Request For Proposals. Workforce Solutions 2006: Fill & Download for Free

No. Wind and solar are an economic disaster causing sharp increase in consumer electricity prices and black outs when servere weather hits.. Many companies in this sector have gone bankrupt with subsidies. Now subsidies are being taken off the table leaving the industry to market forces.As Warren Buffett said wind farms don’t make sense without the tax creditIn the real world of business and commerce, the cost of renewables makes them unaffordable without intervention by the state. As Warren Buffet explained in 2014, “on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”World’s Most Expensive Joke: $2 Trillion Squandered on Wind & Solar (So Far)…August 4, 2018 by stopthesethings 2 CommentsThe point, if there was one, of throwing hundreds of $billions in subsidies at wind and solar was to slash emissions of carbon dioxide gas. Taxpayers and power consumers who are on the receiving end of the bill for all this environmental piety would, after almost 20 years, be entitled to ask just how much bang they’re getting for their buck?The short answer is: not much.STT leaves the battle over carbon dioxide gas to others.Our view is pretty simple: if a naturally occurring beneficial trace gas, essential for all life on earth, really is killing the planet, then there is only one available solution. And that’s nuclear power.In 2018, if a climate alarmist is still waging war on CO2 (although he’ll call it ‘carbon’) and not talking about nuclear power, you know you’re dealing with a deluded crank.One character who’s still pretty fired up about carbon dioxide gas is Michael Shellenberger. However, Shellenberger worked out in short order that wind and solar don’t provide any solution, to anything. Whether that’s providing meaningful power; or reducing CO2 emissions in the electricity generation sector.Remember, that the only real justification for intermittent and unreliable wind and solar is that this pair reduce CO2 emissions.So – given that there’s no proof of reductions in CO2 emissions due to the introduction of wind and solar and plenty of proof to the contrary – those cashing in on climate alarmism are little more than a well-drilled band of thieves operating under State license.Carbon Emissions Rose in 2017 Despite Record Solar & Wind — More Proof They Can’t Save The ClimateForbesMichael Shellenberger13 June 2018Carbon emissions are on the rise despite record-breaking deployment of renewables, according to new BP Energy data released today.“Despite the extraordinary growth in renewables in recent years,” said BP, “and the huge policy efforts to encourage a shift away from coal into cleaner, lower carbon fuels, there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years.”The data is further evidence that dilute and unreliable sources of energy like solar and wind cannot replace coal and other fossil fuels and will not lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions.Coal grew one percent in 2017 — its first growth since 2013. For the last few years, energy analysts had speculated that we had reached “peak coal,” thanks to abundant cheap natural gas.Natural gas consumption grew three percent globally and a whopping 15 percent in China in 2017.The last few years have seen huge amounts of hype about India’s investment in solar, but according to BP, the global rise in coal consumption came mostly from India, and to a lesser extent, China.And, “despite all the talk of peak oil demand, increasing car efficiency, growth of electrical vehicles,” BP notes, oil consumption grew 50 percent faster in 2017 than its decade-long average.The growth of coal and natural gas was enough to wipe out any emissions reductions from wind and solar, which grew 17 percent and 35 percent, respectively.Wind and solar account for just just six percent of total electricity globally, despite decades of subsidies. The growth of fossil fuels was enough to wipe out any emissions reductions from wind and solar, which grew 17 percent and 35 percent, respectively.According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016. According to BNEF, global investment in these clean 10 energies hovered at about $300 billion per year between 2010 and 2016.To put this roughly $2 trillion in investment in solar and wind during the past 10 years in perspective, it represents an amount of similar magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion.A big part of the problem has been the decline of nuclear. “The share of non-fossil in 2017 is actually a little lower than it was 20 years ago,” noted BP, “as the growth of renewables hasn’t offset the declining share of nuclear.”My organization, Environmental Progress, was the first to alert the world about the impact that declining nuclear power as a share of global electricity was having on efforts to deal with climate change.Over the last two years, renewable energy advocates have insisted that solar and wind can make up the difference. The new BP Energy data is further proof that they cannot.ForbesUKLawrence Solomon: Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chanceVirtually every major German solar producer has gone underA wind turbine spins amidst exhaust plumes from cooling towers at a coal-fired power station in Jaenschwalde, Germany.Getty ImagesLawrence SolomonApril 27, 20188:32 AM EDTFiled under·FP Comment“’Spectacular’ drop in renewable energy costs leads to record global boost,” The Guardian headline reported last year. “Clean Energy Is About to Become Cheaper Than Coal,” pronounced MIT’s Technology Review. “The cost of installing solar energy is going to plummet again,” echoed Grist, the environmental journal.Other sources declare that renewables are not only getting cheaper, they have already become cheaper than conventional power. The climate-crusading DeSmogBlog reports that “Falling Costs of Renewable Power Make (B.C.’s) Site C Dam Obsolete” and that “Coal Just Became Uneconomic in Canada.” It implores us to discover “What Canada Can Learn From Germany’s Renewable Revolution,” as does Energy Post, an authoritative European journal, which described “The spectacular success of the German Energiewende (energy transition).”Virtually every major German solar producer has gone underHere’s what Canada can learn from Germany, the poster child for the global warming movement. After the German government decided to reduce subsidies to the solar industry in 2012, the industry nose-dived. By this year, virtually every major German solar producer had gone under as new capacity declined by 90 per cent and new investment by 92 per cent. Some 80,000 workers — 70 per cent of the solar workforce — lost their jobs. Solar power’s market share is shrinking and solar panels, having outlived their usefulness, are being retired without being replaced.Wind power faces a similar fate. Germany has some 29,000 wind turbines, almost all of which have been benefitting from a 20-year subsidy program that began in 2000. Starting in 2020, when subsidies run out for some 5,700 wind turbines, thousands of them each year will lose government support, making the continued operation of most of them uneconomic based on current market prices. To make matters worse, with many of the turbines failing and becoming uneconomic to maintain, they represent an environmental liability and pose the possibility of abandonment. No funds have been set aside to dispose of the blades, which are unrecyclable, or to remove the turbines’ 3,000-tonne reinforced concrete bases, which reach depths of 20 metres, making them a hazard to the aquifers they pierce.The cost to the German economy of its transition to renewables is estimated to reach 2 to 3 trillion euros by 2050Those who hoped that Germany’s newest coalition government would provide the renewable industries with a reprieve were disappointed last week when Germany’s new economic minister indicated that there would be no turning back. All told, the cost to the German economy of its much-vaunted energy transition to renewables is estimated to reach 2 to 3 trillion euros by 2050.Germany’s experience is being replicated throughout Europe — as subsidies fall, so does investment in wind turbines and solar plants, and so do jobs in these industries.As Warren Buffett said wind farms don’t make sense without the tax creditIn the real world of business and commerce, the cost of renewables makes them unaffordable without intervention by the state. As Warren Buffet explained in 2014, “on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”In the imagined world of politicians and environmental ideologues, renewables are not only affordable, they are inevitable. The difference in cost cited by those in the real and imagined worlds is called wishful thinking. This wishfulness is propped up through academic exercises that provide a stamp of authority on the ideologues’ beliefs.One method for proving that renewables have arrived is something called “levelized cost of electricity,” which the U.S. Energy Information Administration says is “often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies.” Environmentalists cite levelized costs as if you can take them to the bank, but they are really no more than predictions of what the costs of various technologies will be over subsequent decades. By assuming that costs of producing solar panels and wind turbines will drop and the costs of fossil fuels will rise over the 30-, 40- or 50-year lifetime of a new plant a utility must build, and describing those levelized costs as if they were current costs, studies state authoritatively that renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels.Today’s claims that renewables are cheap and getting cheaper are familiar. They harken back to the first Earth Day in 1970, whose message of “New Energy for a New Era” was all about accelerating the transition to renewable energy worldwide. Then, as now, the belief in the viability of a renewable energy future was twinned with the conviction that fossil fuels, being finite, would inevitably become scarce and price themselves out of the market. To the ideologues’ never-ending dismay, peak oil never comes. Instead comes shale gas, shale oil, and peak renewables.Lawrence Solomon executive director of Toronto-based Energy [email protected] Grant Matkin ·In the real world of business and commerce, the cost of renewables makes them unaffordable without intervention by the state." The data supports this conclusion of Lawrence Solomon. Australia, Denmark, Germany and Italy are highest in electricity costs and wind and solar output: > 40 Euros / Kwh. US is lowest in renewables and lowest in electricity costs: 15 Euros / Kwh. In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent.https://climatism.blog/.../climate-activist-if-solar-and.../http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-are-solar-and-wind-finally-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-not-a-chanceUNRELIABLE Energy – Wind and Solar – A Climate Of CommunismPosted: October 16, 2017 | Author: Jamie Spry |Green is the new red.