‘Obscene’ windfarm subsidies revealed

Date: 16/04/21 Press Release, Global Warming Policy Forum

The Global Warming Policy Forum has condemned what it called the “obscenity” of windfarm subsidies and has called for a complete rethink of energy policy.

GWPF research has shown that just six offshore windfarms are now sharing £1.6 billion pounds in subsidies between them every year. Three receive annual subsidies of over a quarter of a billion pounds each year. On a single day in April last year, Hornsea 1 received a subsidy payment of nearly £1.5 million pounds.

UK offshore windfarm subsidies 2020

The level of subsidy is sufficient to cover the construction cost of these windfarms in just six or seven years, meaning that future payments will represent almost pure profit for the operators.

The cost of the Contracts for Difference regime is accelerating, and rose by £0.7 billion last year alone, reaching £2.3 billion in 2020. Consumers are already paying out £6 billion under the Renewables Obligation and another £1 billion under the Capacity Market.

Direct subsidies therefore amount to an annual payment from each household of £350, a sum that is rising by at least £25 per year.  

Wind payments CFDs

There are further bills to pay too, because windfarms are causing destabilisation of the electricity grid. The cost of the Balancing Mechanism, which deals with grid imbalances, is rising rapidly, costing each household £65 per year, a figure that is rising at a rate of £20 per year.

And the consumer is having to pay for upgrades to the electricity grid too.

Lord Lawson, GWPF director, said:

We are in the middle of an economic crisis and consumers are hit with astronomical costs for unreliable wind energy. These multi-billion subsidies are not only a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, but are damaging the UK economy as a whole. This madness has to stop.”

Full press release here.

5 35 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Philip Mulholland
April 17, 2021 6:14 am

Time for the quote from Pretty Woman:

Just how obscene an amount of cash are we talking about here? Profane or really offensive?

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
April 17, 2021 6:27 am

We can add wood-chip transported all the way across Atlantic to Drax Yorkshire’s power station. Every single day 15 long trains from Liverpool trundle across country taking the stuff to be burnt releasing tones of soot and CO2 every hour.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Radun
April 17, 2021 6:50 am

There is a difference. Drax wasnt built to harvest subsidy. It was built to be the UK’s single biggest power station burning coal. It has been and cointinues to be a source or reliable baseload energy.

It spent millions converting to waste and wood firing on the understanding it would get a grant for this. It never did.

All it gets are some carbon credits.

I am sure come the revolution, it can be used as a power generating crematorium for extinction rebellion members who have died of shock

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 17, 2021 7:32 am

One day it will be converted again to burn gas hopefully Norwegian unless Putin gives us good discount.

Reply to  Vuk
April 17, 2021 8:37 am

I think the proposals to convert Drax to gas have been shelved…

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2021 3:23 am

they can be UNshelved pdq Id bet

Reply to  Vuk
April 17, 2021 11:28 pm

It was burning coal. It can’t be converted to gas.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Harryagain
April 18, 2021 9:50 am

Why not, here in Alberta we are converting all our coal plants to gas.
It’s not rocket surgery, you are just boiling water, water doesn’t care where the heat comes from, a thermal plant is a thermal plant

Now a gas turbine generator is different, that can only burn gas

Last edited 1 year ago by Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Harryagain
April 21, 2021 5:56 am

Drivel back at ya. Steam-cycle coal plants can and are converted to steam-cycle gas.

Last edited 1 year ago by beng135
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 17, 2021 10:10 am

Extinction Rebellion members should set the example and make themselves extinct. Only then would they would be true believers.

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 17, 2021 1:38 pm

Leo, ‘all (Drax) gets is some carbon credits’. Really? If you mean by some’, you mean approx £200 million in carbon credits, you might be getting warm? You’ve also conveniently forgotten the £800 million + in direct biomass subsidies Drax received from HMG in 2020 alone. And, of course, because the millions of tons of co2 produced annually at Drax are deemed green and fluffy, officially, they don’t exist.

