Wednesday
Dec042013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Shuffling the deckchairs
Dec 4, 2013 Energy: wind 
The government looks set to change the levels at which they fix prices for electricity. It seems that hard pressed consumers are going to hand over less cash to onshore wind and solar operators but more to offshore ones.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander described the shift in subsidy as "a rebalancing" and said overall spending would not change.
But Labour said "chopping and changing" pricing was bad for business.
As you can see it is fairly clear that all the big three political parties remain committed to ever-rising energy prices.
Reader Comments (59)
Garethman
Unfortunately your argument about solar is simply wrong. I invested in solar panels more than 3 years ago because of the ridiculous subsidy of then 43.4p per kwh, that is inflation proof - I will get my money back in about 7 years. So I have three years data on generation and consumption.
In the 4 months of November to February inclusive my panels generate only 11% of the annual total but my household use is 47% of the annual. In other words when I most need electricity my panels are almost useless and when I don't need electricity there is plenty. The excess goes back into the grid and I get 3p per unit [plus the subsidy above] which clearly shows how much it isn't needed in the grid.
Solar panels are a financial decision and have nothing to do with our power needs. In fact they make the balance of the system worse because of their inability to generate in the periods of high demand.
While we are moaning about the cost of useless windmills, a link at Jo Nova shows this:
"The British government said it would buy 50 million pounds ($80.7 million) of UN carbon credits and cancel them as a way to help fund development and curb greenhouse gas emissions in poor countries."
Don't you just love our pathetic politicians?
With regard to the Met Office - my view is that they abandoned science for advocacy and should be held responsible for convincing our useless politicians that massive warming was relentless. I would like to see them sold to a purchaser whose only interest is getting next week's weather forecast more reliable.
I don't really have a position on Global Warming (as it used to be known), apart from "que sera, sera" .
That is because none of the supposed remedies have :
a) the slightest chance of having a significant cooling effect
or
b) the slightest chance of ever being adopted widely enough internationally to satisfy even the mildest Greenie criteria.
I'm interested in all energy technology but everything I've seen so far suggests to me that wind and solar are over-hyped turkeys. Being generous, I'd say the press have over-hyped them because they want a "good news" story to balance the relentless doomsaying of the Green factions, and they've lighted on these two (because they're "free" ???) and swallowed the industry hype hook, line and sinker.
@kellydown
I'd quibble with your analysis :-)
The reason to what's left of my mind that windmills, solar farms and daft domestic PV are so prominent is the fact that they are visible totems - point and look! - we're saving the planet! A provincial billboard is £150 a week....
Heat pumps in their various guises (water , ground and CHP) aren't anywhere near as photogenic (look! a beige box!) and actually provide tangible benefits without the need for subsidy - and horror! - some people were actually using them before all this subsidy malarkey without being in an off-grid situation.
The need for icons to worship and the maintenance of a conveniently taxable distribution system that cultivates dependence are in my view very strong drivers of present energy policy. I think it's important to view the press as two actually different camps - one being copy 'n paste officially distributed PR/propaganda churnalism and the other informed, evidenced debate - there is considerably more of one than the other - a situation driven by the politics and the almost complete lack of responsible stewardship of public funds and credulousness shown by our elected representatives and public servants - and of course competence is on apparently indefinite gardening leave or retired 20 years ago.
Slightly OT, but I see that Drax is being paid £105/MWh for the Biomass-converted burners under the new CFD scheme which guarantees the price until 2021.
Sandy, I heard all of Vine's bit on wind.
He had input from 2 "Windies", both of whom squirmed & wriggled when he asked them if his current electricity bill was £1,000 a year, how much would it be if all was provided by unsubsidised offshore wind.
He did manage to get one to say (Off mike!) that the cost of the offshore windfarm, that provided enough power for 200,000 homes, worked out at £8,000,000 per turbine, or 2,000 houses-worth.
Thanks Adam, nothing new from Vine or the BBC then.
Bottomline : a subsidy cost is only a cost if the damm things get built
- FANTASY is that by building we are saving the grandchildren.
- REALITY is that IF they get built the grandchildren are saddled with a huge subsidy expense.
- the political reality is that politician Cameron can put up subsidies and please greens, but never allow the damm things to get built, providing he can stand up to Mrs Cam & the other green emotional blackmailers & subsidy mafia.
Off-topic a bit - but don't know where else to post it - anyone know how the poor dears at Barton Moss in Salford are getting on in the present breezy conditions..?