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
- Problems with both pro-indy and pro-union campaigns
“Johnson is also the Mayor of the UK’s biggest USP – the majestic London.
Most of us wouldn’t want to live there but who doesn’t want it as ‘ours’ – the international envy of its huge economic engine…”
I’m pretty sure this is the first time I have seen the conspicuous and ever-increasing concentration of the UK nations’ wealth and power in London portrayed as the ‘positive case for the union’
- PR gaffes in Community Land Scotland’s ‘Bunchrew Land Declaration’
Is it just me, or does this article, and the comments which follow, concentrate solely on sniping at the title of the initiative because no-one has anything interesting to say about its intent?
From Rhoda Grant’s quote above: “The declaration also acknowledges the deep divisions in Scotland’s land ownership patterns addressing the terrible reality that fewer than 500 people own half of Scotland’s land.”
That statistic is surely a pretty shocking anachronism in the 21st century isn’t it?
- Donors, public money and funding the independence referendum campaigns
Karl – “…if the SG ( SNP) had pushed the devo-max option I would have supported it 100%”
They did. It was Westminster that refused the third option on the ballot paper.
- The no-no campaign
Jamie – I’m not sure if your point is about corroboration or democracy. Majority governing parties pushing through unpopular measures despite opposition is hardly indicative of a democratic crisis – it happens all the time in Westminster, where coalition government is the exception not the rule.
In Scotland at the moment, there is a combination of lack of voter participation (turnout at Holyrood elections far too low) and a lack of credible opposition (other major parties sending all their best & brightest to serve in Westminster where the real power lies). Those two factors could be argued to mean that our democracy functions less than effectively. Oh, and the lack of a constitution or other means to check the power of politicians.
- The no-no campaign
That’s fine in principle Robert, but I think there is a fair expectation that journalists will at least try to interrogate people in positions of high authority who make assertions that are of crucial importance to a debate – you can’t dismiss something said by Mr Barroso as a mere ‘opinion’, like yours or mine – he’s the president of the EC! Marr should have gone into strong devil’s-advocate mode (as he did with Salmond) and drilled down into WHY Barroso thinks that. Perhaps it would have been genuinely enlightening, or perhaps we would have seen just as much prevarication as you say he got from Salmond.
As former BBC Scotland journalist Derek Bateman said on his blog afterwards: “If you have a title, you get automatic respect from the national broadcaster, no matter what you actually say.”
powered by SEO Super Comments