Debate comment

I managed to watch most of last night's 'Leaders debate' via Sky News.  Hmm!

Is it me or was it basically 6 against one?

We had the leader of the SNP, who isn't even standing for parliament (see here) simply stirring the pot.  She was mainly there to make sure that Red Ed Miliband knows who he will be reporting to, should he enter into any kind of alliance with the SNP.

We had the leader of the Welsh Nationalists who, given a perfect opportunity to attack Labour, over its criminally inept running of the NHS, in Wales, chose not to do so.

We also had the Greens leader, the Australian Natalie Bennett, whose nasal twang failed to hide her extreme left-wing views.  James Delingpole, writing in Watermelons, his brilliantly written expose of the environmentalist movement, called 'greens' Watermelons - green on the outside and red on the inside but Nuttalie Bennett managed to be red all the way through.  Out of politeness, no one mentioned that Brighton town council, the only one run by the Greens, in the UK, now has a worse record on environmental recycling than under the previous regime.

Nigel Farage, from UKIP managed to make every issue link back to immigration and he successfully managed to get across the point that while the UK remains in the European Union, we can do very little to curb immigration from within the EU.

Nick Clegg, until recently, sitting around the Cabinet table with Conservative leader, David Cameron, sought to distance himself from the Tories and make claims of bravery, for the good of the country, etc..

Ed Miliband  pushed his economic idiocy - spend more, borrow more but we won't tax more - and as was to be expected, wrapped himself in the NHS.  As said earlier, he wasn't punished on the shocking state of the NHS in Labour-run Wales and banged on about spending more on the NHS, again and again.  Miliband mentioned the situation where one NHS hospital was treating or assessing people in an emergency tent, erected in a car park.  My own view is that I would rather be examined in a tent in a car park than treated in the Labour run Mid Staffs hospitals where people died unnecessarily because of Labour policy.

David Cameron was located on the edge, both literally and policy-wise.  He was standing on the economic competence of the Conservatives and had a good story to present - tellingly, none of the other parties managed to attack the Tory successes.  Cameron made some good points about all of the other parties wanting to tax, borrow and spend more and, addressing Nick Clegg, his propensity to 'pick and mix' which for Coalition policies he now  professes public support.

The Guardian newspaper, according to the BBC Today programme, (I would never buy the newspaper, I much prefer Andrex) referring to the debates spoke of  UK politics being 'fractured'.  I disagree with the newspaper.  UK politics are not fractured they are split.  We have the Conservatives on one side, providing a right of centre platform and then we have the other six parties, mentioned above, all pushing a platform of more spending - that's what less austerity means - more borrowings and higher taxes.  They all know, even the looniest Green, that taxing the 'rich' will never raise enough tax to pay for all of their welfare policies, and so taxes on the middle classes will have to increase.

This General Election presents the UK with a stark choice - continue taking the Conservative economic medicine which has done much to restore the health of the UK economy or go for any one of the others which will spend , borrow and tax more and will continue to impoverish our children and grandchildren.

There is almost only one choice - vote Conservative or perhaps vote UKIP where they have a chance against Labour.

Green fracking nonsense

Those readers in Britain will likely be aware of the fire that occurred at Ferrybridge C power station, yesterday.  Thankfully, no injuries to persons were recorded.  Britain's energy policy did though take a hit as yet another power station comes off of the grid.

Back in June 2013, I posted here, http://bit.ly/18jFqAB, on the looming power crisis that was facing Britain.  The shutdown of Ferrybridge C, for the 9-12 months it will take to rebuild, will only make the problem worse and heighten the risk of power outages, during the coming winter.

Is shale gas the answer?  Yes, or at least partly.  Be under no illusion though.  Fracking technology has advanced tremendously in recent years and is proving very beneficial to an otherwise anemic American economy, however this won't solve the UK's energy crisis, overnight.

Nor will it be particularly scenic!  For these very extensive gas reserves to be exploited, we will need to put-up with significant numbers of drilling derricks despoiling our landscape.  Before all of the greenies jump up in protest at the ruination of beautiful views etc., please have a care!  Those monstrosities called wind turbines do exactly the same, on the visual harm front but do far less to actually address our energy needs.

The crisis that Britain faces is perhaps now even more acute.  Russia has been flexing its military muscle in Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe and also flexing or at least showing off its energy muscle.  Letting it be known that if Russia is pushed too far, it might have to suspend gas supplies to Western Europe.  Further, the situation with Qatar, the other major supplier of gas to Britain, is not good.  Qatar is 'neck-deep' in funding and supplying terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East and beyond.  As are their near-neighbors but bitter rivals, Iran and Saudi Arabia.  It is easy to foresee a situation where these countries, particularly Qatar, feel the urge to use the gas weapon in furtherance of their extremist agenda.

So a crisis then. 

There are solutions.  They are short, medium and long term but they do require action and unfortunately, such action is not likely to be forthcoming before the outcome of the next UK General Election, in May 2015 (so too late for the coming winter!).  Even then, the solutions will only possibly be implemented if the Conservatives win outright power.  Possibly because pandering to minorities and ignoring the wishes of the majority is a trait that has been seen too often, from the Conservatives in the current coalition.  It is clear though, that Labour and the Lib Dems will not take the necessary actions, as they are so in thrall to the environmentalists within their own ranks and to the lunatics running the European Union asylum.

The solutions? 
Short term.  Cease the shut down programme that is being followed for power stations.  As said in my earlier piece, these shut downs are not driven by economy or utility.  The plants still have a long life of power generation, ahead of them.  The closures and dismantling is purely political and driven to meet idiotic goals set in the lalaland called the European Union.  Gesture politics at its worst!

Reconsider the closure programme for Britain's nuclear facilities.  I am not technically qualified enough to know if these really do have to be shut down or whether, without risk, they can have their lives extended but this does need to be reviewed and the last possible operating life squeezed out of them.

On the subject of nuclear and short term, accelerate the building process and most particularly the planning process.  We cannot allow Hinckley C and other future plants to be subjected to the same level of delay as was seen at Sizewell.

Start exploration drilling and move to development/exploitation drilling for shale gas on a large scale.  This is short to medium term in nature but we need to get going.  Britain's energy future, indeed energy security cannot be held in jeopardy by a minority that oppose drilling on the back of false science.  Just as people have been duped by the so called Global Warming (is that what they are calling it this week?  Or is it Climate Change or something else?) false science but are now seeing through this, so must we expect the government to ignore the nonsense about water table contamination (has only happened in the most extremely rare instance) and earthquakes (really!?) and look for the government to drive through planning applications - so get the Department of Energy and Climate Change to drop all of its drilling delaying tactics - and to support the exploration programmes.  The latter will involve a more robust police presence at these drilling sites.  These protestors simply cannot be allowed to hold-up progress and especially by unlawful acts.  Why is it that a natural resources company requires multiple permits to set-up a drilling location on private land but a bunch of eco-loonies can establish a protest camp on public land without any kind of permission?

Put in place now, long term solutions - that has to mean nuclear!  More power stations must be built and built nearer to urban population centres.  Given how long these take to actually build, once the over-lengthy planning process is passed, we need to start on these sooner rather than later. 

I know that this is 'pie in the sky' wishful thinking but politicians need to have a grown-up conversation with the British people.  The energy facts of life need to be spelled out.  If we don't continue to use existing power stations - conventional gas and coal-fired ones and nuclear - for longer, the lights will go out.  If we don't exploit the natural resources that lie under our soil - the lights will go out.  If we don't accept that 'not in my backyard' cannot continue to be used to oppose necessary energy developments, the lights will go out.  Oh, and it won't just be the lights!  Houses won't be heated, food won't be cooked, baby incubators won't work, air traffic control will shut down, production lines will cease to flow, no more internet, no more cell phones!  You get the picture. 

Going back to the TV pictures from the Ukraine, for a moment, you get a glimpse, when you see such pictures of parts of Eastern Europe, of what life would be like in the green heaven that the eco-loonies wish upon us.  You see people traveling around in horse carts and houses being heated by wood fires.  It might look like some kind of agrarian idyll but I bet that this is not something that most Britons would aspire to or for this to be a future that they would wish upon their children and grand-children.

The 2015 General Election campaign is likely to be dominated by the economy and Britain's relationship with Europe.  Of far greater importance though is the looming energy crisis.  If this isn't addressed, then we will have no economy, to speak of and Europe will be a place most people never get to travel to, anymore!

Hunhe gone - Time for a new 'policy'

Farewell Chris Huhne.  Can't comment on the case, of course (that might be considered perverting the course of justice!) but let's look at the state of UK energy policy, for which his former department is, in large part, responsible.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is very busy promoting the installation of renewable energy sources so as to help the UK reach its self-imposed target of a reduction in carbon emissions (30% of renewables and 40% of low carbon content in electricity by 2020).

They are furthering this aim, which no other industrialised nation is following, by subsidizing renewable energy sources, including Wind Power and Solar Power.

The latter programme took something of a blow last October when the Government announced, with very short notice, that they were halving the level of Feed in Tariff that would be able.  Cue panic from the 'greens' and  the Solar Power installers and a legal challenge which they won (so the reduction delayed).  The Solar Power installers spoke of there being 25,000 jobs at risk because of the government's action.  (Note:  The Solar Power industry employs a total of 25,000 people! - No scare-mongering there then!)

