Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Cook’s consensus: standing on its last legs | Main | Ivo Vegter on green misinformation »

Reign of madness

Paul Homewood's analysis of expected future increases in household electricity bills is sobering stuff. Buried in the back of a House of Commons report on electricity prices we find that the cost of greenery is currently 10% of the average household bill (say £1200). This is expected to rise to 33% by 2020, which would make the bill £1450 or thereabouts, and to 41% (£1540) by 2030.

However, the costs of all this greenery fall, in the first place, mainly on non-domestic users - two thirds in fact. But the charges to industrial users simply gets passed onto consumers anyway (some of them being overseas consumers, but the majority are in the UK). So while domestic users are picking up an extra £450 in green costs (1540 - (1200/1.1)), in fact they are also eventually going to have to pick up most of the tab for the £900 charged to industrial users as well. That means by 2030, costs to consumers will have doubled.



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (58)

You can bet these estimates will be optimisitic, history tells us that the real costs will be higher. The creaters of this insanity will have a lot to answer for!

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterConfusedPhoton

An additional hidden 'cost' of high energy prices for industrial users, is that uncompetitive production-costs force the export of jobs.

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

The analysis must be difficult, because much of the actual green cost is being taken out of central taxes as well. In fact the total green cost is very well hidden all over government, and might be almost impossible to quantify totally...

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

You must remember to factor in the rate of inflation ( 2.5% year on year). When we are talking fifteen or so years ahead, so much can happen. Remember the escalator on fuel was set in stone, now - no more. Energy will be the main battleground of the election in 2015 and its result will determine what happens afterwards to energy policy - on electricity.

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterTrefor Jones

The EU, green boondoggles, investment bankers and cosy cartels.

I am tired of the equivocation, the government casuistry giving us the run around and the ruse, Miliband has got it pat - to blame the big bad energy companies - the 'big six' for massive hikes in bills.

Having said that, this mythical European spot price for natural gas - this market must also be rigged by massive primary producers, the Qataris, Gazprom and Statoil - why haven't Westminster/government attempted to break this stranglehold - by asking the Brussels Kommissars to break the vice like grip of big suppliers or, price cartel - of spot prices [or does Gazprom run the EU?]...................... Then, large shale gas exploitation in the UK would [could maybe] do this at a stroke.
Why hasn't the American shale gas bonanza affected prices of gas over in Europe, the slackening of coal demand in the USA has certainly affect the world price of coal - which has dropped significantly in the past 5 years. Is it not the case that the EU and its allies in the gas supply industry/French Nuclear power - the last thing they need is a large scale European shale gas industry.

British domestic and industrial consumers of gas and electricity not only are we stitched up by our own government and because we have to abide by the uneven rules of Brussels - there is little or, no chance of there ever being what could be called a stable and fair - perish the thought CHEAP gas/electrical energy supply.

Banks and banksters love the smell of green energy 'investments', for far too long Goldman Sach's, Deutsche bank and the rest have made a killing promoting the CO2 man made scares and it is still working here in Britain - the financing and funding of wind arrays, solar fields and 'investment vehicles' are investment bankers specialities - commissions - think of the commission.

All of the Green madness, poor policy and cartels in Europe - it seems someone or the bosses, the investment bankers, the politicians - really are taking the pi88 - but isn't that what the EU is for??

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Do you think this is a fight back from the energy companies by forcing the costs to be examined through a high increase makes it hard for the government to hide the hidden green costs.

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterJace_F

SSE electricity price increases in last 4 years:

Dec 2010: 9%

Aug. 2011: 12%

Nov. 2012: 9%

Nov. 2013: 8%

As my annual lecky bill is £1200 I switched this time last year, as I was fed up paying for their expensive, inefficient and ugly windmills they seem intent on covering Scotland with. I also suspect that much of these rises is to recover the capital cost of the largely unnecessary Beauly Denny 400kV line.

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

The loonies really are running the asylum. See this

Oct 11, 2013 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Perhaps we could have a supplier that, in opposition to those who offer a 'green' tariff, provides a cheaper, wind and solar-free product, with the additional promise of continuous supply.

After all, if they could eschew subsidised sources, they shouldn't have to pay for them...

Oct 11, 2013 at 10:02 AM | Registered Commenterjamesp

The loonies are firmly in charge of the asylum.

Why doesn't Camerloon point out that it was Red Ed's suicidal Climate Change Act that has driven up energy prices?

Could it be possible that he doesn't want to stop the money from windmills pouring into his father-in-laws coffers?

Oct 11, 2013 at 10:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Don Keiller

"Why doesn't Camerloon point out that it was Red Ed's suicidal Climate Change Act that has driven up energy prices?"

Because, as I am sure you know, he voted for it. Let us rehearse the role of honour:

Christopher Chope
Philip Davies
Peter Lilley
Andrew Tyrie
Ann Widdecombe

Oct 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterSH

The gloves are coming off

Did they really think that with a recession that we would not notice the bills going up but with the oil price still at $100 and wholesale gas prices also stable that 'We cannot control international energy prices' would wash

Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

The costs to industry will push more and more output abroad, initially costing employment in those industries most reliant on energy, then it will push down real wages as the labour market adjusts prices to clear.

It is the policy you would enact if your objective was to move production from the UK to foreign country.

I thought the Goverment was supposed to be in office to serve the people.

Oct 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko


Well said. It is very important that this point is made over and over again. Miliband was/is an ultra green idiot: but all but five MPs out of over six hundred were equally idiotic. The question is, how many are still firmly in the warmist camp?

Oct 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud

I got a letter from my electricity supplier yesterday informing me that "under the terms of the Electricity Act, all meters have to be exchanged after they have been in use for a set period of time."

It goes on to explain that they will be installing a smart meter. then towards the end it says "It is important that your meter is exchanged to ensure its continued accuracy and safety.

Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of smart meters, the reasons given for changing to one looked like lies to me. I already knew the purpose was to take half hourly meter readings to help them manage a grid powered by expensive, useless, intermittent and unreliable sources of energy.

But here the reason was that after being installed for a set period of time (unspecified) my meter could become inaccurate and unsafe. This could scare a number of consumers. My own meter is over 25 years old as far as I know and whizzes round like a youngster.

A quick look at Schedule 7 of the 1989 Act does not mention anything about the age of the meter or exchange after set periods of time. The Act was more recently modified by DECC to say meters will be replaced by smart ones.

As you may know, we are part of the EU single market for energy and the EU directive is for the roll out to be completed (at least 80% installed) by 2020. Germany says that it may not meet the target because it thinks the exercise is too expensive.

DECC is enthusiastic, of course, and will spend £14 billion of our money replacing 53 million meters throughout the UK.

While researching this I noticed internet comments from other consumers questioning the concept of an "Use by" date for meters. It looks as though all the energy companies are using the same wording. I have emailed my supplier to tell them that the reason given for changing isn't true and I've asked them for a reference to the government document that supplied the wording.

You would think that when we are paying £14 billion to change these meters they wouldn't insult us with crude lies about the reasons.

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

We need to be careful here not to lose sight of the forest by examining the trees. Whether the 'green subsidy' is put on electricity bills, paid from taxation or loaded surreptitiously onto fracked gas taxes is, in the great scheme of things, totally irrelevent.
Of course there will be winners and losers depending how it's done but the overall result of any green 'payments' to enforce inefficient energy production will be to increase prices somewhere, either directly or indirectly, and take that money out of the working economy.
We need to keep focus on the stupidity of mandating inefficient expensive energy not just electricity bills.

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterWoodsy42

In recent days I've been talking to some colleagues, engineers by trade, about wind and such. Some have told me about how some more scientific leaning people see the benefits whereas the experienced integration engineer or power engineer just shakes his/her head. They are a total waste of time.

I was also driving home to Bristol the other day, coming up the M5, and just as you go over the Avon, where you can see Avonmouth docks and Portishead, I noticed 4 or 5 huge wind turbines. They may have been there before I can't tell.

But they weren't moving. Probably because the wind was pretty strong.

I was thinking though that a lot of drivers in their cars would look at them and thing "that's a good thing". That they generate energy. The pure fact of seeing a windmill combined with how information has been presented about them over time has built this "windmill = better" mentality in the collective consciousness.

But not a lot of people realise that the cost of building, running, lifetime and overal efficiency means that compared to diesel power generation, you are actually wasting money and effort. That even though the wind is free, the cost of extracting it with technology will always be less efficient than fuel. Not to mention you have to use this very fuel for back up. It's a meme that has stuck.

It's like this new Michael Moseley TV show about health: turns out soap and water and time are more efficient at removing bacteria than gels and fancy foams! Yet I don't see it denting sales of foam or gels.

So I was thinking, someoned needs to do a direct experiment comparison where they run a washing machine or two off of a wind turbine. And then run the same applicance set up using a diesel generator. To make it fair you may also need to have an interim battery storage facility ( a big one mind) so that you charge up the facility using your generators and then run the appliance off this. This would help even out down times.

