Archive for the ‘energy issues for Ontario’ Category

Video Report – What to Expect From Renewable Energy

May 15, 2009

The Ontario govt. has passed Bill 150/Green Energy Act. The act not only removes the rights of Municipal govt., it also puts the economy of Ont. in real jeopardy.

WCO (Wind Concerns Ontario)

October 30, 2008

Wind Concerns Ontario Is  a coalition of 22 small rural groups opposing projects in their own municipalities.

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Wind Concerns Ontario

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam – A Lesson for Canada and the USA

October 26, 2008

Editor: The most important things people need to understand are

  1. The wind industry backed by govt. is a scam. (truth hurts)
  2. Our govt has handed the decision making for our power generation over to the e8 (internationalization of energy) a UN based agency.
  3. Any country that gives up it’s electrical system, has  given up it’s sovereignty. Electricity supply and cost are the most important part of any economy. Once control of the electrical system has been lost (or given away) the ability to make real economic decisions has been lost.
  4. You have now accepted rule by unelected officials.
  5. End of sovereignty.
  6. This is about a lot more than wind energy. It’s about the loss of your freedoms and your nation state.

The time has come for every thinking citizen to join in the fight against the wind industry and  treasonous govt. policy, that has been put in place to undermine both our democracy and sovereignty.

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam

Even in these dark times, it is still possible to be shocked when our Prime Minister personally endorses a flagrant perversion of the truth. Last year, for example, many of us felt outraged when Gordon Brown pretended that the Lisbon Treaty was somehow totally different from the EU Constitution, in order to wriggle out of his party’s manifesto promise of a referendum. Last week Mr Brown in effect did it again when he endorsed the deception at the heart of his Government’s wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of using wind to make electricity.

In a video for the British Wind Energy Association, the industry’s chief lobby group, Mr Brown claimed: “We are now getting 3 gigawatts of our electricity capacity from wind power, enough to power more than 1.5 million homes.”

This deliberately perpetuates the central confidence trick practised by the wind industry, by confusing “capacity” with the actual amount of electricity wind produces. In fact, as the Government’s own figures show, wind turbines generate on average only 27 to 28 per cent, barely a quarter, of their “capacity”.

In other words, far from producing those “3 gigawatts”, the 2,000 turbines already built actually contributed – again on official figures – an average of only 694 megawatts (MW) last year, less than the output of a single medium-size conventional power station. Far from producing “enough to power more than 1.5 million homes”, it is enough to power barely a sixth of that number, representing only 1.3 per cent of all the electricity we use. Yet for this we have already blighted thousands of square miles of countryside, at a cost of billions of pounds.

Indeed, at the same BWEA-sponsored event, Mike O’Brien, energy minister, went on to perpetuate the second confidence trick practised by both Government and industry, which is to conceal the fact that all this is only made possible by the huge hidden subsidy given to wind energy through the Renewables Obligation. This compels electricity companies to pay way over the odds for the power generated by wind turbines, a burden passed on to us all in our electricity bills.

Mr O’Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even further into make-believe by saying that he was “assessing plans” to build a further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, “enough electricity for every home in the country”.

Mr O’Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could build the 10,000 monster turbines needed to achieve this, at a rate of more than two a day, when it takes weeks to instal each vast machine. At present, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is only one in the world. Even if it were possible, the construction costs alone, on current figures, would be anything up to £100 billion – the price of 37 nuclear power stations, capable of producing nearly 10 times as much electricity – while the subsidies alone would add £6 billiion a year more, or 25 per cent, to our electricity bills.

Why do our ministers think they can get away with talking such nonsense?

What is humiliating is that they do it largely to appease the EU, which has set us the wholly impossible target of producing 32 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020. What is dangerous is that even contemplating such a mad waste of resources is diverting attention from the genuine need to build enough proper, grown-up power stations to keep our lights on. For that the time is fast running out, if it hasn’t done so already. It is on that Mr Brown should be concentrating, not on trying to pull the wool over our eyes with such infantile deceits.

By Christopher Booker

Telegraph

26 October 2008

You might ask – If the wind industry is such a scam why isn’t the media saying anything?

