Bishop Hill FT on Turnbull
Jun 9, 2011 Bureaucrats Climate: Sceptics Sue Cameron, writing in the FT takes a look at Andrew Turnbull's report for GWPF.
Calling for “an end to alarmist propaganda”, Lord Turnbull says: “I am disappointed that so many of my former colleagues in the civil service seem so ready to go along unquestioningly with the consensus.”
So is he right? “It’s simply not true – Andrew’s got it wrong,” protested one senior figure. He added that officials covering transport, business and energy were being “very forceful” about curbing the greener instincts of Chris “Nul Points” Huhne, the climate change secretary.
Let us hope he is right that some senior officials are taking a sceptical view of the green agenda. Whether Lord Turnbull’s suspicions about his former colleagues are misplaced or not, he is right to call for more open-mindedness in Whitehall and less reliance on the prevailing orthodoxy.
H/T Benny Peiser
Bishop Hill
More in the Mail, with Turbull and Benny Peiser taking aim at the government's green policies. They've got a picture of the wrong Lord Turnbull though.
(H/T Matthu)
Reader Comments (60)
Jun 9, 2011 at 5:08 PM | Latimer Alder
In 2007 RWE thought they could build a 1,500 MW CCGT power station for about £800 million at either Staythorpe of Pembroke - see http://tinyurl.com/42o4duh
In the event they built a power station at Staythorpe with 4 x 420MW CCGT, say 1,700 MW total, which was completed in November 2010 .
Suppose the final cost was £900 million or even £1,000 million.
This works out at between £530,000 and £590,000 per MW.
Jun 9, 2011 at 5:01 PM | Paul Dennis:
"2 billion pounds for a 560MW wind farm. "
You have to allow for the usual 20% capacity factor so really 112 MW for 2 billion pounds.
This works out at £18 million per MW.
There is also the size to be taken into account.
Following Philip Johnston's article in The Telegraph 7 June 2011, where he said:
"To produce the same amount of electricity as one coal-fired power station, you'd need a wind farm the size of Greater London."
I looked at the "London Array"
Phase One: 175 x 3.6 MW spread over 100 square km = 630 MW over 100 square km, but allow the usual "20%" capacity factor and this gives 126 MW effective per 100 square km.
Greater London = 1572 square km, therefore equal to 15.72 Phase 1 areas.
15.72 x phase 1 @ 126 MW = 1,981 MW
Compare this with Eggborough coal fired power station ( 4 x 500 MW) = 2,000 MW.
So, Philp Johnston is correct :
"To produce the same amount of electricity as one coal-fired power station, you'd need a wind farm the size of Greater London."
.
This should be up in lights in Piccadilly Circus.
For those readers who are not aware of the sheer size of Greater London please go to this page and scroll down to "Geography".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London
Greater London almost fills the area inside the M25 motorway which is roughly a circle about 40 miles (or about 64 km) in diameter.
The numbers are mind boggling.
Re 3x2
Why litter the streets?
Green body swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit spinning on the turbine trees.
But that's a bit harsh, and the BBC isn't really the one to blame. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the groups that have been lobbying for wind power and the politicians who have unquestionably gone along for the ride. The challenge is to give them a way out. They can rip up the Climate Change Act any time they want, or revise ROC and FITS prices. What they need is a reason to do it and a way to save face.
The energy companies may be giving them that reason. Electricity prices rising rapidly due to the legislation, energy companies being blamed for the rises and needing to provide justification. Price increases average £200, green subsidies £200. How to resolve this political problem seems rather easy given the cost of subsidising renewables and the benefits they bring. All the energy companies need to do is point out the reason energy prices are rising, along with inflation and business costs is it's government policy. That would leave the government in a rather awkward position, but then too bad for creating such insane stealth tax and subsidy schemes. Then it would leave the problem of telling the EU where to go with it's targes.
@ Brownedoff,
Jun 9, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Jun 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Obliged, much obliged.
"The numbers are mind boggling."
Indeed the numbers are numbing, it's so pointless....3x2 has it so right:
"It has always been a scam, no matter what your view regarding the physics of CO2. Even if you buy into every worse case scenario of CAGW and time is of the essence, Nuclear would have been
the only practical way to extend that time. Kyoto, Carbon Trading, Mickey Mouse energy policy, FIT, ROC's and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars has not prevented one single
molecule of "human" CO2 entering the atmosphere. They have all, however, made those "in the loop" exceedingly rich and those on the periphery exceedingly cold and dead."
Well put 3x2.....the mind boggles at the stupidity of the reasoning for sustainability/whatever but some one's making a bundle!
As I've said on many occasions, there would be no renewable industry, were it not for - vast taxpayer subsidy - we are being mugged, broad daylight robbery.
It must be stopped, doing nothing but building; thorium/gas/coal/nuclear plant/reactors is an option but building wind farms - is extracting the urine and then - showering us with it.
No Zed in this thread? Surely someone put a comma in the wrong place or something thus rendering all this inaccurate?
Funny how trolls pick their battles.
Hmmm
Zed? She's so last thread. Have you encountered the foaming Cedric yet? He's hilarious.
Naughty corner for you, Latimer Alder. "a very sceptical article about windfarms in a prominent position".
Aren't they all?
Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman was on the radio this morning (Today programme) and blamed climate change for "two harsh winters" (quote from memory) - will provide a link to the audio if/when available (hope not too O/T.)
Caroline Spelman is a typical political cretin of the first magnitude. Can she not tell climate from weather? Did she explain the cause of the harsh winters of 46/47 and 62/63?
Here you go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9509000/9509716.stm
Starting around the 07:40 mark:
Caroline Spelman: "Because the fact is that climate change is bringing more extreme weather events more frequently -"
John Humphrys: "More droughts, in other words, or floods, yes - "
Caroline Spelman: "Yes, but - sometimes more floods, and also very severe winters. We've had two very severe winters."
Phillip, re the harsh winters of the past, I have the feeling that for these people, and where climate is concerned, history actually began some time in the late 1970s.
3x2: "street lamps/piano wire"
Yes.
RobB: "I would urge everyone to write to their MP"
Too late for that.