“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers***IN AUSTRALIA, where the Liberal party, the Labor opposition and the Greens have all embraced massive renewable energy targets, we have some of the most expensive electricity anywhere in the world, South Australia officially the highest.THE massive subsidies tipped into the unreliable energy sector makes it unprofitable for 24/7/365 base-load power solutions (coal, hydrocarbons) to operate when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia will be able to see a return to energy security and erase its name from the unenviable title of having the “highest power prices in the world.”UNTIL big government backs off, taxpayers and businesses will continue to pay billions of dollars more for the most important utility they need to sustain life and prosperity – cheap, abundant and reliable electricity.FINALLY the green madness that’s threatening our ability to turn on the lights and air conditioners is being exposed as a socialist policy-driven, big government debacle…Renewable energy’s dreadful costs and awful electricityUnreliable capacity and excessively high costs make renewable energy nothing more than a ‘green’ idealogue’s dream. Subsidies are a great waste and are being abandoned around the world so market forces will be the death nell of this nonsense.12 DECEMBER 2018 - 13:55 ANDREW KENNYWind turbines are not the way to go, says Andrew Kenny, just ask Germany.Picture: THINKSTOCKSA is stumbling towards energy disaster. On top of Eskom’s failures comes the calamitous Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2018, a plan for ruinously expensive electricity. (The IRP 2018, drawn up by the department of energy, plans SA’s electricity supply.) The IRP is mad, based not on the real world but on a fantasy world of computer models.The IRP’s “least-cost option” is in fact the most expensive option possible, which has seen electricity costs soaring wherever it has been tried. This is a combination of wind, solar and imported gas. It was drawn up by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and supported by the IRP. It is a recipe for calamity.It seems strange that SA should forsake its own huge resources of reliable energy and depend on foreign sources. Worse is its reliance on unreliable solar and wind.South Australia actually did implement something like the CSIR’s “least-cost option”. It closed coal stations, built wind turbines and some solar plants, and supplemented them with natural gas, which Australia, unlike SA, has in abundance. The result was soaring electricity prices, reaching, at one point in July 2016, the astonishing figure of A$14,000/MWh (R140/kWh). Eskom’s average selling price is R0.89/kWh. The “least-cost solution” resulted momentarily in an electricity price more than 150 times Eskom’s. It would be worse here because we don’t have much gas.The renewable energy companies and the greens seem to have captured the department of energy (quite legally, quite differently from Gupta capture)It also caused two total blackouts for South Australia. In panic it ordered the world’s biggest battery from Elon Musk. Jaws dropped when people discovered how expensive it was and how inadequate (with 0.5% of the storage capacity of our Ingula Pumped Storage Scheme).The IRP and CSIR refuse to recognise the essential cost that makes renewables so expensive. Here is the key equation: cost of renewable electricity equals price paid by the system operator plus system costs.The system costs are the costs the grid operator, Eskom in our case, has to bear to accommodate the appalling fluctuations of wind and solar power so as to meet demand at all times. The renewable companies refuse to reveal their production figures but I have graphs of total renewable production since 2013, the beginning of renewable energy independent power producers (IPPS) procurement programme. The graphs are terrible, with violent, unpredictable ups and downs.In March 2018, power output varied from 3,000MW to 47MW. To stop this dreadful electricity shutting down the whole grid, Eskom must have back-up generators ramping up and down to match the renewables; it must have machines on “spinning reserve” (running below optimum power), and extra transmission lines. These cause system costs, which can be very expensive. The renewable companies don’t pay for them; Eskom does, and passes them on the South African public.NonsenseThe system costs, ignored by the IRP and CSIR, are one of the reasons their models are nonsense. They explain an apparent paradox. Week by week we hear that the prices of solar and wind electricity are coming down; but week by week we see electricity consumers around the world paying more as solar and wind are added to the grid. Denmark, with the world’s highest fraction of wind electricity, has just about the most expensive electricity in Europe. Germany, since it adopted the absurd Energiewende (phasing out nuclear and replacing it with wind and solar) has seen electricity costs soaring.The answer lies in the green desire for conquest. Nuclear power, as you can see driving past Koeberg, works in harmony with nature. The greens don’t like that. They want to conquer and dominate natureThe renewable energy IPP procurement programme, hailed by renewable companies as a huge success, has forced on SA its most expensive electricity ever — and its worst. Eskom’s last annual report, for the year ending 31 March 2018, revealed it was forced to pay 222c/kWh for the programme’s electricity compared with its selling price of 89c/kWh. But the system costs make it even more expensive.We get an idea how much more from the one renewable technology that does provide honest electricity and covers its own system costs. This is concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage, where sunshine heats up a working fluid, which is stored in tanks and used for making electricity for short periods when required. The latest such plants charge about 500c/kWh at peak times. So the best solar technology, with an award-winning project, in perhaps the world’s best solar sites, produces electricity at more than 10 times the cost of Koeberg and about five times the cost of new nuclear.Carbon dioxide realityAfter the procurement programme proved a failure, Lynne Brown, then public enterprises minister, ordered Eskom to sign up for a further 27 renewable power purchase agreements (PPAs), each lasting 20 years. Malusi Gigaba, then finance minister, endorsed her.Nuclear reduces carbon dioxide emissions; renewables don’t. The Energiewende has turned Germany into the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in Europe, because wind and solar, being so unreliable, had to be supplemented with fossil fuels, especially coal.Two reasons drive renewables: money and ideology. Renewable energy companies make a fortune when they persuade governments to force their utilities to buy their awful electricity.But why do the green ideologues love wind and solar? Not because of free energy, which is actually very expensive. Tides, waves, solar, wind and dissolved uranium in the sea can all provide free energy but, except for the uranium, it is always very costly to convert it into usable power. (Uranium from the sea would be naturally be replenished but it is cheaper to buy it from a commercial mine.)I think the answer lies in the green desire for conquest. Nuclear power, as you can see driving past Koeberg, works in harmony with nature. The greens don’t like that. They want to conquer and dominate nature. They love the idea of thousands of gigantic wind turbines and immense solar arrays dominating the landscape like new totems of command. Wind and solar rely entirely on coercion by the state, which the greens also love (in a free market nobody would buy wind or solar grid electricity).SA NEEDS TO DIVERSIFY ENERGY SOURCES TO DELIVERSA is not taking advantage of the clear lead the country has in solar and wind resources.The renewable energy companies and the greens seem to have captured the department of energy (quite legally, quite differently from Gupta capture). If they get their way, the rest of us are going to suffer.Since 1994, Eskom has been wrecked by bad management, destructive ideology and corruption. Because it didn’t build stations timeously, the existing stations have been run into the ground and are failing. Its once excellent coal supply has been crippled. There is massive over-staffing and Eskom is plunging into debt. Seasonable rains threaten another fiasco to match January 2008, which shut down our gold mines.The last thing Eskom needs now is to be burdened by useless, very expensive renewable electricity. Recently, the parliamentary portfolio committee on energy, after listening to submissions on IRP 2018, recommended that coal and nuclear should remain in our energy mix. Perhaps a ray of hope for sanity.• Kenny is a professional engineer with degrees in physics, mathematics and mechanical engineering.Let’s look at the current breakout of sources of energy consumption showing poor results for wind and solar, according to the Energy Information Administration.So-called renewables comprised just over 11% of U.S. energy consumption in 2017. Of the renewable sources, hydro, geothermal, and biomass aren’t going to grow enough to achieve any of the Green New Deal’s goals.Rep.-elect Ocasio-Cortez must be counting on wind and solar to power her plan. Together they supply just 3% of total energy consumed.If we confine the discussion to power generation, wind and solar comprise just 7.6% of the 4 trillion kilowatt-hour total. (Source: What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?)If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?Wind intermittency makes coal a necessary and expensive partnerMichael Shellenberger via ForbesOVER the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines.People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become.And yet that’s not what’s happening. In fact, it’s the opposite.Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percent while the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.Electricity prices increased by:51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest.What gives? If solar panels and wind turbines became so much cheaper, why did the price of electricity rise instead of decline?Electricity prices increased by 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy.One hypothesis might be that while electricity from solar and wind became cheaper, other energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas became more expensive, eliminating any savings, and raising the overall price of electricity.But, again, that’s not what happened.The price of natural gas declined by 72 percent in the U.S. between 2009 and 2016 due to the fracking revolution. In Europe, natural gas prices dropped by a little less than half over the same period.The price of nuclear and coal in those place during the same period was mostly flat.Electricity prices increased 24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017.Another hypothesis might be that the closure of nuclear plants resulted in higher energy prices.Evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that nuclear energy leaders Illinois, France, Sweden and South Korea enjoy some of the cheapest electricity in the world.The facts are the most expensive retail electricity comes from countries with the most renewables!Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’February 18, 2019 by stopthesethings 21 CommentsBill says it’s time to stop jerking around with wind & solar.When the world’s richest entrepreneur says wind and solar will never work, it’s probably time to listen.Bill Gates made a fortune applying common sense to the untapped market of home computing. The meme has it that IBM’s CEO believed there was only a market for five computers in the entire world. Gates thought otherwise. Building a better system than any of his rivals and shrewdly working the marketplace, resulted in hundreds of millions hooked on PCs, Windows and Office. This is a man that knows a thing or two about systems and a lot about what it takes to satisfy the market.For almost a century, electricity generation and distribution were treated as a tightly integrated system: it was designed and built as one, and is meant to operate as designed. However, the chaotic delivery of wind and solar have all but trashed the electricity generation and delivery system, as we know it. Germany and South Australia are only the most obvious examples.During an interview at Stanford University late last year, Bill Gates attacks the idiots who believe that we’re all just a heartbeat away from an all wind and sun powered future.Gates on renewables: How would Tokyo survive a 3 day typhoon with unreliable energy?Jo Nova BlogJo Nova14 February 2019Make no mistake, Bill Gates totally believes the climate change scare story but even he can see that renewables are not the answer, it’s not about the cost, it’s the reliability.He quotes Vaclav Smil:Here’s Toyko, 2p7 million people, you have three days of a cyclone every year. It’s 23GW of electricity for three days. Tell me what battery solution is going sit there and provide that power.As Gates says: Let’s not jerk around. You’re multiple orders of magnitude — … — That’s nothing, that doesn’t solve the reliability problem.Bill GatesDuring storms, clouds cut solar panel productivity (unless hail destroys it) and wind turbines have to shut down in high winds.The whole interview was part of a presentation at Stanford late last year:Cheap renewables won’t stop global warming, says Bill GatesThe interview by Arun Majumdar, co-director of Stanford Energy’s Precourt Institute for Energy, which organized the conference, can be watched here.When financial analysts proposed rating companies on their CO2 output to drive down emissions, Gates was appalled by the idea that the climate and energy problem would be easy to solve. He asked them: “Do you guys on Wall Street have something in your desks that makes steel? Where is fertilizer, cement, plastic going to come from? Do planes fly through the sky because of some number you put in a spreadsheet?”“The idea that we have the current tools and it’s just because these utility people are evil people and if we could just beat on them and put (solar panels) on our rooftop—that is more of a block than climate denial,” Gates said. “The ‘climate is easy to solve’ group is our biggest problem.”If he only looked at the numbers in the climate science debate…Jo Nova BlogGreen New Deal? Wind Power ‘Dropped Off’ The Grid During Polar VortexAs Congress debates the Green New Deal, which calls for a massive increase in renewable energy use, new reports show wind energy “dropped off” as frigid Arctic air descended on the eastern U.S. earlier this year.“An earlier than expected drop in wind, primarily caused by cold weather cutoffs, increased risk of insufficiency for morning peak,” according to a report from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which oversees electricity delivery across 15 states.The wind power shortfall triggered a “maximum generation event” on the morning of Jan. 30 when temperatures plummeted, MISO reported Wednesday of its handling of the historic cold that settled over the eastern U.S. in late January.Unplanned power outages were higher than past polar vortex events, MISO reported, much of it because wind turbines automatically shut off in the cold. Coal and natural gas plants ramped up production to meet the shortfall and keep the lights on.“This what happens when the government starts mandating and subsidizing inferior energy sources,” Dan Kish, a distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.Kish, a Green New Deal opponent, said the proposal would “double down with more ‘Rainbow Stew’ sources” that “don’t work when you need them the most.”Kish isn’t alone in his concern. Energy experts for years have been exploring the feasibility of integrating more solar and wind power onto the grid. The Green New Deal brought that debate to the forefront.While the Green New Deal doesn’t explicitly ban any fuel sources, it does call for achieving “net-zero” emissions within 10 years by “dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources.”The bill’s main champion, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said the Green New Deal was about “transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy,” at a press conference introducing the resolution in early February.Green New Deal supporters say wind and solar are necessary to fight global warming, but critics say increasingly relying on intermittent renewables poses a threat to grid reliability.The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report Tuesday that detailed how “[w]ind generation dropped off … mainly caused by wind plants reaching their cold weather cutoff thresholds.”Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on MISO dataWind turbines are shut off when temperatures dip below minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit, as happened in the upper Midwest and Great Plains — an area often dubbed the “Saudi Arabia” of wind energy. On top of that, when it gets, say, minus 45 degrees Fahrenheit, there’s not much wind.EIA said that “wind accounted for an average of 5%, ranging from 5% to 15% on surrounding days” on Jan. 30, while “coal supplied about 41% of MISO’s load and natural gas supplied about 30%.”The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment, but the group did publish a blog post in February on the polar vortex.AWEA’s research director Michael Coggin said wind energy’s performance was “strong” during this year’s polar vortex. Coggin said high voltage power lines allowed wind power from the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic to send power westward.Read more at Daily CallerJanuary 21, 2019Why 'Green' Energy Is Futile, In One LessonRENEWABLES AND CLIMATE POLICY ARE ON A COLLISION COURSEDate: 09/12/18Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy EditorThose advocating climate change mitigation policy have hitherto wagered everything on the success of renewable energy technologies. The steadily accumulating data on energy and emissions over the period of intense policy commitment suggests that this gamble has not been successful. Pragmatic environmentalists will be asking whether sentimental attachment to wind and solar is standing in the way of an effective emissions reduction trajectory.For almost as long as there has been a climate policy, emissions reduction has been seen as dependent on the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Policies supporting this outcome are ubiquitous in the developed and developing world; markets have been coerced globally, with varying degrees of severity it is true, but with extraordinary force in the OECD states, and particularly in the European Union. The net result of several decades of such measures has been negligible. Consider, for example the global total primary energy mix since 1971, as recorded in the International Energy Agency datasets, the most recent discussion of which has just been published in the World Energy Outlook (2018):Figure 1: Global Total Primary Energy Supply: 1971–2015. Source: Redrawn by the author from International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2017 and 2018. IEA Notes: 1. World includes international aviation and international marine bunkers. 2. Peat and oil shale are aggregated with coal. 3. “Other” Includes geothermal, solar, wind, tide/wave/ocean, heat and other.It is perfectly true that the proportional increase in modern renewables, the “Other” category represented by the thin red line at the top of the chart is a significant multiple of the starting base, but even this increase is disappointing given the subsidies involved, and in any case it is almost completely swamped by the increase in overall energy consumption, and that of fossil fuels in particular. Renewables in total, modern renewables plus biofuels and waste and hydro, amounted to about 13% of Total Primary Energy in 1971, and in 2016 are almost unchanged at somewhat under 14%. Thirty years of deployment, almost half of that time under increasingly strong post-Kyoto policies, has seen the proportion of renewable energy in the world’s primary energy input creep up by about one percentage point.Furthermore, what is true at a global level is also true in every national jurisdiction of importance, with the exception that in the less economically vibrant parts of the developed world, including the EU and the UK, energy consumption is actually declining, largely due the transfer of much manufacturing to other parts of the world, principally China.It should therefore come as no surprise to anybody that emissions not only continue to rise, but have recently started to increase at the highest rate for several years, a point that is revealed in the latest release of the Global Carbon Budget, 2018, and can be conveniently illustrated in the chart derived from this paper’s data and published in the coverage of the Financial Times:Figure 2: Global Emissions 1960 to 2018. Source: Financial Times, 6 December 2018, drawn from Global Carbon Budget Report 2018.These dismal facts are producing the obtuse reaction that the current renewables dependent policies are insufficiently aggressive, or, to use the accepted jargon, ambitious, and that the world must try harder. The reaction of the BBC’s Matt McGrath may be typical. He asks: “Why are governments taking so long to take action?”