I have written here before of the lunacy surrounding the UK Government's Green policy. The policy that pretends that it is 'green' to allow almost unfettered building of onshore and offshore wind farms, even though they will never make any meaningful contribution to the UK's energy needs and, critically, always require fossil fuel or nuclear back-up to supplement those times when the wind doesn't blow or blows too much.
The Sunday Telegraph has reported the following:
Company and Country Projected Annual
subsidy in £million
Vattenfall from Sweden £139.9 million
Dong from Denmark £110.5 million
Scottish Power (Spanish owned) £ 97.7 million
Statkraft from Norway £ 85.3 million
RWE from Germany £ 74.3 million
E.ON from Germany £ 67.6 million
Centrica from UK £ 56.7 million
SSE from UK £ 54.3 million
Fred Olsen from Norway £ 35.7 million
Falck £ 31.8 million
Total for these 10 £753.8 million
The next 5 wind farmers share in a subsidy of £96 million, and so the Top 15 owners receive an annual subsidy of £850 million. Yes, £850 million a year, every year!
This subsidy is funded by all energy users through monthly gas and electricity bills. That is, part of the reason we are seeing almost ever higher utility bills, is not because of the wholesale price of oil or natural gas but because this silent green tax is being collected by our energy suppliers and then handed over to the above companies.
The above subsidy does not take account that to reach the government's target of renewable participation in the energy mix, the volume of wind turbines will need to be a further 3-4 times those already installed.
Don't blame the companies - give them a guaranteed source of revenue and, like any commercial organisation, they will run the numbers and see that it not only makes sense to build these wind farms, it makes VERY good sense.
Oh, and the subsidy on offshore wind farms is double that which is on onshore wind farms.
Please feel free to comment but whatever you do, get onto your MP. This stealth tax will choke us and our children more surely than any CO2 emissions.
The Sunday Telegraph has reported the following:
Company and Country Projected Annual
subsidy in £million
Vattenfall from Sweden £139.9 million
Dong from Denmark £110.5 million
Scottish Power (Spanish owned) £ 97.7 million
Statkraft from Norway £ 85.3 million
RWE from Germany £ 74.3 million
E.ON from Germany £ 67.6 million
Centrica from UK £ 56.7 million
SSE from UK £ 54.3 million
Fred Olsen from Norway £ 35.7 million
Falck £ 31.8 million
Total for these 10 £753.8 million
The next 5 wind farmers share in a subsidy of £96 million, and so the Top 15 owners receive an annual subsidy of £850 million. Yes, £850 million a year, every year!
This subsidy is funded by all energy users through monthly gas and electricity bills. That is, part of the reason we are seeing almost ever higher utility bills, is not because of the wholesale price of oil or natural gas but because this silent green tax is being collected by our energy suppliers and then handed over to the above companies.
The above subsidy does not take account that to reach the government's target of renewable participation in the energy mix, the volume of wind turbines will need to be a further 3-4 times those already installed.
Don't blame the companies - give them a guaranteed source of revenue and, like any commercial organisation, they will run the numbers and see that it not only makes sense to build these wind farms, it makes VERY good sense.
Oh, and the subsidy on offshore wind farms is double that which is on onshore wind farms.
Please feel free to comment but whatever you do, get onto your MP. This stealth tax will choke us and our children more surely than any CO2 emissions.
If only there more people who were energy literate like you we wouldn't be so seduced into funding wind projects!
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that wind energy requires fossil fuel for it's production e.g. the transportation of wind turbines to their destination and get them repaired, not to mention the manufacturing process.
Since the world is finite, there is a good chance that at some point we are going to have to get along with less electricity as well as less oil. Instead of focusing on delaying the inevitable, perhaps we should start thinking about preparing people for simpler lives that use less energy of all types. Such an approach might solve multiple problems at once i.e. too much CO2, too little oil, and too little capital to tackle all the problems that need to be tackled at once.
Not sure about me being energy literate.
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that we need to grasp the nettle of Nuclear energy as the only viable alternative to fossil fuels. My feeling is that instead of addressing how we make this as safe as possible, (and when you look at deaths from nuclear generated power, you see that this industry already has a VERY good safety record), we are being diverted onto energy sources that are flawed and inefficient, as well as being prohibitively expensive.
I have no association with the Nuclear industry but do work within the Oil and Gas industry. The latter gives me some insight into the promise of Shale Gas, which again is a resource (albeit finite) that has a bad press and instead of receiving focus, gets only ignorant grief!
Remember that nuclear energy is like a fossil fuel as uranium is a finite resource. With a new and seeminly plentiful supply of natural gas through shale plays, it makes nuclear even less attractive at the moment as a source of power.
ReplyDeleteThe movie "Gasland" shown on US TV recently has shown the oil and gas industry in a bad light regarding shale gas - making excessive profits at the expense of the environment and human health.
So how would you feel about having a nuclear facility close to where you live?
I have never heard the argument that uranium is in such short supply as to threaten the industry - I will check this out but frankly it doesn't ring true, given all that about half-lives and stuff.
ReplyDeleteIn my view all power plants should be situated much closer to centres of population, and that includes Nuclear, so as to minimise transmission loss.
Since I don't subscribe to the 'all Nuclear power is inherently bad' school of thought, I wouldn't have a problem living close by a Nuclear power plant. Rather that than an old style coal fired one or no power!! I was actually looking at properties in Norfolk Suffolk, recently and Sizewell doesn't seem to have affected prices (nor the wildlife!).
Yes, peak uranium is a concern and is actively discussed, just like Peak Oil.
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled into thinking that peak uranium (or peak oil) necessarily means that we're running out of the stuff. It means our capacity to get the stuff out of the ground is at a peak.
The things shown in Gasland have been widely discredited. The gas from the tap was not the result of shale gas.
ReplyDeleteAlso, peak uranium is decades away.
There was a Japanese effort a few years ago to extract uranium from seawater. It was successful but not commercially viable at the time. When it is viable either through technological advancements or price rises uranium from seawater could supply humanity for billions of years. Also, the cost of the fuel is barely a factor in the cost of nuclear power.
Also, thorium reactors, one of which is being built in India or China at present. are the future. Far less waste as a result and thorium is currently just thrown on gangue piles from mines. We have hundreds of thousands of years of thorium sitting at the surface.
The main problem with nuclear is image, this results in a lack of funding and so no significant progress onto 4th generation reactors has been made in years.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteAs stated earlier, I have an association with the Oil and Gas industry. I have been in this for more than 35 years. I recall, back in the dark days of the 1970's that we were told that oil would run out by the turn of the century. However, technology has given us new finds and allowed access to previously un-tappable and un-reachable resources.
tisphated
My feeling on Nuclear energy is that the biggest problem is the absence of political courage. Politicians of all hues and in so many countries, kick the energy can, down the road. They don't want to address what they know, and their officials keep telling them about, is a long term issue, that will have serious consequences because that will unleash a very vociferous opposition and might affect their chances or re-election. That is, they put personal interest above that of national interest. Sad, but that's human nature. Until Energy Security rises up the political agenda, we will not see much action from politicos.
You are correct Tom, previously untappable and unreachable resources of oil are coming onstream in new frontiers like deepwater, polar, oil shale and tar sands. However, as each new discovery comes on-stream it hardly covers what is being depleted. And crucially, each new discovery is coming at a higher price, a higher risk and greater harm to the environment. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the 29 out of every 30 chinese who don't currently own a car become rich enough to decide whether to go buy one.
ReplyDelete