Richard Mann
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 17, 2021 5:10 pm

Quoting “Drax wasnt built to harvest subsidy.”. Why does UK include in the their Green energy reporting then? When you take away Biomass suddenly UK Green energy contribution looks very low.

patrick healy
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 18, 2021 10:43 am

Yes Leo, Brax was built on top of one of the biggest coal seams in England – enough to power Brax for 600 years or so.
Hopefully in 600 years posterity will look back and wonder at our stupidity.

Reply to  Radun
April 17, 2021 8:37 am

Drax should be shut down: that’s the view of all UK green and environmental groups in the UK and I’m pleased to see Watts readers supporting that.

Drax isn’t green or renewable.

Jeroen B.
Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 9:07 am

“Drax isn’t green or renewable.”

Neither are the windfarms. But at least Drax can do what they cannot, and never will be able to: produce reliable, stable power.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeroen B.
Matthew Bergin
Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 9:28 am

No Griff Drax should be converted back to coal. It is the only sensible solution.

David A
Reply to  Matthew Bergin
April 17, 2021 3:00 pm

It’s would be much better to import the necessary steady state coal power, with transmission losses and all, and pay more for less, while locals lose work, and receive government funding instead of paying taxes. Ya, that’s the ticket.

Last edited 1 year ago by David A
John Bell
Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 9:30 am

Drax is green, the C02 makes the earth greener, lusher, healthier.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 11:59 am

Of course wood is green and renewable energy and it’s baseload. Those that hate wood pellets prefer to destroy forests to install solar and wind “farms”. The fact that the UK green and enviro groups are too stupid to understand this is nothing to brag about. Some Watts readers also don’t like wood energy but not many.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 17, 2021 7:39 pm

I have no problem with wood chip burning but they should pay the CO2 residence time to be totally fair.

Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 12:07 pm

griff, do you have one of those dog-fence devices on that gives you a jolt every time you get within 10 feet of a calculator?

Naah, nevermind, give us your WAG about how blighting the English countryside is going to affect the the Keeling Curve.

Take your time. I know the answer.

Last edited 1 year ago by philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 2:40 pm

Shut down Drax, sure

Grid would lose yet another RELIABLE ELECTRICITY supply (wood from the USA)

Even more ERRATIC and unstable grid.

Even more RELIANCE on GAS.

Also, the amount classed as “renewables” would drop significantly 😉

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Richard Mann
Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 5:11 pm

Hey, I agree with Griff. WTF?
Let’s stop Biomass, Wind and Solar. Stop them all.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  griff
April 17, 2021 5:22 pm

No, it should burn coal and provide reliable energy for many years. That’s what most readers think.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2021 1:32 pm

that’s the view of all UK green and environmental groups”

Can’t find a more frivolous silly bunch than that…
giffie’s proud of that ignorance!

Richard Mann
Reply to  Radun
April 17, 2021 5:08 pm

Watch Michael Moore planet of the humans.
See that these low temperature incinerators burn wood chips along with railway ties, treated wood, and who knows what else.
All over America.
And in UK this counts as “renewable energy”. They brag a big number, but most of their Green is biomass.
Stop the lies.

Al Miller
Reply to  Richard Mann
April 17, 2021 7:27 pm

If they had to stop lying it would get awfully quiet wouldn’t it! (rhetorical)

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
April 17, 2021 10:30 am

In 2002, we published three major points (below) – everything you really needed to know about global warming, climate and energy. This is what true energy-and-climate experts KNEW decades ago.

Global warming / climate change hysteria was always intended to create false alarm for political and financial gain – “You’re all gonna burn up from global warming!!!” – wolves stampeding the sheep.

Electrical ratepayers around the world have been fleeced of tens of trillions of dollars to pay for intermittent, diffuse green energy schemes – green scams that are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy.

The reality is that no rational person could be this deluded, this wrong, for this long. Where do you think these squandered trillions are going?

Green politicians are receiving enormous under-the-table bribes to perpetuate these wind-and-solar scams – follow the money – nobody could be this stupid for this long.

