Bishop Hill Will Philip Hammond apologise?
Mar 2, 2011 Energy Much interest in the comments to the Johnny Ball thread, with reader "Mac" noting the claim of Transport Secretary Philip Hammond that offonshore wind generation does not require subsidy. This is, ahem, not exactly true, as the following excerpts from Hansard makes clear:
Onshore Wind Farms
7. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Whether historical wind measurements are taken into account in determining 'subsidy allocation for onshore wind farms'. [15500]
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry): Onshore wind farms can claim one renewables obligation certificate (ROC) for each megawatt-hour of electricity actually generated, which focuses investment in those areas where the wind resource is strongest. It is therefore in the developers' direct interest to study very carefully the historical wind measurements.
Andrew Bridgen: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, Leicestershire is one of the most inland and least windy counties in England. Will he please assure me that 'subsidies for wind farms' will only be allocated in areas that can demonstrate that the amount of wind is sustainable and economically viable?
Charles Hendry: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that the way the ROC system works ensures that the 'greatest incentive' is there to develop wind projects where the wind resource is strongest. We are absolutely committed, too, to the principle of localism for those below 50 MW and for local communities to be directly involved in these decisions and to receive a more direct benefit than was the case under the previous Government.
It appears then, that Mr Hammond was 100%, ahem, mistaken. Will he apologise? Or even issue a correction? We're not holding our breath here.
Reader Comments (69)
Surely it should be "onshore"?
Regards
They are ROCs and FiTs are not subsidies according to the Government, they are stimul or incentivesi:
By calling a subsidy a stimulusor an incentive, the Government thinks it can fool the electrixity consumer.
I mucked that one up good and proper. Apologies for multiple typos.
Philip Bratby -
Actually, I rather like the sound of "incentivesi."
Andrew Bridgen is a star MP prepared to take on all sorts of unpopular topics that engage his attention. Note that his constituency includes a town called "Coalville".
If anyone is really interested in how the Renewable Obligation
Schemesubsidy and the Climate Change Levy work, they can be found here http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/156-ref-on-the-renewables-obligation-Sorry didn't see this, absolutely spot on Bish, here's a repeat of what I just wrote on the earlier Johnny Ball thread, with less typos:
Philip Hammond is my mother's MP. I'm thinking of drafting a letter to him on wind farm subsidies and the seriousness of misleading the electorate, then seeing if any friends in the constituency - where Mama is still a social and tennis-playing member of the prestigious Wentworth Club - would be interested in signing.
And I don't suppose there's anyone on Bishop Hill who would like to add an electronic signature to such a letter? Nah, didn't think so.
And I now see Latimer Alder is in the constituency. That's good :)
Philip, I love "incentivesi" it looks as though it's the political correct name for the enforcement arm of the Mafia.
Isn't there a risk that all these windmills taking energy out of the weather systems could lead to a cooling effect?
It is interesting, isn't it, how absolutely nothing about renewables has been dealt with honestly and straightforwardly by the government. It has simply taken over exactly where New Labour left off.
In my experience, when there is a matter about which absolutely nobody seems able to tell the truth, there is a very serious problem.
Which is why it will be a bitter day in Hell before you get a correction, let alone an apology, out of Hammond.
Has anyone asked Andrew Neil about it? IIRC, Hammond was challenged about the subsidies and had to lie about them twice...
Perhaps I'm being thick, but I can't see how any of this relates to off shore wind farm subsidies, which is what Philip Hammond was talking about.
steveta_uk
From the Graun:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/08/uk-offshore-windfarms-100bn
Booker goes into more detail in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8025148/The-Thanet-wind-farm-will-milk-us-of-billions.html
And on Bloomberg you find this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/u-k-offshore-wind-projects-need-subsidies-until-2025-researcher-says.html
My understanding is that each offshore wind project approved between 2010 and 2014 will receive 2 ROC's per MWhr of electricity. At nearly £40 per ROC, that's a very large subsidy......oops sorry I mean incentivesi.
At the moment my village is threatened with a 42 acre sub-station (DC-AC converters, supergrid transformers etc) to link an offshore wind farm to the grid. Various figures are being thrown into the mix with the latest being a capital cost of 3 million ukp per installed MW of capacity. Given a fairly average 30% capacity factor then the real cost is closer to 10 million pounds per installed MW.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist, or an accountant to calculate the return. Without the subsidy (ROC) not a single wind farm would be constructed.
BBD, I'm not suggesting that Hammond is right - I just don't see how quoting sections of Hansard that refer to on-shore wind farms is relevant.
steveta_uk. Both onshore and offshore get huge subsidies via the RO scheme (incentvesi), so what does it matter?
Bish or anybody, I am confused is this about offshore or onshore?
Opening para:-
"offshore wind generation does not require subsidy"
Heading for Hansard exert: -
"Onshore Wind Farms"
Am I missing something?
steveta_uk
Wow. That went badly wrong.
