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
« David Henderson on Deutsche Bank | Main | In which I ban a commenter »
Friday
Dec242010

Standpoint on green energy

A timely piece about Britain's mad, mad energy policies.

In private, the best-informed analysts now agree that Britain's environmental policies have put the country on track to have the world's most expensive electricity. This is mainly because our competitors are almost certain to choose cheaper routes to emissions reductions, such as natural gas, or to shun emissions reductions altogether. The Coalition's own Annual Energy Statement for 2010 concedes that by the year 2020, nearly one third of the average domestic electricity bill will consist of green energy charges imposed by law (£160 out of £512, or 31 per cent). Business will be hit even harder, with environmental charges for the average medium-sized non-domestic user accounting for £404,000 out of £1.224 million, or 33 per cent.

 Read the whole thing.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (50)

This is an excellent article By Dr John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation. The REF produces excellent reports. More information about REF can be found at http://www.ref.org.uk/

Dec 24, 2010 at 7:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

As long as it makes them feel good, politicians couldn't care how high electricity bills go,

Dec 24, 2010 at 7:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

The root cause, i think, is that malformed energy policy is now rooted in laws.

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Schneider

I think maybe, the madder, the better. They should unravel that much sooner...

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

I think maybe, the madder, the better. They should unravel that much sooner...

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:33 AM | James P

-----------------------------------------------

Took the words right out of my mouth James.

Could not agree more.

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterCVH

'The question is whether these generous levels of tax and spend — and the Renewables Obligation is classed as such by the Treasury and the Office of National Statistics — will produce any compensating benefit. The government's own Impact Assessments are not encouraging. The lifetime cost of the Feed-in Tariff scheme is £8.6bn, while its benefits, including climate change benefits, amount to only £420m (technically, the Net Present Value is negative £8.2bn). Government's figures for the revised Renewables Obligation needed to meet the 2020 targets shows that costs exceed benefits by £33bn. The emissions savings fail the government's own cost-effectiveness tests.'

This statement alone would indicate to me that there will be a rising minority within the current government that will start to oppose enforced renewable energy.

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Encouraging how such common sense is now arriving on the energy policy scene, from different political directions. Hardly too soon - but surely now unstoppable?

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

One thing missing from the article is the looming crisis as older coal stations are de-commissioned and the power stations we didn't build in 2009 and 2010 can't fill the gap.

And the author could do more to skewer the "green jobs" myth. This is just a re-heated version of the broken windows fallacy - where we all get richer by smashing everything which creates jobs and wealth in the repair business.

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

Harmless Sky has a good article about how onshore wind is now 'magically' econically cost effective....

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=367

Dec 24, 2010 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Yep, just had notice of mine going up 5.1% from 4th Jan. It arrived today. So not much time to switch then...

Dec 24, 2010 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris

We were recently discussing the China coal myth, some pertinent headlines from China...

Power cuts and rationing in China as winter hits coal supply
Communities in central and northern China are facing power cuts and rationing as winter coal supplies fall short of surging demand.
Diesel-shortage StormThe mandates of power brownout from the local governments made many enterprises resort to diesel engine generator. In fact, the power brownout measure was the consequence of fulfilling the “emission reduction” goals by the end of 2010. [coal production was at peak, so brownouts are not planned, it's rising demand as alluded in the first link]
Link text
refineries pumped out more diesel than ever before to help cover shortages on the domestic market.

So, as in China, when the shortages become apparent they will blame it on green policy, rather then the gap between production and demand.

Dec 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty
Dec 24, 2010 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Dear Santa Claus,

We would like a Sanity Clause for our governments' energy policy please.

Dec 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe People

What really bites my ass is Cameron lecturing us on green power generation! This is a guy who has qualifications in philosophy, economics and politics.

Now, other than being briefed by some dot bureaucrat, what would he know about efficiency in power generation? I would bet he does not even know the formula to derive Hz!

Dec 24, 2010 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

Energy from "green" is a perfect example of the old investment phrase of "so what if this is the biggest bubble of all time, do you want to make money today?" What makes the green energy subsidy program so egregious is they justification for guaranteed profits is based on something that won't possibly be measurable until most people making those decisions are long dead. Such is the framework of confidence rackets.

