Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 5, 2012 20:25:40 GMT
I make no claims to be a scientist, especially concerning the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of wind farms. Though I have read various reports from those that do, showing them to be highly undependable and not cost-efficient at all.
Simple logic tells me that if you have to invest more energy to achieve less then it is not worthwhile and cannot be 'green'. So anybody genuinely concerned about the future of our planet would not be advocating them at all. The only ones that would, are those who are totally unconcerned about the planet, but see investment in them as a get rich quick scheme for themselves. This theme is the topic of James Delingpoles latest book, the synopsis of which can be read here
How green zealots are destroying the planet: The provocative claim from a writer vilified for denying global warming
It is because the wind farms are so inefficient and not fit for purpose that it highlights the corruption and immoral mindset of their proponents. Especially that of the BBC who receive their licence fee on the basis that they will be balanced and fair throughout their reportage on any topic, unlike private individuals or companies. The fact that people can be sentenced to jail for not paying this licence fee, makes LEGALITY the real issue about whether the BBC fulfils their charter or not.
As we've shown on numerous consistent areas, the BBC fail to do this, which in my book makes their actions criminal. Any government that continues to force the public to pay for this criminal organisation is also criminal. No different than the despots and tyrants we see in many regimes throughout the world, except ours are still able to masquerade as democratic.
Today's clear example of BBC criminality concerns the story that over 100 MP's, mostly Tory, have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the £400 million-a-year subsidies paid to the “inefficient” onshore wind turbine industry are “dramatically cut”.
Before we examine how the BBC have covered this story, take a moment to consider what points you would expect to be covered on it from a genuine unbiased balanced broadcaster. Would they detail the reasons given by these MP's? Would they relate the actual facts and figures concerning their claims to judge whether the MP's are right or wrong?
So what does the BBC do?
First let's see what reasons do they give for the MP's actions.
More than 100 Conservative MPs have written to the prime minister urging him to cut subsidies for wind turbines. They also want planning rules changed to make it easier for local people to object to their construction.
The Tory MPs - joined by some backbenchers from other parties - questioned the amount of money going to the sector during "straitened times".
The exact figure of Conservative MP's who signed up to this is 101. but 'More than 100' makes it appear like there were more. This in itself tells you from the outset how the BBC are going to present their protest.
So all we get from the BBC opening lines is that the MP's want Cameron to cut subsidies, because of straitened times, and make it easier for people to object to their construction.
The BBC then tells us But the government said wind farms were a "cost-effective and valuable part of the UK's diverse energy mix".
'The government said'? Over a 100 MP's are part of that government, and they're certainly not saying that. A government doesn't speak, so who in the government is making that assertion? Could it have been the outgoing energy minister Chris Huhne, the same 'government' that said it was his wife driving when he got the speeding ticket? Clearly if it was, the BBC would hardly want to use his name as the source - so 'government' will do.
As for being 'cost-effective', I would like those working at the BBC and the government to receive a salary that is as cost-effective as a wind-farm. That way they would actually have to pay us to work. But politicians can claim what they like when they know that the propaganda machine will not challenge them when it's also part of their agenda.
Then the article goes into an area seemingly designed to make most readers 'tune out' and move on with this;
The challenge to the coalition's policy presents an immediate problem for the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Davey. He was promoted to the job following the resignation of fellow Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne last Friday. Lib Dem president Tim Farron told BBC's Andrew Marr Show that Mr Davey was a "very, very capable man" and an "outstanding environmentalist" who would take projects forward.
Till we get back to this
'Straitened times'
The government wants renewable sources, such as wind, to provide 15% of the UK's energy supply by 2015. It admits that this is "currently more costly" than using fossil fuels, with hundreds of millions of pounds spent on subsidising wind farms each year.
So if the government admits that it's 'currently more costly than using fossil fuels', just explain how is it more cost-effective. Am I missing something? I have to wonder just what type of brain does somebody need to believe this shit? Would they buy a car from a second hand dealer making similar claims. "It costs more to run than a petrol driven car, but it's more cost effective".
Now we get to the next part of the article where you can really see that the attempt by the BBC to distort the facts are completely conscious.
State help is being cut under plans set out by ministers last year, but MPs have demanded an acceleration. "In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines," they wrote in the letter, seen by the Sunday Telegraph.
The politicians also expressed concerns that the proposed National Planning Policy Framework "diminishes the chances of local people defeating onshore wind farm proposals through the planning system". Organised by backbencher Chris Heaton-Harris, the letter's 101 Tory signatories include senior figures such as David Davis, Bernard Jenkin and Nicholas Soames. Another is Tory MP Matthew Hancock, a close ally of Chancellor George Osborne. Mr Heaton-Harris said two Liberal Democrats, two Labour PMs and one Democratic Unionist were also among his backers.