Regards, Allan

In 2002, co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U, Ottawa and Allan MacRae, P.Eng. (now retired), McGill, Queens, U of Alberta, wrote:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002:
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
Allan MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013:
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

April 17, 2021 4:39 pm

“The reality is that no rational person could be this deluded, this wrong, for this long.” 

In Ontario, after a full year of covid-19 disruption, ending subsidies, invoking force majeure to cancel contracts, or relying on the ‘common law doctrine of frustration’ are options that will need to be considered.

April 17, 2021 6:15 am

weird, this is one of the articles right below this.

Britain pulls the plug on solar subsidies.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…
November 1, 2011

Guess solar was not bribing the lawmakers good enough.

Reply to  astonerii
April 17, 2021 6:23 am

I’m thinking that the word “lawmakers” should be an oxymoron — or least re-label them as corruptionmakers.

Leo Smith
Reply to  astonerii
April 17, 2021 6:52 am

Out of the EU, we no longer have to conform to ‘renewable obligations’ …the political game is to make as much noise about green energy as possible whilst doing as little as we can get away with to implement it.

Windmills off shore are far more virtue signalled for the same money as solar panels.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 17, 2021 9:19 am

Out of the EU has only cut out the middle man/messenger. The real source of these mandates is the UN. In the EU or out will make no real difference in environmental issues.

Richard Page
Reply to  astonerii
April 17, 2021 7:12 am

I believe that, subsequently, BoJo reversed that decision and the subsidies are flowing once again.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  astonerii
April 17, 2021 9:50 am

Solar energy in the UK is like setting up an ice cube vending machine in an Inuit village.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robert W Turner
April 17, 2021 6:28 am

When obscene amounts of “free” money are tossed about people will do obscene things to get some.

Richard (the cynical one)
April 17, 2021 6:33 am

You just don’t stop supporting the True Religion, now. That would be the unforgivable sin of apostasy.

Phil Rae
April 17, 2021 6:35 am

And between them, Boris Johnston and Nicola Sturgeon continue to sing the praises of “renewable energy”! Sturgeon, of course, revels in the fact that much of the subsidy for this ridiculous, inefficient and unreliable energy source comes principally from the largesse of the UK Government and the deep pockets of ignorant consumers who are given the impression, by government and media propaganda, that wind and solar power are cheaper and more efficient that dirty, nasty coal and natural gas.

What a travesty! I wish the people would wake up and see this scam for what it actually is. Meanwhile, the utility companies, the turbine manufacturers, landowners and financiers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Phil Rae
April 17, 2021 6:53 am

I dont care how much they sing its praises as long as they dont spend my money on it

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Phil Rae
April 17, 2021 4:39 pm

The UK government, or indeed any government, has no money. It’s taxpayers’ money.

old construction worker
Reply to  Phil Rae
April 19, 2021 5:38 pm

I remember an WUWT article about a Spain solar panel installer/operator having lights generated at night which shined on the panels lowering the “rate” charged to consumers. It was one of “you said the consumer’s rate would be this but it’s much higher” thing.

Steve Case
April 17, 2021 7:27 am

At night, the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind usually doesn’t blow:
Zero/calm winds at Zero Dark Thirty is a common occurrence.

Pat from kerbob
April 17, 2021 7:31 am

As per Griff, these are not subsidies they are penance.

Mark E Shulgasser
April 17, 2021 7:48 am

Wish someone would weigh this out for, say, California, Texas, NY plans, etc. Also add comparative existing energy costs, and a smattering of what might be better uses for the money?

Reply to  Mark E Shulgasser
April 17, 2021 8:13 am

Government has lots of money and if they run out then they make more.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Derg
April 17, 2021 4:39 pm

The UK government, or indeed any government, has no money. It’s taxpayers’ money.

April 17, 2021 7:54 am

Just to rub it in winter has been, er, extended this year.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 17, 2021 8:34 am

A £billion here, a £billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

With a tip of the hat to former US Senator Everret Dirksen.

April 17, 2021 8:39 am

The UK is mortgaging it’s future away to combat a non-existent problem and to think the Biden administration wants that for America.

