Bishop Hill Cost concealment
Nov 14, 2013 Energy: grid 
Painting "Don Quixote, Sancho, and the Prairie Turbines" by Phillip Epp. Click for link.David Rose has a an article in the Spectator this morning, looking at politicians' evasions on the energy crisis. This bit struck a chord.
The total renewable subsidy which UK consumers will have paid via higher energy bills for the ten years to 2020 will be an almighty £46 billion. Even this eye-watering figure is a massive underestimate. This week, the National Audit Office said bills were likely to rise above inflation for at least 17 years, with the cost of government commitments likely to be at least £700 per household. According to the energy experts Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University and Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital, the Energy Bill figure does not factor in the enormous cost of connecting wind turbines to the National Grid, nor the complicated switching mechanisms needed to deal with the fact that no turbine will actually produce power for more than a third of the time. They say the true green bill by 2020 could be more than £100 billion, with households paying around £400 more per household for electricity alone.
The persistent dishonesty of DECC ministers and officials in pretending that grid connections are nothing to do with the renewables industry is something that can and should be held against them. They know they are misleading the public and their political colleagues simply give them a free pass.
Reader Comments (63)
Chandra,
You are overlooking the fact that totally new infrastructure has to be laid in for each farm. Whereas gas and coal stations tend to be fairly close to the people they serve, wind farms are mostly much more remote - and think about the proposed sea based ones! Still see no difference?
When George Osborne said "we are all in this together" he must have been talking about how MPs from all parties share responsibility for this country's insane energy policies. Only someone who is insane would think that it is a good idea for a typical household to pay an extra £400 pounds for electricity.
Although I would not normally have much sympathy for the energy companies I think they should make sure that the public know exactly how much of the price of energy is accounted for by "green" policies.
Mike, I think that naivety isn't the exclusive domain of 'bill'. You seem to be one of those people who still believe ("real experts were Blair and Campbell") that your vote for (left,right and otherwise) Blair, Cameron, hell even MT's ghost, will actually make a difference.
Truth to be told, 'HS2' will go ahead under any 'government' simply because it is our end of the EU agreement on railways. Blair, were he in 'power' today, would be announcing the privatisation of Royal Mail simply because it is our end of a different EU agreement covering postal services. Like Cameron et al, Blair would be working overtime right now to keep the 'troops' from illuminating 'HS2', 'Horse burgers', "Corporate tax' and a dozen other bits of 'party political' ya boo nonsense that are, in reality, EU directives that our 'representatives' are required (by agreement) to suck up and spin.
Which brings me to a question...
While we know that our 'representatives' are not allowed to mention the EU, if they want to keep their jobs come next selection, during whatever self inflicted political storm they must currently navigate (lest our 'representatives' be seen as the irrelevant, expensive, paper plane throwing, gabfest that they undoubtedly are) will the energy companies hold to any similar agreement?
Presumably, some time ago, our 'representatives' gave an undertaking to 'big energy', hidden taxes wise, along the lines of 'don't worry about the fall-out, we have your back'.
This 'agreement' is plainly collapsing, as we knew it would. 'Politicians' (and 'civil service') realise that, if they want to be re-elected, they must place the blame for rocketing energy prices somewhere. Now while HMG can threaten that ones 'licence to operate will come under review' should any energy company step out of line, I do wonder whether the energy sector are going to continue taking the beating. Surely at some point one of them is going to break ranks and suggest that, left to their own devices, they could generate and sell on electricity at a fraction of the current rate?
Were I to buy up Drax and feed it from nearby coal beds, how much, with no EU/HMG/taliban interference, would my electricity actually cost York or Leeds? Given that 'real price', will I (as a private participant) continue to take the beating from 'talking heads' for much longer? It is one thing for politicians to be 'whipped' into never mentioning 'the Elephant in the room', but can politicians rely upon private companies to take the blame for the 'fall out' for much longer?
miket, that is of course true, but it has nothing to do with the article's stated "complicated switching mechanisms needed to deal with the fact that no turbine will actually produce power for more than a third of the time", which I was asking about.
betapug,
Oh, thank God. I was starting to feel a little bit cynical toward politicians. I'm better now ;)
Off topic.
Levels of ignorance on Display on bbc question time tonight demonstrates public and politicians have completely bought into the AGW story. The noble lord Lawson seemed overwhelmed by the shrieking labour mp "95%, 95 to1 risk ratio". All but one of the audience appeared to accept AGW and the need to "act now".
I fear nothing will change until a crisis occurs that affects the pocket of the majority.
@The persistent dishonesty of DECC ministers and officials ....
The latter implies - and is implied by - the former.
In more breaking news, the chicken did not actually cross the road.
betapug and keelydown,
the story was popular because people in Australia wanted to see Rudd treated similarly. The Letters to the Editor pages after he resigned don't reflect the kind words the politicians directed at him when he announced he was going. Raises the question of whether they were telling the truth then, or merely "spinning".
I would agree with sandS that the lack of experience outside of the education system before budding politicians are immersed in the process leave them unable to comprehend the results of their actions. I cannot speak for the UK situation, although I believe all 3 parties (I don't count the solitary Green as one) all headed by university educated millionaires from inherited wealth. It seems a rather narrow base of expertise.
Here in Australia the same tendency to narrowing selection criteria has reeked havoc on the Labor Party. Kim Beasley Snr. commented in the 70's “When I joined the Labor Party, it contained the cream of the working class. But as I look about me now all I see are the dregs of the middle class.”
Incidentally my late father knew Beasley Snr. at University and despite much different political views always respected his integrity. His view on the Labor Party was very similar, and he lamented the loss of those who had worked their way up from humble beginnings (if I may use that cliche). He found them practical and full of common sense. Mind you, his views on those on the Conservative side were little better, despite several times serving on selection panels. After one such choice, he described the selected candidate as dull, inarticulate and, at best, of average intelligence, but standing out as the obvious choice from the other 5. He did concede that only 1 of the rejected 5 was insane. (Oh, and the candidate wasn't elected).
(and if I may, my father grew up in the bush, and didn't see an electric light until he was 12. Like Beasley Snr. he could only go to WA Uni because it was free).
"If just one of our "leaders" would break ranks and explain why telling the truth about HS2 or CO2 or any of the other matters that exercise their minds (and our taxes) ..."
HS2 - I'd never seen it like that before. It is used as a poison , is likely to stink and is otherwise known as Sewer Gas.
Mike Jacskon, bill, Mike Hart
Blair’s error was to forget that a politician has to address many publics. His one successful ploy was to get the support of the Sun, and therefore of the great unwashed voting masses. People who actually understand and care about science or energy policy are numerically insignificant and therefore can be ignored, according to this shallow populist reasoning. The error is in its ignorance of the way society works.
Though Charlie (Nov 14, 2013 at 4:49 PM) is right in taking the long historical view all the way back to 380AD, he’s wrong in blaming the cultural Marxists. Blair and Campbell have many faults, but being Marxist intellectuals is not one of them. We need more reading of Gramsci, not less.
Ed Davey on QT showed yet again astonishing levels of ignorance, partisanship and probably both, in particular with his agreement that the missing heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean.
And some people wonder why we have an energy crisis....
Any legal experts out there? If a renewable energy development was awarded planning consent on the basis that each MWh generated saved the emission of 900Kg of carbon dioxide, and the true figure was only 340Kg - would that constitute fraud?