Wind Power projects have been heavily subsidized and generating capacity coming online, has  grown considerably in recent years and this is scheduled to continue and further accelerate in coming years, however, even with this massive and very expensive programme, renewable energy sources will struggle to reach government targets.

Cost of the Wind Power subsidy? There are widely conflicting numbers ranging from  £4-600 up to £1-1,200 per year for each and every family.  It is possible that the variation in the total cost of the subsidy is due to what is and isn't included and so the upper limit may include all energy subsidies.

I have written previously of the dilemma that Wind and Solar power sources produce.  That is, there is a requirement for fossil fuel back-up capacity to cover for the vagaries of the environment.

• Solar Power produces nothing at night!  
• Wind turbines produce nothing when the wind speed is less than 2.5 metres per second (around 5.5 MPH)  and must be switched off when the wind speed is greater than 25 metres per second (around 55 MPH) 

 Per Wikipedia:

On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of April, 2011, the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which also created more hydroelectricity than normal. The grid became overloaded and a transmission fault in the system "meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be cut". Wind farms operators "were paid £900,000 by the National Grid to disconnect their turbines for one night because the electricity was not needed". A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), described this situation as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was needed, adding: "In future we need greater electrical energy storage facilities and greater interconnection with our EU neighbours so that excess energy supplies can be sold or bought where required."

Wikipedia . on the subject of standby capacity continues to inform:

There is some dispute over the necessary amount of reserve or backup required to support the large-scale use of wind energy due to the variable nature of its supply. In a 2008 submission to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, E.ON UK argued that it is necessary to have up to 80–90% backup. National Grid which has responsibility for balancing the grid reported in June 2009 that the electricity distribution grid could cope with on-off wind energy without spending a lot on backup, but only by rationing electricity at peak times using a so-called "smart grid", developing increased energy storage technology and increasing interconnection with the rest of Europe. In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica  told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind.

No one from the 'Green' lobby, seems prepared to comment on how the promotion of Wind and Solar Power can be seen as 'green' when they require such a high level of back-up supply capacity requirement.  Remember that these back-up stations can't just be switched on and off like an electric kettle, to meed the fluctuations in supply from these unreliable sources. 


This same 'Green' lobby is then opposed to the construction of these new fossil fuel power stations (e.g. Kingsnorth) and is strongly opposed the the greenest energy source - Nuclear Power.  Currently Nuclear power accounts for around 18 to 20% of UK needs.  Today this represents around 3 times the volumes  of what Wind and Solar Power are expected to contribute by  2020.

To me it is indisputable that by 2020 and indeed, 2050, we will continue to have a very heavy reliance on Gas, Oil and Coal for the production of energy in the UK.  For me it then follows on, that the focus should be on finding ways to 'capture' the carbon that is produced, rather than this being released into the environment.  I would suggest that this is where any energy subsidy should be directed rather than into inefficient (wind power typically operates at around 20 to 25% of capacity) and expensive  forms of renewable energy.

I would also suggest that, just as in America, the UK should quickly get engaged in the production of Shale Gas (personal interest already declared) and reduce our growing reliance on imported gas.

I welcome comments and particularly from 'Greens' so they can better help me understand the conflict between renewables that must be backed-up with fossil fuels.  
 

Green hypocrisy on energy

The BBC reports:

Green energy campaigners are attempting to block new nuclear power stations in the UK by complaining to the European Commission that government plans contravene EU competition regulations.

They say financial rules for nuclear operators include subsidies that have not been approved by the commission.
These include capping of liability for accidents, which they say at least halves the cost of nuclear electricity.

The government says it is confident that policies do not provide subsidies.
The complaint, by the Energy Fair group, also says that the UK's carbon floor price and feed-in tarriffs amount to state aid for the nuclear industry.

Now consider this.  These same Green energy campaigners are NOT blocking the subsidy that is provided to Wind Farms nor are they blocking the subsidy provided to Solar Panel installations.  This is in spite of the fact that both of these supposedly green policies are in fact not 'green'.

Both of these energy forms require that back-up generating capacity is available and online ALL THE TIME because of the intermittent and therefore unreliable nature of the energy that they produce.  i.e. you have to have a coal, gas, oil or nuclear powered station churning out electricity because wind might not blow or it is night-time!

Hypocrisy is a word that immediately springs to mind when considering the energy 'policy' of the Greens.

Chris Huhne and the climate change acolytes at the DECC are pushing an agenda that will push-up home energy costs while really doing next to nothing to actually reduce our fossil fuel dependency.  They know that wind turbines operate, at best, at less than 30% of capacity


The UK Green Party Manifesto at the last election (2010) had as a stated policy:

We will stop using coal,oil and nuclear power

I think that when they say we, they actually mean ALL of us.  You have been warned!

Incidentally, if you google Energy Fair, there doesn't seem to be such an organisation!?!?  So who is it that is working with a firm of German lawyers?