I'm no Obama supporter, but I do feel the criticism of the US President by various sections of the media for his "anti-British" rhetoric is a bit rich.
After all, when Gordon Brown was telling anyone and everyone that the global financial crisis was the Yanks fault they all just seemed to nod along in agreement as if this was an obvious fact (it wasn't and isn't. The global financial crisis was the fault of every western nation - the sub-prime mortgage scam was just the ultimate symptom of a system out of control - and the system is called "globalisation").
Now that the boot is on the other fault and Obama is blaming a British company for the environmental catastrophe that has struck the Gulf Of Mexico the media are getting all huffy about it. Tough luck, guys - you shouldn't live in glass houses if you're gonna go around chucking bricks.
What is unforgivable, however, is for Obama to equate the Gulf oil spill crisis with 9/11.
What was the man thinking of? The attack on the twin towers was a premeditated and carefully planned act of wilful destruction and murder that cost the lives of almost 3000 people. The BP oil platform explosion was an accident - possibly an avoidable, but an accident all the same. There is no comparison - none whatsoever.
Of course BP should pay for clearing up the mess - and they will - but running about pointing fingers and shouting "it's your fault" isn't going to solve anything.
And just with the financial crisis we should all take a good long hard look at ourselves before we point the finger - as someone once said (Bob Marley?), when you point your finger there are three more pointing back at you. You could just as easily blame the US drive for energy independence (and thus the exploiting of offshore oil reserves) for the disaster - and when you boil that down that comes down to each and every one of us who demand cheap and reliable energy supplies.
Of course, I am one of those and I still support that demand for energy independence and cheap and reliable sources of energy (and, believe me, if wind farms could do it I would support them - but they can't so I don't). However, as far as Britain is concerned I believe we should be doing more than we are to exploit our natural coal reserves - estimated at 200 years of readily accessible supplies and a thousand years of harder to reach supplies.
Accidents and disasters happen in coal mines too and, when they do, it is right and proper that there inquiries to ascertain what went wrong, what could have been done to avoid it, how it can be avoided in the future and who is to blame.
None of this is helped by the leaders of any nation going around blaming other nations - whether it is a global financial crisis or an oil spill. If you really feel you must blame something then blame the thing that is really at the root of this - globalisation.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Power hungry
After all the suffering and hardship endured by Britons during World War Two, it was a cruel twist of fate that the winters that followed the end of that conflict were amongst the harshest and coldest on record and, with a national shortage of fuel, even relatively wealthy people, such as George Orwell, resorted to burning furniture to keep themselves warm.
However, at least the government of the time had a perfectly reasonable excuse for failing to meet the needs of the people for power - we'd just come out of a hugely expensive and incredibly destructive war. The government of today has no such excuse.
Ofgem are warning that "families face "unaffordable" energy bills and power cut" in a few years time unless £200 billion - yes, billion - is spent now to improve power supply and storage. You don't have to be George Osborne to work out that this puts Britain in something of a financial pickle.
Our energy suppliers are mostly foreign. They really don't give a damn if fuel bills are "unaffordable" - it just means they make more profit. They don't give a damn if British industry is crippled by power cuts - it just means they make more profit. These companies are not going to spend billions of pounds on our energy infrastructure unless there is something in it for them - and making less profit is hardly an incentive.
The "dash for gas" might have seemed like a good idea at the time. Hey, anything that meant we didn't have to rely on bolshy British coal miners has got to be a good thing, right? Wrong - particularly if it means we have to rely on unstable Russian gas oligarchs, mad Middle East mullahs and dodgy French engineering.
We need to take back control of our energy supply and generation. We need to make sure that we can provide for our energy needs without relying on foreign support or favour. We need to realise that wind farms are never ever going to be able to provide this even if we carpet the whole of the United Kingdom in the ugly monstrosities.
We need to take back control of energy supply, generation and distribution. We need to make ourselves as independent in meeting our energy needs as it is possible to be. To do this we need four things.
First we need to re nationalise our energy industry entirely. Secondly, we need to give up this ridiculous pursuit of "renewable" supply which is currently incapable of providing us with the energy we need. Thirdly, we need to modernise our existing coal fired power stations and build lots more. Fourth, we need to make long term investment in skills and technology that will enable us to build our own nuclear power plants for the future.
