Bishop Hill Quote of the day
Feb 11, 2011 Climate: Parliament Energy Philip Davies MP, from the House of Commons debate on windfarms:
The bottom line is that these policies will produce for Britain the most expensive electricity in the world if we carry on down this particular route. Is it morally or politically acceptable, particularly at a time of national austerity when families are struggling to pay their bills, for the Government to keep raising them just to meet an EU target? I do not think it is. It will hit the poorest people in our communities first...The point is that I find it nauseating to hear politicians for ever bleating on about how terrible fuel poverty is when those very same politicians advocate policies that entrench fuel poverty in this country and make it worse. They should be honest about what they are doing. They cannot in one breath say, "I want to see more wind power in this country; it will add this amount of money to people's bills," and in the next breath say, "Isn't it terrible how bad fuel poverty is?" I find that nauseating.
Reader Comments (48)
about time someone mentioned the COST of this stuff... I am surprised that Germany is not up in arms...of all counbries to select solar power, Germany has to be one of the strangest choices
Perhaps he's read this?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/projected-impact-global-warming-europe-negligible
Hold the phone! An outbreak of sanity in the UK's Parliament? Can it last?
Now is the time to lobby your local manufacturing firms about high energy costs. The road to energy policy sanity surely lies in the hands of the big manufacturers, who should be threatening to leave the UK if the lunacy continues. Huhne's initiatives, if followed through, will cause extensive unemployment in the manufacturing sector. Why isn't this a huge political issue?
Jeebus a politician with a brain ? He won't go far.
David C:
Jeremy Nicholson of the Energy Intensive Users Group has been lobbying about energy costs for years. http://www.eiug.org.uk/about.htm. Manufacturing doesn't count for much when your energy policy is dicatated by green issues.
I can't understand why these MPs allow Cameroon to keep the loonies in charge of our energy policy. We are heading down the same disastrous route that Denmark, Spain and Germany have trod, with wind turbines and solar panels leading to unsustainably high electricity prices, and the lessons have not been learned.
We had an outbreak of sanity in the Scottish parliament, when Aggreko CEO Rupert Soames gave an excellent speech on how this rush for renewables would end in blackouts. But it went over the heads of our numptie MSPs. Salmond didn't stay to listen to the speech, and later stated that renewables already supply 25% of Scotlands electricity - which is patently false - as it can only do that on windy days when demand is low.
The next morning, Kaye Adams, the talking head on Radio Scotland managed to interpret the key message of the speech being that we needed to build more windfarms and more quickly.
As Soames says in the speech, the good ship of energy policy is perilously close to the rocks, and if we don't start pouring concrete in the next two years, the lights will be going out in the next eight.
Speech (video):
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid640957304001?bctid=676265059001
(link from):
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/brilliant-speech-by-aggreko-ceo-rupert.html
For those of you who don't live in Numptieland, Radio Scotland is of course the Glasgow based branch of the BBC.
Graham Stringer also made a contribution in the same debate:
".......... There are not only good local reasons to stop wind farms; at a national level, they are ineffective and inefficient at contributing to the energy supply. Not only do they require huge subsidies, they must be backed up by coal-fired stations running at lower efficiency just in case the wind does not blow. ........"
lapogus:
I listened to that speech by Soames and I have also listened to talks by Jeremy Nicholson of EIUG and Campbell Dunford of REF and of course by my good self. But we technical people cannot hold a candle to the BBC talking heads. I mean what do we know about energy? ☺
The UK energy policy is madness personified. It fails on all counts, namely:
1.Windpower has no energy security. During the winter 2009/10 and during this winter when the weather was at its coldest and demands on electrity at its highest, windfarms were hardly producing anythimg.
2. There is no saving of CO2. Windpower has to be backed up by conventional power stations so windfarms do not save CO2 emiisions. The deployment of windfarms will not replace one single conventional power station. Denmark has not decommisioned one single conventional power station notwithstanding its high volume of windfarms.
3. The cost of energy from these windfarms is prohibitive. Many are already in fuel poverty and this policy will consign many more to join this group. This leads to deaths, no exageration. In 2002/3 there were many newspaper articles about the UK having the worst winter morbidity rates in Europe. It was thought that this was due in no small part to the cost of heating and the relative poverty of our pensioners, ie., fuel poverty..
4. We are excalating our role out of green energies at a time when many European countries are realising how impractical these schemes are. The Netherlands is seeking to dump its EU commitments and to resurect a Nuclear program. Germany has big problems with its Solar scheme and both Germany and Spain are cutting back on subsidies and feed in tariffs. Denmark's experience with windpower also demonstrates what a failure the scheme is.
5. All of it is open to so much fraud. In Spain, some people are claiming feed in subsidies for solar even during the night time when the sun is not shining! Apparently, they couple diesel generators to the grid from which their solar panels are fed in and these generators are cheaper to operate than the subsidies given such that this practice is profitable. It is not known whether this practice is going on 24 hrs a day.
6. There is no reason for expensive energy. It is only stupid green policies which are causing this. Everything depends upon energy and an increase in the price of energy will put up the costs of all goods and will lead to unemployment. One can already see that industry is essentially being relocated to developing countries such as India and China. This keeps down the CO2 foot print in the UK and US etc, but it is all an illusion since it simply shifts that footprint to another geographical location. The planet will not be saved by this type of policy since there is no reduction inenergy production and further energy production in India and China etc, is not as clean as in the UK etc so overall, for the planet, it is worse to have this shift.
7. China is a world leader in green energy, especially solar but it is noteworthy that it is not itself deploying this energy in its own domestic market. It is selling the products to the west and making a fortune out of the stupidity of the west. China knows that there is no point to using green energy.
8, Such jobs as are created in the green energy field will not be UK jobs but foreign jobs. We already see this with windfarms which employ a lot of Danish people and solar the jobs are created in China. The additional expense of energy will put more people out of work (due to the extra expense making general industry uncompetitive) than the number of green jobs created.
9. It is no coincidennt that a number of politicians have connections to green energy, and even the monarchy will receive substantial monies from the use of the seabed. At the end of the day, when all this techology is found to be an expensive scam, the repurcusions will be serious for the political class.
People should write to their MP complaining.
Richard,
Fantastic post that basically says it all. While we haven't gone as far off the deep end in Canada as you have in the UK there are many who are trying to push us there. The mouth foaming eco-hypocrite David Suzuki comes to mind. Thankfully we have a relatively conservative federal government (not just in name like you do) that tries to keep the loonies in check. I truly fear for our society.
I note that Philip Davies voted against the Climate Change Bill and was a teller for the noes at 3rd reading.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40531&dmp=1030
Richard - Yes, but by MSP doesn't have the courtesy reply to my emails, and my MP is also a member of the SNP who thinks that renewables are fantastic, and that once they have laid a little cable across to Norway and another to Iceland and we will all be happy as Larry. I mean look at this - http://www.no-tiree-array.org.uk/ - the cost to erect the turbines along will be billions (if they can, 30-50m depths and an average wave height of over 2.5m will make the engineering incredibly difficult if not impossible). As Soames says if you are going to do off-shore wind do it in shallow seas off the east coast of England, where what's generated is also closer to the demand. Even if they do get any of the Tiree array turbines built, winter storms and salt spray will mean very high maintenance costs. Then they still have to get a HVDC cable across from Tiree to Mull and over to the mainland to the nearest 275 line at Cruachan. Or build a completely new 400kV line from Oban. It will cost billions, and I can't see how the UK (or Spanish owned Scottish Power) will ever afford it. But it seems that no-one within the industry has got the bollocks to tell the politicians that they have completely lost the plot. Madness.
Sadly I am coming to the conclusion that the only thing that is going to get our politicians to see sense is a major grid failure during a winter cold spell, such that hospitals and schools are forced to close, large numbers of older people succumb to hypothermia, and then ordinary people start looting and rioting. We need at least 10GW gas plants now, which will give us another 10-20 years until we get some new nuclear stations (hopefully thorium) up and running.
Not a debate in the House of Commons, your Grace, but in Westminster Hall, which is a sort of junior debating chamber where there is no voting and where the debates are in consequence generally less influential
Oh, I forgot to add that the Scottish parliament recently debated the proposed new coal power station that an Australian company was keen to build at Hunterston. I think I am right in saying only a handful of the MSPs voted in favour of the plant - because, yes, you guessed it - a coal power station would produce that nasty CO2 stuff that WWF don't like.
Well done Philip Davies, clearly he has no ambitions in this government.
Richard Verney sums up the situation eloquently, ably backed up by Phil. Bratby, Lapogus and others.
Huhnian policies will be the end for the UK economy.
Canadian Mike
A wind turbine park is planned offshore of Juno Beach. Nothing is sacred to these idiots.
http://www.ouest-france.fr/actu/actuLocale_-Un-futur-parc-eolien-au-large-de-Courseulles-_40732-1668625------14715-aud_actu.Htm
I agree with lapogus. We aren't likely to get an outbreak of sanity in the HoC until there are major power failures and people visibly dying as a result.
Phillip Bratby: By that time we might all be singing...... Walk like an Egyptian :)
O/T O’Donnell Responds to Steig at WUWT
Feb 11, 2011 at 5:46 PM | Cassio
This is why:
"It is a shame that the debate is taking place in here and not the main Chamber. We are not in the main Chamber because an important debate on votes for prisoners is going on, .............."
"Why isn't this a huge political issue?" --David C
David, too many people there expect logic to hold sway, even after all they've seen. From the viewpoint of an outside observer, UK governmental policies align in one direction only: deliberate destruction.
Show me I'm wrong...
I think that most politicians in Britain, and most other democracies for that matter, do want to do the right thing. The trouble is that they have a much greater desire to be seen to do the right thing and if there is a conflict between what they think is perceived to be right by the chattering classes and what is actually right they will choose to appear to be right than to be really right.
Phillip Bratby
The people elected these idiots, so they will have to pay the price, which will be exactly what you and Lapogus are predicting.
I see no other way.
Suggested programme for the BBC.
Insanity under attack
I also agree with Richard's summary, except for this bit: "At the end of the day, when all this techology is found to be an expensive scam, the repurcusions will be serious for the political class."
I'm afraid that I don't anticipate this will be in substance any different from the dirty rotten bankers and the dirty rotten banks. We do not "walk Like An Egyptian" in the UK. While the truth will come out, eventually, the names of those responsible will indeed be dirt, but they will not lose a penny nor suffer anything worse than trade up from the Commons to the Lords.
That is the way we do things in the UK. Eat your hearts out. :-/
Don Pablo - ordinarily I would agree with you, but the electorate in the UK, both north and south of the border have had no choice - all of the mainstream political parties are fully signed up members of CO2 induced AGW hypothesis, and do as they are told by WWF and Friends of the Earth.
woodentop
Yes indeed, and was not Peter Lilley, former shadow Chancellor and one-time candidate for the Cons leadership, another? Kiss of death for any ministerial recognition with Cameron, of course. But honour is immortal. And no less honour to seriously get up the BBC's nose, (despite his father used to work there), judging by this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/189869.stm
I quite liked this one from Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry, Conservative), though
'The Minister will know that I consider onshore wind to be about as useful as a cat-flap on a submarine when it comes to fulfilling renewable objectives.'
I think that this, from Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands, Conservative), is worth a mention too:
Whoops! Screwed up the HTML. My last comment should have read:
I think that this, from Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands, Conservative), is worth a mention too:
" Does my hon. Friend agree that there are two types of environmental damage: that caused by carbon emissions and that caused by putting wind turbines in some of the most beautiful parts of the country, which will ruin them for ever?"
But of course there is an important difference.The damage caused by wind turbines is beyond doubt, whereas the detrimental effect of carbon emissions is not.
Sorry guys the idiots that were voted for are in thrall of the unelected E.U. There is no way out within the confines of the E.U. The carbon tax is their way forward for money and power. This will keep being resurrected until they are history. Still a very long and painful way off.
This comment at the link below from Philip Davies MP is very informative as it includes international comparisons.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2011-02-10a.171.1
lapogus
Did I not say:
"BAAAAAAHA!"
However, it will come to revolution at some point if not resolved. The people will not freeze in the dark if it comes to that, which it will.
The very fact that some MP's are starting to raise these issues is a sign that some of them have started to wake up, and put down the green/red tinted spectacles.
The politicians will only switch, when they realise they lack electability, they will then be quick to distance themselves. The tory party were quick to ditch Thatcher, when they realised they could not win another election (and would lose their jobs) with her still around
Don Pablo
It will be resolved, I am sure.
We may all get the government that we deserve, and that will 'very likely' :-) have consequences including energy supply failures.
But rather than escalating disorder, the response will be a rapid replacement of nonsensical legislation (eg the UK Climate Change Act) and lots of new of gas/nuclear for baseload generation.
Politicians not on-side with this will enjoy short careers.
golf charley
Our post crossed or I would have left it to you.
golf charley and BBD
I agree. Survival will become a factor soon. Just a matter of time.
I would say that today's politicians overwhelmingly prefer moralistic policies (those that sound and feel good, like "saving the planet") over moral policies (those that bring actual benefits to the citizens who elected them).
Bish, OT
The latest post at Klimazwiebel http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2011/02/sociology-and-climate-debate.html refers to a sociology paper for which one of the authors is Reiner Grundmann. Interesting quote near the end about academics (in this case sociologists):
"By this we mean the concern that anything that could be seen to cast doubt on the ‘integrity’ of the climate scientists has to be avoided in order to protect the political impetus behind it. There seems to be the curious conviction that lest you want to be accused of helping the fossil fuel lobbies and the climate sceptics, you better keep quiet."
No surprise. Nice of them to point it out.
Could it be that another one of those unintended consequences could be around the corner? At what point does electricity become so expensive that it becomes cheaper to make your own? We have a little 850W genny that we use during power cuts, it cost eighty quid. If power cuts became more frequent we would most likely want to invest in a bigger and better one. At present we run it on unleaded petrol which is taxed heavily. My neighbour informs me that red diesel is just as expensive if you want to buy it in small amounts.
How would it work out if I owned a factory? What if the village got together and set up our own little grid?