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS SILENCE

The Green Agenda

Windmills vs. NIMBYism – Toronto Star -Propagandist For the Wind Industry

October 20, 2008
Update: Response I received from the Toronto Star editorial board when I asked questions about one of their editorials. (found below)
If you live in rural Ontario you may want to consider canceling the Toronto Star. They’ll take your money but they won’t recognize you.

Response to my letter to the editorial board of the Toronto Star. If you live in the country you count for nothing.

Dear Mr. Stephens:
The “community” I am referring to is the Star’s community of readers.
Given that the Star is considered “the voice of the GTA” this would be
the community of readers in Toronto and the Greater Toronto area.
Certainly, many people in many communities would disagree with the views
put forward in this editorial opinion (as will any editorial). That is
their prerogative, as it is yours.
I will not be taking any further action on this editorial; nor will I be
providing you will “verification’ of the research done by the Star’s
editorial board as that is certainly not our practise.
I think the arguments put forward in the editorial speak for themselves
and it is beyond the scope of my role to question the conclusions drawn
in Star editorials.
As I told you, an editorial is an opinion based on the editorial board’s
interpretation of the facts at hand. While you may hold another opinion
I see no value in our debating these facts. I am not going to change
your mind about this issue and the Star’s editorial board is not likely
to reverse its position on this issue at this point in time.
Regards,
Kathy English

Kathy

I would like you to verify the research done and the content of the
research.

“This editorial view was arrived at after much research, thought and
debate by members of the Star’s editorial board, a group of six
journalists, under the direction of Editorial Page Editor Ian Urquhart,
who are charged with the responsibility of determining and expressing
the Star’s position on important matters affecting our community.
Because editorials represent the institutional voice of the newspaper,
they are never signed by the individuals who write them”.

I would also like someone to explain who’s community the article is
referring to.
I know many people, in many communities who would strongly disagree with
the position of the editorial board of the Toronto Star, including the
senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and the ex-CEO of the
OPA.

I have invited the Provincial govt. to go through the information on my
site and point out any inaccuracies. To date, even though they are on my
site daily, they have never questioned or requested any changes.
I therefore request that your editorial staff go through my site as
well.

I want to know how they came to their conclusions.

The editorial board must be able to justify their position or it could
be considered propaganda.

Regards

Ron Stephens

Editor: The first casualty of war is TRUTH.
There is a war being waged against the rights of the citizens of Ontario by the environmental movement and the Toronto Star has become a propagandist for the movement.

1. a person involved in producing or spreading propaganda.
2. a member or agent of a propaganda.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Cite This Source
I added the name of the writer to this article. Maybe the writer of this piece of propaganda didn’t want her name to be associated with such a piece of trash. I thought Tyler Hamilton (energy writer) could spew some garbage, but Ms. Gillespie has given Mr. Hamilton a new low to strive for.

SAVE THE PLANET-CUT LESS TREES-

CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TODAY!

EDITORIAL TheStar.com | Opinion | Windmills vs. NIMBYism
Oct 20, 2008 04:30 AM – By Kerry Gillespie

After three years of effort, a $300 million wind farm that would have brought green power to Ontario has been cancelled. This is the latest casualty of a provincial planning process that just isn’t up to the task of ensuring that the best interests of all Ontarians prevail.

I guess the people forced from their homes and those living in misery because of wind turbines, don’t count in Ms. Gillespie’s Ontario.(added)


The province wants the clean energy that comes from projects like wind turbines. So much so that Energy Minister George Smitherman sent a $60 billion plan on how to meet the province’s electricity needs for the next two decades back to the drawing board to get more renewable energy and conservation into the mix.

According to the senior policy adviser I talked to – 10 billion spent on a real electrical system, would have provided Ontario with cost effective, clean, affordable electricity. He says we are dealing with politics. Try running your home or business on politics. At least 50 billion will be unnecessarily wasted ,causing your electric bill to skyrocket, and driving business from the province.(added)

Yet time and time again wind farms and other environmentally worthy projects run into the wall that is Ontario’s outdated, drawn-out planning process. Some manage to make it through. The wind farm planned for a township near Goderich didn’t.