Two of those we can do quickly. We can take back control of our energy industry relatively easily and we can withdraw from the pursuit of renewable nirvana in no time. The coal fired power stations will take a little longer as we not only need to build them, but we have to restore our coal industry as well. However, it will buy us enough time to do what is necessary for the fourth requirement.
Because that is the really long term goal. Those people who want us to go nuclear now are not living in the real world. The problem with that is that there isn't enough nuclear expertise to go around - and Britain is virtually devoid of it. Furthermore, such is the dire state of our education system that we are unlikely to be able to produce people with the skills and brains to do it ourselves - and reliance on foreign skill is not what I want because it is not good for Britain.
So, in the interim we keep what coal fired plants we have going. We build new ones. We re-open coal mines and dig new ones. That will give us the energy we are going to need for the next 20-50 years - because it will take at least that long to restore our education system to the extent that we are able to start, once more, producing the best of the best in engineering, design and technology.
However, at least the government of the time had a perfectly reasonable excuse for failing to meet the needs of the people for power - we'd just come out of a hugely expensive and incredibly destructive war. The government of today has no such excuse.
Ofgem are warning that "families face "unaffordable" energy bills and power cut" in a few years time unless £200 billion - yes, billion - is spent now to improve power supply and storage. You don't have to be George Osborne to work out that this puts Britain in something of a financial pickle.
Our energy suppliers are mostly foreign. They really don't give a damn if fuel bills are "unaffordable" - it just means they make more profit. They don't give a damn if British industry is crippled by power cuts - it just means they make more profit. These companies are not going to spend billions of pounds on our energy infrastructure unless there is something in it for them - and making less profit is hardly an incentive.
The "dash for gas" might have seemed like a good idea at the time. Hey, anything that meant we didn't have to rely on bolshy British coal miners has got to be a good thing, right? Wrong - particularly if it means we have to rely on unstable Russian gas oligarchs, mad Middle East mullahs and dodgy French engineering.
We need to take back control of our energy supply and generation. We need to make sure that we can provide for our energy needs without relying on foreign support or favour. We need to realise that wind farms are never ever going to be able to provide this even if we carpet the whole of the United Kingdom in the ugly monstrosities.
We need to take back control of energy supply, generation and distribution. We need to make ourselves as independent in meeting our energy needs as it is possible to be. To do this we need four things.
First we need to re nationalise our energy industry entirely. Secondly, we need to give up this ridiculous pursuit of "renewable" supply which is currently incapable of providing us with the energy we need. Thirdly, we need to modernise our existing coal fired power stations and build lots more. Fourth, we need to make long term investment in skills and technology that will enable us to build our own nuclear power plants for the future.
Two of those we can do quickly. We can take back control of our energy industry relatively easily and we can withdraw from the pursuit of renewable nirvana in no time. The coal fired power stations will take a little longer as we not only need to build them, but we have to restore our coal industry as well. However, it will buy us enough time to do what is necessary for the fourth requirement.
Because that is the really long term goal. Those people who want us to go nuclear now are not living in the real world. The problem with that is that there isn't enough nuclear expertise to go around - and Britain is virtually devoid of it. Furthermore, such is the dire state of our education system that we are unlikely to be able to produce people with the skills and brains to do it ourselves - and reliance on foreign skill is not what I want because it is not good for Britain.
So, in the interim we keep what coal fired plants we have going. We build new ones. We re-open coal mines and dig new ones. That will give us the energy we are going to need for the next 20-50 years - because it will take at least that long to restore our education system to the extent that we are able to start, once more, producing the best of the best in engineering, design and technology.
Monday, December 07, 2009
The cavalcade of conspiracy
So the Copenhagen stitch up - sorry, conference - is under way with much fanfare and the usual bunch of Environazis demanding that their voice be heard even though they are proven to be liars and deceivers.
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. Even if these mad Canutists were correct in their assumption that increasing CO2 will result in runaway warming (which I do not believe they are as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis - none at all) then all these efforts will supposedly delay the inevitable by, at best, 10 years.
The reality is that it isn't going to happen. Any contribution to global warming made by man is insignificant and whatever we do isn't going to make the slightest difference to the climate in 100 years time or 1000 years time - but this isn't really what Copenhagen is about.
