Feeding at the trough of Public Expenditure

It is useful to the environment that states and entities, like the European Union, should finance energy saving projects. The problem with state funding is that there are so many pigs at the trough and they eat so much money to fatten themselves, rather than to help the environment; it is as though a target to increase renewable energy has become an end in itself rather than as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and particulate emissions.

The United Kingdom has gone blindly on this course, financing at one stage PV installations at 40pence a kilowatt hour (then four times the price of electricity to consumers) and wind turbines at a similar massive subsidy, when there is no means of storing electricity. I am in favour of wind turbines and of PV, but they will never reduce greenhouse gases significantly until we can store electricity, simply because without storage there is no means to align production with consumption. It is rather like subsidising farmers to grow crops that will never be eaten and never be used.

The European Union has more blatant examples of financing measures and projects in the name of increasing renewable energy where the benefits are so vague or even uncertain as to whether they are financing something that constitutes and environmental benefit, as opposed to an environmental burden. Te worse examples are in the important field of increasing energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency is or should be a no brainer. Mostly it comprises insulating buildings so that when you heat the building to keep as much heat as possible inside the building and use as little heat as possible to heat the skies. The European Union has financed a number of energy efficient projects in the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Italy. They sent money to the national governments, who spent it on refurbishing buildings, but almost certainly they refurbished the wrong buildings and there are suspicions that not all of the money was properly spent.

One of the bodies of the EU is called the Court of Auditors. The EU has run its affairs in such a way that the Court of Auditors has been unable to provide a clean audit report for seventeen years in succession.  When the auditors looked at the projects where EU taxpayers’ money was spent on energy efficiency projects in buildings they found that the spending was mainly of dubious energy efficiency value.

I would guess that in the case of some of these projects there were some very fatten pigs at the trough.

Essentially the environmental movement has been hi-jacked by those who establish businesses who purpose is to “trade” with the state. Generally the state is a poor businessman, and when the state buys it usually does so unwisely, as many government projects have shown.

The solution is for the state not to invest in large scale projects but enable the ordinary people to make whatever sensible energy efficiency investment they choose and to also make their own decisions for renewable energy. Subsidies should be encouragements, not bribes, and should primarily be directed at the householder, rather than the large corporations who can undertake large projects.

Big corporations can fill their bellies at the troough of public expenditure: more good will be done is ordinary people can get a bit of public expenditure sustenance, rather than have to food fed to those who are already far too fat.

 

 

5 Responses

  1. The corporations do so because they are legislated into power by their employees and catch their 8% for life, lifeline, I have already given the links to explain this in detail. Corporative power has just taken another several thousand jobs from the high street, HMV, have lost out to downloading at 73% and the rest by the food giants.

    The electrical scenario was never designed to work from the very beginning Robert, the giants and captains of industry simply made it so enough leverage was put on the backs of the wrong kinds of horses.
    It is because the energy could not be saved the competition is destroyed right there, and the firey furnaces and carbon credit model sail head long undisturbed into the same wind unabated.

  2. Oh look, a proper science based report, not the musings of non technical people:
    Renewable energy ‘could run Australia’

    EMBARGOED until 0001 GMT Wednesday 16 January

    By Paul Brown

    All that stands between Australia and a future fuelled entirely by renewable energy, researchers say, is the political will to make the change – a finding directly relevant to a country currently ravaged by an extraordinary heat wave.

    LONDON, 16 January – Australia could be self-sufficient in renewable energy in 10 years by converting to solar and wind energy if the country had the right social and political leadership, according to the Energy Research Institute of the University of Melbourne.

    In a paper published before the current catastrophic heat wave (the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan), the researchers conclude that existing proven technologies could be deployed on a large scale to show an example to the world and to wean Australia off its addiction to fossil fuels.

    Australia, the world’s largest coal exporter, has one of the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases and has, until recently, resisted tackling climate change.

    The report says that if there were the political will Australia’s enormous renewable potential could be harnessed and within a decade both make the country carbon-neutral and create thousands of new jobs.

    About 40% of Australian renewables would come from wind farms, but key to the success of the project is the empty landscape and the almost constant solar power of the interior.
    Non-stop power production

    Solar power would be produced by many buildings, but most power would come from vast towers containing salt water with sunlight directed upon them from fields of mirrors.

    The water, heated to more than 500°C, would drive turbines and create 60% of Australia’s electricity. Surplus heat generated during the day would be stored in underground molten salt storage tanks, which would release the heat overnight to enable the turbines to run continuously.

    To cover times when the sun did not shine and the wind did not blow there would be back-up plants burning biomass, mostly waste from crop production. Existing reserves of hydropower would be held back to fill any gaps.

    Even assuming that electricity demand was 40% higher than today, in 2020 it would still be possible to achieve 100% renewable generation, the report says.

    There would need to be large-scale improvements in energy efficiency, particularly to smooth out peaks in demand. But the Institute says this is not impossible. Germany’s per capita electricity use is already 30% less than Australia’s, and its policies are expected to reduce this further over the next 20 years.

    The researchers point out that Germany is a modern industrial economy, with a high standard of living, partly based on manufacturing and metal production (including five aluminium smelters), so Australia cannot plead it is a special case.

    While the report says that building new electricity production to power homes, offices and factories would come first, Australia would also have to embrace the electric car and train. Again this could be achieved, given the political will.

    A total switch to electricity would cost 3% of Australian GDP annually, about A$37 billion (US$39 billion), for 10 years, and an added 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour on the electricity price.

    Researchers say wind and solar thermal generators have far lower life-cycle emissions than any other available technology. This is true even of schemes to capture and store carbon from coal plants and of nuclear power, mainly because of the initial fuel mining, processing, transport and handling. Both sorts of plants also take much longer to commission that either solar or wind.
    More jobs gained than lost

    The report details where these huge solar and wind power generators could be sited around Australia. The plan is for 23 wind farms, each containing turbines able to produce 2,000 to 3,000 megawatts (a typical coal power station produces around 600–700 megawatts, while a unit in a nuclear power plant has an electrical power output of 900–1300 megawatts). They would be dispersed around the country to take advantage of the windiest places and the diversity of weather systems.

    There would be 12 sites for concentrated solar power, each containing several towers. Each tower would contain molten salt water and would have 18,000 two-axis tracking mirrors focusing sunlight on the receiver – heating it to at least 565°C.

    The towers could be adjusted for the seasons to get the maximum power from the sun. Despite the vast size of the wind and solar farms they would take up less than 0.4% of Australia’s land area.

    The plan shows that many more jobs would be created with the construction of a 100% renewable energy grid than those lost with the phasing-out of coal and gas from the existing energy supply chain.

    The plan would create 80,000 jobs in the construction phase and 45,000 in operation and maintenance that would continue for the life of the plant. There would be an additional 30,000 jobs in manufacturing if half the plant was made in Australia. – Climate News Network ==============================================
    You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website

    Unsubscribe Alban.Thurston@dsl.pipex.com from this list:

    http://climatenewsnetwork.us6.list-manage2.com/unsubscribe?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=be2a364987&e=4b0ce1436e&c=ba7de8ddd4

    Our mailing address is:
    Climate News Network
    28 Prince Edward’s Rd
    Lewes, East Sussex BN7 1BE

    Forward this email to a friend:

    http://us6.forward-to-friend1.com/forward?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=ba7de8ddd4&e=4b0ce1436e

    Update your profile:

    http://climatenewsnetwork.us6.list-manage.com/profile?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=be2a364987&e=4b0ce1436e

    • With the right leadership, your having a laugh mate, Gilliardo and her carbon taxes are killing off small bussinesses by the minuite with her carbon taxes, these small enterprises are the backhone of any modern society, there won’t be any left but windmills and empty cities in ten years, where windmills replace those people, grab a rag and read for yourself, lol.

    • http://www.theglobalistreport.com/carbon-tax-damaging-small-businesses/

  3. Discover how some of that feeding is being done with who’s help in the public eye, this needs to go viral in the United Kingdom.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 320 other followers

%d bloggers like this: