4topas @ 2010-04-28T14:46:00 There is no evidence that industrial wind energy is likely to significant impact on carbon emissions have. The European experience is instructive: Denmark, the world provide wind-intensive nation with over 6,000 wind turbines, the 19% of its electricity generation could still not conclude even a single fossil-fired power plant. You need an additional 50% ** of coal power plant capacity to compensate for the unpredictable fluctuations of the wind, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions rose accordingly (only about 36% in 2006) (current supplement. FTD - Emissions trading scandal cripples below)
Flemming Nissen , director of development in the West Danish energy supply companies ELSAM -. one of the largest Danish utilities - told us that
"wind power plants, the carbon dioxide emissions . Not reduce "
The German experience is no different: Der Spiegel reports that" Germany's CO2 emissions by not even a single gram has been reduced "and that additional coal and gas power plants were built to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, the recent scientific research shows that wind power can increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases - depending on the carbon intensity of support or backup power plants, because of the irregular Performance characteristics of the wind facilities are needed.
On the negative side of the environmental balance are also the effects of industrial wind turbines on birds and other wildlife, livestock and wetlands.
industrial wind energy is not a reasonable alternative to other energy saving possibilities. Again, here the Danish experience is instructive. The local electricity costs are the highest (15 cents per kWh compared with Ontario's current 6 cents) in Europe. Niels Gram of the Danish industry association says "windmills are a mistake and make economic no sense. "Aase Madsen, president of energy policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it" a terribly expensive disaster. "
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on the basis of calculation of dollars per megawatt hour (MWh) that the U.S. government subsidizes wind up with $ 23.34 - compared with reliable energy sources such as natural gas by 25 cents, coal at 44 cents, hydropower and nuclear power at 67 cents with 1.59 $, what some U.S. commentators as a "big social assistance-supply-madness". The Wall Street Journal notes that "wind energy The prime example is what can go wrong if the government decides to pick winners. "
The magazine The Economist is in a recent editorial entitled" waste of money for climate change "found that each ton of emissions that was avoided through subsidies to renewable energy sources like wind power, between $ 69 and $ 137 costs, whereas under a cap-and-trade model (emissions trading) this price is less than $ 15 would be.
Both a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers with thousands of game rooms for the reduction of energy consumption and emissions - as shown by these figures - in terms of their cost-efficient all subsidies in renewable overwhelming.
The Ontario Power Authority (Power Authority) advises to pay the wind power generators 13.5 cents / kWh (more than twice what consumers pay at present), where not even the ZuSa tzlichen connection and transmission costs and the cost of backup reserve are in the process. As is confirmed by the European experience, is the inevitable a dramatic increase in electricity costs lead - with the resulting negative impact on the economy and employment. From this perspective, the government's promise of 55,000 new jobs a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly Spain) notes that for every job that was created by government support for renewables - particularly wind energy - 2.2 jobs be destroyed. Any such in the wind industry created job cost almost $ 2 million in subsidies. Why would the experience be different in Ontario?
In the debates on climate change and in particular on subsidies for renewable energies, there are two types of greenery. On the one hand there are several environmental Greens who see the problem as so urgent, all the measures have any effect on greenhouse gas emissions have to be started immediately - no matter what their costs or their impact on the economy and the labor market are.
Then there are the fiscal Open, which is not for carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems interest, but instead massive public subsidies for themselves prefer - for renewable energy projects that impact on greenhouse gas emissions that would have, too. These two groups are so motivated by different forms of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies for renewable energy - like wind turbines.
This unholy alliance of the two varieties of green (doomsday prophets and profits interested) provides a very effective, even opportunistic policy (as them in the Green Energy Act (Act) of the Ontario government is expressed), but also on behalf of a lousy public policy, politicians try to select winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape and to determine, rather than to provide a socially efficient set of incentives, responding to all of us can.
Source: Financial Post, Don Mills, Ontario, Canada . The translation was kindly Dr. Günter wedge for
EIKE Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Ökonimie,
University of Toronto.
Released on 8 April 2009.
* Current update from 17.3.10 FTD ETS: emissions trading scandal puts lame
** you need more realistic, 100% if the power supply should be safe. 50% would only go if you're lucky and would peak by chance during a calm. Prof. (pdf, see also Appendix) Alt