The purpose of Copenhagen is not to fix any supposed problem with the climate - it is the first step in an attempt to create a socialist world order under the pretext of some half-baked hypothesis. The main purpose of the conference is to redistribute wealth - and to make that redistribution legally binding. It is, in effect, the creation of a new world government appointed - not elected - to take money from you and me and give it to someone in a far off country.
I have no doubt that in a hundred years time, people will look back on these days in with sadness and bewilderment and wonder how it could have happened. By then, of course, the whole scam will have been well and truly debunked and the mad scramble to "save the planet" will have been revealed as nothing more than a political con-trick.
Unfortunately, it will be a con-trick that will have huge implications for the world and for the west in particular. This is happening at a time when the economic system of the west is on the brink of depression - we're teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. Don't be fooled by the massaged statistics - all of Europe and the USA remains on the brink - and our political leaders are about to sign away what little hope we had of avoiding this for the sake of a flawed and wholly political belief.
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. Even if these mad Canutists were correct in their assumption that increasing CO2 will result in runaway warming (which I do not believe they are as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis - none at all) then all these efforts will supposedly delay the inevitable by, at best, 10 years.
The reality is that it isn't going to happen. Any contribution to global warming made by man is insignificant and whatever we do isn't going to make the slightest difference to the climate in 100 years time or 1000 years time - but this isn't really what Copenhagen is about.
The purpose of Copenhagen is not to fix any supposed problem with the climate - it is the first step in an attempt to create a socialist world order under the pretext of some half-baked hypothesis. The main purpose of the conference is to redistribute wealth - and to make that redistribution legally binding. It is, in effect, the creation of a new world government appointed - not elected - to take money from you and me and give it to someone in a far off country.
I have no doubt that in a hundred years time, people will look back on these days in with sadness and bewilderment and wonder how it could have happened. By then, of course, the whole scam will have been well and truly debunked and the mad scramble to "save the planet" will have been revealed as nothing more than a political con-trick.
Unfortunately, it will be a con-trick that will have huge implications for the world and for the west in particular. This is happening at a time when the economic system of the west is on the brink of depression - we're teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. Don't be fooled by the massaged statistics - all of Europe and the USA remains on the brink - and our political leaders are about to sign away what little hope we had of avoiding this for the sake of a flawed and wholly political belief.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Electric la-la land
The news that the government is to offer incentives to people to buy electric cars (from 2011) has been greeted by fairly uncritical press coverage.
Most of the problems with electric cars are well documented, however. They lack the range of a normal, internal combustion engined car and can not be "refuelled" anywhere near as quickly. As a result, electric cars are all but useless for any significant journey.
But there's more to it than even that. Apart from the obvious fact that these cars still require something to produce the electricity they use, there is the issue of the batteries they employ. Anyone who owns a laptop or even a mobile phone will know that these batteries quickly degrade and lose efficiency. When I first got my previous laptop it could run for almost 3 hours from a 100% charge. By the time it was replaced three years later it could barely manage one hour. My current laptop is one year old and already has lost around a fifth of its efficiency (down from 5 hours to 4).
As I understand it, the average lifespan of these batteries is around 4-5 years. After that they have to be replaced - and for these electric cars that is an enormous cost. It's a little like having to replace the engine of a standard car every five years!
What this means is that these cars will have virtually no value second hand other than as parts bins. If you own one of these cars from new, you won't be able to sell it after three years for the sort of money you'd get for a three year old petrol car - and if petrol engined cars are still available, you won't be able to sell it at all. You'll be faced with a £5000 bill for new batteries (plus whatever it costs you for disposing of the toxic waste that constitutes the old batteries) or scrapping the car - which will still cost you an arm and a leg.
And all of this supposes that we're going to have a plentiful supply of electricity to charge these cars - but with our energy supply policy in complete disarray this is far from certain. Chances are that you'll be plugging your electric car in overnight only to find, come morning, that there's been a power cut and the damn thing won't start.
I have nothing against electric cars per se, but until they are really viable and practical alternatives to internal combustion engined cars then it strikes me as daft to pursue such a policy. Even more so when far more practical and realistic alternatives are becoming available through hydrogen fuel cell cars.
