Print 35 comment(s) - last by Alexvrb.. on Jun 15 at 12:40 AM

  (Source: Good Energy)
Now a new target date is set for 2020

report on Thursday stated that the UK government failed to meet their energy target of having 10 percent of electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as solar, wave, and wind. 

The energy target was set in 2000 and due to be completed in 2010. But according to the figures released by the National Audit Office (NAO), only 2.3 percent of the 10 percent goal was accomplished, leaving the government short 75 percent less than their intended objective. The NAO responded to this shortfall by criticizing the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)'s use of government funding. 

"The Department needs a more strategic approach to delivering government funding for renewable energy technologies," said Amyas Morse, head of the NAO. "This requires cleaner plans, better information, improved co-ordination and a more consistent approach to assessing results."

The NAO said the co-ordination of plans to offer support to consumers for renewable energy technologies has "historically been limited," and "there has been no routine collection of information on the spending and delivery by these schemes." They also found that the "government-funded direct support for renewable technology totaled GBP $265 million between 2000 and 2009." In addition, the NAO noted that this fund is separate from fiscal and regulatory support, like the Renewables Obligation, which provided GBP $1 billion.

The NAO isn't the only group upset by the deficit. Environmental groups also supported the renewable energy goal and were disappointed, along with much of the rest of the general public, with the government's performance leading to this failure. But the DECC insists that the UK is on schedule and now has a new energy goal set for 2020.

The new renewable energy target is to cut the emission of greenhouse gases by 34 percent by 2020. Many are skeptical of this goal because recent reports state that only 28 percent of greenhouse gas has been cut since 1990 by the UK. 

Despite the failure to meet the 10 percent goal, the UK government was successful in "delivering technology innovation" and increased the supply of energy through the funding. 

"At present, the 2020 target looks optimistic," said Morse. "The Department should complete work on developing its renewable energy plans as a matter of urgency, and agree responsibilities with delivery bodies for implementing the plan."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Going the wrong way....
By jabber on 6/13/2010 11:29:15 AM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately in the UK its always wind turbines that get pushed.

The places they want to put them are often places of great natural beauty and therefore get turned down.

Also the UK isnt a large country. If it isnt windy in one part of the country then chances are it isnt elsewhere. Not very effective.

The one thing we have is coastline. But tidal power always gets forgotten. This is what we should be pushing.

RE: Going the wrong way....
By Master Kenobi on 6/13/2010 12:11:06 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, for being on an island with constant currents around most of the island, tidal would be the best bet for ensuring a constant stable power source.

RE: Going the wrong way....
By invidious on 6/14/2010 5:35:11 PM , Rating: 3
Nuclear coal and oil work just fine on islands last time I checked.

RE: Going the wrong way....
By Alexvrb on 6/15/2010 12:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
No, on an island it will cease to function if it isn't driven by wind, water, or strong direct light. Hey, don't look at me. I didn't create the Island Wizard Law.

RE: Going the wrong way....
By alanore on 6/13/2010 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
The bigger problem is we have more power plants being retired than we have been built. Even if we meet the renewables target we will still have to build more coal plants to replace the nuclear plants that are so to be decommissioned. At the end of the day we will most likely be producing more pollution.

RE: Going the wrong way....
By ebakke on 6/13/2010 6:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
we will still have to build more coal plants to replace the nuclear plants that are so to be decommissioned

RE: Going the wrong way....
By Zingam on 6/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Going the wrong way....
By jbwhite99 on 6/14/2010 9:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like there are no wind turbines near London - perhaps they can aim some towards Parliament - I bet they could capture a lot of hot air coming from the PM and such. To be fair, I think having some in Washington is a good idea as well.

By shin0bi272 on 6/14/2010 4:38:14 AM , Rating: 1
Is anyone really shocked by this? I mean honestly? No one wants to use "green" energy sources, except the ecomentalists, when gasoline and oil are so cheap and way more powerful compared to any "green" solution. Then theres the fact that it wont do anything but cost people jobs and start rolling blackouts anyway. It wont cool the earth at all its a farce!

According to the UN themselves we would have to stop all co2 production (including breathing) for 33 years to lower the temperature on the earth 1 degree Fahrenheit. But yet the temp has come down almost an entire degree on it's own since its peak in 1995 or 98 whenvever it was. So in 12 or 15 years the temps have decreased even though co2 production has gone up around the world? I say burn more coal! Its lowering the temperatures faster than the eco freaks said would happen if we stopped using it competely!

