Renewable Energy In Europe Cost £600 Billion (And That’s Only Up To 2012!)
By Paul Homewood
From Breitbart:
Astonishing figures show that the total cost of renewable energy infrastructure in Europe to the end of 2012 came to over €600 billion, excluding additional fees for grid connections and upgrades.
And this enormous sum is one and a half times the cost of twice bailing out the Greek economy, which came to €320 billion and the Irish economy with a €70 billion loan, the Irish Energy Blog has calculated.
With Alexis Tsipras in Brussels meeting European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker to discuss the refinancing of the country’s debt, it should be hard to believe that the financial prison the Greek people have been living in could have been spent in a worse fashion. But the money for on and off shore wind turbines and solar panels has not contributed to any meaningful reduction in political energy targets nor has it benefitted households: in fact, it has led to the reverse with higher bills and a less stable supply of energy, essential in a modern economy for both practicality and security.
In the UK there is an average £68 added onto a family’s energy bills to subsidise projects such as wind farms and biomass plants, according to official analysis published last November. And these levies are set to more than double by 2020 and treble by 2030, figures show. These surcharges account for about five per cent on an annual energy bill of £1,369.
These amounts are forecast to rise significantly to fund more wind farms and nuclear power plants, with levies expecting to reach £141 a year in 2020 and £226, or fifteen per cent of an annual bill, in 2030.
This means that despite spending billions on projects which were supposed to not only cut carbon emissions but were going to stimulate a new industry in ‘green energy’, the money has instead been wasted. Because not only must the €600 billion must be paid back to shareholders in these companies but the higher cost of energy has made the continent less competitive for energy intensive industries.
Yet despite these huge sums being spent on politically motivated projects, more often than not taking money from poorer households and giving it to rich land owners, Europe is still as dependent on external fossil fuels – potentially more so since governments took their eye off the ball on nuclear energy production, leaving a gap in supply which will not be picked up by a few turbines – especially if the wind stops blowing. And it’s the neglect of these traditional energy sources which will have the biggest consequences in years to come.
In addition, it’s left Russia in a strong position diplomatically, seen in the reticence of the Germans over fighting in the Ukraine and the response to human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, not one conventional power plant has been shut down anywhere in Europe and replaced by the renewable infrastructure.
The European Network of Transmission Systems Operators recently reported the effects these policies have had on energy production and supply. The latest Winter Outlook Report stated:
‘Similar to the peak demand analysis, it provides an indication which countries require exports to manage inflexible generation. Indeed, this involved an analysis of their ability to export this energy to neighbouring regions that are not in a similar situation. The reason for this analysis pertains to the fact that a number of TSOs expressed that they are experiencing growing problems for system operation (mainly) due to the increase of variable generation on the system (wind and solar) and the lack of more flexible generation means.’
The report identified a number of EU countries which face long term issues with the security of their electricity supply. including Belgium, Finland, Germany and the UK, where it reports on the latter:‘Under severe weather conditions (defined as 1 in 20 cold temperatures for GB), forecast demand including reserve would still be met, but full interconnector exports to the continent and Ireland would not be possible in all weeks of the year. In the unlikely event that the amount of generation does not meet the amount of demand for a period of time, National Grid, as GB TSO, would need to take mitigating actions to avoid any loss of load. These actions include the use of two New Balancing Services: Demand Side Balancing Reserve (DSBR) and Supplemental Balancing Reserve (SBR), which provide the option of additional capacity if necessary.’
Energy subsidies have the same downward effect on the economy as would a rise in taxation, without the benefit of having more money in the coffers to spend on all the shiny toys so beloved by governments.
The BBPC (sic, P = propaganda) continues its shameless campaigning for renewable energy. One presenter on the radio recently went a bit off message and asked someone about the intermittency problem, the person being interviewed (i.e. allowed to preach) said that was not a problem because of “Energy Storage Technology”, BS that was allowed to pass unchallenged.
Does this 600 billion include the 287 billion which was poured in to the black hole of the ETS carbon trading scam?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/ubs-report-europes-287bn-carbon-waste/
Likely not.
Seems they only included the really big ticket items.
The article would be better if it simply stated what benefits came as a result of spending €600 billion. A lot of already well-off folks harvest subsidizes and fees. What’s not to like, if you are in that group? Some companies made some money and passed some of that on to investors and some to employees. That’s nice, too.
Nothing has been done to strengthen or improve energy supply over what could have been achieved with conventional methods, at less cost.
There has not been, nor will there be, any consequences for the goal of stopping climate change. That would be – Zero.
Some of the article is a little hard to follow.
The following statement doesn’t seem correct but it is ambiguous in several ways, also, and makes it hard to check.
“At the same time, not one conventional power plant has been shut down anywhere in Europe and replaced by the renewable infrastructure.
Another not quite clear phrase is
“. . . severe weather conditions (defined as 1 in 20 cold temperatures for GB), . . .”
I don’t recall having seen cold or hot periods expressed in this manner, and don’t know what it means.
Also, why start with “. . . the financial prison the Greek people have been living in . . .”
This is like starting a conversation with “don’t think of a pink elephant.”
Another not quite clear phrase is
“. . . severe weather conditions (defined as 1 in 20 cold temperatures for GB), . . .”
I don’t recall having seen cold or hot periods expressed in this manner, and don’t know what it means.
Well they say its a quote from the January ENTSO report https://www.entsoe.eu/Pages/default.aspx but then it doesn’t define “cold temperatures”
Also, why start with “. . . the financial prison the Greek people have been living in . ”
– Remember the context is this is a report from the IrishEnergyBlog so their initial analogy is between the cost of the Irish bailout and cost of renewables
“The article would be better if it simply stated what benefits came as a result of spending €600 billion. ”
– You’d think the EU would give figs for CO2 saved due to subsidized intermittents (renewables) and then state the costs .. but no proper cost benefit analysis are ever presented.
as you said “There has not been, nor will there be, any consequences for the goal of stopping climate change. That would be – Zero.”
“At the same time, not one conventional power plant has been shut down anywhere in Europe and replaced by the renewable infrastructure.”
True but they should change wording “renewable infrastructure” to “wind/solar”. Since they are intermittent. the wattage available from conventional stations available has to be the same or greater than before. Instead of running flat out a power station will now be sitting on standby when the wind is blowing. So you can’t decommission it, without replacing it with new conventional power.
– Now straw bale and biofuel are not intermittent, but their power is tiny. However burning rubbish is a large scale renewable that works. So probably a percentage of coal/gas has been converted to that.
Reblogged this on JunkScience.com.
See the Lunatics are running the Asylum, wait come to think of it I think that is insulting the Lunatics, even they could do a better job for energy production.
But not for getting themselves and their cronys very wealthy though.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Radical Islamic Terrorism Is A Threat To Europe’s Survival Ditto Radical Greens Blowing Billions On Useless Renewables Like Wind and Solar.
Still waiting for a mitigation or adaptation budget that includes a cooling contingency.
600 billion euro’s is nothing. Prez Obama spends that on golf and vacations.
Yea, taxes are great, let’s have as many as we can! :))
Too bad that most of the time they are useless. Me paying taxes will not solve the problem. Or me taking a bus, wil not do as much good as they say. (Althouh I pay my taxes and I prefer walking r taking the bus…..)
I keep saying that we are looking for answers in the wrong place. We have so many oceans and water on the Planet and we ignore them like they never existed. What could have more influence on the climate, but the sun and the oceans?