Which brings me to the Y10K insurance some are selling - for a small yearly fee you'll reimburse you for any losses you suffer when the yaer 20 thousand arrives and your software fails to work since it only goes to year 9999. Please let me know if you want to sign up and I'll see about brokering the best deal.

And I'd bet if this were posted on some AGW sites the response would surprise you. In fact, if you email this to the political class around the world, they'd all sign up - using tax provided money.

Dec 24, 2010 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill

Re Richard Drake

Encouraging how such common sense is now arriving on the energy policy scene, from different political directions. Hardly too soon - but surely now unstoppable?

From a UK pov, no reason why it can't be stopped. Laws can be changed or repealed. Harder challeng is if they're laws imposed on us by our EU overlords. Data from the last few winters should be giving serious pause for thought. Increased demand matched by an inability to supply by subsidy farmers should suggest the current solution is not fit for purpose and a farce. Longer it's left, more subsidy extractors get built and any subsequent compensation bills for terminating 'guaranteed' subsidy rates increases. Not sure what compensation would be payable, ie whether it would have to cover just actual costs, or compensate for anticipated future earnings but it's likely to be a large bill already. It seems far better to kill these turkeys now though and encourage investment in more practical alternatives instead.

Dec 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Re Cedarhill

Which brings me to the Y10K insurance some are selling

Don't forget the Y2038 Unix bug. Signed 32bit Unix systems get their version of the Y2K bug then. Act now! Or don't worry, because there'll be no power for the datacentres or they'll all be under water, or eaten by rampaging poley bears.

Dec 24, 2010 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Frosty..Have you ever been to China? Most of the areas you talk about are farming areas or Mongolian grass lands.

Whilst saying that and after reading your post I have checked in the bar here in Shanghai tonight (never seen a power drop in 4 years!) and I am told that in some areas they do have factories that are only get 3 days power. They soon worked out that they run 24 hours a day during the 3 days...Go figure!


I am also informed that the company responsible for the Nuke power industry here is well ahead with their plans and the same company also does coal and gas stations.

The discussion between western people started off a he'll of a discussion on green windmill things but at the end of it we all agreed that if you live on the Mongolian Plains and heard sheep...a portable windmill was going to be the only way you will be able to charge up the mobile phone or power the Sky Dish!

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

Gosh! The Red Label is kicking in and the wife is kicking me for posting at 20.00 in the bar...

That should have been ..Hell and herd (as in sheep).... red face.

Happy Xmas guys... must get back to discussing why the wife is not getting an Xmas pressie!

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

as someone whose company had to fix a number of y2k bugs at our OWN cost....

Y2K was real, it just meant a sudden build up in replacing systems when one or more suppliers would not guarantee the software hardware through Y2K.. In part this caused the dotcom bubble, as effectively, lots of systems were replaced in the build up to 2000. which then resulted in much less new systems post 2000..

people confused some of this with an internet bubble, ie contractors rates went through the roof.

all th crap about , power stations failing planes falling out of the sky was 'hype' but the problem was real.. at quietly fixed with much effort, and at COST to companies where their customers had them over a barrel.

Lotsof well we neede to replace it in a few years anyway, as well.. All it took was one vendor to say, well it should work, but we can't (won't ) guarantee it..

Lots of happy salesmen..

At least 2 telephone banking systems and half a dozen telco project I was involved in, we had to fix at OUR cost.

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes
"Most of the areas you talk about are farming areas or Mongolian grass lands."

One has to wonder why the Mongolian farmers need so much diesel as to cause a spike in oil demand.

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Now is the time to take these facts to the businesses which are subject to international competition in our constituencies, and get them to take up the issue with MPs. My own city is heavily reliant on car manufacturing - what price does power have to rise to before BMW in Oxford transfers its production to Brazil?
These are the practical considerations, independent of one's belief in AGW or otherwise, which will make politicians sit up and think - and maybe help to bounce Huhne's and Cameron's green lunacies without necessarily renouncing the great green god.
Look at Boris's softly softly approach. He dare not say 'AGW is rubbish', but he does dare say 'Piers Corbyn gets it right when the Met Office gets it wrong'. Likewise our MP's might be persuaded to say - 'this will close down UK businesses, we can't do it before others do it'.