.But this is a misplaced question. The plain reality is that the global market coercions, and related policy pressures favouring renewables are already intense and incessant, and have been so with growing intensity for over fifteen years. Many economies, large and small, have tried very hard indeed, but the global energy markets have barely moved. Why? Because the effort is wasted; the picked winners, the renewable technologies, remain stubbornly uneconomic, with the consequence that spontaneous, uncoerced and rapid adoption remains a dream.This is what policy failure looks like. At what point do those sincerely concerned to see prompt and sustainable emissions reductions begin to wonder whether the renewables industry is a liability and an obstacle to the aim of climate change mitigation?Instead of blaming lazy governments, or the irrational consumer, now rioting in the streets of Paris in protest at climate policy impositions on transport fuels, environmentalists and campaigning analysts might spend their time more fruitfully by reviewing the wisdom of the policies that they have pressed on decision-makers. In doing so they could reflect that climate change mitigation is in certain important respects no different from other insurance policies, and must therefore pass the same tests: Is the policy providing real cover and is the premium affordable and proportional to the risk?Since the rising trend in emissions leaves no doubt that the current policies have as yet provided no real insurance, discussion of affordability becomes in a sense academic, though we can note in passing that it is also true that the emissions abatement cost of renewables is so great that it exceeds even high end estimates of Social Cost of Carbon, meaning that the policies are more harmful than the climate change they set out to mitigate. – This is not only wasted effort, it is counterproductive to human welfare.It will take time for this evidence and reasoning to change minds. Many environmentalists have a sentimental attachment to renewable energy flows in spite of their evident thermodynamic inferiority as fuels. They see them as Goop energy, pure heavenly gifts, handed down, naturally, from a benevolent sun, as opposed to the dirty and artificial earthly products of the soil that are fossil fuels and nuclear. But such feelings must be set aside in the interest of practicality. Climate campaigners must now ask themselves which they prefer, renewables or the stable and long-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for it is increasingly clear that they cannot have both. The renewables industry, the vested interests of Big Green, and the widely endorsed imperative for climate change mitigation cannot co-exist for much longer. One or the other, or perhaps both, has to give way.Renewables and Climate Policy Are On A Collision Course - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)Every Wind Turbine and Solar Panel Built Today Will Be Scrap Metal by 2050Written by Isaac Orrin Climate, Energy, Environment, Minnesota Economyon June 26, 2019PrintHere today, scrap metal by 2050. That’s the rough life of wind turbines and solar panels, which only have useful lifetimes of 20 and 30 years, respectively, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Energy Sage.The short useful lifetimes of wind turbines and solar panels are one of the least talked about, but most important, aspects of energy policy. This fact becomes even more important if we are to believe liberal politicians that claim we need to spend billions of dollars on these energy sources because climate change is an “existential crisis.”These short lifetimes have profound implications on the cost of using wind and solar. This is particularly bad news because Xcel Energy plans to squander $7.5 billion building 3,000-4,000 MW of solar (based on today’s costs for solar) and spend $2 billion maintaining wind turbines through 2034, even though these assets will still depend on natural gas backup when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.That’s a lot of money to spend on part-time energy sources that do not last as long as coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants, which can run for 40 to 80 years. The enormous pricetag and perpetual need to rebuild wind turbines and solar panels will continue to drive up the cost of electricity for Minnesota families and businesses.Renewable energy groups won’t talk about this, but Minnesotans experienced record-high electric bills in 2018, according to Energy Information Administration data. The record-high bills occurred at the same time as record-high renewable generation. Coincidence? I think not.This will get worse, not better, as we continue to build short-lived assets like wind turbines and solar panels.Let’s compare the cost of building enough generation capacity to generate one megawatt (MW) of electricity from wind, solar, nuclear power. The U.S. Energy Information Administration assumes the cost of building one MW of wind costs $1.6 million, the cost of one MW of solar is $1.9 million and the cost of one MW of nuclear is $6 million.However, the intermittency of wind and solar mean these facilities will not generate anywhere near their potential capacity of 1 MW. Data from EIA show Minnesota wind, solar and nuclear facilities generated about 35.9%, 18.2% and 96% of their generation potential, respectively. Therefore, it is necessary to build 2.8 MW of wind (1/.359), 5.5 MW of solar and 1.04 MW of nuclear to get 1 MW of electricity.This brings the cost of building the necessary capacity to generate 1MW of electricity for wind, solar and nuclear to $4.5 million, $10.5 million and $6.25 million, respectively.When the shorter operating lifespans for wind and solar are accounted for, however, the total cost of rebuilding wind turbines every 20 years brings the cost to $13.5 million per MW, and replacing solar on 30-year timescales results in a total cost of $21 million to generate electricity for 60 years.Nuclear is clearly the superior value to consumers.While the short useful lifetimes of wind and solar are bad for the pocket-books of Minnesota families, it is very good for government-approved monopoly utility companies and their shareholders.In essence, the need to frequently rebuild wind turbines and solar panels transforms them into a cash-dispensing Merry-Go-Round for government-approved monopoly utility companies, like Xcel Energy, that make a guaranteed profit on every dollar they spend on infrastructure. Given this, it’s no surprise that Xcel has reaped record-breaking profits since it was first required to incorporate wind into its portfolio in 2005.If liberal lawmakers truly believe climate change is an “existential crisis,” how can they seriously advocate for less reliable, more expensive, and shorter-lived sources of energy than new nuclear power, which would likely last until 2080, or beyond? In Minnesota, the House DFL explicitly said legalizing new nuclear power plants and allowing large hydro power to satisfy their proposed 100 percent carbon-free energy mandate would be a non-starter.To me, this is evidence that the DFL’ers in the House and Governor Walz simply don’t understand how energy actually works, and that for them, this is more about political theater than actually building a reliable, carbon-free energy system. How else can you advocate for building tomorrow’s scrap metal, today?Every Wind Turbine and Solar Panel Built Today Will Be Scrap Metal by 2050 - American ExperimentIN AUSTRALIA, where the Liberal party, the Labor opposition and the Greens have all embraced massive renewable energy targets, we have some of the most expensive electricity anywhere in the world, South Australia officially the highest.THE massive subsidies tipped into the unreliable energy sector makes it unprofitable for 24/7/365 base-load power solutions (coal, hydrocarbons) to operate when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia will be able to see a return to energy security and erase its name from the unenviable title of having the “highest power prices in the world.”UNTIL big government backs off, taxpayers and businesses will continue to pay billions of dollars more for the most important utility they need to sustain life and prosperity – cheap, abundant and reliable electricity.FINALLY the green madness that’s threatening our ability to turn on the lights and air conditioners is being exposed as a socialist policy-driven, big government debacle…Australia’s poor left powerless by soaring prices and green energyIT’S 100 years ago next month that Lenin forced communism on to Russia, sending armed thugs to storm the Winter Palace in St Petersburg.Yet even though he, Stalin, Mao and Castro then put their people in chains and kept them poor, faith in Big Government is miraculously on the rise again in Australia.See, green is the new red. Global warming is the excuse that has brought back the commissars who love ordering people how to live, even down to the things they make and the prices they charge.All big parties share the blame. Even the Turnbull Government forces us with its renewable energy targets to use more electricity from the wind and solar plants it subsidises.True, this green power is expensive, unreliable and driving cheap coal-fired power stations out of business, leaving us dangerously short of electricity for summer.But the government now has an equally crazy $30 million scheme to fix that, too: it will bribe Australians with movie tickets and $25 vouchers to turn off their electricity when they most need it — like during a heatwave, when a million air conditioners are switched on.Movie tickets are a bribe only the poor would take.That’s a bribe only the poor will take. Would Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull really turn off the switches at his Point Piper mansion for two free tickets to Hoyts?And with power prices so high, the very poor would have little real choice. Conclusion: the poor will sweat so the rich may have air con.But it was actually Greens leader Richard Di Natale who last week took out the Lenin Prize for useful idiocy.Asked on the ABC about our soaring gas prices, Di Natale suggested a solution once found in a Soviet Five Year Plan: “The simple way of dealing with the problem … is government has got to step in and regulate prices.”Same deal with electricity prices, which Greens MP Adam Bandt has urged be “capped”.“Governments absolutely need to step in,” insisted Di Natale.“They can regulate prices. We’ve got a plan … We build battery storage technology. We get more solar and wind in the system …“It’s good for prices, it’s good for jobs and most of all, it’s good for the planet.”All lies, of course. Look at South Australia: the state with the most wind power has the world’s most expensive electricity and Australia’s worst unemployment.Adelaide’s Salamon family reading by candle and torch light during South Australia’s frequent blackouts.And it’s all for nothing, because our emissions are just too tiny.As Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has admitted, even if Australia ended all emissions from cars, power stations, factories and cows, the difference to the climate would be “virtually nothing”. But the difference to the economy would be devastating.To Commissar Di Natale, it all sounds simple: just force business to charge less for the product they risked a fortune to find, extract, market and transport. But which business would risk a dollar to find more gas if they were then forced to charge prices so low that they’d lose their shirts?Already, Labor and the Greens have frightened off investment in new coal-fired power stations or even in big upgrades to existing ones, which is why we now face summer blackouts.That’s dragged even the Turnbull Government into considering whether to itself finance a new coal-fired plant, just as Lenin would have done and as Nationals MPs now demand.But Labor last Saturday proposed its own Big Government fix. In a speech in South Australia, federal leader Bill Shorten actually praised the state government for having “climate-proofed” the electricity supply.Adelaide Hills pharmacist Kirrily Chambers forced to throw out medicine from the fridge after a blackout. Picture: Kelly Barnes/The AustralianNever mind that it’s left the state with power prices so high that businesses have been driven broke.Shorten on Saturday promised South Australia relief, but not by dropping his own lunatic promise to force all Australia by 2030 to take 50 per cent of its electricity from renewable energy.No, he simply promised more subsidies — a $1 billion Australian Manufacturing Future Fund to hand out cheap business loans no bank would risk.Shorten said this new fund for manufacturers would be like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which hands out cheap government loans for the kind of renewable energy schemes that have helped to destroy our electricity system.The circle is complete: Labor in effect promises to subsidise