The delays in getting through the process are difficult enough – often amounting to millions of wasted dollars – but the real problem comes when someone, and there’s always someone, wants to oppose the project. The NIMBYists are able to use the myriad planning steps – rezoning, official plan amendment, council approval, provincial environmental assessment and the spectre of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board – as weapons in their fight.

As a spokesperson for the doomed Goderich wind farm said: “We’re a very conservative province, so it’s difficult to put anything anywhere.”

It’s not just wind farms the NIMBYists fight. They also oppose traditional generating stations. That forces Ontario to buy expensive – and often dirty – power from elsewhere.

And they fight urban “intensification” in the form of highrise buildings, which help curb sprawl.

In some European jurisdictions, municipalities are given the right to say where wind turbines can’t go. But they also have to say where they can go. In Ontario, it’s simply too easy to say no and hope to delay the project long enough that the developers give up and decide to give it a try in someone else’s backyard.

According to a  councilor involved in the Kingsbridge ll wind farm, he was told that any setback over 450 meters would not be tolerated. He was told to pass the setback or the township would be taken to the OMB and that the township would lose, costing the township $100,000. This, dispite the fact Kingsbridge l at 450 meters had already caused major problems for people living in the shadows of the turbines.(added)

The energy minister is right to call for more renewable energy. Now the provincial government must make sure its planning processes support that goal, even if it means someone may have to gaze upon a windmill from the living room window.

Because reality and truth no longer matter to the Toronto Star, I ask that you show your disapproval by boycotting the paper. Until they understand their duty to the public (seek and print the truth) they do not deserve your support.  I will be making a formal complaint to

Bureau of Accuracy/Public Editor

You can contact the Star’s Bureau of Accuracy and Public Editor by email at publiced@thestar.ca; by phone at 416-869-4949; or by fax at 416-869-4322

To cancel your subscription or to let the Star know how you feel –(added)Customer Service (including subscription inquiries, delivery issues, billing inquiries, vacation stops or other customer service inquiries or complaints)
Email: circmail@thestar.ca
Phone: 416-367-4500 or 1-800-268-9213

TheStar.com

Windmills vs. Nimbyism (another take on the article above)

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say – CTV News

OPTIONS FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS IN ONTARIO

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet

Is Nimby the new “N” Word

Press Release – Wind Farm Demonstration in Paris

October 6, 2008

Editor

If you are fighting wind farms in North America, you are not alone. You have probably been told how well wind is working in Europe (it’s not) and that we should do the same. Well we should do the same.

Stop the wind scourge now!

.

Saturday Oct 4th, in Paris, 2000 to 3000 people coming from France and
various European countries demonstrated peacefully against windfarms.
Antoine Waechter was among them. Green candidate in the 1988 French
presidential election, Mr Waechter subsequently split from the Greens to
found the Independent Ecological Movement. He is shown on the picture
reading my placard. To the right of the picture, the mayor of a village in
France whose inhabitants ALL decided to sell their houses when a windfarm
project was announced in the vicinity. If you wish to know more about the
Village for Sale, please advise.

We received  messages of support coming from all over the
world, including Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Ecuador, South Africa, Japan and Slovenia. See :
http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

The demonstration and conference was backed by 176 associations and
federations : http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

An international platform against windfarms was founded the same day, as
follows :

*Press release
*Paris, Saturday Oct. 4th 2008

*Founding of the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW). *
*
*In Paris today, on the occasion of the international demonstration against
wind farms, German, Belgian, Spanish and French federations and associations
have founded the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW).

This project has received the support of colleagues from 16 countries
representing several hundred federations and associations.

The founding members of this platform have agreed to make the following
declaration :
*1) Ecological deception and financial scandal*.

It has now been proved that industrial windpower does not reduce CO2
emissions and therefore does not contribute
to the fight against global warming. This is principally due to the
intermittent and uncontrollable nature of wind, which makes it necessary to
rely on the back-up of polluting fossil-fuels power stations, 24 hours a
day.

