Argyll's online broadsheet.

Keith – no subsidies for any generation plant …

Comment posted Hilarious case of wind business dollar chasers threatening law over cut subsidies by Tim McIntyre.

Keith – no subsidies for any generation plant means that none will be built at all (least of all nuclear) and then the lights really will go out.

Tim McIntyre also commented

  • Malcolm – you are right, offshore wind is up for 2 ROCs per MWh, reducing progressively over the next few years.

    When you write out “761,809,040” it does sound like a big number! I read the other day that the DECC’s annual budget for decommissioning the current ageing fleet of nuclear power stations is £2.9bn That’s the old ones that aren’t going to be producing any more energy at all, never mind the subsidies required for the new ones that have to be built to replace them.

    That’s £2,900,000,000 per year, guaranteed burden on taxpayers for… god knows how many years, and probably increasing all the way through. Wind has no monopoly on big numbers.

  • Malcolm – it won’t. The UK target for 2020 is 30% contribution from all renewables. The current average is a little under 7%.

    The UK government has today consented a total of 1,000MW of wind off the coast of Norfolk which, if built, will make a significant contribution.

    Also remember as I pointed out before that NETA figures exclude embedded wind & hydro, which they estimate to contribute as much again as the percentages shown in the table.

  • Malcolm – I think you’re getting a bit confused. The 30% average load factor is BECAUSE the wind doesn’t blow constantly – if it did, the load factor would be close to 100%.
  • Lowry – the FITs are funded by consumers through their electricity suppliers, just like the ROCs. I think Mr Davey was referring to a ‘cap’ on the total amount of funding that can be provided by FITs, which was in danger of being exceeded by the rapid uptake of PV, although I’m not quite sure of the details.

    Find out more here:

    To clarify – Governments set the rate of subsidy to be enacted. I didn’t say there was no connection between the government and the subsidies – just that they don’t fund them out of taxpayers’ money. You are indeed paying for Mr A’s solar panels – I suggest you take that up with him, ask him if he has a community benefit policy 🙂

  • Karl – “Septic friend” LOL another Freudian slip? 🙂

Recent comments by Tim McIntyre

  • Holyrood: the disappeared
    “The SNP’s Mike Mackenzie… was clearly not going to get back to Holyrood in an election where the constituency vote would be dominated by the SNP.”

    The constituency vote made no difference – Highland elected the same number of SNP constituency MSPs as in 2011, so the loss of two Highland list SNPs MSPs is solely down to a reduction in their regional vote, from 47.5% to 37.9%.

    The Tories’ astute move to wrap themselves in the union flag and thus, in effect, revert to their original identity as the Conservative & Unionist party has certainly paid them an impressive dividend electorally.

    It will be interesting to see whether the reverse is true – i.e. whether being hard-wired to the Tory brand will do Unionism itself any favours over the course of this parliament.

  • SNP shuts down local branch Twitter proving witch hunt against Carmichael
    Integrity – I believe some have suggested to Mr Carmichael that he should step down voluntarily, precisely so that the money raised so far can go to food banks instead of lawyers 🙂

    Anyway, taking up your point about political ‘blinkers’ – maybe so, but I hastily add that I’m not defending him against the legitimate anger of his constituents, who are really the only folk that have an interest in his future now that he is a lowly back bench opposition MP in one of the smaller parties, and not a minister of state.

    Those constituents – including no doubt a good number who voted for him having believed his claim that he knew nothing about a grubby smear campaign – have every right to feel pretty unhappy at what has transpired, and especially that it was kept carefully concealed until after they cast their votes. That is not a party political point in itself, and it is unfair and simplistic to characterise the legal campaign to force a by-election as such.

    Given the high cost (and no legal aid) of raising an action, and the even more eye-watering potential for the awarding of costs in the event of failure, crowd funding seems to me a fair & transparent way to raise the money needed. Doubtless the campaigners are benefitting quite a bit from politically-motivated donations, especially given that Carmichael was one of the more, er, bruising personalities in the ‘No Thanks’ campaign. However, at the end of the day it is the court that will decide, even if the politics helps raise the cash.

  • SNP shuts down local branch Twitter proving witch hunt against Carmichael
    The First Minister was not a candidate in the election, and therefore the ‘smear’ itself – the creation of the false memo plus leaking thereof – is unlikely to be of any great concern to the court.

    As I understand it, the case will turn on whether the court finds that Alistair Carmichael’s admitted lie – that he knew nothing of the memo until contacted by journalists – amounts to ‘corrupt and illegal’ practice under the Representation of the People Act.

    In other words, did Mr Carmichael try to cover up his own involvement in the smear in order to present himself to his constituents as an honourable and decent candidate for re-election, and thereby affect the outcome in Orkney & Shetland.

    I suspect that anyone hoping for a detailed investigation into the writing of the memo itself may be disappointed…

  • Forget tactical voting for unity. Forget the coming of the one-party state. Your party matters more?
    Newsroom – re: the “wholly constitutionally disadvantaged position of England”, Derek Bateman has a good piece on that subject;-

  • Forget tactical voting for unity. Forget the coming of the one-party state. Your party matters more?
    Integrity – I’m sure you are right that the convention is informal, and obviously the parties can talk to each other as they wish – as the Lib Dems did with Labour last time. However, I assume that in practice, David Cameron would try every option to form a government and would not resign until these had been exhausted (as Gordon Brown did last time, despite coming a distant second). Only then would the SNP’s offer to Labour come into play.

    John M – the SNP cannot ‘vote down’ a Tory government which has managed to assemble majority support – the key phrase in your quote being “if there is an anti-Tory majority”

    Newsroom, I think you are right that stability could be a problem, especially as the Tory press in the south will do everything possible to de-stabilise a SNP-supported minority Labour government. If they can portray it as illegitimate that Labour gets to govern while the Tories got a majority in England, they will do so, loudly and insistently, and regardless of the damage to the Union.

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments