Bishop Hill Cost concealment
Nov 14, 2013 Energy: grid 
Painting "Don Quixote, Sancho, and the Prairie Turbines" by Phillip Epp. Click for link.David Rose has a an article in the Spectator this morning, looking at politicians' evasions on the energy crisis. This bit struck a chord.
The total renewable subsidy which UK consumers will have paid via higher energy bills for the ten years to 2020 will be an almighty £46 billion. Even this eye-watering figure is a massive underestimate. This week, the National Audit Office said bills were likely to rise above inflation for at least 17 years, with the cost of government commitments likely to be at least £700 per household. According to the energy experts Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University and Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital, the Energy Bill figure does not factor in the enormous cost of connecting wind turbines to the National Grid, nor the complicated switching mechanisms needed to deal with the fact that no turbine will actually produce power for more than a third of the time. They say the true green bill by 2020 could be more than £100 billion, with households paying around £400 more per household for electricity alone.
The persistent dishonesty of DECC ministers and officials in pretending that grid connections are nothing to do with the renewables industry is something that can and should be held against them. They know they are misleading the public and their political colleagues simply give them a free pass.
Reader Comments (63)
Yet when there IS an accounting for all this none of them will be held accountable..
Not one....
They wonder incomprehensibly though at the inchoate fury..........
£46 Billion? That's almost 1/2 an HS2! Don't Westminster bubble habituees just love > throwing other people's money around?
There are three possibilities here:
1. Incompetence.
2. The aim is to destroy the UK economy for political reasons.
3. Corruption.
Could someone clarify the periodicity of the 400 GBP and the 700 GBP and whether it might be 1,100 GBP annually? Surely it wasn't amortized over 17 years. (I know there must be some way to extract a proper pound symbol from all these keys but how has eluded me)
'..the enormous cost of connecting wind turbines to the National Grid...'
I believe this is the area where Lord Deben's Veolia intends to make a killing.
Nov 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM
No doubt it will be a combination of all 3. Only the relevant percentages will change with time, the end result will remain the same.
Whats puzzling is why politicians lie to us/dissemble as a matter of course. This is one of many examples, another recent one being the Transport Minister conceding that shortening the journey time between London and up North wasn't the best 'narrative' to 'sell' HS2 to the public. But why should it have to be 'sold' to us? Either its a good thing, in the public interest, or its not. Whats wrong with whats probably the real story, that the existing lines are so knackered that, long term, the point has been reached where its cheaper to build a new one ratehr than keep on patching up the old ones. Are we too stupid to understand that? Or is that not true, too? Likewise, if decarbonisation and renewables is such a great idea, why do they have to fudge the figures? If its not such a great idea, then why the dickens are they doing it? Is high politics so complicated and serious that they simply can't risk telling us whats what?
bill
What a wonderfully naive little man you are!
Actually I agree with you and having followed (or on occasion reported on) politics for more than half a century I have my suspicions about where this disconnect started. It used to be said of Nixon that lying was a way of life and that if he caught himself telling the truth he would throw in a lie just to keep in practice, but the real experts were Blair and Campbell who instituted the concept of permanent electioneering (like "permanent revolution" only without the blood sacrifices!).
The mushroom principle brought to a pitch of perfection or possible the idea that the sheeple cannot be trusted with truth or facts or anything that in a rash moment they might disagree with.
If just one of our "leaders" would break ranks and explain why telling the truth about HS2 or CO2 or any of the other matters that exercise their minds (and our taxes) would be dangerous or even unthinkable then I will die a happy man!
Perfect timing. A friend of mine recently used the words 'obscene profits' in relation to oil and coal... this gives me three recent articles on massive subsidies to renewables, to throw back at him.
Otter
Of course there are 'obscene profits' being made in relation to oil and coal (not to mention wind, solar and biomass - and now nuclear too, thanks to PotatoEd and DECC).