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid C

I'm reading 'the whole thing', as you suggested, dear Bish, and came across this gem:

"In its first three months, from July to September 2010, the Feed-in Tariff for microgeneration (guaranteed prices to support, among other things, solar photovoltaics [PV] and wind turbines up to a capacity of five megawatt) has produced roughly 0.005 per cent of UK annual demand, at a cost of £2.6m. This generous support has encouraged the construction of an installed capacity of microgenerators totalling 59 MW. To put that in perspective, peak load in Britain on a cold winter's afternoon is nearly 59,000 MW."

Just look at the numbers!
0,005% of UK annual demand for £2.6 million ....
Golly, that makes the Hoo's estimate of an additional £500 p.a. to our household utility bills look like peanuts.


... reading on ...

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

"We would like a Sanity Clause"

Doesn't he know there ain't no sanity clause..?
:-)

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

This article is worth reading in full since the author also gives various examples of the failure of such schemes.

Here is another lot of numbers, using the Government's own impact assessment:
"The lifetime cost of the Feed-in Tariff scheme is £8.6bn, while its benefits, including climate change benefits, amount to only £420m (technically, the Net Present Value is negative £8.2bn). "

Guess who'll pay for that ...

If it isn't too late already: dear Santa Claus, please provide out government with more brains!

Dec 24, 2010 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

This is why the carbon counters make me so bloody angry. It is all their fault.

Stupid activism which could never have delivered a meaningful result plus opportunistic politicians = energy policy disaster.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the consensus has it right on climate sensitivity.

How exactly does reducing the UK's paltry 1.84% contribution to global emissions work in terms of mitigating climate change?

Infantile prattle about 'moral leadership' is just grandstanding by the usual suspects while the national economy is strangled by the cost of green energy.

At this rate, the rusting stumps of 10,000 off-shore wind turbines will be the nation's grave markers.

Dec 24, 2010 at 2:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

And dont' forget, for a minor surcharge, you can be covered for the Y100K problem as well. Development is working on the Y1000K issues as you put up your new windmills.

Dec 24, 2010 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill

The mention of y2k is appropriate: scammers jumped on that bandwagon and took advantage of Government grants associated with y2k preparation.

After the event I was asked to review the papers of a company which had gone into liquidation having
been in receipt of a considerable amount money to provide computer based training (and advice) to companies in their preparations for y2k.

Needless to say they delivered zilch and the paperwork I examined showed that a major company activity had been to ensure that everything appeared on course for the regular progress meetings with the agency managing the funding. I was unable to determine what the employees had actually produced.

Dec 24, 2010 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterAJC

New word for you all -- backwardation. And for most, another contango. And no, they are not Kabuki dance steps but the words used in the options pits to describe the futures trade of commodities. Crude oil was in contango until now. However, it is now in backwardation, saying -- not suggesting, but saying -- that the price of oil is going to go up and up in the next year. That is apparently counter-intuitive, but true because the demand for oil is going up world-wide. That will drive up crude prices over the next year.

DEFINITIONS

So, I just bought BP. It has been hammered by the mess in the Gulf of Mexico, dropped its dividend, and all those ugly things, but at $44, it is a bargain and soon will return to respectability and dividend, which the average British pensioner depended on for 50 years.

Now why should I be bothering you with stock market tips? The answer is the price of crude, which is at about $90 at barrel, and will soon be at $100 and then $150 in a year if the economy of the world continues to go up -- which backwardation says it will. HOWEVER, that also means that the average punter -- aka voter -- will now being pouring their money into their fuel oil and petrol tanks instead of having a good time at the pub, letting his misses go shopping, and the kiddies getting new toys. In short backwardation strongly suggests that we will all be pouring our hard earn cash into BP's, Exxon's, Total's, etc. etc. corporate coffers (and my stock) much like a fuel surtax. This will piss off the average punter, who will in turn look for tax relief from the government, who in turn will have to deal with the myth of "Green Jobs". Instead, they will have to supply cheaper energy or get voted out.

We are going into a strong recovery, but only for the rich. The average punter will be putting more of his money into fuel and that will cause a reaction. Changes in Whitehall and the White House will have to be made. It sounds like a Kabuki dance, which it is, but it will slowly wind its way around to the inevitable ending.