This is getting more inane an insane by the day.

Please share this article with our legislators.

Reply to  S.K.
April 17, 2021 9:28 am

Bear in mind no politician or political party has ever asked the people what they think

No climate action has been in their manifestos

Parliament decides

April 17, 2021 8:51 am

Nations need placebo wind turbines that allow for all the virtue-signaling at a fraction of the cost.

Reply to  BallBounces
April 17, 2021 9:29 am

With the CoP on the horizon Doris ha been furiously waving his arms

John Pickens
April 17, 2021 8:53 am

Will nobody ever require wind turbine and solar PV providers to demonstrate that they actually create enough energy to reproduce themselves during their operating lifetime?

I challenge anyone to show me a “renewable” manufacturer using solely wind or solar power to run their plants.

They are like unicorns, they don’t exist.

Prove me wrong.

April 17, 2021 9:40 am

As I have pointed out, several times, to great objections from those who have been promised too much, cold fusion is about to work, and be profitable. Actually, it is not fusion, more like de-fusion, but no matter. Steven Krivit’s “lost History” explains the early stages, but several researchers are now successfully working on plasma-based disassembly to hydrogen into electrons and/or other EMF emanations. BrilliantLight is one example. How long will it take for these (poorly funded and sometimes miss-directed) researchers to get it right?
The writing on the wall for Wind Turbines is no longer than three (3) years off.
Do not waste time down-voting something you do not understand nor hope for.

Reply to  Enginer01
April 17, 2021 10:52 am

Don’t waste our time hyping unicorns. Are you trying to unload your worthless stock or hype that company for a pump-and-dump?

Reply to  PCman999
April 17, 2021 12:07 pm

Actually, I’m trying to inform people on a moderately sophisticated blog that have been sold and are being sold a load of manure. As others have told you, Hot Fusion, the INTER boondoggle, has and is still an immense waste of resources that could be better used to develop plasma physics. I’m not talking about coherent matter waves, a la’ T. E. Bearden, or even the failings of string String Theory. Just simple high frequency EMF-activated energy from the proton. A CRUDE, not quite worthless version of which is being patented by the U, S. Navy, ‘way behind the picometric theories and plasma-activation of today is US Patent App
OK. So the U S Navy is just a big floating junkyard full of targets for Hyper missiles, yet even our old nuclear submarines are still dangerous, and will be even more so when they get off this silly LENR kick and learn to use Zero Point Energy.

Reply to  Enginer01
April 17, 2021 2:05 pm

Do read Mills and Boon as well ?

Reply to  Enginer01
April 18, 2021 2:06 pm

Independent applicants who allegedly designed this on company time using government equipment
So, the applicants claim that the US Government may use their patent freely.

Not approved by the Navy.
Not approved by any branch of the US Government.
Not paid for by any branch of US Government.

In fact, as I read their admissions, the government can sue/charge them for malfeasance and back wages along with any costs borne by the government in fixing what they were supposed to be accomplishing during their workdays.

Also tote that your link is to an application!
Not a Patent!

Lots of companies have pulled that dodge, manufacturing items with “patent pending” long past when their application is finally denied.

Last edited 1 year ago by ATheoK
Reply to  Enginer01
April 17, 2021 2:04 pm

Poor FANTASY Engineer.

Tell you what….

…why don’t you take your fantasies elsewhere,

and come back WHEN IT ACTUALLY EXISTS !!

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Enginer01
April 18, 2021 9:08 am

now successfully working on plasma-based disassembly to hydrogen into electrons and/or other EMF emanations. BrilliantLight is one example.

Please don’t insult our intelligence by posting further on this. BLP has been claiming since the late 90s that they were about to commercialize this and have still yet to produce a working prototype or demonstration.
It is 100% pseudoscience that has been debunked by any physicist that has bothered to investigate the ludicrous claims.

April 17, 2021 9:41 am

The worst part for the U.S. has been that the left has redefined the word subsidy after the fact. Subsidy used to mean money handed to a group from the government. Now the Democrats call those disbursements, while their definition of subsidies include both disbursements and any tax deductions used by a company they want to disparage – even if those deductions are used by every single company in every single industry. That way they can claim that oil is getting huge subsidies, even thought the government collects more profit from each gallon than the oil companies.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ted
April 17, 2021 4:46 pm

Much more.

I was recently on Norfolk Island, where fuel has to be shipped in from thousands of miles away and pumped to shore via floating pipes. With only 1700 people, the scale is not economic.

My travel companions were surprised that petrol was only AU$2 per litre, as opposed to about AU$1.30 in Australia. The reason is that even doubled, the cost of fuel itself is small compared to what the government takes in taxes.

Reply to  Ted
April 18, 2021 2:22 pm

You are missing quite a bit.

Taxes and additional charges against fossil fuels are considered subsidies to fossil fuels in lieu of the prices leftists believe they should be charged

Taxes and charges against renewables, what little there are, are considered subsidies towards fossil fuels.

Government costs to research renewables is charged against fossil fuels as subsidies. Most of Department Of Energy’s costs for their research facilities are included in that total.

Tax deductions are only one for of tax reduction. All tax reductions or considerations regarding fossil fuels are charged against fossil fuels as ‘subsidies’.

Years ago, subsidy origins and details were freely available. Now the EIA and IEA go to great lengths to disguise/hide what constitutes a renewable.

In addition, home consumers installed renewables, solar, wind turbines, geothermal are not tracked by government agencies.
Whatever capability those installations had are estimated by government, forever; at 100% of nameplate capability.

Johnny Cuyana(@cuyana2000)
April 17, 2021 9:42 am

Yes, I understand that this particular article is about the UK but we here in the USA have very similar MASSIVE faux “GREEN” corruption. [Note: there is NO SUCH ANIMAL as “green energy”! The notion of “green energy” is part and parcel of BIG LIE propaganda, intended to dupe and deceive the freeborn citizen … with the objective of achieving a greater FASCISTIC command and Kontrol.]

For my one vote [and perhaps for those of many in my family, neighbors and etc] I believe in taxation — of, by, and for the PEOPLE, based on the LAWS of THE PEOPLE; but, not taxation as determined by the $BIG $DOLLAR lobbyists — and I believe in a strong National Federal govt, where, according to our Fed Constitution, the primary purpose of this govt is to DEFEND THE NATION; however, such immoral subsidies — which, among MANY OTHER ITEMS, are mentioned NOT AT ALL in our Fed Constitution — are a prime example of why we here in the USA need to ELIMINATE the MASSIVE corruption realized currently in our CENTRALISED IRA … and DECENTRALIZE much of what the Fed Govt does currently.

Instead, ALL TAXES need to be collected ONLY by separate tax entities in each of the respective 50 States — IOW: no centralized national IRS — where such “individual State” structure will better ensure a more efficient collection of taxes, because, a truer FREE MARKET competition between all of these States will incentivize same; where each State will then contribute its proportional share of the AGREED-TO Fed Govt budget.

Will such a structure be perfect? Of course not, but, MOST LIKELY, it will be much more efficient and democratic than our current FASCISTIC practices. All such efficiencies will be dependent upon the degree to which WE The People can understand and put into place a FREE MARKET economy and FREE MARKET govt; where favor and fear are NOT the primary motivators; where, rather, a fairer and more equal application of our laws will be more the order of the day.

I would not be in favor of going “cold turkey”; that is, tomorrow morning eliminating the IRA — maybe eliminating the 16th Amendment — but, over a period of 5-10 years, to transition to this type of decentralization.

Such will lead to a FREER and FAIRER open competition; which, in turn, will motivate individual citizens, corporations and etc to adhere to the original fundamental American principles and values — as expressed clearly in our DOI — which, for a nation of moral freeborn citizens, were intended and designed by our Founders and Framers.

If we are to preserve our fundamental American democracy — as intended by our Founders and Framers — such a transition to a more open free market and democratic process will be one of the keys. We cannot continue much longer with the continuation of our current self-serving oppressive centralized JUDAS govt.

