Green energy rethink: ‘Paying huge amounts of money to do nothing’

October 30, 2013 by  
Filed under Green Energy News

We need to stop paying for incredibly expensive green energy, and make sure it gets cheaper as fast as possible, otherwise huge amounts of money will be wasted on doing nothing, Bjorn Lomborg, a professor at Copenhagen Business School, told RT.

Lomborg says: “Whenever you buy an extra solar panel or
whenever you subsidize an extra windmill you don’t actually cut
carbon emissions, you simply make it cheaper for someone else to
use more coal fire power.”

RT: Utility firms say renewables are bad because their
profits are plummeting and this could actually destroy
traditional energy companies and suppliers, but surely the
environment is more important than money here, isn’t it?

Bjorn Lomborg: Very clearly we do want to fix global
warming, but you aren’t fixing it if you end up paying an
enormous amount of money to do very, very little good.  Now
let’s remember that most of the subsidies that Europe gets go to
wind and solar panels, but we already control that because we
have an ETS (European Trading System) already in place. So
whenever you buy an extra solar panel or whenever you subsidize
an extra wind turbine you don’t actually cut carbon emissions,
you simply make it cheaper for someone else to use more coal fire
power. So the reality is that we just pay huge amounts of money
to do virtually nothing.

RT: But that’s at the moment. Surely in the future, has
it not been predicted that renewables will be the same price as
traditional fuels? Europe should invest in that for the

BL: Well, Bill, you actually made the point right there. A
lot of people are saying the wind and solar is getting cheaper
and eventually getting cheaper than fossil fuels but what we then
should do, not buy now when it is incredibly expensive, but make
sure it gets cheaper faster because we want everyone to
transition. And of course, when it’s cheaper it will actually
help everyone. But as long as it is much more expensive, which it
is right now, it is both hampering Europe but it is also
hampering, as the energy giants pointed out, the traditional
energy providers because solar and wind are desperately dependent
on fossil fuels. Because what we do when the wind doesn’t blow or
when the sun doesn’t shine, we use those fossil fuel power plants
to make up for the shortfall, it they can’t make their credit
limit, if they are not actually profitable, they won’t be there.
That’s what Britain is now contending with, they are looking very
likely to get a blackout this winter or the next winter.

RT: But how damaging is this to the environment and,
indeed, the world’s future for carrying on exploiting fossil
fuels and not going away from them as quick as possible? Is the
damage done and it is too little, too late or the sooner we go
into renewables, then that would reduce the threat to the future
of the planet?

BL: No, there are definitely years of problem with global
warming but I’m pointing out, and I think that exactly would turn
over their criticism as well, you are not actually solving it by
throwing huge amounts of money at cutting very, very little. You
are actually not dealing with a problem, you are both wasting
your money and you are also not furthering a solution. What you
need to do is to spend money on getting smarter technologies for
the future so that eventually everyone, including China, which
now is almost entirely dependent on coal, if we can make green
energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Of course China would switch.
But as long as it’s not, Europe can spend its way to feel good
but they will not actually manage to do very good except, of
course, wasting a lot of money.

RT: What is nuclear power’s role in this problem? It is
a highly efficient way of producing energy, but of course the
Fukushima disaster and countries like Germany backing away from
it. Where is the nuclear power seen here?

BL: Well, I actually think the Fukushima disaster showed
that nuclear power is not that dangerous because that was the
worst thing you possibly throw out of it and yet we are
estimating not very many people are going to die because of it.
Remember, about 300,000 people die each year globally from coal
fire power plants just because of the air pollution. So there are
definitely damages to all energy suppliers. But what we have to
recognize is that nuclear power plants, when you take into
consideration the huge cost of decommissioning, they are still
much more expensive than fossil fuels. So definitely you should
keep the ongoing power plants running, it was silly for Germany
to cut them back, but when you are talking about making new power
plants, we actually also need research to make nuclear cheaper.

Comments (14)

marcus 27.10.2013 14:55

the man works for the utility companies. i build a green house in germany. it has the highest energy rating. when my solar is installed i wont need EON electict anymore.

Rinaldo Sorgenti 26.10.2013 13:36

@ Grace Hall,
I think that Bjorn Lomborg is suggesting the answer when saying that it is silly to disperse so much money today buying solar panel running with the present technology whilst we should invest just only a portion of that fortune investing into Research development for the technology of the future.
Unfortun ately, very little of the huge amount of money going to the companies supplying the solar panel today are invested into RD, in reality.

Ab out a new climate, it would make more sense to pray for it to Good Lord, instead of spoiling our money in such an destructive ideology.

Rasul Kodirov 24.10.2013 17:37

We do not have to forget that RT is Media arm of Kremlin.
Here it is pointing for getting rid of Renewable Energy which can and will cause fall in demand for RUSSIAN GAS.

The only solution here I see to transfer the Production of Solar Panels and wind mills to China to decrease its cost.

View all comments (14)

Add comment

Edit profile



New password

Retype new password

Current password



Comments are closed.