Wednesday
Aug312011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Farmers
Aug 31, 2011 Economics Energy: costs Ethics H/T to Richard Betts for this story.
Barclays claims a third of the UK's estimated 200,000 farmers (37%) will invest in renewable energy as it launches a new £100M fund to bankroll potential projects today (August 30).
The funding, which has been planned with support from organisations including the influential National Farmers Union (NFU), is aimed at helping farmers install all renewable technologies with Barclays including projected feed-in-tariffs (FITs) when assessing each loan.
So not only do we have to pay farmers through the nose via the Common Agricultural Policy but we have to pay them again via feed-in tariffs.
This will end badly.
Reader Comments (95)
I really do get under your skin, Zed, don't I?
The best argument you can come up with is the suggestion that I am mentally unstable though you don't quite have the guts to say it in so many words.
You certainly have a somewhat deluded view of the world if you feel you can insult people on an internet blog with impunity. The last time you tried that on me I mentioned libel and you huffed and puffed and blustered then gave me the information I asked for and disappeared like a rocket.
None of which changes the fact that you have unfinished business on the Discussion thread you started! I'm quite happy to keep reminding you of that at regular intervals, if only to teach you some manners.
I don't see why you should be the only one on here who feels able to criticise other people in terms that you would not dare use to their faces.
Aug 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Phillip Bratby
Philip, you're doing something called answering a question with a question. It's what people do when they're trying to change the subject, for example, when they've been caught out.
Now, back to the subject of your evidence for your extremely surprising claim regarding turbines, if you actually have any...
"None of which changes the fact that you have unfinished business on the Discussion thread you started!"
Aug 31, 2011 at 4:53 PM | Mike Jackson
Gosh, you are a funny buny. Of the two questions to which you refer, one I have answered a few times here already, and feel no need to repeat myself, the other, is moot. If that doesn't satisfy, you, I suggest you learn to live with it.
May I also point out, that my contributions here are referring directly to to the comments from other posters in relation to the topic of the thread, yours, most certainly, are not.
Quote:
I don't respond to zebedee as she has never yet responded to any requests to her."
Aug 31, 2011 at 2:17 PM | Phillip Bratby
a) Untrue
b) Or more like, you don't like being asked for tricky things like evidence.
ZBD, Like a lot of people here I would be interested to know what your science background is please?
"ZBD, Like a lot of people here I would be interested to know what your science background is please?"
Aug 31, 2011 at 5:04 PM | Jack Cowper
I bet you would.
Sorry, Jack, but I did try.
Its answer to you doesn't seem to tie in with its answer to me though.
Zed
What's a buny?
ZDB
I would genuinely love to see evidence of how much CO2 UK wind farms can save - and THEN how much this is expected to reduce global temperatures? Because if the impact is truly minimal, then the cost is surely prohibitive. So far (I understand) the government is unable to provide a figure for this.
Andrew, we are up to 11 comments from ZDB. Am I the only one who finds her very tiresome? What started as an interesting topic has been derailed by the lady from Truro - precisely her intention.
May I suggest that per topic she is allowed three comments and all others are deleted unless they are relevant and contain information or comments strictly relevant to the topic.
Aug 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM | John Hewitt
John - a few distractions aside, I'm primarily just trying to get people here to tell me what the sources for their claims are, specifically, Philip Bratby.
Are you saying you don't wish to know what his evidence is? It's certainly pertinent to the topic of the thread.
zbd: Others have already posted some of the information you seek. Where is your counter-evidence showing how much CO2 they save? Let's have an answer.
"zbd: Others have already posted some of the information you seek. Where is your counter-evidence showing how much CO2 they save? Let's have an answer."
Aug 31, 2011 at 5:54 PM | Phillip Bratby
You're still answering questions with questions Philip. Still trying to avoid answering and change the subject.
To repeat, you have made quite a remarkable claim. I think I even put a 'please' first time around.
Manners never hurt. Could you tell me what the source for your assertion is please?
And you've had two postings in reply to your request.
Now I know you don't like them. Google is only a source for information when you say so, evidently, and we've had the usual litany which boils down to "it didn't come from one of my "authorised" sources therefore it is biased/ flawed/wrong [delete whichever does not etc.....]"
Nonetheless, whether you like it or not the question was answered and with time (not to mention a bit of goodwill on your part) we might have found better sources for you.
Meanwhile, your turn to debunk.
Aug 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM | Mike Jackson
Err, I want to know what Philip's source is. That's quite clear in my question. How come you're not able to understand that?
Its one hell of a lot easier to farm subsides then anything else so can you blame the farmers.
