Sunday, March 18, 2018

Climate Tricks 66, Ignoring the implications of worsening cosmic rays situation

For those who keep believing that global warming and climate change is anthropogenic or man-made, who believe that they can "fight" GW and CC via more government, more UN, more carbon taxes, more renewables cronyism, more climate bureaucracies, more global climate meetings, please widen your mind. Natural or nature-made GW and CC is factual than CO2-is-pollutant-evil drama.

More galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), more cloud cover, more cooling of the planet. Conversely, less GCRs, less clouds, more warming of the planet.

More stories here:

The Worsening Cosmic Ray Situation
March 5, 2018: Cosmic rays are bad–and they’re getting worse.

That’s the conclusion of a new paper just published in the research journal Space Weather. The authors, led by Prof. Nathan Schwadron of the University of New Hampshire, show that radiation from deep space is dangerous and intensifying faster than previously expected….

Update on the worsening particle radiation environment observed by CRaTER and implications for future human deep‐space exploration*
N. A. Schwadron  F. Rahmanifard  J. Wilson  A. P. Jordan  H. E. Spence  C. J. Joyce  J. B. Blake A. W. Case  W. de Wet  W. M. Farrell  J. C. Kasper  M. D. Looper  N. Lugaz  L. Mays  ... See all authors
First published: 22 February 2018

Over the last decade, the solar wind has exhibited low densities and magnetic field strengths, representing anomalous states that have never been observed during the space age. As discussed by Schwadron et al. (2014a), the cycle 23–24 solar activity led to the longest solar minimum in more than 80 years and continued into the “mini” solar maximum of cycle 24. During this weak activity, we observed galactic cosmic ray fluxes that exceeded the levels observed throughout the space age, and we observed small solar energetic particle events. Here, we provide an update to the Schwadron et al (2014a) observations from the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)….

Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
February 2017, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 252–254 | Cite as
Cosmic rays, solar activity, and changes in the Earth’s climate
Authors: Y. I. StozhkovEmail authorG. A. BazilevskayaV. S. MakhmutovN. S. SvirzhevskyA. K. SvirzhevskayaV. I. LogachevV. P. Okhlopkov
Proceedings of the 34th All-Russian Conference on Cosmic Rays
First Online: 08 March 2017

One of the most important problems facing humanity, global climate change, is discussed. The roles of cosmic ray fluxes and solar activity in this process are analyzed. Although several mechanisms explaining global climate change have been proposed, none of them are firmly grounded. At the United Nations summit in Paris at the end of 2015, it was decided that greenhouse gases are responsible for the global warming of our planet. However, the authors of this work believe the question of what causes global changes in the Earth’s climate remains open, and will obviously be solved once and for all in the next 10–15 years.

MAR 13, 2018 @ 09:11 AM
How Activity On The Sun Could Change The Economy
Simon Constable , CONTRIBUTOR

The question is whether we will enter another grand solar minimum just like the Maunder minimum which if history is a guide would mean a period of much colder weather winters and summers. More than a few experts with whom I speak regularly believe that we shall enter such a grand minimum along with the resulting bone-chilling weather.

If that happens, then there will be profound influences on the economy, including possible crop failures and rising energy use for home and workplace heating. Or in other words, expect bigger bills for food and energy. After a period in which the supply of both has been increasingly abundant then this change will likely come as a shock to many people and likely the broader global economy as well.

See also:
Climate Tricks 63, The search for huge climate money in COP 23, November 26, 2017 

Climate Tricks 64, Bitter cold and snow are caused by AGW, January 06, 2018 

Climate Tricks 65, "Last chance" to save the planet stories, 1992-2018, March 16, 2018

Saturday, March 17, 2018

BWorld 194, How ‘pro-labor’ policies work against labor

* This is my column in BusinessWorld on March 08, 2018.

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

— American economist, political philosopher, and author Thomas Sowell

There are many legislative and executive proposals now that are meant to protect workers but have the long-term effect of discouraging the hiring of more workers. These five measures seem to stand out.

Currently there are 15 national non-working holidays with pay. Then there are city/municipal non-working holidays proclaimed by local governments. Plus paid leaves provided for by special laws like solo parent leave and maternity leave. Plus work suspension with pay during strong typhoons, floods, and other calamities. Plus work suspensions due to politics like nationwide jeepney strikes.

