The true, tragic cost of British wind power
Two studies published this week calculate the astounding cost of Britain's go-it-alone obsession with using wind turbines to generate so much of the electricity the nation needs. Both studies make remarkably generous concessions that favour wind technology; the true cost, critics could argue, will be higher in each set of …
This topic is closed for new posts.
"There is nothing inherently good or bad about investing in renewable energy and green technology," writes economist Professor Gordon Hughes "
Spoken like a true economist. And one from the World Bank too - a hotbed of poor intellectual justifications for rubbish economic policies.
The question is whether the green technology in question works or not. In the case of wind the whole thing is badly let down by the lack of decent storage facilities. As long as wind is used as it's generated it will never really work. That's where the investment is needed.
But to say that there's nothing inherently good about using energy that doesn't pollute is just the sort of utter crap I'd expect from a fully paid-up Plutocrat like "Professor" Hughes
The word IS "kleptocrat"
"fully paid-up Plutocrat like "Professor" Hughes"]
He may be a plutocrat but his paymasters are kleptocrats.
storage
The lack of storage has always been an issue. The same has been true for gas storage. We simply do not have enough of them and thus when the market fluctuates we get hit in the pocket as we paid top dollar for stuff only a few months back.
Anyhow most of this is moot as Blair and his cronies signed away most of our energy choices yeara ago by agreeing to meet ALL of the Euro's demands on emmisions and renewables. I believe our previous PM Gordon Brown was a bit done for because he had so many years of Blair's crap to try and clean up. Now we have more idiots in power who tow the same party line as Blair did but under a different banner.
Screw windfarms and solar panels (which are just being used by companies to profiteer on anyhow instead of being reinvested into UK energy generation) . Get those nuke power and shale gas extraction plants up and running!
Re: The word IS "kleptocrat"
Is that a polite way of saying "fucking thieves"?
AC 13:18
500k should be enough budget for a dictionary and thesaurus.
Rebutting or refuting would be a better choice.
And ITYM interested.
And wipe the foaming spittle from your lips.
And no on this basis I wouldn't commission a report from you.
HTH HAND
Going it alone?
I don't really know where this statement comes from, other parts of Europe generate far more of their power from Wind/Solar than we do.
Nice to see that all factors are taken into account, such as the cost of foreign policy to ensure supplies of fossil fuels, how much did that little skirmish in Iraq cost us? Then there's the cost of all the lives lost in the process. Also talking about shale gas is a bit premature, if there's any evidence it's dangerous then it could be stopped, not just by the UK government maybe by the European court.
Re: Going it alone?
The grids in continental Europe are extremely highly connected so it's a lot easier for them to sell excess wind power to a neighbour when they have a lot of wind, and to buy in extra power to make up the difference when the wind isn't blowing.
Even then, central Europe is realising that wind power is costing too much and are starting to cut down on subsidies.
Re: Going it alone?
Of course the calculations which assume the UK grid not to be interconnected to neighbouring grids using DC links are nonsense. But we can't expect anti-renewable propagandists not to select the least favourable calculations. In a scenario where fortress Britain had to abandon all electricity trade with neighbours these calculation might make sense, but if that's what they're genuinely worried about they should state this. Also the variability of wind electric output is a very minor problem and carries relatively small cost with wind electricity penetration at less than 20% of the overall grid requirement than it would become if wind ever gets to more than 50%.
As to reducing renewable subsidies, this does make sense in order to make the expansion of wind and solar as part of the overall grid supply mix to occur more sustainably. With mass production having brought costs down, a more mature renewable energy supply industry doesn't need such large subsidies. Wind, solar and nuclear would also all need less in the way of subsidies to compete against fossil fuels if the latter were not subsidised by increases in our extreme weather insurance, cost of uninsured climate losses, the need to spend massively on improved flood defences etc, all of which are subsidies to fossil fuel use which does not pay for these externalities without across the board carbon taxes. If opposition to carbon taxes are genuinely concerned about granny freezing in a cold house, then maybe fossil subsidies otherwise correctable with across the board carbon taxes could instead be more precisely targetted to vulnerable people who need help with their heating bills, allowing the energy market to compete on fair terms and prices to find more natural levels of supply from diverse sources.
That doesn't take away the need for public policy to invest in diversification away from fossil fuels based on risk of political instability in oil supply regions and climate change, risks which markets focussed on short term supply demand balancing considerations will tend to ignore. Also the decision to invest in new nuclear plant is highly political, likely to be limited to existing nuclear plant host communities which want these jobs, given the reminder that Fukushima recently gave us about worst case scenario risks.
Reality Check
1. Last year (2011) Wind Generation 5% of UK electricity. This is a pretty substantial contribution. However Coal generation between 40% and 50% - and yes this plant should be shut down and replaced with combined cycle GT. It would make a big difference quickly.
2. Fossil fuel prices are also subsidised by a 5% rate of VAT - this costs us 3.6 BILLION pounds a year. So a hundred million or so for wind seems like a pretty small change.
3. The Global Warming Policy Foundation are not 'independent'. They are frothing-at -the-mouth, flat-earth, climate-change deniers. Their opinions are only worth listening to if you appreciate that their basic assumption is that emitting carbon dioxide is harmless and risk free.
4. Moving from where we are now to where we want to be will be hard. But wind power makes pretty good sense to me as a first step. Follow it up by replacing coal, a tidal barrage on the Severn and even more solar, and we could really begin to move towards sustainable electricity infrastructure. But it will be hard and costly.
Re: Reality Check
I take it you get your figures from here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels
The article being a complete load of shit. VAT is 5% on all home fuels. Gas and leccy. How is that a subsidy for fossil fuels? Fossil fuels happen to provide more leccy than renewables at the moment so if you really want to look at it as a subsidy then they are getting the lions share but only in proportion to the amount of energy they supply.
Similarly the old wailing about carbon floor not applying to nuclear material is repeated here. Again this is only a subsidy if you don't understand what a subsidy is and applies just as much to renewables and nuclear.
Begone with your pretend subsidies.
Re: Reality Check
"4. Moving from where we are now to where we want to be will be hard. But wind power makes pretty good sense to me as a first step."
Have you actually *read* this report? With wind it comes down to 2 particular problems. 1) Best wind sites are usually a *long* way from where it's needed. 2) A *good* location (onshore) may generate power as much as 26% of the time (but it's known at least 1 UK site managed 6%).
So what would you use to generate power the *rest* of the time?
" Follow it up by replacing coal, a tidal barrage on the Severn and even more solar, and we could really begin to move towards sustainable electricity infrastructure. "
No we won't.
The Severn barrage *might* make 5-7% of the UK electricity demand *while* it's working. You'll need a *lot* more infrastructure.
"But it will be hard and costly."
That's certainly true.
Re: Reality Check
"4. Moving from where we are now to where we want to be will be hard. But wind power makes pretty good sense to me as a first step."
Then I'm afraid sir that you lack sense.
Re: Reality Check
The 5% VAT rate on gas and electricity is qualified. ‘Qualified use’ is the domestic use of energy and energy used by charities for non business purposes. Everyone else pays the full-fat standard rate, and this 'everyone else' (businesses, industry, etc) make up just over 80% of total UK demand. So, only 20% of the total qualifies, and it qualifies regardless of generation method. I'm not sure where this Fossil Fuel VAT subsidy stuff is coming from, but I suspect it's someone's arse.
Please.....
..I just wish our country would stop dicking around and pandering to focus groups and just build the 5 or so nuclear reactors we needed to have built at least 5 years ago.
Get on with it.
How else will all the self-styled eco-warriors charge up their iPads and warm their Starbucks lattes?
Re: Please.....
Just curious to those that gave my post a thumbs down.
Just what exactly, is your alternative method of meeting the UK's power needs over the next 50 years?
Re: Please.....
Ahh so no response coming then?
Always the same, the eco folks bemoan nuclear and fossil fuels but when asked "Okay then what's your alternative?" it goes very quiet.
Rather than just 'unprofessional shrieking' the response of the director of strategy at the Department of Energy and Climate Change to the AF Consult report was to make the following points-
"The report's conclusions are undermined by its assumptions, which skirt over four crucially important factors:
First, electricity demand is set to increase. All of our main scenarios for 2050 tell us that we need to plan to meet an increase in demand of between a third and two thirds, as transport and heating shift onto the electricity grid. AF Consult massively underestimates this and as a consequence risk us not having enough electricity to power the country and failing to meet our carbon targets.