business to survive the electricity crisis caused by subsidising green power, while the Liberals subsidise the poor not to use it at all. Meanwhile, we all pay. And all for nothing.Only Big Government could cause such a dog-chases-tail circus. We didn’t learn from Lenin, did we?Andrew Bolt on energy crisis: Poor will be left powerless by soaring prices and green energy | Herald SunjamesmatkinwritingsNovember 2, 2017 at 7:09 amWhat a mess we have from the political distortion of climate science. The AGW theory is “thought experiment” dubbed “meritless conjectures” by major research relying on > 100 peer reviewed references. See http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233The alarmists have been duped by the hidden role of chance. See –https://www.academia.edu/33638398/_Fooled_by_Randomness_The_Hidden_Role_of_Chance_in_Life_and_in_the_Markets_by_Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb._Judith_Curry_chides_alarmists_missing_black_swan_massive_winter_snowfalls_in_their_models._Like_astrology_climate_change_is_not_falsifiable_when_it_covers_every_change_in_climatehttps://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/10/16/unreliable-energy-wind-and-solar-a-climate-of-communism/ANOTHER GREEN FIASCO: THE SOLAR PANEL TRAP THAT MEANS YOU CAN’T SELL YOUR HOMEDate: 09/12/18The Sunday TelegraphHomeowners who signed up for free solar panel schemes, which were popular a few years ago, now face problems selling their properties.Valuable government subsidies designed to encourage the use of renewable energy led to the emergence of many new firms that offered free solar panels to homeowners who would agree to lease their roofs.Homeowners benefited from free energy when the sun shone and the company, which retained ownership of the panels, pocketed the subsidies.But now, years later, some of those who opted for the schemes are discovering that they are effectively trapped by the deals.One reader said he was now unable to sell his home because of the existence of the lease, while others are locked in for more than two decades with no prospect of an exit.Almost a million homes are equipped with solar panels. Most of them will be owned outright, but a large number are covered by leases. Over time, a series of cuts to the subsidies once offered by the Government meant many companies were forced into liquidation, which meant the leases were sold on.The removal of the main subsidy, the “feed-in tariff”, is due to take place in April, a move that is likely to worsen the industry’s prospects.One reader took up a scheme operated by a company called Isis Solar 2 in 2011, by which he benefited from free energy.The problems began when the 72-year-old tried to sell his home earlier this year and had a buyer pull out, largely because of the solar panels.The role of firm power in deep decarbonizationGeorge Hagstrom, works at Princeton UniversityPosted Sep 24The falling cost of renewable power capacity has been in the news lately. While these cost decreases are very encouraging for our ability to decarbonize cheaply, the reporting on this sector has lead many to draw the wrong conclusions about how we should decarbonize our power sector.In particular, politicians and journalists alike do not appreciate well enough how much variable renewable energy (VRE) differs from firm/dispatchable energy sources like nuclear power or fossil fuels. Thus, much of the public discourse surrounding decarbonization focuses on the idea that we should build a power grid based on 100% VRE power.If this were in fact feasible, it would make economic arguments against building and developing nuclear power compelling.While appealing, this 100% VRE plan puts too little emphasis on stochasticity and the different properties of power sources, and therefore risks making decarbonization more expensive, more resource and land intensive, and more dependent on technological breakthroughs which may not be forthcoming.Here I link to some excellent research which explains the difficulties of integrating large quantities of VRE into power grids.These studies find that the total system cost increases dramatically as VRE penetration approaches 100%. Using firm low carbon such as nuclear power in combination with VREs leads to significantly lower total system costs, even assuming high costs for nuclear power (even their cheapest nuclear scenario is above the cost of nuclear in places which build a lot of it like South Korea or China, though it is perhaps a good conservative estimate for how cheap nuclear can get in the US) .An aggressive pursuit/buildout of nuclear power thus helps cheapen decarbonization and acts as a technological hedge.I will link to a research article and a podcast. The podcast is simpler to understand, and the research article contains all the details. Plenty of similar research exists, but I chose to link to the most well known/reasonably recent study. Broader knowledge of these ideas should help improve the intellectual level of the debate around how different countries should decarbonize.Firm low-carbon energy resourcesThe Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in Deep Decarbonization of Power GenerationApologies for the link behind the pay wall. If you can’t access it, I am not allowed to tell you that you can go to sci-hub and find it for free.148 views · View Upvoters · View Sharers

Note that this answer comes from anecdotal observation and theoretical deduction, it’s not entirely statistical but I am currently cross-referencing.Also, it should be noted that it’s more YOUNGER men than women who are unemployed. Rates of unemployment are near equal past 25. Also, both men and women have faced a steady increase in unemployment rates between 2014 and 2016, likely due to the austerity cuts.United Kingdom (UK) unemployment rate 2016I would surmise for similar reasons to in the US.Pushes for affirmative action for women into the workforce mean that given two equally strong candidates, a woman will be hired over a man in accordance with equal opportunity and diversity quotas. The benefit of this is that the employment rates gap has closed from a near 40% in 1971 to 10% in 2014, according to the 2014 Rowntree Foundation Report on poverty.https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/MPSE-2014-FULL.pdf[p.69] The change in the components of underemployment does not differ much by gender, although the level of each does. The increase in unemployment and part-time but wanting a full-time job between 2008 and 2013 were similar for both men and women – a 350,000 and 330,000 increase in unemployment respectively, and a 130,000 and 120,000 increase in involuntary part-time working. The increase in inactive but wanting work was larger for women at 60,000 compared with 20,000 for men. However, while the numbers of part-time workers wanting full-time work is largely the same for men and women, there are substantially more unemployed men than women, and substantially more inactive women who want work than men.Interesting result. Conclusions which can be taken from this, eitheri) More women than men have a positive, strong work ethic (a nice way of saying men are getting more lazy and entitled)ii) More women than men have sound physical+mental health and wellbeing during unemployment, which provides them with the confidence to maintain an optimistic attitude towards eventually returning to work. More on unemployment+mental health later.AA in universities and college results in more women attending and graduating from college, opening the door for women to white-collar jobs in various fields.https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/41939699.pdf[P.4, Table 2.1] Between 1985 and 2005, the rate of women representing the student population in the UK has increased by 12% from 45% to 57%. This left a minority of women over-represented at academic level of 7%.Originally I placed the figure at 65% for 2015, forgetting that this report was published in 2008. Apologies for that. Rather it was predicted that by 2015, if current trends continued, the rate of women in HE would reach 65%. Future predictions from this data may be comrpomised by the 2008 recession.[P.18]The decline in inequalities could be explained by the increase in the period of return on degrees for women. The reversal in inequalities, for its part, would derive from a higher return on degrees for women than for men. Thus, higher incentives for one sex could be reflected in higher rates of participation in higher education. It should be noted, however, that the higher return on degrees for women is not incompatible with higher salaries for men in the labour market. Only the difference with the holders of secondary school certificates of the same sex matters.International data on personal internal rates of return on a degree show that in 2003, the rate of return on a degree4 was higher for women than for men in 5 countries (Belgium, Korea, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom), more or less equivalent in 5 others (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, in the United States, with a difference of 1%) and markedly lower in one country (Hungary) (OECD, 2007b, Table A9.6). Historical series would be necessary, however, to evaluate the soundness of this hypothesis at the international level.Companies are encouraged to fulfil diversity quotas by providing more women and minorities with internships than men. (Which is not to say that recently graduated women never struggle with unemployment, obviously! But, more women than men on average have a ‘foot in the door’ on their CV via an internship, prior to being hired.)The educational system can be loosely described as ‘gynosympathetic’. That is, it’s it’s increasingly accommodating the needs of (stereotyped) women over (stereotyped) men.a) More coursework over final exams.[OECD, p. 20] It could be attributed to the change in the form of examinations at the end of secondary school (again favouring girls) (Machin and McNally, 2006).Gender and Student Achievement in English SchoolsNote one must request the authors for access to the full paper.(I have a feminine brain apparently, which may explain why I have always preferred coursework. I get to write 10 pages over the max. word limit that way! :D But, I am not your stereotypical man hah. Also, bear in mind correlation does not mean causation.)b) Less time exercising and ‘playing’, more time in the classroom and partaking in ‘higher-minded’ activities, sort-of pro to business strategies and entrepreneurial mindsets which will impress OFSTED. (Although one cannot entirely blame this on accommodating to girls, since both boys and girls are hurt by such a move.)c) In some instances primary and secondary school teachers have biases in favour of girls over boys. There are instances of teachers marking boys more harshly than girls with little explanation bar sexism and gender bias for that behaviour.In Israel, a natural experiment comparing the marks of the same students in the same examination conditions by their teachers and external examiners who had no information about them showed systematic bias against boys in the nine subjects tested (and in arts, science and mathematics), irrespective of the teacher’s sex (Lavy, 2004). Teachers could in fact favour girls, perhaps because of their better behaviour in school. In Sweden, where the superiority of girls’ results over those of boys continues to rise, Holmlund and Sund (2007) show that the gap is wider in subjects mainly taught by women, without being able to attribute it to the fact of having a teacher of the same sex. The difference with regard to earlier studies might stem from the fact that the Swedish students in their sample were highly motivated and performing students, so that the positive effect of having a teacher of the same sex might not be valid for all types of students.Note that this does not include data on the UK. See also Female Teachers 'Give Boys Lower Marks'd) We have evolutionary cognitive biases to sympathise with females over males to begin with. For this reason, a girl struggling is seen as a victim who’s trying her best or even being ‘held back’, whereas a boy struggling either grade-wise or to simply sit still is a boy resisting ‘becoming a man’, a responsible adult, or at worst being deliberately antagonistic and disruptive. Yes it’s dumb, yes it’s restrictive, yes it’s life. These are reinforced by the benevolent sexism of the system we call patriarchy, and the narrative that women are primary victims of patriarchy.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie_Rudman/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men/links/0a85e5324b69af209e000000.pdfIn fairness to the education system, this is a gross generalisation. For example, I as a student with a disability received an immense amount of pastoral support from my lovely SENCO and adapted education plan.However, the overall result is the same. Women outperform men in most to all subjects in first world countries, particularly at secondary education level. A minority of boys out-perform girls in some subjects like Maths, but boys are over-represented at the highest and lowest echelons. The lowest tend to get ignored.[P.20/284 OECD]As shown by the 2006 PISA study, a well-established international trend is that, at 15 years of age, girls score much higher in reading (+38 points on average in tests), obtain comparable results to boys in science (–2 points on average) and score slightly lower than boys in mathematics (–11 points on average). In the case of mathematics, the relative superiority of boys can be explained in many countries by a small number of boys who do very well in the subject: the majority of them have worse results than girls (OECD, 2007a). The changes in results by sex are not significant between the three editions of PISA (the first was in 2000). Some national longitudinal studies, however, indicate a trend in favour of girls over the past few decades, as in the case of the United States (see Box 10.1). In Germany, 57% of Abitur5 were obtained by women in 2002 (BMBF, 2005). In France, girls have clearly made better progress than boys. In 2006, 53% of baccalaureates were obtained by girls and, in the age group which entered secondary school in 1989, 7 out of 10 girls obtained the baccalaureate compared with 6 out of 10 boys (Rosenwald, 2006).The same trend is also apparent in the United Kingdom. In England, for example, between 1974 and 2003, the gap in academic levels between boys and girls aged 16 widened in favour of girls, at the aggregate level (i.e. all disciplines together), in mathematics (with the girls catching up) and in English (where the gap widened). It could be attributed to the change in the form of examinations at the end of secondary school (again favouring girls) (Machin and McNally, 2006). This gap is found at all levels of pupils’ academic performance, in all types of schools and for all social milieus, including the most disadvantaged. The gap appears to emerge in adolescence, between the ages of 11 and 16 years (Burgess et al., 2004; Gorard, Rees and Salisbury, 2001; Machin and McNally, 2006).Traditionally male-dominated industries involving heavy labour have become increasingly redundant as we’ve moved into a post-industrial Information Age. Thatcher’s premiership of course saw the closure of mines, and with that numerous coal-oriented jobs. The old mills, textile factories and cotton industries have long gone. High finance and the service sector dominate the new economy, meaning that cities entirely monopolise gross domestic output. Highly qualified immigrants tend to seek out the best financial security and quality of living in inner city regions, meaning that the villages lose out on talent and skill.All of this means that there is less opportunity for the ‘uneducated’ working class man who was unsuited for a classical education. Now in part it’s true that there are some barriers of discrimination barring women from entering the traditional heavy labour jobs. However, it should be noted that very little has been done since the 80s to push women into these jobs; a lot of the discussion on the ‘class ceiling’ for example all focus on women’s difficulties getting into middle class, white-collar jobs through to higher management positions of big business. This is natural; no human wants to be struggling in the working class if they can push their way into the middle class if at all possible. It’s just financial common sense. But it happens, and it’s a factor which is often overlooked.Unemployment and subsequent mental health issues play out similarly to the cycle of poverty. We already know thata) Many men don’t seek support for mental health problems, therefore the no. of men with mental health problems is likely higher than the current percentageb) There is a direct correlation between employment status/unemployment and general job security and health problems, mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. ‘Job security’ includes feeling respected and needed in your workplace, but that is less relevant to this specific question.Men suffer more than women from unemployment - Workingmums.co.ukResearch indicates that men are more likely to suffer adverse health consequences as a result of being unemployed than womenA man becomes unemployed; he becomes depressed; there is a stigma about reaching out for his depression (there is still a mixed attitude but the reactions he can face are usually either faux-sympathy/pity or outright contempt/disrespect/told to ‘man up’ and so forth) and so he doesn’t reach out for support and might not get a diagnosis, and so on. This is particularly prevalent among the working class.It sounds silly, but many men are afraid to admit that they are unemployed and depressed because it’s basically social and in particular, dating suicide. Just about any inability to conform to conventional modes of ‘success’ is downplayed due to that.Despite pushes for gender equality and women’s general financial independence, women by and large still have biological attractions towards protectors and providers for security and other traits which denote high benefits of paternal/parental investment. For an explanation of parental investment see my answer to Why must your man love you more than you do love him? And what are the ways to make your man love you the more? To this end, although incidents of hypergamy have declined since the 1980s, homogamy (marrying within relative socioeconomic status) remains the norm in 1st world populations moving towards gender equality. This means . However, because more women are succeeding into higher education and graduating, it creates a perception of relative marital hypergamy for men or lower SES and education levels.[P.26 OECD] Could the reversal of gender inequalities have negative demographic consequences? Homogamy between higher education graduates is high and has increased over the past few decades (unmarried unions also follow the same trend) (Schwarzt and Mare, 2005; Qian and Preston, 1993). Furthermore, while men often married women less qualified than them, women tend to marry men more (or less) qualified than them (hypergamy). Were this trend to be maintained, the reversal of gender inequalities in higher education would lead to a risk of a reduction in fecundity in that the probability of women marrying and having children would diminish. This was in fact the case among higher education graduates at the turn of the century in the United States (Goldin, 2004) and what can currently be seen in Japan where the lower rate of marriage among women graduates apparently accounts for 20 to 33% of the overall decline in the marriage rate (Raymo and Iwasawa, 2005).The trend among women to hypergamy declined markedly in the 1980s and 1990s, and even disappeared altogether according to some indicators. The remarkable trend in this area lies rather in the sharp fall of marriage rates of less educated men (Rose, 2006). More than a decline in fecundity, the maintenance of a high degree of homogamy among higher education graduates and the decline in the probability of marriage of less educated persons could, in fact, help to entrench the social inequalities related to education (by tying them more to socio-economic groups).A consequence of this is that women place social pressure upon men to raise their SES and educational level so as for women to avoid hypogamy. Being more risk-averse to partnership due to parental investment, in absence of capacities to reach homogamy women are inclined to decline marital proposals or remain single. Although there are of course women who do earn more than their partner, particularly in more progressive households, the norm remains for women to seek a man who is at least her ‘equal’ in terms of education, qualifications, job position and/or SES. This study suggests that more women are unsympathetic towards the unemployed than men; they think that they should “take any job they can.” Young British women less sympathetic than men towards the unemployedNote of course these are women aged 18–25, so maturity, empathy and life experience plays a part. I hate to say it but young women are as much coddled by benevolent sexism as they are oppressed and victimised by hostile sexism. They are also socially conditioned to focus on male entitlement and how it victimises them-which is not to say they do not empathise, but they have to over-ride the conditioning from the media and peers, so to speak.Another basic anecdotal example, how Quora reminds a 28 year old that his living with his parents he’s is ‘a turn-off’ because it implies financial and emotional dependenceIs a guy living with parents at 28 a turnoff? Are girls judgmental about that?Again, blame evolution if you must, but short of not only social but outright genetic engineering there is no point crying over spilled milk. Do you cry that it’s raining? We can, however, tackle the narrative that an unemployed man is not a failure…but it’s not in the interest of either the powers that be or of our children to do so. It’s also a stigma which is reinforced by traditionalist men as much as women, who have all swallowed the ‘real man’ kool-aid of benevolent sexism.There may be more reasons, but these are all the ones I can think of presently :)Given that, how can we resolve this? Well, first of all we’re going to have to admit it’s a thing and not be afraid of being seen as a misogynist for merely mentioning consequences of the pushes for gender equality and general social reform. This will be difficult. For example, I just Googled ‘why are more men than women unemployed in UK’ for you, and guess what? Over 5 of the top 10 results were lamenting at the unemployment crisis for women. Mostly from the BBC and Guardian. So there is a chilling effect in place, where if you discuss these things, you are both a whiney loser too weak to handle the workforce, and a sexist who lacks sympathy for women’s issues.One obvious ‘solution’ would be to turn back time. Less women in the workforce means more opportunity for men! Obviously joking. This is not only blatantly prejudiced, but drastic, regressive and dumb. The benefits of societies which are gynosympathetic are that we have a lot of young, intelligent, talented/skilled and ambitious young women with a lot of confidence in their career potential, and these are vital to an economy which has been screwed over by the 2008 recession. This need not be a zero-sum game, we can raise the self esteem and potential of struggling boys and men without taking down women. (Additionally, I don’t think we will be having a reversal from the Information Age anytime soon.)So what then? The next logical conclusion would be to not necessarily abolish affirmative action, but at least attempt to re-evaluate it. To do that we need to re-examine our understanding of privilege theory, and therein lies the rub. People are afraid to do that.Most crucially we will probably have to re-examine the current narrative where masculinity and being male is something performed, it is not a rite of passage like womanhood but something which is difficult to earn and easy to be stripped from you should you succumb to vice and idleness. For example take a look at the majority of self-help on Quora. The men’s self improvement is all action-oriented, “do it!” “No excuses.” “Laziness is for the weak.” bla bla. The women’s is more nuanced; “respect your needs, take care of yourself”, “you don’t have to carry the weight of the world on your shoulders”, “positive visualisation”, “believe you are good enough already!” and so on. Again generalisations as the relationship and mental health section in particular is more sympathetic towards the emotional worlds of men, but the gender bias is still prevalent.The burden of performance is rarely mentioned as there is a tendency to favour ‘toxic masculinity’ instead. This is typically translated as how patriarchy hurts men too but is in practice how the male gender role contributes to the oppression of women. See above re: male entitlement, etc. Again I am not sure how to change societal attitudes about this in the long run, these prejudices run pretty deep sadly.

Continuation from my previous answer on HAL…A full-scale model of the light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas was placed at the Bengaluru city’s Minsk Square and was inaugurated by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) CMD T. Suvarna Raju on December 11, 2015. HAL promised to upgrade Tejas mark1 serial production (SP) to 8 in the year 2017-18 and 16 by 2018-19 as new production lines are being added up and increase in outsourcing of components from private parties to speed up production. Considering its poor past record, most experts are skeptical if HAL will be able to meet these targets. This however do not stop HAL from doing wasteful efforts like deploying model of Tejas in public places. China, in comparison, makes 148 jet fighters in a year and that too larger jets like J-11, J-15 & J-10 etc.A model of Tejas jet at Bengaluru’s Minsk Square where politicians are creating vote bank using HALAfter ruining the West Bangal industry for three decades by communist leader and Chief Minister Jyoti Basu with his pro peasant violent politics, his successor Buddhadev Bhattacharya had a change of heart. He welcomed industry and one prominent success story was Tata Nano plant near Kolkata. Opposition leader Mamata Banerjee sensed political opportunity and led the agitation to kill Tata Nano project in favour of farmers (read voters). The Tatas finally decided to move out of Singur on October 2008, blamed sustained agitation by Ms Mamata Banerjee and her supporters for the pullout decision and announced they they would be setting up the Tata Nano plant in Sanand, Gujarat. West Bengal continue to maintain anti industry image in the country and gets negligible industrial investment for the densely populated state. Ms Mamata Banerjee however succeeded in her gameplan to become chief Minister of West Bengal using Tata nano!Ten years later, similar gameplan is used by an opposition politician to come to power in 2019. Opposition is playing HAL game to create sympathy among PSU employees and highlight possibility of massive corruption in defence deal. Opposition met the retired employees of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) outside its corporate office, at Minsk square (same place where Tejas model was deployed) Cubbon Park, in Bengaluru. “HAL is a strategic asset in aerospace, not an ordinary or regular company and Rafale is your right” he told the audience. He preferred to ignore the weakness of HAL. Immediately after this event, HAL media statement regretted the incident and requested everybody not to politicise HAL.In 1989, after the apparently crooked procurement of artillery guns made the Swedish arms manufacturer “Bofors” a byword for corruption in arms deals, the then-Congress government was voted out of power. Now in the opposition, the Congress is looking to make Rafale the BJP’s Bofors-scandal equivalent. All political parties used arms purchases as political tool to prove other party is corrupt. Besides Bofors, German HDW submarine, Italian VVIP chopper deal also delayed arms acquisition and deployment. If same thing happens with Rafale, it will be unfortunate for India as India not trying hard to manufacture high end defence technology in house. The result of all these delays created recent incident like vintage Mig21 Bison had to chase Pakistani F-16 on 26 February 2019 as Srinagar air base had only Mig21 Bisons available. Same is the case with some other frontline airbases like Naliya and Jamnagar (both Gujarat; Jamnagar has India’s largest refinary). Luckily for us, despite being shot by and landing in enemy territory, IAF pilot came back quickly and in good health. Any casualty here could have created much more outrage on why we are still using vintage jets like Mig-21, Mig-27 and Jaguar. Only IAF is using Jaguar jets today and we are trying to increase its life with modernisation undertaken by HAL instead of replacing Jaguar.The Sukhoi made by HAL under licensed production is around 45 per cent more costly than buying Sukhoi from Russia. HAL is also adding delay to Sukhoi production. HAL was scheduled to deliver the last of a set of 140 Russian-origin fighters by March 2017, which has now been pushed to March 2020. Besides the three year delay for Sukhoi, HAL’s slow production created six year delay in the Jaguar aircraft, a five year delay in the LCA, and a two year delay in delivery of Mirage 2000 upgrade." Going by track reord of HAL, March 2020 may also get extended for Sukhoi. After rounds of negotiations with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Dassault Aviation felt that the cost of the Rafale jets will escalate significantly if they were to be produced in India. Also quality and timeline of delivery cannot be controlled by Dassault. The negotiations for procurement of 126 Rafale jets under the UPA government fell through on these ground per Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. She clearly says HAL needs help. That help is not something she recognised for first time. It was realised long ago when Marut jet project was dropped but no corrective action was taken. That corrective action could have been taken 15 years ago or 10 years ago as per Nirmala Sitharaman. When Marut jet was flying, China was behind us in jet technology. Today China is independently building fighter jet engine with super cruze and fifth generation stealth technology!Multiple times quality issues were raised by IAF people and in many Sukhoi jet crashes (9 Sukhoi-30 MKI crashed despite having twin engines!) Russian experts blamed HAL’s quality for the crash. HAL always denied these allegations and this kind of scenario continued till next crash. Entire fleet of Su 30 MKI was grounded twice. Previously all Soviet designed fighter jets and made by HAL under technology transfer produced poor result. Mig 21, Mig 23, Mig 25 and Mig 27 ‘Bahadur’, etc had high accident rates, non availability and poor quality spares leading to This only happens when company like HAL has monopoly in entire Aeronautical manufacturing industry in India and private Aeronautical engineering companies were not actively promoted by government. Mig 27 ‘Bahadur’ is worst case scenario for IAF. Within 10 years of induction in IAF, it became obsolete. In 20 years it was dangerous to fly Mig 27 due to quality issues coming from HAL and in 30 years, it was officially retired when hardly any plane was available. Soviet Union provided many “critical technology transfer” to HAL for production of various Mig fighters from where HAL could have developed new and indigenous technology. HAL could hardly improve soviet technology as there was no political leadership to make indigenous Aeronautical parts. Mirage 2000 on a contrary was inducted in mid 1980’s from France, performed much batter in 1999 Kargil war than IAF’s soviet origin planes, had minimal accident record despite having single engine. Mirage 2000 again proved its ability during recent deep strike inside Pakistan after Pulwama attack.Defence minister Sitharaman is correct that the UPA government and even Indian Air Force (IAF) doubted the performance of HAL. It is time political leaders also discuss and analyse, for example, why HAL and a foreign company " Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) " both State-owned and founded at around the same time, are poles apart when it comes to delivering world class technology to the forces and also in reaping profits? Ex Indian Army chief and currently a minister V K Singh said on 14 February 2019 ‘Look at the condition of HAL. Our two pilots died. Sorry to say, but the programmes at HAL are running late by three-and-a-half years...parts of aircraft are falling off on the runway’. He was referring to accident on 1 February 2019 when a Mirage 2000 failed to fly after an upgrade by HAL at Bengaluru HAL airport.The HAL Koraput division was responsible for manufacturing engines for all Sukhoi fighter jets under a licensed contract with Russia. The UPA minister's visit was in the backdrop of a confidential government assessment of HAL division that suggested that the "engines under Phase-IV, where some of the components are made from raw materials and some of the components are received directly from Russia, are being produced by HAL but there was a short fall in meeting the target". HAL Koraput was to deliver 34 engines in 2012-13 to meet the requirements but only four engines were produced before 31 March, 2013 and three more engines are about to be in the final phase of assembly which will spill over to next year target."Insufficient number of production lines, inadequate floor space, shortage of adequate hangar space to keep engines and lack of a skilled/trained workforce at HAL (Koraput). The HAL (Koraput) division has indicated an inability to supply critical spares like turbine blades, combustion chambers outer casings. It has been unable to fulfill Repair, Manufacture and Supply Orders, supply of 773 High Pressure Turbine Rotor blades and 697 Low Pressure Turbine Rotor blades has been pending since 2006," the UPA's confidential report had stated. The report also observed HR management at HAL has failed to address the skill deficiencies and loss of expertise through a system of mandatory overlap of new recruits with retiring personnel. All these examples suggest what is ailing in HAL in particular and government PSU in general. There is no ownership for anything. Large number of HAL employee is just getting their salary without any responsibilities. A suburban rail services was made for HAL employees to commute from City Railway station to Vimanapura Railway station way back in 1960’s will give an idea how powerful the HAL unions were that time.HAL’s Sukhoi Complex in Nashik with 5,000 people have orders that will last just 17 months. Of the 222 Su-30 MK-I aircraft, only the last batch of 23 are pending delivery. HAL delivered 12 Sukhoi planes annually. So, 12 of the 23 will be given by March 2019, and the remaining 11 by March 2020, after which there is no work.HAL was hoping to use the Nashik facility for the proposed joint venture with Russia which envisaged a fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), which has not taken off so far and almost nil chance of future collaborative with with Russian firms considering past issues with Mig and Sukhoi jets, IAF’s reluctance to use Russian origin planes, strong lobbying by USA plane vendors of F-16 and F-18 Super Hornet. Absence of Sukhoi production will not just affect the 5,000 workers in Nashik, but will also reduce the work at five other centres—the three in UP (Lucknow, Kanpur and Korwa) and one each at Hyderabad and Kasargod—which work on Su-30 subsystems, most notably the avionics. “More than 50% of the workload at these centres will go. As of 2017, HAL manufactures more than 80% of the of Su 30MKI aircraft which means by 2020 when HAL delivers all Su 30 MKI to IAF, it may achieve 100% indiginisation of Su 30MKI components but no orders in hand for production .In June 2018, India has reportedly decided not order any further Su-30s as they feel its cost of maintenance is very high compared to Western aircraft. Private players who will get new Aeronautical projects as part of offset clause will not like to use HAL’s infrastructure or its lazy employees. This way whatever little HAL has learnt about Aeronautical technology last 40 years will get lost!HAL has nearly 30,000 employees, including 9,000 engineers who are doing basic screw-driver assembly. Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has cleared procurement of 83 Tejas fighters, it is yet to get converted to an actual order from IAF. “A cost committee has been constituted but it’ll be months before things are agreed upon. Until then there’s no work,” another source said. The government and IAF have complained about the high cost of LCA. Despite the high cost (read low productivity) goverment has no choice to give order for approx 300 LCA or MCA (Tejas Mark II) to HAL as replacement of Mig-21 and Mig-27. So Bangaluru unit employees will keep their jobs.To break the sarkari culture at HAL and bring in professionalism so that it align with ‘make in India” Aeronautical products which are best in terms of price and quality, IPO was launched to dilute government holding. Unfortunately the IPO (initial public offer) was not successful as it was held at the end of financial year when other IPO options were available. Eventually LIC (another government owned insurance company) invested Rs 2900 crore by subscribing 70 percent of HAL’s Rs 4200 crore IPO. Unless HAL goes into professional hand from existing government defence PSU, performance is not expected to improve.So, what keeps HAL alive? The only division that has some business is the helicopter division, which is at present working on the orders of 73 Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH), and awaiting orders for LCH. Like LCA, the DAC has cleared 15 LCH procurement, but no orders have been placed yet. “But the actual number must be 155, that is what we had anticipated, and 15 is only the first batch. We’re hoping for more,” the HAL source said. Further, the joint deal with Russia to make the Kamov helicopters is another order that has HAL excited but this Kamov helicopter case is on a slow track. HAL also have the LUH (light utility helicopter) which will soon get its initial operational clearance. HAL expect orders there too. India needs more than a 2,000 choppers. While HAL did not offer an official comment, Suryadevara Chandrasekar, the chief convenor of All India HAL Employees Trade Unions Co-ordination Committee, said: “We cannot deny that there are no orders and we are staring at becoming idle. That said, we positively anticipate the Centre’s intervention and clearance of more orders in the future.”How to move forward? Innovation and technical collaboration with other Aeronautical companies and research institute is a way forward. Suvarna Raju, ex Chairman HAL, urged MSMEs to increase their footprint in the aerospace and Defence sectors. He said HAL was ready to support Indian industry through technology transfers. Giving further thrust to the ‘Make in India’ initiative, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited carried out the first flight of Light Combat Helicopter (Technology Demonstrator-2) with its own designed and developed Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) for the first time in the country. The development of indigenous AFCS is HAL funded project and will replace the high value imported system, says Mr. T. Suvarna Raju, HAL-CMD. The AFCS is a digital four axis flight control system capable of performing control & stability augmentation function and auto-pilot modes of helicopters. The indigenous development of the Hardware, Software and Control Law is a fully in-house effort of HAL R&D Centres - RWR&DC and MCSRDC at Bengaluru, SLRDC at Hyderabad and Korwa Division, he added.HAL has already indigenised the Cockpit Display System on LCH namely the Integrated Architecture Display System (IADS) with the participation of Indian private industries and development flight testing is under progress. HAL has marked the first flight of the locally-assembled Hawk-i trainer jet with an indigenous Real Time Operating System (RTOS) developed by it and it was certified by CEMILAC, the Indian military aviation certification agency. The RTOS is the system software which provides a standard run-time environment for real-time applications execution in a safe and reliable manner. “The RTOS is a key technology for concurrent execution of multiple applications and optimal use of hardware resources which is of paramount importance for increased complexity of modern avionics software. Advanced modules like network stack and file system have been co-developed with IIT- Kharagpur which also carried out formal method based verification of the RTOS kernel. The HAL-RTOS provides a comprehensive feature set based on international specification - ARINC-653 - to support Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture. Key features include address, space and time partitioning, priority pre-emptive process scheduling and health monitoring.India now needs at least half a dozen Aeronautical and Aerospace private company who will supplement HAL and can manufacture smaller components at much faster and cheaper cost by using bulk production technology (like Maruti and its suppliers). HAL should become integrator and focus making 20 Tejas, 20 LUH and 20 LCH per year besides maintenance. This means Tata Aerospace, Reliance Aerospace, Mahindra Aerospace, L&T defence wing etc. should manufacture Aeronautical components as part of offset clause of defence deal signed by Indian government or joint venture with global leaders that includes latest technology transfer.Lockheed Martin (LM) of USA has promised to transfer its entire 4th generation F-16 fighter jet manufacturing in India but we should also demand technology transfer. This is not a favour to India but to make room for 5th generation fighter manufacturing in its existing plant. It has tied up with Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) and targeted a three year time frame (by 2022) to deliver wings for F-16. This is despite no timeline given by Indian government to complete the proposed global tender for 110 fighter aircrafts where LM will participate. The need for this tender has risen due to curtailed order of just 36 Rafale jets instead of 126. TASL was established in 2010 in Hydrabad and since then it delivered 92 (by 2018) cabins for Sirorsky’s S-92 helicopter to be integrated by LM. All C-130Js produced have major elements manufactured in India. Indian firms are now being recognised as suppliers of high value components, and eventually as assemblers of aircraft.Airbus’ largest Indian partner is Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which produces half of the A320 Family’s forward passenger doors. HAL began supplying Airbus since the 1990s. Similarly, Tata Advanced Materials Limited (TAML) has been providing composite parts for Airbus’ A320 and A350 XWB wing, while TAL Manufacturing Solutions, a subsidiary of Tata Motors, supplies over 500 sheet metal and machined parts and sub-assemblies.Airbus is also supported by growing network of small and medium-sized Indian companies, like CIM Tools, Gardner-Pranitha, Triveni, Cyient Solutions and Sansera Aerospace. Boeing has a joint venture with TASL to collaborate in aerospace and defense manufacturing and potential integrated systems development opportunities, including unmanned aerial vehicles. Dynamatic Technolgies makes critical parts for the Chinook Heavy Lift Helicopters, TAL Manufacturing Solutions Ltd. makes floor beams for the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, Dynamatic Technologies and Tata Advanced Materials Limited (TAML) have delivered P-8I power and mission equipment cabinets, and TAML is to provide P-8I auxiliary power unit door fairings and composite tailcones for the P-8I. Avantel has delivered the mobile satellite systems for the P-8I and Maini. Cyient has supported a number of critical design-engineering projects for Boeing airplanes, and provides design and stress support on the 747-8 Freighter and the 787-8 and 787-9. PSU BEL has delivered the Indian-designed Data Link II for the P-8I. Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited (DRAL) manufacturing facility near Nagpur was formed as offset clause of Raphel deal and one of the biggest defence FDI till date. The plant has 50 employees till date out of which 10 are French technical experts. They are making nose cones for Raphel jets despite the ongoing political controversy on price.These kinds of latest technology collaboration and manufacturing by small Indian Aeronautical companies will ultimately create high end technology startup and ancillary ecosystem needed for India’s rapid advancement in technology to bridge the technology gap with China and west. HAL way of manufacturing everything from raw material and scratch neither economical nor viable. Despite challenges, HAL has achieved significant growth in revenue and profits first after its listing. As per CMD R Madhavan, HAL recorded the highest ever turnover of Rs 18,283 Crores in the 2017-18 financial year compared to previous year’s turnover of Rs 17,603 Crores. In last 5 years, two new factories started and huge money injected into HAL. Hope it will not go HMT way.