The car crash of energy policy

Gerard Wynn, writing at Reuters, tries to explain the effect that wind generation will have on electricity grids in Europe. The point he's getting at is that because wind and solar (a) have zero marginal cost and (b) are vastly subsised, they will displace gas (and coal) when they are available. That means that gas and coal have to recover their fixed costs and make their profit at times when wind and solar are not available, rather than 24/7 as previously.

The effects could be scary. No, make that terrifying:

Britain's Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has estimated that prices would have to rise to as high as 10,000 pounds ($15,700) per megawatt hour (MWh) for short periods, from an average of around 45 pounds. Prices in Britain have historically never exceeded 938 pounds per MWh.

Comments

[Phillip Bratby]

Thanks Pat for all this information. I spent over two weeks responding to the UK Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation and was astonished to find the final conclusion was that "the majority of respondents agreed with the assessments and proposals set out in the consultation document on most issues". Constructive criticism was ignored. From that moment in time I realised that a consultation exercise was no more than a Government box-ticking exercise and it was a waste of time to participate. To my knowledge, the only consultation that took notice of public opinion was the attempt to sell off the national forests.

[Pat Swords]

Philip

I would draw your attention to the "Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide", in particular page 109, where it discusses what 'taking due account of the public participation in the final decision' is all about:

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/acig.pdf

It is clearly obvious that this great and wonderful project of the Green agenda, i.e. renewable energy, in its implementation drove a cart and four through all the principles of democratic accountability and environmental democracy. It is also abundently clear that it is associated with completely and utterly unacceptable financial and environmental consequences. If it had been subjected to the proper legal procedures, which were required, it would never have been adopted.

However, the issue is now that this public participation has now to be redone, including taking due account of the public participation. Given the circumstances that I have explained here, I would encourage readers to contact their authorities and public representatives and make it known that they consider such blatant breaches of democratic accountability to be completely unacceptable.

[Phillip Bratby]

Pat

Thanks again for the goldmine of information. I have copied it all into a file with all the links.

I will attempt to draw it all together in my own words and will be writing to my MP with some questions.

[Robin Guenier]

Phillip:

I plan to do the same. Fortunately my MP is Peter Lilley and I should get a sympathetic response. I'm very busy at present, so this may take several days. In the meantime, any merit in exchanging views about the optimum approach?

PS: I'm glad to see you haven't given up after your bruising experience.

[Phillip Bratby]

Robin:

That seems a good idea. Get Andrew to give you my email address.

[Robin Guenier]

Phillip:

I've just emailed AM with that request.

R

[Clunking Fist]

Aug 25, 2012 at 7:11 PM | Wijnand
"On paper the dam produces an impressive 80 terraWh yearly (288 Peta Joule).
The yearly Dutch energy consumption is 3.492 PetaJ. We would need 12 Three Gorges Dams to be able to supply the Dutch economy"

This caused me to scratch my head. Translating this to mean:
"On paper the dam produces an impressive 80 terraWh yearly (288 Peta Joule).
The yearly Dutch energy consumption is 3492 PetaJ."
The “English” method of separating 'thousands is very difference from the continental method!