Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves
PS – 87:
(PS 87: Christopher Booker Was Exposing the Wind Turbine Scam back in 2012 in The Telegraph.)
How much profit will a turbine turn?
Developers of wind farms offer ‘sweeteners’ to local communities, but they may be tiny compared to the revenues.
Scarcely a week goes by when I am not asked by a local campaign group to publicise their fight against some scheme to build one of those increasingly hated wind farms. So many developers are now piling in on the subsidy bonanza that, according to a survey by the Western Morning News, in Cornwall and Devon alone no fewer than 600 such schemes are now being discussed or going through the planning process.
A ploy often used by developers to buy off opposition to their proposals is to offer cash to fund local community projects. But few campaign groups are aware just how derisory the sums often are, compared with the gains the developers stand to make.
I was recently approached, for instance, by Felix Williams, mayor of the little Suffolk market town of Eye, over a plan for two huge 3.4 megawatt (MW) turbines that would loom over the town from the site of a former wartime airfield nearby. Although the scheme was almost unanimously opposed by the town council, it was approved by Mid-Suffolk district council, on the grounds that it was necessary to meet the local target set by the Government, itself determined by our commitment to the EU to generate 32 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020, mainly from tens of thousands of new turbines.
The developers tried to appease opponents of the scheme by offering Eye £7,000 a year. What Mayor Williams wished to know was how this compares with the profits they might make from it.
The developers specify the capacity of their turbines – which will be taller than the spire of Salisbury Cathedral – as 6.8MW. But they admit, because wind is intermittent, that the actual output will only be around 2MW. In fact, even this is optimistic: turbines in England generate on average only 20 per cent of their capacity, so it’s unlikely that the average output of the Eye turbines will be more than 1.4MW. Sticking with the developers’ own figure, though – how much would their 2MW earn them?
As a rule of thumb, the annual income per MW fed to the Grid from wind energy is around £800,000, half from the sale of the electricity, the other half from the subsidy we all pay through our electricity bills under the Government’s Renewables Obligation. (These can only be rough averages because the value of each varies.) So the income from the Eye turbines might be around £1.6 million a year – which hardly makes the £7,000 offered to the locals for the blighting of their skyline the bargain of the century. (As Mayor Williams says, the town already pays £5,500 a year just for its new unisex public lavatory.)
Compare this with what the BBC describes as “the huge windfall” being offered to villagers in Powys by the German-owned energy giant RWE, to win their support for a plan to build 65 3MW turbines, each 450ft high, at Llanbrynmair, on the hills of central Wales. This “sweetener”, as the BBC calls it, will amount to a staggering £18.8 million over 20 years. But from RWE’s own figures we can see that the wind farm’s possible income of £50 million a year will amount to £1 billion (£500 million of it subsidy) over the same 20-year period.
This is how preposterous the finances of the great wind scam have become – to yield, very inefficiently, only a fraction of our electricity. (One medium-sized gas-fired power station can produce 800MW, reliably, all the time, at a fraction of the cost.) Even David Cameron last week criticised onshore wind farms as “over-subsidised and wasteful of public money”. He should know, since his father-in-law makes £1,000 a day from one on his Lincolnshire estate. But of course this was only a hollow gesture to appease those 100 MPs who recently wrote to him in similar vein, carefully referring only to “onshore” turbines – when the subsidies for those offshore are twice as high and twice as indefensible.
The fact is that, thanks to that unrealisable commitment agreed with the EU, the Government will do nothing meaningful to remedy this grotesque waste of public money. The destruction of Britain’s countryside – against the wishes of communities like those in Suffolk, Powys, Devon, Cornwall and so many other places – will therefore continue at an ever greater rate.
That EU ‘elephant’ appears in the circus
There have been few longer-running threads in this column than that famously invisible “EU elephant in the room” – the way that ministers, MPs (and even, alas, too many journalists) fail to admit or explain that some controversial policy or law stems not from our own government but from “Europe”, and we are therefore powerless to change it. There have been countless examples over the years, from the destruction of our postal system to those fraudulent but EU-approved breast implants.
Another recent instance is the weird little game our politicians have been playing over a proposal that we should ban the use of animals in circuses. When a backbench motion to this effect last year won unanimous Commons support, the MP behind it announced that he had been warned by David Cameron’s office that the Prime Minister would look on it “dimly” if he proceeded with his campaign. Agriculture minister Jim Paice hinted darkly that there could be “legal challenges” to such a ban.
What no one admitted was that, under EU Single Market rules, animal welfare issues are now exclusively an EU competence, and that, since this was extended to circus animals by Commission Regulation 1739/2005, a British ban would be declared illegal by the European courts.
Last week they were at it again: a Labour frontbencher accused the Government of hiding behind “spurious threats of legal challenges”; the Green Party MP Caroline Lucas stamped her foot at the Government’s refusal to ban “this cruel and outdated practice”; and Mr Paice said that, while the Government was “minded” to introduce a ban, the “legal issues” surrounding it “mean that pursuing a ban is not an immediate possibility”. But no one even hinted at the actual nature of those “legal issues”.
It is certainly ironic that, while all those MPs are keen to show how passionately they want such a ban, they are all equally keen to say how much they love the Single Market which makes a ban impossible. But the oddest thing of all is the way these MPs – happily accepting that we get most of our laws from Brussels – seem so demeaningly anxious to conceal the fact from the rest of us.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.
We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)
Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.
Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.
Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins
For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/
For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/