Dec 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

The really good news is that offshore wind turbines need much bigger subsidies and need new grid lines which we pay for and hence they will cripple the economy even more. Of course offshore wind turbines work much better than onshore because they have a better type of wind. ☺

E.ON AG, Germany’s largest utility, said its 207-megawatt Roedsand-2 offshore wind park in Denmark was operating at 130 megawatts capacity today because of ice on the turbines.
“Stopped turbines must be restarted at site which cannot be done at present weather conditions,” the Dusseldorf-based company said in a market message via the Nord Pool Spot AS exchange in Oslo at 12:49 p.m. local time.

Dec 24, 2010 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Private Eye's Christmas Special has this from "Old Sparky" on it's opening page:

"Old Sparky likes his Christmas lights to burn brightly in the cold December nights, as well as his two-bar electric heater.
Turning, then, to the website of Exelon, the company responsible for balancing electricity supply and demand on the National Grid, we can easily find the various contributions to the nation's electricity requirements from all the different forms of generation. Coal, gas, nuclear, imports from France - they are all tabulated there hour by hour.

And what's this? On a bitterly cold day, with demand close to maximum, at the time of writing we have just gone a full 24 hours where the UK's wind turbines have provided barely one twentieth of their notional capacity, their output never once rising to as much as even a tenth of their capacity throughout the day and thus contributing nothing but uncertainty to the nation's supplies.

That's the trouble: cold snaps frequently coincide with periods of very little wind. But never mind: we shall all be paying handsomely for ever more of these highly subsidised white elephants, with an ever greater dependence on supposedly unreliable gas imports for backup when the wind lets us down. (A good job Russian gas supplies have proved so reliable over the decades, eh?)

Keep warm!"

Given that the MSM tend to pick up stories in the Eye with a roughly 6 month lag time (and without attribution), do we reckon their may be front page headlines in the fearless Grauniad come June regarding this Windfarm-gate fiasco? Here's hoping!

Dec 24, 2010 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnyColourYouLike

O/T but as it's it's Christmas Eve...

There's a good article on the infinitely annoying Nassim Nicholas Taleb over at the Standpoint website the Bish links to above.

It's here:

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3651/full

If, like me, you think Taleb is essentially a man with little to say, and most of it obvious, you may enjoy this.

Dec 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Don check the BDI, it's about dried up, another sign credit is tightening - as in difficult to get letters of credit, as in 2008 but worse. When the market recognises the level of deflation this will trigger, the baby energy stocks will be thrown out with the city bathwater.

I'm well out of it, sat ringside for financial collapse round 2, the seconds are out, but the bell has yet to sound. I would advise potential market gamblers to google Hindenburg Omens, and read some Nicole Foss for some perspective.

Dec 24, 2010 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -- variously attributed to Robert Hanlon or Robert Heinlein

"Never say never." -- originator unknown

Either the UK is achieving inexplicable new frontiers in stupidity, or this whole thing is driven by malice of a level hitherto unknown.

Dec 24, 2010 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Atomic Hairdryer: Thanks for the reply and apologies for not being clearer, because I was trying to say that the momentum towards rolling back crazy energy polices is now unstoppable, not the policies themselves. So we're in violent agreement!

AnyColourYouLike: Great find in Private Eye. Christopher Booker was one of the founders and still I gather attends biweekly editorial meetings. But Ian Hislop has held out long and hard for not questioning the 'conventional' approach. This may mark an important watershed.

Dec 24, 2010 at 8:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Richard Drake

As I said re PE on an earlier thread, this is doubleplusgood, as our political masters read it.

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Richard Drake

Yeah, I've been hoping the Eye might start commenting on some of the lunacy surrounding "the consensus" and it's derivative policy implications. One would think it's right up their street!

I just wonder if Hislop feels they had their fingers burned as the lone voice vociferously challenging MMR against the medical consensus, and doesn't want to risk looking foolish again? Notwithstanding that possibilty, it may be becoming so bleedin obvious that something is rotten in the state of climate policy that Lord Gnome has finally realised critical comment can no longer be suppressed. I certainly hope this is the case.

Dec 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnyColourYouLike

Anycolouryoulike - I'm a long term reader of the eye, nearly 30 years, and sadly Hislop is a gullible fool, not for questioning MMR but for falling for spin that is safe. In time he will come to regret his u-turn. Good journalism (like science) is not based on consensus, and if you think MMR has a clean sheet you should see what the Cochrane Review said about the quality of the safety studies.

Dec 24, 2010 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

The transcript of Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson's devastating speech in the Lord's during their debate this week on the second Lords reading of the Energy Bill, posted on GWPF currently. The actual transcript is here, a voice of reason amongst a deranged coterie .
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/14.htm

Dec 24, 2010 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Lapogus

I'm definitely not qualified to comment on the science of MMR, and wasn't taking a position on that. It's more that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the broo-haha, I think the Eye perceived itself to look foolish (you may remember M.D.s mostly unfavourable audit of the situation in the Eye this year?) when the consensus closed ranks.

Given that perceived outcome, it may be that editorially they didn't want to be seen as championing another controversial, anti-consensus science horse so soon afterward (M.D. apart, science doesn't seem to be a strong suit for the Eye).

I quite like Hislop, but think he's a bit more straight and safe than Ingrams ever was. There's so much material they could run with in this debate. I hope they start paying a bit more attention.

Dec 24, 2010 at 11:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnyColourYouLike

@ Anycolouryoulike - I know exactly what you mean - Hislop is undoubtedly playing safe. So sorry, I should have made clear that agree with you on that, and not assumed that you have taken the Ben Goldacre/Guardian/GSK line on MMR as gospel, as most have, without actually looking at the science or evidence. I remain very disappointed with Hislop's gullibility, and mainly buy the Eye for the cartoons, not the quality of the investigative journalism the magazine was once respected for. As you say, they have missed an open goal with climate science and energy policy. I contend they have let down the MMR parents, who were truly stitched up by the government and medical establishment, and denied legal aid just when they were about to make progress in court. Hislop knows full well how Megrahi was setup, but since Paul Foot died the truth about Lockerbie has had to be discerned from articles in the The Scotsman, the Herald, and the web, not the Eye.

But as Dennis always used to say, Seasons greetings and yuletide glee...

Dec 25, 2010 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

I am reposting a question I asked on Steve Goddard's blog two days ago. I somewhat diluted my point and have edited it to be more direct. Thanks to Perry though for answering one of my supplemental questions. This is the thrust of that post and I would dearly like opinions. Here goes.
  I have a few questions, they may be silly questions but I’ll ask anyway. 
In the last few days we’ve heard lots about just how little wind-power has contributed to the UK grid. Figures of 0.1% have been banded about and I make no claim to dispute them.
What puzzles me is just WHY these figures are so low. Have UK wind-speeds, feeding the 3k or so large generators, really slumped that much?
If the answer is yes, then meteorological heads should roll.
If the answer is no, then engineering heads must roll!
IIRC, Scottish Power was paid some £30k earlier this year to stop a batch of turbines cranking away, because their contributions would have had a negative effect on Grid balancing.
Maybe the published figure of 0.1% contribution to our energy needs is so low because it is impractible to maintain a guaranteed service with them switched on.
If so, what comfort can we expect from pico generation if micro generation is so problematic and ephemeral?
The time for idealistic pipe-dreaming is past its sell by date. Pragmatism must trump fantasy otherwise countless lives will be trashed!

Dec 25, 2010 at 2:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Roy, its the wind speed that is affecting the output, the same weather that gives us the feezing temps is also giving low wind speeds. I live on the West coast and the wind speeds like last winter are very low. The rainfall is also virtually nil and hydro must also be affected on the schemes close to sources and affected by frozen rivers. So the triangle of Sun,Wind and Water are all giving minimum output at the very time you need maximum output. Only one giving reliable power would be the ground heat pumps.

Dec 25, 2010 at 5:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of fresh air

Right now (per National Grid via ELEXON that feeds the "UK Grid Carbon Intensity" iphone app ... see www.ideasproject.info)

Gas, 11,300 MW, 31.2%
Coal, 14,100 MW, 38.8%
Nuclear, 8,200 MW, 22.7%
Wind, 620 MW, (1.7%)
Hydro, 61 MW, (0.2%)

Dec 25, 2010 at 7:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Schneider

RoyFOMR - your question is perfectly reasonable. The typical load factor for a UK on shore wind farm is about 20-25% assuming good location, average winds and reliable machines. (i.e. if the wind farm has 40 turbines each 2.5MW, the maximum installed capacity will be 100MW, and over the year the average output will be about 20-25MW). That's as good as it gets. But in the period from December
2009 to June 2010, IIRC average output from Scottish windmills was only about 16%, and this was mainly due to lower than average winds last winter and through the spring. Remember that the total installed capacity of wind in the UK is only 4GW (and about 3GW of that is in Scotland). So even when the wind is blowing just right, the maximum percentage of the UK maximum demand (c. 60GW) that wind can generate is only about 7%. (so figures of 0.1% are 0.1% of 60GW, not 4GW). But then you have to remember that while the installed or baseplate capacity may be 4GW, the practical maximum output is usually about 3GW, due to broken gearboxes and other essential maintenance.