I'm all for anything that moves us away from dependency on energy supply from unstable and, frankly, beligerent oil states. Believe me, I will be as happy as anyone when we can tell the Saudis and the rest that they can shove their oil where the sun don't shine, but for God's sake keep it real.
Most of the problems with electric cars are well documented, however. They lack the range of a normal, internal combustion engined car and can not be "refuelled" anywhere near as quickly. As a result, electric cars are all but useless for any significant journey.
But there's more to it than even that. Apart from the obvious fact that these cars still require something to produce the electricity they use, there is the issue of the batteries they employ. Anyone who owns a laptop or even a mobile phone will know that these batteries quickly degrade and lose efficiency. When I first got my previous laptop it could run for almost 3 hours from a 100% charge. By the time it was replaced three years later it could barely manage one hour. My current laptop is one year old and already has lost around a fifth of its efficiency (down from 5 hours to 4).
As I understand it, the average lifespan of these batteries is around 4-5 years. After that they have to be replaced - and for these electric cars that is an enormous cost. It's a little like having to replace the engine of a standard car every five years!
What this means is that these cars will have virtually no value second hand other than as parts bins. If you own one of these cars from new, you won't be able to sell it after three years for the sort of money you'd get for a three year old petrol car - and if petrol engined cars are still available, you won't be able to sell it at all. You'll be faced with a £5000 bill for new batteries (plus whatever it costs you for disposing of the toxic waste that constitutes the old batteries) or scrapping the car - which will still cost you an arm and a leg.
And all of this supposes that we're going to have a plentiful supply of electricity to charge these cars - but with our energy supply policy in complete disarray this is far from certain. Chances are that you'll be plugging your electric car in overnight only to find, come morning, that there's been a power cut and the damn thing won't start.
I have nothing against electric cars per se, but until they are really viable and practical alternatives to internal combustion engined cars then it strikes me as daft to pursue such a policy. Even more so when far more practical and realistic alternatives are becoming available through hydrogen fuel cell cars.
I'm all for anything that moves us away from dependency on energy supply from unstable and, frankly, beligerent oil states. Believe me, I will be as happy as anyone when we can tell the Saudis and the rest that they can shove their oil where the sun don't shine, but for God's sake keep it real.
Friday, November 14, 2008
All part of the plan?
Over the last few weeks and months I've been speculating that the demand for power this coming winter will bring power cuts and blackouts all over the country as the national grid fails to cope. Well, it seems that I may have been wrong.
The closure of dozens of factories this winter is set to reduce demand for electricity, minimising the threat of disruptions to Britain's power supplies, National Grid said yesterday.
Well that's alright then. I'm sure you are all aware that energy experts have been warning government that Britain will face severe energy shortages over the next 10 years as Britain closes many of its coal and nuclear power plants to meet the specific demands of our masters - the European Union.
Silly them! The government was one step ahead all the time. Rather than increasing supply by building new plants, simply reduce demand by creating economic conditions in which businesses can no longer afford to operate. Fewer businesses means lower energy demand - problem solved.
I also got things the wrong way around. I thought lack of supply would force businesses to close, but our clever leaders found away around that - make the businesses close first and demand will fall. Brilliant!
Nobody can accuse our leaders of not thinking outside the box.
The closure of dozens of factories this winter is set to reduce demand for electricity, minimising the threat of disruptions to Britain's power supplies, National Grid said yesterday.
Well that's alright then. I'm sure you are all aware that energy experts have been warning government that Britain will face severe energy shortages over the next 10 years as Britain closes many of its coal and nuclear power plants to meet the specific demands of our masters - the European Union.
Silly them! The government was one step ahead all the time. Rather than increasing supply by building new plants, simply reduce demand by creating economic conditions in which businesses can no longer afford to operate. Fewer businesses means lower energy demand - problem solved.
I also got things the wrong way around. I thought lack of supply would force businesses to close, but our clever leaders found away around that - make the businesses close first and demand will fall. Brilliant!
Nobody can accuse our leaders of not thinking outside the box.
Friday, October 03, 2008
One hundred days
Britain's energy supply capability is now so perilously thin that the blackouts could begin in just over one months time.