Second, diversity of energy technology is crucial. As no one can yet say for sure what the relative costs will be decades hence, the Government's approach is not to be captured by any technology lobby. Each has its place in a technology race between renewables, nuclear, and clean fossil fuels in which the lowest cost technology wins the largest market share and keeps bills down for consumers. AF Consult appear to be trying to second-guess the unknowable, and as a result put all of our eggs into just two energy technologies. The build rate using just CCS and nuclear would be unrealistic, risky and costly.
Third, the costs of renewables are already being driven down. Our renewables target is an industrial policy aimed at accelerating reductions in the costs of renewable generation. Onshore wind has already come down in price, hence why we have proposed to cut the subsidy it gets by 10%, and the offshore wind industry is working towards reducing costs to £100/MWh by 2020. Add to that the wider economic benefits of investment and jobs in advanced green industries that will have a global market.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, gas prices are uncertain and volatile. In contrast to renewables, the signs are that gas prices will be higher in future. Even with shale gas there is no certainty that supplies or prices would filter through to the UK.
The IEA for instance foresees gas prices rising to 2030 as demand pressures outweigh supply boosts. Today's consumers are already bearing the brunt of gas price volatility. The Arab Spring and Fukushima last year contributed to driving up gas prices which pushed up the average dual fuel bill by £175, eclipsing the £20 a year current cost of subsidising renewables. While gas will still play a role in the future, home grown renewables will help insulate our economy and consumers from depending excessively on gas imports and the volatility that accompanies that.
Consumers would not be well served by an energy strategy based on short-sighted analysis that pins all its hopes on just two energy technologies and then crosses its fingers that gas prices come good".
http://blog.decc.gov.uk/2012/03/05/future-consumers-would-not-thank-us-for-looking-for-an-energy-policy-in-the-bargain-basement/
Did you read the first rebuttal to that blog post?
Here i'll quote it for you.
"Do you have any response to the lecture given Richard Lindzen on Wednesday 22nd Feb 2012?
Can you comment of the IEA forecast of production rates for fossil fuels which is pure fantasy. The prediction for CO2 levels is based on a mythical rise in fossil fuel usage.
Have you not studied British History and the key role CHEAP energy played in the UKs prosperity. And that expensive energy will reduce economic output. Funny you should mention the Arab Spring. That all started because of the RISE in energy costs and Egypt.
Did you not notice the banking crash a few short years ago. Remember what started it. Yes expensive energy (oil). The high energy costs effectively removed a large chunk from the money supply. The shortfall caused a cascade failure in the banking system. The crash was caused by high energy costs, the result was a failure in the banking system.
Why do you ignore cutting edge research into (hot) nuclear fusion. ITER is never going to work. DPF/Polywell (pB11) designs are accelerating past ITER with a tiny fraction of the budget. Even Iran (yes Iran) is running a fusion R&D program that is years ahead of the UK/EU.
Why is it almost every oil producing nation is fast tracking nuclear power? when in most cases they have more sun than they know what todo with? Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar (and others) have all started civilian nuclear programs. (Clue – its not about reducing CO2 emissions)
You make a major assumption that future transport will be electrical based. Transport could just as easily be Hydrogen based. And the most efficient method to generate H2 is the high temperature sulphur/iodine reaction (using a nuclear reactor). But what if battery/h2 technology cannot improve enough for mainstream use? Then its a radical switch to rail.
The DECC has made sweeping assumptions about advances in technology. Its identical to betting on a horse to win a race before the horse has even been born.
How is the military going to operate in 2050? How is the Navy going to power its ships? The air-force? The army? Every time the army sets up an FOB are they going to install a wind turbine to power the base and recharge the jeeps, bradleys, tanks overnight? Military equipment is inefficient by design (weight for armour). A Challenger tank getting 80MPG is never going to happen.
Based on the DECC vision of the future the MoD cannot operate. Which brings up another problem, container shipping.
Your not going to power a container ship using wind turbines and batteries. The ONLY non carbon tech for container shipping is nuclear. Fission reactors in a civilian ship is unacceptable, a Polywell/DPF fusion reactor is the only plausible technology. An ITER/NEF fusion reactor is bigger than a container ship. If container ships cannot be powered in 2050, then we might as well give up and become Amish.
The problem is not CO2. The problem is expensive energy, or rather supply vs demand.
The current DECC polices will cause significant harm to the UK economy.
The solution is easy.
