Bishop Hill Disaster Davey
Dec 3, 2013 Climate: Parliament DECC 
Ed Davey was up in front of the Energy and Climate Change Committee today for the committee's regular look at the department's work. Tim Yeo was back in the chair, which always adds a certain frission to events.
There was a very interesting exchange (from 15:37) when Philip Lee, who is a very perspicacious questioner of witnesses, asked the minister to comment on the big cumulative losses made by the big energy suppliers and wondered whether this was sustainable. What arrangements, Lee asked, had DECC put in place to deal with the fallout if, say, EDF went belly up.
Fair to say that Davey's response was not reassuring.
Peter Lilley stuck the boot in over the national failure to get any onshore wells fracked and worryingly Davey and his sidekicks were unable to say when any fracking would take place, a situation that Lilley suggested meant that DECC had dropped the ball.
Which is hard to argue with.
This was closely followed by a delightful skewering of Davey by Graham Stringer. Davey was essentially cornered on the issue of exported carbon emissions and had to flannel rather than admit that his policies were increasing worldwide emissions rather than decreasing them. Davey's policy is now devoid of any credibility whatsoever.
Later on (16:55), Lilley stuck the boot in again, this time over the cost of policy to households, with Davey and the civil servants trying desperately to misunderstand the question, pretending not to understand that the costs would (to the extent they were not exported) fall on households. Then, when Lilley pressed the point, Davey tried hilariously to argue that the costs would be picked up by energy company shareholders.
All in all it was fun, but rather frightening.
Reader Comments (46)
DECC dropped the ball on progressing fracking? I know I keep bleating about them - but my understanding is that they've passed the ball to another member of the team well versed in the tactics of obstruction and IIRC more difficult to drag into Parliament since they're an NDPB - my old chums The Environment Agency - looking to keep the gravy train on the tracks... which suits all on the anti side just fine - take a look at the "stakeholders" they've identified for consultation.
Again IIRC Cuadrilla have some extended EIA commitments imposed on them and they've been snookered by being re-classified as a mining operation so there's a whole lot more "policy" to invent (which is not within the EA's statutory mandate - them being simply an "Agency") = loose ball bouncing around.... heading for waist high grass. The EA are keeping schtum too - which I can say with some authority is never a good sign.
Some stuff here - but it needs to go into the wayback machine.....
Was any mention made of the nuclear deal?
Ye gods! Yeo’s smugness right from the very start was enough to make a person want to strangle him – slowly.
Sadly, it is not obvious quite who is who. Talk about dodging the questions – almost at the very start, it took quite a lot of dragging to find the “instantaneous” gas usage. With the abandoning of the Atlantic Array, economics apparently had nothing to do with the decision; what it was that “it was to do with technical issues, particularly the geology of the sea-bed” – which made it far more expensive to invest than they had expected. So, it was all to do with economics; why can he not give facts simply and unambiguously? Oh, forgot; he is a politician. It seems that everyone had Davey over a barrel on every point: “it depends how you assess profit.” Perhaps he should be reading the philosophy of Mr Micawber.
On foreign energy companies: “They think that the UK is an attractive proposition, we have actually got our act together.” That actually made me burst out laughing. No, you numpty, they see as a soft touch for subsidies. Smoke and mirrors, every bit of it. With these idiots where they are, this country is doomed; who will rid us of these troublesome pricks?
Ah, slowly but surely the Red Team is coming off the bench!
"Disaster" Davey? Niet our comrade tis the glorious "One Amp" Davey.
After watching yet more, it is obvious that even I could run rings round this buffoon and his arguments. If he is an example of “Cast-iron” Dave’s champions, as well as Trougher Tim’s unhealthy interest in whether “the money is on its way”, we are truly, truly doomed.
Yes, Bishop, it is very, very frightening.
Lies, obfuscation, misdirection, lies, discombobulation, more lies and yet even more lies, fib, lie, fib and pontification, and finally statistics.
Davey, demonstrated admirably that he no longer has any idea of which way is UP.
It's taxi time for Davey....................................
Ravy Davey Gravy must be on some strong medicine.
"Philip Lee, who is a very perspicacious questioner of witnesses, asked the minister to comment on the big cumulative losses made by the big energy suppliers and wondered whether this was sustainable. What arrangements, Lee asked, had DECC put in place to deal with the fallout if, say, EDF went belly up."
How has the situation changed so fast?
A few weeks ago there was great political bleating about energy companies making excess profits. Now there is concern that they may collapse after making big losses.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Entropic Man 1.24.
I don't know anything but in this case doubt there is anything to know.
Over past weeks I noted the MSM declaiming the energy companies were making undue profits. I did not believe it at the time. Far more likely, I thought, this is the government's spin doctors misinformation in the face of price rises mainly due to green policies and so the government's responsibility.
I wonder if I am in a small minority or if this was the conclusion of most.
The porkoisie in action.
Well, here in the States we certainly have our share of dufuses, but one would have to look far and wide to match Davey. Listening to Stringer and Davey go on about climate footprints, it is hard to not be cynical about our future. Gog bless the Queen.
I think it is grossly unfare to blame it all on poor old Ed, the puppet. After all, he hasn't a clue what is going on and all his strings are pulled by the DECC civil servants. DECC needs disbanding and a few experienced power engineers should be brought in to advise a sensible replacement for Ed. The trouble is that The Camoron has given the post to the LibDems and they haven't got anybody who is in the slightest way competent to replace the potato Ed.
Get your generator before they are sold out.
Maybe we should be encouraged by the fact that this is what it looks like when all the misguided climate change inspired policies hit the buffers of reality.
Mew approval for a wind farm which should be ok for everyone. Built offshore by private enterprise.Looks good to me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-25191468
Uncle
+1
Garethman. I don't know why you assume that subsidising an unreliable form of electricity generation by about twice the value of the electricity it occasionally produces would be OK. It represents destruction of wealth on a massive scale and will contribute to more fuel poverty and more excess winter deaths.
Agree very much with Phillip, Davey has to go but there also has to be a clear out in DECC if there is to be any hope of keeping the lights on. The civil servants and goverment advisers have been clueless, (and on this side of the border also). The ROCs and FITs for wind need to go NOW, new wind should only be consented if the developer also builds a backup of equal capacity, we need to tell Europe that we have no option but to to keep the old coal plants running, and we need to stop the madness of converting the rest of Drax to burning pulped trees imported from America.
Diverting subsidies to offshore wind farms is an interesting policy. It addresses the dislike of land based turbines but ensures more expensive energy, higher maintenance costs, shorter working life due to corrosion and probably increases the probability of our lights going out.
The coalition is demonstrating that they really haven't learned anything and haven't got a clue. The MSM are just as bad, they haven't said anything about the cost of connection to the grid and the huge cost of managing masses of individual generators which produce trivial, variable, unpredictable and intermittent amounts of electricity.
Have they not wondered why eco-fanatic Germany is busy building a lot of coal fired power stations?
Ed Davey would be out of his depth on a wet pavement.
fwiw
DECC's smörgåsbord / maze / obstacle course for anybody looking to do gas exploration in the UK is here at the moment - the devolution of operational sanction to other agencies seems to provide for unlimited possibilities - none I think conducive to getting anywhere in a reasonable time frame.
All that's missing is a pedestrian in hi-viz overalls / full PPE with a red flag preceding any vehicles involved.
Rightwinggit: Love it. Cue cartoon by Josh.
Unfortunately as long as corrupt scamsters, like Troffa, are in charge nothing will change.
Nothing that is until people with real jobs can find the time an energy to start kicking up a fuss.
Noisy demos, flying "Fact-Squads" to pack public meetings and challege greendrama lies and misinformation.
Swamp M.P.s with letters.
Follow what the corrupt say in Hansard and wait like vultures for the inevitable omission of interest- then write to the Commisioner for Standards.
I have been doing the latter and it it starting to pay off.
Unfortunately as long as corrupt scamsters, like Troffa, are in charge nothing will change.
Nothing that is until people with real jobs can find the time an energy to start kicking up a fuss.
Noisy demos, flying "Fact-Squads" to pack public meetings and challege greendrama lies and misinformation.
Swamp M.P.s with letters.
Follow what the corrupt say in Hansard and wait like vultures for the inevitable omission of interest- then write to the Commisioner for Standards.
I have been doing the latter and it it starting to pay off.
lapogus
You make an interesting case.
For several decades it has been the practice (certainly in Scotland) that where developers are looking for planning consent for major housing developments under Local Structure Plans they are expected to make a contribution to essential upgrading of the local infrastructure which has been known to include schools, leisure facilities, traffic lights, roundabouts, in addition to the obvious things like increased waste water provision and road improvements directly relating to connection to the main network.
The only trouble is that while Wimpey are busy building houses and selling them at a profit (with all these add-on contributions included) wind developers are doing the whole thing at a loss with the result that your idea would almost certainly end up being added to the electricity bill.
The one thing that nobody seems ever to take fully on board (and that includes politicians and civil servants) is that nobody except the consumer has any money — ever.
In Welford-on-Avon there is a pub called the Four Alls, the name based on an old saying which basically says (I paraphrase): the king rules all; the bishop prays for all; the soldier protects all; the peasant pays for all.
At the end of the day it has to be you and me that pays for all if we want heat and light and food and a roof over our heads (and everything beyond that is, arguably, just a frill) one way or another. Governments can tinker as much as they like; in the end whatever they do will be reflected either in the level of taxes or retail prices.
The only way in which we can benefit is if government does not waste our money by using tax revenue for pointless purposes or by creating unnecessary constraints or restraints on businesses which have the effect of depressing economic activity.
Regrettably in the case of energy they are doing both and at the behest of vested interests and pressure groups probably with the best of intentions but not for the good of the people. (See my post about letting children run government!)
Rightwinggit
+1
Dec 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterRightwinggit
+3 !!
Hold on. "big cumulative losses"? That can't be right, all the papers and tv news channels are telling us they're making obscene profits on the back of the poor and the starving, freezing, pensioners.
Does anyone know how much of the cost of an offshore 'array' is represented by the cables/connections back to shore? Not insignificant, I would imagine.
Radical Rodent
It seems that everyone had Davey over a barrel on every point: “it depends how you assess profit.” Perhaps he should be reading the philosophy of Mr Micawber.
I think Davey's favourite phiosopher must be Thixodides.
Rightwinggit - you owe me a new keyboard - to replace the coffee-coated one...
Does anyone else feel slight unease that Ed Davey looks like Wayne Rooney's older cousin that they kept in the attic, but he got out somehow..?
Taking up Philip Bratby’s point about the apparent technical (and economic) illiteracy of the advisors / administrators running the DECC.
I lost touch with the UK chemicals industry when I moved abroad in the mid-1990s. But it was evident then that old-fashioned HMIP inspectors with former practical, operational, problem-solving, chemical industry experience were being superseded by new, much-younger, more-generalist, environmental-science (or equivalent) graduates.These were invariably good at hand-wringing concern and eco-platitudes but – all too often – seemed incapable of understanding the practicalities of the actual physical operation of integrated chemical plants they were inspecting. In short, not the kind of “inspector” whose input and advice you could welcome and respect.
It seems as if DECC is now, similarly, devoid of any depth of understanding of the practical and economic realities of the industries being regulated. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the practical engineering and operational skills base (and the relevance of the educational backgrounds) of the apparent “ideologues” who now run the DECC. Can anyone with FOI experience think of a suitable wording for an FOI request that would likely be successful, rather than being “knocked-back” on the grounds of personal information being involved?
There appears little explanation of the maintenance aspects of wind power. There is a Lloyds advert showing someone at the top of the turbine tower, the blade is stationary. How are people going to work if the conditions are icy and or windy?If a tower is damaged, say due to fire or wind, how is it going to be assessed that a it is safe to work upon? The man on the turbine tower appears to be working without a safety harness: is this legal or sensible?
Addressing parliament today Davey stated that swinging subsidies from onshore to offshore wind farms will create two hundred thousand jobs. This man should be sectioned or, better still, be behind bars.
@ Brian E
One of The Potato's wonks was asked about the percentage of those with project management skills amongst DECC's new recruits (necessary, because the department seems to have a pretty high churn rate). Apparently lots of skilled bods are being recruited, primarily from the financial services sector with "most of the balance being lawyers and accountants".
Of a department of 1600, some 200 have formal project management skills, although "that's not to say that there is no scope for up-skilling those people".
So that's OK then.
About the only time The Potato was able to give a straight answer ("I fully concur") was to an easy under-arm bowled slowly at him by The Trougher. Otherwise this was a performance of mind-boggling incompetence.
James P:
"Does anyone know how much of the cost of an offshore 'array' is represented by the cables/connections back to shore? Not insignificant, I would imagine."
From a 2008 report from the House of Lords on The Economics of Renewable Energy: "Laying cables along the sea bed to connect offshore wind farms will be expensive. National Grid expected the cost for the 19 GW of offshore wind—which it views as necessary if the EU 2020 targets are to be reached— to be in the region of £6–10 billion (Q 271). To connect 33 GW of offshore capacity to the Grid, Ofgem expected a cost of around £10 billion which is at the more optimistic end of National Grid’s range of costs."