The blackouts could began as early as the week commencing November 10, for which the National Grid has warned “that the margin of spare capacity could be as slim as 0.8 gigawatts - the equivalent of one mid-sized coal-fired power station or the electricity consumed by a city the size of Nottingham.”
As the article points out, when there is no energy, there is nothing. No heating, no lighting, no manufacturing, no business - nothing. If you think the credit crunch is worrying, wait till the energy crunch hits us.
Contrary to the belief that the world is on an unstoppable warming path, I believe that the world is set to be plunged into a prolonged cold spell and Britain could experience one of its coldest winters for years. Energy demand will exceed supply by far and people will die as a consequence. This is not some far off scenario - not in the next hundred years or even one hundred months, but within the next one hundred days.
When the energy crunch strikes - as it will - remember who put us in this position; the environmentalists and "green" lobby.
They will have a lot to answer for.
Make sure they know it.
The blackouts could began as early as the week commencing November 10, for which the National Grid has warned “that the margin of spare capacity could be as slim as 0.8 gigawatts - the equivalent of one mid-sized coal-fired power station or the electricity consumed by a city the size of Nottingham.”
As the article points out, when there is no energy, there is nothing. No heating, no lighting, no manufacturing, no business - nothing. If you think the credit crunch is worrying, wait till the energy crunch hits us.
Contrary to the belief that the world is on an unstoppable warming path, I believe that the world is set to be plunged into a prolonged cold spell and Britain could experience one of its coldest winters for years. Energy demand will exceed supply by far and people will die as a consequence. This is not some far off scenario - not in the next hundred years or even one hundred months, but within the next one hundred days.
When the energy crunch strikes - as it will - remember who put us in this position; the environmentalists and "green" lobby.
They will have a lot to answer for.
Make sure they know it.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Selling England short by the pound
The disgrace of having British industry sold off to foreign owners continues with the deal to allow a state run French firm to buy up our nuclear power generation plants.
It's bad enough that our non-essential industries are being bought up wholesale by foreign competitors - who then operate those industries for the benefit of their national interest, not ours - but to allow our essential services to be purchased by foreign state owned companies is verging on the criminal.
One day, the next generation will look back on these times and wonder what on earth we thought we were up to. They'll wonder with dismay what possessed a seemingly sensible nation to prostitute itself in the way we are doing. They will ponder with open mouths the sheer folly of the national policies we pursued while this precious jewel of a nation was in our care.
I've no doubt that they will work to put things right - and they will put things right eventually - but their job is getting tougher year by year. The arrogance of this political generation seems to have no end. The failure to understand that the nation is not a possession of theirs to do as they please with, but a living entity which was entrusted into their care by the previous generation.
Since then they have set about systematically smashing apart all that was good about our country. When they come to hand over the battered remnants of what was once a great nation our children will be look at the decaying, tattered remains and wonder "what have you done to this?"
It's bad enough that our non-essential industries are being bought up wholesale by foreign competitors - who then operate those industries for the benefit of their national interest, not ours - but to allow our essential services to be purchased by foreign state owned companies is verging on the criminal.
One day, the next generation will look back on these times and wonder what on earth we thought we were up to. They'll wonder with dismay what possessed a seemingly sensible nation to prostitute itself in the way we are doing. They will ponder with open mouths the sheer folly of the national policies we pursued while this precious jewel of a nation was in our care.
I've no doubt that they will work to put things right - and they will put things right eventually - but their job is getting tougher year by year. The arrogance of this political generation seems to have no end. The failure to understand that the nation is not a possession of theirs to do as they please with, but a living entity which was entrusted into their care by the previous generation.
Since then they have set about systematically smashing apart all that was good about our country. When they come to hand over the battered remnants of what was once a great nation our children will be look at the decaying, tattered remains and wonder "what have you done to this?"
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Return to Life On Mars
In the TV show, Life On Mars, DCI Sam Tyler spends his entire time trying to wake himself from the coma so as to escape from 1973 back to the present. When he eventually succeeds, though, he finds the modern world so superficial and banal he takes his own life in an attempt to return back to 1973 - which he does.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Crisis? What crisis?
I don't know what it's like round your way, but many of the trees around here are already turning colour and losing their leaves. Given the rather dull and dreary summer we've had I'm not entirely surprised, but I was wondering if this is a sign of something - perhaps a cold winter to come?
Maybe there is some old country saying - similar to the red sky at night - that could tell me, but I can't be bothered to look. What I am bothered about, however, is the blase reaction of the government to what is, by all accounts, a crisis in our energy supply.
The era of cheap energy is over, a senior cabinet minister warns.
John Hutton, the Business Secretary, admits households will struggle to pay their heating bills this winter due to rising costs.
I don't know what planet Mr Hutton lives on, but for most of us the "era" of cheap energy ended some time ago as we've been struggling with rising fuel bills for some time. I guess living in expensive, tax payer funded opulence insulates our ministers from the reality of having to pay bills.
Hutton has ruled out imposing a windfall tax - a stupid idea as all that would happen is that the energy companies would recoup that loss through customers in some way - but offers no solution to our impending crisis. And that is exactly what it will be for thousands of people who will have to balance the budget choosing between ever increasing food bills and rapidly spiralling fuel costs.
To be fair to Mr Hutton, he is saying some of the right things as he refers to "energy independence" - something which can not be achieved by switching to nuclear in the medium term as this is something which we lack skills in and is therefore dependent on foreign (French) resource. We lack the skills because of the ridiculously short sighted further education policies which place media studies degrees as highly nuclear physics - this is a problem that will come back to haunt us in the future in other ways, but not one I wish to dwell on here.
Hutton also makes the right noises about Britain's most plentiful and cheap energy resource - coal.
[W]e cannot turn our back on any proven form of technology. We cannot afford to say no to new coal, new gas or new nuclear.
Coal is key in my opinion. We need to dig more of it and build more coal fired power stations as a matter of urgency and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that happens, but this government - and any future Tory government - are hamstrung by their belief in man-made climate change and the fear of ruining their environmental credentials.
Meanwhile, the (unofficial) predictions for the winter of 2008/2009 is that it will be a cold and harsh winter. Should this be true then millions will struggle to pay their bills and thousands of vulnerable - mostly the elderly - will die as a result of a severe winter. This could all happen within a few months. That is what I would call a crisis.
Maybe there is some old country saying - similar to the red sky at night - that could tell me, but I can't be bothered to look. What I am bothered about, however, is the blase reaction of the government to what is, by all accounts, a crisis in our energy supply.
The era of cheap energy is over, a senior cabinet minister warns.
John Hutton, the Business Secretary, admits households will struggle to pay their heating bills this winter due to rising costs.
I don't know what planet Mr Hutton lives on, but for most of us the "era" of cheap energy ended some time ago as we've been struggling with rising fuel bills for some time. I guess living in expensive, tax payer funded opulence insulates our ministers from the reality of having to pay bills.
Hutton has ruled out imposing a windfall tax - a stupid idea as all that would happen is that the energy companies would recoup that loss through customers in some way - but offers no solution to our impending crisis. And that is exactly what it will be for thousands of people who will have to balance the budget choosing between ever increasing food bills and rapidly spiralling fuel costs.
To be fair to Mr Hutton, he is saying some of the right things as he refers to "energy independence" - something which can not be achieved by switching to nuclear in the medium term as this is something which we lack skills in and is therefore dependent on foreign (French) resource. We lack the skills because of the ridiculously short sighted further education policies which place media studies degrees as highly nuclear physics - this is a problem that will come back to haunt us in the future in other ways, but not one I wish to dwell on here.
Hutton also makes the right noises about Britain's most plentiful and cheap energy resource - coal.
[W]e cannot turn our back on any proven form of technology. We cannot afford to say no to new coal, new gas or new nuclear.
Coal is key in my opinion. We need to dig more of it and build more coal fired power stations as a matter of urgency and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that happens, but this government - and any future Tory government - are hamstrung by their belief in man-made climate change and the fear of ruining their environmental credentials.
Meanwhile, the (unofficial) predictions for the winter of 2008/2009 is that it will be a cold and harsh winter. Should this be true then millions will struggle to pay their bills and thousands of vulnerable - mostly the elderly - will die as a result of a severe winter. This could all happen within a few months. That is what I would call a crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)