Today [30 October] The Herald is carrying an exclusive story saying that the UK Energy Minister is looking to limit the volume of onshore wind farms.
John Hayes MP is speaking at the Renewables UK conference in Glasgow today.
He has told The Herald’s Kate Devlin and David Ross that he agrees with campaigners who see wind turbines as a blight on the landscape; and that while he cannot change consents retrospectively, he will take a different line with future applications.
Calling for a defensible limit of energy needed from onshore wind, the Minister has rightly described the danger of an unbuttoned rush for wind wind as ‘caricaturing the debate about renewables’.
This comes on the day when the UK government has formally committed to new nuclear – a move we have come to support, much to our own surprise, as the greenest we are going to get.
Some crossed wires here . . . from the Telegraph today:
The UK government remains committed to its goal of almost tripling the amount of power the country gets from onshore wind farms by 2020 was confirmed by John Hayes, the Minister for Energy.
There are enough wind farms built or in the planning system to meet the target of having 13GW of onshore wind farm capacity by 2020, so this is empty gesture politics to appeal to backbenchers and Tories in the shires. The country is going to end up with three times what it has now, whether it likes it or not. (And of course the polls continue to say that on the whole people are in favour).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Windfarms are good
the more the better
Windfarms are very good
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
. . . and of course the new nuclear news comes (unsurprisingly) in the wake of last week’s revelation that the UK government is planning
to rip up rulebook and subsidise new nuclear plants (Independent)
. . . and as Chris Hulme pointed out earlier this year, we’re still paying subsidies for nuclear electricity generated in the 1970s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; nuclear is just as carbon-neutral in operation as wind turbines, so should be receiving the same subsidy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not going to argue with that premise – though some would. However, wind subsidies are going to be phased out over the next ten years. Nuclear subsidies have been with us for decades past and will be with us for decades to come.
Like many people seriously concerned about climate change my attitude to nuclear electricity has changed and I now regard some new plant as a necessary evil. However, the lies and misrepresentations of the industry remain the same, and the government’s promise that new nuclear would not be subsidised is just so much hot air.
EDFs CEO Vincent de Rivaz says he wants 14p per kwh of electricity before he’ll build a new nuclear plant. Onshore wind only costs around 9p per kwH.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He’s a mercenary Frenchman, which is 2 reasons to tell him to wind his neck in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, that’ll work – he’ll be falling over himself to build us some new nukes if we insult him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know – SR – I wonder about your abilities in general, but especially when it comes to mathematics.
14p per KWh for a 24 hour guaranteed x 365 days per year supply of electricity to homes ,commerce and industry, against an intermittent occasional few hours a day supply from wind turbines – much of it a night when nobody wants it – at 9.5p per KWh.
Come on man – get real !
PS – only renewables get subsidies
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS – only renewables get subsidies
You must stop replacing facts with slogans Malcolm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
EDF have been very careful not to mention a price for very obvious reasons so I doubt he made that remark. And, speaking of liars, you represent an industry who are spectacular liars. And wind farm subsidies phased out by 2022? Would that were so but they continue to 2037 and are replaced by a new scheme in 2017.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t represent any industry.
EDF and nuclear pricing – Telegraph
The energy bill due before parliament next month proposes closing the main renewable energy subsidy system for large green power plants such as offshore wind farms to newcomers from 2017, replacing it with a form of financial support featuring long-term price contracts which would guarantee minimum prices for low carbon electricity generators and would be open to nuclear plants as well as large wind farms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think I am right in saying that the majority shareholder in EDF is the French Government and that the only electricity supplier in France is EDF.
Likewise Gaz de France is the only supplier of gas.
If this is not so, the change must have been within the last 10 years.
Yet we had to have our supplies privatised by Maggie Thatcher to accord with EU regulations.
There is something rotten here and it isn’t the state of Denmark!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s a grotesque contradiction in state-controlled companies from other countries acquiring formerly state-controlled assets that have been ‘privatised’ in this country.
This transfer of state control of our basic infrastructure from British to French / German / Dutch has been ongoing since privatisation became fashionable, and the fact that these companies seem generally to be well run makes me wonder whether the problems with them in their old nationalised days were not so much to do with their management as to the way government interfered in their management.
Just like the expensive dog’s breakfast recently being made of passenger rail franchising.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Privatisation had nothing to do with the EU and it was a very bad idea in relation to power. As HB was pointing out, the energy companies are paid for generation rather than capacity so it is in their interests to keep capacity to a minimum, creating shortages that allows “market forces” to put prices up (and profits). For a few baw bees, the Thatcher Government sold all of us into a form of tax slavery to overseas energy companies including, and ironically, the French State owned EDF.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder if this was why – a few years go – Scottish & Southern seemed to be deferring maintenance of – and even shutting down – some of its hydro electric assets, until the government provided finance to repair them.
I think the Lochgair power station (Loch Glashan dam) here in mid Argyll was one such case, and at the time I couldn’t understand for the life of me why the power company was allowed to run down its ‘green’ assets; it seemed to be holding us, the taxpayers and customers, to ransom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do tell us Doc , do you support the re-nationalisation of the power companies ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Islay: Yes I would. Power supply is essentially a natural monopoly. Privatisation led companies to abuse the monopoly position and has delivered very little benefit to consumers. I’m a great believer in private enterprise delivering services were genuine competition can be introduced but power isn’t one of these and is just far too important to leave in the hands of private companies.
However, I cannot see how nationalisation could be realistically achieved at this point in time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ife: Now the U.S. regulators are accusing the Royal Bank of Scotland of involvement in rigging energy prices in California – surely reason enough not to trust anyone ‘red in tooth and claw’ who’ve not just been sniffing around our public utilities, they’ve been doing a bit of bloodsucking.
Ultra respectable members of this country’s ‘great and the good’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This man knows what he is talking about :- http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/10/29/historian-oliver-attacks-uglifying-wind-turbines/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So does this one: http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Ewing%20letter.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting how post Fukishima nuclear enthusiasm has gone a little slack. But fear not, Westminster now wants the Japanese company Hitachi to come to Britain and build a new fleet of nuclear stations, and the very such stations that Japan now wants to dispense with. And as to the small matter of high level waste disposal? Well the good old UK has highly developed plans to construct repositories in good old west coast of Scotland since Scotland is a better location for this wate than anywhere else in the UK.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, and the Westminster decision to proceed with the construction of a new fleet of nuclear reactors may also explain why Westminster wants to restrict Scotland in the further development of renewables. It might also explain why the last Westminster government and now this Westminster government wants to remove Scotland’s right to refuse planning permission to UK operators. Quite frankly, in the absence of a sovereign Scottish Parliament, Westminster will legislate as it pleases.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An interesting comment, Willie. Can you please give the evidence for:
1. the fact that Westminster wants Hitachi to build nuclear power stations in the same style as the ones that Japan now wants to get rid of.
2. The plans for nuclear waste repositories on the west coast of Scotland.
Many thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi…already asked about the nuke dump in Scotland…SILENCE !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Getting back to the point – this film on proposed wind farms off the Devon Coast – just released today – is probably the best piece of media ever to be offered on why so many people object. Please watch it right through – it’s easy viewing and well worth it. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/10/31/lost-horizons.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All going in the right direction:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9645916/Wind-energy-claims-are-just-a-lot-of-hot-air.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly how much influence do you imagine the noxious Mr. Bellendpole has on UK government policy Malcolm?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What was it you were saying about name calling?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
db, I’m sure it’s just an innocent typo
Mr Dellingpole seems mainly to be puffed up because John Hayes’s comments give him the perfect smokescreen under which to withdraw himself from the Corby by-election, in which he had proposed to stand as an ‘anti wind’ candidate. Just as well – could have been rather embarrassing for him and his ’cause’ if he had lost his deposit
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, SR probably meant to write “anxious” rather than “noxious”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Hitachi design is an ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor). There are four ABWRs in operation in Japan. They have a poor reliability record (source: Wikipedia) and have often been shut down due technical problems. The first two plants in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (block 6 & 7) have achieved a capacity factor below 70%, while the output power of the two new ABWRs at the Hamaoka and Shika power plant had to be lowered because of technical problems in the turbines. After being throttled both power plants still have a heightened downtime and as of 2006 exhibited a lifetime capacity factor under 50%. (There is a windfarm in Shetland that manages 51%
)
Hitachi are obviously desperate as there is no future for their ABWR in Japan – but the design is not approved in the UK and will take years to approve.
The reactors at Fukushima were also boiling water reactors, but of an older design.
No magic bullets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They all boil water, eejit, that’s why they’re called kettles.
The ABWR is approved in America and they have a record of a 40 month build. GE are developing with them the ESBR which is a passive ABR so they aren’t that desperate although I’d have preferred if the Germans got SFA for Horizon than £700m.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
At 2007 the UK is reported to have some 476,900 cubic metres of radioactive waste with a 2040 radiation value of some 87,200,000 terabequerels. However, it is the high level wastes that pose the really significant problems in disposal and with regard to these wastes, current policy is predicated on interim storage pending ” geological ” storage. Now to the man in the street, geological storage means what it suggests…. and that is burying the waste under ground for tens of thousands of years in the hope that it will be safe there. And where better a place for the UK to store it waste than in ” geological ” sites in Scotland. And if you were of the westminster disposition why wouldn’t you want to put your waste up in Scotland. They have the rock up there, it far away from London, and evidence of this needs to be given, ask yourself this. Why did Trident end up on the Clyde as opposed to the Thames. Why was the Dounreay experimental reactor located up there in the 60′s when there was hardly a single track road to this northernmost part of Britain, why was Windscale located at the northern most part of England some 300 miles north of London. Why is Dundrennan used to fire off depleted uranium shells into the sea. Union dividends my friends, union dividends indeed. And yes, there are plans to dump high level waste in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is agin these plans, but as a devolved administration our current parliamentary status can not guarantee that dumping won’t happen. Only independence can guarantee that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m sure you’re right about Dounreay, but as for the rest – surely geology and topography really do have a lot to do with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please back your assumption that waste will be dumped on the west coast of scotland with some factual evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting Willie. Had ‘they’ located everything in the South East, I wonder if your position would have been ‘tsk…keeping everything for themselves’. Probably.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In terms of yr comment about the location of nuclear dumps, Trident, depleted uranium test firing ranges et al, I personally would be delighted if these things were located in the South East. In fact I think most Scots would agree too The question of course as to whether the Scottish people would be happy to accept Scotland as an ideal location for nuclear dumping, depleted uranium test shell firing is I am afraid something that I thhink we would have to disagree on. The UK has currently something like 10,000 M3 of high level nuclear waste, and are you really suggesting that folks here would be complaining if it wasn’t dumped in Scotland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evidence on west coast of scotland pleas…
And you might want to look into the dangers of DU…I am working in an area that is been cleared of the stuff…your facts are wonky !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah ha, you fire thousands and thousands of rounds of DU shells into the saline sea and then you recover it all. Sounds a bit like using your lounge as a toilet and then cleaning it up. And whilst we are at it, hows the clean up going on Dounreay and other Scottish beaches. All tickety boo is it Karl. If you are going to spin porkies how about making them even half believable or better still why not simply agree with the proposition that Scotland should not be used as a nuclear waste dump for the UK.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a strange fellow…(for the record I do not believe anywhere should be used as a nuke waste dump)
Anyhow, to correct your ill informed sensationalism !
From Iraq…location near Tampa Highway…yes the one where the Allied forces used 1,000 of rounds of this stuff during G1 and G2
Ref DU…agiven that it has less than 60% of RAD’s associated with natrually occuring Uranium…and less than cornish Radon Gas…and less than some Cairngorm Granite…and less than some coal…
Stop scarmongering Go educate yourself:
http://www.onk.ns.ac.rs/archive/Vol9/PDFVol9/V9n4p213.pdf
http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
you may be interested to know that the locals here use the stuff as fishing weights in the Shatt al Arab…It is also used in boat keels…
Anyhow…I will leave you to it…bye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20168738
Wind farm debate: Caroline Lucas and James Delingpole
Same points which are discussed on forargyll
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is James Delingpole real?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The bellendpole is a caricature of a turbophobe – completely mad. However, I would have expected Caroline and Ken to have stood up to him a bit more robustly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If was an anti wind farm campaigner I wouldn’t want Delingpole anywhere near my campaign. In fact I was rather he was on the other side.
This is after all the man who, on Horizon, was asked by Sir Paul Nurse if he had actually read any peer-reviewed research on global warming replied that “as a journalist “it is not my job” to read peer reviewed papers, but be “an interpreter of interpretations”.
He is more a figure of ridicule than a credible contributor to the debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is the youtube video of that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0
(to be fair to him that isn’t all he says so the full 5 minute video is worth watching to provide the context)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jamie Black, are you really suggesting that Scotland should position itself to be the country who wants to accept and bury other countries high level nuclear waste that needs to remain buried for tens of thousands of years. If you are suggesting this, can I respectfully say that I think the vast, and I mean the vast, number of Scots will disagree with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, I don’t think he is saying that; reflect on the fact that the UK has a need for waste storage and the economic rewards a region could have from hosting the storage facility. There seems to be a measure of popular but qualified support for a facility in Cumbria; perhaps there is vested interest given the level of employment at Sellafield, but at least they are approaching the problem in a sober fashion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Delingpole is a journalist. What you did not seem to appreciate was that he was putting himself up for potential criticism – almost as a self sacrifice – to get the topic of Wind Farms into the headlines and especially on to television. The subject would never have reached public discussion 6 months ago if it had not been for people like him. He has certainly helped to swing attitudes in England.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm Kirk is not a very nice person who should be nicer
Windfarms are happening and they are going to happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good morning !
£410 to be added to your electricity bill:- http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/356179
Also there is a headline in the FT saying orders for offshore wind turbines have dried up.
Good start to the week so far then !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It gets better by the hour:- http://www.murdofraser.com/?p=1099
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where will it all end – £700 million to lay a cable for useless wind turbines – unbelievable :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-20204247
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aside from arguments about wind farms you have to ask where the failings in any process are that the cost can escalate as much as that from the original projection.
More good news for you here Malcolm.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/25-turbine-highland-wind-farm-given-go-ahead-by-scottish-government-1-2615121
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I certainly enjoyed the responses underneath the article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yep – saw that one and no doubt many more to follow. Did you note that once built it will employ 3 people. Interesting how the renewable industry always claims 1000s of jobs are created – more lies apparently – but for once condemned by their own publicity handout – love it !
Interesting article in the Scotsman Business News this morning. Builders – who no one can doubt employ loads of people – are having to wait 77 weeks for Planning Permissions – a year longer than the Government’s statutory timescale.
But as we all know here – if they wanted permission to build a wind farm, they would have it the day before they even applied.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Utter nonsense, Malcolm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“if they wanted permission to build a wind farm, they would have it the day before they even applied”, is not only a trite little claim but untrue. Do just a little research (for a change?) and you’ll discover that windfarm applications are regularly subject to long delays in the planning system – something which the developers complain about as much as do housebuilders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Totally wrong sunshine – edict from on high – overrule any local objections, including those from local Planning Authorities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Western Isles contain the single biggest wave resource in Europe – which will of course require this grid upgrade if it is to be exploited.
No doubt you are against wave power as well though Malcolm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Any reasonable brain knows that there’s more than just wind power here, and surely there’s more than just wave power – is there nowhere with tidestream energy potential between the Sound of Islay and the Pentland Firth? (Malcolm this question is directed at everyone else, not you – sorry)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kyle of Lochalsh is an obvious one – and is proposed to have a tidal turbine array; Corryvrechan would seem suitable – indeed pretty much most places were there are two islands or lands masses on the West Coast with a narrow channel between them.
Lots of links here:
http://www.scotsrenewables.com/tidalinfo.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You three, as always, live in a socialist world where the poor punter will pay for any garbage you can think up. There used to be a saying based on political fact ‘ never give Socialists taxpayers money – they just spend – spend -spend !
Incidentally – Napoleon – who pays the £700 million that the bit of copper cable out to the Hebrides is supposed to be costing. Does that come out of the massive subsidies the wind farm people get from us – or is it added to the general distribution costs of the Grid – in which case there is no difference – we still have to pay for it through our electricity bill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Call me a socialist again, Malcolm, and I’ll set the hounds on you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK – Liberal !
I have two splendid cocker spaniels at the moment and love ‘em dearly – glad to take another one if you are are giving them away.
Have a nice day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All this chat about wind turbines. They do work – I have three of my own out of the window and they are producing plenty of power.
All power is subsidised: nuclear power and associated waste costs, tax cuts to encourage North Sea/West of Shetland exploration (and decommissioning), tax encouragement for shale gas fracking, renewables. International gas prices are rising and that is the main reason for UK electricity bills going up, not the cost of subsidised wind. We’ve just got to get used to it. The only power source that we have lots of and we can control is renewables. It isn’t going to solve all our problems but can add to a European mix (geothermal from Iceland, hydro from Norway and Southern Europe (plus North Africa).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your credibility fell apart when you said that ” The only power source we have lots of and that we can control are renewables” Which planet are you from ? The only sources of power we can’t control are renewables – no wind – no working turbines – no waves – which makes them so unreliable they are worthless especially when you take in the massive subsidy costs (£400 million + for Scotland alone per annum at this time ). And as has been revealed this week a further £700 million just to lay a bit of copper wire out to the Hebrides. What are all the other additional costs we never hear about laying cabling up hill and down dale . We are all paying for this ridiculous nonsense and you are saying it adds little to our general electricity costs! !
Obviously you are not up to date on the considerable fall in gas prices in America due to fracking – and the equally impressive drop in their C02 emissions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And no tides, Malcolm?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex is correct in that all we have as a species in abundance are renewables. Wind alone could provide all of the energy our species requires, solar could provide all we need many times over. Tidal is less important (but useful) and biofuels can meet our need for liquid fuels.
Fossil fuels are, in contrast and by definition, finite resources which will one day become in short supply – that will happen soon for oil and on a longer time scale for gas and coal. However, climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions means that we need to eliminate fossil fuel use long before we burn it all.
Nuclear fuel is also finite (though we do have a lot of uranium in the oceans).
Our future is in renewables and it is only the Colonel Blimps that deny this. Eventually we will, as a species, be able to have abundant energy from renewables that will be genuinely green and ever-lasting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aren’t you being a touch dismissive about tide, Dr M?
I don’t know what’s regarded as the total potential generating capacity, – and whether technological advances will expand this figure – but isn’t it unique amongst renewables in offering a consistently predictable source of energy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robert:
I’m not being dismissive but tidal is only capable of providing a relatively small amount of the necessary power. Estimates vary but 0.8 TW might be available. http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/Tidal-Energy/Tidal-Energy.html
This compares with wind having 500 TW of potential and solar having about 90,000 TW.
Tidal is very predictable but very localised (in most of the oceans, tidal power density is too low to be of much use even at spring tides).
Geothermal is another very predictable renewable (as is biomass) but is again limited for producing electricity – the highest estimates are only about 2 TW.
Although solar and wind are locally unpredictable, they are globally pretty dependable (the sun has come up every day so far!). The energy density of solar even on a dull day means that with improved PV technologies and effective storage technologies, it is likely that solar will eventually become the planet’s main source of electricity except for high latitudes in winter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was beginning to worry about old Napoleons health – him having a cold and all that – 24/3 above – sounds more like his last will and testament summarising all the nonsense he has spouted on these pages for years – and taking up so little space in doing so – for a change.
Robert – TIDES – get real.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t bullshit me, Malcolm – you deserve to be cast adrift in a tide race until you acquire some sense, or (heaven forfend) drown.
By the way, I indulged your conceit by being unwise enough to open one of your links to a couple of windfarm graphics with an ad for your services (hobby?) tacked on the end; I really don’t think you should be telling anyone to ‘get real’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0