Bishop Hill The unfeeling in pursuit of the unthinking
Dec 6, 2013 Energy: wind 
Simon Jenkins has written an admirable blast at windfarms in the pages - believe it or not - of the Guardian.
I have spent two years traipsing Britain in search of the finest views. It is hard to convey the devastating impact of the turbines to those who have not seen them, especially a political elite that never leaves the south-east except for abroad. Fields of these structures are now rising almost everywhere. They are sited irrespective of the wind, since subsidy is paid irrespective of supply, even if there is none. It makes EU agricultural policy a paragon of sanity.
I don't think Jenkins is right when he says that politicians have been driven mad by the myth of free wind power. That's lazy thinking. Politicians are making logical decisions to get themselves reelected. It was the rational pursuit of the green vote that was behind the appearance of sanity. We have to ask ourselves why so many people were persuaded that wind power was a sensible way to go.
Reader Comments (42)
"We have to ask ourselves why so many people were persuaded that wind power was a sensible way to go". Because we are (and have been for a long time) run by a technologically illiterate elite who believe anything they are told by the green lobbyists and in any case have to do what the EU tells them; which is that we must have 15% of our energy from renewables, even if the only renewables that make sense are hydro-electric, which we can't do to any significant extent in the UK. Of course it is not just wind power that is bad; solar power is just as bad, or even worse.
Letter in the Telegraph today referring to their leader yesterday questioning the economics and the contribution of wind power to energy security:
"Sir
Your leader today questions whether wind power can add to Britain's energy
security. Unfortunately today it cannot. Whilst wind power contributes to
the national generating capacity on an average basis over time, security
effectiveness can only be measured at the moment when the "threat" exists;
i.e. at times of peak demand.
Based on publicly available data from the national grid, during the past
three years during periods when demand was between 95% and 100% of that
peak, wind power was able to satisfy just 1.5% of the demand, less than the
margin of accuracy with which demand can be predicted. This is no doubt
related to the periods of coldest weather in winter being often associated
with areas of high pressure and low wind speeds.
Whilst the contribution of wind power averaged over a year is around 5 - 7%
of demand, unfortunately it fails the energy security test; it cannot be
relied upon at times of peak demand.
Jonathan Paget"
so all it took for the Guardian to wake up to the folly was a chance at getting angry against a Tory?
Perhaps they didn't pass the 'E' bit in their PPEs.
Well at first sight wind power looks a great idea and small scale, away from the grid it has its place.
You always see many yachts in a marina keeping the batteries charged with a small wind generator. A small solar panel is often used as well. But most yachts spend 90% plus of their time in the marina, not drawing much from the batteries - it is a good strategy.
The main problem to which you relate Bish is the parlous state of engineering in the UK, and thus the only advice politicians get is from the Greens in NGOs and our Civil Service - same thing really (see your piece yesterday "Green Jobs"). The only engineering input they get is from the companies selling the turbines - that will be worth listening to then!
I think back to that select committee report a couple of years ago, that came to conclusion that the UK did not have enough engineers to run an imported nuclear power station, never mind build one. As I have maintained before it is time for us to offer University education for anyone who wants to do science, maths and engineering and perhaps medicine for FREE. If you want to do Icelandic medieval musical instruments, you pay yourself.
When only a few (and that's an exaggeration) in the Commons have a science or engineering background, critical analysis of the advice will be totally missing.
Over on the All gas and gaiters blog http://gasandgaiters.blogspot.no
Paul Glover has a link to work done in Australia that shows that any wind farm with a load factor of less than 32% is not saving any CO2 anyway.
Taking the figures from Renewables UK. Of the 60 wind farms in Wales only 5 are over that. In Scotland of 222 wind farms 35 are over and England of 301 just 15 are over that figure. What is even more depressing is that most of them only just scrape over 32% and according to the report by Professor Gordon Hughes the efficiency tails off much quicker than has been planned for and all the better sites have now been built on so they are now planning sites that will probably never even reach that figure.
The *rational* pursuit of the green vote?
All this has been said before and probably in 'comment macht frei' where it would have been deleted.
Perhaps Rusbridger's eye is off the ball defending himself over Snowden. Who knows, but the Groan is late to the party.
"We have to ask ourselves why so many people were persuaded that wind power was a sensible way to go."
Because people* think that wind is free. The costs of transmission, back-up, storage, maintenance ... are below their horizon.
Similar blindness applies to economics (e.g. Minimum wage - good. Bankruptcies, unemployment - below horizon.), foreign aid (Giving - good. Corruption, dependency - below horizon) and any number of social policies.
* For people read arrogant, paternalist technologically illiterate Guardian-readers.
But what "Green vote"?
Forgetting Brighton (as anyone who has been there recently will wish to) the Greens have made only a miserable showing in elections. There was no "Green vote" to win.
The Green agenda has been promoted and popularised by the three main parties on the urging of the media elite. Rather than pandering to it so as to get elected, the LibLabCon created the monster it is claimed they are having to placate.
''It was the rational pursuit of the green vote that was behind the appearance of sanity.''
Was it 'rational'? Was there a huge clamour throughout the land among the electorate back in the late 90s during Labour's reign, still at full cry in the run up to the 2010 election?
It seems accepted that up until recently the EU, despite its general disfavour among the electorate, has had little effect on voting, where is it 'rational' to imagine the Green vote was significant?
New Labour won in 1997 by default... they had no need of Green voters, nor in their subsequent triumphs.
The Tories had an open goal in 2010 and missed, so if they were pandering to the Green vote... Fail, because clearly other factors decided it.
I think the issue is an international one. Leaders got caught up in a kind of group hysteria at a time when international politics fell into two camps, the anti-George Bush and the pro-Bush. Bush was against the climate change nonsense, so the default position for anti-Bush camp was to be against everything he was for, and for everything he was against.
Blair had to show he was not a Bush's 'poodle' so going against him on climate change was a way of 'proving' that.
And basically, we have a Western World leadership who are cowards, want to be one of the in-crowd and don't have the guts to stand up and be counted. They also don't have to pay for electricity, the taxpayer does, or supply because Government buildings get preference and have back-up generators.
Retireddave; wrt to our politicians' technical abilities....
A while back I took a look at the "they work for you" website which lists all members' academic qualifications and committee activities. I did a quick scan to count up those who had a science or engineering degree plus those who were listed on various technical/scientific committees (on the grounds that they might have become informed).
Using that, slightly generous, set of criteria I came up with about 70.
Call it 10% which is not encouraging.
"We have to ask ourselves why so many people were persuaded that wind power was a sensible way to go."
It is because it offered A way to "go". Politicians abhor the status quo. It offers so few possibilities for them to "lead" and pass new legislation. Climate Change also has the "hobgoblin" factor.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken
Simon Jenkins is taking a hell of a pasting in the comments by incandescent turbine-huggers. Glorious.
mikeh - thanks for that piece of research. Blimey I have to admit that I would have put at less than that. Perhaps I will have to amend my prejudice!!! I don't like doing that but as I am not a warmist, you have amended my view with actual data.
The other thing I noticed about this piece by Simon Jenkins is that he obviously knew this would not go down well with all the Guardian's unthinking readers, so it did have to give the impression that this was a mostly nasty Tory plot to give their rich friends a handout of our money. Not to blame allocated to Red Ed or Potato Ed. I suppose we all play to our own gallery.
The answer, as one who used to unquestioningly believe solar and wind were the answer, is ignorance. Ignorance which is then exploited by the greedy or the ideological for their own ends (not mutually exclusive categories).
Ten years ago, when people said things like ‘wind is free, idiot’ I just took it at face value.
We live in an unthinking age. It's a symptom of post-modernism; the belief that by shaping the words correctly you are somehow altering reality. This is all very well until reality pushes you off the edge of a cliff and gravity smashes you into a red pulpy mass at the bottom.
It's much easier to think that there is a simple solution like green energy, Marxism, central planning, the magic money tree, God etc, than to actually think, “Oh dear! What are we really going to do to solve problem X (if X even exists)."
The painful reality is that Pols are just people and don't want to think very hard about stuff. And like the mainstream population they are generally about 5-10 years out of phase with the reality of Economics, Immigration, Foreign affairs, Energy etc.
Predictably, SJ is getting a kicking from most commentators.
It probably didn't help to get the back end of a series of (Labour) governments with a 'messianic' leadership. Politicians with a surfeit of confidence over competence, who have too strong a belief in their destiny to lead, rather than serve, have been a bit of a problem throughout history.
I try not to look at the comments posted on such topics in the Grauniad and suchlike... I find the relentless display of utter ignorance of physics and engineering deeply depressing.
I don't think a 'green' vote had much to do with it. As Uncle Badger says, where are the greens?
Green politics practised by mainstream parties is a tactical position. Want of green stuff is a secondary concern. They do this because opponents who do not sing from the same green hymn sheet can be painted as being for the destruction of the environment, pollution, endangering future generations, etc. Added to that is a desire to be seen as good europeans for piling into wind and solar to help the EU as a whole meet specious targets.
At best the green vote being courted was merely that of their lobbyist chums.
It must be said that, there is no logic, nor rhyme or any reason for the construction of birdmincers, other than to fill the boots of the landed elite and the pockets of investment bankers.
There aren't any votes to won by 'going green' that was and is a fallacy put about by the liblabcon. It was a teasing charade played out to please the political elite and mainly London based 'cognoscenti' - guardian readers and a dance to deceive the electorate.
Ah yes - the electorate - who were actually never consulted about 'the green agenda' and now nigh on to each and every man and woman in the land: they do not give a tinkers cuss about green energy and boondoggle eco-palliatives.
Maybe initially, in the early part of the new Millennium they paid lip service to the green mania but it never won any seats except in the most atypical Parliamentary seat in the land - Brighton.
Those scientifically illiterate
dorksMPs in the executive who purport to run the country but actually answer to a higher authority - namely that of the Brussels Commission. This makes it easy for our major political parties and their bamboozled leaders; Ed, Dave and Nick to toe the green line and significantly the 2008 climate change ACT was rammed through the legislature without a blink or nod to the electorate.It is the green maniacs in Brussels [and UN] who set the green agenda and with their running dogs; of Greenpeace, FoE et al who champion the cause of green and they all talk in hyperbole and weaving catastrophic tales relating them to the
brainwashedcredulous media. Where cozying up inside the Westminster bubble politicians and the fourth estate mouth platitudes at each other and never once coming up for air outside of said sealed sphere. If they actually canvassed real opinions - the British public would set them all straight on all manner of subjects and policies not least the madness of the green agenda - and in no uncertain terms.Nota Bene: Britain, the British people do not believe in Catastrophic anthropomorphic warming and never asked for nor desired the associated green lunacy.
Got that Dave, Nick, Ed?
I have always wondered why, if our politicians think that wind is such a wonderful way to produce electricity, why there isn't a 500ft monster on College Green outside Parliament..
'Not enough wind'.... they might argue...
Oh, come now - wind farms are dotted all over the country, irrespective of whether the location is windy or not...
No - Simon Jenkins is right. Its the 'Westminster bubble' thing - us 'plebs' out in the sticks aren't worth considering - oh, and that includes the Planning Inspectorate, who are in a cosy office in the West End, from where they consider appeals from wind farm developers...
Retireddave; that review of MP's qualifications was pretty broad-church. I included all science degrees - medecine and biology, for example - on the basis that any sort of science qualification should indicate a degree of numeracy, respect for scientific method, grasp of practicalities, etc.. I realise that makes me look like a hopeless optimist.
If you were to tighten the criteria to engineering and the more relevant sciences, the number would drop considerably. If you could then sift for those who have shown any interest in energy, I guess you would be left with a handful of names.
Pogo; I did scan some of the comments and had exactly that reaction. One comment compared the physical footprint of one turbine to that of a nuclear plant; another stated that the pumped-storage scheme in N. Wales includes a nuclear reactor; the old meme about the wind always blowing somewhere made its honorary appearance like a celeb in a panto; yadda, yadda.
It does show that there is a yawning gap: the power industry needs some direct, clear PR with strong visual images. A picture and map of how much of East Anglia would have to be covered by turbines to replace Sizewell would be a start, for example (and with the caption "When the wind blows").
"I have always wondered why, if our politicians think that wind is such a wonderful way to produce electricity, why there isn't a 500ft monster on College Green outside Parliament..