But successive governments' dogma, incompetence, greed and malice have brought us to the point where this is inevitable. The energy companies point out (quite rightly) that private investment in hundreds of billions of pounds is needed in energy infrastructure just to keep the lights on. And that in a context where they are at the mercy of government regulation and whim (think: carbon floor prices, price freezes, windfall taxes etc.). Why would they not look for 'obscene profits'?
An interesting one for readers here - coal prices paid to producers will drop at least 20% this year. Coal produces around 40% of our electricity (a low 36% today). How much will that cheaper coal bring down bills?
Guess, anyone??
But who established this 'market' and who 'regulates' it?
Why, the very politicos who now strut about accusing the energy companies of making 'obscene profits'!
And who has been behind every step the UK politicos have taken down this path?
Why, our chums the DramaGreens! From Houghton and Tickell all the way down to the current bunch of clowns.
And enthusiastically provided with agit-prop by the BBC, paid for from your licence fee!!
"This week, the National Audit Office said ............. the cost of government commitments likely to be at least £700 per household."
Would that be the "direct" cost to a household; or, has the NAO 'forgotten' that households additionally pay the energy-price increases on goods and services bought-in from Industry & Commerce? (Which account for 2/3rds of UK energy consumption.)
I don't think government ministers understand the consequences of their decisions. Most of them are completely baffled by anything to do with science and technology. They see being green as a vote winner. All the political leaders were falling over themselves to raise the green targets.
The civil servants are a different breed. They tell the ministers what they need to know, or what the civil servants want them to know. They also point out the damage to the government if a minister strays from the agreed story. A good example is the EU. The role of Brussels in major "domestic" issues is almost never disclosed. The civil service is known to be strongly Europhile and well integrated with their EU colleagues. We proceed towards a Federal Europe at a pace while our ministers claim the opposite.
I suspect that DECC has a fair number of green activists on their books. We know that the advisory bodies are stuffed full of vested interest money grabbers.The NGOs were taken over years ago by activists. Of course, with Ed Davey and Clegg calling the shots on green policies, who needs fanatics?
It will take a long time, many cold related deaths, destruction of industry and competitiveness and crippling taxation before the political elite realise that they got it wrong. Even then, their hands may be tied by the EU. The only glimmer of hope is that Canada has just applauded the Australian initiative in scrapping their climate policies.
The good news is that the lights won't go out because nobody will be able to afford lights.
Another "Trick" that DECC uses, aided and abetted uncritically by the BBC, is that these huge costs are for "essential" "infrastructure" "upgrades". They thereby seek to Hide the fact that the cost comes from building windmills, solar arrays and other Green Elephants. They also deliberately create a (false) impression that there are no alternatives other than to spend the money - these are "essential" "upgrades".
Whereas in fact we (or rather they, our politicians and their state-owned propaganda machine) are CHOOSING to spend this money. We could choose to keep our coal fired power stations open. We could choose to build new coal fired power stations. We could choose to build cheap efficient gas power stations. We could choose to create a new gas industry to supply those power stations. We could choose to have cheap, plentiful energy.
Instead, all of these choices are removed from us. We are offered expensive, rationed energy as Plan A through to Z, as if there were no choice. All the main political parties play the mushroom game - keep us in the dark and feed us on sh*t - and our spineless media, for the most part, plays along nice.
Well sod you, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband and your lapdog BBC. Sod your tens and hundreds of billions of pounds for renewables. Sod your "essential" "infrastructure" "upgrades". No-one ever voted for this. No-one ever chose this. Do we really have to wrest our democracy back? Will no-one speak truth to power?
History shows us what happens when an increasingly greedy and decadent ruling class push a population into crushing poverty. On one hand you have self serving politicians with green incomes and friends with subsidy farms. On the other unregulated energy companies. Both sides adding their cut to energy bills and blaming each other for the rising costs. This will only end one way, it happened before in France in the late 1700s. The unrepresented general population will be the ultimate deciding force. I’m dreading this winter, pensioners and a lot of people in poverty cannot submit to have their energy bills paid for them as expenses.
