The English MP

I don't agree with everything Frank Field says, but he is at least honourable. He is perhaps, as well the only MP with enough balls to stand up for England today. (h/t to Man In a Shed)

This You-Tube Link Here takes you to 4 minutes into his speech (to the English specific Part)

The video below gives you the full speech. (5 mins)

Sausage, Egg and Chips...(and lettuce)

Billothewisp indulged in one of his favorite little vices today. A plate of Sausage Egg and Chips ( As you know , you can take the boy out of the council estate, but....).

It duly arrived. Sausage, Egg Chips and (er...) lettuce.

Someone somewhere is determined that the plebian multitudes (Billothewisp included) get their 5 a day whether they want them or not. Consequently, in order to meet some directive, from somewhere, some buffoon decided that Billothewisp needed some greens. (I wouldn't have minded if it had been peas)

Now I could spout forth about horses and water but instead I'll just 'fess up to leaving the lettuce untouched.

If any of my wind-turbine loving friends ( of whom I have none ) are consequently concerned about Billothewisp's mineral intake, I can assure them that all will be rectified later this evening when pints of Old Rosie (the cider of champions) will flow freely.

No doubt my non-friends (i.e. those who wish to save the environment by destroying it with wind-turbine foolishness ) will be aghast. In fact, I darkly suspect that they would regard Old Rosie as a bio-hazard.

But I can assure them that there is only one safe thing to do with Old Rosie and that is to drink it. Leaving it lying around is much more dangerous. Mainly because some other bastard will probably nick your pint when your back is turned.

Scale and Proportion

Nelsons Column is 51 meters high. Even in London amid a sea of concrete and high rise buildings Nelson's column still dominates the local area.

Which is fine.

It was designed like that at the behest of the local population. It was a tribute to a national hero.

However, impressive as it is, it neither generates noise nor does it move. It is a monument. A stationary tribute to a great man - 51meters high.

Here it is.. to get some scale from it  - look at the relative size of the people at the base.

Remember this monument is only 51 metres high. Now imagine it twice as tall. Then add another half a column. Until you get about 125 meters. Two and a half times the height of Nelsons column. Then, instead of having the thing in the concrete environment of London, stick in the countryside, preferably up on a ridge so it dominates the whole county.

But don't stop there add another 4 or 5 all the same height, in a line. Not oppressive enough for you?

OK - lets get them to make unpleasant pulsating noise called amplitude modulation. Finally, in case nobody has noticed them, place a large rotating rotor on each one.

Practically speaking, they will (just like Nelsons column) be pretty damn useless for generating electricity.

Remember though, each of these things is two and a half times the height of Nelsons Column above.

 Imagine four of those within 800 yards (or less) of your back door.

If you are going to build these enormous and hopelessly ineffective wind turbines and especially of you reckon they are harmless and "majestic" why not build them in London?

Say, next to Nelsons Column. Or perhaps in Hyde Park. Maybe put a few down the sides of the Mall.

But no. Of course that would never happen. It is much easier to impose them on the countryside. Blight the lives of the yokels. Dare I suggest that if they were to be built in London it would not be long before they came to an untimely (though very welcome) demise.

Gas: Excess Supply but Retail Prices Still Rise.

I picked up an interesting little snippet from Reuters today on Yahoo  see This Link

Looks like that in Europe there is a 10% oversupply of natural gas. Meanwhile the Utilities are still hiking their prices to the consumer.

[quote]
At projected import, domestic production and consumption levels, the EU's gas market will have 50 billion cubic metres (bcm) more excess supply in 2011 than it did last year, and the system is likely to remain similarly long in 2012,
This compares to an EU consumption of 492.5 bcm in 2010, according to BP, and to more than France's annual gas consumption of 47 bcm, and only slightly less than Britain's 57 bcm production in 2010.
This year and next year are likely to see an import and domestic production excess above consumption of just over 60 bcm.
[unquote]


Every single per-centage rise in energy prices pushes another 40,000 households into fuel poverty. Most of those households will be pensioners and the poor.

So why did the utilities successfully get away with their recent price hikes?

Because they could.

Why didn't the regulator (Ofgem) veto these rises?

Because it is a self-serving, toothless bureaucracy, incapable of regulating a bag of sherbet let alone a greedy cartel.

Why didn't the Government act?

Oh Come On. Get a grip and don't be silly. The government is part of the cartel. They want prices to rise.

In any normal market an over supply means prices should fall.

So are you expecting your bill to drop as quickly as it went up?

Don't hold your breath.

And particularly don't expect Huhne or any of the other buffoons to do anything about it.

Government Policy: Leave the Old to Freeze

The interview with Chris Huhne on the Channel 4 news last night was surreal.

He talked continuously, spouting on and on and on. Desperately, he tried to talk out the time time slot and refused to allow the interviewer to get in with her questions.

At times he was literally talking gibberish.

The whole interview amounted to him stringing together sound bites with no coherence or intelligibility. It was a bit like a  Madonna song but without the sex appeal - lots of emotional words strung together that sound good, but in reality  make no sense.

At least Madonna is entertaining.

Huhne point-blank refused to address the issues of fuel poverty and how his policies are forcing millions into penury. He frantically tried to sidestep the government's own figures on how the so called Green Policies are grinding down whole sections of our community. When it got too difficult he simply made it up of the hoof and made himself look even more ridiculous.

I could barely believe that anyone in government could so abjectly and so cynically fail those who need support. Instead he bamboozled and waffled on, trying to deflect focus away from his ridiculous fashion statement "Green Agenda". A policy that is essentially based on hidden taxation. Taxation on the poor to benefit the rich.

When it comes down to it, when you strip away the waffle and obfuscation, Chris Huhne would rather let thousands of pensioners and the poor die of cold rather than call a halt to the current lunatic energy policy.

His laughable solution is to get people to "shop around".

Tell that to the average 80 year old.


Tell the old dear down the road who has never even used a computer that she should use a price comparison site. 


Tell the old boy to "shop around" even though he is in his last days and wheelchair bound.

They all deserve better.

Much, much better than the preposterous Mr Huhne.

When it comes to the final analysis, the Government is responsible for this catastrophe.

This government may well be responsible for picking up many of the failings of the last Labour administration. But they are still responsible. After all that is what they were elected for - to take responsibility.

It is no good trying to deflect the blame onto the veracious big six energy companies. The whole of this debacle is simply down to bad and incompetent government. Both in the past and in the present.

We need a government that is willing and capable of breaking the current energy cartel. We need a government that plans energy policy on best practice not on vacuously fashionable but grossly ineffective solutions like wind power.

There are no excuses. 

If this coming winter, people die or are left freezing, then it is this governments fault.

Of course it is Huhne's fault. But it will also be Cameron's fault. Hague's fault, and all the others.

They are the government. Fixing problem is what they should be about.

Somebody in government has to do something practical about our looming (or loomed) energy crisis. Mouthing platitudes is not enough.

To get things going, one good step forward would be to  give Mr Huhne his P45.

Debunking the Myths

OK. This is a long post. To sweeten the task there is a windtoons cartoon at the end. No cheating.

Perhaps the most obscene aspect to the whole of the wind turbine fiasco is the way the carpet-baggers make up the "facts" to fit their own tawdry little aims. Especially when the truth is somewhat inconvenient. Wide eyed they then go into rant mode in an attempt browbeat everyone into believing their propaganda.

