This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
PS Orde, do you really think there is a logical reason for any government action?
I have to assume your question is rhetorical.
SOmeone posted some information on the Sun story about the Chinese weld failures somewhere but here is the link again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6468103/Its-time-to-pluck-the-golden-goose--of-green-taxation.html see the comments by JMANON at 4:45pm where the link to the Sun story is found - Oh, OK, here it is:
That is, by the way, a very good link to the Dutch experience.
It makes one think that this Telegraph story has sugared the pill a bit though you wouldn't think so from the headline
"The wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it had previously claimed. " sounds like very bad news indeed but from the Dutch experience it sounds like they are still being very economical with the truth (about the only thing they are economical with).
Have a look at this link
and the advertisement for John Etherington's book 'The Wind Farm Scam' and the review by Roger Helmer MEP. It's sold out at the moment but is on my reading list for the upcoming festive season.
In regards to your question as to why the UK government is still pushing ahead with its renewables policy, I can only say that I personally don't think that this is some 'Club of Rome' master plan to ruin the UK economy but rather is an indication of just how desperate our eco-infiltrated political system has become. The 'pols' and their advisers in DECC have finally woken up to the fact that 'renewables' are an economic disaster and are even more environmentally damaging than 'non-renewables'. They know that we are 'up ***t creek without a paddle' in but a few years time if they don't do something about our long term energy policy. The same, but to a lesser extent, is also true of our transport policy.
Despite finally realising the problem our 'eco-pols' (like the Milibands and cameron) are nonetheless still desperate to maintain their 'feel good' heavily subsidised renewables committments hence why we've recently seen a concession by our 'pols' to re-invest in nuclear. They don't have any choice. Unless something is done very soon, they know we won't have any indigenous natural gas left. They've already closed all our coal mines and will only allow new coal-fired plant if the CO2 the is 'captured and stored'. So what else is left as they know that wind power just isn't suitable (it's far too intermittent) for base load generation as we need to 'keep the lights on'? Answer - nuclear!
It's a sad fact that nuclear is unfortunately considered to be the lesser of two evils by our 'eco-pols'. Remmebr I'm an ex-nuclear man and I personally find this logic (that nuclear is preferable to coal from an environmental impact point of view) bizarre particularly given that we still have the post cold war nuclear power programme 'liabilities' to deal with. Surely we should at least deal with them first as they are 'real' legacies that we are leaving to our next generation to have to deal compared with what is almost wholely 'natural' climate change?