Bishop Hill Security blanket
Apr 24, 2014 Energy: grid Energy: wind Ed Davey has announced a further expansion of the government's renewable energy scheme, with eight new projects unveiled, blanketing the UK's waters with wind turbines. These projects are apparently so enormous that they will, on their own, produce a noticeable rise in household electricity bills of some 2%. The rise in industrial electricity prices that will result and which must also be absorbed by consumers - something like the same amount again - goes unstated.
Interestingly, the argument that renewables are cheap have gone out of the window. Instead, with Ukraine in the news on a daily basis, Davey is emphasising energy security:
Mr Davey defended the cost, arguing that these kind of low-carbon projects were essential to boost energy security and battle climate change.
“I see the climate change debate as inextricably linked with energy security. If we can reduce our dependency on imported energy, it will make us both more secure but also enable us to tackle climate change,” he said.
If we get a cold winter it's possible the lights could start going out. I wonder what Mr Davey's explanation will be then?
To provide security against the possibility of power cuts we had to destroy the grid.
Bishop Hill
In related news, the Conservatives are saying that they will not subsidise new onshore windfarms.
Energy Minister Michael Fallon said any project not granted planning permission before the election would not get funds as the UK would already have enough wind power to meet 2020 EU targets.
He also said councils in England and Wales would be given the "decisive say" on new onshore wind farms from 2015.
They really don't get it, do they?
Reader Comments (73)
Apr 24, 2014 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Jones
What is it that Davey just does not understand?
=============================
I'd compile a list, but I fear it might break the internet!
What he does understand is that the greens richly reward those who do their bidding.
He is already doing extremely well for a politician whose party never had a lot of support and which is now in freefall.
There is a post in Europe with his name on it.
Apr 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered Commenter Bad Andrew
Well said Bad Andrew. you would at least think they could have the decency to fly around the world again to discuss the issues of how evil flying is...
Exactly to what extent will these monuments to stupidity 'battle climate change'?
How many Chinese coal-fired plants will they offset?
Jake,
Even if each windmill offset one coal fired plant, they would still not impact the climate in any signficant way.
The climate is not being significantly impacted by coal fired plants now. The absence of coal plants will not impact the cimate much either. That is the true folly of the CO2 obsessed policy demands: Huge costs to accomplish little to nothing. But the windmills will trash up the countryside, destabilize the power grid, and impoverish each nation that makes strong commitments to them.
hunter
you have made some fine observations but the point of this announcement, indeed the policy, is to make the public believe that the government is made up of caring individuals, and not just the usual money grubbing shyster, and rich egoists, as is usually assumed.
Also you appear to dislike the very look of these wind turbines, when in reality each of them is a powerful monument to this government's care for the countryside. Nothing says British countryside quite like the deep purring swish of those shiny rotor blades in action, it fairly stamps government commitment on our green land.
As for replacing those nasty pollution belching coal fired monstrosities. They are outdated edifices of reliable 19th and 20th century engineering, and are out of date. No, what this country needs progress and change. We can't just loll-about in last century technology no matter how reliable. Nothing says modernity like improvements through destructive change - it's just the nature of today's technology and how it progresses.
This country, through this government's signature on the EU documents, have committed each and everyone of us to be greener in our thinking, especially about energy matters. This government is proud to say that we have signed up our future to more green thinking, in actual fact you could say when it comes to real thinking this is the greenest thinking Government ever. Our commitment to thinking green shows with the reduction in cost that this investment will show over the lifetime of this policy.
I do hope this little note helps you understand where this government, indeed the majority of Parliament, stand on this subject. If you have difficulty with any of this please feel free to approach any of the quasi-political, non-governmental organizations that claim to understand what is happening.
Tom
I note that the Conservatives say nothing about solar farms which is another blight on our countryside. I see more and more of them appearing now because of the vast profits that can be made by building them and selling on the investment, making a swift windfall for the initial developer, all backed by a guarantee from the government.
I too will be reading the conservative manifesto carefully when it comes out, but the other two parties seem committed to increasing their "battle" against climate change.
There's a great wind turbine rant in this morning's Express (HT Alan Sloman):
"I’m talking about wind turbines, those towering monstrosities that have blighted our landscape as part of the climate change worship so beloved of the chattering classes.
The trendy metropolitan elite can’t see wind farms from their windows in Notting Hill, Hampstead or Highgate so they’re blinkered to the reality of the eyesore that has been created in the dubious name of going green...."
With all this talk of battles, not just on blogs but also in the main stream media, it is strange there has been so little speculation on who will win; the Climate or our Politicians?