I wrote to Jeff Randall about this issue when the first of the current energy bill rises hit the news. There were a number of different estimates of how much green levies added to bills and Randall was doing a special to 'discover the truth'. I had quite liked Randall so I explained to him that the stuff described as network costs, i.e. infrastructure upgrades was almost all about accommodating renewable (therefore green) energy into the grid. Randall never mentioned it of course, silly me for even bothering.
@JaceF
Before we go for the increasingly attractive guillotine solution we should really try the less blood thirsty options ^.^
All MPs are governed by a 'strict' set of rules including one that dictates that they must always act in the best interests of the country and their constituents. Surely a person or group with financial backing and appropriate legal assistance could start to dismantle the heap of dung that we laughingly describe as our government?
And Mike Jackson, what a patronising little man you are!
David
Mike Jackson is one of the good guys, he just happens to have a fairly dry sense of humour ^.^
Hahaha!
Well done to David Rose and the Spectator. A few dozen or so articles like this on all major newspapers on a weekly basis might just shame the government into taking notice. Now to be more realistic, we can rule out the Guardian, the Independent, ....
Eventually, when the economic unsustainability of the green energy finally becomes unbearable, the U.K politicians might follow the Spanish politicians and start milking those who have the nerve to generate their own green energy:
http://www.thelocal.es/20131112/spains-solar-police-to-kick-in-your-door
Dung
I'm afraid Jeff Randall is no longer worth watching.
Solid projections of costs are good but sleight of hand and less than frank caveats from politicians can be used to obscure them. The past is another matter. Are there any concrete figures for how much renewables have already cost consumers in real money for the period of 2005-2010 for example?
On the issue of network costs a Scottish Power representative was on Watchdog a couple of weeks ago and imo inadvertently let the cat partially out of the bag. If I understood it correctly he was being questioned about the network costs and (I think) a potential conflict of interests Scottish Power have for owning network infrastructure and charging themselves for use of it, and passing on that cost to their customers. The cost they charge themselves is a regulator approved one. National Grid work likewise. Ofgem set a maximum allowable revenue they can charge each year and NG make sure they get close but do not exceed that amount.
Mike Jackson, happy to be charged with being 'naive'. Enlighten me then. Why do they always lie/dissemble? Why is that a better strategy for them than being truthful?
Thanks, Dung.
David must need a sense of humour transplant. Or he can look up 'irony' in the dictionary.
Or I owe bill an apology.
I'm sorry about your experience with Jeff Randall. I thought he was one of the good guys as well.
bill
The only answer I have is "Gawd knows". Certainly in my youth politicians used to be trustworthy (in the main). There was always a bit of dissembling mainly because it was understood that there were things that needed to be kept confidential at least for a time. Also there have always been things that the average person doesn't understand all that well (and that includes most of us at one time of another) and the simplified version — what Sir Humphrey called 'the Janet and John bit' — was often not very informative.
In the last 20+ years it seems that politicians have become more corruptible, more arrogant, and more over-stuffed with their own importance. Just at the time that they have become more and more detached from reality.
Come to think of it,maybe it's that detachment from what happens where 'real' people live that is the problem.
Thanks Mike..there you go again! Always an aire of smugness in your comments! Old man syndrome, with too much time on his hands!
Children..... play nicely now...
Mike Jackson, happy to be charged with being 'naive'. Enlighten me then. Why do they always lie/dissemble? Why is that a better strategy for them than being truthful?
Nov 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill
-----------------------------
Bill, I think the politicians calculation is that on any given issue they will always seriously offend one group of voters by being too direct and honest (or at least, offend them more than the rest of the electorate can be bothered to care about that issue). So the default position is to try and offend nobody, or at least nobody who votes. They might be correct.
I always find British politicians of any party as being at their most honest and likeable in the few hours (every 4 or 5 years) between when the votes have been cast at a general election, and when the votes have been counted and the result declared.