The issues is with those that allow such 'scams ' to be created in the first place .
Sorry, Zed, I didn't think it had to be the poster's own particular source.
I know you addressed it to Phillip but I thought this was an open discussion and anyone was allowed to join in.
I'll know better next time, promise.
Oh FFS Zed
Look, it works like this. We'll use the UK as an example, but the rough percentages etc hold true for any large-scale grid integration of renewables (here wind).
You start off with a grid with enough spare capacity to deal with plant failure and major demand spikes.
The first 10% of wind integrated into the energy mix can be supported by existing overcapacity, so there's no need to build new plant to act as spinning reserve to balance the grid in the face of wind intermittency and variability.
Once you get above 10% of wind in the energy mix, you have to add new conventional capacity (usually gas) as backup. This must be kept running so it can be brought online very rapidly to compensate for drops in output from wind plant (hence spinning reserve).
Cycling the reserve capacity means it is run inefficiently (not at its rated optimum output). This uses more gas, and results in more emissions.
So yes, it is correct to say that wind capacity will increase CO2 emissions if it consists of more than about 10% of the energy mix.
I feel sorry for anyone taking this up because I don't see any possibility of this scam going past the end of next year.
The whole concept of catastrophic manmade global warming is now in taters with the Svensmark/CERN result. The next IPCC report is going to be an embarrassing mishmash of "effects" of warming which won't even fool the mainstream media.
... and we've run out of money.
For Zed:
"Why wind power works for Denmark"
http://www.incoteco.com/upload/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf
For the agricultural community how to model the future of farming based on future increased temperatures
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/audio/uk-landuse-economics
followed by
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/audio/uk-landuse-economics-ian-bateman
Love the smugness of how this will generate further research funding.
Projects and costings:
http://www.lwec.org.uk/sites/default/files/Land%20integrated%20decision-making_Ken%20OCallaghan.pdf
The SEER objective is to directly
influence reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
To contribute to the creation of a new interdisciplinary community of natural
scientists, social scientists, economists, public sector decision makers and
private sector decision makers.
http://cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/110617%20-%20SEER%20Impact_Strategyx.pdf
SEER team morale is also boosted through group participation in high profile national and
international conferences. Examples include the recent Envecon conference at the Royal
Society and the forthcoming EAERE conference in Rome.
While SEER places an unusually strong emphasis upon broader engagement, its number one
dissemination priority is the production of internationally acclaimed leading ledge
publications in the very best peer-reviewed journals. SEER has made an excellent start in
this respect, producing a large number of such acclaimed papers within its first year of
operation. All publications are routinely uploaded to ESRC’s website.
Your taxation, their playground
For Charlie:
"The bioethanol produced will be refined from UK feed wheat, the majority of which is currently used to produce animal feed or exported to produce bioethanol overseas. The UK grows significantly more feed wheat than it requires and typically exports substantial quantities to Europe. It is expected that this Project will use wheat that would otherwise be exported."
http://www.vireol.com/about-us/
The overall conclusion is that climate change will
be beneficial for most of the GB agriculture, but localize losses may take place in the South
– East because of increase heat stress.
http://cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/110615_-_SEER_Annual_Report_2010-11_Revised.pdf
"Essentially it is taxpayers money ending up with the banks.
Aug 31, 2011 at 3:21 PM | Krishna Pillai"
Interesting given the taxpayer level of ownership of two of the biggest UK banks. Taxpayer cash ends up with the owners of the banks...who are the...ummm...taxpayers. So everyone is happy then.
Actually no. The banks take normal fees and interest margins from lending. But as a percentage of the FIT it is small. The utility companies take a turn as well. However essentially the FITs (and RHIs) transfer cash from all energy consumers, many relatively poor, to wealthy landowners aka farmers. It is an incredibly regressive tax. Robin Hood would have a fit.
"I again ask for evidence. Although in your case, I'd be very surprised indeed if you were able to prove that no bank wishes to look after the environment. Still, I wait to be surprised.
Aug 31, 2011 at 3:25 PM | ZedsDeadBed"
I cannot prove it but equally you cannot prove the opposite. I at least have inside knowledge of the thinking and while there might be the odd "green" individual the banks fund renewables mainly (99%) to get a profit while a secondary (1%) benefit is the subsequent right to bang their environmental credentials. The banks are governed around risk and return on equity. Renewables only figure if lending risk is low and to avoid reputational risk if they do not appear green. Being green is another matter. Only the perception matters.
seems that zeds has been routed....waits for Hengist the thick to appear now
ZED,
Is it peer-reviewed? No.
Is it highly partial? Yes.
Is it good evidence? No.
May I ask why you believe that articles and papers in industry journals hold no value and are to be immediately dismissed? How can you assume that any such article is highly partial? Where do you get the idea that papers and articles published in peer reviewed journals are any less partial? Partiality has little to do with something being peer reviewed. The phrase publish or die was old when I was a graduate student. I don't believe the environment has changed much since then. Ensuring one keeps their livelihood, which is a central element to publishing scientific papers - is a powerful incentive towards partiality.
FYI - I work for a power company that is one of the leading producers of wind energy in the US. The primary drivers for this? State mandated renewable percentages and federal & state tax breaks and incentives. This in a state that gets the majority of it's electricity from hydro, which apparently is no longer considered to be renewable. In fact, the regional power administrator is being sued by several of the wind producers, (though not by us) because of forced curtailments this spring. Shocking as it may be, spring is when runoff is highest (which is also when the wind blows the most consistently) and following a particulaly wet year with high snow pack levels, the adminsitrator had to force other power producers to go off line in order that they could draw down the system. (Little matter of too much spilling over the dams being unhealthy for certain fish populations.) They provided free replacement power to every producer who had to curtail output. They also gave preference to the wind producers, placing them last on the curtailment list. The problem was that these producers do not get their per megawatt tax incentive payments if they are not actually generating. They wanted to be paid not to generate. Want to guess whose pocket those dollars would have come out of?
Now none of this has been peer reviewed. But it doesn't make it any less true.
Note: the above comments represent only my opinion and should not be construed as representing in any way those of my employer.
"I don't respond to zebedee as she has never yet responded to any requests to her."
Aug 31, 2011 at 2:17 PM | Phillip Bratby
a) Untrue
b) Or more like, you don't like being asked for tricky things like evidence.
Aug 31, 2011 at 2:20 PM | ZedsDeadBed
ZDB
point a TerryS who answers your questions and I are still interested in your response to a question from way back. Mandy Rice-Davies has the answer to that point
point b Mandy Rice-Davies has the answer to that point as well.
ZBD - I see you refuse to answer any questions again. This is just trolling. You could learn a lot from Philip Bratby by the way, he is honest and forthright about his education, experience and even has the courage to use his real name. These are qualities in life that seem to have eluded you. So now please, answer the question.
what is your science background is please?
Not Banned Yet on Denmark above. Here is something I came across some months ago. Happy Reading.
Denmark
Wind power: is it a realistic option? – Money Week
Is wind power as green as it seems?Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.
In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.
Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.
Full Story-Money Week
Not even the Danes want turbines. The Danish government wants to keep selling them to the world because so many Danes are working in the industry.National Wind Watch | Danes go cold on wind farms
Unpredictable wind energy – the Danish dilemma
by Daniel
(richtiger Name und Anschrift sind bekannt).
This should be the link for my above comment.
http://www.wind-watch.org/newsarchive/2006/11/01/danes-go-cold-on-wind-farms/
This blog is fast moving down my reading list.
Many items now consist of the original post, then only a couple of comments before intervention by ZDB and then almost the rest of the entire comments are people replying to her and her posting yet more comments about how crap everyone here is and how no-one here knows what evidence is, etc. etc., blah blah.
It is getting tedious.
ZBD
Love your answers. They have been duly recording in my information base regarding "lefty" thinking and logic. Please keep it up. You are my Primary Research Subject. You have been a great asset. Please keep on posting as my grant may depend on it.
And no -- you are not a proxy -- you are the real thing and I love it! Real data! None of this left wing tree ring crap others are using. You are the real thing. Thank you so very much!
@varco @zdb
And both your anecdotes serve as excellent illustrations of yet another fatal technical problem with wind power....it doesn't reliably produce the power when it is needed. In last winter's cold snap.the very cold very still weather meant that there was a negligible contribution form windmills. In other times of high winds, too much power can overload and damage the grid. Hence the need for disconnection.
And there is nothing that we can do to influence either of these things. It is inherently a bad source of useful energy, leaving aside the barmy subsidy regime and unpleasant side effects of wind farms on the local human and natural environment.
It may be that somewhere there is a windfarm that actually does some good. Perhaps ZDB will guide me to a peer reviewed, independently verified description of such a one. If not, then they are, I fear, just mirages among the alarmists.
@Lord Beaverbrook, thanks for some interesting links to CSERGE and its various projects. Much of the funding for these activities comes from the EU, as you can see if you glance at the items on their Past Research Projects page, and many of these have acronyms which seem typical of EU projects - such as MATISSE, ADAM, SPICOSA etc. Delving through all this material, I'm left with the impression of a confusing multiplicity of studies, many appearing to do similar things in parallel and each with its permutations of various key words such as "sustainable", "governance" and "transition". So much time and money (a lot of it ours) has been spent on these studies and reports over the last half decade, and it's difficult not to wonder sometimes what on earth all of it will actually amount to.
Thanks Peter - I hope Zed takes note.
31 Aug: NBC: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy
President Obama touted the facility only a year ago
"I was told by a security guard to get my [stuff] and leave," one employee said. The company employs a little more than 1,000 employees worldwide, according to its website.
Shortly after it opened a massive $700 million facility, it canceled plans for a public stock offering earlier this year and warned it would be in significant trouble if federal loan guarantees did not go through...
Solyndra was touted by the Obama administration as a prime example of how green technology could deliver jobs. The President visited the facility in May of last year and said "it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that. "
The federal government offered $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. NBC Bay Area has contacted the White House asking for a statement.
Some Republicans have been very critical of the loans. "I am concerned that the DOE is providing loans and loan guarantees to firms that aren't capable of competing in the global market, even with government subsidies" Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns told the New York Times.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Solyndra-Shutting-Down-128802718.html
31 Aug: Euractiv: Romania suspended from Kyoto carbon trading
A UN panel has suspended Romania's right to trade its surplus carbon emissions after it breached rules on emissions reporting, Bucharest's environment ministry said on 28 August.
The UNFCCC compliance committee, which had been meeting in Bonn for a week, found "irregularities" in Romania's 2010 greenhouse gas emissions data, and ruled that its national emissions inventory had been inadequately kept.
"Maybe tough measures will lead to more transparent information," Natalia Yakymenko, an analyst with Point Carbon, told EurActiv from Kiev.
"It's hard to evaluate whether Romania's projects have really generated anything."...
On 25 August, another Eastern European country, Ukraine, also had its carbon credit trading rights suspended after the UNFCCC found that it had under-reported its greenhouse gas emissions.
Kiev had reportedly failed to act on earlier warnings that it was in non-compliance...
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-environment/romania-suspended-kyoto-carbon-trading-news-507163
Pat
As discussed on a previous thread it doesn't end there:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-environment/europe-emits-huge-unreported-gas-cloud-report-news-507124
Alex Cull
Why do I get the feeling that all these 'groups' have been organised by Brussels to ensure that UK policy is formulated in the
politicallycorrect direction. There seems to be an abundance of academics using model outputs to influence our society in a specific direction, or am I being just a little too suspicious?Perhaps it would be better to measure the CO2 impact of a wind farm in terms of the number of Chinese coal-fired power stations it supposedly offsets.
Of course, the assessment must take account of the fact that subsidy cash sitting in a rich landowner's bank account is not being spent on ungreen things like a better standard of living for poor people.
On reflection, perhaps Ben Pile was right about greens not being leftists. Green economics does seem to look an awful lot like ... something else.
RB said last night:
This blog is fast moving down my reading list.
Many items now consist of the original post, then only a couple of comments before intervention by ZDB and then almost the rest of the entire comments are people replying to her and her posting yet more comments about how crap everyone here is and how no-one here knows what evidence is, etc. etc., blah blah.
It is getting tedious.
Aug 31, 2011 at 10:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRB
I have to agree with this comment. Mind you, similar remarks have been made before about either not feeding the troll or just ignoring it completely. It takes just one of we non trolls to respond to Zebedee and then we are all at it. The original posting by the Bishop is forgotten as there is no debate about it
And the winner is....the troll.
This type of behavious was evidenced in JoNova's posting a few weeks back on the ultra long (more than 1000 comments) Convoy of no Confidence. Two or three trolls, Maxine and Dragone, must have added hundreds of troll comments between them and they were just 2 trolls of many. The ordinary commenter then got snagged into retorting to the trolls and so it went.
So, what do we do, collectively? How can we get back to "business" and just discuss the headline item?
Well, we could promise yet again not to respond to ZDB, but how long would it before one of us submitted to temptation? I know that I am likely to "react" to this idiot's annoying comments here. But if I tried very very hard, and with the help of you all, I could find the will power to resist the urge.
Ask yourselves this question.
What has ZDB ever contributed here?
The answer is; ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Yet we all continue to react and feel the need to respond to it while it continues to laugh at us from it's troll hole, probably in Truro.
Maybe we are hoping aganst hope that we can convert it.
