Britain’s wind energy programmes have proved to be cheaper and better climate policy, as against nuclear
Dave Toke’s Blog 22nd June 2018, The Climate Change Act has been celebrating its 10th anniversary, but there
is surprisingly little to celebrate in the earlier advice of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). The CCC is the body created to advise the Government on the achievement of the carbon reduction commitments (80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050).
You would expect the advice of the CCC to speed the Government’s low carbon programme, but in the crucial aspect of
electricity supply policy it has (in the past) actually damaged it! Looking back on its past, it looks like the Committee gave completely the wrong advice to the Government, advice which, alas, they still seem to be following now. In particular, in the ‘Renewable Energy Review’ issued in 2011 (which I criticised at the time), the CCC, urged the Government to cut
back the targets for offshore wind and instead focus on nuclear power.
They told the Government not to be put off by the Fukushima disaster that had happened earlier that year. According to the Times Report on May 9th 2011 ”The Committee on Climate Change says heavy reliance on offshore wind could result in unacceptable increases in fuel bills.’ David Kennedy, the then Chief Executive of CCC said that ‘Nuclear looks like it will be the lowest cost for the next decade or two’. Indeed the Review stated that nuclear power was currently ‘the most cost effective of the low carbon technologies’.That conclusion, given the cost of onshore wind, was highly challengable at the time, especially as given the existing record of nuclear power plant that had been built in the UK and the roll-out of
onshore wind.
Whereas the deployment of renewable energy has soared ahead, despite the best efforts of many in the Conservatives to block it, nuclear power plans set out in 2010 have proved to be fantasy. And, of course, offshore wind costs have tumbled rapidly making the CCC’s earlier pronouncements looking especially silly.
http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2018/06/how-committee-on-climate-change-gave.html
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- April 2023 (12)
- March 2023 (308)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
- June 2022 (277)
- May 2022 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Leave a Reply