1. Build gas turbines to cover any electrical shortfall.
2. While doing (1) start building nukes.
3. While doing (1+2) major R&D investment in Thorium/Fusion/Transport"
By alan
Lindzen is Heartland PR
Citing one scientist - and one of the diminishingly small set of climate scientists who don't work with the concensus - just isn't good enough. You need to be more skeptical about your sources, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm.
Re: Lindzen is Heartland PR
As for his most recent lecture, he may have been a bit confused, http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzens-junk-science.html. If his science is that good he really should try publishing. Peer review weans out such poor analysis before he embarasses himself (and his fervent followers).
Radical Anti-Environmentalism
I suspect Sr. Hughes – formerly of the World Bank and now at the University of Edinburgh, is still suckling at the petroleum teat. And now he's charged with indoctrinating naive freshman with 'drill baby drill 101'.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a libertarian think tank in the United Kingdom who espouse skepticism of environmental and climate science, including demonstrably false statements made by Lawson about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented, "We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."
I'd be interested to know why...
...the dissenting voice at 13:15 has been silenced.
Every drop of rabid spittle is another nail in the coffin.
And I spend ages on a witty response that is stuck in the moderation pile.
The anti-nuclear barrier
As Sweden and France demonstrate, clear benefits accrue from using nuclear energy to generate a large proportion of electricity. The UK's subsidies for wind and PV energy will in effect create a cost penalty on the construction of new nuclear power plant.
Even using optimistic storage technologies, such as pumped hydro and grid coupling of vehicle batteries, wind still requires nearly 100% backup; calm spells of up to three weeks are by no means unknown. The least expensive solution is to build gas generation plant. And gas plant that has in effect been paid for through wind energy subsidies will remain cheaper than new nuclear plant until its running costs become significantly higher.
The anti-nuke camp labels the cleanup of leftovers from research in the cold war and waste from early nuclear power plant a subsidy; despite the necessity of dealing with this problem in any case. Rather than being subsidised as they claim, the nuclear industry is being penalised through the promotion of an alternative which is far from being low-carbon and is more expensive in the medium term.
Re: The anti-nuclear barrier
Couldn't agree more. Build a bunch of nuclear power stations asap. In order to minimise transmission losses and allow easy export of any excess to Europe, bung them in London or the south east.
Re: The anti-nuclear barrier
Well France has the opposite problem. They need to turn off their nuclear plants when it's to hot because they cannot provide cooling. Even under normal circumstances they need to import power because they simply don't have the resources.
100% power from nuclear wouldn't work, because it takes days to weeks to turn a nuclear plant on or off. And even with it's huge subsidiaries (free waste disposal!) it's not particularly cheap. Plus our government is incapable of selecting a place to put the waste.
What you need is to have a mix. For example in Germany, gas powered plants pop up. Now that is considered to be a fairly expensive way to generate electricity, however this is done in a smart way. Businesses which need a lot of electricity build those themselves, and not only sell the excess electricity, but also the heat. This simple trick increases the efficiency from about 30-40% up to up to 100%, saving more than half the fuel in winter. (In summer electricity is cheaper here anyhow because of solar power)
Nuclear is "not particularly cheap"
Take a look at http://www.energy.eu/ for price comparisons.
Consumers in France, Finland and Sweden pay about half as much for electricity as those in Denmark and Germany. Clearly this isn't only because nuclear is used in preference to wind and PV, but it's a large part of the reason.
The shutdown of French generators during the 2003 and 2006 heat waves was not because they were nuclear but because they used river water to cool steam. Standard coal-burning and CCGT powered turbines would have been similarly affected.
PPE degrees ?
Module 1: Hard hats, goggles, and hi-vis jackets.
Solar derived is the only option.
Quick lesson in thermodynamics, the only long term viable energy generation has to come from short term solar derived sources (aka burning fossil fuel does not count through it is solar derived). Anything else will simply heat up the planet as all the generated energy becomes heat.
I only see one fail here.
Use solar derived but not those evil solar derived, some nice solar derived.
And where are you storing the nice solar derived energy?
Or are you sitting in the dark waiting for the wind to blow or the sun to shine.
Perhaps we could shift some from the antipodes at night time using some giant mirrors?
Come back with evidence that nice solar derived energy is something other than a white elephant.
Re: Solar derived is the only option.
jabuzz, did you not read my reply last time you posted this nonsense? World total energy usage is a few parts per million of the solar energy falling onto the Earth's surface. There may be arguments against producing (some of) this from fossil fuels (sustainability, CO2 production), but directly raising our surface temperature is not one of them.