Take this site HERE for example. It is funded by the EU. But look at the bottom of any web page and notice it proudly states it is "co-ordinated by the EWEA" That is the European Wind Energy Association in case you did not know.

To me that sounds a bit like like having NHS Direct run by Glaxo-Smith-Kline-Beecham. Although to be fair to GSKB, I think they would be far more honourable than the average carpet-bagging wind-turbine cartel. But I digress.

On this site they have that favourite set of web pages you find on any of the carpet-bagging websites these days, proudly labelled  "Myths". Evidently our carpet-bagging friends want to enlighten the public by "Debunking the Myths" and show us all how wind energy is not only cheap reliable and non-intermittent but will probably cure cancer and teach you child to read as well.

What you actually get is the usual sad self serving deception and hypocrisy one has come to expect from the bureaucratic elite that runs this farce. When Sir Robert Armstrong used the phase "Economical with the truth" during the spy catcher trial of 1986 he really had no idea how the wind industry would take the meaning of the phase to a much higher level.

So let us look at the first myth they want to debunk. The myth which we all so mistakenly believe i.e.
"Wind power is expensive". Their answer to this "myth" is: (exactly as written:)

[quote]
Wind power ... can compete with other power generation options at good sites.
[unquote]

Now I suspect that a good site to the average carpet-bagger is anywhere they have got planning permission. To the rest of us I suspect a good site would be a windy site. One where, say, the turbine output would meet their often hyped 30% average capacity factor.

Now as you know there are some clever blokes about who love to debunk the debunk. One is called Professor Jefferson who did some research on the whole of the English turbine fleet that was operational for all of 2009 (See pdf Here).

He found that an annual 30% capacity factor was only reached by 7.6% of the turbine fleet. While 74% of the fleet failed to even reach 25% capacity factor. In fact the same percentage (7.6%) of turbines failed to manage 10% as managed to reach 30%.

So, the first deceit here in our "Debunking the Myths" is the "good site" deceit.

If you limited Wind turbines to only "good sites", and assuming that means a site that reaches the often quoted "30%" capacity factor then perhaps they could compete. They forget to mention that this would junk 92% of the turbine fleet in England straight away. Clearly MOST (almost all)  wind turbine power generation cannot compete with other power generation.

But it gets worse. They want to elaborate. (Ugh!)

First off they state the bleeding obvious
[quote]
Wind cannot compete with the cost of producing electricity from an existing power plant that has already been depreciated and paid for by taxpayers or electricity consumers.
[unquote]


Uh yes I would go along with that. Unfortunately though wind will never be free of its subsidy. It needs it to survive. If you did away with the ROC all wind farms would close down over night. Consequently wind will never be able to compete on a level playing field. It will always be cash hungry and require subsidy.

Then they contradict their first statement about how competitive wind is and admit that even at "good windy sites" is is not fully competitive, opting for a half way house "increasingly competitive".

[quote]
At good windy sites, however, it is increasingly competitive with other new-build generation technologies, especially given the dramatic rise in oil and gas prices. Oil, which influences the price of gas, has increased from an average of $14 in 1998 (in real terms) to around $100 in 2008.
[unquote]

Whatever you think about fracking we do now know that in the USA gas is now trading at a 50% discount to Europe. So even the spiteful little hope of other energy source prices  rising so high they make wind competitive is history.

But that's just the start. I could go on... and on... But you would get bored as would I.

When you hear about Wind turbine carpet baggers and their brown nosing friends ranting on about "Debunking the Myths" you know that what they really mean to do is ply you with their own deceptive propaganda and half truths.

Always listen to the arguments then ask yourself what is in it for them.

With Professor Jefferson, the CPRE, the John Muir Trust, Country Guardian and many others the answer is a desire to protect countryside and the people who live there.

With our deceptive band of turbine carpet-baggers the answer is money - your money.

Anyway after that rather depressing analysis lets finish with another excellent cartoon from windtoons.com

Wind Turbines: Dilbert and Windtoons say it all

So my grubby little Englanders, it looks like Infinergy have lodged an appeal. They are keen to overturn the democratic decision which rejected their dirty little money making plan for 4 industrial wind turbines at East Stoke in the Purbecks.

While  the average two year old understands that No means NO clearly the ugly corporate monster that is Infinergy cannot do without their filthy lucre, irrespective of the consequences for the local people.

Anyway, as you would expect this blog will be carrying a number of articles regarding windpower, greed and fanaticism over the next few months.

But tonight lets enjoy a few little gems from Dilbert and Windtoons.com

Oh So true... So True!

Never Lie about Experimental Results.

As you may know, Anthony Watts has a term for people like me. I am a Luke Warmer. In other words, I roughly go along with the theory that we may be increasing the Earth temperature due to the emmission of green house gases.

I am though, open to debate. I also hasten to point out, I am neither a "End of the Worlder" or a disciple of Al Gore. But in the past I have placed the the odd ding-dong comment on sites like Anthony's.

I must say though that I do find find Watts entertaining, if though sometimes rather off-base.

But today, he has a really good (and dare I say fascinating) article on why people really should not fiddle scientific results. (See Here)

That simple rule applies to everyone. Including Al Gore.

Al Gore recently did a 24 hour Gore-athon to "save the world in 24 hours" (Sigh)

I must say I find Al Gore downright embarrasing. Almost as embarrasing as his glassy eyed evengelical following.

Really, who can take seriously a man who couldn't even beat George Bush in an election?

But even worse. One of the simple experiments they did as part of this Gore-athon was fiddled.

If the science behind Global Warming (or anything else for that matter) is to stand and be believed, fiddling the results of simple secondary school experiments is really totally beyond the pale.

Read the article on Watts - and cringe.

Actually, I must say, it is really interesting and entertaining. The author should be congratulated for an excellent peice of detective work. While it doesn't do anything to resolve the science behind global warming it really does make Gore and his followers look like a complete bunch of pillocks.

It really shows how, in science, especially in a contentious field, there is absolutely no room for fiddling the results.

Al Gore - hang your head in shame (fat chance)

Yvette Cooper, Immigration and Honesty

I suppose I should have some sympathy for someone married to Ed Balls.

But after what I heard from Yvette Cooper this morning on Radio 4 I don't know which of the two I regard as the more dishonest or duplicitous.

Perhaps I should reserve my sympathy for Ed Milliband. After all, he only knifed his brother in the back. He didn't sell the whole country down the river like these other two.

There are some suppressed reports on immigration which are about to hit the fan. They concern the uncontrolled immigration policy that was quietly engineered by the Labour party during the last decade.

The findings in these reports are damning. see Here and Here.

If you think this was down simply to Labours incompetence rather than a deliberate half-cocked policy then perhaps you should read these too  Here and Here

So what did Yvette have to say about these reports this morning on radio 4?

Well, after many weasel words about the enormous immigration she and her colleagues presided over, she did actually mumble the word "sorry". Although rather disgustingly she first tried to blame it all on the Poles.

Maybe too many Poles did come here all at once. But at least they usually work also generally try and fit in.

Unlike some of the others, copiously reported on in these suppressed government reports and who Yvette Cooper so scrupulously avoided mentioning.

I suppose a mumbled "sorry" is at least a start. Coupled with her better (or worse?) half and his half baked apology for ruining the economy then I suppose the Labour party can congratulate themselves on glossing over two areas of their arrogance and incompetence.

