Bishop Hill Balderdash, dishonesty and woo
Dec 4, 2012 Energy: gas Energy: wind There is much excitement this morning about a Cambridge Econometrics report on windfarms. The headline finding is this (according to the Independent):
British economy would be £20bn-a-year better off with focus on wind power, says think tank
There is a parallel article here at Greenpeace's Energy Desk, which is perhaps surprisingly slightly more honest than the Independent. For example we learn from Greenpeace that:
Based on the government's own price assumptions, and the rising cost of carbon, the report found the cost of power from offshore wind would be within 1% of the cost of power from unabated gas power.
That's the assumption that, contrary to all the available evidence, that gas prices will continue to rise in the face of a worldwide glut of shale gas. It also reads as if they have invoked the great levelised costs lie in their support.
The Independent doesn't mention this rather outlandish assumption, unlike Greenpeace:
Even if the gas price falls due to shale, the authors argue, the results would be similar.
But the economic benefit of a 'dash for wind' depends on foreign firms opening UK factories to supply any growth in renewables beyond 2020.
OK, so the result depends not only on an unrealistic assumption for gas prices, but also on manufacturing countries suddenly deciding to build their wind turbines here rather than somewhere cheap like China. If I said this was risible nonsense, I think I would probably be understating matters.
As an aside, I should mention that both articles quote Professor Paul Ekins as follows:
Much of the debate around the choice between gas-fired and offshore wind electricity generation in the years post-2020 assumes wind is more expensive. This study represents powerful evidence to the contrary.
In both articles, Professor Ekins is introduced as "professor of resources and environmental policy at University College London". It is perhaps worth noting, however, that Professor Ekins was also a long-time leading light in the green party. Oh yes, and he's a senior consultant to director of Cambridge Econometrics, the company that produced the report in the first place.
Normal day in the green media then.
Reader Comments (56)
Re Richard Tol comment 4/12
When the facts confound yr thesis, sometimes yer jest have to sign a petition in defence of suppressing information :(
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
ssat: Thanks for the link to Richard North (Booker's co-author, not the 28gate sceptic), who ends:
That is always key to understand. With the silence of most of the MSM, most of the time, has come and will come real economic damage, with the poorest picking up a disproportionate amount of the tab. But with the new openness of government to the folly of wind and renewables generally, the outspokenness of the blogosphere and the cracks in the MSM story the damage is being limited.
I've been accused by some of being over-optimistic (because I couldn't hide my excitement about William Shawcross being put in charge of the charitable sector, for example) but it's important to recognise not just the entrenched interests, that won't go away in a hurry, buying silence wherever they can, but also the power of our ongoing critique. It won't lead to nirvana but the damage it will prevent - and has already prevented - is of value. Despair is not only bad for the heart but, as Matt Ridley likes to show, it's irrational.
EU Referendum is on the case on this one, digging into the funding of the group who produced the report. It is anything but independent. Surprise. Surprise.
Earlier in the thread this excerpt from a recent report was pasted up:
<< Global CO2 emissions have increased by 58 per cent since 1990, rising 3 per cent in 2011, and 2.6 per cent in 2012. The most recent figure is estimated from a 3.3 per cent growth in global gross domestic product and a 0.7 per cent improvement in the carbon intensity of the economy. >>
A couple of days ago I read that the whole linkage between GDP and CO2 emissions causes wild exaggeration for developing countries due to fundamental errors in the economic parameters used. Could this mean that these CO2 "growth" figures are about as valid as the infamous hockey stick?
The answer is simple : don't subsidies any energy, so that the true costs and benefits are plain for the wider public to see.
I have copies of two reports on wind power, one Spanish the other German and both conclude that for every two renewable jobs created there are five genuine jobs lost. Wind does not even cover base load let alone demand so fails generating requirements totally. The only response is the use of 'smart meters' to adjust demand to availability---- this means that your electricity is switched off until power is available. So get up at 3.00 am to switch on the washing machine because the wind is blowing then.
NO THANK YOU!