Nautical Terms: Becalmed
Having taken lots of our money for these white elephants, should I then find that there is no power to charge the expensive e-car that I expect to be told I have to switch to in the future, when the island is becalmed, I probably shall not be.
Nice report. Who cares ?
I prefer the viewpoint below.
People are fed-up with all these reports. This is just another to be fed-up about.
Many contradict themselves anyway.
"The GWPF are pulling their usual stunt of attempting to take "ownership" of an issue by commissioning a new report , this one "revealing" not very many details about wind power that haven't been said before … many times (and sometimes better).
What these people do not seem to realise is that efforts to create "noise" are far more successful if you build on and extend existing work, rather than keep reinventing the wheel and claiming it all for your own. Not least, Google ranking depends not only on traffic levels but on the number and type of links. Thus, cross-referencing other work is an important way of building profile.
Despite this, you see "top dogging" in a wide range of fields, from Open Europe and its attempt to dominate the EU agenda, to Taxpayers' Alliance and others. They all do good work, but are dragged down by their own egos, and their attempts to own the agenda in every field that they touch. Nothing exists, nothing ever came before, until they "discover" it"
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-aggrandisement.html
Hippie
"...but only if it dumps today's inefficient hippie technology."
Yes, because you can't apply an ad hominem against a technology unless you anthropomorphise it first.
Global Warming Policy Foundation
Now, why would a global-warming-denial organisation pay for an attack on wind turbines? (Even given the huge, secret funding it is "alleged" to have.)
Tinfoil hats, anyone?
Re: Global Warming Policy Foundation
Are you suggesting that wind power is, on the contrary, bloody wonderful and worth every penny?
If so, I would like to see some evidence to support that view. I'm sure you have some and you're not just flinging religious DENIER DENIER allegations around as some kind of right-on kneejerk. I'm really sure about that.
Probably.
In medicine it is called...
...Iatrogenic illness.
In simple terms, the cure is worse than the illness.
Except in this case there might not be an illness to cure.
I'm still waiting for a diagnosis based on symptoms and repeatable tests instead of witchcraft.
Bargain ...
... compared with all the bank bail outs... and we'd have something to show for it at the end!!
Every day this week onshore wind farms in Scotland have been paid upto 5 times the cost of coal fired generation NOT to generate. This is with a tiny proportion of our capacity provided for by wind generated a long long way from the demand centres. Imagine how bad grid stabiity issues will be and the idle back up capacity necessary when we've installed the 32GW our leaders are planning?
Wind farms like arable ones are all about carpet bagging subsidies. The John Muir trust provided a good report last year pointing out how poorly wind farms can perform during high demand periods. This February when the National Grid was predicting it's highest winter demand wind farms were producing less than 5% of their rated capacity day after freezing day.
Get the politics out of energy and lets build some nukes and be done with it.
"Get the politics out of energy " >
"Get the politics out of energy and lets build some nukes and be done with it"
If you got the politics out of energy you'd be leaving it to the market. Come to think of it, that's exactly what Thatcher (and Bliar) did, so we know what would happen.
It's the market that has got the UK electricity supply into the mess (and worse to come) it is in at the moment.
The markets have wasted [forever] a valuable resource, our own natural gas, purely for short term profits in the insane post-privatisation market-led dash for gas. Entirely predictably, it's what markets do (look up "tragedy of the commons").
The market has absolutely failed to address the subject of the UK's next five years electricity supply, never mind the next decade or five.
"The market" had the option of building more nukes, in the UK and elsewhere. "The market", with a tiny handful of massively delayed and massively overbudget exceptions (e.g. Olkiluoto) generally chose to ignore nuclear power.
Strikes me that the best thing would be to get "the markets" out of energy and put some engineers in charge.
Instead we'll get yet more lawyers and accountants and telephone sanitisers and general B-ark people.
Re: "Get the politics out of energy " >
Privatisation, deregulation of the gas markets, distorting the market in favour of renewables and the forced divestment of generating assets were ALL political decisions not commercial or engineering ones. Government has spent the last 20 years with it's fingers of the scales altering the balance. There would be no wind farms without Government stealing cash from the consumer to reward one subset of the market. The break up of the generating companies has robbed them of scale and efficiency in the ridiculous chase for competition. Even now renewable obligations are persuading generators to relife 40 year old stations to biomass rather than invest in anything new.