Lets see....that only leaves

Lack of helicopters for Afghanistan
Housing policy
Attempted regional dismemberment of England
Cosying up to the Banks
Destroying UK industry
Reducing state education to a constantly changing shambles
Imposing bogus and ridiculous targets on the NHS
A half baked and very dangerous energy policy
Supporting a vast range of gangsters and dictators world-wide (including Gaddaffi)
More wars than any previous government since WWII
The Barnett Formula
Being George Bush's lapdog
Quangos
Political Correctness
Spin

Oh I'm bored now. Make your own bloody list. There is just too much to choose from.

As for Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls, they obviously deserve each other.

The Road to Weimar UK

So the Bank of England is falling over itself to  do some more Printing Money Quantitative Easing. ( Guardian Here )

Oh Joy!

More Funny Money. The new Opium of the Masses. The delicious fix from a set of new credit cards and payback on the never never.

Who cares if it is our kids who will pick up the tab.

Like a country of stoned addicts, we can (for a while) all run away from the harsh economic truths caused by undiluted Globalisation and irresponsible government. We can all have a nice time pretending there is nothing much wrong with the world economy.

Dear old Ed Balls (that well known Economic superstar) even thinks we should go further. Lets cut VAT!

Dear old Ed just begs the question: Why not just cut up the credit cards, forget about the debt and start it all again.

So when do we pay it all back? Ah Manana, Manana.

Who cares? Tomorrow never comes. Just ask the Greeks.

And if its good enough for the Greeks then its good enough for us. Let the Germans pay! Serve then right for clocking up so much overtime. I'm sure they don't mind (much).

Never mind that we are mortgaging our kids future. Just as long as we can selfishly indulge in more predatory priced Chinese imports, then we can forget about the reality.

Meanwhile we can all celebrate as those villainous bandits who have actually saved some cash get further stuffed by the inevitable inflation.

All those greedy old folk who paid their way throughout their lives and never touched the welfare state.

The fools.

Fancy putting away cash for a rainy day when you could spend! Spend! SPEND!

Why not just let someone else pick up the tab?

Lets face it, these contemptibly independent old folk deserve to suffer don't they?

How dare they have money - just because they saved.

How dare they even think their money should be safe-guarded - just because they didn't squander it.

At least UK industry won't complain. It is so broken by unfair predatory foreign competition it just bows its head and accepts its fate. If UK businesses are lucky they may pick up the odd scrap from the funny money. As long as they don't expect anything more than a straw to clutch at then that's OK.

While savers get robbed and UK industry continues to be demolished by unfair competition, our great leaders all yearn for a nice boom. Something that they can grandstand over, strut about a bit, show us all how important they all are.

Meanwhile the economy can go to the dogs.

If this dangerous addiction to QE continues it will just lead to the next fix, and the next, and the next. Then one day soon, you may well find that you are taking you wages home in a wheel barrow.

Just like they did in the Weimar Republic.

(For those who don't know what the Weimar Republic was Read Here)

Engineer Spotting in Public Toilets.

There is one simple and easy method you can use to spot an engineer. Unfortunately it does involve hanging around public toilets. As a consequence of this Billothewisp recommends that you only indulge in this bit of "I Spy" when you are actually taking a leak yourself. Otherwise who knows what might happen.

Billothewisp cannot be held responsible for any over zealous engineer spotting and certainly will not post bail for any  person using this blog post as an excuse for hanging around public toilets.

Anyway, the simple and easy method:

Watch the target as he/she enters the public toilet. Observe closely both the pre and post urinary ablutions.

If they wash their hands after taking a leak then they are probably nice clean fastidious people. Some engineers are. Some engineers are not. This is no indicator as to any engineering vocation.

If however, they wash their hands before taking a leak then they are guaranteed 100% bona fide engineer.

You know it makes sense.

Love&kisses

Billothewisp
 

Fracking in Lancashire

So it looks like Cuadrilla has stuck big in Lancashire. Loads of Natural gas. Some reports say enough to meet our energy needs for the next 50 years. (see here)

A great many of the Great Green disciples of Huhne are lining up to whinge and moan about extracting this gas.  But really they ought to do their basic research first and then think things through. (Oh, how I wish!)

Let us see how fracking for gas relates to their BIG idea. aka Wind Turbines. Wind turbines are, after all, truly BIG. Large in size but unfortunately minuscule in ability.

We know, (and they know) all about intermittency and unreliability etc. often expounded on in this blog, I won't go on about it any more here than just to say that even the most inflexible Luddite supporter of these things has to confess that they need considerable backup for when the wind doesn't blow.

Because Wind Turbine output is so unpredictable and massively variable over short periods of time, the forms of backup are limited. The backup is mainly limited to Open Cycle Gas Turbines, although some Closed Cycle Gas Turbines can be used at a pinch for less violent changes in output.

What do you power OCGT or even CCGT on?  Yes. That's right. Gas.

So if (God forbid) we carpet our country with these useless wind turbine monsters, where will the gas come from for the necessary spinning reserve?

Magic?

Or perhaps we could just get the whole population chewing on Mung beans for a fortnight and then plumb them into the nearest OCGT.

Those two suggestions are far more lucid and coherent than anything you will find coming out of the Green party or their comrades.

Of course, Fracking needs to be controlled and monitored. But the ridiculous, ill informed and politically biased charade of mortified concern that is being pumped out by the Greens  and others is simply absurd.

Now, what about my back yard?

Well, I live in Purbeck in Dorset. We currently have the largest on-shore oil field in the UK. It is quite likely that the Kimmeridge shale will also hold a considerable amount of gas.

Over many years, the oil field has performed impeccably. There is no reason to assume that any gas extraction would be any different.

If, you are going to build gas power plant you might as well use it efficiently. Then you can simply dispense with the wind turbines all together.

Actually, I would rather have nuclear plant, then you don't need gas. (at least for electrical generation). But either way we can dispense with the  fairy-land lunacy that is the wind industry.

So, if it is a choice between carpeting Purbeck with (as some suggest) 42 huge and useless wind turbines or have a few fracking gas extraction wells, give me the wells any day.

Wind Turbines: The 30% Capacity Factor Myth

I don't know about you, but I am getting really tired of large corporate bodies continually peddling half-truths and even outright lies in order to service their own greed.

Take the wind industry for example. Especially with the way they try to big up the ludicrous ineffectiveness of their money machines.

Truly, if it was not for the fact that they get paid (at least) twice for their intermittent and unreliable production of electricity, these ugly white elephants would be abandoned and left to rot.

Whenever the wind industry talks about the capacity factor (that's the actual averaged output over a year compared to the maximum turbine rating) the wind industry always try and pretend that this capacity factor is 30%.

While this may sound low, it is actually a massive exaggeration on the real figures.

Unfortunately, the wind industry have repeated the lie so many times it is often taken as" a given" by organisations that should know better.

So what is the capacity factor for on-shore wind turbines?

Luckily there are people like Professor Michael Jefferson who has has done an analysis of the exaggerated claims of the wind industry.

His presentation is available Here

While his presentation truly demolishes the mythical 30%, it is just one of the many false claims he debunks. His presentation is well worth a read.

Look at this for 2009: (taken from Professor Jeffersons presentation)

In 2009, the real capacity factor for on-shore turbines was 21% NOT 30% Only 7.5% achieved the mythical 30% capacity factor. In other words 92.5% of on-shore turbines in 2009 failed to reach the 30% capacity factor that is promoted by the wind industry. Remember, since 2009, it has got even less windy.