Industrial windpower is subsidized by the taxpayer-consumer.
In France for example, if the national plan is realized ( 12,500 wind
turbines ! ) this burden will amount to 2.5 billion euros annually. In
Germany, it is already costing 4 billion euros a year.
At a time when Europe is facing a deep economic crisis, it is not acceptable
that the standard of living of Europeans be further reduced in favour of
businessmen whose objective seems to be maximizing profits whatever the
consequences.
Industrial windfarms are a threat to the environment.
Landscapes, the natural and cultural heritage, wildlife, quality of life,
the security and health of Europeans are in danger !

*2) The demands made by EPAW : an immediate moratorium and more
transparency.*
The platform demands an immediate moratorium with the suspension of all
windfarm projects, approved or not.

The platform demands that be assessed, under the control of an independent
body, the objective and undisputable effects of wind farms from an
energetical, ecological and social point of view – respectively.
The platform finally demands that the guaranteed pricing of wind-produced
electricity be made the object of both a public and a parliamentary debate,
at national and european levels.

Signed by :
European Associations and Federations participating in the reunion of
October 4th 2008
Spain : Iberica 2000
Belgica : Vent Contraire, Vent de Raison
France : FED : Fédération Environnement Durable (Fédération nationale),
France : FNASSEM – Fédération Nationale des Associations de Sauvegarde ses
Sites et Monuments
Germany : BLS (Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz – landscape protection,
federation of 800 local committees),
Germany : NAEB (Nationale Anti EEG Bewegung – against windfarms)

Contacts :
Kléber ROSSILLON (FNASSEM) : 06 07 21 88 64 kleber.rossilllon@wanadoo.fr
Emmanuel du BOULLAY (FED) : 06 13 54 49 07 emmanuel.du-boullay@laposte.net

Mark Duchamp + 34 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of
collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPAÑOL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques eólicos:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de víctimas de parques eólicos ( águilas etc. ), incendios de
aerogeneradores, contaminación de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp



Energy Price Shock -Two Energy Firms to Raise Prices

August 21, 2008

Editor:
If you live in North America take a close look at what is coming. The Greens want to destroy the economies of
the industrialized world, via political pressure and the blocking of opening oil reserves and new nuclear power.
Expect massive increases in your electric bill in the very near future. Watch as more and more manufacturing flees North America and heads to China and other Asian countries.
While China and others continue to build coal plants – we will rely on expensive intermittent wind and solar for our power.
Why?
Read the Green Agenda – after which you should be rightfully pissed at your elected officials.

Energy firms E.On and Scottish and Southern Energy are to raise gas and electricity prices by up to 29%.

E.On said it would up its gas prices by 26% and electricity bills by 16% on 22 August for domestic customers.

Gas rings

The move comes shortly after British Gas announced a record rise in bills

Scottish and Southern followed a few hours later by announcing a 29.2%
increase in gas bills, with electricity tariffs up by 19.2% on 25
August.

This is E.On’s second price rise for domestic customers this year. In
February it put up gas bills by 15% and electricity tariffs by 9.7%.


We
are extremely concerned that the one in three pensioner households
likely to be living in fuel poverty by the end of the year will feel
forced to cut back on essential food or fuel

Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

Complete Article

THE EU'S CARBON TRADING SCHEME-Killing Jobs to Save the Climate

July 20, 2008

Editor: In Canada, we are continually told that we need to follow the German and EU example. If we want to watch our companies flee to China and India and see our unemployment rise dramatically, while our standard of living plummets, then by all means lets jump on the EU bandwagon.

Al Gore – the high priest of the “Global warming scam” and the architects of the “Green Agenda” must be exposed, before they have destroyed the worlds greatest economies. Their aim is not so much about saving the environment as it is about control and power.

Read and understand
The Green Agenda

Killing Jobs to Save the Climate

By Karsten Stumm

The price of European emission
permits is rising so rapidly that German companies are threatening to
leave the country. Thousands of jobs could be lost. And the environment
may, in the end, be no better off.

Numerous German companies would relocate abroad if the EU fully implements its carbon trading scheme.

Zoom
DPA

Numerous German companies would relocate abroad if the EU fully implements its carbon trading scheme.

They sat silently through two lectures, but then they couldn’t
control their anger any longer. The civil servants from the Environment
Ministry, the Environment Agency and the German Emissions Trading
Authority made it sound easy for industry to take up carbon trading. It
was just too much for the managers to tolerate.

“If that’s the shape the trading will take, we will simply move our
cement operation to Ukraine,” a cement factory manager shouted into the
lecture hall. “Then there won’t be any trading here, nothing will be
produced here anymore — the lights will simply go out here.”

The businessmen’s anger surprised the emissions-allowance trading
experts. They had invited industry representatives to a relaxed forum
at the Environment Ministry’s office in Bonn. They wanted to present
international developments in the carbon trading market. However, the
mood in the German business world has soured — managers no longer have
the stomach for academic lectures. The reason is that emissions
allowances are already burdening some companies that require a lot of
energy for production purposes.

In the last 12 months alone, the price for the right to pump a ton
of carbon into the atmosphere has shot up from €23 ($36.5) to nearly
€30 ($47.6), according to the European Energy Exchange in Leipzig. This
hike of around 30 percent has a direct effect on the electricity
production of power companies.

According to calculations by Point Carbon — a Norwegian company
that specializes in analyzing global power, gas and carbon markets —
this price hike would drive up the marginal cost of energy from an old
brown coal power plant by the entire price of carbon. For modern
natural gas power plants, it would increase prices by a third. Energy
company RWE, which is based in the German city of Essen, reckons it
alone will have to pay €9 billion ($14.2 billion) for its own
electricity production, which it, of course, will pass on in higher
electricity prices. So carbon trading will have a direct impact on
which countries firms chose to locate in.

“If the cement industry is gradually pulled into the trading of
carbon emission allowances, companies will move production to countries
that don’t take part in the scheme,” Andreas Kern, President of the
German Cement Industry Federation, has warned.

Thousands of Jobs in Danger

Full story

Read and understand

The Green Agenda


The Wind Energy Scam- Compare the Numbers

July 11, 2008

Editor:

Let me start by saying, I’m no fan of Mr.Harper.

Both Harper and Dion are TRAITORS.

Dion wants Canada to be ruled by the unelected officials at the UN

and

Harper wants to integrate us with the US and Mexico.

Either way Canada will no longer call the shots concerning it’s future.

Dion and Suzuki keep screaming about “EVIL CO2″.

They, along with the wind industry keep telling us we should be more like Denmark and Germany.

Why? It’s not because of their low CO2 emissions.

Why is India Electricity – production by source:fossil fuel: 81.7%
hydro: 14.5%
nuclear: 3.4%
other: 0.3% (2001)
and China exempt form Kyoto. Their CO2 emissions are higher than ours.
Do some research.

Denmark
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 82.7%
hydro: 0.1%
nuclear: 0%
other: 17.3% (2001)
(They have been using wind since the 70’s)

Germany
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 61.8%
hydro: 4.2%
nuclear: 29.9%
other: 4.1% (2001)
(We are told that Germany has more wind energy than anyone,yet Germany is in the process of building 20+ new coal plants)

Canada
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 28%
hydro: 57.9%
nuclear: 12.9%
other: 1.3% (2001)

Looks to me that the rest of the world should be following Canada.

We are told we need to follow the examples of Denmark and Germany. Why?
Even if they managed to cut their emissions from fossil fuel by 50% they would still have higher emissions than us.

We need to recall our elected officials today and demand an explanation.

Ontario could have put the scrubbers on the coal plants and built a new nuke for about 10 billion- according to the senior policy adviser for the ministry of energy.
Instead we are spending between 60 and 70 billion on a faulty dream.

No money for health, education or agriculture.
There is no excuse for the massive fraud taking place in this country.

Read Agenda 21 and Cloak of Green both found here

Have some fun – Google Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton.

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com.

Enjoy the day and the scam

Ron

Britain’s Climate Madness

July 3, 2008

Absurd and Costly

There is not the faintest chance that 7,000 wind turbines can be constructed in this time, given the construction capacity restrictions and tight timetable. But, even if the turbines

were built, this would not be the end of the matter. Britain would still require a considerable back-up of conventional electricity-generating capacity because the turbines would frequently produce no electricity at all, given the fluctuation in wind speeds. Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, has said that this back-up capacity would have to amount to 90% of the capacity of the wind turbines, if supplies were to be reliable. This would be an absurd, and costly, misallocation of resources, with the extra costs falling on households and businesses. But, costs apart, there is yet another problem. And that is whether the necessary back-up capacity is likely to be available.

The current Government has woefully neglected Britain’s energy infrastructure, and much of Britain’s current electricity-generating capacity is due for closure over the next 10 to 15 years. Most of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned, and half of Britain’s coal-fired power stations are due to be retired because of the EU’s Large Combustion Power Directive (concerned with controlling emissions of, for example, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides). Under these circumstances, there is a very real risk that there will not be adequate conventional back-up capacity despite the Government’s welcome acceptance of the need for nuclear power (there will inevitably be delays in construction) and the operation of new gas-fired capacity (which, incidentally, makes Britain unduly dependent on imports, as our own supplies are dwindling fast).

The prospect of power cuts is, therefore, all too real. Brutally, the lights could go out, and business and the public services, now so dependent on computers, would suffer. The folly of putting so many eggs in the basket of wind power is the height of irresponsibility.

The EU’s Renewables Directive: Disproportionate Burden

The Government’s ‘dash for wind’ in order to develop a “low-carbon economy” is, of course, part of its climate-change policy of cutting carbon emissions in order to “combat global warming”. Any expansion of nuclear power would also curtail carbon emissions, and, indeed, if one believes that a low-carbon economy is a good idea (perhaps for security reasons as well as ‘saving the planet’), one might ask why not allocate far more resources to nuclear power and far fewer to renewables.

Alas, this would not be permitted under the EU’s 2008 Renewables Directive.(1) Under this Directive, the UK has agreed to meet 15% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Whilst renewables include biomass, solar power, wind, wave/tide, and hydroelectricity, nuclear power is excluded. Insofar as the Renewables Directive is part of the EU’s policy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990, this is perverse to say the least.

Whilst the UK has a 15% renewables target for 2020, just 1.5% of energy consumption was met by permissible renewables in 2006.(2) The UK has committed itself, therefore, to increase its renewables share ten-fold by 2020. With the possible exceptions of Malta and Luxembourg, the UK is faced with by far the greatest challenge in reaching its 2020 target. In addition, the unit costs in the UK are relatively high because Britain lacks access to cheap biomass resources in the electricity and heat sectors, and is placing greater reliance on high cost, expensive electricity technologies, such as wind (mainly) and wave/tidal. By contrast several EU countries are well-placed, including Austria, Finland, and Sweden, as are many of the central and eastern European countries.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that the UK is likely to carry a disproportionate burden of the costs of meeting the EU’s 2020 renewables target. According to a study by Pöyry Energy Consulting, the UK could carry around 20-25% of the total EU costs.(3) Pöyry has estimated that the annual cost in 2020 could be around £150 to £200 per UK household, and the lifetime costs up to 2020 would be £1,800, even as high as £2,800, per UK household. These are significant sums, and they are likely to be under-estimates.

Given my earlier comment that the Government’s plans for 7,000 wind turbines will not be achieved by 2020, there is no chance that we will meet the renewables target. (And, in any case, 7,000 turbines, even if built, are apparently inadequate for Britain to meet the 15% target.) The Government is living in fantasy-land – but it seems hell-bent on pursuing an energy policy which will be costly, will dangerously distort energy policy, and will leave the country vulnerable to black-outs.

The Economic Effects

Even if the lights stay on, it is clear that the Government’s current strategy will lead to higher and less competitive energy prices in Britain, other things being equal. For households, especially low income and pensioner households, this will bite into general living standards. Businesses, especially energy intensive industries, will continue to lose competitiveness and will migrate overseas to, say, India or China. The Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG) estimates that various ‘green measures’ (the Renewables Obligation, the Climate Change Levy, and the costs of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme) already account for a quarter of total energy costs for their members. The situation will surely deteriorate. Britain’s chemicals, cement, and steel industries, to name but three, are likely to shrink, jobs will be lost, and the balance of payments will deteriorate.

Wind power: is it a realistic option?

July 3, 2008

Wind power: is it a realistic option? – Money Week

Is wind power as green as it seems?

Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.

In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.

Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.

Full Story-Money Week