Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Why does the EU want to loan €1.5 billion for a new gas pipeline, when they should be topping up the utterly inadequate global investment of US $300 billion / year for the last four years into renewables?
The EU wants to fight climate change – so why is it spending billions on a gas pipeline?
February 10, 2018 4.03am AEDT
Aled Jones
Professor & Director, Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University
Over the past few years there has been exponential growth in clean energy investment – while fossil fuel assets are increasingly considered to be risky. Yet, on February 6, the European Investment Bank, the EU’s long-term lending institution, voted to provide a €1.5 billion loan to the controversial Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).
The TAP is the Western part of a larger Southern Gas Corridor proposal that would ultimately connect a large gas field in the Caspian Sea to Italy, crossing through Azerbaijan, Turkey, Greece and Albania. And while gas might be cleaner than coal, it’s still a fossil fuel.
So how does the EU’s support for this major project fit in with its supposed goal of addressing climate change?
…
But there is still not enough money being spent on renewables. While clean energy investment in 2017 topped US$300 billion for the fourth year in a row, this is far short of what is needed to unlock the technology revolution necessary to tackle climate change. There is clearly a gap between what is required and what is being delivered.
The private sector will continue to invest significant capital into energy projects over the next few decades, so one issue facing policy makers is how to influence investors away from fossil fuels and towards renewable projects. To really scale up investment into renewable infrastructure, long-term and stable policy is required – which investors see as clearly lacking.
By funding the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, the EU’s investment bank is hardly signalling to the private sector that governments are committed to a green energy transition.
…
What I find most ridiculous about Professor Jones’ position is the casual acceptance of the eyewatering sums spent on renewables, with so little to show for all that expenditure. Professor Jones admits US $1.2 trillion spent over the last four years on renewables, along with previous expenditures, is nowhere near enough to develop the required technology, let alone the required infrastructure.
The EU likely wants the new pipeline because they don’t like the fact that Vladimir Putin currently controls much of the EU’s gas supply. During a dispute with the Ukraine in 2006 over alleged theft of gas, Putin shut off gas supplies to the West, disrupting European gas supplies.
The EU could potentially source enough of its own gas to end dependency on Russia – but so far European greens have successfully blocked a large scale US style gas fracking revolution.
$1.2 trillion expenditure on infrastructure which requires technology which has not yet been developed in my opinion is utterly reckless. That $1.2 trillion dollars global spend on renewables to date has done nothing to alleviate the EU’s need for Gas. If US $1.2 trillion had been spent on zero CO2 emission nuclear reactors, that expenditure would have provided a massive boost to global supplies of reliable energy, and would likely have eliminated the EU’s energy dependence on Russia – without the need for a reckless $1.2 trillion technology gamble.
The climate hypesters don’t simply tout their “renewable” scam, they are,seeking to destroy that which does work and is beneficial, gas oil, fission. And accomplish both injuries by simply highlighting different aspects of the same fibs.
Ah, the progressive green blight. While the drivers are renewable, despite environmental arbitrage and political myths, the artificial, gray technology is not.
“Professor Jones admits US $1.2 trillion spent over the last four years on renewables, along with previous expenditures, is nowhere near enough to develop the required technology, let alone the required infrastructure.”
Eric – it appears you did not read the link associated with the $300 billion figure. That is not for R&D, it’s all investment. Excerpt:
‘Jon Moore, chief executive of BNEF, commented: “The 2017 total is all the more remarkable when you consider that capital costs for the leading technology – solar – continue to fall sharply. Typical utility-scale PV systems were about 25% cheaper per megawatt last year than they were two years earlier.”
‘Solar investment globally amounted to $160.8 billion in 2017, up 18% on the previous year despite these cost reductions. Just over half of that world total, or $86.5 billion, was spent in China. This was 58% higher than in 2016, with an estimated 53GW of PV capacity installed – up from 30GW in 2016.’
No matter how much money government wastes, it’s always too little for the true believers.
Who cares that “PV systems were about 25% cheaper than they were two years earlier.” ?
This is surely true, but totally irrelevant, and is meant to deceive. Said otherwise, the guy is a LIAR, as is won’t tell the whole ugly truth, just a small part he can use to lie.
The component are already a ridiculous fraction of the cost of a whole installation. Even if they were “100% cheaper than they were two years earlier.”, that is, FREE, the whole installation would still be too expensive.
When one looks at what European nations did in the 20th century, one can find a lot of impressive projects: Supersonic flight – Concorde, Fast trains (TGV in France), highways, the ‘Chunnel’ (Tunnel below the English Channel), all those nuclear power plants and much more.
Then take the 21st century and one finds … what? OK, some improvements in the infrastructure in the East, hundred of billions ‘invested’ in solar and wind? Those 300 billion a year could really do impressive projects, or ‘reduce’ the temperature with 0.001°C…
All these renewable projects will come crashing down in about 10 years when there will be no more money for subsidies and Europe remains with impressive monuments to stupidity blotting the landscape.
“While clean energy investment in 2017 topped US$300 billion for the fourth year in a row, this is far short of what is needed to unlock the technology revolution necessary to tackle climate change.”
LMFAO – yeah that’s it, just send more money. And the arrogance is stupefying…we’re going to “tackle climate change” by wasting (more) money on useless, intermittent, low density energy production methods rightfully discarded when something better – fossil fuels – was discovered.
“The arrogance of man is assuming that man is in control of nature, and not the other way around.” – Godzilla (2014)