Now there are legislative proposals to create new holidays with pay. Among these are: the last Monday of January as National Bible Day; and, July 27 as Iglesia ni Cristo anniversary day.

A bill called the “Expanded Maternity Leave Law” proposes to raise the maternity leave period to 120 days or four months. This will cover all female workers regardless of civil status or legitimacy of the child. Solo parents would be granted a total of 150 days maternity leave with pay. Fathers will also enjoy a 30-day leave with pay versus the current seven days of paid leave as provided for under RA 7322. Penalties for violations are high — fines up to P20,000, imprisonment for six to 12 years, or both.

This is removing the employers’ and contractors’ flexibility to hire workers when demand for work is high. Like catering and malls, demand for business and labor is high during November and December due to the Christmas holidays and reunions, then tapers off by January.

Even the unskilled should be paid the mandated minimum wage. The danger of this policy is that the less-skilled or skilled but less industrious workers will not be hired, raising the unemployment situation in the country.

Also known as the “Healthy and Bulilit Act” bill, it seeks to expand the health programs during the child’s first 1,000 days of life. It would also strengthen the implementation of RA 10028 or the “Expanded Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009.”

These populist and welfarist proposals are based on the premise that: our employment rate is high and workers can easily find other jobs, and the health of Filipino mothers and workers are deteriorating. Both are wrong. Our unemployment rate is the highest in the ASEAN, and Filipinos’ maternal mortality is decreasing although not as low as that of Singapore and Brunei (see table).

The danger of these proposals is that they make the hiring of workers, especially female workers and managers, become more expensive. If this trend continues, less workers will be hired — only the very talented, very efficient ones will be hired and the rest will be working in the informal, less well-paid sector or will be begging for more subsidies and cash transfers from the government.

And more workers doing repetitive jobs will be replaced by machines, robots, and artificial intelligence (AI). Machines do not ask for holidays with pay or maternity/paternity leaves with pay, and consumers want cheaper goods and services from shops and manufacturing plants.

Employment is not a right or entitlement. It is a privilege for those who have clear ambitions, personal responsibility, and equip themselves with certain skills. Entrepreneurship and being in business is also not a right or entitlement. It is a privilege for those who have deep patience and efficiency to understand both the consumers and suppliers of various production inputs, plus some luck. And the patience to deal with bureaucracies and politicians with very fickle and populist mind-sets.

Employment is a private contract between employers and would-be employees. If the terms are bad for job seekers, they should have more options for other employers. Better yet, employ themselves via micro-entrepreneurship or small start-up businesses.

Government should step back from setting and dictating the terms of employment and focus on enforcement of contracts. Government should also de-bureaucratize business and entrepreneurship so that more workers can migrate to become employers someday more easily.

Duterte's planned disrespect of private property in Boracay

The Duterte government shows once more its penchant to disrespect private property with pronouncements like "Bomb/blow up illegal structures" or "Totally close all Boracay resorts." See these news headlines yesterday and the other day.

“The government would not hesitate to send the Marines and” blow up” illegal structures in the shores of Boracay if resort owners would continue to defy orders to clean up the famous island, a Palace official said.”

Whether Duterte-Roque are serious or palusot "joke only" in making that statement of using the marines, they are idiotic. 

Illegal structures, resorts with no sufficient business permits, improper disposal of solid and liquid wastes -- these are local government and police concerns, not military concerns. West PH Sea/SCS militarization by the China Communist Party is a military and foreign affairs concern.

The military/AFP's main mandate is external defense, not internal police function. Roque-Duterte cannot distinguish between internal vs external concerns for the military.

Now see this from PhilStar:

'Total closure
If she would have her way, Tourism Secretary Wanda Teo would rather go for the full closure of Boracay to speed up the cleaning operations there.
“I think it will depend on Secretary Cimatu (partial or full closure) but, for me, I think it should be total because work will be done faster. If it is partial, it will take time and we only have six months to do (the cleanup),” she told reporters.'