Even in 2008, which was an abnormally windy year,  over 81% of on-shore turbines failed to chalk up a  30% capacity factor. In fact in 2008, the windiest year in recent history, the real on-shore average capacity factor was 23%.

So when is the wind industry going to stop telling lies?
When are they going to confess that the real output from these monstrous money making machines is much less then the figures they ritually push?

If you are waiting for the truth from the wind industry, I wouldn't hold your breath.

But even this farcically low capacity factor hides the true hideously ineffectiveness of these white elephants.

Always remember when comparing capacity factors of generating equipment that wind power is intermittent. With wind, most of the energy arrives in infrequent, irregular and unpredictable bursts. Most of the time their actual output is much less than even the real dismally low capacity factor.

But more on this in a future post.

Scottish Tories and a Changing Game

Murdo Fraser, frontrunner to be the Conservative party’s next Scottish leader is planning to disband the Scottish Conservatives and start up a new independent, though affiliated  center-right party. He sees this as the best way to neutralise what is seen as the poison infecting the centre-right voter base in Scotland.
(Daily Mail article Here)  (Morning Star article Here)

Maybe though there is another agenda here.

Just as the Scottish electorate have lost faith with the Conservative party, I think it quite possible that the Conservative party has in turn lost faith with Scotland.


This proposal from Murdo Frazer would make the political viability of Scottish independence more certain. A General Election in Scotland would be (at least in part) a Scottish electorial fight between Scottish political parties. Today is is in reality, the SNP versus UK national parties operating under Scottish banners. With Murdo Frazer's proposal, a General Election in Scotland will be a Scotland centric affair.

For the Tories, there is certainly no longer any political advantage to propping up the Scottish economy with English taxes. Currently the Tories (and previously Labour) are funding huge subsidies to Scotland via the Barnett formula and various job schemes (such as the two white elephant aircraft carriers). This Danegeld is being paid primarily to try and undermine Scottish Nationalism.

Maybe though the Tories have now dispaired of ever seeing any return on this expenditure and have decided to abandon Scotland to its own self determinist fate. Then the Tories could concentrate on England. England is of course, where the overwhelming Tory support lies.

If the conservatives abandoned Scotland and then promoted and encouraged the formation of an English Assembly they would, most likely, within that English Assembly, be unassailable.

After all, although a minority in the UK parliament they are still today the largest single party. If you take out Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs, the Tories are solidly in the majority.

Where does this leave Labour?

I think Labour saw this coming in the early 2000's. They tried to defeat the prospect of an English parliament by attempting to dismember England into a number of competing Regions. As we all know their policy was derailed by a popular vote in NE England. Even so, a number of the Regional Quango's, elites and assorted hangers-on still remain.

Labour realised that if there ever was an true English Parliament or Assembly, then Labour would be the main loser. It is likely that, in England, there would never again be another Labour government with an absolute majority.

An English Parliament would be, by far, the most powerful and influential national parliament in these islands.

I don't think it would be long before an English Assembly tired of any remnant UK parliament. It would soon see the many advantages of simply being a wholly separate state. Especially if the other UK nations like Scotland has similar ambitions.

Scotland, and possibly Wales and Northern Ireland too, could muddle along by themselves.

Maybe this statement from Murdo Frazer is less about a new Scottish Party but is more about testing the water for a new English Party - The English Conservatives.

We live in interesting times.

Despots versus the Deserving

OK my grubby little Englanders, here are a couple of very happy individuals, possibly celebrating some of the few billions you have shovelled their way.

Now, while the one on the left has recently spent a great deal of time sat on the toilet thinking up excuses for the rape, torture and murder he has inflicted on his own people, there are several other equally vile despots queuing up to take his place on the world stage.

All of these despots are gleefully massaging the ego of  the UK governmental "Ship Of Fools" who promote the  prevailing "vision" of the UK being a [sic] (or is that sick) foreign aid "Super-power".

The other smiling bastard in the picture needs no introduction.

While Mugabe is regarded as a bit of a bad boy by the foreign office, that has not stopped them in the past giving him everything from gold plated Mercedes limos to jet fighters.

Oh, So much better value than spending it on hip replacements for old ladies.

Needless to say all the money, aid, skill and sheer hard work that has been squandered on these so called "World Leaders" has effectively gone down the drain.

Now have a look at this bunch.

Billothewisp along with about 30 other folk, each lent them the princely sum of $25.00.

It is being repaid, on time and to the penny.

Or this group.

I blogged about these guys earlier Here (if you adore guinea pigs - look away now!)

Again, like the African group, they are normal, average, honest people who need a hand up, not a hand out. They also have met all their re-payments in full.

The loan was set up by an organisation called Kiva (Here).

I do have some issues with Kiva. But compared to traditional foreign aid and "charity" they are shiny white virgin saints.

Our government can continue to stroke its political ego. It can continue fuelling the despots of this world by giving them massive hand outs.

Or it can promote personal responsibility. Enable honest people, who are willing to lend relatively small amounts, to directly help other honest people wanting to borrow.

A hand up not a hand out.

If Cameron wants to install some "moral" imperative, maybe he should facilitate individuals doing their own "foreign aid". Cut the appallingly wasteful foreign aid budget and give tax breaks to the average person. Encourage them to lend on a person to person or Peer to Peer basis.

Cut the Mugabes and Gadaffis out of  the loop.

Am I dreaming?

Naive?

Is this wishful thinking?

Possibly.

But it cannot be worse than the current foreign aid debacle which swindles the UK tax-payer, fuels depravity and gains little or nothing for those who simply need a hand up.

The Elephant In the Turbine

Sometimes when Billothewisp is reading through papers on the foolishness that is wind turbinery, he comes across a paper or article which makes him feel a bit Queasy. A bit like he has read something that is not for general consumption, but has inadvertently been put into the public domain. Something that makes old Billothewisp feel like a spy in a foreign camp.

You know - a bit like overhearing a crimmo secretly confess to a crime while the press and the cognoscenti are baying about a miscarriage of justice.

Or hearing one of "His Majesty's" entourage quietly whisper: "Yes! the King really is wearing no cloths".

Recently I had two of those almost meta-physical moments. And they were related and did not involve any cider.

The first concerned a new  piece of posh propaganda released by the zealots in Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE).

Who are the CSE?

Yet another "charity" (and I wonder where the cash comes from.). While they are no doubt, a bona-fide charity, I don't think any-one there is going short on the pay and perks front.

Anyway, I digress. The CSE have released a document called "Common Concerns about Windpower"

It is without doubt a truly wonderful piece of propaganda.

It is so good Billothewisp awards it the Joseph Goebbels Truth Economy Award for 2011. (First Class)

To be fair, it doesn't tell many lies (although there are some) but it does vigorously, wholeheartedly, and with serious malice afore-thought, twist the truth into its own perverted little vision.

Not since some guy in the CIA described the 1975 failure in Vietnam as a "sub-optimal victory" has there been such a shiny spin put on such a dismal subject.

There is so much that is wrong in this document it is difficult to know where to start, so as Julie Andrews once said "I'll start at the very beginning" (a very good place to start).

There will, no doubt, be several posts about this as I cut my way through this "charitable work" of the CSE.

