For only 99 BILLION Euros, the Energy Evolution Report promises almost carbon-free energy…
Green energy would save EU trillions by 2050 –report
…Commissioned by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), the 2012 Energy evolution report lays out steps towards almost carbon-free energy. They include curbing energy demand through greater efficiency, increasing investment in wind and solar power and phasing out subsidies for carbon-intensive energy, such as coal. To bring about the energy transformation, it sees a need to invest about 99 billion euros between now and 2050, but it says the financial gains are much greater.
“Because renewable energy has no fuel costs, the fuel cost savings in the Energy evolution scenario reach a total of 3,010 billion euros up to 2050, or 75 billion per year,” the report said.
…”Each year we emit almost 30 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent,” the report said further. “We are literally filling up the sky.”
Sounds great EXCEPT, there is absolutley NO guarantee that the gubmints will actually select the correct technologies to invest the 99 BILLION euros in!! Based on past experience it will be tossed at cronies and evaporate with little to no advance in the needed technologies that MIGHT actually deliver!!
Didn’t Germany already pour 100 billion into renewable energy? And now they’re building more COAL plants, to cover the muck-up?
Axioms missing from this daydream – (1) that 30 billion tonnes carbon equivalent could have any adverse effect on any world-scale system and (2) that extracting all that energy from the the ecosystem would have no adverse effect. But why worry?
Thatcher’s War on the Enemy Within succeeded in destroying the miners’ unions and paving the way for a nuclear future. The Greenies scuppered her second ambition and we are now in deep trouble.
This whole AGW nonsense can be stopped overnight by hard evidence that Thatcher ‘invented’ the ‘greenhouse effect’ for political reasons unconnected with saving the world for future generations. There is a small coterie of people who know what all this is about. It’s high time they came clean!
B.S.
I like the renewable energy has no fuel cost part. What they don’t mention is that they have a very high initial cost and in the case of wind high maintenance costs, and high land use costs – so in the end they much more expensive.
Zactly. Low variable cost but extreme fixed cost.
The rule on pie-in-the-sky projects is that costs are ALWAYS underestimated (typically by 50% or more) and that benefits are ALWAYS overestimated (typically by 100% or more).
The ‘exaggeration’ of cost-benefit ratios gets even worse as secondary costs (both one-time and continuing costs) such as system maintenance, connecting to the grid, monitoring, control, land acquisition, graft, etc. are ignored.