Closure of Boracay businesses, whether partial or total, is against respect of private property. People and business enterprises there have a contract with the state via DOT, SEC, DENR, DTI, BIR, DOLE, DOH, LGUs, etc. Businesses will abide by the corporate, environmental, health and sanitation, labor protection, other regulations by the government and private enterprises have the freedom to do business, to provide various goods and services to the people, local and foreign.

Now there are unconfirmed stories that mainland Chinese businesses and casino operators are rushing to go to Boracay. Worth watching if this is true or fake news.

Friday, March 16, 2018

BWorld 193, TRAIN, inflation and emerging DOE price control

* This is my column in BusinessWorld on March 5, 2018.

More countries are reporting their January 2018 inflation rate and it is becoming clearer that majority of them have reigned in the inflationary pressure of the big rise in world oil prices. West Texas Instrument (WTI) prices, for instance, rose from $43.2/barrel in 2016 to $50.9/barrel in 2017, and $63.7/barrel in January 2018.

Of the 13 major Asian economies in the table, 10 have experienced a decline in their inflation rate compared to their December 2017 level and only three, including the Philippines, have experienced an increase. But the rise in the Philippines was big 0.7 percentage points (see table).

The big question is: Why is the Philippines the outlier in Asia in inflation rate movement?

The proximate reason is the recent tax law, RA 10963, known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN). The cut in personal income tax was good, but it was more than negated by the tax hike in oil and other commodities — coal, sugar beverage, etc. The anticipated pass-on effects of such tax hikes should be big.

How about Japan, which experienced a 0.3% point increase? There are two possible explanations.

One, it is experiencing a re-inflation trend after deflation in 2016 of -0.1%, then 0.5% in 2017. Two, it has a tax reform bill in 2018 that includes a 15% tax credit for corporations if their workers have higher pay of at least 3%, and if domestic investment in depreciable assets is equal to or more than 90% of depreciation. This means there will be expected higher household consumption due to higher salaries for workers and managers, and higher re-investments.


The effect of TRAIN on electricity prices would be felt in four avenues.

1. Oil tax hike (for peaking plants in WESM), about 1 centavo/kWh.

2. Coal tax hike (P10/ton to P50/ton in 2018), another 1 centavo/kWh.

3. VAT application on electricity transmission charge, about 6-7 centavos/kWh.

4. Rise in universal charge (a big hike in electricity cost for many islands and provinces running on gensets/oil, subsidy passed on nationwide), perhaps another 1 centavo/kWh.

Sources for the first three points are Meralco as reported in the papers.


Last January, the Department of Energy (DoE) directed all distribution utilities (DUs) to require their power suppliers, the generation companies (gencos) to explain any additional charges that will arise from TRAIN.

Then last February, the DoE suggested that gencos should absorb the initial cost of higher oil and coal taxes. Meaning there will be no pass-on to the consumers. This was never done before.

In addition, the DoE also mandated the oil companies extend subsidies to public utility vehicles (PUVs) as a “cost cushioning mechanism.” This is another no pass-on policy.

These are price control measures. These are ugly policies to make the ugly tax hikes under TRAIN appear “less ugly” and “non-inflationary.”


The architects and apologists of TRAIN are confused and are engaged in double-talk.

First, they make cheaper oil and coal become expensive, then deny the potential big inflationary pressure of such a measure.

Second, when inflationary pressure is higher than their projected and concocted figures, they blame speculators and not the law that created speculation.

Third, TRAIN exhibited favoritism and cronyism for renewable energies (REs) like wind-solar because their feed-in-tariff (FiT) revenues from WESM, then FiT-All, were again exempted from VAT. Natural gas is also fossil fuel but TRAIN did not slap it with excise tax, only oil and coal.

Fourth, TRAIN’s architects deny that additional revenues were largely meant to favor Chinese contractors and suppliers because many big projects that were already under the integrated PPP were reversed and put under “hybrid” PPP to be financed by ODA and foreign loans from China.

Fifth, they now propose price control measures in energy and other sectors to make TRAIN look “less ugly” and “non-inflationary.”

The Communist Party of China and Xi Jinping’s “thoughts on socialism” could be a rising influence in the economic and energy policies of the Philippines. This is wrong.