'Not enough wind'.... they might argue... "
There was a helluva lot of it there at about 4pm yesterday. It would probably have brought the thing crashing sown. Unfortunately I was inadequately dressed crossing Westminster Bridge in horizontal hail.
Looking, as I do on a daily basis, at the Surface Pressure Forecast maps on the Met Office website - I noticed that the isobars over Denmark seem to be EVEN TIGHTER than over the UK in the last couple of days...
SURELY the winds have brought one or more of their turbines down..? Please..? Pretty please with sugar on..??
I notice that, even with the ferocious winds which we had yesterday (my birthday - thank you, thank you, most kind - 71 going on 14) - wind output stayed at a relatively modest 5GW...
Is that because most of the buggers had to be 'feathered' to stop them shedding blades..?
I agree with Athelstan.
Re: "I don't think Jenkins is right when he says that politicians have been driven mad by the myth of free wind power. That's lazy thinking. Politicians are making logical decisions to get themselves reelected. It was the rational pursuit of the green vote that was behind the appearance of sanity."
I am not sure that I agree with this comment - the Green vote in all probability will go to the Green Party, regardless of Con/Lab policy on renewables. I suspect that the proliferation of wind turbines reflects the undemocratic power of lobbying, at both UK and European level. Industry sources described the barrage of lobbying directed at the EU policy makers responsible for the EU's energy directives - it should also be stated that many of these policymakers are scientific/engineering illiterates, lacking even a rudimentary grasp of energy issues. It is time to ask whether lobbying should be permitted, and indeed, whether appropriate training and experience should be mandatory for politicians dealing with climate and energy policy.
re Jonathan Paget's letter.
The thrust of his argument can be summed up in two words- "FIRM POWER", ie power that is available at the flick of a switch. It was a guiding principle of the engineers of the old North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board when designing their power schemes in the late 1940s and 1950s. I have followed the regular discussions, comments and press-statements on " renewables" for a number of years but have yet to see any mention of the concept of Firm Power. Unsurprising really since the firm power of all renewables is precisely zero. Talk of average outputs is meaningless. If the power is not there when you ( and everyone else) needs it then any renewable source is useless.
I think a lot of this is based on emotion rather than reason and hard economic facts. Remember those ads which showed a man walking through a room in bare feet leaving a trail of tarry footprints? As if he had been walking in crude oil? I believe that started the carbon footprint nonsense. And the folk memories of miners with blackened faces coming up from the pits? Suddenly it seemed we could do without all those unpleasant rather grubby ways of generating electricity. Instead we could harness the fresh clean wind. And it would be "free" once the thing's set up. I believe the public's thinking is no more sophisticated than that.
The centre and centre left would give climate issues a thought at an election but most people vote historically on where they stand politically with the floating voters holding the key. The general population did not vote on windmills they voted on the economy and the day to day issues and costs that affect their lives.
At the next election the impact of the green nonsense will have a major effect as a theory from the chattering classes has resulted in a tremendous burden for households, industry and the country at large.
Cameron has started to re-position himself even referring to "green crap".....Clegg is a confirmed believer with nowhere to go and as Milliband introduced the "green crap" in the first place he is between a rock and a hard place of his own making. Meanwhile his mate Ed Balls the Shadow Chancellor appears hell bent on introducing the same fiscal policies that the french have done with callamatous results, so the the next Labour Manifesto will be hilarious. They either follow George Osborne and build on our shaky recovery minus the "green crap" or they will go down with the french and the good ship global warming.
It is going to be the most interesting election in a very long time!.
Did George Monbiot realise that he would be lining the pockets of the likes of David Cameron's father in law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, to the tune of £1.5m per annum at the expense of the poor who are dying in their thousands in North Wales?
And dying in increasing numbers because the warming isn't arriving - it is becoming colder.
And pogo is right - I had a look at the comments in the Guardian. What hope is there for democracy in the face of ignorance on that scale. On the other hand I have tried to explain the facts to Fellows of the Royal Society and met with equal ignorance. Worrying indeed.
Do I see the porcine aerial display team making ready for takeoff?
Re: " Politicians are making logical decisions to get themselves reelected. It was the rational pursuit of the green vote that was behind the appearance of sanity."
The "green vote" should be considered loosely rather than just those who actually vote for a Green Party. Most voters these days consider themselves "green" to some extent with environmentalism being generally accepted as politically correct. While many are willing to forego plastic shopping bags they will revolt once they eventually realize the economic costs of renewable energy. After all one of the goals of the green movement is to increase energy costs to the point that renewables can compete.
So it is rational for the politicians to go after the green vote. Just as long as they realize that the voters' commitment to green causes is rather shallow.
I think Stuck-Record has got it right, it's also not surprising considering that the UK comes 21st (falling from 16th) in science in the latest Pisa test results. It's no wonder that the greens can tell outright lies without fear of contradiction.
"I don't think Jenkins is right when he says that politicians have been driven mad by the myth of free wind power. That's lazy thinking."
No, your Grace, it is not lazy thinking; it is a rhetorical allusion to King Lear. The point Jenkins makes (reinforces) here, is that things will end badly. No, I mustn't understate: they will end tragically.
What is interesting about this whole thing is that it was never an obvious vote winner. It is not driven by the electorate but by a protracted and carefully orchestrated campaign by the green activists to persuade politicians that green policies are vital to save the planet. Thus we are seeing a multi faceted effort to hard sell the public on the need for it.
Against a historical background where nimbys and bananas were making it increasingly difficult to do anything at all, it is instructive to watch a concept being sold to the electorate on an international basis which is against their interests and based on snake oil. It is a combination of propaganda and straight out bribery which has resulted in the country being covered in obtrusive and useless wind turbines.
Such is the pressure being exerted behind the scenes, it appears our politicians are currently desperately fighting to conceal the costs of this policy and keep the lights on to avoid losing their positions rather than adopt a sensible energy policy. Of course some of it is inability to admit being wrong, but not all of it.
The rise of crusading environmentalism in the last 20 years in political policy is hard to understand. John Brignell's 2009 essay 'March of the Zealots' (link below) describes the perplexing and remarkably successful short-circuiting of democratic process and logic not just by the greens but by a diverse series of single issue lobby groups, most of which seem to be umbilically funded by either the EU or the UN or both. Somehow, fringe interests become promoted to the status of primary policy. University research departments found that unlimited funding would be channelled their way, and the process becomes self perpetuating.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm
Perhaps the head post is slightly misleading when it refers to 'the green vote.' The hard-line green vote in most Western countries seems to be between 10 and 15% tops. But 'caring about the environment' is a mainstream view, and it was cleverly manipulated to paint the big parties into a corner when CAGW hysteria was at its peak, around 2007-2009. If they didn't at least pay lip service, they were ruthlessly attacked as grandchildren-killing, planet-poisoning, Nature-hating barbarians in the pay of Big Whatever.
Former Aussie PM John Howard alluded to this in his recent speech in the UK.
While the CAGW peak seems to have passed, there is still plenty of utterly bogus propaganda out there in the political marketplace around the world about how we are despoiling the planet just by living a civilised existence. There is still a huge task ahead to consign the junk science around it to the dustbin of history. And the big players are the same people who ran the CAGW scare.
So, while reality - in the form of energy bills and economic problems - has mugged CAGW and given the pollies a pathway out of that particular morass, the battle is far from over.
It seem to me,most of Greenpiss,FoE,WWf and all the other rent a crowd mob ,all seem to have one thing in common.They are mostly on Welfare.We are paying for them,through OUR Taxes.Work for the Dole would help to Inhibit these activities.
My goodness, how was this article allowed to appear? As someone pointed out the other day, aren't Guardian hacks required to leave all logical brain functions in reception at King's Place? The Cif comments are predictable enough and initially do provide some entertainment, prior to raising my blood pressure. I wonder how long before Lochnessmunster arrives to insult and belittle anyone not with the consensus?
I think the simple view for simple minds would be the more correct one.
That is; wind is free, therefore the power is free.
It is the very thinking that the Trolls on this site and elsewhere spout the most often. Free energy.
Cameron 2010 - We will be the greenest government ever
Cameron 2013- Get rid of this green crap
So much for politicians
By the way a graphic footprint showing how many wind turbines would be needed to replace Sizewell would not work. Sizewell is baseload - turbines only operate 2 days a week on average.