Do this for a month or two and then compare the costs. Stick the whole thing on a website and YouTube. Only then will people realise that wind really is a poor solution.

And then maybe we can stop taxing the hell out of every one for a white elephant.

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterMicky H Corbett

Schrodinger's Cat - old meters do need replaced now and again as they can wander. My understanding is that you have a right to decline their smart meter, in which case they can still install a 'dumb' meter, which presumably is much the same except that it does not have the SIM card so can't communicate your usage back to them. Which have a page on this - Do I have to accept a smart meter?

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

JamesP wrote "Perhaps we could have a supplier that, in opposition to those who offer a 'green' tariff, provides a cheaper, wind and solar-free product".

I agree. Today I'm looking for a fix on my electricity price. I saw that chap from OVO on Jeff Randall yesterday, and I thought "Yes, I'd love to support the little 'un against the Big Six". But, would you believe it, his web site is plastered with green climate porn ( Perhaps they have in mind the likes of Balcombe fracking protesters as their target market? Sorry OVO, I feel excluded.

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterRM

Re: Schrodinger's Cat

> My own meter is over 25 years old as far as I know and whizzes round like a youngster.

I'd much rather have one that tottered around like an arthritic OAP on a rainy day!

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

At least green subsidies are now in the media, even though the real costs are not being shown.

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:46 AM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Yes, you can refuse to have half hourly readings taken. The idea of a smart meter is good and they could have been introduced as the old ones get phased out.The cost of replacing 53 million in 6 years is massive and politically driven, made more necessary by incompetent energy policy.

I suspect the Government did not want to mention that the EU is behind it. They deliberately avoid informing the public of the level of EU influence. A recent example is why train fares have to go up. The EU never got a mention.

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

The largest energy companies generate, trade and supply energy. They also sell energy and services to other parts of the same company. When they report their profits they combine these different parts. This makes it very difficult to determine the profits from energy supply alone and its effect on prices. Full, unequivocal transparency is essential for the consumer.

The energy and climate policies of this and previous governments currently add 5% to the average gas bill and 17% to the average electricity bill.

In 2011 the 30% highest income households paid an average of 4% of their income on energy while the 30% lowest income households paid nearly double at around 7% on average. This includes those households in fuel poverty, paying 10% or more of their income on energy and the thousands of households which will fall into the fuel poverty category after a small increase in their energy bills.

The government's energy efficiency policies simply result in those households which can afford energy saving measures being subsidised, through their energy bills, by households which cannot afford the measures.

For business, carbon taxes will represent over 30% of the impact of policies on electricity prices in 2020, and around 40% in 2030.

Oct 11, 2013 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered Commenter52

Yes, but gas prices are going up even more. That's because the oil industry is ripping us all off.

Here's a clue. What is the greenest state in the USA ? Texas.

That's because GW Bush was a pal of Enron boss Kenneth Lay. Bush set the energy companies free to do what they wanted. Previously they had been held in check to protect American commuters (who are the important voters)

Oct 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

My domestic experience with SSE is that they have long had a policy of replacing meters after 10 years.

Reading the latest issue of The Chemical Engineer reveals the now predictable monthly quota of greenery. Some chem eng prof at the Imperial College-based Grantham institute saying that history will judge harshly the new Australian PM for his steps to repeal the Oz carbon tax and dismantle some of the climate change groups (asking someome in the pay of Grantham to comment on such a matter is a bit like asking the 'president' of the EU if he thinks the EU is a good thing, but such is the standard of reporting in the TCE these days). There's the appalling Ed Davey referring to sceptics as 'zealots'. And, with the implication that it's a good thing, news that the UK is now ranked as the fourth most advantageous country for renewables companies. The only positive news is the EU's reduction in biofuel targets, something that's upset the biofuel bodies (how sad). I used to think that real-world engineers might have a more rational view of AGW hysteria, but sadly reading the TCE these days suggests otherwise.

Oct 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

"all meters have to be exchanged after they have been in use for a set period of time"

In which case the supplier must know when it was installed, and be able to tell you when it is due for renewal. Worth asking, perhaps?

Oct 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Has anyone put in an FOI Request for Ultra Sound Data on UK failed or existing wind turbine blades and their securing bolts .Shows the Metal cracks and Stress and give you a the Life Expectancy on the Blades themselves.

Oct 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Bjorn Lomborg was on the Daily Politics, he was excellent in putting his points across, especially the madness of the current economics of Green policies. The other guest was Amol Rajan, editor of the Independent who was basically in agreement with Lomborg.

Miliband has done us all a favour, his promise to freeze energy bills has opened up a can of worms, the coalition are now reviewing the Green taxes on energy. Well done Ed at least you are trying to destroy the monster you created :-)

Oct 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterSwiss Bob

@ Schrodinger's Cat (& others) Oct 11, 2013 at 11:07 AM

@ jamesp Oct 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Meter exchanges.

1. Meters have their year of manufacture on their index plate, so there's no need to contact 'the supplier' (who anyway won't know, because they're not responsible for the infrastructure.)

2. Over time, meters being mechanical, do become less accurate. But guess in who's favour the inaccuracy is? Yup, that explains one reason for suppliers wanting them replaced.

3. I'm hard pressed to understand a plausible 'safety' issue for replacement. Probable red herring. Let's face it, until 20-or-so years ago, meters of up to 40 years of age were still in service, and I can't recall a Health & Safety brouhaha then..

Oct 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public


thanks for that link

I have lost my reading glasses so I wonder if you or anyone else can answer this question: network costs - as I understand it there will be network costs in connecting wind farms to the grid. Are these costs included in network costs or where they should belong in the climate change costs?

Oct 11, 2013 at 12:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDolphinhlegs

Schrodinger's Cat-

"My own meter is over 25 years old as far as I know and whizzes round like a youngster."

Old mechanical meters rely on a rotating disc fastened to an axle that has a bearing of sorts on each end. Changes in and around the disc can cause increased rotating friction, resulting in a 'slow' meter that registers less energy use than is actually used. This benefits the customer. There are no end of changes that I have heard about from friends who worked at ABB metering, both natural (bugs, mold, dirt, etc) and customer-introduced (which is illegal of course).

The smart meter is more difficult to tamper, can be fitted with remote disconnect control, can be configured for multiple rates, time-of-use billing, and can collect other signals, such as voltage, current, local temperature, etc. The downside is that they will not last as long as an electromechanical meter.

Oct 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterchris y

The scarey thing is that most MPs couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery, never mind a run a simple spreadsheet! They truly had no idea how much the green laws would cost ordinary voters as the charges escalate.

Didn't everyone have to study compound interest at school? Even 'O' level Arithmetic covered it.

The problem is not the 5% of the 10% rise in prices to cover for 'home improvements' but the %age to pay for new cables to the wind farms and the ever increasing quota of expensive green power (i,e, wind farms) that the energy companies must pay for.

Milliband has let the genie out of the bottle - the debate will expose these hidden green taxes that he himself cooked up.

Hubris well met by Nemesis!

Oct 11, 2013 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterGerry B

Overseas consumers are in a position to choose whether they want to pay extra for our exports. Hence the current recession.

More importantly, while it may be that only 11% of electricity bills are the "Carbon levy" (not provided to the most carbon neutral system) government is responsible for much more than that. It is responsible for insisting that the choice in what capacity to have is made on political not economic grounds and for loading down the lowest carbon system with expensive regulation.

Nuclear currently costs 40% of our average generator. But European built reactors in China come in at 1/3rd of what the same European built plants do in Europe. Arithmetically that makes 87% of the cost government parasitism. If the reactors were allowed to be mass produced the cost would clearly drop significantly more.

Shale will be somewhat more expensive than that but still just a fraction of what the parasites demand.

The cynical dishonesty of politicians who claim that they are opposed to fuel poverty and want to end recession must be unmatched since Caligula killed his sister.

Oct 11, 2013 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterNeil Craig

But expensive energy is a deliberate policy of our government -

"The appearance of Paul Massara, chief executive of RWE npower, on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme this morning signalled a continuation of the slow burn of superficial media coverage about the issues of energy prices and energy gaps.

Massara was there to explain his argument that government policy is the major factor behind rising energy costs. It is hard to disagree with when one considers the imposition of levies and charges that are being tacked on to the cost of gas and electricity. But Massara certainly isn’t telling the whole story and is deftly attempting to play down the ways in which the energy companies – and other investors highlighted in recent stories about the Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR) scandal – are cashing in at consumer expense.

However, nothing the government or the energy companies are saying is acknowledging the elephant in the room.

For at the heart of all these measures, charges, initiatives and regulations that consumers are being hit with is one simple fact – the aim of the government is to drive up prices to reduce demand. In other words, the policy is to force people to use less energy, rather than governments seeking to provide enough energy to meet the demand of a growing population.

