According to this from the Telegraph, the cost of the Gov's plans to move us to using more 'green' energy is not exactly going to provide much of a return on investment.
Cost: £57 to £70 Billion
Benefit: £4 to £5 Billion
That doesn't seem to make much sense to me, whether ROI or even enviRoi. No surprise that the numbers were buried deep within the strategy document then.
Hmmmm, I wonder who is footing the bill?
Showing posts with label GREEN ENERGY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GREEN ENERGY. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
THE TWO E's... and a big 'O'
Just having my lunch watching Pres. Obama speaking live.
He is, no doubt about it, a class act.
And I write this as he still speaks. While I will soon need to get back to work.
Now, there's a thing. Why am I working? What on? With what consequence... short, middle and long term?
The bit I caught was about fellow workers, Indians, being helped out of poverty, such that they could all have... refrigerators.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but I must say that, even though he skirted the issue in passing, I am a little unclear how this noble aim can be rationalised with much that is advocated in the realms of climate change mitigation.
Seems to me the West is going to have pretty much not just slam on the brakes with its economies, but hit reverse, whilst this acceleration takes place elsewhere. Fridges do not get bought without consequences environmentally. They need to be made, and then new energy is then required to run them.
I'm not sure the population (hold that word in mind) of the USA using less a/c in their cars is quite going to do it.... even if the economic sell is made to that voting bloc... which I doubt.
The oratory is awesome, but so far the logic is escaping me. And while fine words are better than no words (I have no solution to offer, well, that can be printed here, but then I don't get the personal 747 and limo), but I really hope the guys with the smarts have thought this one through, especially if certain areas are deemed 'no-go' or 'exceptions'.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this. I think he's possibly the best we've got, but that does not make him infallible.
Telegraph - Greener energy policies don't have to cost the earth - if only for that line. I've missed it.
Mail - O'Barmy meets completely barmy
Washington Times - Military strained by Obama trip
NY Times - The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?
He is, no doubt about it, a class act.
And I write this as he still speaks. While I will soon need to get back to work.
Now, there's a thing. Why am I working? What on? With what consequence... short, middle and long term?
The bit I caught was about fellow workers, Indians, being helped out of poverty, such that they could all have... refrigerators.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but I must say that, even though he skirted the issue in passing, I am a little unclear how this noble aim can be rationalised with much that is advocated in the realms of climate change mitigation.
Seems to me the West is going to have pretty much not just slam on the brakes with its economies, but hit reverse, whilst this acceleration takes place elsewhere. Fridges do not get bought without consequences environmentally. They need to be made, and then new energy is then required to run them.
I'm not sure the population (hold that word in mind) of the USA using less a/c in their cars is quite going to do it.... even if the economic sell is made to that voting bloc... which I doubt.
The oratory is awesome, but so far the logic is escaping me. And while fine words are better than no words (I have no solution to offer, well, that can be printed here, but then I don't get the personal 747 and limo), but I really hope the guys with the smarts have thought this one through, especially if certain areas are deemed 'no-go' or 'exceptions'.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this. I think he's possibly the best we've got, but that does not make him infallible.
Telegraph - Greener energy policies don't have to cost the earth - if only for that line. I've missed it.
Mail - O'Barmy meets completely barmy
Washington Times - Military strained by Obama trip
NY Times - The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Lovely Peter, meter maven
I am not a big fan of ratings, at least as usually rolled out by 'the man', but this shows 'promise': New scheme to rate green energy
For a start, this is a major, if not one-off decision (unlike sussing out every tin of beans' carbon footprint/airmiles/health/junkk, etc) and frankly it is a blooming zoo getting to grips with who does what at present. It needs standardising for any meaningful comparison to be made.
Of course, we do have to trust that the regulator has the practice of enviROI+ to heart as opposed to 'pushing' fond agendas.
For a start, this is a major, if not one-off decision (unlike sussing out every tin of beans' carbon footprint/airmiles/health/junkk, etc) and frankly it is a blooming zoo getting to grips with who does what at present. It needs standardising for any meaningful comparison to be made.
Of course, we do have to trust that the regulator has the practice of enviROI+ to heart as opposed to 'pushing' fond agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)