The market has never really been given the chance and the politicians have constantly gamed the market to score brownie points without actually settling on an outcome they'd like to see that isn't built on wishful thinking.
As an engineer I have a good idea what structure I'd like to see for electricity generation and the sources to supply it and you can be sure wind farms are not in the picture.
The people who go the whole hog for nonconventional electricity generation and hate nonconventional gas sources forget that they are two completely different energy systems. No number of wind turbines is going to power my central heating. And there's also the implicit madness in dumping half the country's energy transmission network (the gas main) and trying to add it's energy to the other half of the transmisisson network (the electricity main).
This is true, if you don't care about CO2 emissions.
Assuming that reducing CO2 is a good thing, then moving transport + heating to be all electric is good, as it is not only more efficient (heat pumps, electric motors) but it will all eventually come from zero emission plants (hopefully mostly nuclear).
£28k per household?
£780B / 27.5m households (projections for 2033).
So that is nearly £30k per 'household' assuming 5 - 10% live in shared / clustered households (council / housing association) it may be more. We could fit them all with Solar PV (Including local battery storage) & hot water plus air source heat/renewable heat & insulation.
All new builds need to be near energy neutral (Passivehaus + Solar PV etc).
Kill the feed in tariff & concentrate on converting all social housing & to Green energy. Subsidising manufacturing in the UK we could drive costs down so most house holders see it as a no brainer plus create UK jobs. Maybe reduction in Council tax rises for energy efficient houses.
So assuming 50% grid power reduction (probably more once we all have led lights and fully insulated houses) we have a 25% reduction.
Plus we have a new world leading Green energy industry. Few other countries have the sort of production that can convert the whole country,once we do people will want to buy from us.
.
We can check the electrics on all houses as well. Saving a fortune in Electrical fires.
average house cost now.
Loft insulation £150
Cavity Wall insulation £400
Air source heat pump = £2-6k
Solar PV = £2-7K (including batteries)
Solar hot water = £1-3K
Heat recovery £0.5-1K.
Install £5-10k.
total £20-25k.
During the day they pump excess (not used for battery) electricity into the Grid and during the night they draw from storage (allowing power stations to wind down) / with the grid for peaks.
I would imagine once we manufacture in quantity it would be much cheaper.
Flats and shared terraces could cost much less. A row of PV lined roofs but one controller & battery stack etc.
Council funded = 20 year payback at £1K per year (if prices go up then its shorter). After that its an income.
no more whoop - whoop,sliced birds & blighted countryside.
Re: £28k per household?
Oh Register!
Why copy and paste the sentiment from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" (astroturf alert) without the same critical thinking you apply to windfarms?
Such a one-sided argument always looks...biased.
Wind power IS cheaper
When it comes to decommissioning at least.
Well..
Missing the point.
The argument about climate science is not being won, not least because it never was about the climate or science.
It was, and is, about politics and state control.
The GWPF is at serious risk of winning a battle while the war continues elsewhere.
Just because people say in surveys that climate change is not important doesn't mean they agree with the anti-AGW people.
And it doesn't mean they distrust the politicians, just that they're getting confused and don't care.
Policy devised by "civil servants" or "special advisors"?
The kind who've been "seconded" to a govt department for their "specialist" knowledge.
Who turn out to have acquired their knowledge working for the companies who stand to make *huge* profits if the policy *they* are proposing goes ahead.
Can you say "conflict of interest"?
A study of the UK Govt's history with Private Finance Initiatives (or PPP's as Blair & Brown called them) will describe *exactly* this scenario.
It seems UK civil servants have *never* been able to cope with a *diverse* portfolio of energy sources or systems below about 1GW in capacity.
Re: Policy devised by "civil servants" or "special advisors"?
No. But they cope very well with a portfolio of jobs to go to after they retire.
Not so much a conflict of interest, as a corruption of disinterested.
Water Power is better for the UK
We have plenty of rain in winter time to run
Micro Archimedes Screw Generators
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFCBe0SvUWM
They Can Also be hidden away in protected arias
Not to mention they can also be deployed in Both Storm Water and Foul Water Sewers
in Towns and Citys and make use of the Sewer Tides at Peek Toilet Times (When Fav's TV Shows is over people norm put the kettle on and go to the bathroom then flush the Toilet)
It will solve water table problems due you holing water back to allow it to soak into the ground longer / or divert surplus water to dry arias
This topic is closed for new posts.
