The Ill Wind of Scandal
In the realm of so-called renewable energy, wind power has often been championed as a beacon of hope. However, recent events from Tokyo’s corridors of power offer additional evidence that this beacon might be more of a mirage. Tokyo’s prosecutors have brought to light a scandal that further underscores the questionable practices surrounding wind power projects.
“Tokyo prosecutors said Thursday they have arrested the former vice foreign minister of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s Cabinet on suspicion of accepting more than 61 million yen ($414,000) in bribes from a wind power company in return for his promotion of wind power and other favorable treatment.”
https://apnews.com/article/japan-bribery-arrest-lawmaker-wind-power-12213337a4838ec9d402d266b890ef05
The High Cost of Wind
Masatoshi Akimoto, the central figure in this controversy, stands accused of accepting significant sums from a wind power company executive. This isn’t just a minor oversight; it’s a substantial amount of money, raising serious questions about the integrity of wind power endorsements.
“Akimoto had stepped down as vice foreign minister and left Kishida’s governing Liberal Democratic Party in August after allegations surfaced and prosecutors raided his office as part of their bribery investigation.”
Moreover, the depth of these alleged transactions doesn’t end with promoting wind power. Akimoto is also implicated in receiving funds in connection with a racehorse owner’s group, further muddying the waters of his professional conduct.
“He allegedly received another 31 million yen ($210,500) in connection to a racehorse owner’s group between October 2021 and June this year. He took the money for his registration with the group, according to Japanese media reports.”
Misplaced Rewards in Wind Power
The former president of Japan Wind Development, Masayuki Tsukawaki, has admitted that the payments to Akimoto were a “reward.” Yet, Akimoto has countered these claims, asserting his innocence and framing his actions as driven by political beliefs.
“Akimoto denied the allegations and said he asked questions at parliamentary sessions to promote renewable energy based on his political beliefs, not because he was asked to by Tsukawaki to benefit Japan Wind Development, NHK public television said, quoting him in a statement released by his lawyer.”
A Stain on Renewable Energy’s Image
While many activists and politicians push for renewable energy, this scandal serves as a stark reminder of the inefficiencies and pitfalls associated with wind power. The very need for such emissions reduction strategies, especially wind power, remains questionable at best.
“Officials in the regions pushing for renewable energy say they are worried that the bribery scandal hurts the image of renewables when the energy needs to be further promoted.”
The Question of Fair Competition
The recent events underscore the need for transparency and fair competition in the renewable and other areas of the energy sector. However, with such scandals coming to light, the very foundation of wind power’s credibility continues to be shaken.
“We cannot build social infrastructure for the future of Japan without fair competition. We want operators to compete fairly and squarely with technology.”
In conclusion, as the world grapples with the need for reliable energy sources, it’s essential to critically evaluate the true benefits and costs associated with each. The recent bribery scandal in Japan serves as a testament to the inherent problems with wind power and the misguided ambitions surrounding it. It’s high time to demand transparency, accountability, and a genuine reevaluation of the so-called benefits of wind energy.
H/T Willie Soon
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whenever government is doling out vast sums of money, massive corruption is sure to follow. You’d have to be extremely naive to think the same isn’t happening in the U.S. and other places.
Of course it’s happening in the US. Here a major portion of it is known as Renewal Subsidizing… the remainder is known as the miss named Inflation Reduction Act (the American Savings Reduction Act)
its happening republicans taking huge bribes in ohio.
plus this
https://www.whistleblowers.org/bribery-in-the-oil-and-gas-industry/
house glass: stones; throw not
I’m ready to throw stones at all of their glass houses. If you’re not in on the grift, you should be too.
Corruption is wrong no matter who is doing it, Mosher. You-too-ism is juvenile.
Nobody mentioned anything about the partisan nature of the corruption.
You are the one to bring that up.
Just because the left is much deeper into corruption, is not evidence that Republicans aren’t also engaged in it.
Another, rather pathetic attempt to change the subject.
I would imagine most bribery in the oil and gas industry are attempts to get past insane layers of regulation
Whereas if it’s renewables the govt pays you to drive Raptors and whales and tortoises to extinction.
“Why” is important too
Payola by another name….
‘Political incentives?’
The voters are insane to think that they could sell their vote to the party that offers the most desirable bribe and then expect honesty from the results. Maybe not just insane. Add stupid and greedy as well.
