Monday 17 June 2019

Spending Overruns Undermine Emissions Targets


The European Court of Auditors expect that many EU countries, including Ireland, will not meet their 2020 targets for the share of total energy from renewables :


  • six Member States are unlikely to meet their 2020 target as they need an increase in the share from renewables by: the Netherlands 7.4 pp, France 6.7 pp, Ireland 5.3 pp, the United Kingdom 4.8 pp, Luxembourg 4.6 pp and Poland 4.1 pp.  

  •   the Netherlands shows the largest gap, with an actual average share of 5.9% for 2015/2016, versus an indicative RED trajectory of 7.6%. The gap to the planned NREAP share of 9.7% renewable energy in 2016 is even larger. 

    •  for 11 Member States (Belgium, Cyprus France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom), currently implemented renewable energy policies and already planned renewable energy policy initiatives appear today to be insufficient to trigger the required renewable energy volumes purely domestically. 

    • In addition, for 7 Member States (Austria, Germany, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain) there is some uncertainty related to 2020 renewable energy target achievement. Their capability of meeting their 2020 national binding targets will to a great extend depend on the levels of energy demand in case there would be a large increase in energy demand that brings their energy consumption back in line with the original trend indicated by the latest EU reference scenario.   

This should be seen as a serious indictment of Ireland's wind only policy which has completely failed to reduce emissions at any meaningful level. The idea that the EU will fine every one of these countries, that are also unlikely to meet their targets, now seems increasingly unlikely, as the widespread impracticality of the targets becomes manifest.

Ireland has already spent €86 million in buying carbon credits to offset it's high emissions with the cost potentially running to billions over the next decade. As with health and foreign aid policy (in fact every policy), Ireland's answer is always to spend more (taxpayers) money instead of doing some actual analysis to uncover the root cause of the problem.


Sustainable Economics is a Sustainable Environment


The simple fact, as this blog has pointed out previously, is that the more the government spend, the higher the emissions. Higher welfare spending, for example, results in more resources consumed beyond our means, more imported goods, higher immigration and more waste material like plastics. High government and private debt also encourages more wasteful spending.

A policy that would encourage more savings and less debt would result in lower emissions. Higher savings means more deferred purchasing, which means lower emissions in the short to medium term. 

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that the most climate change obsessed government in Irish history is also the worst offender when it comes to out of control spending. The Irish Fiscal Council last week reported that the government breached post financial crisis spending rules last year, and the increases in spending in recent years were not "conducive to prudent economic and budgetary management".   They warned that the spending had reached a similar magnitude to those prior to the 2008 crisis (funnily enough when the green party were last in government). Cormac Lucey has worked out that the cost of the spending overruns last year was € 3,500 per person living in the state. Instead of putting away the additional tax receipts into a rainy day fund, which would have lowered emissions, every cent has been squandered. 

And the more the government continues to spend recklessly, the more carbon credits they will need to purchase to offset the extra emissions meaning that the spending overruns are set to become a vicious cycle. If Ireland wants to get serious about reducing emissions it  needs a prudent government.


11 comments:

  1. According to the IPCC criteria, countries where products are consumed take no responsibility for the emissions produced by exporter countries, thus neglecting the emissions embodied in trade. By taking this aspect into account, CBA are considered of great importance in revealing emissions attributed to the final consumer.
    We find that the EU is a net importer of emissions as its emissions due to consumption exceed those due to production. In 2015 the ratio between importand export-embodied emissions was more than 3:1 for the EU-28 that imported 1317 Mt CO2 from the rest of the world (mainly from China and Russia) while exporting only 424 Mt CO2
    EU 2015 figure is 4460Mt CO2 then add imported emissions of 1317Mt and deduct exported emissions of 424Mt we get a consumption emissions for the EU of 5353 Mt CO2 The real saving of CO2 in the EU is 5720Mt in 1900 less 5353Mt in 2015 which is a 6.4% saving in 25 years or 0.26% per years. We must also remember that there were two big influences in the drop in CO2 during this period. Germany was given a head start in 1990 when, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification, the decline of the East German industrial and power sectors meant automatic CO2 reductions. In 2009, emissions dropped compared to the previous year due to the economic crisis, which saw many companies scale down production. And we must remember in the past almost 30 years many engineering efficiencies have been achieved which may be hard to improve on, the easiest savings are always the first. So an uncomfortable question remains unanswered: Is the EU’s renewable energy and climate policy effective at cutting emissions, or is it a very expensive green dream (or nightmare). Switzerland is a particularly interesting case, with production emissions falling 11%, but consumption emissions increasing by 44% since 1990. The production accounting system is a farce

    ReplyDelete
  2. Using wind energy to reduce our carbon emissions is as crazy as it gets.Wind energy is stochastic, uses in credible levels of capital and it is terribly inefficient. These large wind turbines have serious design and technology problems.Read the SHK Report into the collapses of the Vestas V 112 3 meg after 3 years. These horribly inefficient machines cannot generate sufficient output even with these absurd subsidies to recover their costs. An accountancy trick to give the impression of solvency is to exaggerate their asset valuations to give the impression that assets exceed liabilities. But the ESB recently has had to make significant asset valuation write downs for their Gort Wind Farm leading to losses of €10+m. The other major issue which besets the crazy wind program is the Planning System.The Irish planning may have some merit for house construction etc. It has no merit when being used to plan wind farms. Wind turbines too close together loose up to 30% of their output due to wind wake. Wind shear caused by too close wind turbines helps break them up prematurely. Technically the officials who wrote this farce of plan are non competent in their subject and their alleged plan should viewed with more than contempt.Currently they are having to dump sometimes up to 90% of wind energy generation over the EWIC. Which of course they ignore as it would significantly reduce the amount of carbon reductions being achieved. It will be interesting to see what they will do when the real costs associated with the ridiculous wind program become visible.Right now they are hidden in wind farm accounts.But they are visible to these who look and know what they are looking at. The wind program should be abandoned as an ignominious failure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carmel McCormack20 June 2019 at 18:27


    1) Yes the more 'intermittent' renewable energy that is added then the more gas powered electricity generation plants are required as back up power generation to be idling away in the background and always on the ready to ramp up generation when the wind fails to blow and sun fails to shine and/or during peak demand.

    And the tragedy of all the gas power plant generation is that a lot of gas is wasted only further increasing carbon emissions when these power plants are forced to operate inefficiently in order to facilitate the inclusion of 'intermittent' renewable energy.

    Adding more 'intermittent' renewable energy requires adding more fossil fuel/gas powered electricity generation. So the renewable energy target is in effect seriously hindering the achieving of a carbon emissions reduction target.

    Also adding more and more fossil fuel guzzling Data Centres only reverses/negates the achieving of any of the targets.

    And forget about Battery Storage!
    Lithium Ion Battery technology is unstable and highly experimental and devoid of international recognised safety standards. It is for good safety reasons that Lithium Ion batteries are PROHIBITED in checked in luggage on aircraft and yet local authorities and An Bord Pleanála are ticking boxes and signing Orders granting planning permission for these Big Toxic Ticking Battery Bombs all over the country in the glorious name of saving the planet and reducing carbon emissions.
    Just last Friday one such Order was signed for 100 megawatts of Lithium Ion batteries straddling either side of a gas mains pipeline and colocated with a solar farm in Horsepasture, Clonmel, Co.Tipperary.
    Note the American National Fire Protection Association classes Energy Storage Systems and also Solar Panels as 'High Risk'.
    The quite substantive safety and hazardous issues outlined in the Appeal were ignored including the fact that this technology is currently under review in South Korea since last January 2019 and the operation of much of this installed technology has been suspended following 21 separate explosions in a very short space of time.

    And also ignored was the fact that 9 emergency personnel were hospitalised following the recent explosion of a 2 megawatt Battery installation in Arizona, USA.

    100 megawatts is the equivalent of installing 10 million IPhone batteries together.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carmel McCormack20 June 2019 at 18:29

    2) I'm currently aware of over 3500 megawatts of Lithium Ion batteries proposed to be installed in the Republic of Ireland. Most has been granted planning permission.