The cart is being put before the horse in this way to satisfy a wrongheaded and retrograde direction of travel, one that seeks to reverse decades of human progress while describing this plan, in classic doublespeak, as progress.

Behind this is the nefarious ‘sustainability agenda’, which dictates that the ever growing number of people must get by with less, and to ensure they do consume less governments will impose measures to limit supply and force prices up."

And a good way of making people use less is to ensure that it is hideously expensive at exactly the times they most want to use it - and what better way of doing that than via smart meters!

Yet another initiative that is not confined to the UK or the EU but is being rolled out around the world as part of the UN Agenda 21 -

An interesting post by WIllis Eschenbach on the subject -

Here we have it in Scotland -

"5.2.1 Our Sustainable Housing Strategy.....we are aiming for a largely de-carbonised heat sector by 2050 with significant progress by 2030 through a combination of reduced demand and energy efficiency, together with a massive increase in the use of renewable or low carbon heating."

"Smart meters

5.4.14 Whilst much can be achieved through funding incentives, support and regulation, good information is also a critical factor in driving down energy use. We support the UK Government's plan to install smart meters for gas and electricity in every home by 2020. A smart meter, together with an individual display unit (IDU) provides real-time information about energy use and costs, encouraging better household energy management. The roll-out across the UK, by energy suppliers, will take place between 2014 and 2019, although suppliers estimate that five million meters will have been installed prior to the official go-live date."

All couched in very politically sensitive terms, sounding very reasonable (just as the UN agenda 21 does) and emphasising various funding available but the reality is hideously increased energy bills and massively increasing cost of homes.

And all part of the UN Agenda 21.

Oct 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

"meters being mechanical"

Not now, surely? Mine was made in 2005 (installed some time later) and appears to be wholly electronic, so unlikely to 'wear out' in any normal sense. It might last 100 years, or fail tomorrow - the MTBF is probably decades. Without the pressure to replace with the smarter version, I very much doubt there would be any strict regime. We have had water meters here (which are very mechanical!) for over 25 years and they only get replaced when they fail.

Oct 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Take note - that in amongst all the verbage by Ed Miliband re his promise to 'freeze' energy prices for twenty months if they win the electtion, he also slipped in this little gem:

'We will take the carbon out of electricity generation by 2030'...

If that doesn't scare you sh*tless, I don't know what will...

Oct 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSherlock1

Just had my (electronic) meter changed (for reason unconnected with any the above) by Siemens themselves - so should be good for 25 years..!

Oct 11, 2013 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterSherlock1

Then there's those other 'greenery costs' with our public sector fat cats spiralling out of control -

"More specifically, according to Manchester Evening News, follow in the footsteps of Jim Taylor, chief executive of Rochdale council. He is about to see his pay soar by £40k to £170,000 following a senior management review.

The man looking after the Council's climate change policy, part of the ramp which has seen the massive hike in utility prices, is also a beneficiary of this review. Mark Widdup, Rochdale's, laughingly entitled director of economy and the environment, could also see his pay range rise from £61,536-£71,376 to up to £108,987 under the new regime.

On the other hand, Rochdale is cutting £45 million in services with 150 jobs lost. The pay of other workers has been frozen and council tax has been hiked by 3.5 percent. But Mr Taylor never need worry about where his next penny is coming from. If his captive "customers" don't pay up on time, he can add illegal court fees to their bills and then send the bully-boy bailiffs out after them, who can ramp up the charges even further.

And then, to secure Mr Taylor's generous pension package, which makes him better-paid paid than the prime minister - who only has the national government to look after - defaulters can be put in prison."

Oct 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

I'd just note that when it comes to greenery, based on our experience around here in suburban bay area California where water bills have tripled in recent years (because of green-induced failure to maintain and develop infrastructure) and some summer months the water bill for our back yard will touch $400, the pattern goes like this:

a) Homeowners and other private customers and businesses rip out lawns, let any non-'drought-tolerant' foliage go brown.
b) Municipalities start replacing sports fields with fake grass that smells like a tire warehouse in the afternoon sun.
c) Much hand-wringing over paying for maintenance of the parks that remain.

Oct 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

The link to the Telegraph article given by Breath of Fresh Air up thread is worth following. This is the arena in which the war will be fought and won. Ironically, we have the moron Miliband to thank for raising public awareness to the issue of energy costs and fortunately he is too thick to see that he and Bryony Braindead are the architects of our current predicament.

So the monkey on the other side of the House now has to face up to a political reality that anyone with 2 working brain cells could have seen coming years ago. Expensive energy is a vote loser!!!!! Artificially expensive energy is even more of a vote loser. It will be very interesting to see the hoops the greenest party ever (green does mean naive doesn't it?) goes through to retain power (political always come ahead of electrical).

This is not a a time to be downhearted Bish. Seguimos luchando.

Oct 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterDolphinhlegs

The impacts won't just be in higher costs, and less money to spend in the economy. There will also be fewer jobs, as factories and other businesses that can no longer be profitable close their doors or move elsewhere, and as there is less demand for goods in general declines because of less spending power. If things get bad enough, one might predict a brain drain away from Merrie Auld England....

Oct 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn

Let me be the first to cave…

What the …. does “Seguimos luchando” mean?

Oct 11, 2013 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Looks like David Cameron is slowly awakening from his slumber. Perhaps he only has one eye half open yet but maybe a slow beginning to gaining the right kind of insight. Maybe Lawson should have another try at educating him.
Maybe they will try and shift some of the environmental costs on to general taxation until the power cuts start and the next election approaching. Problem Labour and Liberals are even worse.
"Vince Cable, the Lib Dem business secretary, said today that the government is having a "continuing argument" with the Tories over green taxes and that removing them would be "short-sighted and foolish" I think Vince Cable is actually the one who is foolish together with Milliband, who is the original instigator of the Climate Change Act. He must have forgotten.

Oct 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Peter

Radical Rodent

I put 'seguimos luchando' into Google translate and it came back with 'still struggling' - how crap is that!

it actually means 'continue the struggle' 'keep on keeping on' 'don't give in to the Ecofascists' 'Carthago delenda est' "PotatoEd must go' "Clegg is a t*sser'

so pretty useful phrase really

Oct 11, 2013 at 6:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterDolphinhlegs

A few observations:

Is page 59 really the "back" of a 90 page report (over 300 pages including witness statements)?

The report was called "Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty", so not really just about electricity prices.

It says that "energy and climate change policies make up approximately 9% (around #112) of the average annual dual fuel bill", so 9, not 10%. Notice that it doesn't say "greenery". The figure includes 4% for the ECO (insulating peoples' houses etc) which is common sense, not "greenery". Ditto the 1% for the "Warm Homes Discount". So we get down to 4%, not 10%.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Oct 11, 2013 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

Bishop if there are power cuts this winter.You prepared for mass populous turning Climate Skeptic and deluging this site.

Oct 11, 2013 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

I have skimmed the report that Paul Homewood refers to in his post and I very much get the impression that the cost of upgrading the grid to allow for wind farms and other forms of esoteric energy production falls within the networks figure and not within the green madness figure. I may be wrong but it looks like yet another attempt by our masters to mislead us.

These are passages that I have copied form the report

there is also a need to upgrade the network infrastructure to connect new generation particularly in Scotland, Wales and parts of England in addition to new offshore requirements which will drive up regulated transportation charges. Network costs are now more than 10% higher than last year and are expected to climb higher still in 2013.

There is upward pressure on transmission and distribution costs as around £35 billion of investment is required over this decade to reinforce the network, replacing aging infrastructure and supporting the drive to a low carbon economy

1.8 National Grid costs for delivering energy have increased by 18% over the five year period, largely necessitated by the need to fund upgrades to the UK gas grid. National Grid have announced a further £24bn investment programme in the UK’s energy networks to 2021, which is expected to add around £12 to annual dual fuel energy bills for each of the next eight years.

1.9 This money will be used to replace gas mains, and progressively to ensure that the electricity grid becomes more flexible. This will be necessary in order to balance increasing supply from less predictable renewable energy sources such as offshore and onshore wind, and that of more reliable supplies including new nuclear power, with intermittent supply from gas fired power stations and clean coal technology, if and when this becomes viable on a large scale.

Oct 11, 2013 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterDolphinhlegs

Breath of Fresh Air - The gloves are coming off

You should know that these articles are the result of a conspiracy between newspapers and energy firms that Lord Stern has just uncovered.

Oct 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterJD

Odd you should say that, JD. I thought that the conspiracy was between people like Stern and Harrabin to mislead the British public about the soaring cost of green subsidies.
Glad you put me right on that!

Oct 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson


What's interesting is that Bishop Hill is busy flogging a similar horse. Is he part of the conspiracy or just riding in the same direction?

Oct 12, 2013 at 12:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterentropic man

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>