Misleading reporting on Green Energy

by Ginosar  

There is a report by the BBC today about China increased investment in clean energy. China is now number one in investment according to the report by the non profit Pew' Research. This is a poor way of reporting because it has little to do with what is critical -- reducing GHG.

 

When you talk about money invested without emphasizing result achieved you are misleading most people to think that that is the critical issue. It is not.


Just to focus for a second: cutting GHG is not a luxury, it is not "nice", it is not something to help create jobs- it is a matter of human survival and the coming of a lot of human agonies all over the world. Therefore we must focus on what is important - cut GHG fast and effectively. To do that you need to put your eggs in the right baskets, there are not so many eggs that you can drop some on your way to make a good omelet.


Look at the table below, it shows how much each country put into its green energy program, but NOTHING about what it achieved. How much energy did they produce? how many kWh? how much GHG they have cut or could cut once the systems are on line?


The title is:

China steams ahead on clean energy

TOP FIVE INVESTORS 2009

China - $34.6bn

US - $18.6bn

UK - $11.2bn

Spain - $10.bn

Brazil - $7.4bn

 

And here is more from the article:

"Even in the midst of a global recession, the clean energy market has experienced impressive growth,"

"Countries are jockeying for leadership.

"They know that investing in clean energy can renew manufacturing bases, and create export opportunities, jobs and businesses."

The US still holds a marginal lead in the total amount of installed capacity, but will be overtaken by China during the course of this year if existing trends continue. "


They briefly mentioned installed capacity but not actual numbers, which still is misleading.

They are looking at it from a very narrow and less important point of view.

They have ignored, and it is ALMOST ALWAYS IGNORED,  the achievement in reducing GW.


Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew's Campaign on Climate Change should known better [may be the BBC did not give the details of usefulness she puts in her report, but I doubt it].

 

Countries could have spent much of this money and put it into very unproductive technologies, or even into useless technologies  and achieved little, while some other country invested less but put it into much more productive technologies. We are not learning anything important from this reporting.


If they put it into energy efficiency such as CHP they could have reduce GHG by a factor of ten times then PV for example. Efficacy and CHP are two of the most neglected and cheapest way to cut GHG.

Germany, for example, spent $70 B on PV producing miniscule 0.3% of its electricity from it, while at the same time it is increasing its dependence on dirty coal, the source of more than 50% of its electricity. The US is trying to follow the stupidity of Germany because we have here a very vocal combination of dreamers and very effective propaganda by the PV marketing- not necessarily US producers of PV. We buy much of the production from other countries.


They may have created jobs with these large sums, but how many permanent ones? What have they achieved?

 

The key in working in the GW field should be the results, not the tools, not the money alone, not the technology, but the reduction in GHG!


 

Trackback address for this post

Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)

No feedback yet


Form is loading...