In remote off-grid locations, wind is a great way to make electricity, but to try to use it to power an industrial (or even post industrial) nation it is a very expensive joke. And once potential output gets above 15% to 20% grid balancing problems become a serious issue. Ax you say, heads need to roll, but mainly in the electrical industry for going along with this farce, not the Met Office.

Dec 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Thanks for responding. Detailed, informative and clear explanations which have really boosted my understanding. Much appreciated.

Dec 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

This is a good thing. After all the talk, the world needs one country to be the canary in the cold mine and test the wisdom of carbon pricing and regulation. As the UK collapses into anarchy, the rest will learn. Where's the downside?

Dec 25, 2010 at 10:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarkB

I think that I have decoded the problem with this thread.
Let me disect the arguement.
It seems that expansive wind power is unreliable when integrated with relatively low cost carbon based power.
The answer is staring you all in the face.
Close down those wickedly cheap coal fired power stations and replace them all, 100% with good old reliable "negible cost to operate" windfarms.

It's never been done before, I hear you cry.
They don't work in windy, still, freezing or hot as hell weather, I hear you cry.
Thet're far too expensive, I hear you cry.

Naggers, nay sayers, critics and doom laden hypocrits, all.
Don't worry.
Smile.
She'll be alright on the night.

And if not, then we'll just sue and be dammed.
Yes ------- we'll all be dammed and make our fortune by litigation.

(Written and paid for by the Candle Makers Co-operate Society).

Dec 26, 2010 at 5:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterAusieDan

WUWT.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/t ... more-30216

"In 2008, billionaire T. Boone Pickens unveiled his ‘Pickens Plan’ on national TV, which calls for America to end its dependence on foreign oil by increasing use of wind power and natural gas. Over the next two years, he spent $80 million on TV commercials and $2 billion on General Electric wind turbines.

Unfortunately market forces were not favorable to Mr. Pickens, and in December 2010 he announced that he is getting out of the wind power business. What does he plan to do with his $2 billion worth of idle wind turbines? He is trying to sell them to Canada, because of Canadian law that mandates consumers to buy more renewable electricity regardless of cost.

On his website he says this about 2011-

We’re not going away. If I’ve learned anything during the many years of my business career it is this: No one has ever accomplished his or her goal by quitting or failing to meet and overcome a challenge. You reach your goal by hitching up your pants and wading back into the fight.

That’s what I’m going to do in 2011. And I know you’ll be with me."


No, I don't ***king think so.

Dec 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterPerry

jorgekafkazar Dec 24, 2010 at 6:55 PM

"Either the UK is achieving inexplicable new frontiers in stupidity, or this whole thing is driven by malice of a level hitherto unknown."

I think there are a number of reasons why the UK government has taken this path; malice and stupidity don't really address them.

There are few differences between the main parties. A class of professional politicians has come about, with little experience outside politics and having more in common with themselves than the people who vote for the respective tribes. They live in their own world - The Westminster Bubble. No engineers in sight.

There are all sorts of ways of looking at the CAGW nonsense, two of which are a mass mania and a religious phenomenon. If you look at previous manias such as Tulipmania and religious revivals, it isn't only stupid people who get caught up. Isaac Newton lost money on the South Sea Bubble.

It's my view that there are many in the UK who never coped with the loss of empire. Politicians like to tell us the UK is leading the way in this or that and it's usually something which almost any country could lead the way in, were they prepared to spend a lot of money for no clear benefit. They love to strut about on the world stage.

There are certainly all sorts of other reasons;

The scams.

Having committed themselves, they'd look stupid backing away.

They're insulated from the consequences

A threat of global destruction, some way off, makes us easier to manage.


It's worth remembering that five years ago or so, about the time when Cameron went off to hug the glacier, and most people hadn't twigged that it would have to be paid for and would be expensive, CAGW was a popular concern with the electorate.

Dec 26, 2010 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

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>