    Minister Eoghan Murphy and his government Department are well aware of the main issues of concern and appear so far to be doing little to halt the installation of this incredibly unstable and highly hazardous technology that is being proposed as a crazy attempt to stabilise an electricity system that has been and is being destabilised by 'intermittent' renewable energy.

    Emergency personnel and innocent citizens and the environment are treated as being totally dispensable with when it comes to the deployment of these Big Batteries Bombs.
    It's a case of destroying the environment in the name of saving the planet!

    These Big Toxic Batteries Bombs come with an already imbedded large carbon footprint. They have a high energy demand for the HVAC system required to try to keep the batteries at a stable temperature.
    Almost half of the energy stored is lost in the conversion process from electricity to chemical storage and back to electricity.

    So even more fossil fuel is wasted on Big Battery installations.

    The big push to switch to electric vehicles is pure insanity.
    A recent German study highlights that the newer efficient diesel engine cars are more efficient than electric vehicles and especially so if Battery Storage is used to power electric vehicles.

    Any increase in the uptake of Electric Vehicles and the installation of Big toxic ticking Lithium Ion Battery Bombs will require the installation of many more fossil fuel power plants as backup. Far more than the 1100 megawatts of gas power plants proposed in the Climate Action Plan 2019.

    If the electricity energy infrastructure industry gets its way then the country will be completely and unnecessarily marred with pylons, HV power lines, substations, interconnectors, Data Centres, Electric Vehicles, charging stations, electricity only heating systems, conventional power plants, banks of diesel generators, unsustainable conversion of slurry and grass to renewable biogas Anaerobic Digesters (what happens to the toxic sludge waste byproduct?) and the biggest concentration in the world of Big Dirty Toxic Ticking Lithium Ion Battery Bombs!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Carmel McCormack20 June 2019 at 18:30

    3) Dr.Cara Augustenberg was on Ivan Yates radio programme on Newstalk 19/6/2019. She was suggesting that Haulage Trucks run on renewable biogas made from grass!! Has she any idea just how much slurry and grass is required to produce renewable biogas? Has she any idea of how much energy is required to power the massive grass cutting machines and all of the harvest trucks and the round trips to the Anaerobic Digesters?
    Has she any idea of what this does for animal welfare? Has she heard about 24/7 zero grazing? Does she know that livestock production will have to be intensified in order to produce enough slurry therefore increasing greenhouse gas emissions? The waste product is poorer quality meat and dairy and a potentially highly toxic disease ridden sludge.

    Oh what a SMART Nation Ireland is!!!!

    So SMART in fact that €34 million is to be invested by the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (the former National Pension Reserve Fund) in Gore Street Energy Storage Fund for 160MW of Big Battery Bombs north and south of the border. Would that be 100% financing for an unstable technology that international insurance companies such as FM Global and AIG are unable to stand over?
    https://m.independent.ie/business/technology/isifs-34m-bid-to-spark-new-energy-storage-developments-38185467.html

    Also interconnectors are hardly cheap at about €1 Billion at a time and they are hardly reliable either. They are prone to outages and can be difficult and slow to fix and very expensive to repair. They're very good for facilitating creative carbon accountancy though!

    As for these 'modern' modular nuclear power plants one could be forgiven for thinking that Ireland in the event of considering the installation of nuclear power generation is likely to only opt for the most dangerous, unstable, experimental technology and the most expensive on every level.

    Because that's how SMART the Irish have been to date when it comes to energy policy.

