Britse debat over windenergie laait verder op

Elektriciteitsrekening zou jaarlijks met £ 1000 extra (!) per huishouden kunnen oplopen.

Reeds eerder rapporteerde ik op basis van berekeningen van de Groene Rekenkamer, Pieter Lukkes, Kees le Pair, Fred Udo, Kees de Groot et al, en Theo Wolters dat bij uitvoering van de plannen van het energieakkoord de elektriciteitsrekening per huishouden wel eens met duizend euro per jaar extra zou kunnen oplopen. Zij werden met hoon overladen. Nu bereiken ons uit Engeland berichten over berekeningen die tot uitkomsten in dezelfde orde van grootte zijn gekomen.

Onder de titel, 'UK's wind farm 'folly': Electric bills to soar by £1000 thanks to reliance on wind power', meldde John Ingham in de 'Express':

Householders are facing soaring energy bills and winter power cuts thanks to the “folly” of relying on wind power, experts said last night.

The green crusade of successive governments is set to double electricity bills for households and cost homes £26billion a year by 2030, it was claimed yesterday.

The cost of renewable energy and carbon taxes will put an extra £983 a year on household bills by then, compared to relying on a mix of nuclear and new gas-fired power stations, three experts told a Lords committee.

They also said the “foolhardy” green policy will do little to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The Scientific Alliance report highlights warnings by the regulator Ofgem that the margin for electricityproduction for the 2015–16 winter will be at an all-time low of 2 per cent compared to the pre-privatisation requirement of at least 20 per cent.

It means that in times of high demand, such as during very cold weather, Britain would be at risk of power cuts.

The alliance argues that wind power – which is the main renewable energy source depended on by Government – is unreliable. .

[The] report stated: “The foolhardy policy of replacing reliable and efficient gas, nuclear and coal power stations by expensive and inefficient wind turbines and solar farms has raised energy prices while doing little to cut emissions of carbon dioxide.

“The total costs are some £12 billion per year more in 2020 than an optimum programme of gas turbines and nuclear, and almost £26 billion per year more by 2030.”

The alliance calls for new nuclear power plants to help plug shortfalls caused by the closure of ageing coal-fuelled power stations and rising demand.

Lees verder hier.

Naar aanleiding van de speech van Owen Paterson voor de GWPF ('Global Warming Policy Foundation') heeft Peter Atherton (Liberum) potentiële beleggers geadviseerd om geen geld in windenergie te investeren.

Dit is wat hij schreef:

Last night the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson MP, delivered the Annual Lecture to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The speech has generated considerable press coverage In his speech Mr Paterson challenges the direction and basis of UK/EU energy policy.

He states that current energy policy is failing to deliver the key goal of emission reduction whilst proving to be both un-affordable and a significant threat to security of supply. Mr Paterson recommended a change of course with a return to a more market based energy policy that would encourage technological innovation that in turn would reduce carbon emissions in a more affordable manner. .

Conclusie:

Mr Paterson’s speech is worth noting by the capital markets as it indicates that the current political consensus on energy policy may be challenged going forward. In our view the public and political debate is only likely to grow as the inherent contradictions and unforeseen negative consequences of the current policy become more apparent as time goes on. We have long argued that current EU/UK energy policy is deeply flawed and that utility companies and public market investors should be wary of committing further capital to support and deliver it. Advice which has been increasingly accepted in recent times. After all, an energy policy that has the Hinkley Point C contract and off-shore wind as its two flagship achievements must eventually collapse under the weight of its own idiocy.

Aldus Peter Atherton.

Zie verder hier.

Zou men in Den Haag het debat in het VK wel volgen? Of blijft men in de greep van cognitieve dissonantie? Hoe het ook zij, het is niet onwaarschijnlijk dat de weigering van kapitaalverschaffers om nog verder geld in deze bodemloze put te dumpen wel eens de achilleshiel van het energieakkoord zou kunnen blijken te zijn.

Laatste nieuws

De krant van wakker Nederland, de Telegraaf, kwam vandaag met een uitstekend artikel van Harry van Gelder. Het stuk dat was getiteld, 'Windenergiesprookje', besloeg bijna twee pagina's. Subtitels: 'Wetenschappers slaan alarm; energieakkoord gaat minstens 53 miljard kosten.' 'Het Energieakkoord gaat de Nederlandse burger minstens 53 miljard kosten, zonder dat het milieu er veel mee opschietl "Dat is meer dan de hogesnelheidslijn, de Noord/Zuidlijn, de Betuwelijn en de JSF bij elkaar", zegt Fred Udo, die onder meer voor het prestigieuze CERN in Geneve werkte.'

In het artikel worden Fred Udo en Pieter Lukkes uitvoerig geciteerd.

Kortom, een compilatie van hun eerdere gastbijdragen op mijn DDS-blog. Maar het is goed dat het nu ook tot de MSM is doorgedrongen.

Voor mijn eerdere DDS–bijdragen zie hier.