Wind and the Myth of Fossil Fuel Subsidies.

One of the latest little scams our wind turbines aficionado's are trying to pull is to justify their obscenely expensive and ineffective Wind Turbine generators (WTG's) by inventing fictional subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear. The latest and greatest of these has the carpet baggers claiming that that the massive ROC subsidy received by wind is on par with or even less than that received by gas, oil and coal.

Of course, this is a load of tosh. Just as it is a load tosh that wind is cheaper than nuclear (See this Post).

Here is a fine example of this bufoonery at The Guardian - Here  (where does the Guardian get their reporters from?). You have to ask: Do Guardian journalists ever read the documents they supposedly quote from? Or do they just do as they are told? 

According to our Guardian scribbler, poor hard done-by wind (which at best produces 1% total energy supply) "only" got £700M subsidy in 2010. Whereas (shock horror probe) the demon spawn of Satan (aka fossil fuels) received a whopping £3.63 Billion. 

He supposedly derives this from an OECD document available Here. Pity the journalist didn't read it first. I have to ask if Guardian journalist are just naturally lazy or so dedicated to spewing out propaganda they willingly subvert the truth to aid their carpet bagging friends in the wind industry.

At the end of this document from the OECD are three tables that summarize the subsidies received by coal oil and gas (produced at the end of this post)

Each of these tables itemise the folowing:
A "Producer subsidy" i.e. the subsidy received by the energy producer.
A "Consumer" subsidy which relates to the reduced VAT rate charged on all electricity and heating (however generated) 
Finally, a subsidy for inherited liabilities. (£8.5M - coal only)

These are the producer subsidies:
Coal: Nil (Coal provides approx 14% total energy)
Gas: £233M (Gas provides approx 40% total energy)
Oil: £301M (Oil provides approx 38% total energy)

These subsidies though are acknowledged by the OECD as for specific purposes, not like the ROC which simply lines the pockets of the shysters running the WTG scam.

What this ridiculous article includes in to order to get to £3.63 Billion is the Consumer subsidy. This of course, applies to all energy providers including wind and relates to consumers NOT providers. Wind (whose energy is also subject  to the same consumer VAT reduction from 20% to 5%) still gets an another £700M. All for their measly 1% annual contribution to the UK energy mix.

I can only see this as a fundamentally dishonest and decietful misuse of data in order to promote a mistruth. The fact that this appears in a supposedly  upstanding newpaper is absolutely unforgivable.

 You can guarantee ther wind industry and their pals will try and pull this trick again.

Just remember, even if you consider the consumer VAT tax reduction a subsidy, then it is a subsidy to consumers. It is a subsidy to people who use the energy NOT the producers. The reduced VAT tax on energy makes no difference to the wholesale sell-out price for that energy whatever it is derived from. It relates to fossil, nuclear, wind, hydro,  and any other energy generation technique.

This non existent fossil fuel subsidy just comes down to another self promotional myth from the wind industry and their sycophants.

One day they may start telling the truth. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

(tables follow)

The Cost Of Generating Electricity

If you want to read a dry document look no further than the "The Cost of Generating Electricity" from the Royal Academy of Engineering. But to describe this document as dry is very far from an insult. It does exactly what it says on the tin (or header page). It makes no blatent partisan statements. It is a terse brutally scientific appraisal of the costs of generating electricity by different methods of generation.

It includes as optional extras the bits that some wish to miss out.

take this graph:

There are also two caveats attached to the graph. These are:

[quote]

1 With the exception of nuclear, the analysis assumes that decommissioning is cost neutral. The capital cost estimate for nuclear plant includes an allowance for the costs of decommissioning.
2 For the purpose of this study, wave and marine technologies are deemed to be predictable and therefore have not been burdened with the additional cost of standby generation.

[unquote]

So Nuclear including decommisioning costs less per MW than any other generation method other than CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) and is less than one third of the cost of offshore wind generation and well under half the cost of on shore wind generation. Even if you exclude the extra spinning reserve needed by wind, nuclear is still massively cheaper.

But pure cost is not the only issue. One item constantly raised by pro-windies is energy security, so lets have a look at a graph concerning a price variation of +/- 20% on each energy fuel.

So because nuclear uses so little fuel, the cost of the fuel is not far off immaterial. Also all nuclear fuel can either be created from existing stocks (85 years worth) and at worst purchased from the massive ore supplies in secure countries like Australia. With nuclear there is no risk to fuel supply.

The final argument bleated out by proponents of wind concerns CO2 emissions. Look at this:

Clearly the cheapest and least polluting technology is Nuclear. In fact just about everything , even with carbon mitigation is more cost effective than wind.

So why are we continuing to ruin our countryside with these monstrous, ineffective and massively expensive wind turbines?

All answers please to Billothewisp, written on a clean £50.00 note.Please mark all bank notes "ROC subsidy"