The Philippines should stay the course of more market reforms, not more state interventions and taxation. China’s communism and dictatorship is a lousy “model” that should never be entertained by the Philippines and other developing economies.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

See also:

Climate Tricks 65, "Last chance" to save the planet stories, 1992-2018

The "planet saviors", their leaders, they are a bunch of jokers and story tellers. See the timeline of their "last chance" warnings to save the planet unless we send them trillions and trillions of dollars.  There were many similar stories in between these years, I just show random stories from 1992 to 2018. Enjoy.

(1) "FEATURE: Last chance to save the planet?"
New Scientist, By Fred Pearce,  30 May 1992,

(2) "A Global Warming Treaty's Last Chance"
TIME, By Katherine Bonamici Monday, July 16, 2001,

(3) "Climate talks 'last chance' to avoid catastrophe"

(4) "Cancun climate change talks: 'last chance’ in the snakepit"
By Geoffrey Lean 6:32AM GMT 29 Nov 2010,

(5) "Climate change: Paris 'last chance' for action"
By Helen Briggs, BBC Environment Correspondent 22 April 2015

 (6) "Bill McKibben: This Is Our Last Chance to Save the Planet"
By Start Making Sense and Jon Wiener APRIL 20, 2017

(7) “Global Warming and Climate Instability: One Last Chance to Save Ourselves”
By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
Global Research, March 12, 2018, 

A compilation of “The hilarious legacy of ‘last chances’ for climate, exposed” by Anthony Watts, WUWT November 2, 2015,

Also a compilation of "last chance" as of June 2016,

And from The GWPF, March 5, 2018,

Among the precedent stories and scare made in the 1980s, the creation of UN IPCC. the UN FCCC in 1992, among the basis of "last chance to save the planet" report in 1992 by the New Scientist.

Since this is a UN-sponsored alarmism and scam, parroted by almost all governments in the planet +  many showbiz and media personalities + many environmental NGOs, this scam will continue in the decades to come. So I think this will be among the news headline in the future:

2030: "This will be our last chance to save the planet"

2040: "Our last-last chance to save the planet"

2050: "Only 1 year left to really save the planet"
..... J

And these "planet saviours" -- UN and government climate negotiators, environmental NGOs, academics, media, consultants, etc. -- tell us that we should have more expensive energy, more unstable-intermittent-subsidy-dependent energy, more expensive e-jeepneys and e-tricycles, more climate bureaucracies and bureaucrats, more endless global climate junkets.

Meanwhile, here's is the latest data on global air temperature, the lower troposphere as of end-February 2018, UAH data.

2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.15 +0.03


See also:
Climate Tricks 62, Climate religionism of Arcy Garcia, July 02, 2017 

Climate Tricks 63, The search for huge climate money in COP 23, November 26, 2017 

Climate tricks 64, Bitter cold and snow are caused by AGW, January 06, 2018

BWorld 192, Cobalt mining and TRAIN

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last March 01, 2018.

Many people are enamored — and rightly so — with consumer electronics and gadgets like smartphones, iPads, laptops, and so on. Then, there is new and huge global demand for electric cars and bikes, even electric buses and trucks.

All these products and equipment need batteries, which, in turn, require large volumes of cobalt, considered by some analysts as the “new oil.”

This is good news for the Philippines.

First, cobalt prices seem to be skyrocketing. Second, the Philippines has the 4th largest cobalt reserves (#1 is Congo) and the projected reserves/production (R/P) ratio is 70, meaning at 2017 estimated production level, it will take 70 years for our cobalt reserves to be depleted.

Another good news for the Philippines is in nickel. First, world prices are also rising high though not as fast as cobalt prices. Second, we have the 5th largest nickel reserves (#1 is Australia) although our R/P ratio for nickel is only 21 years (see table).

Why have cobalt prices risen too fast recently?

According to Darton Commodities projections as cited in a Bloomberg report, cobalt use in electric vehicles and other lithium-ion battery applications was around 55,000 tons in 2017 and this is projected to rise to around 160,000 tons in 2025 and 330,000 tons in 2030.

Mining exploration and drilling technology keeps improving so new reserves for cobalt, nickel, gold, copper, and other metals that the Philippines has will be discovered soon and this will raise the R/P ratio for these commodities.