Re Phillip Bratby, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:44 AM
On the terrible cost of wind energy, incl. connection to the grid etc:
The Gemini offshore wind energy project in the Netherlands – 600GW with 150 Siemens windmills – has specified the investment as € 2.8 bn of which the foundations, installation, grid connection and cabling will be € 1.3 bn. The SDE project subsidy will run for 15 years.
During the 15 subsidy years the consortium will invest € 2.8 bn., produce electricity worth € 990 million and receive a total of € 7.6 bn in the form of subsidies. Good investment for the consortium, but a terrible cost for the taxpayers.
The Dutch government intends to have 4.5 GW offshore wind energy by 2023, so that will be 7.5 of these Gemini-type projects. The government also intends to add 6 GW onshore wind energy.
Subsidies for offshore wind will be per year € 3.32 bn for 4.5 GW offshore and € 1.18 bn for 6 GW onshore wind energy, a total of €4.5 bn every year for 15 years. After that period the windmills will have to be replaced and the same amount of money will have to be thrown into the sea again.
The industry will not pay for these subsidies, Dutch home users will have to pay 80% higher kWh price by 2023, just for wind electricity. Subsidy cost for other “green” energy such as solar, biomass, geothermal etc. will come on top of that.
Jobs are a cost. Those 200,000 could be doing something useful.
Fracking is being impeded at an EU level as the Marxist Greens have got themselves into a position to try and stop it from happening in Europe at all as it will be a hammer blow to the subsidised renewables industry given that it produces cheap and clean gas.
If the job destruction ratio is still 3.4 then Davey's trumpeted 200,000 subsidised jobs should see 680,000 real jobs lost due to expensive energy. However, I feel Davey's figure on job creation belongs in the Alice in Wonderland world he inhabits as opposed to the real one.
Davey Crock-it
The Greater Gabbard OFTO connections were just transferred to a JV between the various construction firms for £317m.
In the good old days when we were allowed to actually interrogate people the first signs to look for were a rapid blink rate, eyes shifting constantly from side to side (seeking a way out) and frequent hand movements to the collar or chest (defensive pose). All signs of lying. Funny how Davey displays all these signs simultaneously. Do the Liberal Dimwits not run courses in resisting interrogation?
Ivor Ward
resisting interrogation?
Don't tell them Pike!
Davey in short trousers with 1960's school uniform cap on askew having ice cream wiped off his face by his mum...
yup, not much of a stretch that
stupid boy!
Comments as I listened.
"We have a diverse [energy generation] market so we don't need as much [gas] storage" - except when the wind drops for an extended period, when we get to the dangerously low reserves we saw last winter. What an idiot!! He's playing with life and death here, yet it's an ideological game to him.
He talks of interconnectivity as a solution to energy security!! Why can't he understand that our own coal and gas resources are the BEST form of energy security?
Davey has a new definition for subsidies - "a sensible investment framework"!!
DECC say they are getting high-calibre people in, but have a lower than average age of staff. Doesn't sound like experience coming in then. They have a £650m staff underspend, but staff "get better offers", so leave!!
They say they are getting more "commercial people" in, then say "we're getting more lawyers and accountants"!
Davey: "[Warsaw conference] ended up in a very reasonable place"!! Who is he kidding!! It was an utter failure and fudge.
Davey: "I genuinely wish climate change wasn't happening". Perhaps he should look at the EVIDENCE then.
Davey: "Excess *winter* deaths is a very different concept". Death is death. It's not conceptual. "There was a late cold spell", it's called WINTER, and unless you believe the MO, it was forecasted. "Last winter was a particularly cold winter", the last THREE winters were colder than recent years, again contrary to MO forecasts!
I do wish Davey (and other members of the committee) would also get the difference between 'carbon' and 'carbon dioxide' sorted out in his mind.
Davey was also rescued from answering the critical question put by Peter Lilley, that of "what evidence would change your mind [that CO2 is not the problem it is assumed to be]?". He really does need to answer that question.
Whilst talking about political risk PotatoEd said investors can take comfort from the fact that UK governments do not act retrospectively (I think he meant retroactively, but whatever). My memory is not what it used to be (as far as I can recall) but I have this vague impression that when Tony Blair came to power his first act was to impose a windfall tax on the utility companies arguing in effect that when these industries were sold off the price was too low. That strikes me as retroactive government action.
As an aside it also set the tone for increasingly more cynical moves by the misguided miscreants that were allowed to play with power for way too long. And we wonder why we live in the age of insouciance.
It's really windy today. Those bloody windmills must be going round like the clappers. Probably not generating any electricity though.