RE: anyone?
By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 10:05:59 AM , Rating: 1
Seems the only reason most of these technologies are called "green" is because of the green dollars they cost to implement. Right now I can heat my house in winter with natural gas and stay afloat financially or I can switch to solar and file for bankruptcy. If we force the so called green option now before it is ready, we will soon find that it will fail because the money has run out to make the switch. Also when you consider the pollutants that come from the manufacture of solar cells, are they really to be considered green? Are wind turbines eco-friendly if they kill birds? Most people seem to think that if they don't see smoke rising from them they must be clean and safe. When solar panels wear our(and they do)what does it take to dispose of them safely?

What we need more right now than renewable sources of energy is products that use less energy to do the same jobs. Something that nobody wants to consider is lifestyle changes. How about all around the world, we ban night time sporting events, that alone would save a ton of energy by not needing the lights for those. Or ban dome stadiums, how much energy does it require to heat and cool those? Can't do those things because even the environmentalists like to watch soccer and basketball, and the TV corporations would lose tons of money because all the events would be run while most people are at work and fewer people would be tuning in to watch.

Admittedly those are extreme measures, but what about simple things. Hanging cloths outside to dry when the weather is good. Opening windows to cool homes and businesses when it is not super hot outside. Putting more windows in building so you don't need as many lights running during the day time.

As for the biofuels that people worry will take up our farm ground, it seems most people don't worry if housing developments and malls take up the farm ground instead. Pass a law that development around cities must take place first on the least agricultural viable land first. You can build houses and apartments on rocky hillsides where you can not easily grow crops.

Nobody seems to consider fixes like these, they just want to throw tons of money into inefficient technology that doesn't put out smoke and looks clean on the outside.

RE: anyone?
By invidious on 6/14/2010 5:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming hasn't been proven to be caused by man, nor is it been proven that cutting emissions will prevent it, nor has is it even been proven that anything bad is necisarily going to happen if the world does warm up.

So when you ask people to change their lives and make cuts to their cost of living without proof you should expect to be met with skepticism and resistance. If you want to save the planet for go for it. If you want to convince me to do it show me the proof.

By NuclearDelta on 6/13/2010 2:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
Accuracy a henchman in an animated feature would be proud of.

Fossil oil is also renewable
By Zingam on 6/14/2010 2:20:16 AM , Rating: 1
As my title says: oil is also renewable. When we use it all up we'll bury underground in Saudi Arabia all English-speaking people who wasted it all to tank their big cars and eat it with their plastic hamburgers. And in 100 million years we'll have plenty oil again!


By invidious on 6/14/2010 5:33:51 PM , Rating: 1
Politicians who promise things that are clearly our of their control should really just be removed from power. We can start with big O.

Renewables Obligations??
By chagrinnin on 6/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Renewables Obligations??
By chagrinnin on 6/14/2010 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
geez,...I should of gone with "First!"

By dubyadubya on 6/12/10, Rating: -1
By spread on 6/13/10, Rating: 0
By mindless1 on 6/14/2010 3:03:53 AM , Rating: 4
Actually they have demonstrated time and time again that being green is less production per dollar, that it HURTS the economy. You cannot throw money at a problem at get less out than you put in, nor even break even with considerations of interest on the money and call it in any way a growing part of the economy.

It would be like saying the money pit you dug is a growing part of the economy because money from the economy is lost in it forever.

What we need now is more scientific research, and when the day comes that we have the technology THEN we will finally realize it is not a good investment to tie up land for solar panels, coastline with tidal generators.

The future is CLEARLY nuclear power, nothing else even begins to reduce emissions as much and produce a substantial enough % of power - let alone the whole cost effectiveness.

When we come up with another truely viable replacement for nuclear, only then does it make sense to spend time or money on it.

The economy can be considered a physical thing though, all the goods and services produced minus those consumed. Renewable energy is thus far a consumer not a producer.

By spread on 6/14/2010 1:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, it's not that efficient now, but you're also creating jobs in R&D which have benefits for other things as well.

Look at the space program. If it was just about money, nobody would have ever done it. It looked like a money pit at the time but it advanced us technologically and created many other industries as well!

