BBC’s Matt McGrath Gets His Name Right, But Not Much Else

“Renewables at 23.7% sounds impressive, eh? But craftily, they include hydro, which accounts for two thirds of this figure. Ten years ago hydro was already supplying 16% of the world’s electricity, just the same as it is now…

And that leaves wind and solar, which produce less than 5%.”

—–

Such an insignificant amount of expensive, intermittent and ‘unreliable’ power generation despite Europe, alone, spending literally a €Trillion on wind and solar over the past decade.

Talk about carbon footprints, when each turbine consists of 260T of cement, steal and rare-earth magnets, shipped all the way from eco-friendly China/India.

—–

“A more accurate headline would have been:

“Renewable Energy Surges From 2% to 2% Around The World”

Correct Paul!

Good read…

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36420750

Matt McGrath’s latest piece is little more than an advertisement for the renewable industry:

New solar, wind and hydropower sources were added in 2015 at the fastest rate the world has yet seen, a study says.

Investments in renewables during the year were more than double the amount spent on new coal and gas-fired power plants, the Renewables Global Status Report found.

For the first time, emerging economies spent more than the rich on renewable power and fuels.

Over 8 million people are now working in renewable energy worldwide.

For a number of years, the global spend on renewables has been increasing and 2015 saw that arrive at a new peak according to the report.

Falling costs key

About 147 gigawatts (GW) of capacity was added in 2015, roughly equivalent to Africa’s generating capacity from all sources.

China, the US, Japan, UK and India were the…

View original post 1,436 more words

Advertisements

2 Comments on “BBC’s Matt McGrath Gets His Name Right, But Not Much Else”

  1. To put in perspective, Hydro in the UK was so cheap it undercut all other forms of electricity and because of that we in Britain had one of the worlds top leading Hydro turbine manufactures. Wind was not produced in the UK was highly expensive, unreliable and a blot on the landscape.

    So, which of these energy forms did Politicians promote (whilst having poison poured in their ears by evil wind businessmen?)

    Was it A) Britain’s successful hydro-industry which for very little added money could easily have produced lots of cheap reliable energy. Or ..
    B) Expensive, unreliable, bird-killing, bat-killing, tourism killing Wind which did little more than pour money into the pockets of developers?

    Liked by 1 person


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s