We are living in interesting times.
There is a new post up at WUWT about the House (in the USA) moving to cut the funds for the EPA to regulate CO2. This is a great first step. Budgets are originated in the House and the House has a lot of leverage over USA federal spending. Negotiations between Obama and the House Republicans will now occur. Very exciting stuff. There is a pretty good chance that Obama blames this on the Republicans and stands down on the CO2 regulation by the feds.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/11/breaking-house-bill-unvieled-late-friday-cuts-epa-budget-by-3-billion-block-funding-for-all-current-and-pending-epa-climate-regulations-for-stationary-co2-sources/
I wonder if a FOI request could be made of charitable organisations to determine the amount of contributors funds that are utilised to lobby politicians and parliament.
For the likes of Greenpiece and Friends of the Earth it probably wouldn't effect the level of donations but for the RSPB and WWF I would think that the majority of the donations made are purely towards the care of animals and not to influence UK energy policy.
There might be some surprising figures.
Stonyground
Deep thoughts.
If a village set up a charitable non profit company funded by the 'Green bank' to construct a small scale LPG powered CHP plant to provide power and heat to the village that included all of it's residents as contributors. Would it be able sell electricity back to the grid during low demand generating enough income to balance the start up and running costs over time. Thus providing free power and heat to the contributors who would also benefit from the 'gross' donations paid to the charity due to the Gift Aid tax relief.
Any accountants and lawyers in the house?
Re Lord Beaverbrook
Free power and heat may be a little optmistic, but it would be a basic business case problem, ie working out what the capex and opex would be to build and run it. For a CHP system, a large cost would be building the infrastructure for heat delivery, ie lots of civils to install pipework. That tends to be the biggest challenge for retrofitting CHP, so may be better for new build estates, or situations where there's a new heat user. So new village school or similar. Or add a community greenhouse to grow produce using the heat, and possibly using any sequestered CO2.
If it were council run, then there may be other revenue sources, so make it a LPG and waste incinerator. Council and/or charity would then need to arrange collection of domestic and business waste, and sort it into stuff that burns/doesn't burn (hopefully with the help of residents). Part would then be funded via council tax and the council may save money in landfill charges or onward disposal. Problem with incineration is although new incinerators are relatively cheap and clean, there's still a lot of opposition to them from perceived pollution.
One challenge though is unless the village builds a new distribution infrastructure, it would still be selling to the electricity cartel, rather than directly to the villagers so to an extent at the mercy of their buy price, interconnect charges and any subsidy regimes instead of being market based. There may be some option to novate infrastructure, but then the village would need to pay and then maintain it. It may be possible to borrow some elements of telecomms regulation to deregulate energy supply, but Ofgem seems entirely disinterested in protecting the consumer.
Rather more radical approach would involve Rolls Royce, some fine British engineering and no doubt a bunch more NIMBYism and politics for city-scale power. I need a nuclear engineer to tell me why the idea isn't practical though, other than for any political reasons :)
I wrote to my MP, Jeremy Wright about wind farms:
I have been following the debate of the pros and cons about global warming for many years now and it now seems that, finally, the great and the good are starting to see it for the scam that it is. After much reading and listening to some very knowledgeable people on the subject I have come up with a précis of what I think any person in power over me should be able to discuss, with a view to being able to tell me why, as a debt-ridden and power-hungry (as in electricity), we need to spend the equivalent of two Olympics per year for the next ten years in order to ‘change the climate’ (as if that was possible). (and so on)
Eventually, I received this reply (partly reproduced here). No prizes for guessing the line(s) that really set me off:
"Some areas within climate change science require more research and long term observations. However, those opposed to the low-carbon transition need to be able to show that inaction presents no risk. This is a difficult case to make, given the benefits that the Government's green policies will bring. For instance, improving the energy efficiency of homes through schemes such as the Green Deal could reduce energy bills by £550 each year and create 100,000 insulation jobs in the UK by 2015."
I have written in response to this but I have to say that words very nearly failed me when it came to trying to educate - yes, educate, for G*d's sake - a member of a group of people who want to control us.
As it was, I'm pretty sure the letter was written by a spotty-faced researcher and only signed by Wright.
Many lucid postings on Scottish climate politics here.
Can anyone tell me who Scotland's 'most sceptical' MSP is? I can't recall even one of them questioning the faith.
You might like to know, folks (and much good will it do me), but anyway I have written to our dear Department of Energy and Climate Change (as though the two were somehow linked) - asking them to desist from the following when giving out press statements about new wind farms: 'Could power UP TO 150000 homes' (the Humber estuary array)...
Based on the time of writing, on an average February day, wind was providing 6% of installed capacity (0.3% of demand) - so in fact this new hugely expensive (to us consumers) eyesore would IN REALITY provide power to 9350 homes.
A small diesel generator could do better...