Saturday
Mar052011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Things can only get dearer
Mar 5, 2011 Energy Also in Standpoint, a look at Britain's energy policies.
In private, the best-informed analysts now agree that Britain's environmental policies have put the country on track to have the world's most expensive electricity.
It feels to me like we are heading for crunch time.
Reader Comments (58)
Mar 6, 2011 at 12:54 AM | Unregistered Commenter Mike
Yes we are all very sceptical here. There are also some of us who are in contact with these analysts and know what is going on behind the scenes (in private as distinct from in public).
Brownedoff / Philip Bratby
I know you guys know what you're talking about.
But if indeed the Excelon / NETA figures are only for Scotland, what about their figures for Coal / Gas / Nuclear etc.?
This all seems very strange. And the (UK minus Scotland) figures are available nowhere?
Looks like we need to be submitting some FOI requests.
Meanwhile, we also need to remember that the object of the policy is allegedly not just reducing CO2 emissions as an end in itself.
Supposedly we need to reduce emissions to prevent Global Warming.
And, even if you believe the IPCC's absurdly inflated "projections", the reduction in "warming" which would be achieved by reducing emissions (even if we achieved the target) and even if windmills helped reduce emissions (which they don't) would be the square root of bugger all.
A cornucopia of dogma, incompetence and malice.
Martin:
Add "greed" and I think you've summed it up very nicely.
Mar 6, 2011 at 8:23 AM | Martin Brumby
I read somewhere last week that OFGEN had refused an FOI asking for information about the number of ROCs issued to, I think, off-shore windmills.
I think that the information for NI, Wales and England is suppressed because "they" do not want the bad news disseminated.
Whereas, in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament is hell bent on expanding this windmill madness and is thus happy for people to see the ever growing windmill capacity but keeping schtum about the SFA output.
At the moment, because wind penetration is very low, National Grid regard the wind effect as "variable demand" and pay a handful of real power stations a financial inducement for them to automatically follow the system frequency (ie increase their output when the wind drops or reduce output when the wind blows).
If that does not do the trick, then NG have another handful of real power stations who, for a financial inducement, can be called upon to do the necessary output variation at short notice, say 45 mins.
Although the (UK - Scotland) output is obviously metered for commercial reasons, the rabble is not allowed to find out.
The DECC publishes annual GWh figures (2010 figures due in May), but this information cloaks the half-hour variations, which are of such interest to bloggers.
To be fair, the financial inducements also cover demand variations caused by other reasons, not just for the effect of the windmills.
You stoopid Brits, thank goodness I can no longer be taxed to pay for your energy shortfalls. Sadly here in Australia I will soon be hit for a special levy of $200,or close, to compensate Queenslanders for their refusals to (i) build dams and (ii) take out insurance against flood damage to their State's infrastructure, knowing that the Commonmwealth government would pick up that tab.
I am completely puzzled. We know that we can never have enough windmills to provide a sustainable electricity supply. We know also that we never get enough sun to power solar panels to such an extent that they could provide a sustainable electricity supply. We know that to depend upon tidal resources will also have the same result and we know that if we put all these techniques together we will still be up the creek without a paddle.
Meanwhile we also know that we can provide for our requirements by building coal fired power stations, oil fired power stations, gas powered power stations or any combination of the above. However, although I do not believe that CO2 is a pollutant, Nuclear Power Stations are CO2 free and could cetainly meet our power requirements. Why then has our Government and our previous Government chosen an energy policy which appears, in the main, to be based on wind, solar and maybe wave power? Are they mad?
@Peter T,
"Why then has our Government and our previous Government chosen an energy policy which appears, in the main, to be based on wind, solar and maybe wave power? Are they mad?"
Not mad, they simply live in their own world, the Westminster Bubble, and they do things for their own reasons.
Think of Marie Antoinette.
Anyway, about five years ago, when times were good and the prospects of paying for 'tackling climate change' were distant and the huge expense unrealised, it was quite popular. Having started it, there's a political juggernaut been constructed which will take some dismantling.