Interesting article on the status of renewable energy schemes in Europe

https://tinyurl.com/y45wwss8
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ah. The wheels are starting to come off. Reality trumps hype.
--
"The EU Customs Union is a racket that defends producers in rich countries
against producers in poor countries."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It need not be, its all in the way you interpret it and there is the problem. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 13 May 2019 10:27:12 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

It does seem believable.
I have commented in the past about on-shore small turbine installations which are obviously broken and not being repaired. I assume that the subsidy structure doesn't encourage the repair/replacement of worn out or broken wind turbines.
I can see by searching that since 2015 steps have been taken to reduce or eliminate subsidies.
What I can't find so far is if a small wind turbine installation (the one I'm thinking of has two small turbines) or larger single turbines receive an ongoing subsidy even if they aren't contributing any energy (being broken) or contributing minimal energy (one near us seems to be very rarely turning, unlike another about 1/2 a mile away which is almost constantly generating).
So, are we paying for what are effective art installations to the fading glory of wind power, or is some company (or individual) taking a big financial hit over the cost of the original provision?
It would be interesting to see a review on the actual costs and returns of small installations such as found on individual farms over the last 10 years.
Cheers
Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see no justification in paying for something that does not work. As was said in the article, the subsidies removed risk, which means some of these setups were never going to be viable or were bound to quickly reach end-of-life. A good illustration of why subsidies are a bad idea.
--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13/05/2019 10:27, Chris Hogg wrote:

--
Global Warming Policy Forum

Neil Record (Chairman)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure all of that is true. What has it got to do with the accuracy of the article on the status of renewable energy, which contains plenty of links so that you can verify (or not, ATCMB) what the author said?
Your reply smells distinctly of an 'ad hominem' attack, ignoring what is actually written, and much favoured by alarmists.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.