Sunday, 11 March 2012

Wind's wasted money and effort

Regular readers will know that TCS blog does not like wind turbines and the subsidies that go to wind power companies, the "polluters" of the countryside. For previous comment see eg here, here, here and here.

Josh (Cartoons by Josh) also has "a 'thing' about wind turbines... grrr."  Here's Josh's latest great contribution to the debate.
Meanwhile, up in Scotland as reported by scotsman.com:
WIND power – more accurately wind impotence, since turbines operate at just 24 per cent of capacity – is the curse of Scotland. One of the most beautiful landscapes in Europe has been brutally ravaged, families have been driven into fuel poverty, pensioners have been presented with the lethal dilemma “heat or eat” – all to appease the neurotic prejudices of global warming fanatics.
TCS blog reported on the exposure by Professor Gordon Hughes of the crippling cost to consumers HERE.
The inefficiency of wind turbines requires perpetual back-up by building gas turbine power stations – running two parallel energy generation systems, each alternately redundant, in times of economic crisis. The fiscal ratchet is turning relentlessly. The Renewables Obligation, introduced in Scotland in 2002, forces electricity suppliers to source an increasing proportion of power from renewables, currently 11.1 per cent and rising. By 2027 this scam will have cost UK customers £32bn.

Agreeing with Josh, the scotsman points out: "It is not bad news for everybody: across the UK a dozen landowners are sharing £850 million in subsidies for wind turbines." 

Wind Power has been killing birds, bats and doesn`t generate power for a large percentage of the time.
The green ideology says wind power is the answer - It's not!
 Alice Thompson writing in The Times and re-published by The Australian writes that 

"WIND farms on inherited estates are fuelling vast government subsidies for earls and dukes.

"I am a very rich duke, a most agreeable thing to be, even in these days," says Fabrice de Sauveterre in The Pursuit of Love. And it still is. From Keswick to Kensington these are hard times in Britain: mortgages up, fuel up, fares up, heating bills up, child benefit and social security down.
By 2020, the government will be handing over pound stg. 100 million ($149m) a year in rents to landowners simply for the right to put turbines on their turf. Property agents suggest that each large turbine generates about pound stg. 40,000 a year risk-free for the landowner.
The Earl of Moray is reported to rake in nearly pound stg. 2m a year from his wind farm in Perthshire; the Duke of Roxburghe is expected to make pound stg. 1.5m a year from his development in the Lammermuir Hills. The Duke of Gloucester has given West Coast Energy permission for a scheme on his Northamptonshire estate that could generate pound stg. 3m over 25 years. Even the Prime Minister's father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, is in on it, making pound stg. 1000 a day in rent in Lincolnshire.
It's enough for a peasants' revolt, but all the landowners seem to care about is whether the blades will interfere with their pheasants.


Paul Howes and THAT promise

As reported by this blog, Paul Howes initially promised: "If one job is gone, our support is gone." 
He then back-tracked, or appeared to back-track on that promise.

Meanwhile jobs have been disappearing even before the tax has hit the fans. Unions members are agitating. Has Mr Howes re-invigorated his promise?

According to Dennis Shanahan in the Australian:
THE Gillard government has been warned that union support will be withdrawn from Labor's campaign to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions if it looks like "one job" will be lost because of the proposed carbon tax.
Australia's biggest manufacturing union has called on the government to urgently release details of its protection for industry and householders under a carbon tax, in the face of a growing workers' revolt on the workshop floor, where union officials are being challenged and jeered for supporting Julia Gillard's plan.
As Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes prepared for a crisis meeting of union officials today to discuss the impact of the carbon tax, he said his union wanted to ensure that "this carbon price won't cost a single job".
Why has Paul Howes done a double back-flip?
But workers' concern about job losses has reached such a critical level that union leaders are warning the government their support is conditional on a more effective political campaign to sell the tax, details of industry protection and guarantees no jobs will be lost.
Mr Howes has this week joined business leaders who believe that there should be greater levels of compensation than those offered in 2009 under the Rudd government's carbon pollution reduction scheme and those on offer now.