Bishop Hill How time flies
Jun 14, 2011 Climate: Parliament Energy [Scottish Finance Secretary John ]Swinney said: “I am deeply concerned at the scale of Scottish Power’s price increases. Any fuel price rises have an impact, yet these increases will leave many households, in particular vulnerable consumers, in real, real difficulty.”
Swinney’s criticisms echo remarks by First Minister Alex Salmond, who hit out at “thumping fuel bills that will affect huge numbers of people throughout society”.
Speaking at the opening of the new wind farms, Mr Salmond said: "The opening of the Arecleoch and Mark Hill wind farms here in South Ayrshire is a significant milestone for Scottish Power Renewables.
"It also underlines both the rapid progress Scotland has made in clean energy generation and our industry's leading role in the wider development of a genuinely low carbon economy across Europe."
Reader Comments (46)
BH - I think you mean John (not Keith) Swinney. but agreed, the hypocrisy from the SNP on this is staggering.
Truly, modern day politicians are the real problem with not an ounce of caring concern within them. Its not just the SNP, I cannot find any difference between any of the parties.
One has to wonder whether cognitive dissonance is an infectious disease, rampant amongst the political class and their advisers.
When the penny drops with the electorate that the escalating size of fuel bills is connected with governmental obsession with green energy, wind farms are not going to get such an easy ride. At the moment, people are largely unaware of the cost to them (and to the economy) of the government's posturing.
http://www.britishgas.co.uk/images/projectone/cost_of_fuel_electricity.jpg
The above is directly from British Gas and shows that, as of March 2011, “Government obligation to help the environment” has increased electricity prices by nearly 14%
Down here in Devon, the enormity of the destruction to the landscape caused by England's largest on-shore wind farm is just being realised, as construction is half complete. There is another proposal coming up for decision time next week. Developers are wanting to put up turbines all along the coast.
For the vandalism being created, see http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Blades-glory-ndash-different-story/story-12760000-detail/story.html
Now that the public are waking up to the true cost of the green agenda in the UK, the concept that green issues trump hypocrisy, logic, common sense, and both macro and domestic economics, is over!
The smug smirks will be wiped from their faces, however, in the UK, there is no credible political alternative, at least in the USA, the GOP have woken up.
Phillip Bratby and others
Under Planning Law and/or pollution legislation, is their a requirement for windfarm developers to pay for their removal at the end of their life, return the site to its original condition, and dispose of all the nasty heavy metals in the generator?
If so, or not so, is this raised at planning enquiries?
The refusal of politicians of all colours in the UK to publicly 'join the dots' so the voters can see both cause and effect of the Green energy policies and the insane 'decarbonisation' of society is truly staggering. If I didn't know better, I could justifiably assume that the politicians are either lying bar stewards or stupid bar stewards, or both.
On reflection, I plump for 'both'.
Alexander K
Politicians will do today, what they believe will get them elected tomorrow. Any currently elected politician, can therefore say they were right last time around, those that lost, will be altering their strategy.
Being "green" has been a vote winner, Bob Ward and co, have spun it such that to do otherwise, is heresy. Now the trend is reversing. This needs highlighting, by the well orgainised and funded PR firms retained by the Denier camp. Does anyone know who they are, or if they exist, apart from in Bob Ward's fertile imagination?
The greens have won, I'm afraid.
They have captured all three main parties plus the SNP. There is no way to vote against any of this corruption.
They have also captured the media to the extent that it is possible for Salmond to whine about exorbitant electricity one day and then applaud its cause, wind farms, the next without being challenged.
Meanwhile, the emissions regulation and rationing industry is now too big to fail. In the same way public money was thrown at banks to stop them collapsing, so equally is the public's money being thrown at CAGW. It will not end and no error will be admitted. See DDT for a historical case in point.
This really is going to be as catastrophic for the west as Islam was for the Middle East. Islam pretty much ended academic and intellectual inquiry in that region for posterity, because everything you needed to know about anything was in the Koran, thus enabling Europe to take over most of the world. CAGW is performing the same service for China and India today in the economic sphere.
And it's all happening on the say-so of some third-rate little pissants who went to universities like Lancaster and who now do "research" at universities you only need 3 dumbed-down Bs to get into. And they're safe and happy in the knowledge that they'll have spent the money and will be safely dead when in 50 years' time it becomes obvious that they all either lied or were stupid.
Quite a few people do at last seem to be waking up to the wind mill costs scandal. In the last week, apart of course from Christopher Booker, we have had articles by Charles Moore and Philip Johnston and even an editorial in the Telegraph. We have also had direct complaints from the CBI and complaints about the costs from the Treasury.
Our children we hear will no longer be taught global warming in school, but perhaps this is already too late as most of them if you ask them seem to think that CO2 is the second most abundant gas in the atmosphere. Very few know that it is a trace gas at 0.004%.
I would like to think all my letters to the Telegraph editor eventually had some effect on his views.
MP's have a notoriously strong herd instinct and generally bovine disposition, but keep writing to them. Eventually perhaps the penny will drop.
J4R
Valid points, but remember how quickly the tories turned on Maggie, when they realised that keeping her in a job would mean losing theirs?
golf charley.
Planning permissions for wind farms are for a fixed period (usually 25 years), usually with a condition that the equipment must be removed from site and the land returned to its original condition. Usually it is permitted for the massive concrete foundations to be left in the ground and buried. There is nothing about how the equipment will be disposed of. Much of it will be recycleable (steel etc) but I understand that getting rid of the blades is a big problem. Even the industry acknowledges the problem. See for example http://www.ieawind.org/Task_11/TopicalExpert/Summary_38_Recycle.pdf
@ golf charley -
In the UK you have only to look at the issue of European integration to see that in fact politicians can do things that would get them thrown out of power by colluding with each other to ensure there's no alternative.
They aren't pursuing green crap to get themselves elected, they're pursuing it for other motives - vanity, control, who knows - and conspiring to make sure you can't vote against it.
High energy prices ain't a bug of the green vision of the future fer christs sake, they're a bloody feature ! The whole point is to discourage energy usage by pricing outside people's reach. It works as advertized; the correct question to ask then is why is that desireable in the first place.
Phillip Bratby, thanks for that. I have had involvement with the cleaning up of a former gas works site, costing millions, most of which went back to the government by way of landfill taxes. The original polluter had to pay, which meant the local uathority picked up te bill.
I do not see these costs being covered by Feed in Tariffs. Shouldn't Local Authorities be made aware that by granting planning permission, they may be exposing their rate payers to a legacy of clean up costs, if the economics of wind energy simply turn out to have gone with the wind?
J4R
If politicians are given the choice of greed (keep job) or vanity (lose job) they will go with greed. Up until now, they could choose both
And that pompous prat, Hulne, speaking about rising energy bills has the gall to say that "switching energy providers should become the norm".
As if his retched policies have nothing to do with the situation in the first place!!
Still he has got form for (alleged) lying.
Salmond, on Monday:
Allow me to paraphrase the great man:
'It also underlines how fast our mates in the Energy Biz have thrown up subsidy farms and cashed in on the bonanza. In fact they were so quick off the mark building the things they haven't even got the connections to the grid sorted out, which is why they periodically get paid huge sums to turn the windmills off. It's absolutely bloody brilliant. Fistfuls of subsidies whatever you do! And so long as you keep banging on about the low-carbon economy the till keeps ringing'.
golfcharley
Philip Bratby is largely correct about the planning conditions attached to wind farms but it is always the option of the local council to decide precisely what conditions to attach to any given consent (unless a refusal has gone to appeal in which case the Secretary of State's Reporter will lay down planning conditions).
This is not the end of the matter. Applicants are at liberty to apply for a variation of the conditions on several grounds and I am prepared to bet (though I will not be around to collect) that there will be a stream of such applications in about 18 years time! Councils will come under enormous pressure to allow the developer to walk away.
We have some opencasts nearby, they have to put money aside in a ring fenced fund whilst removing the coal, if they go bust the fund is enough to cover reinstatement.
Do wind farms actually kill bats? I've seen this alleged but don't know of studies which prove the allegation.
If so, then anyone can close down a windfarm, thus:
quote
Disturbance and protected species: understanding and applying the law in England and Wales
A view from Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales
Section 1: The disturbance offence
1. Context
The offence of intentionally disturbing protected species occupying places used for shelter or protection was first introduced in section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (‘WCA’) and applied to species listed on Schedule 5 to the Act. A similar but slightly wider offence was introduced by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (‘the Habitats Regulations’), which prohibited deliberate disturbance of a European Protected Species wherever it occurred. Section 9 of the WCA was later amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to include both intentional and reckless disturbance.
