From the GWPF
At Last: Britain Pulls Plug On Green Energy Boondoggle
The Government Giveth and the Government Taketh Away –-Famous green proverb
Ministers have been accused of destroying 25,000 jobs and “bankrupting a whole industry”, after the Government unveiled plans to slash subsidies for green energy. Hundreds of solar companies are likely to go bust by Christmas after the Department for Energy and Climate Change confirmed it is looking to halve subsidies for new panels. –Rowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 1 November 2011
The row over solar subsidies is the latest manifestation of a long and fierce battle within the government between Chris Huhne’s DECC and George Osborne’s Treasury over the role of green growth in the UK’s economic recovery, made especially pointed by soaring home energy bills. “We may be out of touch with the solar lobby, but we are not out of touch with energy bills,” Barker told parliament on Monday. –Damian Carrington, The Guardian, 31 October 2011
At a time when household savers are struggling to get a 0.5 per cent return on an instant access saving account, some of these renewable energy subsidies – paid in the form of generous payments for the electricity produced, so called feed-in tariffs (FITs) – are guaranteeing annual returns of 10 per cent. It’s one of the biggest wealth transfers – from millions of ordinary hard-working tax payers to a few hundred of the hugely wealthy – in British history. It’s staggeringly unfair and, in the growing opinion of many, totally pointless. –Benny Peiser, Daily Mail, 9 June 2011
The right hon. Lady says that we are out of touch. We may be out of touch with the solar lobby, but we are not out of touch with energy bill payers. She says that they are groaning under a £175 increase, but she wants to put that up. If we did not act now, consumers would face massive increases in energy bills. –-Gregory Barker, Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, House of Commons, 31 October 2011
Silicon Valley’s green geek scenario, which we can date at around 2005-2009 is now gurgling down the WC pan of history. Its elitist and totally unreal notions of extreme high priced electric cars for Nice People Saving the Planet, and designer Low Energy homes for the same Nice People, and nobody else, has gone down the tube. –Andrew McKillop, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 31 October 2011
Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy on Sunday, just a year after the energy storage company received a $43 million loan guarantee from a controversial Department of Energy program. The bankruptcy comes about two months after Solyndra — a solar panel maker with a $535 million loan guarantee — also filed for Chapter 11, creating a political embarrassment for the administration of President Barack Obama, which has championed the loans as a way to create “green energy” jobs. –Reuters, 31 October 2011
Here’s the kicker: Market-driven energy choices are cutting more tons of CO2 in the U.S. than have been cut by wind and solar—even with their billions of dollars in subsidies. Natural gas-fired electricity generation has grown from 15.8 percent of America’s power generation in 2000 to 24.1 percent in the most recent 12-month tally from the Energy Information Administration. That 8.3 percent increase is enough to cut 120 million metric tons of CO2 per year compared to coal. Over the same span, wind- and solar-generated power grew to 2.75 percent of total power generation. That would cut CO2 by 108 million metric tons per year compared to coal power. So over the past decade, hugely subsidized wind and solar have done less to cut CO2 emissions than market-driven natural gas production. –-David Kreutzer, The Foundry, 25 October 2011
In Britain, once in the vanguard of action on climate change, the government is scaling back its green energy investment… Nobody expects a UN climate deal in Durban this year — nor next year, nor the year after. But meanwhile the coal keeps burning. Global production is set to rise by 35 percent in the coming decade, according to industry analysts. The cheapest, most abundant and dirtiest of all the fossil fuels is extending its grip on the world’s energy supply system. And nowhere more so than just up the coast from Durban. –Fred Pearce, The Guardian, 31 October 2011
We have to put shale in the context of other energy sources in order to convey a comparative analysis of the environmental impact. People forget the environmental costs of coal mining or oil exploration; nuclear also has its own risks. Natural gas is a form of energy that falls into the low risk category. Can the green lobby win the shale debate over environmental objections? I don’t think it can. Ten or 20 years ago it could have won when governments were willing to burn billions, but the economic climate has changed, we’re facing the biggest crisis in decades. No government in the world would give up this opportunity, not even the British government, which is very green indeed. –Benny Peiser, Natural Gas Europe, 25 October 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you get a green government grant to buy a new LNG or electric bus (at 2 or 3 x the cost of the diesel), the bus driver’s job counts as a green job.
