UK abandoning daft renewable energy targets?

[GreenIsGood]

Winds of change are blowing in the UK.

Now even the Guardian is publishing articles openly criticising crackpot EU 2020 renewable energy targets. As many of you know, these targets are useless environmentally. Yet they are severely economically damaging.

At the conservative party conference this month, senior conservatives failed to pay the usual lip-service to stupid green fantasies:

George Osborne used his conference speech to bemoan the "piling costs" of environmental regulation. When David Cameron ignored climate change in his set-piece, opponents rushed to voice their little-hidden conviction that the Conservatives are itching to ditch green commitments.

Guy Newey (senior research fellow, Policy Exchange) says:

Osborne should take his axe to the biggest boondoggle of all climate policy – the EU 2020 renewable energy target. The measures the UK is taking to meet this target will do nothing to reduce emissions in the electricity sector in the next 10 years. Instead, they make it hugely more expensive to meet the 2020 carbon targets than would have been the case without it.

Wind power in particular is a stupid waste of money and resources:

The only target that matters is reducing carbon emissions. On latest figures, UK-produced emissions are down 27% since 1990 (slightly more than ultra-Green Germany). This is mainly due to replacing coal plants with gas ones in the 1990s. Like installing insulation and improving industrial processes, such measures do not have the sexiness of a new windfarm or solar array. But they are likely the cheapest way to cut carbon in the short-term, while we deliver cheaper zero carbon technologies.

Karl-Ulrich Kohler, head of Tata Steel Europe – which employs 20,000 staff in Britain – says:

‘Why the UK government wants to go further and be the leader in Europe in this field is difficult for me to understand.
It’s a race for the leadership that is simply over the top.
‘The UK is one of the weaker industrial players in Europe. Why are we trying to be a leader on the green front when the economy is in such a hard place?’

Why George Osborne may be right about the environment | Guy Newey | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Tax breaks for firms hit by 'absurd' green targets and climate change policies | Mail Online

If you think things are bad in the UK, Ireland's extremist wind power policy is simply delusional. We are in danger of crippling our recovery by wasting billions on expensive technologies that we know don't work.

As usual, Irish governments expect poor people to pay for their stupidity.

[soubresauts]

As usual, Irish governments expect poor people to pay for their stupidity.

Well, I guess we'd all agree with that point.

But, wait a minute, you're the one who wants new nuclear power stations, aren't you, GIG? There's nothing more certain to impoverish the British people than new nuclear.

BTW, it's nice to see that The Irish Times has (finally?) given up on nuclear power:

The withdrawal of a company with the pedigree of Siemens says something about the future of the nuclear industry that those lobbying for Ireland to plunge into it cannot ignore, notwithstanding its benefits in reducing the impact of climate change. It is not going to be easy to place our reliance on a mix of renewables and natural gas to generate the electricity we need, but the challenge is not insurmountable.

Renewables don't come cheap, but they could guarantee a secure future.

[wombat]

BTW, it's nice to see that The Irish Times has (finally?) given up on nuclear power:.

Germany has given up on nuclear,the U.S. gave up because of cost in the 80's, France did not.Its a bit premature to write it off, another oil shock or the high cost of windpower may cause a rethink in the future.

[Pat Gill]

The OP cites an article in the Guardian,

Osborne's rhetoric masks how his Treasury has, in some areas, moved faster on climate policy than the rest of Europe. One example is the introduction of a rising carbon floor price on electricity. This is, in fact, likely to mean the UK bears a higher carbon price than the rest of Europe to 2020. Hardly the move of a recalcitrant climate denier.

Why George Osborne may be right about the environment | Guy Newey | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The only reason the UK government wishes to increase the price of carbon is to enable the financing of the new fleet of nuclear power stations.

What the OP does not state is that the REFIT tariff paid to wind farms in Ireland is far below that available in the UK and in most cases is actually below the true market price.

The majority of the PSO levy is paid to turf fired producers and those gas fired stations on fixed price contracts.

[GreenIsGood]

Meanwhile in the real world:

yet another "green energy" bankruptcy

Beacon Power, Backed by U.S. Loan Guarantees, Files Bankruptcy - Businessweek

Beacon Power Corp., an energy- storage company that received $43 million in backing from the U.S. program that supported failed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, filed for bankruptcy after struggling to raise private financing.

and Vestas (world largest wind turbine maker) falls 24% after a profit warning

Vestas shares drop 24 percent after profit warning | Reuters

Shares in Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems (VWS.CO) dropped 24.0 percent on Monday after the group issued a profit warning late on Sunday.

Politicians are behind the curve, but the market is calling time on bogus green energy bullsh$t.

[wombat]

You know who else was an environmentalist?

Hitler.

Not sure about that, he had a real methane problem

[Tea Party Patriot]

Germany has given up on nuclear,the U.S. gave up because of cost in the 80's, France did not.Its a bit premature to write it off, another oil shock or the high cost of windpower may cause a rethink in the future.

Germany is having a rethink on nuclear already: Germany,s nuclear energy blunder - The Washington Post

[owedtojoy]

You know who else was an environmentalist?

Hitler.

There should be an unofficial rule on the site that the first one to use the Argumentum ad Hitlerum loses the debate, it is just so f*cking facile and stupid.

Sorry.

Like, Richard Nixon founded the US EPA, so he was a Fascist and that proves anyone who eats cabbage and rides a bicycle to work has a secret desire to bomb Hanoi and murder Jews?

[GreenIsGood]

Germany is having a rethink on nuclear already: Germany,s nuclear energy blunder - The Washington Post

Good article.

The German Greens are not content with screwing up their own country's energy policy. They are also determined to impose their brand of extremist scientifically illiterate non-sense on the rest of us.

Unfortunately Merkel has been appeasing these eco-fascistic fools.

[owedtojoy]

Who disagrees with the last paragraph of the article:

When Thomas Edison was trying to commercialise electricity, he said he wanted to make it so cheap only rich people would own candles. We should be straining every sinew to ensure our path to a low-carbon economy is done in the same way. Currently, we have strangely and unnecessarily taken another route, which makes it harder to deliver the ultimate carbon cuts we need. The government would be right – and green – to challenge it

Like everyone else, I suspect governments of hype and "greenwashing" when they boast about environmental targets. But a halting or stuttering start is better than none at all.