Many renewable energy stocks are dog shares to be avoided at all costs by investors seeking a reasonable rate of investment return. Perhaps not the advice you would receive in the advertising-compromised financial pages of mainstream media, and certainly not a message that resonates with promoters of the Net Zero fantasy. The Renewable Energy Industrial Index (RENIXX) is a widely-consulted global stock capitalisation index of the 30 largest renewable energy industrial companies in the world and it has shown near zero growth since it was started in 2006, along with a reverse projection back to 2002. Over the last three years alone it has lost almost half its value.
The retail exchange traded fund iShares Global Clean Energy aims to “target access to clean energy stocks around the world”. Last year its value fell by 26.1% and from its inception in 2008 it has more or less halved an initial investment of £10,000. Greencoat Renewable PLC is a U.K.-quoted investment trust and the owner and operator of renewable energy infrastructure assets in Europe. It is said to provide “attractive risk adjusted returns with a compelling growth opportunity; supported by a robust regulator regime and managed by a proven investment manager” – which is one imaginative way of explaining a loss in share value of 18.6% over the last five years.
Out in the real world where serious money talks, it is becoming obvious that the conclusion has been drawn that many green technologies, unless subsidised by the state, provide profit-free, second-rate solutions to problems invented around a politicised climate crisis.
This is the graph showing the real world performance of RENIXX. Consider also that an investment made over the same period in the U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Index would have quadrupled.
The RENIXX covers a broad spectrum of activities including wind power manufacture and supplies, along with producers of solar PV cells. Current members of the Index include Orsted, Tesla and Vestas Wind Systems. The stock of this latter company has risen only 7% over the last 16 years and it has fallen 58% from a high in 2021. Typical of the RENIXX dogs is the U.S. operation First Solar which has risen since 2021 but is below its all-time high price reached in 2008.
In fact many of the indexes such as RENIXX would look even worse if the performance of Tesla was removed from the charts. Over its lifetime, Elon Musk’s Tesla share price has risen an astonishing 18,000%, although in common with almost all green shares it has suffered in recent years. But Tesla is the value exception with Real Clear Energy noting that its worth by 2021 soared to over $1 trillion, making it more valuable than Toyota, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Ford, BMW and Honda combined. Its stellar rise helps deflect from the dreadful performance of other green stocks including EV manufactures. Real Clear Energy notes that since 2020, 31 EV companies have gone public on U.S. stock exchanges, but only one, the Chinese Li Auto, has seen its price rise since an initial public offering. Most were real bow-wows, but standout disasters were recorded by Fisker (-99%), Nikola (-94%), NIO (-50%), Lucid group (-75%) and Rivian (-88%). Six other companies are already bankrupt.
One EV company, Plug Power, supplies hydrogen energy systems, and in its 27 years of existence has never turned a profit. In 2024 it lost $1.45 billion, up from a deficit in 2018 of $43.8 million. Even the big boys find renewable equipment a challenge. In 2023, Ford lost $4.7 billion on sales of 116,000 electric vehicles, or over $40,000 per vehicle. General Electric’s wind turbine business lost $1.1 billion in 2023.
Of course the excuses come rolling in. Same thing happened with the early dot.com revolution, it is argued. But the green revolution is not a free market gold rush. It peddles second-rate solutions and produces equipment such as cars that the market does not want to buy in bulk. Collecting the breezes and the beams is only viable with huge amounts of subsidies taken from trapped consumers. Nobody would build a windmill to supply power to the electric grid if their mouths were not first stuffed with taxpayer gold. In Britain, electricity prices are soaring and wind and solar power, which supplies barely 6% of total energy needs, requires an annual bung of £12 billion. In the U.S., the Biden Administration has thrown vast amounts of money around in a desperate attempt to boost a green economy that few people would be willing to start and support with their own hard-earned.
The supplicant nature of many green businesses perhaps explains their bombed-out share prices, along with the end of cheap interest rates and higher inflation. But provide a heady mixture of free money and subsidies designed to guarantee a profit and the chancers will initially beat a path to your door with any number of whacky schemes to save the planet. At the U.K. Energy department, Mad Ed Miliband and his band of weird wonks are currently entertaining any number of financial black holes including carbon capture, hydrogen manufacture and battery storage.
But the money – and borrowing capacity – is running out for luxury pet projects across Europe and the seemingly unlimited government spending will have to end in the near future. And fears are rising about the heavy environmental damage inflicted by EVs, the lack of national green jobs created, the further de-industrialisation of western economies and the horrific, mostly unreported, toll on wildlife caused by the countryside-blighting growth of monster wind turbines and overhead power cables.
