It goes both ways
There are lobbies on both sides of the issue who spend money to influence energy policy because of the lack of market forces to serve the ends. I'm not advocating a fully open market, but this article is outstandingly one-sided. Until and unless the author and his supporters openly accept that the ends must be served REGARDLESS of cost, then these arguments come across as dishonest. Ignoring China, which is almost as far away from a Western economy as you can get before the outcomes are dire (e.g. North Korea or Venezuela, etc.), all efforts to force an unnatural transition to a dominant renewable supply have been costly at best and unsuccessful at worst. In both Germany and Spain, renewable supply has not yet met the targeted goals, although the proportions are high in certain regions. Yet the cost of electricity is still well over double or more of the average of the most expensive regions in the U.S.
So, unless writers like Mr. Nelder tell their readers upfront that they must accept high capital costs now (overall, in total) and higher costs to ratepayers now and in the future in order to meet the goals using whatever terms are necessary - e.g. carbon costs, externalities, climate change terms, etc. - then the arguments will remain unconvincing except to those who are on board already.
(Just a note, I work in the energy industry, including renewables. So my frustration is not that the government cannot/has not mandated the change but that articles and views like this have polluted the political discussion and actually have hampered the growth of renewable supply.)