Anyway part one show us all how wonderfully greeeeeeeen the average turbine is, and how is repays its energy deficit in the wink of an eye.

In fact, according to our charitable friends at the CSE  (billothewisp assumes a straight face here) the average turbine repays its energy cost within 3 months - 6 months at the outside.

The CSE then go to tell us that in its lifetime, a turbine will return at least 20 times the energy used to manufacture it.

Now we come to the first "spy in the camp moment"

3 months x 20 = 5 years. Does a "productive" wind turbine really wear out in 5 years? Or maybe 10 years for the ones that hardly produce anything - aka The Wind Turbine in Reading

Or maybe the figures are..... (dare I say it) Wrong.

Oh, I can hear the indignation.
I can see the trembling bottom lips.
The tears of of outrage welling up in the average windies eyes.

That was "at least 20 times". At least means more than. 5 years is the minimum.

Hmmm let us have a comparison.

I buy a new car. It will be good for at least 100,000 miles. Most though won't get to 120,000 let alone 200,000. 300,000 will be a freak exception.

As a comparison it would (sort of) indicate that hardly any turbines (if any) will ever make it to the much vaunted 20 -25 year life span.

But that of course is just an old engineer making a dodgy comparison.

How about some inside facts?

Here my grubby little Englanders we come to the second document and the second "spy in the camp" moment.

This second article was so well named  I stole the title for this post. It is available Here.

The document is the June 2010 cover story for the August journal: "TRIBOLOGY & LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGY" The article is obviously written by an "enthusiast" i.e. one who thinks wind turbinery can do no wrong.

But the basis of the article, which the author  does comprehensively expound on, is that the gear box blows up every (wait for it) 5 to 7 years. Actually, although it is written by an enthusiast, the article lacks the self serving  deceit of the CSE document. The guy is obviously an engineer. He just needs treatment.

Here is a cut and paste of highlighted paragraphs...

Oh Dear! but then... (Ugh!) there is this....

The author informs us that gear box reliability has been a known problem for well over ten years, without yet even coming close to being solved.

So today the problem of gearbox reliability is NOT solved.

One day it maybe solved. One day. but not today. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never.

We are building these things and plan forcing the Grid to rely on them, even though have a known ( and terrible) reliability issue.

Let us go back to the transport analogy.

Say you operated a a fleet of lorries. Would you replace your existing old but "known to work" fleet with a fleet of shiny new lorries which were known to have a massive reliability problem?

If the salesman came up and said to you, "Oh that'll (probably) be solved in a few years" would whip out your cheque book or kick him out of the door?

Not only are these things ugly, inefficient, intermittent and uneconomic. they are also hideously unreliable.

Other than that (besides the health issues, the subsidy and landscaper damage) I suppose they are (to paraphrase the CIA propagandist) sub-optimally OK

Redcar and the Barnett formula

In my last post I described some good news (at last) for the North East of England as the Redcar Steel works re-opened. I also mentioned how the region has been so badly treated by successive governments.

The North East of England is, obviously, part of England. No surprises there. Consequently, like the rest of England the North East pays substantially into the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula provides a huge subsidy to Scotland. It was a stop gap quick fix for a long past Scottish funding problem that was supposed to last a year. While the funding issue may be long gone the Barnett formula is still with us 20 years later.

Nobody in government has the balls to cancel it.

Each person in Scotland get an extra £1200 a year spent on them compared to their English counterparts (i.e. like the good folk of the North East). This amounts to no less than a 11p in the pound tax break for the Scots. (See Yorkshire Post here)

In a time of national penury, if anyone should get such a tax break, surely it should be North East England rather than the whole Scottish nation.

Much of Scotland is wealthy - very wealthy. It is not right that poorer parts of the UK end up losing their services and opportunities simply to subsidise and placate the ever greedy Alex Salmond and the Scottish Parliament.


The Barnett formula is intrinsically unfair.

Ask yourself this:

Should poor (or even well-off) English working people be paying extra to support the likes of like Sir Fred Goodwin (Scottish resident). Should English tax payers support Scotland so it can offer free student education to not only Scottish students but other European students as well? While English students wanting to study in Scotland have to pay the full whack?

Scotland has plenty of resources. Even if Scotland wants to remain part of the Union then the Barnett formula should be abolished or at least modified so that subsidy is given on basis of need not national boundary. But if Scotland wants out of the union, well, by all means, in that case the Scots should spend their taxes however they want.

If the Scots want independence then it is their right to pursue it. Trying to buy them off with this dirty little Danegeld called the Barnett Formula is as repulsive as it is unfair.

But if that is how it is going to be, then what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Please do not expect my taxes to subsidise Scottish largesse or anything else for that matter.

English taxes are desperately needed elsewhere - like bringing jobs to Yorkshire and the North East

Good News from Redcar Steelworks

After the catastophe of of TATA, and the disgusting "hands off" betrayal of British steel workers by the last government, at  least there is a little good news for my friends and fellow grubby Little Englanders in Redcar.

Sold off to TATA, Redcar steelworks was then closed down.  Mothballed was the term - but mothballs don't feed the kids.

Finally earlier this year, TATA sold Redcar to Thai steelmaker Sahaviriya Steel Industries (trading as SSI UK).

Billothewisp has to admit that at the time I thought that the future looked bleak - Yet another foreign owner of a strategic industry. I has dark thoughts as to the purpose of this purchase.

Possibly SSI was there only to extract as much in goverment grants, secure extortionate trade deals, run the plant into the ground and then dissapear. Or worse, simply keep the place closed so removing a competitor from the market (which was, I suspect TATA's original motive).

But so far, SSI look like a significant improvement over TATA.

SSI are planning to reopen Redcar and have now started hiring, so we should perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt. (See their Website Here)

The need for jobs, and the eagerness of the people the North East to gain  honest work in a hard and gruelling industry is shown by the fact that each of the 1000 jobs had at least ten applicants. (See BBC Report Here)

On many occasions, the people of the North East have been sold down the river by government. This betrayal has been variously aided and abetted by the sharp suits in London and a putrid adherence to the false doctine of Globalisation.

This betrayal has gone on for far too long.

It is about time the good people of the North East had a few (dozen) good breaks.

I still have my fears and reservations. But at this time, I wish SSI Ltd all the best.

European Petrol and Diesel Prices Compared

The European Energy Portal provides information on a whole range of energy prices/issues, including Petrol and Diesel prices across Europe. This great site must be one of the few benefits we get from the EU.

Take this table on relative fuel prices (Petrol and Diesel).

Unsurprisingly Petrol in the UK is among the highest in Europe, although not as bad as some.

But rather shockingly, UK Diesel is by far the most expensive in Europe.

In fact the nearest rival (price wise) is Sweden. But even in Sweden the price of Diesel is still 7.5% cheaper than in the UK.

The cheapest European diesel price is in Luxembourg which is a whopping 30% less than the UK

Diesel is of course used in road transport as well as private vehicles. No wonder the transport industry is moaning all the time.

So why is Petrol and especially Diesel so expensive?

Here is another table from the EU Energy portal, giving a cost breakdown.

Notice the root cause of the price of diesel being so high is the outrageously high UK excise duty on diesel.

Diesel requires less refining, gives a higher mpg, and for a well tuned engine is just a clean a petrol. We should be encouraging motorist to use it in preference to petrol. It is also the life blood of industry.

• No Diesel = no distribution. 
• No distribution = no industry.
• No industry = no taxes to pay MP's expenses.

Any government, committed to enabling UK industry to dig us out of this current economic mess must cut the excise duty on diesel. How can industry compete when it is crippled by distribution costs?

Even from an environmental viewpoint the government must at least level the playing field with petrol.

Kyoto, Quotas and Fashion Statements.

Well, it looks like the UK is the bad boy again. We are not meeting our renewables target.

All you grubby little Englanders - hang your heads in shame. Here is the offending graph. (see The EU Energy Portal )

But the funny thing is, that on the same website just a bit further up the page is a neat little bar graph related to progress towards the Kyoto protocol. Whatever you think of Kyoto it was at least aimed at reducing emissions and gave some figures.
Here is the graph.

Now in this graph, far from being the nasty bully-boy bad-guys pumping the filth out into the atmosphere, grubby little England is actually one of the golden halo'd nations that have not only reduced emmissions, but have actually reduced them more than their allocated quota.

Even our Eco-zealot friends in Germany have not managed to do so well. But now, of course, our German friends have also shut down all their nuclear power plants and started burning coal like it is going out of fashion. I expect that very soon they will be slipping into the bad boy red sector. In fact they are likely to join their eco friends in Denmark who are spectacularly under target.

Then there is Spain.

Oh dear Oh dear.

Although Spain ranks as number 3 in the European wind turbine league they are also number 3 from the bottom of the Kyoto table. Bad Bad Bad.

Now, of course there are a couple of little issues here. Not all the Kyoto targets are the same. The UK's target was 12.5%. Germany bigged theirs up to 18% and Denmark did the most grandstanding by stating that they would cut their emissions by no less than 21%. Spain though was actually allowed to increase their emissions by 15%

Big words from Germany. Even bigger words from Denmark.

Or was it just hot air?

Obviously, we need to compare like with like.

So let us use the UK as the benchmark and compare how our European pals are really doing.

So, the base line is the UK. We have exceeded our target reduction by 7.63%. As our target was 12.5%, that makes about a real cut of over 20%

Our German friends, (remember this was before they shut down their nuclear power) had a target of 18% and exceeded their target by 1.52%. So their real cut is 19.5%

Demark did the most grandstanding at Kyoto and took the applause for promising to cut emissions by 21% (Huhhah!) but they have missed their target by no less than 16.42%. Whoops! That is a real cut then of less than 5% OUCH!

But then we come to Spain.

Oh Dear Oh Dear.

Spain was allowed to increase their emissions by 15%. But they still missed their target by 22.35% So compared to us un-green nasty little Englanders, the Spanish have made a real cut of...

Well, there is no cut, real or otherwise.

Their emissions have increased by nearly a third. Doh!

Now let us look at the relevence of these two targets.

The "renewables" target has been put in place to meet (among other targets) the 2012 Kyoto quota's.

Germany has the largest number of wind turbines in Europe, Spain comes a close second. Denmark has by far the highest per capita fleet of turbines anywhere in the world.

But all to no avail. While they may have all grandstanded at Kyoto about how green they were, and while they have foolishly wasted billions on intermittent, unreliable and ultimately ineffective wind turbines, they have, on a real comparison failed to even match the UK cuts, let alone meet their bigged up targets.

There is one year left to run for Kyoto. I'll be interested to see if they pay the fines for missing the "legally binding" Kyoto targets.

Does a Dead Cat Bounce? (if named Footsie?)

So the FTSE 100 went up by over 1.5% today after initially falling by over 4%. This wild fluctuation came after it lost somewhere around 18% in the previous week.

But it went up. So everything is fine and dandy.

(There was me thinking we were up sh*t creek without a paddle.)

The Yanks, are still smarting from being downgraded from AAA to AA+. They are moaning that they only owe 13 trillion dollars.

For the mathematically challenged that is:
$13,000,000,000,000

(I think I got all the noughts in)

The US Treasury is outraged at  Standard & Poors downgrade. Personally Billothewisp thinks Standard & Poors has done a pretty dismal job too.

Billothewisp thinks that, if you have allowed yourself to sleep walk into a position where you owe the aforesaid 13 trillion dollars, really your credit rating should be ZZZ-, not AA+, let alone AAA.

Finally here in England, it seems the (parody of a) government might want to do some more Printing Money Quantitative Easing.

As I remember, one side effect of Printing Money Quantitative Easing is that inflation takes off.

Of course being a simple soul I may be wrong and the current 5% (and rising) inflation is purely coincidental with the last batch of Printing Money Quantitative Easing.

I wonder what inflation will go to after the next print run?

Neodymium and Wind Turbines

Take a look at these two old Chinese NIMBYs complaining about how a six mile wide lake of effluent has ruined their country-side. A lake of effluent, produced mining Neodymium. (See Mail Article Here)

Neodymium is a rare earth metal. It is increasingly being used in wind turbines and is seen by many turbine supporters as a magic bullet. Something desperately needed to improve the farcical output, and improve the reliability of these white elephants.

Neodymium allows turbines to get over the need for horrendously complex gearboxes needed to drive the doubly fed induction generators currently used. Doubly fed induction generators need to turn at about 1500 rpm minimum. You can imagine the gearing ratio needed.

This is what happens when the bearings fail.

With Neodymium magnets, the generator is simplified and the gearbox can be (almost) dispensed with. Grossly ineffective and unreliable turbines become (ever so slightly) less gross.

But at what cost?

To the rich and powerful owners of these things, along with glazed eyed brown nosers who support them, the answer is a small amount of the ROC subsidy for a short time.

To the Chinese peasants who lose their land and see their families broken up the answer is somewhat more devastating.

But, they are only common folk and a world away at that. Even if their existence is known of, they scarcely matter to our eco warrior friends.

Even so, Neodymium cannot break the laws of Physics. The best that you will ever get out of a turbine (it is called Betz law) is theoretically 59% of the actual wind energy, Practically though you would be doing very well to get 40-45%.

Even then, however big and powerful your Neodymium magnets, if the wind does not blow, 40% of nothing is still nothing.

All Neodymium provides are cheaper gearboxes, less embarrassing turbine fires and less need to employ maintenance technicians.

It also provides slave wages to a dispossessed people while lining the coffers of a elitist dictatorship.

Like so many aspects of the wind turbine scam, the rich and powerful, both here and in China, do very well out of Neodymium and wind turbines.

As usual, it is the average person who pays the price.

Turbine, Turbine, Burning Bright

A turbine burns. No doubt the bearings in the gearbox on the doubly fed induction generator failed.

An unattended machine suffering a catastrophic failure.

One turbine. Among many. For the rich and influential owners, an easy and occasional sacrifice.

With the new Neodymium gearboxes, you may argue, even the flaming turbines will be a thing of the past. The horrendously complex gearboxes that fail so frequently  will soon be replaced.

Maybe that is true.

Maybe.

But if you are an avid windy supporter, you need to understand why so many people will be cheering as the flaming monster burns.

You need to understand that those cheering and applauding will inevitably be the bog standard average folk who live nearby.

Those whose lives are ruined, impacted, or maligned by a useless gesture to a Luddite clique.

Meanwhile those reading through the clauses in the insurance policy, the owners of the burning monster, will be the rich and the well connected. The likes of Sir Reginald Sheffield (see who he is related to) would no doubt, be getting one of their minions to sort out the mess.