Disturbance is a term of wide meaning, which could capture many kinds of acts. It is not defined in WCA 1981 and an absolute definition of the term is not possible.
unquote
Reckless disturbance might do it - turnng a bat's innards into jelly with a shockwave probably counts as a disturbance. And, Mr Speaker/Archbishop, while you're amending that act, could you rub out the 'once a highway' rule? I've not bothered to try to open the right of way under Canterbury cathedral, but Westminster's refusal to allow my footpath through the Palace of Westminster depends on no-one finding archaeological evidence of Watling Street. That would be embarrassing and no-one would want a simple little bit of geophys to make HMG look silly. Surely not.
All together now.... they can manage that quite easily by themselves....
JF
Is it possible to produce such hypocricy from the same orifice? I think not.
On planning, I heard about an application in Suffolk where the developers were required to indemnify the council for any clear up costs. I think they had imposed a condition that required the foundations to be removed as part of any site restoration. The costs of insurance or bond cover to pay for proper clear up naturally made the developer's proposal uneconomic and the application was withdrawn. Land owners should check their proposed rent or lease agreements very carefully to see who ends up with liability if the windmill operator goes bust. Often those businesses have very little in the way of assets and if the operator goes into admininstration might be left with a very large bill.
Public apathy plays an important role. When voters feel that they have no choices, they cease voting and caring. The idealists, the takers and the sheep (the stupid) continue to vote for the politicians, and the path remains unaltered. Barring the emergence of a charismatic dissident, the plans and policies will not change until the economic disaster becomes full blown.
Drcrinum, I entirely agree.
The fact is that politicians have created this apathy by their piss poor performance. But they benefit from it.
In reality it is our responsibility to hold our politicians to account and there are so many ways to do this other than just voting every 4-5 years (and yes I agree that the vote has lost its impact when in reality all we can choose is one set of self serving management/pr tossers over another). What is so dissapointing is that we still have all the power, but as a population we have forgotten this. No government policy will survive mass disobedience or mass criticism from its citizens - it is undeniable that the people do have the last say on everything if they want it. Just because our politicians are so poor at discharging their responsibilities to us, doesn't mean we shouldn't discharge our own responsibility to rein in these parasitic suited millionaires.
Ultimately there has never been anything truer said than that you get the politicians you deserve.
Planning
I have no formal training or qualifications in planning law, but have had dealings and experience on both sides of the fence.
Alarmists are quick to use emotional blackmail about something that may happen.
Some parts of the US are littered with defunct windfarms that no one is prepared to clean up. Why has this not been drawn to the attention of UK local authorities as per
Jun 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM | Atomic Hairdryer?
Time flies and the rest is lies.
Article over at the Register on the new report by the National Grid on the cost of wind.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/national_grid_2020/
Help needed in the comments. I noticed the IT world seems to be full of gullible greens who just love the idea of wind subsidy farming.
BBC News website 12 June 2011:
"Swinney demands answers over Scottish Power price hikes.
Secretary John Swinney has called for an urgent meeting with Scottish Power over energy price hikes."
Swinney may get more than he bargained for locking horns with ScottishPower.
This outfit is owned by Iberdrola who do not give a rat's ass for these pompous gits.
As I mentioned the other day on another thread, here in Spain Iberdrola give a breakdown of where the money is going, so that for May 2011 they revealed that of the Euro 123.73 amount payable, Euro 55.05 goes in premiums and taxes that have nothing to do with electricity generation and distribution.
The balance of Euro 67.68 goes to paying for energy production and supply and payments made to the national grid:
Energy generation (Euro 49.29) + energy distribution (Euro 18.39) = Euro 67.68.
So, here in Spain we already pay 1.83 times the cost of generation and distribution.
Anybody here get a ScottishPower electricity bill? If so, do they do a breakdown similar to that shown above?
Do wind farms actually kill bats?
I gather that the reduced air pressure behind a rotating blade is enough to explode their lungs. Their navigation is very accurate, so they avoid the blades, but get killed by the aerodynamics. Not a nice way to go, is it?
More on the problems of recycling wind turbine blades at http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/recycling-wind-blades/
I spoke at a recent planning meeting with regard to 2 turbines proposed within the city boundary of Derby. Due to low interest (only I spoke) it was the penultimate item on the agenda. Three minutes is not a long time to convince a group of politicians that they are not saving the planet after all.
I am now reduced to sending my local councillor items from the press in a campaign of informing one person what they are inflicting on us for no great benefit.
A reference for the bat killing would be helpful in this. We get bats in our garden most summer evenings, and we're less than a kilometre as the bat flies from the proposed development.
Thanks in advance
@Jun 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM | Phillip Bratby
Disposal of blades?
If they are open to suggestions, why not get Buffhuhne, Milipede and Salmond and dispose of the blades where the sun don't shine?
sandy
Abstract of bat barotrauma paper here:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2808%2900751-3
Thanks Dreadnought.
Sandy S
Did anyone hear a spoink?
Ed Snack
Well, no-one else bit, so I guess it has to be me. Your point about the effects of the UK's energy policy being by design not mistake, seems highly plausible. They are, after all, precisely what Maurice Strong and his cohorts are after; the de-industrialisation of the West. Booker, who is generally admirable, was banging on about chickens coming home to roost, Ministers finally waking up to the consequences of their actions and so on. I attempted to add a comment to the effect that if the UK's return to a pre-industrial state was what was intended, then nothing of the sort was going to happen. It seems my Canadian IP address rules out that particular line of attack, so I just hope he'll read it here.
Perhaps it is time for direct action to protect the environment from wind farms. We could set up an organisation for people willing to undertake such action. It would need a catchy name. How about "Green Peace" - oh, I forgot, that name has already been taken.
Roy
There you go, indeed how time flies, in the space of a few days:
Devastating reality from the horse's mouth (National Grid -thank you Chilli)
and,
Devastating fantasy from the horse's ass (Westminster/Holyrood axis of evil).
If only it wasn't such an unfolding tragedy, ..................
Councils do impose conditions regarding the removal of the turbines after 25 years on the developer. It will be interesting to see whether the developer is still solvent in 25 years or has structured some subsidiary company which is, in effect, broke after 25 years to avoid those end of life obligations. Personally, I would like to see the landowners responsible as it is their greed for the astronomical rents they receive from the operator that enable the damn things to be built in the first place.
I am going to Saunton fairly soon and will go and visit those turbines in north Devon, Philip Bratby, and weep. (Are they the same turbines that featured in the Wind Turbine Wars with that ghastly Ruffle woman or has poor old Devon got to suffer another wind farm just to appease the mad and misguided renewables policy?)
What we need is to contact ET and have his buddies come and solve our problem:
ET takes out wind turbine
Of course, the counter argument is that the wind turbines are keeping us from being invaded from outer space.
Re Golf Charley
Planning applications for these things are a form of asymmetric warfare. The applicants are often well funded and produce masses of paperwork to support their applications and try to head off potential objections. Councils and campaigners may be less aware of all the potential issues like the liability for proper site remediation. But we can help draw their attention to those issues.
As biddyb points out, someone needs to be responsible for site clear-up costs, ideally including the removal of thousands of tonnes of concrete used in the foundations of the large windmills. The applicants often structure their business or lease agreements to duck that liability for obvious reasons, or try to avoid it by saying they'll just cover the foundations rather than removing them.
It can be a useful angle of attack though, especially if there are flood risk concerns. Problem I found is councils can't object to windmills on the grounds that they're expensive, inefficient and generate energy poverty, but only on valid planning grounds. Future liability is a big cost and concern to landowners and councils, so worth pointing out.
This is an example of politicians giving different, and conflicting, messages to different audiences.
Swinney is playing to the working class audience, trying to deflect blame for price rises which are the direct consequence of his government's policy.
Salmond is sending a message to the political class who control the media and State. These are wealthy enough to cope with price rises and so can indulge their alternative energy fantasy.
No-one in the media will pick up on this cynical deception
What Salmond has done is articulate beautifully why green taxes are so splendid from a politician's perspective. As with petrol, government gets the money and energy companies get the blame.
It's perfect.