During the BusinessWorld Stockmarket Roundtable last Feb. 20, at Shangri-La Hotel, about two or three of the four speakers that afternoon (Gus Cosio of First Metro, April Tan of COL Financial, Jun Calaycay of Philstocks Financial, and Mike Gerard Enriquez of Sunlife Financial) mentioned the short- and medium-term potentials of the Philippines mining sector. These finance guys see the trend in global commodity supply and demand and hence, their global prices.

BMI Research also showed optimistic outlook for the sector: metallic mining output 6% growth to $3.98 billion in 2018, 5% growth to $4.18 billion in 2019, $4.34 billion in 2020, $4.47 billion in 2021 and $4.56 billion in 2022.

As of end-2016, estimated Philippines reserves are: 1.854 billion MT of gold, 1.696 billion MT of silver, 1.761 billion MT of copper, 116.136 million MT of nickel, 116.001 million MT of iron and 47.264 million MT of chromite.

Various uncertainties in the sector should be relaxed if not ended soon. The good potentials are there in terms of corporate income, jobs generation, mandatory community development projects, and government (national and local) tax and nontax revenues.

These uncertainties range from (a) resource nationalism (“keep out foreign capital in mining” or “export only processed minerals, not raw ores”), (b) more regulations (“ban open pit mining,” “suspend or close more metallic mining”), and of course, (c) more mining taxes (“raise the mining excise tax from 2% to 4%, 6%…,” “raise mining royalties…”).

The recent Tax law RA 10963 known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) has, out of nowhere, raised the mining excise tax from 2% to 4%. It seems that this was not contained in the original House and Senate versions prior to the Bicameral Committee meetings but were just inserted along the way, along with the coal tax hike and tobacco tax hikes.

Now TRAIN 2 is in Congress and there are moves to further raise the mining excise tax on a per-commodity basis, but without reducing or removing other taxes, royalties and mandatory community expenditures.

There should be a limit to the politics of envy via high and rising taxation. When companies create lots of direct and indirect jobs, give lots of social and economic services to their personnel and community residents who are not even company employees, pay lots of taxes, regulatory fees and royalties to the government, the itch of tax-tax-tax should be tempered.

See also:

Reforestation without government and taxes involved

Among the many big proof why humans are often unnecessary to "reforest" the planet, lowlands or uplands. Trees just grow by themselves even in the most "adverse" conditions.

I took these photos in one of many creeks in Makati City, at Metropolitan avenue, across the Manila South Cemetery. Those trees just grow on the rocks, on fences, their extensive roots extend wide and deep in small cracks.

Never planted by humans, not even by any government agency or department of environment. They can grow big and heavy and damage some human structures by their weight alone. Few more years and that fence can be gobbled by those trees.

I argued since many years ago that in the uplands, in mostly denuded "public forest lands", if the goal is to reforest them, the first thing that government should do is NOT to plant trees, but clear those thick vines, tall grasses that deprive young trees (they grow and regenerate on their own) of sunlight. During the dry months, those grasses become potential fuel in sporadic grass fires in the uplands, killing those tree species that are less fire-resistant. After the naturally-regenerating trees have been freed of those vines and tall grasses, then planting of young trees (same or different species) can be done in vacant spaces.

In our farm in Pangasinan for instance, these self-regenerating trees grow like grasses, too many of them, they hardly grow big because of fierce competition for sunlight, minerals in the soil, water. The only way for some of them them to grow big and clear the area of unnecessary dangers (insects, bugs, frogs, snakes, reptiles, etc. can thrive and live there) is to remove and/or transfer some of those small regenerating trees, allow the bigger ones to thrive and grow bigger, taller.

The next year, new batches of young, wild saplings will grow naturally in the cleared area. Need to clear them again.

Nature even abhors the presence and wastes of many government agencies and taxpayers-funded "annual reforestation" projects.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

BWorld 191, Solar insecurity, energy stability and affordability

* This is my column in BusinessWorld on February 26, 2018.

“When PV Solar rely on up to 67% of revenues from subsidies, the state becomes a counter-party that is critical to sustaining the firm’s financial viability. Vagaries of politics imply constantly changing priorities, making for a fickle advocate.”

