Interesting article on the status of renewable energy schemes in Europe

[Chris Hogg]

[Tim Streater]

Ah. The wheels are starting to come off. Reality trumps hype.

[Brian Gaff]

It need not be, its all in the way you interpret it and there is the problem. Brian

[David]

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

[Tim Streater]

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.

[RJH]

[Chris Hogg]

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.