    Zero Analysis, Zero Costing, Reckless Planning, Zero Safety Standards and light touch to zero safety regulation!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Carmel McCormack21 June 2019 at 13:46

    In response to...
    1. 'they would most likely be'
    Until sanity is clearly restored to the making of energy policy then I would be very slow to consider what is only likely to be the 'addition' of yet more electricity power generation.
    2. 'and could even be competitive with gas-fired units.'
    By 'competitive' I'm guessing you mean competitive on the cost of installation, the cost of the supporting energy infrastructure and the price of electricity at the plug.
    3. 'They offer a very reasonable alternative to an excess of wind turbines and battery storage,...'
    A reasonable alternative would be to simply entirely replace 'intermittent' renewable energy and Lithium Ion battery bombs (installed in EV's and in Big Industrial Energy Storage Systems - BESS's/ESS's) with the conversion of coal, oil and peat fired power plants with energy efficient CCGT (gas) power plants and perhaps with district heating systems. This would result in far more carbon emissions being saved than 'intermittent' renewable energy will ever be able to save. Also CCGT/OCGT power plants are able to respond to the peaks and troughs of daily and seasonal energy demand unlike 'intermittent' and 'base load only' electricity generation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Capital cost per megawatt of electricity produced by wind generation, in the Irish midlands, is at least 12 times that of a combined cycle gas plant. That does not take into account the fact that a wind turbine will produce reasonable output for only 10 years . While a combined cycle gas plan can operate efficiently for up to 40 years. Over the longer term wind power will cost close on 50 times per megawatt produced than a combined cycle gas plant.The current Irish junta are of course immune to facts like this. Awkward issues like the use of Ponzi schemes to bail out the wind program or why the Directors of BNM questioned as to whether BNM's 2018 accounts could be prepared on a going concern basis are issues which the current politicians ,of all parties, refuse to deal with.4 modern modular nuclear reactors a 1000 megawatts would produce many times the output of 4000 megawatts of wind turbines and last 4 times longer. So continuing the wind program is cost an arm and a leg save very little or no co2 and all wind capacity installed will need to be replaced every 10 to 12 years.Most of the Irish BESS Storage systems will one burned out in less than 5 years.So they should be discounted as having any significant impact in reducing co2. If you believe reducing co2 is important.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What planet are you guys living on? Don't you know the icecaps and Himalayan icecaps are melting? We need to decarbonise NOW as a matter of urgency, and wind energy is the only show in town for wet and cloudy Ireland. Get the wind farms in place now, so that emerging technologies have a baseline on which to build. Anything less is fiddling while Rome burns!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Carmel McCormack23 June 2019 at 16:23

    We're on the planet where the laws of physics still apply and thus seek evidence based solutions and not ones that are mere political and wind energy industry spin and virtue signalling.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If Anonymous 22 June is worried about the ice melting, he/she might want to talk to the Chinese and Indians. Every 3-4 weeks they increase their emissions to match the savings Ireland is supposed to make by 2030. And we agreed to that in the Paris Accord! Why be in favour of shutting Ireland down, including transferring all our economic activity to these countries, while achieving nothing for the climate?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Carmel McCormack24 June 2019 at 19:15

    'Intermittent' Renewable Energy is expensive, inefficient and fails to make any significant carbon emission savings.
    Energy Storage toxic Battery Bombs are incredibly expensive to install and it is expensive to financially support their operation. They've a high imbedded carbon footprint, are unstable and potentially lethal. They're likely to require replacement every 5yrs or less but are more likely to auto combust/explode before then given the number of guaranteed damaged/faulty battery cells per installation.
    Nuclear power if it is base load only power generation is a poor combination to be pairing with 'intermittent' renewable energy.
    And it would require energy storage.
    As usual the government has failed to cost the installation of the currently proposed 3500+megawatts of Lithium Ion Battery Bombs.
    Based on revenue figures published in South Australia, 3500 megawatts of Lithium Ion Battery Bombs may cost close to €2 Billion per annum in revenue supports alone.
    Such per annum revenue costs for 'experimental' 'unstable' Battery Storage Bombs makes the estimated EU 2020 and 2030 renewable and carbon emission fines look like reasonable by comparison, and paying such fines would be far less dangerous to the environment.
    'Intermittent' renewable energy and base load nuclear power generation requiring battery energy storage and backup gas powered electricity generation is likely to counteract any carbon emission savings from nuclear power generation.
    Better to achieve EU targets by drastically reducing energy demand and drastically reducing carbon emissions by halting the installation of and cutting back on the number of Data Centres already installed in Ireland.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brussels-airs-pollution-fears-over-biomass-energy-plants-hclt9k2hh

    ReplyDelete