Florida Power & Light have been implicated in dodgy practices. Much of the MSM story revolves around FPL fighting against ‘clean’ power despite FPL transitioning away from coal to solar and nuclear.
The more govt involvement in economic matters the more corruption, it’s human nature and inevitable.
It’s why government has to be kept out of the economic sphere except setting regulations.
The renewable grift, where govt/taxpayer subsidies are required for any project to proceed, is guaranteed to be corrupt.
How many of Hunter’s shell companies have been set up to take kickbacks from the Inflation Acceleration Act $$$$?
It’s certainly why the Chinese govt has been working to keep the Trudeau Liberals in power here in canada, the green grift requires two willing partners and a raft of borrowed money, will billions sticking to fingers on both sides.
It’s why Trudeau has fought election interference probes from the beginning.
Story tip
Marianna Spring is accused of lying on her CV
…
In the email exchange published by The New European, Ms Antelava told her: ‘Telling me you are a brilliant reporter who exercises integrity and honesty when you have literally demonstrated the opposite was a terrible idea.’
…
She is part of the BBC Verify team tasked with fact-checking, countering disinformation and ‘explaining complex stories in the pursuit of truth’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12493713/BBCs-disinformation-correspondent-chief-fact-checker-Marianna-Spring-accused-lying-CV-falsely-claiming-worked-Beeb-journalist-applying-job-Moscow.html
Oh dear
Original article
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/how-the-bbcs-disinformation-correspondent-lied-on-her-cv/
The BBC verify team is not what it seems. It does not check accuracy, particularly scientific accuracy, it seems to check that all reports follow the propaganda script run by the BBC. If something says fact check it seems that it is all nonsense. They still say “climate change” attached to virtually every report of anything slightly unusual, why does verify not stop this, it is supposed to be their job?
The BBC Verify team are narrative compliance checkers
Nothing more
There are over a hundred of them, God alone knows what they do all day, he probably does in fact and the rest of us can guess. Aided by this response to a complaint
As with much of the BBC’s science reporting, we aim only to accurately report on findings and do not ourselves conduct the scientific research – in this instance the report was based of the findings and analysis from the above mentioned parties. However, we appreciate you felt that context behind historic flooding in China should have been reported on.
Importantly, we acknowledge the weight of scientific consensus around climate change and this underpins all of our reporting of the subject. The scientific community has reached a significant consensus on man-made global warming. We therefore reflect that with due weight when reporting on the science involved.
I imagine a conversation goes like:
Rowlatt “I’m doing a piece on the world’s on fire based on a report from UAE, do you want to verify it?”
BBC Verify Person “No that’ll fine, it’s UAE afterall”
United Arab Emirates?
But of course…
University of East Anglia, typo, the BBC Verify Team weren’t on hand to correct
Blame the spell checker – the rest of us do.
I thought is was meant to be UEA, but there are so many TLAs floating around it might have been one I didn’t recognise.
“God alone knows what they do all day”
Maybe they play lingo bingo. Three columns of 10 words… Roll a dice for each column and you get stuff like
[We need a/an]
parallel | incremental | capability
compatible | digital | projection
heuristic | reciprocal | contingency
etc
Famous players include Kamala Harris, so I’m told….
Equally, they are facilitators of a particular strand of “anti narrative”; by this I mean they tolerate comments and views that they cannot overtly make “themselves” as it would 100% scupper any justification ( by the BBC and its acolytes) for the licence fee tax to continue. This is off topic slightly but if you look – as I have done extensively – at BBC HYS articles – and think deeply about how they choose them and how they do not allow certain topics to have a “HYS” – it is beyond doubt obvious that the BBC allow certain abusive phrases, comments and themes – pro AWG/CC, anti Tory, pro EVs, anti FF, anti family, pro trans for just a few. The extension of BBC HYS is BBC Verify – or maybe the other way round; nothing to do with underpinning accurate reporting ( FFS why would they have to do that – rhetorical – and I offer in evidence the weasel word statement at the bottom of the first page of their website “Why you can trust the BBC”) – it is solely a means of either getting other people to do their dirty narrative work or putting a gloss on the same….how on earth do they think this fools anyone?
PS – my BBC handle is on a”watch list” with BBC HYS
ModeratorsCensors and I have trapped them several times….but that is off topic strictly speaking so schtumm.I was banned from the BBC commenting thing way back in 2003 or 2004.
I would date the onset of the current rot around the early 90s – getting ready for Cool Britannia. The last decent and independent DG the BBC had was Alasdair Milne.
“To her credit, Spring sprang back and now leads the charge against disinformation at the national broadcaster and happily holds forth on the need for absolute integrity and honesty in media.”
Oh, the irony. Maybe she should focus on the BBC’s output.
One can only wonder what sort of ‘verification’ went on here…
You *should* be seeing a composite image I made
Top part is a screenshot of BBC’s coverage of The Rain that affected Burning Man Festival
The lower part is a screenshot from the nearest (at Gerlach = about 5 miles from the actual site) wunderground weatherstation for the (2nd) week of the festy
Do note especially (marked red) the vertical scale of the rainfall graph
(I tried to maintain the resolution without creating a huuuuge file but if it’s fuzzy, a Rightclick> Open in new tab should make it clear)
I make that to have been an accumulation of about 0.75mm spread over 3 days?
¿torrential?‼
I wonder if the scale is actually inches and not mm — a mistake that happens occasionally with some older automated equipment; And moreover the accumulated rain graph appears to drop from a positive value to zero again without a negative input. I suppose this means the accumulation resets on the clock. This rendition makes the actual rainfall impossible to interpret.
It wasn’t ‘torrential’ rain and it also wasn’t ‘deep’ mud. Someone at the Beeb thought it was a rerun of Glasto and went bonkers on the story!
400 grand is nothing
these guys could teach them a lesson
https://grist.org/politics/how-a-60-million-bribery-scandal-helped-ohio-pass-the-worst-energy-policy-in-the-country/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/23/ohio-republican-larry-householder-corruption-trial
When a Republican is given dark money to elect Republicans it’s bribery; when a Democrat does the same with dark money is “our Democracy”. I’d love to read the criminal complaint and see if it matches the breathless reporting in these two unreliable sources. And the “worst energy policy” part is laughable. Keeping Ohio from demanding too much renewable energy in their portfolio ought to be considered a public service.
The left has a long history of declaring that it’s only democracy, when they win.
Exactly, these Japanese politicians are pikers compared to the Biden crime syndicate, and especially compared to the pro-corruption (“democrat”) party.
steve thinks that he is defending the wind and solar industry by helping to point out just how extensive the corruption is.
It really is funny how steve seems to believe that everyone here is a partisan Republican.
Skightly off topic but I’ve just noticed that at this moment in the UK Coal 0.61GW is providing 4 times the electricity from wind 0.16 GW. You have to smile.
Son of Mulder,
if only our politicians would look, on a daily basis, at sites like Gridwatch Templar to see just how poorly wind generation performs they would abandon their idea of the expansion they plan. Even they should surely be convinced that it is a mistake?
There’s no doubt the ones that bother to look are convinced it’s a mistake, however, to point that out at this juncture would be political suicide. Most, if not all, politicians when faced with a choice between honesty and their place at the taxpayer-funded trough, will remain at the trough.
But having lied, should they not be in prison? We have a criminal offence for this, it is called malfeasance in public office. Come on Police, although come to think of it they are probably complicit!
malfeasance in public office
They would have to arrest probably 90% of all politicians if they actually enforced that. Not that I am against it happening.
They lie in their election campaign and everybody expects and accepts that. So why do people expect honesty after they are elected? Pure stupidity to put it mildly.
I don’t think they have any idea what the numbers actually mean, and those that should don’t want to.
Are there any people in the MSM or politics in the UK that understand the numbers or CO2 and Climate or who want to risk becoming a David Bellamy or Johnny Ball by showing any sign of climate or renewable scepticism? Not many and they’re all dead
Don’t you mean “Damned few an’ they’re aw deid”?
Yes but I thought a reference an old Scottish toast, lightly ironic in its tone but reflecting quite a strong sense of Scottish specialness might be too obscure.
I think you are wrong. They would just double down on preventing people from using very much electricity while bemoaning that all coal and gas haven’t yet been taken out of the system.
More than smile, the perpetrators should be called out and prosecuted for misleading the whole country. Wind is useless on many days of the year. There will be some excuse, but they haven’t even got a reply to “dispatchable electricity”. Blackouts coming this winter (National Grid!).
Mac Mulder
We would be not smiling if this was January and demand was 45GW and not the 31GW it is just now. Not unless rigor mortis had given us one
Just looked again it’s now 6 times the amount.
That noted disparity is obviously due the fact that the UK still needs to build more than 4 times the wind capacity that it currently has.
. . . at least I think I have the math on that correct.
😉
Only if youre calculating a linear progression of turbines built to electricity generated. Real life data has shown that it isn’t a linear progression, that it’s more of a curve and that the more turbines you build, the less electricity each turbine generates. So, not only will you have to build far more than 4 times, you will also have to overbuild to compensate for existing turbines falling generation. It’ll be Zeno’s paradox all over again.
You’re going to have to explain that to me, assuming the comment was meant to be taken seriously. IOW, how does the build and placement of the nth turbine affect the electrical power production efficiency of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. wind turbines already in operation?
He’s right, assuming you read the whole comment.
He is talking about why the output of adding turbines is not a linear increase with each turbine.
Each new turbine generates less than the one before. On average.
It’s the Law of Diminishing Returns. Consider a choice of places to put a turbine; one on a hill, another a little further down, maybe down in the bottom of the valley – You put it on top of the hill, right?
Now where do you put the next one?
It can’t be in the best place because you’ve already built there.
Eventually you need to change the rules for permitted sites, change your technology or spend a fortune building lots and lots of turbines to get the next bit of useful energy. The last option is not very likely to make a profit.
I did read the whole comment . . . how about yourself?
You are discussing the progressive decrease in the average output of all turbines with increasing numbers of turbines.
I specifically challenged the comment that adding additional turbines causes each turbine to generate less electricity (“. . . the less electricity each turbine generates.”) That might have merit, to a rather insubstantial degree, if the newly-added turbines were always placed directly upwind of existing turbines. A real stretch argument.
Your comment is also a real stretch argument unless you plan to have a single line of turbines that will always be exactly head on into the wind. No – turbines are placed in clusters, so whichever direction the wind blows from the turbines can turn to catch the wind, but it also means that you have turbines in a serial array; 2-3+ turbines each removing energy from the wind one after another. You quickly get the idea that if more than one or two turbine clusters (or wind farms) are in a line along the wind direction, the ones at the back will be completely idle.
The simple aerodynamics of the situation, as well as in-the-field observations, falsify that statement.
Aerodynamics. As each turbine slows down the horizontal velocity of air flow passing through the area swept by its rotor (thus extracting energy) it creates a shear zone to the sides and overhead of the rotor wake. The more energy extracted (e.g., from a more-or-less in-row series of turbines), the greater the shear between the intercepted air and the air that has passed around the rotors, particularly with respect to air flow, say, 5 or meters altitude above each wind turbine’s swept area. At the end-boundary of the wind farm, with respect to wind flow direction, the higher velocity air will turbulently mix with the slower velocity air that has passed through one or more turbines (from shear interaction), with the result that the air mass down to the surface will still have wind, and that wind will still be in same direction as it was for the air mass prior to it first encountering the wind farm.
In-the-field observations. The world’s longest wind turbine blade is about 110 m in length, meaning that a wind farm would not be expected to disturb air at an altitude 250 m or more above ground level. However, the air masses that have sufficient wind velocity to power wind turbines generally extend 1000 m or more in altitude above the ground (any small private powered aircraft or sailplane pilot will attest to this fact). The shear-induced turbulence mentioned above explains why horizontal winds are commonly found (experienced) immediately downstream of wind farms . . . there being no such thing as idle air at such a location.
The attached figure show that wind farm operators don’t have any apparent concern the 3 or more may fall “in a line” for any arbitrary wind speed direction with respect to the layout & spacing of individual wind turbines.
You are really trying to get a free lunch, aren’t you? So, air flow goes through a wind turbine and energy is removed, then mixes with higher velocity air, which produces an average air speed/energy that is lower than it started out as – you have that happen through several rows of turbines and more wind farms, and you see significant energy loss and ‘wind stilling’ downwind of wind farms. German studies have catalogued data from this effect showing that it can last for several hundred miles downwind (depending on initial wind strength and how many turbines are in the way) affecting the land downwind ot the turbines. There really is no such thing as a free lunch!
(my bold emphasis added)
Hah! I didn’t have to think even two seconds on that statement to know that it is patently absurd.
Please cite a scientific paper or link to such to prove me wrong.
In addition to the law of diminishing returns, we only have a small island to put these things on. Assuming that you still want people to live here and you still want people to grow food here, that reduces the available land still further. Given that constraint, it should be obvious that contractors will have to start putting them closer together to get maximum subsidy for the land available, leading to more and more turbines trying to extract energy from the same strength wind – less and less energy extracted from each turbine, even the already installed ones. Zeno’s paradox illustrates you will never, ever get to full, effective renewable power. Frankly we’ll be lucky to get much more than we have right now, no matter how many more turbines we install.
Hmmmm . . . I thought I read that the UK was going BIG TIME into offshore wind farms. Perhaps I was misinformed.
You did, perhaps, read todays news about nobody bidding for the offshore wind auction? It’s getting too expensive for offshore wind to be built which is why the Tories removed their moratorium on onshore wind. The UK is not going into offshore wind farms at todays prices, BIG TIME or not.
I thought we were discussing the scientific (i.e, aerodynamic) effects of wind turbines vis-a-vis their geographic placement.
Now you want to deflect the discussion to the economics of wind farms, wherever they are located?
I’ll not go there.
ToldYouSo, As I understand it, it’s because each turbine removes energy from the wind. The wind loses the energy generated by a turbine (plus losses) and therefore has less remaining to impart to the next one.
And it doesn’t require a straight line, since the turbulence in the system would spread out the loss.
Overwhelmingly Japan’s primary energy consumption comes from oil (36%) coal (28%) and gas (20%) while wind contributes — wait for it — 0.5% (2022 Our World in Data).
After the dramatic drop after 2009 nuclear is slowly making a comeback the deficit being taken up mainly by gas.
I don’t see the Japanese tolerating huge ugly wind turbines scattered across their tidy landscapes or coastal waters given the importance of the domestic fishing industry.
mega mega MEGA STORY TIP
headline:””Offshore wind auction fails to attract any bids
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344
Miliband was funny this morning on radio woke
What if we held an auction and nobody came?
So we have the CEOs of Scottish Power and SSE telling us how cheap wind power is, and Miliband bleating “They [the government] should be hanging their heads in shame”. It would be amusing if it weren’t so serious.
Bob Dylan had it right: “The answer, my friend, is blowing’ in the wind.“
Story Tip
No bids for 5GW of UK offshore wind farms. Price set for electricity generation too low to make the projects viable. Outcome in line with similar results in Germany and Spain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344
Solar power is going to unravel also….
Re: my solar system
My system should thus produce 5.2x14x60= 4,368 Watts under said sun
I am a now at 13:37BST on Sept 8th = about 38 minutes after Solar Noon under a bright cloudy sky – not clear blue but you *can* ‘feel the sun’ and shades are advisable.
My Solar power meter, planted firmly on the surface of one of the panels tells me the panels are receiving 650Watts/m² and should thus be producing 2,838Watts
(The solar meter has the exact same power response as do the cells making up the panels)
Wrong.
They are making 1,420 Watts
IOW: After 12 years, Holy H Kow, they are down to 50% of what they were when they were new.
(As I understand, 50% is when wind turbines get scrapped for ‘being uneconomic’)
And *some* people are saying/claiming that solar panels/systems/farms are ‘Good for 40 years of service’
I beg to differ – I have data and pictures to prove it.
1) You state that your solar PV system is:
By my calculations that is a total PV collection area of 18.9 m^2.
2) You next reference a near-noon “bright cloudy sky”. That very likely explains the difference between your calculated “should produce” total value of 4,368 watts and your “solar power meter” reading indicating the panels were only producing 2,838 watts total. IOW, you were not receiving 1,000 W/m^2 of solar insolation at your location given the cloudy sky condition.
3) In your math, did you take into account solar cell conversion efficiency? IOW, you state that your “power meter” indicated your solar panels were “receiving” 2,838 watts total, but that your total electrical output was 1,420 watts . . . that would be an amazingly high solar PV conversion efficiency of 50% if it were true! Perhaps your “power meter” already takes into account the solar cell conversion, and the discrepancy is due to other causes, such as you solar panels not being normal to the Sun at the time you stated (i.e., there being a cosine loss) or that your solar PV panels are dirty?
4) You state:
Based on that statement and each cell being 0.15 m on a side, you should be getting 231 watts per square meter for a typical peak solar insolation (assumed to be near sea-level) of 1000 watts per square meter . . . that would be a more reasonable—but still higher-than-average—asserted conversion efficiency of 23%.
That you were receiving only 1,420 watts (equivalent to 1420/18.9 = 75 w/m^2) in the real world under “bright cloudy skies” doesn’t surprise me in the least. And I seriously doubt that such a value is solely due to degradation of solar cell conversion efficiency over time . . . there are other, more dominate factors there weren’t addressed.
And when was the last time you got up there and really cleaned those panels, Peta?
Make sure to use non-scouring pads and cleaners, when cleaning those panels.
It is important to keep in mind that solar cells are semiconductor diodes, and that when diodes are wired in series and parallel nonintuitive things can happen. Without knowing any specifics about your system, a 60-cell module can be wired as one series string or multiple series string in parallel (dividing the open-circuit voltage rating by 0.5V will give the number of cells in series).
Then when wired into a system and connected to an inverter, modules are again put into series to increase the voltage.
What happens if one cell in a series string is lower in voltage than its neighbors? It can end up in what is called reverse bias where it is absorbing power instead of delivering power. They can get extremely hot when it happens.To prevent this, modules and systems have bypass diodes that are off when things are normal, but conduct to reduce the risk of melted components.
If your system has two parallel strings, and one module is bad, this can reduce the output by half when the bypass diodes isolate the string with the bad modules.
One good way to check what is happening is to use an IR camera and look for unusual cold or hot spots. In normal operation all the cells in the system will be a uniform color (temperature).
I would have thought that they would wire a diode in series with each string in order to prevent back current?
Typically yes. But if a bypass diode is conducting, the string it is protecting is no longer generating any power. So in a two-string system, one bad module can cut the power in half.
Some cell types have a bypass diode on every cell, the SunPower design is one.
Wind power is not an economically viable business to be in, because of the intermittency, which means there is no continuous revenue stream from sales, nor can sales be increased by increasing output.
So, the business is only viable with massive subsidies, money transferred out of the receipts of other providers calculated by complex formulæ, and compensation payments by the grid to wind energy companies told to disconnect at times of low demand but high wind output, to prevent grid overload. These subsidies are recovered by higher prices charged by providers to consumers, and together with ‘carbon tax’, account for a substantial portion of the increase in electricity prices.
The above article: just more evidence that Japan, like the USA, has the best bureaucrats and politicians that money can buy.
I love the fact that he’s obviously an astute businessman and is diversifying his bribe portfolio into renewables and horse racing!
Time someone investigated Ed Milliband (Climate Change Act) and also Theresa May’s forcing through Parliament the legislation to make Net Zero by 2050 \\law not merely an aspiration.
How did Milliband senior fall into that £500k charity post in New York? How is May doing on the Speaking circuit?
Furthermore, what what is the role of George Soros in all this?
The greed causes deaths, of course. A single cold-weather mortality event is at the heart of my novel Winter Games, the run-up to which includes the following:
We want operators to compete fairly and squarely with technology.”
The BIG operators in this opera are the grand elites behind politics of the IPCC. And they’re not a bit fair or square in their use of scientific blather to scare world populations into coughing up immense piles of cash to ‘save’ us from the fires of Hell, AKA Global Warming, coming to you Sooner Than You Think.
There is no such thing as “fair and square” whenever government gets involved.
On one hand, the company paying the biggest bribes, wins.
On the other hand, bureaucrats will decide based on whatever criteria they believe is most important.
If it’s illegal to accept the money it is also illegal to give the money. I want the top five executives severely punished for their misdeeds.
Wind power unravels in the UK-
What went wrong at UK government’s offshore wind auction? (msn.com)
and nobody wants them next to their land.
“While it did result in contracts for a total of 3.7GW of solar power, onshore wind and tidal power projects, industry sources said the “catastrophic outcome” for the offshore wind sector put Britain’s green energy targets at risk and failed to deliver new jobs and lower energy bills.”
1984 language through and through,
Subsidized make-work jobs and high energy bills were what was avoided