Sunday
Aug212011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Tories out!
Aug 21, 2011 Conservatives Energy: costs Really, that's the only conclusion that sane people can reach after reading Christopher Booker's latest in the Sunday Telegraph.
In a sane world, no one would dream of building power sources whose cost is 22 times greater than that of vastly more efficient competitors. But the Government feels compelled to do just this because it sees it as the only way to meet our commitment to the EU that within nine years Britain must generate nearly a third of its electricity from “renewable” sources, six times more than we do at present.
Update on Aug 21, 2011 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Richard North reckons Booker has got his numbers wrong and the actual figure should be 40 times rather than 22.
Reader Comments (82)
DC out, certainly. But the rest of them?
I rarely read Booker, because the comments depresses me so. I can’t bear to find myself in agreement with a load of crusty old Tories. I’m a crusty old Labour type, vintage Dennis Skinner. (I once shared a flat with Diane Abbott, and regretted signing her into the Labour Party, since I found rather pretentious and upper class). since Oborne in the Telegraph, and other outbreaks of One-Britain common sense on the Right, I’m beginning to wonder whether Ben Pile of Climate Resistance isn’t right when he says the old distinction between left and right is dead. Does Your have any answers?
"DC out, certainly. But the rest of them?"
Every single MP who fails to point out (ate every opportunity) the madness of climate policy and the madness of being commited to the whims of the EU is equally complicit in the madness.
And who ever replaces them will continue the mad policies, all three parties are fully paid up members of the Carbon Scam. Even if a Party did break ranks the EU would force its own Carbon Reduction policies upon the UK.
Instead of a linear, right-left dichotomy, I suggest a three-dimensional red-blue-green trichotomy.
Richard North points out that Booker has his sums wrong;
"Actually, Booker is wrong on this, as his calculations are based on gas and wind equipment lasting the same time – whereas a gas plant will last at least twice as long as a wind farm. On that basis, offshore wind costs a staggering forty times more than gas to build."
I guess the reality is that both labour and the Tories are EXACTLY the sane when it comes to Mann Made Global Warming (tm)!!! We are f@cked either way because as Richard North says the politicians have lost their fear of the people.
Mailman
There are not enough votes in the HoC to repeal the Climate Change Act, according to John Redwood when I put this question to him on his blog. I would not be surprised if the same was true of the HoL.
Which is why I would tend to disagree with you about "outbreaks of common-sense on the Right." The 'right' has always had the better of the argument because it took man as it found him with all his flaws. The intellectual left (dating back to Shaw and the Webbs, and others and typified these days by the likes of Polly Toynbee and Jasmine Alibhai-Brown) assumed some sort of state of perfection which is why almost every time "this great movement of ours" tried to better the lot of the working man it fell flat on its face because it never understood what motivated him.
(Before you blow a fuse, remember that the welfare state as we know it was a Liberal creation, not a Labour one. It just happened that Labour was the party that implemented it and in the process succeeded in sowing the seeds of its destruction.)
The one thing that has always characterised the political right (not to mention miners, dockers and shipbuilders) is a healthy helping of practical common sense, something that the assorted Trots, Hampstead (now Islington, I assume) thinkers, and other well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) pseudo-intellectuals — which probably does include Diane Abbott — singularly lack.
Bienvenue au vrai monde, mon ami!
"not enough votes in the HoC to repeal the Climate Change Act"
If we can't win over the opinions of the HoC with the current state of the economy, the current disillusionment with Europe, the current lack of global warming then we need to somehow force an election and replace them.
When our representatives realise that they do not carry the electorate with them when they advocate this insanity, then they may change thewir opinions. It certainly look as if climate legislation is likely to play a much bigger part in the next US election.
Something is seriously wrong with Britain's political system. Politicians have more in common with politicians of the opposing party than they do with the electorate.
Any one of the following should have resulted in the ejection of the governing party:
- the windfarm scam
- the climate change act
- stealth immigration
- the level of government debt
Funniest moment on BBC EVER:
they just announced the result of the poll into "Should we get rid of the Human Rights Act"
89% voted NO
11 % voted YES
They carry on as if this vindicates all that they have een saying ... then 90 seconds later they embarrassingly admit they've actually reported the result the WRONG WAY ROUND.
89% voted YES
11 % voted NO
Talk about a Freudian slip.
Although there are dark days ahead, there is a small light at the end of the climate change tunnel.
CAGW through CO2 is looking less likely with each year. Their "projections" are failing and more & more of the public are realising the science is far from "settled".
Soon energy companies will have to put on peoples' bills how much the renewables are costing with no economic recovery in sight, the cost and idiocy of the energy policy will be apparent. Then the public will get angry and then the politicians will start to listen - despite what Richard North states!
@geoffchambers
I've trod the same path. Here's Christopher Hitchens echoing my thoughts.