By knutjb on 6/14/2010 3:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
The space program has been deeply involved in fuel cells, solar panels, and batteries since the 50s. Over all that time no one has found the magic efficiency bullet to make those technologies live up green marketing. NASA has the motivation to find such efficiencies because of the cost of sending dead weight up into space. Look at all the stuff in space and the trillions that put it there...

You can't keep pushing R&D without positive results. It's called biting the hand that feeds you. Kill the economy and it ALL ends. Greenies are just one overload on the system that is biting the hand that feeds it.

By spread on 6/14/2010 6:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, solar power is still very expensive but its an improvement. When was the last time you could outfit your house with solar panels and go mostly off the grid? Clearly improvements have been made.

A nice chart outlining my argument:

The best performing solar cell currently has a 41% efficiency compared to 25% efficiency 20 years ago.

And green marketing? I'm talking about real life here. Marketing is another planet whether you're talking about "green" energy products or oil companies.

By knutjb on 6/14/2010 7:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, solar power is still very expensive but its an improvement. When was the last time you could outfit your house with solar panels and go mostly off the grid? Clearly improvements have been made.
You need to look up how much it costs without government, you, throwing in the cash for the rebates. I know someone who put a $100,000 system on his barn and in 5 years the gov kick backs will pay most of it off. If there were no kick backs he wouldn't have done it.
A nice chart outlining my argument: The best performing solar cell currently has a 41% efficiency compared to 25% efficiency 20 years ago. and the output declines over time. Much of the improvements have come from gains in the DC-AC converters efficiency and not as much with the panels.
And green marketing? I'm talking about real life here. Marketing is another planet whether you're talking about "green" energy products or oil companies.
By "green marketing" I mean those who funnel money into their pet product by getting the government to pick what they think should be the winners. When this happens financing is put behind technology that cannot stand on its own without that support. Then possibilities in other potentially better technology goes away. When "government central planning" picks the winners over investors we are the losers. If an investor can't see return on their investment it usually isn't worth investing in. That is the smell check that government CANNOT provide.

This has nothing to do with oil companies and everything to do with economics, micro and macro.

By Bluestealth on 6/13/2010 3:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately energy is one of the worlds biggest problems, and it seemingly causes others. Maybe the current "green" tech is not the solution we should be chasing, but we need to come up with something better than the status quo.

By Zingam on 6/14/2010 2:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
When all energy is used up nothing special will happen. Instead of blowing our heads of with nukes will use the good old sword high-tech once again and we'll have plenty of free iron produced during the Industrial Age!

By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 10:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
There will still be plenty of nukes to use, because we won't be allowed to use them for fuel instead of bombs.

By mindless1 on 6/14/2010 3:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Fortunately energy is NOT one of the biggest problems. Humans survived before it was as widespread as it is now and would do so even better given the tech we have today.

It is a basic supply and demand situation, the price of energy will rise and spur new private investments as well as public, we will move forward with nuclear power plants, and reach yet again a supply:demand balance.

We don't need to come up with anything as some kind of knee-jerk reaction. You're falling into the illogical trap set by special interest groups that stand to profit from this senseless campaign to change everything.

By EJ257 on 6/14/2010 9:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
Fortunately energy is NOT one of the biggest problems. Humans survived before it was as widespread as it is now and would do so even better given the tech we have today.

Actually energy is the problem. Humans survived in the old days because there were A LOT LESS of us around. All the tech we have today...what do you think it runs on? Take a skyscraper for example, that's the results of modern high tech engineering right? Now take the power away and you'll have to WALK up the stairs to get to the 100th floor. When you turn on the water nothing comes out...because without energy your water pump stopped working and the water main's pressure is not high enough to push water up to the 100th floor. You'll have no ventilation but I suppose you could break open some windows for that but then you'll be exposing yourself to the elements.

Without energy people will have to abandon the cities and everyone will have to start hunting or farming again to survive. You can forget about the tractors because without energy we're all going back to ox drawn plows. Life would go on but there will be much fewer of us around and life would basically suck for all those who survive.

By quiksilvr on 6/14/2010 9:15:29 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is our energy demands are too high but we're not trying to cut down the energy we are using now. There are simple, basic and ingenious ways to drastically cut down the energy we use now and it isn't a huge lifestyle change that will affect our normal daily life.

1) CFL bulbs. They cost a dollar each now at Home Depot or CostCo.

2) Water Heater covers. Make your water heater work less by giving it a insulating blankee from Lowes. BRILLIANT!

3) Get a good, washable and reusable WEB Plus Permanent Filter ($20 at Home Depot).

4) Cool-n-Save :D Only works well in low-to-moderate humidity environments.

Just by doing these simple and mostly one time installations for a long time (only gotta wash the filter once a month, change the limescale filter for Cool-n-Save every 3-4 months), this is what EVERYONE needs to do in order to drastically cut down the country's energy.

And if you're not into that whole green, climate change nonsense, think of it in this simple standpoint

Saving Energy saves you Money. That should be motivation enough.

By knutjb on 6/14/2010 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Saving money hasn't been the main voice, I grew up in the late 60s & 70s with fl bulbs and was pestered to turn everything off when leaving the room all before the oil crunch. Unfortunately the guilt trip is by far the loudest eco pusher (pusher used in the same context as drug dealer). My first cfl in the early 90s was $18 and it still works. I bought it to save on my bill and used it in a fixture that was on for extended hours and in that application it made sense. I won't buy another because LEDs on working their way into the market.

If you ask most anyone they want pollution controlled but I don't think they want unrealistic goals just to make them feel good for the next 5-10 years with the real cost hidden under the guise of massive savings that never seem to materialize.

It's all about who gets the money and power from pushing such extreme views upon all of us. It went from loons walking around with bible versus on signs saying the world will end to eco-nuts doing the same thing using a more sophisticated delivery system on the net and in the media.

If it were all based on saving money with reasonable products that can stand on their own in the market place and without going into guilt trips we would likely be closer to convincing people to change.

BTW I read a Philips and USDOE report, 7 or 8 years ago, that using low mercury fls actually increases mercury in the environment because they are less efficient than the older fl bulbs per lumen. That was based on same ballast per bulb type and the power generation make up with coal being the primary source of mercury. Food for thought...

By danobrega on 6/13/10, Rating: 0
By AlexWade on 6/13/2010 10:53:55 AM , Rating: 3
You should stop being so fundamentalist and understand that sooner or latter we'll have to switch to something that is renewable because the other sources are... go figure, not renewable.

Cheap energy results in prosperity. The fact is non-renewable energy will still be the cheapest form of energy for a long time, perhaps decades. Oil companies are still finding huge oil deposits all over the world, in addition to the well-known untapped deposits. Granted, much of the easy oil has been tapped. The rig at the BP oil spill rig was tapping oil about 1 mile deep. Even considering how hard it is to drill a mile deep, oil is still far cheaper than the renewable alternatives, even with subsidies. Even if our knee-jerk and vindictive US government taxes oil companies more and thus greatly raising our prices at the pump, oil will still be a far cheaper source of energy. Even if the economic suicide of cap-and-trade passes, oil will still be a far cheaper source of energy.

That is just one source. Then there is nuclear, coal, and natural gas. Each non-renewable, each far cheaper than subsidized renewables. Greed is a strong human motivation. Most people, myself included, aren't going to switch to a far more expensive renewable energy when non-renewables are much much cheaper. I don't have enough money to do that.

Forcing an energy change when the change is far more expensive results in the same problems as energy shortages. Specifically, the problem is ruined economies. If expensive oil caused economic problems, imagine how much more so much more expensive renewables will!

By gunzac21 on 6/14/2010 1:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
first off many of your premises are wrong but i am too lay to point them all out. but one is the taxing of oil, first off they oil companies in america get f&cking welfare (subsidies) from the government so whatever taxes they get which they prob won't would be a long time coming. secondly you talk about your inability to pay for oter form of energy and you will stick to the cheap stuff. can't you see the the with "cheap stuff" your actually paying more in a lot of other ways, they are called extrnalities. come on educate urself hear. don't slow progress be apart of it, fear is a frightening trait to have.

By mindless1 on 6/14/2010 3:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
It seems as though you feel alcohol is a renewable fuel. Increase consumption from 2.5% to 10% please.

By yomamafor1 on 6/14/2010 7:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
Tax break != subsidy.

Oil companies do get tax breaks from various country (due mostly in part by their huge spending in the lobbying department), but they're at least profitable.

Renewable energy, on the other hand, is not profitable even with government subsidy (read: grant, loan).

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki