A SubStack article reposted in full (unable to cross-post) Siemens chief says that household energy bills must be held at triple and wuadruple historic levels, or wind energy will not innovate

Before posting the article, consider this.

Household energy bills have been subjected to the actions of government cartels around the world that provide enabling regulations, subsidies and tax breaks for wind energy and the opposite for hydrocarbon energy sources (disabling regulations, penalties and higher taxes).

The rationale is a transition is required from hydrocarbon energy to renewable energy to meet Net Zero targets. There is no evidence that such a transition is necessary because it is based on false assumptions about the levels of CO2 and its impact on global average temperatures. Leave aside that more people could be saved from death every year from warmer temperatures (cold kills multiple times more than heat each year).

(100) Updated compilation of articles that debunk the “climate crisis” mantra -showing the utter folly of spending tens of trillions whilst allowing millions to die of disease and hunger (all ID'd/injected) (substack.com)

The basis for “Net Zero” Is based on “faux science” of religious zealots – or rather communist methods to achieve political goals and power.

Now, consider this. If the enabling regulations, subsidies and tax breaks had instead been applied to hydrocarbon energy, the average household energy bill would be far lower – maybe 90% lower.

Who would benefit most from a 90% reduction in household energy bills? The poor, the elderly and the infirm of course – such is the assault of the less fortunate by the Cult of Moloch.

Even where cost reductions from “innovation” are achieved in the wind turbine industry, these cost savings ARE NOT passed on to the consumer.

(100) Why aren’t renewable energy costs being passed on to households? Taxpayers provided around 80 billion for renewables between 2016 and 2022 – these subsidized investments are already obsolete (substack.com)

In any event, the capital cost of erecting the forests of 79 storey tall wind turbines has been covered multiple times by government handouts and tax breaks.

Now with that context, here’s the article:

From here:

Siemens Chairman Says the Quiet Part Out Loud, and it is Glorious (substack.com)

Repost starts.

“Siemens Chairman Says the Quiet Part Out Loud, and it is Glorious

DAVID BLACKMON

2 FEB 2024

In case you hadn’t figured it out already, the wind industry sits atop a throne made up of lies, obfuscations, and broken promises. For many years the industry has falsely claimed it is a reliable provider of predictable energy, that it can be adopted without causing utility bills to skyrocket, and that it is in fact the least expensive form of power generation.

None of those claims are true, of course, and now it appears that Joe Kaeser, chairman of big German wind turbine-maker Siemens Energy AG, has decided to become something of a truth-teller about it all. A recent story published by The Telegraph headlined, “Energy bills must rise to pay for net zero, says Siemens Energy boss,” details some pretty blunt bits of truth coming from Mr. Kaeser.

Here’s a good example: “Every transformation comes at a cost and every transformation is painful. And that’s something which the energy industry and the public sector - governments - don’t really want to hear.  “I believe that for a while [customers] need to accept higher pricing. “And then there might be innovation – about the weight of the blades, other efficiency methods, technology – so the cost can then go down again. “But the point is, if there is no profit pool in an industry, why should that industry innovate?” [Emphasis added] [End]

Read that carefully. Kaeser is whining that governments who heavily subsidize his industry already aren’t doing it rapidly enough and are not forcing utility costs to rise to levels needed to sustain his company and industry.

Even more to the point, he whines that Siemens and other huge players like Orsted and BP and Equinor just aren’t taking in enough subsidy Euros and dollars to sustain innovation.

Also note that he even qualifies his otherwise valid point about innovation, saying only that the industry “might” innovate if the subsidies grow to the levels he desires. It’s a truly extraordinary thought process - grasping, grifting and plaintive all at the same time.

The Siemens Energy AG Chairman also expands on his desire for more central planning as a burning need to ensure his industry’s specious sustainability:

“One of the shortcomings of the wind industry in the last five years is that there were a lot of announcements, a lot of plans,” he explained. “But they took four, five or six years sometimes to go from the order to execution. “Now, if you have five years in between, you have a massive risk of inflation, which has hit us really, really hard. Not just Siemens Energy, but also others. “We need to have a long-term energy plan, that this is what we’re going to do in the next three years, five years.” [End]

Note: Free democracies have a difficult time sustaining “long-term energy plans” due to these pesky things we refer to as “elections.” Which is why the wind industry and the desire for a government-subsidized energy transition constantly push “solutions” that invariably involve increasingly authoritarian governance.

China is really good at invoking long-term energy plans, because China is a communist country. Do we see the problem here yet? The inherent conflict?

Indeed, this authoritarian impulse is so ingrained within Mr. Kaeser’s thought process that he feels the need to re-emphasize the concept later in the piece: He said: “It’s up and down and up and down, and promise here and promise there and then, ‘Oh, well, renewables are too expensive’. Well, the cost of energy doesn’t go down on renewables if you don’t innovate. “And if you’re making all the losses, why should you innovate? So you have a sort of a Catch 22, which you can only break if you have a long term energy agenda.”

The simple fact is that this transition is without question incompatible with the ultimate maintenance of a free society run with free and fair elections. But in Kaeser’s way of thinking, this just means opponents aren’t being “reasonable” about it all: “I believe people need to become reasonable about the energy transition. “The matter of renewables being volatile - if there is a windless night, it could get complicated if you don’t have storage. So you need to think: what is my energy agenda? How much do I want to have on renewables? How do we deal with the fact that sometimes availability and demand don’t match? “So you say, okay, maybe we do baseload nuclear. Then maybe gas fired or even hydrogen-fired gas turbines for peaks [in demand].”

But he added: “Where does the hydrogen come from? That story of green hydrogen is another fairytale. If you believe in the next five years, in industry it’s a feasible option - it’s not.” [End]

Hey, at least he admits green hydrogen is a “fairytale.” The truth hurts, huh?

That is all.”  

Repost ends  

Onwards! Please subscribe or donate via Ko-fi – any amount from 3 bucks upwards. Don’t worry and God Bless, if you can’t or don’t want to. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - an annual subscription of 100 bucks is one third less than a $3 Ko-fi donation a week!