Face it, WE CAN'T
Just a few days ago, another troll under the name ZED obviously posted some unsavoury comment on a thread. The Bishop snipped it and very few of us saw this comment. I know that I didn't see it.
But then, some who did see it were adding commments such as, It wasn't OUR Zed, or OUR Zed is never rude like that or Our ZED this and OUR Zed that and so on.
This creature ZED is not OURS.
It has no sympathy with OUR thoughts and beliefs on the subject of cAGW and it is doing everthing possible to distract us from making legitimate comments on items that The Bishop presents to us.
I would like to make a suggestion.
That suggestion is that we all make a decision, collectively, to not reply or react in any way to ZED. That's it, full stop, ignore the comment and carry on with normal commenting. We decide on a time, say 1200 noon today, 1st September 2011 that from that time we will NEVER AGAIN let the troll divert us. Theoretically, if we do this, then in time it will/may get fed up with being ignored and go away.
That is probably wishful thinking mind you but here's hoping.
Remember, at no time since Zed came here, has it every answered any of the questions raised by any of us. It has never, that I am aware of, responded with evidence to back up the claims or statements it makes. Yet we continue to feed it by giving it attention. How much time has each of us spent replying to it I wonder?
STOP IT NOW!
12 noon today, stop replying and feeding it.
Thanks for reading this.
Normal life resumes at midday.
Temptation, answer to;
And if after all of the above, you feel tempted to reply, recite the following mantra:
We don't need it,
It needs US.
We don't need it,
It needs US.
Bishop
"This blog is fast moving down my reading list.
Many items now consist of the original post, then only a couple of comments before intervention by ZDB and then almost the rest of the entire comments are people replying to her and her posting yet more comments about how crap everyone here is and how no-one here knows what evidence is, etc. etc., blah blah.
It is getting tedious."
RB Aug 31, 2011 at 10:37 PM
I'm sure there are quite a number of us who find Zed's carping tedious, and detrimental to serious discussion. To avoid banning her, perhaps her posts could be automatically re-directed to her own thread, titled "Troll of Truro" or something. Then those interested could go there to comment. And if she didn't contribute to the Tip Jar for the extra effort, parhaps this privelege could be withdrawn.
Paddy
Peter, already enacted on my account glad to see others thinking the same way.
re PFM above, agree, and I also suggested this recently: posted 17 Feb. See below.
No doubt Zed will bleat on about freedom of speech etc, but with freedom of speech there also comes responsibility.
Zed has never shown this trait, shows no respect here, particularly for our host Andrew.
Bishop,
Why don't you give Zebedee her own thread where she can post what she likes and anyone who wants to can follow her ramblings?
It'll be a lonely place for her, needless to say.
Alternatively, can you set up a system whereby any comments she adds to other threads will be automatically transferred to her personal thread and (a pun on threads) she can get knitted?
Aug 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh
Bishop, re my above comment:
If you were to set up Zebedee's personal thread, you could call it;
Wait for it, wait for it, just be patient;
ZedsDeadBedThread!!
Aug 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh
Peter
Agree absolutely - I must have subconsciously remembered your previous post.
Paddy
ZDB
I took on board your criticism and looked for any peer-reviewed papers that discuss the impact on total emissions of the requirement to back-up wind turbines with conventional technology. Several days searching has found none. Plenty talk about power mixes but all appear to ignore the back-up requirement and I think from my earlier post it is important to differentiate between these. I find the absence of such a discussion perplexing as it seems pretty central to understanding total emissions of CO2 or pollutants.
You clearly don’t find the article I posted acceptable so I am offering you the chance to enlighten me. So, please direct me to a peer-reviewed paper (which meets whatever other criteria you feel important) that does contradict the original claim "But all the evidence suggests that wind turbines may actually increase CO2 emissions" when considering back-up requirements.
Referring back to the original point of the post, I do see the energy market 'rigging' going on at the moment as indefensible and would caution those tempted to indulge in such schemes to check the small print of the contracts they sign to see where they stand if the feed-in tariffs evaporate. To me it is inescapable that the level of feed-in tariffs will have to fall. I don’t expect the politicians to put up much of a defence for the feed-in tariffs given that public opinion is likely to be damning when the real cost of energy rises filter through to the electorate in the next couple of years, especially if we have a few hard winters.
@Varco
The trolls will not win if we ignore them. They want to try and ruin this blog. Don't address them any more.
See Peter Walsh comment, 10.35am Sep 1st on Stripping the Land Bare post
Interesting blog post , I was enlightened by the information ! Does anyone know if my company could possibly locate a blank a form copy to fill in ?