Americans should hope that winds of change — and sanity — blowing away pro-wind-energy policy in the United Kingdom waft all the way across the Atlantic, sparing U.S. taxpayers the bills for further subsidies of an industry that makes no economic sense.
Energy Minister John Hayes has announced a moratorium on building onshore wind turbines. It's a dramatic reversal for the U.K.'s coalition government headed by Prime Minister David Cameron, who in 2008 advocated spending 100 billion pounds on wind farms, according to the Daily Mail's Christopher Booker.
The U.K. then saw wind farms as needed to meet its European Union commitment to produce nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. But that policy's now fallen victim to commonsense objections raised by communities and members of Parliament across party lines — objections that are just as valid on this side of the ocean.
The 3,500 onshore wind turbines that the U.K. already has produce only a quarter of their electrical capacity due to wind's unreliability. And U.K. taxpayers have been subsidizing them at “100 percent on all the power they produce,” making wind power far more costly than conventional energy sources, Mr. Booker writes.
The economic inefficiency of subsidies compounds the electrical inefficiency of wind farms. The U.K. should end its 200-percent subsidies for offshore wind farms, too — and the U.S. should follow suit by ending its own wind-power boondoggles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Exit poll: Greece’s anti-bailout Syriza party wins election
- Crosby, Malkin dazzle fellow All-Stars
- Winter weather advisory for Western Pa. in effect until Monday afternoon
- Lure of tuition aid, gifts draw college students to ‘sugar daddy’ sites
- Starkey: Rinaldo doesn’t belong in NHL
- Review: ‘Rodelinda’ a big success for Pittsburgh Opera
- Northeast braces for ‘potentially historic’ snowstorm
- Long-term solution for wastewater disposal eludes shale gas industry
- Pittsburgh police seek North Side carjacking suspect
- Defensive lineman commits to PSU during campus visit
- Suburban Catholic schools grow in Western Pennsylvania