I always liked 'Play nice, or don't'.
================
AngusPangus
well put. DECC choose to mislead the public on the real cost of green madness and as you say, and as I have been banging on for ages, the wholesale cost of energy has risen as a direct result of govt policy in particular the decision to close coal powered generation. Lord knows where the costs of e.g. converting Drax to burn wood are hidden but you can bet you bottom dollar such costs are hidden from the view of the voters.
I think I recognise this creek and it looks like I forgot my paddle
We can add to the green cost another £14bn to convert 53 million meters to smart meters between now and 2020. The letter from your supplier will tell you that your meter has come to the end of its term and should be changed for your safety and to ensure accuracy. It will not mention the EU directive that demands the change or that Ed Davey has amended the Electricity Act to accommodate his masters in Brussels. Germany has refused to implement the directive on the grounds that it is far too expensive.
SC, Do you have some helpful links for that? It strikes me as something that an average voter, or even MP, may not be aware of, and will examine quite coldly (pun not originally intended).
bill / michael hart / Schrodinger's Cat
The three MPs or MSPs that I have had dealings with over the years have genuinely been among the most sociable, polite, friendly people you could want to meet. One has been a PPS; one reached a ministerial post (but only in this government so whether that changed him I wouldn't know).
On the surface I would have said that lying, dissembling, or even cheating on their expenses was as far from them as one would like to expect of a British politician.
So my bottom line is that I don't know why ministers feel it is necessary to tell untruths or to hide the facts. I don't know why they try to pretend that they are in charge when everyone knows that they are doing Brussels' bidding or why they blame Brussels when anyone who cares to do a bit if research can find out that what they are attempting to defend is either a gold-plated version of a Directive or a to-the-letter implementation of what was intended solely as a recommendation.
(I could add that the French have also been known to complain about their government implementing directives when the Spanish and the Italians are ignoring them so the UK is not alone!)
Neither do I know why Cameron tries to persuade us that he can "renegotiate" the UK's relationship with Europe when (as Booker keeps telling us but check it for yourself) there is no provision in the treaties for that to happen and the only negotiation that will be held will be over the terms of the UK's relationship after it has left.
They're all standing there saying there's no-one behind the curtain when the curtain is so transparent that everyone can see just exactly who and what is there. And you know what? They're actually getting away with it because the vast bulk of the British people are happy with the bread and circuses that they get fed by the TV companies and the press (with a couple of exceptions) has collectively taken leave of its critical faculties.
SC, I confess I'm a bit worried about your use of the word "masters". It's fair to say that he is following a EU Directive (as far as I know) but that Directive will have been approved by parliament (though most of the lobby fodder will have nodded it through without looking at it). If you have any serious reason to believe that Davey is acting at the behest of the EU without parliamentary or Cabinet authority then I would make a formal complaint to the Cabinet Secretary since he is, as far as I know, committing a criminal offence.
Meanwhile Poland, ironically currently hosting the UN climate convention, is expected to announce new investment of $3.8billion to expand the Opole coal burning electricity power station.
“We treat Poland’s coal reserves as an asset and a force for stability in energy supplies,” Deputy Prime Minister Janusz Piechocinski said in a speech to parliament in Warsaw on Nov. 7. “Our energy security now and for many years to come will be based on coal. The reindustrialization of Europe should be just as important a goal as emission reduction.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/black-treasure-in-poland-clouds-un-warming-negotiations.html
Michael Hart - Just Google "cost of smart meters" and you will find lots of sites. Many quote a cost of £11bn but I chose a more recent figure which from memory was £13.4 bn. I forget which site.
You will see that DECC claims that they will reduce costs to such an extent that everyone will save a fortune. This is clearly garbage and another example of blatant lies. It is interesting to consider the chain of events:
We close down the lowest cost power stations and convert others to be more costly and less efficient. We attempt to replace them by carpeting the countryside with useless windmills. The windmills don't work when there is no wind or too much wind. Sometimes we have to supply them with electricity to turn them (to stop the bearings seizing up or whatever). We pay a fortune for the pathetic amount of power they produce.
