Bishop Hill Wind of not much change...
Oct 19, 2012 Energy: wind Greens ...from £several billion.
From Today's Moderator: Davey and the DECC are at it again.
Adam Bruce has accepted the position of Chairman of the new Offshore Wind Programme Board. The Offshore Wind Programme Board has been established following the recommendations in the Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Task Force report. It will comprise a small number of senior representatives from industry (including developers and supply chain), Government and Statutory Nature Conservation advisors and is based on successful models used in other sectors such as the Oil and Gas PILOT group.
The Programme Board’s objective will be to treat the UK’s offshore wind sector as one business, proactively considering its risks and assigning the appropriate participants to work on solutions to the issues raised.
Secretary of State Edward Davey said:
“We need to get the economy moving again and a massive expansion in home grown, clean, renewable energy capacity is central to this.
“As well as being a clean, green, home-grown energy source offshore wind offers significant employment opportunities for industry across all areas of the UK. However we are clear that costs must come down. I am delighted that Adam Bruce has accepted the role of Chairman to take this challenge forward.
“I look forward to working closely with Adam and the other members of the Programme Board in my role as joint-Chair of the Offshore Wind Developers Forum”....
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn12_126/pn12_126.aspx
Don't miss the ...Notes for editors
- As announced in the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap in July 2011, the Offshore Wind Cost Reduction was established to set out a path and action plan to reduce the costs of offshore wind to £100/MWh by 2020. It reported to DECC & Devolved Administration Ministers in June this year, with a number of recommendations for Government and industry to take forward.
- Adam Bruce is currently the Global Head of Corporate Affairs at Mainstream Renewable Power. He is the former UK Chief Executive of Airtricity, which was sold in 2008 to SSE plc. Mr Bruce was Chairman of Renewable UK from 2007-2010. He spent 10 years with the law firm McGrigors, where he was a founding director of the firm’s Public Policy practice. He sits on the Boards of the Friends of the Supergrid, the European Wind Energy Association, and the Global Wind Energy Council. He is a Fellow of the RSA.
- The OWPB will report initially to the Offshore Wind Developers Forum, which is jointly chaired by Keith Anderson of Scottish Power and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change, Edward Davey. The Offshore Developers Forum is a forum which brings together Government and industry, through the offshore wind developers, to work on solutions to remove barriers that have the potential to impede the viability and deliverability of offshore wind in the UK.
Does this mean they will endeavour to discover how to part the waves of the North Sea and abate the storms thereof?
Update 20.10.2012, 8.20am [TM]
I see that the Offshore Wind Developers appear to be under the aegis of The Crown Estate.
Offshore Wind Developers Forum
Together with the Government and senior executives from the 17 developers working on offshore wind projects, we have established the Offshore Wind Developers Forum.
UK offshore wind vision
"The UK to be the centre of offshore wind technology and deployment, with a competitive supply chain in the UK, providing over 50 per cent of the content of offshore wind farm projects."
Presumably the other 50% is from overseas manufacturers.
Reader Comments (50)
"to reduce the costs of offshore wind to £100/MWh by 2020" is code for totally uneconomic and will need massive subsidies for ever doesn't it?
Of course it doesn't. If Ed Davey was to give me some money (£100,000) would do) I'd go away and right a report complete with snazzy spreadsheets and nonsensical figures that shows that offshore wind already costs less than £100. A bit of footwork with the costing boundaries, some unrealistic DCF figures a la Stern, and: JOB DONE.
I could not happen . . .
"to take this challenge forward"
As opposed to what - sideways?
write, not right. What a howler!. And It, not I. Better reduce that to £90,000.
Better reduce that to £90,000.
You open to offers?
So not only do we get something a lot of us don't want, and probably will not work well in the seas we have, but we get a REALLY cheap version -but look on the bright side, perhaps that means it will fall apart more quickly..
Strange how the current debate on unaffordable energy is focussing on the minor detail of tarifs and ignoring the major detail of high costs, exacerbated by windmill follies.
Camel: horse designed by a committee.
"to take this challenge forward"
As opposed to what - sideways?
Oct 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM | jamesp
It's headed downwards!
Oct 19, 2012 at 8:33 AM | ChrisM
"to reduce the costs of offshore wind to £100/MWh by 2020" is code for totally uneconomic and will need massive subsidies for ever doesn't it?
Apparently, the wholesale price of juice this year is about £55/MWh. Presumably, this is arrived at by the "mixing" of cheap coal and nuclear juice, bit more expensive gas juice and (the compulsory purchase of) very expensive unreliable wind juice.
Apparently, the forecast for wholesale juice by 2020 is about £85/MWh brought about by taxes, regulation and the increased price of gas juice (because the gas-fired generators will be able to ask for more) as coal and nuclear disappear.
Suppose that forecast is low and the price of wholesale juice achieves £100/MWh by 2020.
Suppose, by 2020, the offshore wind generators are happy to receive £100/MWh for their juice.
Now, apparently, the offshore wind generators get about half their income from subsidies but if the wholesale price is at £100/MWh then the wind generators could make a decent living without subsidy because they would just ask for £100/MWh if the subsidy was withdrawn.
This means that the offshore subsidy could be withdrawn progressively, and it probably will be, before 2020 without causing too much pain to the offshore subsidy farmers.
So it is unlikely that massive subsidies will be in place for ever.
Of course, I could be completely wrong.
Big big meet big trough. Our only hope is that offshore wind farms are so beset with mechanical problems anf failures that we only pay a small fraction of the massive subsidies to the overseas companies cashing in on the scam. We are subsidising oveseas and failing companies like Vestas and Siemens to ruin our economy.
write, not right. What a howler!. And It, not I. Better reduce that to £90,000.
Oct 19, 2012 at 8:55 AM | Capell
No, no! If you're working for "Green Energy", that is tantamount to admitting you are wrong about something, & that would never do for renewables, they're infallible remember! Keep your fee at £100k
;-)
I wonder if the Green Party, or any other political party for that matter, will include in its manifesto for the next general election a commitment to make the winds blow more reliably? That would be only slightly less believable than most of what is found in election manifestos.
As all politicians are in favour of "joined up policies" I wonder if they have considered possible conflicts between their energy policies (or more strictly speaking, their lack-of-energy policies) and their human rights policies? Suppose prisoners are watching soft porn on Sky television when there is a power cut because the wind is not blowing? Surely that would constitute an infringement of their "human rights"?
Two predictions: offshore wind turbines will meet with serious technical and engineering problems that shorten their lives drastically. We will have to go on paying for them regardless, under some form of PFI contract.
Just had a quick at what the latest is on Scottish Power's economic and engineering lunacy off Tiree, and came across this good summary of recent articles in the FT and Herald which seem pertinent to this WWF inspired madness by the DECC:
Where is Gov’t Energy Strategy Going Wrong?
Kudos to Pilita Clark (FT environment correspondent) for doing some research and thinking.
Says Davey: “We need to get the economy moving again and a massive expansion in home grown, clean, renewable energy capacity is central to this."
Ha! Ha! and Ha! again.
If he seriously believes this, he is either wholly deluded or barking mad.
lapogus:
Those are very interesting articles you linked to.Two sections appealed to me, one from Colin McInnes, the other from the top commenter,
1. "The argument goes like this. Due to its diffuse nature, Green energy is more labour intensive than compact thermal energy, so it’s good for boosting employment. And so to ensure growth of this new industry Government needs to provide support by steering significant sums into production subsidy.
So, if Green energy requires more jobs per unit of energy produced than its competitors, is this an inherent advantage? No, of course it’s not. Job creation isn’t the issue, it’s delivering low-cost energy that can drive the economy and generate genuine prosperity for the future."
2. "The most staggering statistic is the admission of Renewable UK that for all of its off shore wind supremacy the UK had only generated 3200 jobs in the sector by 2011… all smoke and mirrors."
Who will rid us of these turbulent policies....?
Agouts - I would say Davey is ill-informed at best, but the net result is much the same, i.e. he is delusional. From the FT article it seems to me that (even if significant off-shore wind capacity was viable in engineering and economic terms) it is already too late for the UK to get in on the high value manufacturing jobs. Siemens are making all the hardware in Denmark & Germany and importing it (and probably using Dutch barges and cranes). All the UK gets is the construction work which is short term. There's no way we will catch up and compete with the Germans in the renewables industry now. Davey needs some advisors who live in the real world and not WWF's fantasy island.
@ Messenger - yes, the low energy density (and inherent inefficiency) of renewables means the whole industry is founded and predicated on a system of subsidy, and hence can never actually generate wealth, even if (in theory) the wind is 'free'. I can understand Milliband not minding this, but supposedly right wing tories like Cameron should be instinctively averse to such a flawed energy and economic policy.
Agree, the paltry total of 3200 jobs in off-shore renewables is an eye-opener.
Wouldn't it be simpler if the Government just paid people to burn our money?
It might also keep us a little warmer when the lights go off.
They're finally on the trail. Energy is life. Cheap energy is prosperity.
However "massive expansion in home grown, clean, renewable energy capacity is central to this" means they're off on the quest for some type of perpetual motion machine and the search for the alternative universe where nonsense makes sense.
A shame so many will suffer so much by so few (h/t to Winston).
How is Chinese windmills made in China with Chinese Raw materials "home grown"?
6 studies have shown for grids like ours no CO2 saving by windmills compared with the same total energy from fossil fuels. The only way out is hydro, in our case pump storage powered by nuclear plants so the 30% efficiency loss is CO2-free.
This could save 3-4% CO2 for 20% wind penetration but the cost of idle standby plant would mean average energy + transport cost for a family would be £ 7-8,000/year and electricity would be off much of the winter, diverted to trains, lifts, water and sewers.
As well as the prohibitive cost, we would lose the Lake District and large areas of Scotland. However, fellow travellers in all three parties are desperate to fulfil Marxist Agenda 21, aided by banker, reinsurer and energy corporation emissions’ traders.
Climategate alerted us to fake CO2-AGW. They failed to stop shale gas. The politicians have decided that without the totalitarian state [the likes of the Murdochs corrupting police and politicians], they must dump the windmills and Putin’s EUSSR Master Plan. DECC is in panic mode because it is redundant. We live in interesting times.
Quintessential voodoo-economics:
(1) Make a process or product [electricity] more expensive by 'regulation' or Government-fiat.
(2) Get private investors to build extra generating capacity using technology that is less efficient/less economic.
(3) Proclaim that the inefficient technology is a success because the investors are now able to sell their product at the higher prices dictated by (1)
It is a magic circle for the investors. Prudent investment for national economic growth or national security of energy-supply it is not. They [the Government] may be hoping for new and much better technology to arise as a result, making the non-competitive technology more efficient. That might happen. It might not. Especially if the alternatives are also regulated by Government marching to the beat of environmental activists.
There are other, very real, physical constraints and limits that have zero relation to finance and commerce. Just as a central bank can print money but cannot print wealth, "creative-accounting" does not work in the physical world of energy supply: It breaks the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
lapogus; 'but supposedly right wing tories like Cameron should be instinctively averse to such a flawed energy and economic policy.'
Like Obama, he is a delegate of the emissions' traders, the Mafia who own the renewables' corporations, windmill manufacturers and troughers who rent out the land. Just look at the US electric cars also how Gore has got rich by investing in the state-funded corporations and carbon trading.
These people have lost all touch with reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ngs45/Built_in_Britain_Episode_2/
36 minutes in.Even Davis the host of Dragons Den.goes for a boat ride.
Funny thing is Even when you were out there getting sea sick notice the Turbines we not turning
28 minutes in when Even is walking around Hinckley Point, makes a good point about commitment.
Stop messing about Ed and build new Nukes 50 50 Public Private money.Everyone commits.
Nukes in France are powering themselves and Germany and Denmark where Wind Turbines have Failed.
Don't matter how many and how big you build them and putting them out at sea where they cant offend anyone on land .Wind turbines are still rubbish.
Kind of getting the idea is just something for investors to throw their money at.
Osborne pulled the Tax subsidies plug on Solar .Pull the plug on Wind .Put your money in Nuclear
How about 'Wind of much not use'? How strange the fans of wind power haven't rushed off to the media to publicise this information...
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/wind-power-reality-bites-again/
As someone pointed out on another thread; the articles of association of almost every company include the need to maximise shareholder profit, strangely enough this involves minimising costs. It is a core mission for every company to (hopefully safely) drive down costs.
A government "committee" can only increase costs because they will require an endless stream of information to be provided by the company which will divert manpower away from their real jobs.
In addition there are actually 2 costs involved here; cost of production and cost to the taxpayer (for the energy supplied).
What would be useful would be 1 industry expert insider who could establish just exactly what real production costs are and in that way prevent the public being milked.
Brownedoff suggested that the problem may go away if our real energy costs rose to the £100/MWH level and so eliminate the need for subsidies. However there is the tiny problem that China, the US and India will all be paying less than half that amount and our manufacturing industry would either be shut down or moved to a more profitable environment.
"We need to get the economy moving again and a massive expansion in home grown, clean, renewable energy capacity is central to this.
As well as being a clean, green, home-grown energy source..."
Was this written by Glenda Slagg?
As a retired engineer, who spent much of his career trying to keep production machinery going indoors and miles from the sea, I'm with Mike Fowle (10.37 on Oct 19th).
I predict that offshore turbines will start failing after five years; and that whole farms will be abandoned after twelve years.
Oh - and as I write, wind is providing a whopping 0.6% of electricity demand.....
'Delusional' doesn't come close...
as i understand it, apart from computer-generated high frequency trading, not too many investors are willing to put money into the stock market these days. coincidentally, there's talk of retirement funds in the UK and Australia filling the void, which i find extremely worrying:
18 Oct: Guardian: Larry Elliott: UK economy still ailing, warns Bank of England insider
David Miles, one of the nine members of Threadneedle Street’s monetary policy committee (MPC), said that even though the level of stimulus being provided by the Bank was already “off the scale”, there was no evidence that the economy was overheating…
The MPC announced a programme of £50bn worth of asset sales in August, having decided that inflation would drop back to its 2% target by the end of the year, and fall below it during 2013…
Some of Britain’s biggest occupational pension schemes have answered the Treasury’s call for them to back a major boost in spending on infrastructure projects.
Six schemes have become “founding investors” in the Pension Infrastructure Platform, after indicating they could spend £100m each.
George Osborne said in the budget that he wanted pension funds to step in to support infrastructure spending.
The initial investors are the pension funds for BT and BAE, the Railways Pension Scheme, the government backed Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and local authority schemes from Strathclyde and the West Midlands.
The PPF and the National Association of Pension Funds said talks were under way to hammer out a structure that limits the risk of cost overruns, which has traditionally discouraged schemes from investing in infrastructure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/18/uk-economy-still-ailing-bank-of-england-insider
Bracks & Brumby in the following are former Labor politicians:
19 Oct: AustraliannFinancialReview: Union super funds back asset sell-off
by Sally Patten, Jake Mitchell and Gemma Daley
Union-backed superannuation funds are supporting an ambitious privatisation plan that could lead to the sale of $200 billion of government-owned logistics, energy and water assets…
Infrastructure Australia, the federal government’s infrastructure adviser, identified 82 profit-making government assets that could be sold quickly, including $11 billion of ports and $108 billion of electricity transmission, distribution and generation assets, The Australian Financial Review revealed exclusively on Thursday...
Steve Bracks, chairman of the $18 billion Cbus super scheme and a former Labor premier of Victoria, praised the plan, which argues that privatisations are needed to close the “infrastructure gap” between tax revenue and spending requirements.
John Brumby, chairman of the $5.7 billion MTAA retirement scheme, indicated that selling ports and electricity generators to super funds would help to alleviate community concerns. “Asset sales are always difficult. It may be less sensitive politically if they are sold to super funds rather than a merchant bank or an overseas hedge fund,” said Mr Brumby, another former Victorian Labor premier…
The endorsements from Labor figures are significant because one of the biggest problems is overcoming public fear that asset sales will cost jobs and raise the cost of water, electricity and other essential services…
http://afr.com/p/national/union_super_funds_back_asset_sell_DHdX50wKp3VxNL2NphIV7N
These are the headlines in DECC’s press releases today:
£40 million for local energy bill blitz
Hundreds of pounds up for grabs with £125m Green Deal cash back offer
£20m up for grabs for energy storage innovation
and just to make sure your cup of happiness is completely empty-
New 19 turbine wind farm in Cheshire [Frodsham appeal turned down by the Inspector].
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn12_123/pn12_123.aspx
Update on my previous posting.
Wind is now providing an astonishing 0.5% of electricity demand.
This approach by government is costing - how much, exactly, in subsidies from tax revenues and higher electricty bills..?
Does this mean they will endeavour to discover how to part the waves of the North Sea and abate the storms thereof?
By Act Of Parliament of course.
Oct 19, 2012 at 1:59 PM | Dung
However there is the tiny problem that China, the US and India will all be paying less than half that amount and our manufacturing industry would either be shut down or moved to a more profitable environment.
The more wrong decisions that are taken by Government (Messenger draws to our attention another 4 mistakes, and that is in just one day), the more likely it is that those with the ability and wherewithal to make a choice will decide that staying in the UK is not a good business plan.
If there is a mass exodus of manufacturing, then there will be a large drop in demand for electricity and hence a large drop in revenue for the Big Six. That revenue shortfall will have to be replaced by charging more for the electricity used by the remaining consumers.
The remaining customers will then find ways to reduce their consumption, (as they have been doing anyway over recent years) mainly because they will not be able to afford the stuff.
The Big Six will then have to increase the price, consumers will use less, repeat until the Big Six go bust.
Turning to premature failure of offshore windmills, one of the concerns was the single pile foundation - it would either eventually lean over or be adversely affected by vibration. Well, not to worry, civil engineers have solved the problem
Have they solved all the problems since 2007?
"Every project has unique features, which have to be taken into consideration. The combination of
• integral wind turbine - foundation structure
• soil conditions
• hydraulic conditions
• construction methods
• transport/installation equipment and methods
• project organisation
sets the frame for the individual project, and the solution has to be optimised with respect to all elements.
For large water depths and turbines no standard solution exists.This is true for both concrete gravity base foundations and steel foundations, as the simple monopile concept would exceed the limits for fatigue and stiffness.
The elements of particular concern are:
• the turbine loads and the design loop process between the foundation and the turbine designer
• variations in water depths over project area
• the soil conditions, which are the most varying element and therefore need to be designed for each individual turbine location;
• weight limits for lift/installation and consideration of the working procedures related hereto
• the interface issues set by the project organisation."
www.bittner-shen.com/.../Offshore_Wind_Turbine_Foundations
One thing that truly irritates me about the “alarmist” camp is the mantra that scepticism is unscientific, and that those who do question the findings of increasingly-apparent low-grade scientists are ominously referred to as “deniers” – so-called as they “deny” that there is climate change / global warming. Of course, that last assertion is bizarre; most of the higher-profile sceptics openly admit that there is climate change – and that there has always been climate change (a point the “alarmists” studiously ignore). Of course, as most on this site agree, it is the cause of this present change that is open to question; most seem to be of the opinion that humans might have an effect upon the climate, but that effect (if any) is likely to be so slight as to be basically undetectable. By extrapolation, of course, this means that we will NEVER be able to have any discernible effect upon the climate, and to pretend otherwise is of the most supreme arrogance.
Yet the gravy train lumbers on; more and more tax-payers’ money is shovelled into the gaping maw of “green” energy – claiming to be clean only if you ignore the reality of REM extraction in China; claiming to be renewable only if you ignore the fact that all turbines are single-use, and, once broken, only fit for landfill; claiming to provide energy only if you ignore the energy expended in construction exceeding the energy ever likely to be recovered.
Ignorance, goes the saying, is bliss. The ignorance of the politicians and many of their industry and “scientific” friends is truly bliss, as they wield their power, and carefully line their own nests.
What will it take to break this horrendous cartel? What disaster will have to befall us before the endlessly duped public realises that not only does the emperor have no clothes but neither do any of his entourage? That last analogy is perhaps too tame, as the duped public will probably not just turn away in disgust, but vent their ire in more expressive ways.
Radical Rodent; what we face is the almost total breakdown of honour in our political caste.
Thank you, AlecM. It should be noted that this breakdown commenced around about 1997; is it now completed, or is there more to go?
And I have no idea why all these blimps boast of their membership of the RSA - there is no credit in gaining membership. You just get a friend who is a member to propose you. Bit like an honorary degree.
This is a land of utter fraudsters.
......... Beam Me Up Scotty
Oh Deary Me ....
some sections of the UK Fraud Act Breached Here
2.Fraud by false representation
3.Fraud by failing to disclose information
4.Fraud by abuse of position
6.Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds
7.Making or supplying articles for use in frauds
9.Participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc.
10.Participating in fraudulent business carried on by company etc.
11.Obtaining services dishonestly
Details : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents
Maybe Complain to your local Police Station ?
awaits the obligatory AlecM post about the 5 basic errors in climate science....
Radical Rodent; Nulaber was our first Mafia-controlled government. Brown and Balls were financed to power using funds originating, allegedly in Northern Ireland, the Coleraine plant of Transtec, the company set up by Robinson and Maxwell. As with the Rover enquiry, the DTI investigation into Transtec was published just over 6 years after the events, the statute of limitations period. This report is incomplete. PWC was fined £1.5 million. Our present government has adopted the same principles, make lots of money for the elite by the climate scam, overseas aid etc.
diogenes; there are six basic errors in climate science. Three are so elementary as to be cringe-making to any professional scientist or engineer with advanced heat transfer experience. The other 3 are more subtle but the IPCC was warned of one in 1993.
Judge Dread:
I recently objected to a planning application for a wind turbine and I said the deliberately misleading information provided by the application, was, according to the Fraud Act, an act of fraud.
The planning officer's report stated "issues of alleged fraud etc are not a planning issue". So basically applicants can get away with committing fraud.
I brought the issue to the attention of my MP who took it up with the Planning Inspectorate, who replied (Sir Michael Pitt, Chief Executive) that he had instructed Inspectors to check the information supplied to them. This implies that Inspectors previously have not checked what is submitted. Again, applicants (appellants now) can get away with fraud unless Inspectors do their job properly Even then, there are no penalties for committing the fraud unless someone brings it to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office (who have bigger fishes to try and fry).
@ Phillip Bratby - just out of interest, what was the fraudulent claim you alleged? Was it the developer's usual claim that the turbine would provide electricity for x thousand houses, when this figure is based on the installed capacity without taking into account a typical load factor of 25%?
If I am elected, I promise free subsidies for everyone!
;-)
@Agouts
No, not either. Both.
@ Phillip Bratby
Yes, succinctly put, this is the case.
Precisely this is a breach of Section 2. "Fraud by false representation".
videlicet:
Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).
This will not wash. The so called "planning officer" is not a law official who
is qualified to make such judgements, or statements, such as have been
implied in your report. What he states "issues of alleged fraud etc are not
a planning issue", is in a sense true, but wholly misleading, in that an
impression is given to you and others, that there was no fraudulent behaviour
committed. If we examine the statement in greater detail we can see that in
effect what the so called "planning officer" says is that issues of alleged fraud
are not within his remit of authority. This does not mean that he is saying that
no fraud has occurred, just that he is not competent to deal with such allegations.
Ok so now on the face of it despite what the so called "planning officer" said,
there still remains a prima facie case of fraud under section 2 of the 2006 Act.
You were right to bring this to the attention of your MP, but however he was wrong
to write to the planning inspectorate if his intention was to pursue the allegations
of fraudulent behaviour. The only valid complaint in such case might have been
that of improper conduct, or professional negligence perhaps. Again Sir Michael's
reply was in reality quite correct, and from his answer we can perhaps divine the
question, put to him by your MP.
Simply this: Sir Michael stated that he had ....
"instructed Inspectors to check the information supplied to them"
So can we then divine that your MP asked the planning inspectorate
whether they had received such information from you as you had claimed,
and what was the results, if and when the so called "planning official" had
examined such submission from you? If that was the case then again
Sir Michael is simply stating the facts of the matter and showing no
particular bias either way, in my opinion.
Well yes there are penalties for committing fraud, but alas it seems that
those allegations were not actually pursued by anyone. The so called
"planning official" dodged the question, and your MP apparently failed
to ask the right question, or if he did ask the "right question", then he
asked it of the wrong person. Whilst it is the case that indeed the
SFO do have the authority to investigate frauds, it is notable that the
headline banner at the official website states that "Our aim is to protect
society from extensive, deliberate criminal deception which could threaten
public confidence in the financial system." So there you have it, the SFO
is mostly set up to investigate bank and finance fraud in the "City".
The SFO can only, by Law, investigate cases
that are both "Serious" and "Complex" ..........
Is it serious?
Whether the fraud will impact on the integrity of the financial market
Whether there is a wider group than shareholders or creditors who
have lost money as a result of the alleged fraud
Whether the fraudsters have targeted financial institutions and
government (local or central) or other public serving authorities
Is it complex?
Whether the case involves multiple countries
Whether the evidential material to be obtained during the
course of the investigation will be found in multiple locations
(within the UK or in other countries)
Whether the case involves multiple and complex financial transactions
- e.g. involving many companies, accounts, Trusts and countries
Whether the investigation will need to involve a large accountancy analysis
I think the circumstances of the case you mention do not sadly fit these
criteria. However if the windmill company did make misleading claims,
and did so deliberately, in order to make a gain for themselves or another,
then there is still a prima facie case of fraud under section 2 of the 2006
Act to be addressed, but the SFO are not the vehicle in which to address
these allegations.
Whilst this may well seem a complex arena for the aggrieved layperson to tackle,
and whilst writing to your MP was a sensible first step, in fact he ought to have
directed you to the UK Police "Action Fraud", national fraud reporting centre,
or indeed done so himself. You can write, telephone, or make a complaint online
at a specially dedicated fraud reporting page. Whilst the fraud that you allege,
does not fit easily into any of their many categories, nevertheless if Section 2
of the 2006 Act has been breached, then a chargeable offence may have occurred,
and so your complaint should be investigated.
The first step for you, or indeed any person who suspects this type of fraud,
should be to contact the Action Fraud Line by telephone on their helpline.
Contact the helpline.To report a fraud using your telephone please call:
0300 123 2040 (in the UK) Calls to 0300 numbers will cost the same as
calls to geographic numbers (starting 01 or 02). Such calls will be free only
if you have an inclusive free calls for 01 and 02 numbers on your phone.
The Fraud Helpline is manned 24 Hours a day, but it may make more
sense to call during normal office hours, when more staff will be available.
Be prepared to describe your allegations in a clear, logical and concise
fashion. Write down all the "bullet points" in a clear progression on a
piece of paper, or type into a text file, before you call the Fraud Helpline.
Point out exactly how you believe that the windmill company has
breached Section 2 of the 2006 Act, with DETAILS.
Details :
Go back and read Section 2 of the 2006 Act above and taking each point in turn
firstly find out, and then write down exactly how the windmill company breached
each point of Section 2. For example, I shall give a hypothetical case.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) Company "X" is in breach of this section because he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation,
The company published a report or document whereby they claimed
a stated amount of electricity would be generated from a proposed
wind turbine facility. There is no basis in fact for these claims, and they
are based on hypothetical calculations, and not real world scenarios.
And
(b) The company intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another,
The company stand to make lucrative profits, not only from generating any
electricity at a subsidised feed-in tariff, but also from construction grants,
renewable energy certificates, and even being paid NOT to generate electricity
if the wind blows too strongly.
OR
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
The general electricity consumer, bot domestic and business is
caused a loss or exposed to a loss, and I am one such consumer.
The general taxpayer has the additional burden of the expenditure
of taxpayers funds from the Treasury to such windfarm operators,
and is thus exposed to or caused a loss, and I am such a taxpayer.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading,
My contention is that the representations made by the windmill company
are either untrue or misleading, as follows (insert details with evidence
It is important to have actual physical evidence of the misleading claims,
and any counter evidence which could disprove those claims, and it is
not enough to have merely a suspicion. Hard physical evidence is needed.)
And
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
When I saw these claims by the windmill company, I wrote to them providing
evidence to the contrary, and though they acknowledged my letter they did
write back and disagreed with my evidence and conclusions.
(This is important, because even if the windmill company disagreed with you
they have acknowledged that they received and seen your contrary evidence.
Remember that the test is that the person making the representation knows
that it "might be, untrue or misleading". The company will have to prove that
the counter claims which you have made are without foundation, and that their
own claims are 100% validated, or else there will be uncertainty, and then
this is where the "might" possibility comes in, and the importance of writing to,
and receiving a written acknowledgement and denial from the windmill company)
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
These false representations were made in certain documents, and announcements
which the windmill company made, in writing and on news broadcasts, and so on.
(Provide details, EVIDENCE, E-MAILS, LETTERS, TV or RADIO Recordings)
They made them in such a casual manner as to appear innocuous, but they
were however insidious. eg. instead of claiming an absolute power output in
terms of Watts or indeed Kilowatt Hours, on a radio broadcast the wind
company spokesman stated that the windmills would provide enough power
for 50,000 homes. The implication is that with the average annual home
consumption being 3,300 kWh (OFGEM), then the windfarm would produce
3,300 X 50,000 = 165,000,000 kWh or 165 Tera Watts, annually. With the
planning application showing X number of turbines rated at X Mega Watts,
then such claims as implied by the company spokesman are misleading
and therfore fraudulent. Not only that but such claims as have been implied
by the company, are wholly dependent on unknown factors, such as future
weather patterns, seasonal variations and wind speeds.
DO NOT JUST COPY AND PASTE ALL THAT I WROTE. YOU MUST TAILOR THE
TEMPLATE TO SUIT YOUR OWN COMPLAINT, AND ADD RELEVANT DETAIL AND
........ EVIDENCE !!!!