Let's try again:
From the Graun:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/08/uk-offshore-windfarms-100bn
Booker goes into more detail in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8025148/The-Thanet-wind-farm-will-milk-us-of-billions.html
And on Bloomberg you find this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/u-k-offshore-wind-projects-need-subsidies-until-2025-researcher-says.html
Hammond said that offshore wind does not require subsidy, which is either a very silly error or a bare-faced lie.
Sorry for the delay but this site ate my first corrected comment, then it locked me out of comments. I have had to restart my system to get back into comments again.
steveat_uk
green sand
STOP
Before it gets any worse.
Agreed, BH's choice of Hansard quote is confusing. But it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the argument, WHICH IS that Hammond is either grossly under-informed or lying about OFFSHORE WIND SUBSIDIES.
Don't let's derail the thread with nit-picking.
BBD, we need to explain the following comments from the previous Johnny Ball thread:-
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/3/2/johnny-ball.html#comments
Especially if we are going to accuse a politician of being economical with the truth.
“Remarkable statement from Phil Hammond on the programme that 'onshore wind does not need subsidy'.” – Latimer Alder
“Hammond even tried to say that onshore wind gets no subsidy. The politicians have really been conned or are liars or are idiots.” – Phillip Bratby
Clearly Hammond has mispoken in claiming onshore wind is not subsidised. – Mac
All three quote onshore, hence my confusion as the where offshore comes from.
I will now go and see if I can find the clip and watch myself
@ Steveta - onshore or offshore, the ROC/FIT system remains the same, and therefore any 'subsidy' operates to the same principles. 'Subsidy' applies in the sense that customers directly fund it through energy consumption (although government is the banker through Ofgem), not government through public spending - that may or may not affect how you view it.
The real question of subsidy, which isn't covered in this Hansard excerpt at all, is the construction subsidy. Onshore doesn't need any to make it pay, offshore can get quite a bit if it bids successfully - and this is likely to be money from government coffers.
An intended rationale in this subsidy is to kickstart the development of a viable UK renewables industry which generates export sales, jobs and growth in wind power and other technologies. Siemens have recently accounced major investment in the Hull area, expressly for development of manufacturing of offshore wind power, which will bring significant investment and jobs to the area. Not being an economist, I'm in no position to say whether this subsidy and its results turns a profit for UK Plc, or whether we're being sold a pup.
Just checked the video on iplayer and at 1h 27m 43 sec:-
Hammond says that "onshore wind does not need susidy .... onshore wind pays for itself.."
The man must apologise for this error.
Unless my ears deceive me, the reference to offshore wind is incorrect. This is the link to the programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00z8hyn/The_Daily_Politics_02_03_2011/. Right at the end at 1:27:45 Philip Hammond clearly says "onshore wind doesn't need subsidy any more, onshore wind can pay its way". I'm fairly sure that his assertion is wrong.
green sand
We need to stop buggering up the thread with irrelevant nit-picking.
steveat_uk
You said
Brownedoff says
Would you acknowledge your error and stop this before it gets any worse? Otherwise God alone knows where this will end. You confused me enough.
Agreed with Brownedoff and Doug - I have just re-listened to the video - Hammond clearly states: "onshore wind doesn't need subsidy anymore.... onshore wind can pay its way.."
In that case I ask why the UK government has not abandoned the ROC subsidies for on-shore wind - I understand that I am paying at least an extra £120p.a. on my electricity bills to subsidise renewables, the vast majority of which are on-shore wind. As ROCs have been paid for at least 5 years that means I am due a rebate of at least £500 from my electricity supplier (SSE)?
BBD, this thread is about whether or not Phillip Hammond will apologise:-
"It appears then, that Mr Hammond was 100%, ahem, mistaken. Will he apologise? Or even issue a correction? We're not holding our breath here."
I think it is very doubtful that he will apologise for being "either grossly under-informed or lying about OFFSHORE WIND SUBSIDIES." When he was actually talking about onshore wind.
A point which is highly relevant, better described as attention to detail, rather than nit-picking.
Why do you think he was talking about offshore? Can you please show me a link?
Green sand
See above at 5:40pm.
I - and others - were confused by steveat_uk's ERRONEOUS statement that Hammond was talking about OFFSHORE wind.
This error has now been clearly pointed out by other commenters. Beyond that, the facts remain the same. A government minister made the following statement:
This is either grossly under-informed or dishonest. THAT is the POINT of this thread.
You are right in what you say, but I strongly believe that it would be better for this discussion if we clamp the lid down on the confusion.
OK, that's probably enough preaching to the converted, and enough quibbling about the Bish's minor typo (it should be 'onshore' in line 3).
Perhaps people could try to raise this with the politics show, and/or elsewhere, then there's a chance they could announce a correction. I tried to put something on the Daily Politics comments page about ROC's and feed-in tariffs, but it has not been posted.
See also telegraph article Wind farm subsidies top £1 billion a year.
BBD
"I strongly believe that it would be better for this discussion if we clamp the lid down on the confusion."
Good, because that is precisely what I was trying to do. I am glad we have finally got there.
BBD, the problem is that it's wrongly stated in the head post by Bish. I believe this is Green Sand's and steveta_uk's point.
Fix "[..] with reader " Mac" noting the claim of Transport Secretary Philip Hammond that offshore wind generation does not require subsidy.[..]", to replace with "onshore wind generation" and all the need for nit-picking goes away.
It's a storm in a teacup over a minor point, but 'tis important to have these things written out and entered into the meta-debate correctly.
Green sand
You work in mighty strange ways then.
Simon Hopkinson
Yes, I DO realise this. Please read my comment at 5:40pm where I explain that steveat_uk confused the hell out of me on this point.
Can we move on now?
Gah.. I spent so long fighting with the comment bug that I forgot to check if what I was writing was still relevant/needed. Gnore me.
On the 11th February, after reading about the debate on windfarms which had taken place in Westminster Hall on this blog, I sent the Daily Politics (and Andrew Neil who is the best political interviewer on the box) an email to suggest that they should look at the transcript of the debate as it had been very revealing about the problems and costs of windfarms. Would be nice to think it helped get Johnny Ball back on the TV.
Don't forget the other impact of wind power. According to the Chief Executive of National Grid in today's Telegraph, the era of constant electricity at home is ending.
Welcome to the brave new world of wind, somewhat akin to the dark ages. That's progress.
Apologies for the confusion over onshore/offshore. Fixed now.
BH - thank goodness for that ;-)
Philip Bratby
Did he really use the words 'available' and 'available cheaply'?
We are indeed doomed. Obviously this is a warning of energy rationing to come, but 'available cheaply'? When is that every going to happen again unless we get building nuclear and lots of it.
As it stands (ie in the shadow of a looming wind turbine) this remark is a contradiction in terms.
We follow through with the mad renewables nonsense and the result will be intermittent supply (with rationing) and fearsome cost.
I wonder if the CE of the National Grid is actually trying to send a message to our political masters here?
As in 'if you force your insane renewables policy forward, there will be intermittent supply at fabulous expense. Do you think this is going to play well with the voters?'
Just to put a figure on the huge amount of incentive involved, if you owned a 2.5MW wind turbine and it only worked for 30% of the year, with FIT and selling off the ROCs, the annual income is about £450,000.
If FITs and ROCs were to be withdrawn, then annual income drops to £55,000.
So the excess cost of this electricity is £395,000 per year every year and it goes on your bill.
We have about 5GW of wind at the moment with 10,000 more of these incentive centres (23GW) to come later, all gobbling up all that dosh!
Plus of course when 28GW of wind is connected, National Grid needs about 22GW of open circuit gas fired plant on spinning reserve, all which has to be paid for on your bill.
Trebles all round!
This whole thing reminds me of the sub-prime crisis. Those in the investment banks at the heart of it were oblivious to what was going wrong (OK those who were making fraudulent mortgages weren't) and continued as though all was OK. Banks like Lehman and Merrill were in denial. Only those outsiders who could look at the whole show objectively could see that the whole thing smelled bad. Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis to see what happened. Rather than call it all fraud or stupidity or whatever, I think it is all about (i) wishful thinking - i.e. this could be the solution to AGW (ii) group think - everyone else is in favour some to disagree would make me look an idiot. Like the sub-prime crisis, when this one blows, it will be very messy.
BBD. He did say that. I have a scanned copy of the article in front of me.
Oh, I missed (iii) self interest - they were making loads of money out of it.
Fred
It is patently cear that those in charge do not know what they are doing. I can't understand what David MacKay is doinfg as advisor at DECC if this is allowed to happen. Perhaps he gets sidelined by the green bureaucrats appointed under the last government. There seem to be no chartered engineers with experience of the electricty supply industry allowed anywhere near DECC.
Philip Bratby
Say what? My understanding is that he said 'onshore'. Is that what you mean?
Philip Bratby
Ignore the above. Brain failure on my part. Apologies.
@Brownedoff: What is your source for the numbers you quoted. I would like to understand better how these subsidies work (no I do not have any land).
Did Hammond apologise for his idiotic on-air statement in November (BBC R5L) about how the cold weather was due to the Gulf Stream having slowed down? No?
I'm not holding my breath on this one either.
Three cheers for Jonny Ball.
The fifth estate must work to get their work into the fourth estate msm, which changes hearts and minds by exposing them to truth.
Ball has opened up a big door.
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/03/johnny-ball-exposes-the-dishonesty-of-most-british-politicians/
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/02/any-chance-of-a-movie-on-honest-british-scientists-johnny-ball-professor-david-bellamy-dr-richard-a-e-north-and-how-they-suffered-in-their-dispassionate-search-for-truth/