We pay another fortune for electricity produced by solar panels. Note that only people who own their homes can benefit from that. The poorer people who live in flats or rented accommodation cannot benefit from the lavish feed-in tariffs but have to pay for them in their bills.
All of these tiny, geographically dispersed power sources need to be collected and fed into the grid. This will cover the land with more pylons at huge expense with masses of substations everywhere.
These sources of energy are hugely expensive and useless for powering a modern economy, so there is a severe risk of the lights going out. So then we have the smart meters that measure individual usage and transmit the data every 30 minutes. This will feed some (no doubt hugely expensive ) grid management system which probably does not exist yet.
The grid management system will know doubt conclude at times of high demand that the lights will go out. This is why DECC in their infinite wisdom is lavishing money on the rich who are investing in fields of diesel generators to be placed on lucrative standby to kick in when power outages are predicted.
The EU is busy legislating for domestic white goods to have their power capped (e.g. vacuum cleaner motors capped at 1600kW) and there is a plan to fit all white goods with a power monitoring and control chip to make your fridge, washing machine, etc consume less power when an outage is indicated. This will add to the cost of every appliance.
In the meantime, the consumer is also paying for all the green initiatives which seems to me to mean funding consultants, PR companies, NGOs and call centres offering taxpayer funded green schemes to hard pressed taxpayers who are more concerned about how they will pay their gas bill.
Then we have the green taxes to fund our favourite oxymoron, climate science and the ever topical decarbonisation. Then there is all the funding of low carbon initiatives climate change studies at every level of national and local government.
I could go on and on but it just makes me want to rise up and reduce personal output of carbon dioxide by every politician to zero.
Mike Jackson
I think the problem started about the time politicians went straight from college to politics with a PPE degree. About the time of Blair and Brown (whom I remember from his days as a political axtivist in Edinburgh I had a low opinion of him then and it went steadily downhill). Things have got worse since, like pop music, each succeeding generation has to go one step further than their predecessors; we're currently being governed by the political equivalent of Mylie Cyrus.
BTW I have never noticed anything outrageous in the style of your posts
Schrodinger's Cat says
'The grid management system will know doubt conclude at times of high demand that the lights will go out. This is why DECC in their infinite wisdom is lavishing money on the rich who are investing in fields of diesel generators to be placed on lucrative standby to kick in when power outages are predicted.'
It's born again Set-aside:
'Set-aside was a scheme introduced by the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1988 (Regulation (EEC) 1272/88),[1] to (i) help reduce the large and costly surpluses produced in Europe under the guaranteed price system of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); and (ii) to deliver some environmental benefits following considerable damage to agricultural ecosystems and wildlife as a result of the intensification of agriculture. Set-aside became compulsory in 1992...On 16 July 2007, the European Commission (EC) announced its intention to publish a proposal to reduce the set-aside requirement to 0% in 2008, and the proposal was adopted on 26 September 2007. This was to help mitigate current shortages in the EU cereals market, increase cereals supply to the market and therefore reduce prices following two consecutive lower EU harvests. The EC agreed in November 2008 to abolish set-aside completely through the CAP Health Check.' (Wiki)
Politicians spin:
Judy Rudd an amateur genealogy researcher in southern Queensland’s, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd great-great uncle, Remus Rudd, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Melbourne in 1889. Both Judy and Kevin Rudd share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows at the Melbourne Gaol:
On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Rudd horse thief, sent to Melbourne Gaol 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Melbourne-Geelong train six times. Caught by Victoria Police Force, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Prime Minister Rudd for information about their great-great uncle. Remus Rudd:
Believe it or not, Kevin Rudd's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
"Remus Rudd was famous in Victoria during the mid to late 1800s . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Melbourne-Geelong Railroad.
Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.