— Ricardo Barcelona,
author of Energy Investment: An Adaptive Approach to Profiting from Uncertainties (2017).

This is a lesson and reality that will be hard to appreciate for solar energy advocates and developers, that without politics, without forcing and coercing energy consumers to subsidize, directly or indirectly, solar, wind, and other renewables, their advocacy is a losing proposition.

Last Thursday, Feb. 22, I attended the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) lecture at the UP School of Economics (UPSE), my alma mater. The speaker was Mr. Leandro Leviste, president of Solar Philippines and his presentation was “Cheap Electricity for a First World Philippines: The 24/7 Solar-Storage Revolution.”

Mr. Leviste boldly declared in his presentation that “Solar is now the least cost for all peaking, mid-merit and baseload requirements, and will thus comprise the vast majority of additional power generation capacity from hereon in the Philippines.”

This is simply not true. If solar is indeed “least cost,” solar developers should have stopped asking for rising feed-in-tariff (FiT) or guaranteed high price for 20 years under the Renewable Energy (RE) law of 2008.

FIT rates for solar batch 1 (2015 entrants) were P9.68/kWh in 2015, P9.91 in 2016 and P10.26 in 2017. For solar batch 2 (2016 entrants), P8.69/kWh in 2016 and P8.89 in 2017. Solar and wind developers are feasting on billions of pesos of additional, expensive electricity slam-dunked on hapless consumers on top of the 11-12 different charges in their monthly electricity bill.

During the open forum, I asked Mr. Leviste two questions:

(1) Will you support the abolition of RE law of 2008 since your presentation shows plenty of improvements and cost reduction for solar, meaning they can survive without FiT, RPS, other subsidies and mandates?

(2) You advocate large-scale solar development in the Philippines, therefore you advocate large-scale deforestation of the country? You showed a big picture of your solar farm in Batangas, zero tree there, anti-green. Solar hates shades – from clouds and trees.

His response to #1 was Yes, we can abolish the RE law but we should also abolish the EPIRA law of 2001, the pass-through cost provisions. To question #2, he said that there are trees outside the solar farm and there are moves to plant crops under the solar panels.

Meaning his answer to #1 is No. On #2, precisely that trees are allowed only outside the solar farm because solar hates shades from trees. While many environmentalists including Sen. Loren Legarda repeatedly say “Plant trees to save the planet,” solar developers like Leandro Leviste are implicitly saying “remove and kill all trees (in solar farms) to save the planet.” The irony of green environmentalism.

The call for “green, environmentally-sustainable energy” is repeatedly echoed in the Philippines and other countries. And many of these advocates are unaware that in the annual report, “World Energy Trilemma Index” by the World Energy Council (WEC), the Philippines is #1 out of 125 countries for several years now in environmental sustainability.

WEC is a UN-accredited global energy body composed of 3,000+ organizations from 90+ countries (governments, private and state corporations, academe, etc) NGOs, other energy stakeholders). The Trilemma index is composed of three factors, briefly defined as:

Energy security: effective energy supply from domestic and external sources, reliability of infrastructure and ability of energy providers to meet current and future demand.

Energy equity: accessibility and affordability of energy supply across the population.

Environmental stability: achievement of energy efficiencies and development of energy supply from renewable and other low-carbon sources (see table).

(The indicators represent economies as follows, from left to right: Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, and India)

The Philippines is #1 out of 125 countries covered in Environmental Sustainability. There is high reliance on conventional renewables like big hydro and geothermal, plus newly added variable renewables. There is no need to aspire for rank #0.5 worldwide

Ranking 95th, we are low in energy equity because of our expensive electricity, which is 3rd highest in Asia, next to Japan and Hong Kong.

We place 63rd in energy security — in the middle — and we still need to add big conventional plants like coal to give us 24/7 stable, dispatchable energy to meet demand.

To conclude, these words from Ric Barcelona resonate:

“When subsidies are set as the costs differences, the ‘correct’ level is indeterminate. As power prices increase, renewables need lesser subsidies but nevertheless continue to collect. When this happens, consumers would coax regulators to claw back the subsidies because renewables are raking it in at consumers’ expense.”

See also: