Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Muck and brass | Main | Where are DECC's numbers coming from? »
Friday
Sep182015

FiTs: a test of Cameron's conservatism

After Energy and Climate Change questions yesterday, several commenters wondered if the government might be about to backtrack on the swingeing cuts in feed-in-tariffs that were announced recently. MPs on both sides of the house had certainly been very vocal in their demands on behalf of their constituency energy companies and there was scarcely a voice heard in support of the proposals. MP after MP demanded that  FiTs be retained for renewables operators. Meanwhile, Aberdonian MPs wanted cash for North Sea oil operators as well. Pressure of the FiTs front continues today.

It's a vicious circle of course and the government risks getting generating a spiral of subsidy, with money having to be thrown at all market participants simply to keep them afloat.

This is going to be a test of Cameron's resolve. Is he going to play the Conservative, and put the consumer interest first, or is he going to cave into the producer interest?

We watch with interest.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (58)

The propaganda to retain FiTs was very evident on the local BBC news yesterday, with two people representing the troughers saying how many jobs were being created, how much money had been invested and how they only needed the subsidies to be kept going for a few more years before the ruinables industry would be viable. Nobody was allowed to speak in favour of cutting the subsidies in line with the Government's proposal in the consultation.

I continue to recommend that everybody responds to the consultation, supporting the Government or going even further and recommending the subsidy cuts are made even harder and faster. What is certain is that the troughers will be out in force recommending that the subsides are retained.

I have prepared a response to each of the consultation questions. There is until 23rd October to respond.

Sep 18, 2015 at 10:50 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

"....play the Conservative, and put the consumer interest first...."

You're having a laugh aren't you? Put themselves first more like!

Sep 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Many contracts are let and there can be no retrospective cancellation, so we are stuck with 'renewable' energy prices for decades to come. The longer Cameron -- well, it's Osborne to be honest, Call Me Dave is too idle to actually drive things forward -- puts off lowering FITs then the longer the UK is uncompetitive on the world stage. So we're screwed? Not necessarily. Tax the windfarms. They currently make millions and pay the same business tax as a small corner shop. Then we can use the money to compensate businesses...

Do it now. The EU is going to sign us up to TTIP where large corporations will be able to claim damages if the UK government damages their profit margin.

JF
Don't blame me -- I stood for UKIP.

Sep 18, 2015 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterJulian Flood

The windmills are held to their base by bolts.

Should someone buy 1 inch drive socket tools capable of undoing them?

Or borrow them from a nearby truck garage?

Sep 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

He will do whatever is easiest for him i.e. the quickest fix. Or he may do what sam and her dad tells him todo..

Sep 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

My money is on his giving in.

Sep 18, 2015 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterCull the Badgers

Consumers want affordable and reliable power. Most consumers are unable to rely on back-up generators.

Unreliables are not affordable and not reliable.

As a result of the Climate Change Act, and associated price fixing and market rigging, never before has so much money been paid, by so many, to so few, without any guarantee of getting anything at all. It does make a bit of a mockery of Battle of Britain pilots.

The "few" include the PM's Father-In-Law. FIL's 4 FIT's

Sep 18, 2015 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@NCC 1701E

Sockets are the "manly" way. The simple and quick way is to use a nut splitter. A nut splitter is a hoop that fits over the nut, then you wind the handle to power a blade into the nut. The blade cuts the nut but leaves it in situ. On a calm night you can do the deed, and return to base. When the wind picks up, the nuts will fail.

Sep 18, 2015 at 12:30 PM | Registered CommenterHector Pascal

Cull the Badgers:

My money is on his giving in.
Cameron needs to spellcheck his name to include his U-turn: Camerun.

Sep 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

I shall probably be absent for a while, with a hopefully fine performance from the men in white tonight, & fellow home nations over the weekend, so I shall catch up on Monday. Hopefully the temperature in the UK will rise with all that CO2 being emitted by those big beefy chaps! ;-)

Sep 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

I cannot think of any thing that Cameron has not caved in on up until now. It will be run by the nearest "focus" group to check what the troughers want most and then announced as a great new initiative to save the planet. Mrs Thatcher would be turning in her grave if she was capable of turning. No principle is important enough to escape the scrap heap in the Cameron era.

Sep 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

Cull the Badgers:

My money is on his giving in.

My money is on every last penny of subsidy the Tories can wring out of us being soaked up by the great bottomless subsidy pit planned for Hinkley Point.

Sep 18, 2015 at 8:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterJordan

"...generating a spiral of subsidy..."

That'll be pretty much the only thing that is generated.

Sep 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterOwen Morgan

Is he going to play the Conservative

If he was a Conservative with a brain he would be dismantling the Climate Change Act and the whole apparatus of self destruction. But he isn't. He's a [insert expletive of choice] idiot.

Sep 19, 2015 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterH2O: the miracle molecule

NCC 1701E

or the vulnerability to Metal Theft .Not much chance of the metal thieves getting an electric shock from the cables that lead from them .Not much chance of anyone noticing either.

Sep 19, 2015 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Messrs 1701E and Pascal: regrettably, what you are both advocating is vandalism. While I agree with legitimate protest, I will draw the line at vandalism. (Mind you, jamspid does give an interesting spin on the idea!)

As for Mr Ward’s observations that there is nothing that Cameron has not caved in on, to date, it is so true – and so very sad.

Sep 19, 2015 at 11:23 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Good to see such an unbiased view; but: “Almost any comment which suggests that nearly 200 years of scientific evidence might be right gets deleted on sight.”? As this is one of the more scientifically-orientated sites I have found – what are you talking about? (Yes, it is a rhetorical question, as, no, I do not expect an answer – mainly as I know that you have none to provide)

Sep 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Meanwhile, the nut cutlet yobs continue trying to destroy 200+ years of scientific advances, with IPCC approved voodoo science.

Sep 19, 2015 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

My Dear Pascal, I went out once with a nut splitter. Exhausted me. Give me windmill vandalism any time!

Sep 19, 2015 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

NCC 1701E

"Ice cream with crushed nuts" should have been a punk band from the late 70's.

Sep 19, 2015 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Foam-flecked troll alert!

Sep 19, 2015 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

It all certainly gives the lie to claims about how 'competitive' solar has become. The industry was given years of direct subsidies to establish itself and gain economies of scale. It didn't. It simply banked the subsidies and didn't advance itself because it couldn't.

Sensible people said that at the outset, but were ignored.

Sep 19, 2015 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Cameron is a Conservative? You're kidding me.

Sep 19, 2015 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterNoblesse Oblige

Well, you responded to me, but did not answer my question. Is anyone else surprised? Let me repeat the part of your comment that I questioned: “Almost any comment which suggests that nearly 200 years of scientific evidence might be right gets deleted on sight.

Your “…the almost 200 years of science summarised in IPCC AR5 WG1.” is nothing but a body-swerve around the question (aside from the contentious point that the IPCC AR5 WG1 actually does summarise 200 years of science), as the question might be better paraphrased: what comments that suggest nearly 200 years of scientific evidence might be right have been deleted? And, please, do not play the victim, here, as, aside from noting that none of your comments have any reference to science, whatsoever, most of your posts are left for a while for others to read and shake our heads in sadness over, before being removed to avoid putting newcomers off by such lunacy.

Sep 20, 2015 at 12:17 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

On a windless night, isn't it great to live in a country where we still have the choice to burn fossil fuels after dark, where students, about to start university to study global warming, can legally buy a drink to celebrate, safe in the knowledge that there has been no global warming in their lifetime.

If I was worried about global warming, I would not be burning midnight fossil fuels.

Sep 20, 2015 at 12:27 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Indeed, GC. If exposed to the genuine harsh reality of dark, cold, windless winter, for probably less than 12 hours, even sociology students with no mathematics could understand why solar and wind-power are hopeless.

Sep 20, 2015 at 3:26 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Here is the reason Cameron already caved in:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/585863/Samantha-Cameron-father-250-000-wind-farm

Sep 20, 2015 at 6:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

Numerous troll comments and follow -ups removed.