"I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness. Amazing. My conservative friends look at me and say, 'Welcome to the club. What took you so long?' Well that's what it took and I think it's worth recording."
I looked at the article on gearbox failures with interest, not least because a company I once worked for in the early 90s had an engineer almost full time on gearbox issues. I think their product may included the derelict specimens to be seen on the A65, near Addingham. After 20 years or more, they're still looking for answers.
I note that the expected life of these gearboxes is about 7 years. If so, I hope that the makers/users thereof are bearing the cost, not the taxpayer.
Dear Bishop,
I'm sorry that you and others have been so eager to cite my colleague Richard North in claiming that I got my windfarm figures wrong. It is yet another case of apples and pears. When I wrote in my Sunday Telegraph column that the new offshore windfarm works out at 22 times more expensive in terms of its output than our latest gas-fired power station in Plymouth, as I made clear I was basing my calculation on their initial capital costs. In terms of the electricity each can generate, I showed that the £500 million capital cost of the windfarm will produce electricity at £11 million per MW. whereas power from the £400 million gas plant will be only £500,000. I also added that, with a 200 percent subsidy, consumers will have to pay three times as much for the wind generated electricity, even when the cost of the gas is taken into account,Where North sought to correct my figures, he was adding in the likely cost of maintenanxe of the windfarm, to suggest that its true cost would make the wind power 40 times more expensive rather than the 22 times I quoted, But I was only talking about the initial capital cost of the two schemes. By definition therefore I was exclusing maintenance and replacement costs. If you read my article more carefully I am not sure that you could sustain your charge that I got the figures wrong. I am happy to say that Dr North has now geen generous enough to amend his blog accordingly!
Dear Bishop,
I'm sorry that you and others have been so eager to cite my colleague Richard North in claiming that I got my windfarm figures wrong. It is yet another case of apples and pears. When I wrote in my Sunday Telegraph column that the new offshore windfarm works out at 22 times more expensive in terms of its output than our latest gas-fired power station in Plymouth, as I made clear I was basing my calculation on their initial capital costs. In terms of the electricity each can generate, I showed that the £500 million capital cost of the windfarm will produce electricity at £11 million per MW. whereas power from the £400 million gas plant will be only £500,000. I also added that, with a 200 percent subsidy, consumers will have to pay three times as much for the wind generated electricity, even when the cost of the gas is taken into account,Where North sought to correct my figures, he was adding in the likely cost of maintenanxe of the windfarm, to suggest that its true cost would make the wind power 40 times more expensive rather than the 22 times I quoted, But I was only talking about the initial capital cost of the two schemes. By definition therefore I was exclusing maintenance and replacement costs. If you read my article more carefully I am not sure that you could sustain your charge that I got the figures wrong. I am happy to say that Dr North has now been generous enough to amend his blog accordingly!
The argument is not helped by the presence of Booker's faithful trail of trolls (the intellectual onanist savant in the lead) whose only function in life is to prove him wrong in everything he does or says.
In the real world it would be called stalking.
My reading of the article is in line with its author's.
Dear Christopher Booker,
thankyou for continuing to highlight the real costs associated with wind farm development, notably offshore wind farms in the UK. One can only hope that the penny will eventually drop with ministers and politicians of all hues. One other aspect of offshore wind farms that I haven't seen properly covered is the ad hoc nature of connection schemes to the National Grid coupled to an supine plannign system that seems powerless, or at the least unwilling to oppose such schemes. The proposed Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm in the North Sea has plans for a 'sub-station' to connect to the 400kV supergrid in mid Norfolk, some 40 plus kilometres from the coast. The substation is one of the largest in Europe and will occupy an area larger than that of a nuclear power station all for a wind farm with a capacity of 560MW and ultimate production of about 180MW on average. The destruction to countryside and local communities, in this case the substation being built immediately adjacent to a small village in Norfolk and on the highest ground in Norfolk where it will be visible from more than 6km away, is unconscionable.
matthu: "Every single MP who fails to point out..."
I agree with you, but without DC the Tories might take a more pragmatic position on green issues. Perhaps cross party there may be enough sensible MPs to make one decent party? What do you think?
@Matthu
Yes, it is rather funny - here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013yypb
57 minutes in the fun starts.
I wrote to the PM about our ludicrous position on renewables and got a response from Gregory Barker at DECC. I'm afraid the response was laughable and ignored all the points I'd raised and just waffled about global security and equality. The lunatics have truely taken over the asylum.
CAGW is one of those things - like withdrawal from the EU, the restoration of capital punishment, the expulsion of foreign criminals and the reintroduction of grammar schools - that is strongly supported by most of the country but opposed by all the main political parties.
The effect of this is to make it impossible to vote for any of them, because the political class has agreed among itself to deny democracy.
The left-right split should be thought of as the utopianists vs. conservatives.