@clovis markus: Yes, they do. It consists of two elements: (1) backup diesel generators (google STOR for details) and (2) Smart Meters which will cut off your supply when the wind doesn't blow, so that essential users (bureaucrats, politicians) can carry on unaffected.
If we are that concerned about energy security, "This island is made mainly of coal.."
Apr 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM | Andrew Duffin
Smart meters - 21st century Trojan horses.
I won't be having one - ever. I'd rather pay extra to avoid my life being monitored every 30 minutes.
Say No! to smart meters. Don't let the government snoop on when you do your laundry.
Davey!s announcements aren't quite re-issues of previous press releases one suspects that Davey asked his officials for some news to offset the Conservative's policy of getting rid of them.
With the exception of the Beatrice farm, they are all extensions of existing farms which have been in the development pipeline for many years. DECC have to include farms on a "list of affordable projects under the Final Investment Decision Enabling for Renewables" before the government will subsidise them, whenever they're built, and this is what they are doing with this announcement. It isn't really new "news", more a demo of how Davey, in true Liberal style, is tstrangling everything in bureaucracy.
Including Beatrice is an illustration of how desperate Davey is. What SSE said last month was that subject to appearing on "the list" and that they could reduce their holding from 75 to 50% and that the costs of construction and operation have reduced to ensure the return on capital investment required to be compatible with the risks involved. I might have missed it but I've never seen a developer whingeing about operating costs. This sounds like "never"?
The Conservative policy to support offshore is really quite clever. There won't be any! SSE's view on offshore, including Beatrice is here:
http://sse.com/newsandviews/allarticles/2014/03/review-of-offshore-wind-farm-development/
Surely the big risk for Scottish windfarms is that they won't be able to sell their power to England nor collect English subsidies if Scotland votes for independence?
'Why is it that Ed Davey doesn't understand..?'
Its because he's got his head where the sun don't shine, fingers in ears, going 'Lalala I can't hear you..'
With an approximate ratio of 3:1 for jobs lost in the real economy when subsidised jobs are claimed for 'green' projects - the fewer such jobs created the better.
This is the point that should be hammered home with every such announcement but it won't, because of a compliant MSM.
Apr 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM | It doesn't add up...:
"Surely the big risk for Scottish windfarms is that they won't be able to sell their power to England nor collect English subsidies if Scotland votes for independence?"
Don't count on it. Any country stupid enough to borrow £20bn/annum to sent to the EU and £12bn/annum to spend on foreign aid to fund vanity projects and subsidise our competitors is perfectly capable of paying way over the odds for wind energy from our new neighbours across the border.
In fact you could just about put your house on it!
March 2nd Ontario Newspaper about the ongoing smartmeter fiasco there ..rampant overbilling etc.
stewgreen:
I experienced similar radical abuse of direct debit and estimated billing here over 15 years ago. Oh, and we had a bill for about £25,000 for the meter on the communal staircase lights (operated by a timeout switch) because of a wrong reading - usual bill was less than £10 per quarter. Trying to persuade them that the company fuse would have blown long before we were able to draw over 100A current continuously didn't impress the accounts, who actually sent us a letter threatening court action, and we had to complain to the regulator to get acceptance of our meter reading.
@ tom0mason Apr 25, 2014 at 7:14 AM |
Thanks for clarifying that for me. As a Yank, I am largely in the dark on UK energy matters. But Mr. Swift could not have explained the current energy policy better. Of course as our American Administration proceeds on its own energy policy drive, "being in the dark" on any given topic will not be merely a metaphorical term of description.....But I am conforted by our state controlled media, NPR, et al, and their tireless efforts to make certain we Americans are also taught the correct way to think about energy and so many other things.
hunter
I am so glad you found my explanation enlightening. As you can now see the "Thinking Green" campaign has really plumbed the depths with this government.
The whisper on the grapevine has it that Ed Davies team is putting together a new policy document to oversee a radical new idea for biofuels. As far as I've heard it, it's the next big thing - “Biofuels and Human Adipose Trading Credit Scheme” - obesity and heating costs reduced! It kills two birds with one swish of the wind-turbine's blade so to speak,
Remember you heard it here first, er, unless I've mentioned it somewhere else.
Toodle-pip
Wind still producing energy security in vast amounts. Mr Davey, look here to see how cleverly you are investing tax payers money:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
0.18 GW as of 1727 BST. By the way, if you think the wind line has been missed off the graph it is the one superimposed on zero.
Will it hit zero? Currently 0.07 GW, 0.18% of demand.
That is a pathetic 70 Megawatts. For comparison, Torness has 2 x 660 MW generators.