Now why didn't the crux of the argument for these MPs about 'inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies wind turbines' go into the opening paragraphs of the article? Because this way the BBC could first tell us how cost effective they were, despite the illogical thesis of this claim. Notice they also mention the 101 Tory MP's here, but considering the majority of readers will have expected the juice of the story to be run in the opening lines, how many will still be reading at this point?
Notice too, having mentioned the REAL objection to wind-farms by these MP's they don't address it at all. Instead they go on to say;
'Party divided'
BBC chief political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said the signatories were not against renewable energy per se, but believe onshore wind got far too much money.
For Labour, shadow energy and climate change secretary Caroline Flint said: "Britain should be a world leader in wind energy. We need to put jobs, growth and reducing energy bills first, but David Cameron is failing to do this. We just get a Tory party divided amongst itself...
"If Tory MPs want to turn the clock back on renewable energy, it will be the public who pay the price through higher energy bills, as we become more reliant on volatile fossil fuel prices."
But a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "We need a low-carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the UK's diverse energy mix." She added: "We are committed to giving local communities the power to shape the spaces in which they live and are getting rid of regional targets introduced by the last government.
"The draft framework also aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of local plans." Mr Huhne resigned as Energy and Climate Change Secretary on Friday after hearing he faced a charge of perverting the course of justice over a 2003 speeding case, a claim he denies.
So how did the BBC chief political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue get the information that the signatories were not against renewable energy per se? Well for the answer to that you'd have to read the story from another source, the Telegraph, where we are told that this was stated by the signatories themselves. Putting it this way, the BBC make it look like they are really in the know to privy information.
Also, as you can see, they not only skip addressing the 'inefficient and intermittent' aspects of this type of energy supply, they again repeat from another source, and another anonymous 'government' spokesperson, 'onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the UK's diverse energy mix'.
Somebody is telling porkys. Just judging from the criteria that the BBC is supposed to be upholding, and comparing it to the job they've done here, I know who my money is on.
Here's the article from the Telegraph to compare and contrast, even though this too is far from perfect, but the public is not forced to pay for this as a news outlet.
Simple logic tells me that if you have to invest more energy to achieve less then it is not worthwhile and cannot be 'green'. So anybody genuinely concerned about the future of our planet would not be advocating them at all. The only ones that would, are those who are totally unconcerned about the planet, but see investment in them as a get rich quick scheme for themselves. This theme is the topic of James Delingpoles latest book, the synopsis of which can be read here
How green zealots are destroying the planet: The provocative claim from a writer vilified for denying global warming
It is because the wind farms are so inefficient and not fit for purpose that it highlights the corruption and immoral mindset of their proponents. Especially that of the BBC who receive their licence fee on the basis that they will be balanced and fair throughout their reportage on any topic, unlike private individuals or companies. The fact that people can be sentenced to jail for not paying this licence fee, makes LEGALITY the real issue about whether the BBC fulfils their charter or not.
As we've shown on numerous consistent areas, the BBC fail to do this, which in my book makes their actions criminal. Any government that continues to force the public to pay for this criminal organisation is also criminal. No different than the despots and tyrants we see in many regimes throughout the world, except ours are still able to masquerade as democratic.
Today's clear example of BBC criminality concerns the story that over 100 MP's, mostly Tory, have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the £400 million-a-year subsidies paid to the “inefficient” onshore wind turbine industry are “dramatically cut”.
Before we examine how the BBC have covered this story, take a moment to consider what points you would expect to be covered on it from a genuine unbiased balanced broadcaster. Would they detail the reasons given by these MP's? Would they relate the actual facts and figures concerning their claims to judge whether the MP's are right or wrong?
So what does the BBC do?
First let's see what reasons do they give for the MP's actions.
More than 100 Conservative MPs have written to the prime minister urging him to cut subsidies for wind turbines. They also want planning rules changed to make it easier for local people to object to their construction.
The Tory MPs - joined by some backbenchers from other parties - questioned the amount of money going to the sector during "straitened times".
The exact figure of Conservative MP's who signed up to this is 101. but 'More than 100' makes it appear like there were more. This in itself tells you from the outset how the BBC are going to present their protest.
So all we get from the BBC opening lines is that the MP's want Cameron to cut subsidies, because of straitened times, and make it easier for people to object to their construction.