It use to be scientists were trying to find ways to detect “black holes” – stars so dense that no light could escape.
There’s a new fear – the “green hole”. An energy scheme so bad tht no gov’t money can escape.
If they could find a way to harness the energy of billions of dollars being sucked into a “green hole”, the world’s energy problems would be solved.
You could compare a black hole’s “gravitational singularity” to the issuance of a federal loan guarantee…
Unreadable post; an attempt to cover broad subjects and solve the worlds ills in one sitting …
(If you don’t mind some criticism.)
.
MIT says ‘control’ this may actually result in an UNSTABLE grid, article excerpt:
.
George Monbiot 2010:
Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off?
“Plans for the grid feed-in tariff suggest we live in southern California. And at £8.6bn, this is a pricey conceit with little benefit”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff
A Great Green Rip-Off
“The feed-in tariffs about to be introduced here are extortionate, useless and deeply regressive.”
http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/01/a-great-green-rip-off/
All of this lunacy is predicated on the disgraceful UK Climate Change Act, that mandates idiotic reductions in CO2 emissions. UK readers – please sign the epetition to repeal it, and send a clear message to the government:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2035
And please – anybody who knows how to get this into the UK MSM please do so!
Hi
I live in a village in Hampshire, UK, where recently an estate of council owned old people’s bungalows have suddenly recently all been treated to solar pv panels. I wonder if the council had a tip off that the FIT was going to be cut?
After I had driven by the estate several times, something niggled me about the installations. All the bungalows next to the road have a north south roof ridge line and the installers had sited the pv panels on the East facing slope, also shaded by overhanging trees. By 11.00am the roofs were in shadow! The installer must be laughing all the way to his holiday home in the Bahamas
What a waste of my council tax! and also what an indictment of a government that pays a 25 year index linked subsidy raised out of my taxes!:-
* Generation tariff – your energy supplier will pay you a set rate for each unit (or kWh) of electricity you generate. Once your system has been registered, the tariff levels are guaranteed for the period of the tariff (up to 25 years) and are index-linked . For a full list of generation tariffs, see FIT payment rates published by the Government
* Export tariff – you will get a further 3.1p/kWh from your energy supplier for each unit you export back to the electricity grid, so you can sell any electricity you generate but don’t use yourself. This rate is the same for all technologies. At some stage smart meters will be installed to measure what you export, but until then it is estimated as being 50% of the electricity you generate.
Patrick (grumpy old man)
There is a photovoltaic solar park near me and what seems to be quite logical is that all the panels are facing south and inclined at the same angle. Yet all the trees around here have leaves equally spaced throughout 360 degrees that are not inclined to face the sun.
Are we missing a trick?
I do take issue with the continued reference to the installation of solar panels by only the “hugely wealthy”. Our family are not wealthy, my husband has no pension and mine is near worthless due to the recent decline of the stock market. So when the Government offer a return on any savings that far outstrips any currently available I would be a fool not to take it and guarantee at least some income well into my retirement. I will be installing Solar Panels prior to the December cut-off.. If successive Governments are hell bent on destroying the economy on which my pension is dependent then I most certainly will take advantage of every stupid thoughtless policy of theirs. The installation would pay for itself within 4 years. I have no intention of being unable to pay my energy bills when I am retired.
Gail Combs says:
November 1, 2011 at 10:52 am
Richard111 says:
November 1, 2011 at 10:18 am
I am surprised this report has not had a mention yet.
http://www.suite101.com/news/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory-a394975
__________________________________
Great!
———————————-
It’s disappeared. It immediately switches to front page and the site search brings one general article on satellites.
Green contagion in the making. How long before Al Gore files for bankruptcy?
P.S. to my post November 1, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Skullduggery at work here too:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8573
John O’Sullivan: New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory
Monday, October 31st 2011
John Sullivan captured the original map from the tv screen, but this has now been changed at source which discovered when someone else went to look for it. Seems three of the maps no longer available and the colours which have been changed on the map now ‘official’.
All in a day’s work for the those re-writing history..
Spector says:
November 1, 2011 at 11:52 am
On a related issue, here is a video of a House of Lords session where, in response to a question presented by Baroness Angela Smith of Basildon, the Government explains why they must put the development of Thorium Nuclear Energy in the background as they restart their Nuclear Energy program after a 25-year pause.
====================================================================
The problem with Thorium is the “ium”. As in “Uranium”, “Plutonium”, etc. If it ends in “ium” it’s patently dangerous according to the anti-ium’s. ; )
Myrrh says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:29 pm
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8573
==========================================
Myrrh, is that for real??
“”Myrrh says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:14 pm””
Myrrh, you are right! The article I linked to has gone! If you Google IBUKU satellite you will get a lot of hits mentioning it. GREENIE WATCH has a copy but points to the same missing link.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon.html
I wonder what on earth is going on?
“Too close for comfort?”
“Energy firm NextEra — led by Lewis Hay, a member of the president’s jobs council — has a stake in projects that have reaped nearly $2 billion in loan guarantees from Washington, in a case that raises conflict-of-interest concerns as the same jobs council pushes for more ‘government-backed’ investment in renewable energy.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/01/jobs-panel-member-whose-solar-firm-won-2b-loan-raises-conflict-interest/
I read in the UK newspapers that opportunists are travelling the country dismantling monuments to the fallen in order to sell the metal as scrap. They would make a bigger killing going around stealing solar panels off houses and would not antagonise the population so much (Only the homeowners and the local constabulary).
Brian Johnson uk says:
November 1, 2011 at 9:36 am
The subsidies for wind will not drop as the Prime Minister’s Father-in-Law has invested heavily in wind power and the Queen gets massive amounts from ‘owning’ the UK seabed out to 12 miles.
“They will net up to £37.5 million extra income every year from the drive for green energy because the seabed within Britain’s territorial waters is owned by the Crown Estate.”
Actually; the income from the Crown Estates goes into the Exchequer (Government money in other words) – the Civil List (which funds the entire Royal Family and assorted hangers on etc) amounts to around 15% of the Crown Estate Income. SO the Royal Family actually cost us NOTHING (bet you lot over the pond are jealous – our head of state not only pays for herself and her entire entourage but then kicks in over 5 times MORE to the cost of Government … )
So it’s the GOVERNMENT that gets the income – and it doesn’t show up as Tax income either.
There was a recent Bloomberg article that said in the last 4 years investors have poured $560 billion into ‘clean’ energy tech start ups, without producing a single ‘winner’.
That kind of track record makes the dotcom bubble look prudent.
It was inevitable that reality would bite sooner or later. A most welcome development.
As for those whingeing about it, I have no sympathy. They were ridiculously naive to think that an unsustainable and ultimately increasingly unaffordable subsidy could last indefinitely or that it was somehow set in stone.
Such a ridiculous subsidy can only cause long, or a least medium term harm to an economy and it’s people by hindering he development of more appropriate technologies.
@ur momisugly Myrrh, Gail Combs
I assume you are referring to the JAXA satellite showing that the developed World is not after all a co2 baddy.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8573&linkbox=true&position=1
Richard111 says:
November 1, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Myrrh, you are right! The article I linked to has gone! If you Google IBUKU satellite you will get a lot of hits mentioning it. GREENIE WATCH has a copy but points to the same missing link.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon.html
I wonder what on earth is going on?
======================================
Richard, chiefio has it…..along with more charts
If this it true, it’s a deal breaker…..doesn’t matter if you believe in global warming or not
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
RS says (November 1, 2011 at 10:56 am): “Beacon had business problems of too much leverage and too late cash flow, not a fundamentally useless product.”
Whatever the merits of Beacon’s product, I think we can both agree that government has no business picking winners or (in this case) losers. For some strange reason, taxpayer money usually goes to firms with the best political connections, not the best business plans. Go figure.
Richard111 says:
November 1, 2011 at 10:18 am
I am surprised this report has not had a mention yet.
http://www.suite101.com/news/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory-a394975
__________________________________
Myrrh says:
November 1, 2011 at 1:14 pm
It’s disappeared. It immediately switches to front page and the site search brings one general article on satellites.
__________________________
Well if any one wondered whether the CAGW censors keep track of the discussion on WUWT we now have the answer!
Alternate source: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=025_1320063001
Unfortunately it does not have the map but it does have the name of the paper.
Gail….here’s the map
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/2011/CO2%20Third%20World__540x292.jpg