Sep 20, 2015 at 8:37 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Thank you Andrew. I thought the troll had given up or been sectioned (she seems to have got more hysterical), but no such luck.

Sep 20, 2015 at 8:58 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Ottmar Edenhofer, Chief Economist at the Potsdam Institute, (co-director with Schellnhuber) and climate adviser to the Pope, has experienced an epiphany:

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/in-short/how-new-coal-power-plants-let-climate-goals-go-up-in-smoke

"The worldwide popularity of coal is explained by the fact that it is abundantly available and because its price is very low compared to natural gas or renewable energy sources."

Let us all rejoice at this new understanding.

Sep 20, 2015 at 11:00 AM | Registered Commenterdennisa

The Green Blob chose Lenin's birthday to celebrate World Earth Day.

In the cool light of day, and on reflection of the long dark nights of despair to come, shouldn't Halloween be adopted as World Climate Science Day, to represent the demonisation of the positive enlightening forces in the world?

Impressionable children could be sent out knocking on people's doors, dressed up as ghoulish looking climate scientists, trick or treating, demanding millions of pounds per year, for doing nothing more than cutting off your electricity supply, sabotaging your car, and condemning millions of people to poverty and premature death.

Sep 20, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

*checks in*

Hmm, I wonder how the howling nutjobs are doing?

"The windmills are held to their base by bolts.
Should someone buy 1 inch drive socket tools capable of undoing them?
Or borrow them from a nearby truck garage?"

Sep 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM | NCC 1701E

Wow, now you nutters are into potentially lethal vandalism. Almost any comment which suggests that nearly 200 years of scientific evidence might be right gets deleted on sight. But a call to arms for potentially lethal illegal vandalism has been here, approved by Andrew Montford (who never discloses the source of his funding) for more than a day.

You wingnuts are genuinely terrible people.

Sep 20, 2015 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

@Philip Bratby - You are one of the most risible figures on Planet Earth. You deny basic science. You are an extreme and laughable crank, who believes basic science going back to the 19th century is fraud. You are a disgrace to your old profession, and a laughing stock to anyone who reads your comments now.

Sep 20, 2015 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

@Radical Rodent - You really are a big old liar. As well as my comments pointing out that science may be correct being deleted, multiple comments from BBD which also suggesting that science may be correct were deleted.

Sep 20, 2015 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

My, you are such a charmer! I bet you have people clamouring to be your friend.

That aside, you make some interesting conclusions about me – could you provide some evidence that supports your comments about me? (I am assuming that you do understand what is meant by the term “evidence”.) I suspect that you will not provide any – not by any reluctance on your part, but because you do not have any. Your diatribe against me is probably proof enough for most people with a modicum of intelligence to see that I have knocked you onto the ropes with but a trivial swipe of my own wit, and the only way that you can counter that is to go into full vitriol – in other words, no change on your part.

Sep 20, 2015 at 9:55 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The installed base of DECC sponsored "climate friendly" activist groups has gone into overdrive since the election -pestering (understatement - bullying is closer) particularly new MPs.

Locally LibDem Duncan Hames was replaced by seemingly "climate neutral" "Tory" Michelle Donelan and we now get oh-so- predictable pieces in local rags like

THIS
and
THIS

my point? The vested interests and activists are all over this issue - in the instance above afaics - the woman was absolutely besieged by local activists and went from nowhere to a public stance that was provided for her by the activists.... Cameron is I suspect going to be under pressure from his own MPs and he doesn't have much of a record of resolve when taking things head on....

If the issue can be delegated then we're in with a chance - if it is DC's decision then FiTs will grow / morph - rather than be watered down to homeopathic levels.....

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:00 PM | Registered Commentertomo

… science may be correct…
Science is about searching for the truth. In doing so, there may be many times when science may actually prove to be INCORRECT. Just because something is labelled “science” does not automatically make it correct.

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:05 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

@Radical Rodent. I already have. You're just a bit thick and don't accept it.

Let's get down to the crux of it though. Virtually all science going back nearly 200 years shows that we are causing warming and that overall it is a bad thing. Do you accept basic science of are you an insane nutjob?

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

As none of your comments have held a shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, it does seem a bit rich that you should call me a liar; the same holds true with those comments by BBD that I can recall – like yours, they were filled mainly with vitriol and insult. However, let us allow you to redeem yourself:

Virtually all science going back nearly 200 years shows that we are causing warming…
Please provide us with some evidence to back this claim.

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:17 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

@Radical Rodent - Evidence can be found to your heart's content in IPCC AR5 WG1. Now back to the question you are so assiduously avoiding. As IPCC AR5 WG1 shows, nearly 200 years of science and evidence shows that we are causing warming and overall that is a bad thing. Do you agree with that or are you an insane nutjob?

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Cameron is I suspect going to be under pressure from his own MPs and he doesn't have much of a record of resolve when taking things head on....
Sep 20, 2015 at 10:00 PM | Registered Commentertomo

If he needs a bit of backbone, tomo, he can console himself that he may have just won an election on the quiet by saying that "we need to get rid of this green crap".

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Do you agree with that or are you an insane nutjob?
Have you heard of the term “a loaded question”? And you expect a reply? Should you open your mind just a little, you would realise why most hold you in the uttermost contempt.

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:26 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

@Radical Rodent - Just as I expected. There are 2 options. Accept basic science going back nearly 200 years, or admit you are an insane nutjob. You can't admit basic science going back nearly 200 years, so your comments are all about trying to wriggle out of admitting you are an insane nutjob.

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

michael hart

hmmm... he does not personally appear to be acting like he's convinced of his mandate beyond a few cheap shots from the dispatch box and if he has some robust analysis and a clear plan of what to do - I missed it.

Yes Prime Minister - the UK civil service has an absolutely colossal investment in climate change / carbon and both double up as convenient sources of justification when - as usual - they screw up....

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:48 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Foam-flecked troll alert!

The troll is taking advantage of low policing at weekends. This gap needs to be closed - a little script on the server maybe?

Sep 20, 2015 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

False accusations and conclusions based on evidence that does not survive further examination, sums up climate science, and it's advocates.

For evidence, see above, for corroboration, watch the space below.

Sep 20, 2015 at 11:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

There is another option – but I know it is not one that you will be able to accept: that the IPCC WG1 AR5 report does NOT show nearly 200 years of science and evidence shows that we are causing warming and overall that is a bad thing, and I can be confident that this third option is correct.

Now, if you can point out any section in the 1552 pages of the report that shows my summation to be wrong, I will accept that.

Sep 20, 2015 at 11:45 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Billy Liar – hey! I’m enjoying shooting this fish in its barrel. This is one of the few times I can show my superiority over another!

Nice touch, GC.

Sep 20, 2015 at 11:47 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Googling IPCC AR5 WG1 Errata, produces an extensive list.

Does anyone know whether they have finished correcting and amending the mistakes they have had to admit to, and are there more to come?

IPCC authors, at all levels, must be insane nutjobs, as defined above.

Sep 20, 2015 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie: yes. The report is full of statements and claims, with very little science to back them up, right from the very start – Page 7:

…the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century. The report confirms that warming in the climate system is unequivocal, with many of the observed changes unprecedented over decades to millennia: warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, diminishing snow and ice, rising sea levels and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.
… since the mid-20th century.” Not quite the 200 years claimed for it, let alone that observations since this report show that most of its premises are incorrect – the atmosphere and oceans are NOT warming; the snow and ice are NOT diminishing, and the sea levels are NOT rising any faster than before (actually, the rate has reduced, but, anyway…). Okay, CO2 concentrations have increased, but, as the first point illustrates, it is not really a “greenhouse gas”. You can see why so many believe that all they have to do is utter a statement and declare it is true for it to be true, and all who question that idea are nutjobs, when a report of such dubious content gets such accolade.

Sep 21, 2015 at 12:11 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>