Last edited 1 year ago by Johnny Cuyana
Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
April 17, 2021 1:30 pm

Most of society’s problems have been created by the destruction of free markets.

Many, if not most, of these problems can be solved with a return to free markets.

Those in power power fear free markets because they can’t control the outcome.

Government health care means that existing insurance companies are protected from competition and don’t need to provide a better and cheaper service.
Labor unions reduce competition in the labor markets. Closed shop labor can produce shoddy work and still get paid for it. Subsidies mean business doesn’t need to make viable reinvestments and innovate to stay ahead of the competition. Eliminate the subsidy and most of the corruption goes away.

This need to control the outcome has now masticated to controlling the outcomes of elections. Because there is so much power and money on the table, controlling the outcomes of elections has become a big business. Only one politician has been successful at standing up to this monster. That is why he had to go.

Robert W Turner
April 17, 2021 9:46 am

Mercantile economics of the Colonial Period has made a strong comeback in the past 50 years with the emergence of environmental activism. Profiting off environmentalism is the biggest scheme since the Mississippi Scheme.

Jean Parisot(@jeanparisot)
April 17, 2021 10:42 am

Once the CO2 hysteria passes, are the operators under an obligation to remove these navigation hazards.

Reply to  Jean Parisot
April 17, 2021 12:10 pm

I hope some of them actually have to pay reparations, go to jail even for the fraud.

Dennis G Sandberg
April 17, 2021 12:37 pm

So facts don’t matter in the UK, not just the USA. No one ever said that liberals and their “we’re not interested in facts only the truth” didn’t have consequences. Too bad about that birth defect with no known cure. The struggle continues.

April 17, 2021 1:31 pm

That’s for GB, now look at Steyerland California and the Neues DDR Germany. Too bad we don’t have journalists for this anymore.

Kit P
April 17, 2021 5:34 pm

Subsidies is a complicated subject. The power industry pays huge amounts into goverment in the form of taxes and gets a small amount back from goverment.

In the US, there are many old power plants that run on wood waste. In the ‘good old days’ areas around timber industries has bad air quality from open burning of waste wood. When that waste wood is burned cleanly to make electricity, air quality improves.

In the US, there is an infinite supply of waste biomass. There are few profitable ways to use it

For the sake of argument, assume 30% of US electricity comes from nuclear, biomass, and wind. How much higher would the price of natural gas be if that other generation did not generation?

It is a simple fact that the capital cost of building gas fired power plants is much less. Just pass the fuel cost on to customers.

I have also noticed hindsight is often just as bad a foresight. People either forget or do not bother to learn the reasons things were done at the time.

Forty years later, biomass power plants turned out to be a good thing. Wind turbines were not.

Many say that TMI killed the nuclear industry. When my first nuke went commercial, the utility’s large oil fired power was put in standby. Demand for electricity was booming when many nukes plants were ordered. Ten years later thing had changed and nuke plants were cancelled because they were not needed.

I do not have a problems providing incentives to promote a diverse source of electricity. Hopefully Bush era wind turbines will do better than those from Carter.

Wind power to moderate the cost of natural gas I think is a good idea. I think nuclear is a better idea. Doing both even better.

Climate change is just a smoke screen.

Reply to  Kit P
April 17, 2021 9:42 pm

It is all about far left politics and they have cunningly gained the support of too many gullible woke fools who were elected to look after the best interests of we the people.

Even when UN Official Christiana Figureres admitted in October 2015 (and other leftists have also done) that climate change is all about getting rid of the free market capitalist system the politicians, and far too many of them could not run a business for profit, cling to the hoax.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Kit P
April 18, 2021 9:39 am

How does wind power moderate the cost of natural gas?
Building a second generation system saves money?
Wind does not back up gas, gas backs up wind
If you burned gas for 100% of your power that cost of gas increases yes
But consistent operation generates its own savings
And not building a second generating system saves trillions

I cannot see any economic way to justify building any wind

Last edited 1 year ago by Pat from kerbob
April 17, 2021 9:36 pm

As US billionaire investor Warren Buffett said, without the subsidies nobody would invest into renewables. Wind and solar are inefficient and not cost effective.

April 17, 2021 11:27 pm

Unfortunately, there is no alternative. At some point fossil fuels will run out.
Even before that, the cost of fossil fuel will rise exponentially.
So, we have to be prepared, it will take decades which is why they have to be subsidised right now,

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Harryagain
April 18, 2021 8:56 am

We can have all the oil and gas we want for the next 100+ years. Despite constant doom & gloom, the only reason oil reserves (what can be produced economically) ever drop is a precipitous drop in prices (like last year).
By that time we can transition (if needed) to other dispatchable sources like advanced nuclear and hopefully fusion.
And all of that is not to mention Coal – of which we have hundreds of years of reserves.

Solar and Wind will only ever be an expensive niche option if the full costs (including 100% backup) are calculated.

Remember, the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. Similarly, the oil age will end when we find something better and more efficient. Not because we run out of oil. Giving extensive subsidies to uneconomical energy sources will not make them economical.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 19, 2021 2:22 pm

Agree……”Solar and Wind will only ever be an expensive niche option if the full costs (including 100% backup) are calculated.”
How many countries can really afford to be inefficient and subsidize an “expensive niche option”…especially after a year of covid-19 financial damage.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Harryagain
April 18, 2021 9:34 am

We have real problems that are not going to be addressed as we flush trillions$$ of wealth for nothing, that is the point

If you are going to subsidize something, make it something actually useful, nuclear.

Imagine how much natural gas we can save for other purposes?

Lurker Pete
April 18, 2021 1:44 am

The future is dim, the future isn’t green either.

UK Gov plans to scrap gas central heating boilers for home heating too, mandating a replacement with heat pumps, that’ll be inefficient air source for the most part. The mandate includes making it illegal to sell your home unless it complies with this level of ‘eco efficiency’ also making it illegal for mortgage companies to aprove a home loan, mortage, or remortgage without a suitable eco efficiency certificate.

It’s not a simple case of swapping out the boiler either, the lower heat generated means all radiators or UFH has to be replaced with larger radiators or closer spaced UFH piping

Average cost estimated at somewhere between £9000-£30,000 (they have already scrapped the subsidy scheme)

Our place is in the ideal localcation for a water source heat pump, the legislation proved just too difficult to negotiate without a specialist (who wanted £8k for the paperwork) total cost estimates were in excess of £40k – the new oil boiler we chose instead, UFH and storage tank cost a shade under £5k

As if the electricity grid could cope with the demand of this madness, let alone the extra demand of ‘e-vehicles’.

The future isn’t just dim, it’s going to be cold, and indebted too.

April 18, 2021 7:10 am

How about how much those EIGHT HUNDRED turbines going in around my cabin are netting the rich ranchers and the rich power execs. It’s a GOLD RUSH and there’s no stopping GREED. Destroy the planet, sure. Give up the cash, NEVER.

April 18, 2021 8:33 am

Cheap intermittents (a better name than “renewables”) is a pure lie.
Always has been, always will be.

Nuclear in the form of advanced small modular reactors is waiting in the wings.
After all the alternatives have been exhausted, electricity will come from SMRs,
if anyone is left who still knows how to build them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Hatter Eggburn
Mickey Reno
April 18, 2021 8:42 am

Now I’ll have to go watch my favorite burning wind turbine videos on YouTube to cheer myself up.

April 18, 2021 3:25 pm

And then there are the ever increasing constraint payments when the wind really does blow, that will be associated with increasing the fleet by the planned 40GW over the next few years. The nameplate capacity of the total fleet will then be 65GW. Typical peak load is around 40GW. Madness.

Incidentally the wind hasn’t actually been blowing much in the UK this past week and today It was producing 3%of requirements and coal 4%. But the MSM never mentions periods like this. Similar low output lasted for a week at the start of March.

%d bloggers like this: