John Webley: The economic insanity of the government's renewable

Mr Webley present the damning case against wind power. I'm sorry that 
Mr Webley is only a windpower refusenik but remains with the equally 
daft Carbon footprint fetish.  That's rubbish too.

Let's concentrate our minds on getting the lightweight Tory leader 
back with his two feet planted on earth, for it looks as though he 
might get the chance to do something !

He made some foolish pronouncements when first he became leader.  
This madcap GREEN illusion is one (and another is his refusal to face 
up to the fact that the economy is crumbling and we can't stick to 
the promise of following Labour's spending plans and saving some of 
the growth,  when there isn't any growth.  Oh yes, and his dithering 
over the EU is right in the Brown mould)

As one reader says ---"The problem with the Government, the Civil 
Service and the Conservative party is that none of them have an 
engineering appreciation of the problem. Speak to any of them about 
meeting base-load (for example) and their eyes will glaze over.
They are all in thrall to the bletherings of the likes of Jonathon 
Porrit and Zac Goldsmith.

The answer to our power shortfall is staring us in the face - but who 
dares support nuclear power and clean-coal energy generation in the 
hysterical climate that surrounds this debate? "

xxxxxxxxxx cs
===========================
CONSERVATIVE HOME BLOG - PLATFORM   25,8.08

John Webley: The economic insanity of the government's renewable 
energy strategy

John Webley, a retired Morgan Stanley Managing Director, is currently 
leading a campaign against wind turbines in rural Kent. He has been 
shocked by what he has learned about the wind industry and alarmed by 
the failure of many politicians to really understand the full 
implications.

As politicians begin to return to work from the summer break it is 
time to raise an issue of fundamental importance for the future well-
being of the country.

The Government's Renewable Energy Strategy document is out for 
consultation until 26 September. This is the document that proposes 
that Britain's renewable energy targets for electricity generation 
will be largely met by 3,000 offshore wind turbines and a further 
4,000 onshore turbines.
The Government is also in the process of establishing the new subsidy 
support structure to encourage investment in renewable energy, 
particularly, wind turbines. The Government's main support mechanism 
for the generation of renewable electricity consists of Renewable 
Obligation Certificates (ROCs) which are issued to those who invest 
in and generate renewable electricity, but the cost of this support 
is borne directly by the consumer.

At no point has the full cost of the proposed wind strategy been 
fully and simply explained to the public and at no point has the 
public been told what alternatives there might be. The wind industry, 
green lobbyists and the EU have done a brilliant job of leading the 
Government (and, it has to be said, the Tories) down a path that not 
only makes absolutely no economic sense but is the height of 
irresponsibility. The numbers involved are so shocking it is 
difficult, at first sight, to believe them.

If one uses the Government's estimates for the electricity that would 
be generated by the 7,000 turbines, the new wind turbine subsidy 
structure and the current market price of the ROC's, the annual level 
of subsidy that will be paid by the consumer is an incredible £6 
billion per annum. The wind industry will lock into these subsidies 
for 20 years, the expected useful life of the turbines. One can 
anticipate that further subsidies will have to be made available when 
turbines have to be replaced. Prior to publication of an article in 
the Times, these numbers were shown to BERR and not disputed.
[nb BERR = The Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory 
Reform, formerly DTI]

The total output of these 7,000 turbines (as estimated by the 
Government) could alternatively be generated by 7 nuclear power 
stations, such as the one currently being built by EDF at 
Flamanville. A nuclear power station can be easily connected to the 
grid and costs the consumer nothing since the cost is covered by the 
private sector. The private sector also expects to cover the cost of 
clean-up on decommissioning (EDF builds up a special fund for this 
purpose). Furthermore, a nuclear power station has an expected useful 
life of 60 years!

The Government has been so swamped by all the data generated by the 
thousands of consultant man-hours they have commissioned, that these 
simple calculations have not been done.  If they had, it would have 
become immediately apparent that the EU's obsession with renewable 
energy, as opposed to CO2 reduction through nuclear, should be pushed 
back and the bold decisions required to build the necessary nuclear 
capacity taken without delay.

The public is, instead, being asked to pay at least £120 billion (and 
probably more than twice this over the 60 years that would be covered 
by nuclear) for an intermittent source of electricity which would 
necessitate considerable addition to the infrastructure of the 
National Grid. It would have to be replaced after 20 years and, as 
far as the 4,000 onshore turbines are concerned, would do irreparable 
damage to the countryside, would leave approximately 5 million tons 
of concrete in the ground, would require around 1.5 million tons of 
scrap-metal and other components to be disposed of and with no 
certainty that the wind companies would still be in existence or have 
the wherewithal to carry out the decommissioning when required.

If this was not bad enough the simple fact is that the 7,000 proposed 
turbines would require back-up at virtually 100%, in any event, in 
order to ensure  security of supply at times of peak demand. The wind 
industry, as well as the Government, are totally misleading the 
public in this respect but there is irrefutable evidence that the UK 
is subject to relatively frequent extended periods of wind collapse 
that cover the whole country. This means that the nuclear reactors or 
equivalent thermal power plants would have to be built anyway so they 
could kick-in when the turbines stop.

Wind power, as a renewable energy source, is a concept that appears 
attractive and opponents can be easily demonised. This has been fully 
exploited by the wind industry which, supported by the green lobby, 
continues to pump out misleading propaganda to be sure of cashing in 
on the subsidy bonanza.

The reality, as demonstrated in this article, is that the country is 
on the verge of being the subject of one of the biggest confidence 
tricks of all time. The Government has totally failed the country in 
not understanding either the economics or the operational issues of 
their proposed renewable energy strategy. By allowing themselves to 
be taken in by the wind industry and swayed by the greens, the vital 
decisions necessary to ensure security of electricity supply have not 
been taken and it is fast becoming too late.

Only a small percentage of the money saved by not pursuing a wind 
strategy would provide plenty of funds for communities willing to 
accept nuclear reactors and any reserve fund required to guarantee 
clean-up.

The Tories are not exploiting this Governmental failure and are in 
grave danger of making the same mistake. As a matter of urgency, a 
Tory energy policy needs to be adopted that recognises the economic 
reality outlined above and steers us away from the precipice we are 
fast approaching.