It is said that if you want to predict how people will vote in an election, the prices offered by bookmakers are a more reliable guide than opinion polls, which are often distorted for the benefit of the paying customer. Next time someone is punting green stories, ask to see what their value is in the real commercial world where hard-won cash is not necessarily God, but it is a deeply religious experience. In these cases, past results are probably a very good guide to future performance.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All we require is a competent and resolute Prime Minister.
‘He was a keen devotee of the great economic thinker of the time, Adam Smith, and after becoming Prime Minister in 1783 Pitt put much energy into persuading Parliament to accept Smith’s principles.
Accordingly, new taxes were introduced which fell principally on the well-off. These included new ‘assessed taxes’ on male and female servants, on horses, on carriages and on houses.
Although such measures were potentially unpopular with the taxpaying public, Pitt was able to secure their support by taking serious steps to root out revenue fraud and reduce administrative cost.
His financial reforms helped to increase annual government revenue from £12.7 million in 1783 to £18.6 million in 1792.’
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/taxation/overview/incometax/
Where is one to be found?
Aucune!
What we require in the first instance is a change in the default mindset of Joe Public from thinking/hoping/expecting that the state can solve almost all of their problems to realising that there are no solutions, only trade offs (to quote Thomas Sowell). Until then we will lurch between mad fake socialists and slightly less mad fake conservatives as disappointment sets in after the honeymoon period.
The State and its propagandists have told the public they can do everything and those not devoted to current affairs are entitled to believe it. The public generally have been depoliticised but a major economic shock or social upheaval will awaken them.
Then watch out! Just hope there is a decent, competent, Democratic Party snd leader available. If we are unlucky they might back the other sort.
I thought “covid” would have been enough of a shock. It woke a few up, not enough. Rome declined until the barbarians were at the gates then it was too late. But we keep buggering on.
As I think you know, I agree completely that the mindset of the population is far from where it needs to be for any meaningful change to occur.
The one doubt I have is whether a strong enough, charismatic enough leader could persuade the population to go in a more “self-sufficient” direction.
The Trump revolution isn’t exactly my ideal but closer than anything else on offer. But on that I wonder, has Trump simply galvanised a sentiment that was already out there or has he himself instigated it? Maybe both.
The point being, perhaps a leader of enough stature can conjure up a public will which would otherwise not be apparent or sufficient.
I reckon many hoped Boris Johnson would be such a leader, but the man was clearly not up to it. Farage? To me if feels as if he doesn’t really want it, not enough of a megalomaniac. When you think about it, the chances of such a person emerging are just so slim.
A bit of both for sure. Trump is a strong character but he had more fertile ground to work with, and the US Presidential system lends itself more to that kind of figure emerging.
Thank you, Dr Alexander. Books sound well worth a read. Cue excuse to re-post a rant elsewhere from a couple of days ago:
“All about trust and lack of…
…I don’t trust human rights lawyer Sir Two-Tier anywhere in the vicinity of the statute book. I don’t trust the Princess of Theeves with my taxes, just as I didn’t trust Mr Rishi Buoy or Lord Chunt – if I’d squandered our family’s finances like the £2.8 trillion national debt they and their ilk have sluiced away down the decades, the family would have been out on the streets years ago.
I don’t trust Ms Phillistine to educate little socialists. I don’t trust Ms Nobrayner to build houses, just as I didn’t trust her story about double dipping on voter registration and cashing in on a former council house. I wouldn’t trust Miliband Minor to change a light bulb. I don’t trust Ms Pixie to know her valid passport from her rubber dinghy.
I didn’t trust A. B. de Pfeffel to manage a Brexit or a Pandemic That Never Was. I didn’t trust Lord Sir Sir Unvallanced and future Sir UnWhittingly at the podium. I don’t trust latterday Science Minister, Lord Sir Sir, talking out of his bottom on climate claptrap. I didn’t trust Handcock’s maskeradery or Cunnin’-Dominaigh’s eyesight.
I don’t trust Tedros the Dodgy. I didn’t used to trust General von Trumpff but now I kinda do. Unlike Sleepy Joe, does still have set of functioning marbles. Sooner or later, he’s going to have to own up to being duped by Warp Speed. Doesn’t do humility, but maybe RFK Jr will do it for him. Colonel Musket said to be on the spectrum, whatever that means – Musket’s five minute take down of pompous Commentariat oaf is priceless.
And in the absence of anyone better to trust, I provisionally trust Messrs Farago and Nice, if only because they profess not to play fast and loose with the energy policy that’s fundamental to the entirety of the modern world. Suck up to sunbeams, breezes and Ministers of Energy Insecurity at our peril.
Rant for the day over.”
Thanks for that link. I have never seen it before and it is something everyone should see.
It’s a masterclass in pushback and challenge. It could have gone on for hours…
Sacking the entire judiciary would be a good place to start.
Isn’t this what Truss proposed? Economic solutions to combat the Rona fascism and unfettered goverment spending and power?
Death spirals are not just economic. They are largely cultural, social. We have open borders, Woke, Christophobia and a country of 80 million with some 10-20 million Blacks and Muslims who largely despise the indigeneous population. There are quacks at Cambridge claiming Alfred the Great was not Anglo Saxon.
This is the real death spiral. All of it comes from the death of our culture, history and our Christian roots.
I doubt that the US would be on the path it is now if not for the singular figure of Trump. The ideas bit is easy, bringing them to the fore and “winning the the argument” needs a champion of extraordinary stature. And luck.
Which British figure will do that? Farage? My sense with him is that he doesn’t have the sense of destiny. How many times has he been on the cusp and shrank back?
Yes I have concerns with Farage as well – I get the feeling he’s keeping his powder dry and playing it very, very slowly… is he trying to to keep ideas from being nicked by the opposition for example? Personally I’d say it’s time for a Trump or Musk style approach for Reform. Put some radical, but long term sensible challenges out there – I.e ‘reduce the government size by 50%’, which will then enable x reduction in taxes, and y reduction over time of the deficit and ultimately the national debt, putting us back on a proper sustainable path’. I’d then use this constantly to challenge the opposition as to why their alternative approach was ‘better’. You need to use extreme examples and challenge to get peoples attention and also to get them fired up.
they need to present something so clearly logical over time, to make the opposition look stupid and as if they are sticking their heads in the sand – that way every day people start to notice they are heading away from the sensible path and vision outlined, a North Star if you like – ultimately people respond to stories and visions, let’s start setting some!
one the ‘why’ is out there and largely understood, we can get into the much easier bit of ‘what exactly to achieve the objective’, ‘who is going to do it’ and the real kicker, ‘by when’. We can then hold people accountable to achieving the objective or not – if they can’t, time to move aside and let someone else lead who can
Yes, it’s the common sense revolution. It seems to be propelling Trump and also the AfD in Germany where the establishment hyperventilates while the AfD just put out sensible common sense messages that everyone gets.
But at some point there has to be an open confrontation, without excuses, that doesn’t back down when the accusations of far-rightism, racism etc. come flying. Farage strikes me as too fearful to just let it all hang out and go for it. He’s good at taking the punches but seems way too cautious when dishing it out.
Maybe he just wants to be liked too much. Leaders that operate at that transformational level don’t seem to care what people think of them too much. Or maybe it’s something else.
Yes I agree – posted something on another thread a few days ago when someone said
‘what if they are accused of being conservative’ – so what if they are, own it, brazen it out, fight back… there will be no success if people can’t man up and say ‘yes this is what I am – you have a problem with that in what way exactly?’… ‘and fair enough you may have an opinion on that, doesn’t mean it’s worth anything or even we have to listen’. make it about their issues, not ours. Musk is very good at this.
like all bullies, the radical left won’t like being challenged back…
Trump is good at that too, and Jordan Peterson. Peter Hitchens is pretty bolshy in his polite way. Actually Badenoch isn’t bad at that either. Milei doesn’t seem to mind upsetting people – he went to the WEF and basically denounced them all.
Yes there’s something in not letting others set the narrative – to this point it seems anything even slightly conservative in nature seems to warrant being justified, explained away as ok etc – it just it was it is, live with it – we don’t care if you don’t like it / disagree etc – come back with a sensible challenge and engage, not just the stupid insults
Do not even think about comparing the Nigerian Birth Tourist DEI hire with all those other people!
You have absolutely nailed it! May I repeat some of your splendid words:
“Yes, this is what I am – you have a problem with that, in what way exactly?”
“Fair enough, you may have an opinion on that, doesn’t mean it’s worth anything, or even that we have to listen.”
Yes, yes, yes— wonderful stuff!
Thanks – to be clear, I do think we should still listen, as to not would be daft, good ideas can come from all different opinions and whoever’s in charge should want to hear them. No room for the ‘not invented here’ mindset.
However we don’t automatically have to respond or feel the need to defend every position. People will make their own mind up on what they believe and align to – they aren’t stupid
they need to present something so clearly logical over time, to make the opposition look stupid and as if they are sticking their heads in the sand
Agreed.
I wonder if Reform Party will take some inspiration from Trump and do similar – thats a big IF, followed by a big WHEN?…. Not confident personally, but would love to know their strategy if it was different. I sense they have a major fear of not being liked or being dismissed as crazy etc…
I’d counter that with facts – first job, list expenditure and headcount of all depts, quangos etc funded by the taxpayer, Pareto them in a graph – share with public. Public will most likely ‘like’ seeing NHS, military, etc n the left in the highest spending categories, however they’ll like less seeing other high spending, less valuable / more apparently wasteful items like debt repayment or massive immigration hotel costs etc. by sharing facts reform could put others on the back foot and make them try to justify themselves…
Farage is an empty vessel that floats with the flow. He doesn’t do detail which is a massive failing. For all his bleating about Labour and the Tories joining together to scrap our elections in May, where was any insight as to why this scrapping of local democracy is a rushed and ill thought idea being rammed through in a matter of months with no consultation. When district councils are scrapped in Surrey everything will fall to the County Council based in Reigate far to the east of the county. A nice trip for anyone in Camberley who wants to see somebody at the council.
What’s actually driving those border changes right now? Seems suspiciously odd timing doesn’t it
I have argued for some time that we should defund the BBC as a counter woke activity. I now realise that it could also be the start of abolishing all independent bodies (NGOs, QUANGOs, Arts Councils etc.).
And yes, there will be stiff resistance by the people making a living in those “independent bodies” but Milei and Trump show it can be done if the ‘ordinary man’ is fed up enough with being farmed for tax and being told what it is permissible to say.
You last sentence made me think of the saying ‘he who pays the piper, sets the tune’. At the moment we are all paying for many, many pipers, however we have zero input on the tunes…
Thanks for the book review. I have considered buying it since I have listened to Jon and found him persuasive. However, if you can’t understand it then I shall definitely not be able to!
The author is ignoring the Elephant in the Room: Mass Immigration from Alien Cultures, as happened before the Fall of the Roman Empire. See this book review by Prof. Emeritus Thomas Patrick Burke of Temple University:
Immigration and the Fall of Rome – The Wynnewood Institute
“For centuries historians have debated the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. The ancient authors pointed to invasions by barbarian armies. But why did the Romans succumb to the invaders when they had been able previously to resist them? Gibbon attributed it to internal weakness: the conversion to Christianity deprived the Romans of their fighting spirit. For many years now scholars have favoured an economic explanation: high taxes and heavy economic regulation impoverished the empire. But a recent book by English historian Peter Heather argues that ROME WAS OVERCOME BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.”
“The Germanic tribes did not want to destroy the empire but only to participate in its wealth and the protection it offered its citizens. Though living outside the empire’s borders, the Rhine and the Danube, for several hundred years, from roughly the first to the fifth century, they had been able to trade with Rome, and had grown much wealthier in the process. But wealthier meant more powerful. When the Huns appeared behind them out of the Asian steppes, the Germans became determined to get into the safety of the empire by any means.”
“The Romans, for their part, were not opposed to their desire. On the contrary, Rome from its beginnings was an inclusive society and had always welcomed immigrants. It routinely gave them employment in the Roman army. BUT IMMIGRANTS WERE WELCOME ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. They had to assimilate. They had to disperse throughout the empire’s territory and not insist on remaining in their own groups or maintaining their own culture, but adopt Roman ways of living. Above all, the Romans admitted immigrants only when they could control the process militarily. Any time a tribe of immigrants were permitted to enter, Rome made sure that the empire’s armies outnumbered them by a wide margin, so that there could be no question as to who was in charge, and if the visitors should get obstreperous, they would quickly find themselves quelled.”
“But in the fifth century the Romans lost control of the immigration process. Armies were sent to the Middle East to counter a hostile, newly invigorated Persia, leaving the West open. The Germanic tribes were allowed in, but once inside the empire they were not assimilated but retained their cultural and political identities,
EVENTUALLY COMBINING TO FORM ARMIES WITHIN ITS BORDERS THAT THE ROMANS COULD NO LONGER OVERCOME.”
“(Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire, Pan Books, 2005, 158ff.)”
Simply put….you need an Elon Musk. I am sure he would love to go through the Uk agencies with a fine tooth comb and let you know where ALL the money goes.
This article is one that should be read by every politician, present, or aspiring.
The problem is that there are two who will ignore it completely: Starmer and Hermer, neither of whom would ever wish to see the UK recover economically before their dream of a Marxist solution becomes reality.
I do believe, however, that at least, for them, a typical Marxist solution would be ideal; it involves their being taken out the back where a squad of armed soldiers awaits…
Dr Alexander spends a whole paragraph telling us that most writing should be shorter – and then provides a masterly illustration of that point.
This piece hovers between the aphorism and the fortune cookie with much aplomb! Good reading any way you label it…