final irony here is that as Citipower was trying to sell the idea of solar to Victorians, Mr Edward Lupberger, chairman and president of Energy Corporation was defending the benefits of nuclear energy. Citipower, by the way, is owned by Energy Corporation.
Being a lefty means never having to deal with reality — and that includes natural laws. This is why Freeman-Greene could seriously argue that the energy debate has been “framed by politicians in thrall to the mining lobby”. In other words it’s a conspiracy. This is why her dopey approach to energy production should not surprise us. She also thinks that the economy might cease to exist in “100 years’ time” if we don’t harvest sunbeams.
It is evident that Freeman-Greene is another batty knee-jerk lefty. It will therefore come as no surprise to readers to learn that she is a great admirer of the America-hating Mike Moore. She used a letter written by Specialist Mike Prysner, who was serving in Iraq, to Moore in which he attacked President Bush. It appears that Mr Prysner was shocked to discover that armies actually go to war. (He also believes Bush was not elected to the presidency. So much for his ‘informed opinion’). Like the good little lefty that she is Suzy never referred, any more than did Moore, to letters from servicemen in Iraq who strongly support the war. (The Age, Why Michael Moore is under attack, 17 January 2004).
And what of the discredited Mr Moore? This is the same creature who proudly asserted that the savages in Iraq who are massacring Iraqi civilian and mutilating and beheading US troops are “not terrorists”. According to this perverted liar they are “patriots” and “they are the revolution, the Minutemen” and “they will win”.
Freeman-Greene and her fellow political activists who masquerade as journalists chose to ignore Moore’s disgusting pro-terrorists sentiment. They also ignored the plight of Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, who lost both of his arms in Iraq. This veteran is suing Moore for $85 million because in his 9/11 film Moore had falsely portrayed him as anti-war. No wonder Douglas Urbanski, Moore’s former manager, said of him that he had never met “A more dishonest and demented person”. Now I wonder what Mr Urbanski would think of Freeman-Greene and her greenie mates?
1. In America in 1991, LUZ, a solar-electricity generating company, went into bankruptcy. LUZ is interesting because it had been asserted by zealous solar power supporters (especially in the media) that the company’s technology had made solar power an economic alternative to nuclear. Even Fortune magazine waded in with support. LUZ had built its plant in the New Mexico desert to take advantage of the highly favourable conditions. But even there they could not make their 354 MW operation pay, which brings us right back to Suzy Freeman-Greene.
2. I raised these matters with Citypower at the time but the company refused to discuss them.
Gerard Jackson is Brookesnews’ economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 9 October 2006