In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the Victoria Police Force. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honour when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."
Can anyone explain why the "complicated switching mechanisms needed to deal with the fact that no turbine will actually produce power for more than a third of the time" differs greatly from the mechanisms needed for conventional generators running at perhaps 60% of the time? Is Rose talking BS or is there a difference?
I think there is something odd happening. Western Society appears to be coming to a fork in the road: one way is massive decline the other is regaining our sanity. It is as the Greeks said"Those the Gods wish to destroy , they first make mad".
Whether it is some sort of deep seated Millennial madness , who knows. What appears to be happening is that vast parts of the middle and upper middle classes appear to be absolutely sure of their moral and intellectual superiority : they are completely possessed by their self righteousness . The cultural Marxists are completely rejecting the tradition of Greek and Roman Reason,Judaeo- Christian Morality and all the protestant work ethic which gave us the Industrial Revolution. The Greens are rejecting the basis of modern industry which is cheap energy.These people are living in a reality of their own construction and any attempt to deal with evidence is met with aggressive rejection.
What needs to happen is a change of attitude so that people just analyse the data and make their own mind up. However, until we understand why this AGW belief has come so entrenched, and I think the answers lies with understanding our instincts, then I think winning any argument will be long struggle. It is as if some people on deep instinctive level need to believe and the problem is that since the late 60s they have moved into positions of influence. Is it partly that many on left need sort sort of anti- capitalist and hence anti -industrial faith to justify their existence after the collapse of communism in 1989-91?
Europe is beginning to look like the last few decades if the Roman Empire -from about 380 AD onwards.
Mike Jackson, perhaps you got nearest to an explanation for politicians dishonesty in your first post, with the point about 'perpetual electioneering'. Thats another of the bad habits we have imported from the USA. Whether it began or not with the Great Ejaculator himself, William Jefferson Clinton, on whom Blair more closely modelled himself than most have noticed, or whether it pre-dates Clinton, dunno. What is clear is that its only over the last 25-30 years that we have developed a professional political class, whose 'everything' depends on getting elected/re-elected, and therfore are disposed to say any old thing so long as it serves that cause. Didn't Mandelson mention lately that HS2 was merely a wheeze to sure up the Labour vote, so all the earnest discussion about its utility, the economics etc is just so much bollox?
Mike: The integration of the UK into the EU has always proceeded with the approval and cooperation of all governments and civil servants. They just omit to mention the process to the public. In the case of the smart meters, they pretend that your own meter has reached its "use by date" rather than tell you the truth. This must be a DECC lie because all the electricity suppliers seem to use the same wording in letters to consumers.
The full cost of climate initiatives have been hidden from the taxpayer as we are discussing here. Many of these costs relate to EU policies and there are lots in the pipeline.
We are now about 85% ruled from Brussels, most of it achieved by stealth. Some voters don't even realise we are in the EU. Mr Cameron is happy to keep it that way. He knows that we will not join the Eurozone at the moment, but he is desperate to keep us in the waiting room. He knows that we don't need to be in the EU to have access to the single market. We could do that through EEA or EFTA.
Why then does he insist that we remain within an organisation committed to forming the country of Europe? He is a Europhile, committed to the project. If he prevents us from leaving, he will have done his bit for the cause. Perhaps in a few years time if the Euro recovers by some miracle, our own economy may go down the pan due to stupid green policies. We might then have to adopt the Euro and become one of the Federal States as the price of getting bailed out. That is not so fanciful, it is happening now with the others, though not due to green policies. It is a long term project, the Europhiles can wait a little longer, provided we are not permitted to leave.
Chandra, it's probably a question of scale.
With a conventional generator you're controlling the output of a single unit which - usefully - consistently and predictably generates lots of good stuff.
With squillions of little turbines ... well, you get the picture.
@ Alan Reed
Sorry to disappoint you but the Remus Rudd story is bogus. Poetic injustice?
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/remus-rudd-hanged-horse-thief-hoax.shtml
SC
You'll not get an argument from me on any of that though I believe there was a period when the civil servants were keeping their ministers a bit in the dark about what the long-term implications were. I'm not all that sure, for example, that Callaghan was 100% aware of the inevitability of what became the EU.
My point simply was one of semantics, I suppose. To talk about Davey obeying his 'masters' in Brussels suggests that he reports to them direct and he doesn't. He reports to the British Cabinet who can, if Cameron ever grows a pair, decide how the EU directive on smart meters is to be implemented.
As you say Germany has said 'nein' and I'm not sure about the French position. The UK could also make a good case for refusing to add to the existing costs with which they are burdening the consumer and seek a derogation or a delay.
If Davey has decided to implement this directive without consulting with his colleagues then he is potentially in deep trouble.
Perhaps I'm being over pedantic. A habit of mine, I'm afraid.
bill
It goes back to 1970 when Wilson lost an election everyone said he was going to walk. Labour were so pissed off they virtually withdrew all co-operation with the Heath government. It was also symbolic of the times. The 1970s were the time of "big is beautiful" and the 1973 ('74 in Scotland) reorganisation of local government led inevitably to paid councillors who started talking about "administrations" and "council leaders" and "oppositions" and "constituents".
Prior to that they had just got on with looking after their patch; all of a sudden they were mini-parliamentarians.
There must be a 'Law' somewhere (probably one on Brignell's site!) that demanded that as they got ideas above their station so the real parliamentarians upped the ante to maintain the differential, so to speak.
And then, of course, came the ludicrous idea that being an MP was somehow a "career" instead of a part-time duty and Parkinson's Law took hold.
Definition of a "smart grid": 1) A mechanism by which power distributors can artificial suppress demand by raising prices to outrageous levels when expensive renewable power is not available. 2) A mechanism for raising the cost of conventional power by forcing it to spread fixed costs over fewer operating hours. 3) A mechanism for removing some of the higher cost of renewable energy from customer's electric bills and hiding it in their taxes.
I never knowingly suggested that Davey implemented anything without the approval of the cabinet. I see that several people thought I did, so my apologies for that.
As energy and CC minister he attends the meetings in Brussels where policy and directives are formulated. Many of these will have come from the Commission or other member states. Davey will debate them on behalf of the UK. If agreed at that level, they will then be passed to member states for ratification and turning into local legislation. The UK cabinet, as good Europeans, rubber stamp them.
The UK public will probably never be told about the EU involvement.
Since this process occurs regularly in most aspects of government, the EU has gained almost total power by stealth. Nothing is secret, all is to be found on EU websites, but Joe public has no interest in finding out how he is governed.
If the UK government took exception to something, it would probably make no difference, since most things are decided by QMV.
Frank; I was about to refer to your point 2. It is happening without smart meters.
Quite a few gas-fired plants have been mothballed because they could not be run economically due to the limited and unpredictable operating hours available to them from the prioritising of renewables. There is also at least one case where a modern plant (Peterhead) is run at a fraction of its capacity because of limited grid capacity and access charges skewed to favour renewables - there may be others.
Obviously these distortions mean that the plant owners are not getting the expected return on investment. No surprise that investment has stalled as the interference looks likely to get worse.
JerryM, does a wind farm with many turbines have one grid connection per turbine or one for the farm. If the latter, I see no difference between a 300MW wind farm and a 300MW conventional as far as connecting the thing is concerned (apart from the capacity factor).
How can the cost be a LITTLE as £700?
To go 'green' people like me would have to substitute carbon free electricity for gas for heating homes. At 20,000 kWh per year currently gas at 4.5p/unit we should have to use electricity at 14.0p/unit. I make that an extra of £1,900.
Then by 2020 ED Davey's boys say they are going to add 33% for green initiatives. I make the cost of the levy
20,000 x 0.14 x 0.33 = £900. Total extra £2,800 of four time the figure quoted.