The utopianists look at the world around them and find it mostly bad and wish to tear it down for the most part and replace it with some sort of utopian society; they wish revolutionary change.
The conservatives look at the world around them and find it mostly good and wish to tweak a few things to improve society; they wish evolutionary change.
The latter sees success and progress as good, the former are schizophrenic; on one had they wish to see the world a better place, but on the other they know that a revolution cannot occur amongst a happy, contented population.
The utopianists attempt to make the population unhappy, to frighten the population and to forge links with all variety of apocalyptic groups. They will support any anti-democratic group that can wield power, as they wish to remove power from democratic institutions.
I was pleased to hear one of the contributors to the Sunday papers' review in 'broadcasting house' on R4 this morning draw attention to the cost of wind farms and the subsidies being enjoyed by many large landowners. He even managed to squeeze in a mention of the PM's father-in-law before the sound engineer got to the fader - it was a live show, too, so nothing to be done!
check
Given the cosy agreement on climate change that seems to exist between the main parties, it seems the only option will be to vote UKIP.
@ Chris
Thank you for that, hilarious.
Not a programme I watch, but I like John Guant.
Christopher Brooker is to be congratulated for being one of two MSM columnists (James Dellingpole is the only other such columnists that I am aware of) for not drinking the green-flavoured Kool-Aid. The remainder of the nation's scribes appear to have drunk the stuff, and drunk deep.
Given the immense cost and the absolutely lunatic justification for building these rotary monsters, plus the additional costs of having to have coal, gas or nuclear-powered back-up for when there is too much or too little wind, I am amazed that the usual 'Protect-the-whatever-aerial-creature' brigades have not been up in arms about their bird-mincing potential.. But I guess either the Green Affliction or sheer uncaring personal greed impairs brain function, particularly rationality.
Years ago, I made the discovery that ordinary soft 8-guage galvanised fencing wire rusts to destruction in less than a decade in a coastal environment, while the same stuff will last generations used inland away from salt-laden winds. I realise that some very good engineers have designed and built these monsters, but I would not be certain of the structures and mechanisms remaining mechanically or structurally viable for more than five years.
The best we can hope for (in the state in which the main parties think offshore wind turbines are the best thing since indoor plumbing), is that the harsh environment (salt, currents, gales) means that they will start to fall to pieces within a few years and the immense difficulty and cost of rrepairing/maintaining them is much more than the huge sunsidies they get from the meagre amount of electricity produced. Then they should be left to gradually decay and fall into the sea, but in the meantime they stand as symbols of politicians collective stupidity in not listening to real engineers.
We are all doomed. Doomed I tell you.
Paul Dennis:
The only valid reason these monsters can be refused at public inquiries if the harm is shown to be greater than the benefit (in the eyes of a Government-appointed Inspector). You can't oppose them on grounds of logic and you can't oppose Government policy, no matter how stupid, illogical and damaging it is.
Democracy does battle with bureaucracy and politics with one hand tied behind its back.
"I am amazed that the usual 'Protect-the-whatever-aerial-creature' brigades have not been up in arms about their bird-mincing potential.. But I guess either the Green Affliction or sheer uncaring personal greed impairs brain function, particularly rationality."
Aug 21, 2011 at 4:44 PM | Alexander K
Uninformed and insulting - nice. It might be that the RSPB etc. aren't particularly bothered about wind turbines, as the deaths from them pale into insignificance when compared to other things like high glass-fronted buildings and plain old electricity cables.
Oddly enough, the people who worry about the effect of turbines upon birds/bats, are almost exclusively people looking for reasons to criticise them.
@zdb
Remind me the mechanism of avicide by 'plain old electricity cables'?
The birds round here are quite happy to make convocations on even the very high voltage ones. Perhaps they lose their grip and the fall kills them??
"Remind me the mechanism of avicide by 'plain old electricity cables'?
The birds round here are quite happy to make convocations on even the very high voltage ones. Perhaps they lose their grip and the fall kills them??"
Aug 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM | Latimer Alder
Gladly - I just need you to confirm two things for me first please:
1) That you are asserting that where ever you live, birds are not killed by electricity cables.
2) That the standard of evidence you accept as satisfactory, is anecdotal evidence.
Zed
Never mind the "I-need-you-to-confirm" crap.
Just try answering the damn question for once in your life.
What is it about "plain old electricity cables" that kills birds?
Simple question.
You obviously know the answer since you were the one who raised the subject.
Stop arsing about.
@zdb
What Mike said. Put up or shut up.
Aug 21, 2011 at 6:20 PM | Mike Jackson
What a thoroughly ill-mannered individual you are.
I'm merely pointing something out which is available to everyone in a couple of seconds' googling. Latimer Alder seems to be making a rather extraordinary claim, and one which is very revealing indeed about the standard of evidence that she/he feels is sufficient to base a judgement upon. In light of this, it's quite reasonable to ask for these two extraordinary positions to be confirmed.