The BBC then tells us But the government said wind farms were a "cost-effective and valuable part of the UK's diverse energy mix".
'The government said'? Over a 100 MP's are part of that government, and they're certainly not saying that. A government doesn't speak, so who in the government is making that assertion? Could it have been the outgoing energy minister Chris Huhne, the same 'government' that said it was his wife driving when he got the speeding ticket? Clearly if it was, the BBC would hardly want to use his name as the source - so 'government' will do.
As for being 'cost-effective', I would like those working at the BBC and the government to receive a salary that is as cost-effective as a wind-farm. That way they would actually have to pay us to work. But politicians can claim what they like when they know that the propaganda machine will not challenge them when it's also part of their agenda.
Then the article goes into an area seemingly designed to make most readers 'tune out' and move on with this;
The challenge to the coalition's policy presents an immediate problem for the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Davey. He was promoted to the job following the resignation of fellow Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne last Friday. Lib Dem president Tim Farron told BBC's Andrew Marr Show that Mr Davey was a "very, very capable man" and an "outstanding environmentalist" who would take projects forward.
Till we get back to this
'Straitened times'
The government wants renewable sources, such as wind, to provide 15% of the UK's energy supply by 2015. It admits that this is "currently more costly" than using fossil fuels, with hundreds of millions of pounds spent on subsidising wind farms each year.
So if the government admits that it's 'currently more costly than using fossil fuels', just explain how is it more cost-effective. Am I missing something? I have to wonder just what type of brain does somebody need to believe this shit? Would they buy a car from a second hand dealer making similar claims. "It costs more to run than a petrol driven car, but it's more cost effective".
Now we get to the next part of the article where you can really see that the attempt by the BBC to distort the facts are completely conscious.
State help is being cut under plans set out by ministers last year, but MPs have demanded an acceleration. "In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines," they wrote in the letter, seen by the Sunday Telegraph.
The politicians also expressed concerns that the proposed National Planning Policy Framework "diminishes the chances of local people defeating onshore wind farm proposals through the planning system". Organised by backbencher Chris Heaton-Harris, the letter's 101 Tory signatories include senior figures such as David Davis, Bernard Jenkin and Nicholas Soames. Another is Tory MP Matthew Hancock, a close ally of Chancellor George Osborne. Mr Heaton-Harris said two Liberal Democrats, two Labour PMs and one Democratic Unionist were also among his backers.
Now why didn't the crux of the argument for these MPs about 'inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies wind turbines' go into the opening paragraphs of the article? Because this way the BBC could first tell us how cost effective they were, despite the illogical thesis of this claim. Notice they also mention the 101 Tory MP's here, but considering the majority of readers will have expected the juice of the story to be run in the opening lines, how many will still be reading at this point?
Notice too, having mentioned the REAL objection to wind-farms by these MP's they don't address it at all. Instead they go on to say;
'Party divided'
BBC chief political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said the signatories were not against renewable energy per se, but believe onshore wind got far too much money.
For Labour, shadow energy and climate change secretary Caroline Flint said: "Britain should be a world leader in wind energy. We need to put jobs, growth and reducing energy bills first, but David Cameron is failing to do this. We just get a Tory party divided amongst itself...
"If Tory MPs want to turn the clock back on renewable energy, it will be the public who pay the price through higher energy bills, as we become more reliant on volatile fossil fuel prices."
But a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "We need a low-carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the UK's diverse energy mix." She added: "We are committed to giving local communities the power to shape the spaces in which they live and are getting rid of regional targets introduced by the last government.
"The draft framework also aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of local plans." Mr Huhne resigned as Energy and Climate Change Secretary on Friday after hearing he faced a charge of perverting the course of justice over a 2003 speeding case, a claim he denies.
So how did the BBC chief political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue get the information that the signatories were not against renewable energy per se? Well for the answer to that you'd have to read the story from another source, the Telegraph, where we are told that this was stated by the signatories themselves. Putting it this way, the BBC make it look like they are really in the know to privy information.
Also, as you can see, they not only skip addressing the 'inefficient and intermittent' aspects of this type of energy supply, they again repeat from another source, and another anonymous 'government' spokesperson, 'onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the UK's diverse energy mix'.
Somebody is telling porkys. Just judging from the criteria that the BBC is supposed to be upholding, and comparing it to the job they've done here, I know who my money is on.
Here's the article from the Telegraph to compare and contrast, even though this too is far from perfect, but the public is not forced to pay for this as a news outlet.
101 Tories revolt over wind farms
David Cameron has been hit by a major protest by Conservative MPs over the Government’s backing for wind farms, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.