That is what it comes down to.

Are you with the rich and well connected? As they make their enormous profits while carelessly ruining the lives of many?

Or are you with the common folk, those whose lives and welfare are impacted by these pathetic totems to greed and ignorant stupidity?

The decision is yours.

I hope that you, like me, you are celebrating the burning of the monster.

Peer Reviewed Papers on Turbine Noise

A short while ago Billothewisp was tipped off that a considerable number of scientific papers relating to the harmful effects of wind turbines were going through peer review.

Now the August edition The Bulletin of Science, technology and Society (BSTS)  has published no less than nine peer reviewed papers on wind turbines, noise and health consequences.

This though is only the start.

Unfortunately unless you are a university department or (example) an NHS trust, a mere plebian (like Billothewisp) has to fork out the best part of £500.00 to subscribe to the BSTS, or at least pay $25.00 per paper. Ouch!

Luckily, the National Wind Watch Site Here has published the abstracts

I expect that after initial publication these papers may well become more accessible, so  a google search may well find them. Alternatively, if you have what is known as an "Athens" account (i.e. you work for the NHS or an academic institution) you should be able to get at them on-line now.

These particular papers are:

Professor John P Harrison, Dept Physics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada,
Paper: Wind Turbine Noise

Dr Bob Thorne Phd. Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia
Paper: The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment

Dr. Arline L. Bronzaft Phd.GrowNYC, New York, New York, USA
Paper: The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being

Dr. Alec N. Salt Phd, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Dr. James A. Kaltenbach Phd, Lerner Research Institute/Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Paper: Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans

Dr. Carl V. Phillips Phd, Populi Health Institute, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA
Paper: Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents

Dr Robert Y. McMurtry MD FRCSC FACS, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis

Carmen M. E. Krogh BScPharm, Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?

Carmen M.E. Krogh BScPharm, Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Lorrie Gillis, Flesherton, Ontario, Canada
Professor Nicholas Kouwen, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Dr. Jeff Aramini Phd, Intelligent Health Solutions, Fergus, Ontario, Canada
Paper: WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring

Dr Martin Shain Phd, University of Toronto, Caledon, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines: The Case of Ontario, Canada

That, my grubby little Englanders, is the tip of a very dirty iceberg that is about to hit the fan (or windmill - so to speak)

You have to ask: How long does this have to continue before somebody actually does something other than sit on their hands hoping it all goes away?

Billothewisp may well oppose wind turbines simply because they are bloody useless. But before that he vehemently opposes building the things anywhere near peoples homes.

There must be a set-back of at least 1.5 Km instituted NOW.

Anything else is criminal negligence.

The Ship in Wool

It is not often that Billothewisp has been impressed by pub food, but tonight was a rare exception.

A chance encounter entailed a visit to the Ship public house in Wool. Billothewisp was presented with the best pub curry he has had in a very long time. Not only that, the bar staff were friendly, the beer good and the ambience very pleasant.

Previously, on my last visit,about a year ago it felt a bit like eating in Tesco's. But not any more.

The landlord was a great host (sounded like a Brummy... no doubt from the Dagenham mould). Certainly worth another visit. Thursday is Curry night, and it is cheap. I'll be there.

Here is a challenge:

Billothewisp, in true Kolly Kibber style (you haven't read Brighton Rock? Shame on you!) will buy the first person to correctly identify him a pint of Badgers.

But it has to be done correctly. Aka:

"You are Billothewisp, and I claim my free pint"

Of course you risk making a complete Pillock of yourself and getting punched in the face. But even so you will still have had a good curry.

If the person you challenge bursts into tears at the thought of having to pay for someone else's drink, then you know you have the right man.

Regrettibly Billothewisp is significantly over the drinking age limit so cannot claim to be too young, or too poor. Neither can he claim membership of the Salvation army. (although he will try)

Just make sure you stand between him and the door. He is, when asked to pay, quite fleet of foot.

Whatever way he tries to weedle out of paying, take no prisoners.

But make sure you get the right guy (or gal, or pit-pony).

Or you might be spending a night in the cells.

A Murderous Stupidity

What is there anyone can write that will ever address the sea of grief and tragedy that has engulfed Norway? What can you do except recoil in horror at the events that have cost so many children and adults their lives?

But we must look at the preposterous self important fool that performed these terrible acts. He is not just mad. He is not simply somebody in need of treatment.

To think that, would be to degrade those who really do have a mental health problems. They are no more likely to perform such a vile act than the next man or woman.

This murderer is no more mad than the sycophants who did the bidding of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. Like these other fools before him he is just a sad little loser looking for something to big himself up on.

His peer group are the dirty murderers who poured the Zyklon B into the gas chambers at Auchwitz. Or slaughtered children ("little traitors") in Cambodia by smashing their heads against trees. Or those responsible for the Omagh Bombing. Or 7/7. Or 9/11.

They all bear the same hallmarks of moronic political incompetence and a vain self-importance.All these terrible acts were performed by people who the rest of us would regard as criminally bigoted idiots.

All of these followers of hate have become so soaked in their own bigotry that no outrage is too extreme however ridiculously unobtainable the demands or aims.

People like these are not mad but they  are evil. And very, very stupid.

This Norwegian murderer's grand plan against Islam involved murdering non Muslim Norwegian children.

Now you have to ask yourself: How fundamentally stupid you have to be to believe that would be an effective strategy?

How ridiculous a political viewpoint do you have to have to think that killing anyones children will endear your dogma to the parents and friends of those murdered children?

There is a danger that since his actions are so vile, so brutally ugly, nobody will countenance mentioning his pathetically stupid goals and aims. But they must be mentioned, and then held up to the ridicule and derision they deserve.

We must also ensure that legitimate debate is never mortgaged by the likes of this evil fool. We need to address the stupidity of narrow minded, bigoted extremism wherever it comes from. We need to show up these murderous fools for what they are and ridicule their evil fairy-land policies. We must not allow them to influence fair and just debate.

I expect this filth is loving his 15 minutes of fame. I expect though, that the next 45 years in solitary confinement, might prove less pallitable.

Whoever locks the door, just make sure you throw the key into the deepest Fjord in Norway.

Then laugh at the bastard as you walk away.

Cold Feet in Turbine Heaven.

On the 12th July the government published its latest white paper of energy reform The Electricity Market Reform Paper 2011 Here

Although this white paper cements in an absurd commitment to a massive expansion and deployment of wind turbines, the bankers and investors are getting cold feet.

They are blaming this on what they say is a lack of clarity in the white paper. (As described in "The Scotsman" Here)

But there is more to the bankers prevarication, as noted in the above article:

[quote]
That was partly due to regulatory uncertainty, he said, but funding for wind farms was also being impacted by low average wind speeds over the last couple of years, which has depressed rates of return on existing projects.
[unquote]

Maybe the bankers have started paying more attention to data indicating a reduction in wind speed across the UK. As described in a paper by Wind Turbine enthusiasts Garrad Hassan.
(see Billothewisp post "Wind Speed In Decline: A Blip or a Trend?").

Maybe now they can see that even with their huge subsidies, erratically performing turbines may not be the sure investment bet they were once thought to be.

Whatever the bankers think, one thing is sure, nobody in government would now risk the wrath of the electorate by giving the bankers a guarantee on any continuation of the currently flawed ROC scheme let alone an increase. If they want a cast iron guarantee on what is really very risky high return investment, they are going to be dissapointed. (at last)

What if these grubby little investors attempt to blackmail us by threatening to take their "green" investments elsewhere?

Billothewisp has two words to say to them

Bye Bye.

The Norwegian Tragedy

Some of the readers of this blog are Norwegian. To my Norwegian friends, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy regarding the appalling events in Utoya and Oslo.  

David Nutt, Drugs and Propaganda

Poor old David Nutt. There he was, on the BBC expecting a factually based scientific argument on the country's drugs and drug recovery schemes. All he got was a blinkered  opinionated journalist. All we got, as licence payers was a smokescreen that hid the vital arguments and data.

But for David Nutt, things went from bad to worse. He then was on a regional program and was confronted by someone who was simply uninterested on Nutts scientific studies or credentials and dismissed mere science as an also-ran. They preferred their own narrow viewpoint and were unwilling to bend, even when confronted with the facts.

A travesty for public information. But for the BBC it all made good television. Guardian Article Here

While alternative viewpoints are always useful, and must be heard, it is highly disturbing to find the BBC so in-thrall to such marginal and unverifyable viewpoints. They have just been hauled over the coals by an independant review. (Here). I expect the BBC will issue a myriad of weasel words, I doubt they will take any notice. they are far too self important for that.

It is a good thing that Murdoch has had his wings clipped. But I do fear that this is simply going to leave a triumphalist and self-centered BBC as an even uglier and opinionated organisation than it already is.

If the way they have treated Professor Nutt is anything to go by, we should not be expecting anything like scientifically accurate or informed commentary from the BBC. Just more self serving and sensationalist propaganda that they clearly prefer.

Wind Speed in Decline: A Blip or a Trend?

It has been knuckle chewing time for the last couple of years for those wind farms that have been stupidly built in the less windy parts of the country. Even those built where the wind actually blows have seen their profitability massively cut. But those who had been planning to cash in on sub 20% capacity factor outputs are now beginning to feel the heat.

Of course we all know that none of them were, are, or ever will be, viable without a massive ROC subsidy. But even with this subsidy some must now be trading on the margins of viability.

Last year for example the output of all UK wind farms fell by 7%. Yet in that same year many more turbines were built. The theoretical (some say imaginary) total wind-farm capacity increased by 13 %.

To me, that looks like over a 21% drop in total.

Ouch!

An unpredictable long term reduction, getting worse year on year. Just what the bankers want to hear (not).

2009 wind speed was low, last year it was lower still.

So, is this a blip? Or is it a long term trend?

Oh, such a quandary and who has the answer?

Actually it is our friendly BWEA to the rescue. Or rather a paper presented by the doyens of the Wind Turbine fraternity: Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd

I hasten to add this paper was presented first in 2006 and is now dated 2009, both dates are before the current downturn.

You can find the PDF of their paper Here  (if it disappears, Billothewisp has a copy)

It is titled:

LONG-TERM WIND SPEED TRENDS IN NORTHWESTERN EUROPE

The running 15 year trend with wind speed, according to Garrad-Hassan is as follows

It is going down. Now remember this was up to 2005.

Garrad-Hassan then tried valiantly to use some weather indices as proxies to go back further. Back to the 1960's in fact. The most important of these is the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) then there are two other indices used. One is Katalog Der Grosswetterlagen Europas. This is a subjective catalogue of large scale weather patterns over Europe dating back 100 years. Then finally they also used the UK Jenkinson Lamb weather classification (which is similar to the Grosswetterlagen catalogue but for the UK)

Here is what they found for the NAO

here is the Jenkinson Lamb result

Finally here is the Grosswetterlagen graph

Notice how they all roughly correlate.

Also notice the "blip" around 1995.

In their conclusions, Garrad-Hassan try and sweeten the pill of the 15 year decline by suggesting that all that was happening was that wind was returning to stability after a upward blip in the mid 1990's.

However we should remember that this is then essentially returning to a stable "low" wind-speed. Garrad-Hassen re-assuringly write that a further fall in average wind speed should not be assumed. Though, they could not rule it out.

But of course, this Garrad-Hassan data only goes up to 2005. Since then we know that things have actually got worse (significantly so in the last year)

So, are we just bottoming out? Or are we still going down?

Perhaps our previously loan happy banking fraternity should look a little more closely at what they might be letting themselves in for.

Maybe the wind turbine carpet-bagging fraternity will be seeing that big red stamp that spells out "DECLINED" being used a little more on their loan applications from now on.

Maybe a few of their pals who have built these things in totally inappropriate areas will soon be queuing up at the local Licensed Insolvency Practitioners office.

Then I expect the poor bloody rate-payer will have to fork out to pull the things down.

What a waste.

Time to Break the Energy Cartels

Go onto any price comparison site. Select one of the big utility companies. Have a look at how many different tariffs there are.

Here is the result of one quick scan I did for electricity tariffs. It includes dual fuel, but only on a variable direct debit.

• NPower have 29 different tariffs
• British Gas have 58 tariffs
• Scottish Power 15 tariffs
• EON have 10 tariffs
• OVO 54 tariffs

Don't forget this is only variable direct debit. God knows how long the full list of tariffs is.

This is not done for "customer choice" this is done to obfuscate and confuse. It is a deliberate policy of making things difficult to understand so as to undermine the customers visibility of what they are really paying.

But even forgetting about the massive casquade of apparently different though essentially identical tariffs,  there are even worse liberties taken with consumers.

Take some elderly relatives of mine.

They are hardly infirm and are still very much in command of their faculties.

But they don't get on with the internet and they come from a period of time when Utility Companies were trusted and held in high regard. A bit like the banks (need I say more?)

Needless to say, these fine people are inevitably on a high tariff.

Nobody at Npower has told them that they could save £150 simply by changing their current tariff for another virtually identical one.

But it gets worse.

Npower have recently increased their monthly direct debit.

They have done this even though NPower currently owe them £400.

Thats is a continual and increasing overcharge worth currently over half their annual bill.

A free loan from the old to the averacious bastards at another greedy energy utility.

This is shameful. Dare I say for any normal business it would also be regarded as immoral. An deplorable activity bordering on criminality.

Energy Utilities are given a virtual profit guarantee and an easy market.

I don't think that it is too much to ask for them to behave in a moral and decent manner.

Until this scandal is addressed, more and more people are going to be forced into energy poverty. More and more of the old and vulnerable will die for the lack of a little heat.

Just so the utilies can continue amassing their huge immoral fortunes.

This has got to stop.

But is there anyone in government with the balls to address the problem?
I have my doubts.

King Coal Aberdare and Devil: Corrections

Thanks to JAA I've found the tomb of the Penitent Coal Baron. (See Post Here)

Here it is:

(above image copyright Ray Jones licensed under Creative Commons Licence)

Actually though,  Robert Thompson Crawshay (1817 - 1879) was an Iron Baron, Victorian rather than Edwardian, and not as bad as some of his peer group.

Further more he is buried in Merthyr Tydfil rather than Aberdare.

Except for that (and a few other minor embellishments) the story was at least 372% accurate. Wikipedia page on R.T. Crawshay here

My only defence for the errors in my story are excessive quantities of alchohol, a 40 year gap and the fact that it was told to me by a retired and poetically drunk Welsh miner.

But personally I don't consider my error (or the miner's) that bad.

Under the circumstances, I think we both did quite well.