It's called rational and useful debate, it's what happens when a game-changing claim is made in debate. Although, as you've already stated, you seem to think that useful exchange of ideas like this is 'crap', and would prefer instead to figuratively shout at people demanding answers to questions of your own agenda.
Aug 21, 2011 at 6:24 PM | Latimer Alder
Do you use anecdotal observed and unexamined evidence as your sole basis for AGW decisions as well?
Your claims on birds suggest you do.
@zdb
You have failed to present a mechanism for 'avicide by power cable'
The rest of your post is but a feeble and unconvincing attempt to distract from your inability to do so.
Zed
You have no credibility on energy issues, and we both know it, so pack in the trolling.
The issues here boil down to our choices for displacing coal from baseload generation. You can either do so with nuclear, which is efficient, reliable (dispatchable), scaleable and proven. Or you can attempt to do with with (mainly offshore) wind which is none of these things, and eye-poppingly expensive too.
Anyone backing renewables at the expense of nuclear is backing the path to slower emissions reductions and unnecessary economic damage and social hardship.
Good lord Geoff - I hope they gave you the Order of Lenin for suffering in the cause of the working class.
Believe it or not, I was once a (very) small cog in the Labour election campaign for Harold Wilson in '64.
I once remember cuddly old Jim Callaghan telling me to " get out of the f**king way" when I was a bit slow setting up his microphone.
As I've got older, meaner and somewhat richer - I've followed Orwell's dictum and steadily moved rightwards.
The troll is right. Birds fly into wires and buildings at night.
However, the hypocrisy of the greenies on avian cusinarts (wind turbines) is well known. Here in Canada Syncrude was successfully prosecuted because a flock of birds perished in an oil sands tailings pond due to a malfunction of the elaborate equipment designed to keep birds away.
The bird loving "environmentalists" who initiated the proceeedings are surprisingly silent about the fact that wind farms routinely chew up a larger number of birds every few weeks. None of the usual suspects is advocating taking the owners to court.
Political Junkie
Don't take the bait. Bird fatalities are regrettable, but a peripheral argument against wind power. Proponents of wind will always be ready to trounce you with perfectly reasonable stuff like this (also see table on p 64).
The real issues are fundamental to all renewables (except geothermal and tidal): intermittency, variability and unpredictability. All of which can be avoided by ditching the energy-fantasy of renewables in favour of the urgent necessity for nuclear.
The single worst thing the greens have done is to demonise nuclear and absurdly over-hype the potential of renewables. It's set the world back 30 years from where we could have been in terms of decarbonising electricity supply.
These birds that can't see at night well enough to avoid power lines.....how do they avoid the natural things like branches? See - the few birds that flyat night have very good night vision. Like owls. Those that don't stay home.
Tu whit too whoo
Aug 21, 2011 at 7:11 PM | BBD
The real issues are fundamental to all renewables (except geothermal and tidal)
Surely tidal turns off regularly for two or three hours at slack water, spring and neep tides will add to variability. The Falls of Lora being a very visible example. (It's beautiful day out as well if you're ever in that part of the world.)
See:
http://www.fallsoflora.info/times_and_dates_for_the_falls_of_lora.htm
Aug 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM | Latimer Alder
Where I live there are more bats flying at night than birds. Owls have, I understand quite well developed eyesight and bats use a completly different method of detecting obstructions fatal or otherwise.
TerryS
did zdb ever answer your question of a couple of months back?
zdb
did you ever answer TerryS' question of a couple of months back
Although I can't now remembr what it was at the time I was quite interested inthe answer.
BBD, I'm well aware of the numbers game on bird kills.
My point was simply to highlight the hypocrisy and selective outrage in prosecuting one energy source for a single incident caused by an equipment malfunction while ignoring a greater number of ongoing and predictable kills in another.
@sandy
I'm lucky to have bats living very close by and their night flying abilities are truly astonishing. On a summer's evening I can see them for about ten minutes just in deep dusk, Their 'sonar' is fantastic.
I was watching the Red Arrows yesterday just before the terrible accident, and though their display was wonderful the local birds - gulls and especially kestrels - were not much impressed, They just carried on doing their thing - using the wind with superb precision and economy of effort,
As if to say - yep humans, you;re catching up a bit..but you've an awful long way to go until you can match what we do without much thinking or effort,,,,,,,,,,
Latimer, let it go.
Birds migrate at night and undoubtedly run into some natural obstacles.
However, buildings and electrical transmission systems are a major cause for deaths.
The City of Toronto has volunteer crews that come out every morning to pick up what's left of the estimated one million birds that fly into the city's high rise buildings annually.
http://www.flap.org/flap_home.htm