A total of 101 Tory MPs have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the £400 million-a-year subsidies paid to the “inefficient” onshore wind turbine industry are “dramatically cut”.
The backbenchers, joined by some MPs from other parties, have also called on Mr Cameron to tighten up planning laws so local people have a better chance of stopping new farms being developed and protecting the countryside.
The demands will be a headache for Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, who joined the Cabinet on Friday when Chris Huhne resigned after being charged with perverting the course of justice.
Mr Huhne, who denies claims that he asked his ex-wife, Vicky Pryce, to accept speeding penalty points on his behalf, was an enthusiastic proponent of wind farms. There are currently more than 3,000 onshore wind turbines in Britain.
At least 4,500 more turbines are expected to go up as the Government’s drive to meet legally binding targets for cutting carbon emissions sparks a green energy boom.
Critics say wind farms are inefficient because the wind cannot be guaranteed to blow at times of greatest energy demand. They are also said to be unsightly, blighting the landscape.
Wind farms are also accused of forcing up energy bills while swallowing disproportionate amounts of taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The Tory MPs, including several of the party’s rising stars as well as former ministers, say it is wrong that hard-pressed consumers must pay for the expansion of onshore wind power.
In the letter sent to No 10 Downing Street last week, which has been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, the MPs say they have become “more and more concerned” about government “support for onshore wind energy production”.
“In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines,” they say. The MPs want the savings spread between other “reliable” forms of renewable energy production.
They have also called on Mr Cameron to change the proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) so that it gives local people who object to proposed wind farms a better chance of victory in the planning process. The framework has finished a public consultation process and is awaiting the green light from ministers.
The letter reads: “We also are worried that the new National Planning Policy Framework, in its current form, diminishes the chances of local people defeating onshore wind farm proposals through the planning system.”
The number of Tory signatories to the letter, organised by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative backbencher, means that the controversy could be the biggest protest to hit Mr Cameron since the Coalition was formed. Last October, 81 Tory MPs defied him in a Commons vote on holding a referendum over Britain’s future in the European Union.
The letter’s backers claim that while other Conservatives who are ministers and parliamentary private secretaries are unable to sign because they are part of the government “payroll”, they too privately support the move against wind farms.
It is understood that there is also support from the Treasury. Among the signatories are former Conservative ministers including David Davis and Christopher Chope, as well as party grandees such as Bernard Jenkin and Nicholas Soames. They are joined by several rising stars including Matthew Hancock, Nadhim Zahawi and Steven Barclay.
Mr Hancock, who is close to the Chancellor, George Osborne, said last night: “I support renewable energy but we need to do it in a way that gives the most value for money and that does not destroy our natural environment.”
Another Tory MP who signed the letter, Tracey Crouch, said: “It is tragic that we blight our countryside with hideous electricity pylons and now we intend not only to do the same with onshore wind farms but also to subsidise them.
“I’d much rather see better planning regulations and greater investment in other sources of renewable energy, which will protect the beauty of our countryside for future generations.”
Latest figures from Ofgem, the energy regulator, showed that £1.1 billion in taxpayer subsidies was paid to the producers of renewable energy in 2009-10. Of this, about £522 million was for wind power, with most going to onshore wind farms. Much of this cash ended up in the hands of energy companies and investment funds which are based abroad.
The highest-profile critic of the onshore wind industry is the Duke of Edinburgh. Last year it emerged that the Duke claimed farms were a “disgrace” and they would “never work”.
Mr Huhne, by contrast, has described turbines as “elegant” and “beautiful”. His successor, Mr Davey, is thought to be bringing a more pragmatic approach to the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
Mr Davey says he is committed to promoting a “green economy” but has also stated that he is “conscious” of the impact on households of high energy bills in tough economic times.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “We need a low carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the diverse energy mix. “The Government has commissioned a review of subsidy levels and we are proposing a cut for onshore wind subsidies to take into account the fact that costs are coming down.
“We are committed to giving local communities the power to shape the spaces in which they live and are getting rid of regional targets introduced by the last government.”
Mr Huhne’s departure caused a limited reshuffle. The political comeback of David Laws has been delayed to allow the former Liberal Democrat Treasury minister to get a “big government job” within months.
Coalition sources said they expected Mr Laws to be a “major feature” of a wide reshuffle being planned by Mr Cameron for late spring or early summer.
Mr Laws resigned as treasury chief secretary in May 2010 after it emerged he had used taxpayer-funded allowances to pay some £40,000 in rent to his homosexual partner.
David Cameron has been hit by a major protest by Conservative MPs over the Government’s backing for wind farms, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.
A total of 101 Tory MPs have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the £400 million-a-year subsidies paid to the “inefficient” onshore wind turbine industry are “dramatically cut”.
The backbenchers, joined by some MPs from other parties, have also called on Mr Cameron to tighten up planning laws so local people have a better chance of stopping new farms being developed and protecting the countryside.
The demands will be a headache for Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, who joined the Cabinet on Friday when Chris Huhne resigned after being charged with perverting the course of justice.
Mr Huhne, who denies claims that he asked his ex-wife, Vicky Pryce, to accept speeding penalty points on his behalf, was an enthusiastic proponent of wind farms. There are currently more than 3,000 onshore wind turbines in Britain.
At least 4,500 more turbines are expected to go up as the Government’s drive to meet legally binding targets for cutting carbon emissions sparks a green energy boom.
Critics say wind farms are inefficient because the wind cannot be guaranteed to blow at times of greatest energy demand. They are also said to be unsightly, blighting the landscape.
Wind farms are also accused of forcing up energy bills while swallowing disproportionate amounts of taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The Tory MPs, including several of the party’s rising stars as well as former ministers, say it is wrong that hard-pressed consumers must pay for the expansion of onshore wind power.
In the letter sent to No 10 Downing Street last week, which has been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, the MPs say they have become “more and more concerned” about government “support for onshore wind energy production”.
“In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines,” they say. The MPs want the savings spread between other “reliable” forms of renewable energy production.
They have also called on Mr Cameron to change the proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) so that it gives local people who object to proposed wind farms a better chance of victory in the planning process. The framework has finished a public consultation process and is awaiting the green light from ministers.
The letter reads: “We also are worried that the new National Planning Policy Framework, in its current form, diminishes the chances of local people defeating onshore wind farm proposals through the planning system.”
The number of Tory signatories to the letter, organised by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative backbencher, means that the controversy could be the biggest protest to hit Mr Cameron since the Coalition was formed. Last October, 81 Tory MPs defied him in a Commons vote on holding a referendum over Britain’s future in the European Union.
The letter’s backers claim that while other Conservatives who are ministers and parliamentary private secretaries are unable to sign because they are part of the government “payroll”, they too privately support the move against wind farms.
It is understood that there is also support from the Treasury. Among the signatories are former Conservative ministers including David Davis and Christopher Chope, as well as party grandees such as Bernard Jenkin and Nicholas Soames. They are joined by several rising stars including Matthew Hancock, Nadhim Zahawi and Steven Barclay.
Mr Hancock, who is close to the Chancellor, George Osborne, said last night: “I support renewable energy but we need to do it in a way that gives the most value for money and that does not destroy our natural environment.”
Another Tory MP who signed the letter, Tracey Crouch, said: “It is tragic that we blight our countryside with hideous electricity pylons and now we intend not only to do the same with onshore wind farms but also to subsidise them.
“I’d much rather see better planning regulations and greater investment in other sources of renewable energy, which will protect the beauty of our countryside for future generations.”
Latest figures from Ofgem, the energy regulator, showed that £1.1 billion in taxpayer subsidies was paid to the producers of renewable energy in 2009-10. Of this, about £522 million was for wind power, with most going to onshore wind farms. Much of this cash ended up in the hands of energy companies and investment funds which are based abroad.
The highest-profile critic of the onshore wind industry is the Duke of Edinburgh. Last year it emerged that the Duke claimed farms were a “disgrace” and they would “never work”.
Mr Huhne, by contrast, has described turbines as “elegant” and “beautiful”. His successor, Mr Davey, is thought to be bringing a more pragmatic approach to the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
Mr Davey says he is committed to promoting a “green economy” but has also stated that he is “conscious” of the impact on households of high energy bills in tough economic times.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “We need a low carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the diverse energy mix. “The Government has commissioned a review of subsidy levels and we are proposing a cut for onshore wind subsidies to take into account the fact that costs are coming down.
“We are committed to giving local communities the power to shape the spaces in which they live and are getting rid of regional targets introduced by the last government.”
Mr Huhne’s departure caused a limited reshuffle. The political comeback of David Laws has been delayed to allow the former Liberal Democrat Treasury minister to get a “big government job” within months.
Coalition sources said they expected Mr Laws to be a “major feature” of a wide reshuffle being planned by Mr Cameron for late spring or early summer.
Mr Laws resigned as treasury chief secretary in May 2010 after it emerged he had used taxpayer-funded allowances to pay some £40,000 in rent to his homosexual partner.