Half truths at the Guardian

Look at this hopelessly partisan propaganda piece from the Guardian. Half truths, cherry picked data and innuendo like this should shame any editorial desk. ( See HERE )

Like all propaganda, this piece is based around a morsel of truth. But it then goes on to vent its bigotry in as many flavours of nudge-nudge-wink innuendo as it can possibly manage.

Laughably they shoot themselves in the foot with a graph, (below) which actually is about the only truly unsullied part of the article. Maybe they thought their Guardian readership would be overawed with a graph, even if it junks most of their propaganda.

So let us look at this a little more.

True - carbon emmissions went up last year in the UK by 3.1%. But if you look at the graph you will see that the shock-horror-probe "blip" is actually a decreasing trend spanning many years.

True - this 3.1% is the first rise in a very long time, But then the previous years drop (8.7%) was unprecendented, as was the recession.

Also true - the increase was made worse by break downs in our old nuclear plant, most of which is at the end of its life. Perhaps instead of making ridiculous statements about the "fickleness" of nuclear power, these two dismal journalists should address the need for more nuclear now. I would put money on it though that the last thing they would support would be more nuclear, irrespective of the consequences for carbon emissions.

Instead it looks like they are dedicated followers of fashion and would rather kill a few thousand more old folk with their ludicrous though very trendy windmills, which unfortunately, are the truly ineffective option.

Nuclear, like all rotating machinery may break down but at least when it is up and running it generates useable quantities of power. Except for mechanical breakdown it will perform.

Of course, whether wind farms produce any power at all at a particular time  is a total lottery.

Their silence about the appalling performance of the wind farms last year is deafening - again we see just more propaganda -leave out the bits that don't fit with your wishful thinking.

One thing we should have all learned from the cold snap last year (including this hopeless pair of propagandists) is that so called "green" energy - especially the Wind Turbine fleet was hopelessly ineffective.

Old nuclear plant may have broken down and needed fixing but the wind turbine fleet, at crucial times, simply did not work. Fixed or not.

Of course they also drag in their mates from Greenpeace, WWF and New Economics Foundation who can be relied on to issues various flavours of "Its a bloody disgrace".

But for all their pompous bluster they simply cannot disguise the truth so graphically displayed in their graph.

The UK's carbon emissions are on a long term downward trend, and that this is with no thanks whatsoever to their beloved windmills.

The Great Wind Farm Robbery Revisited

The wind turbine industry gets ever more greedy with its claims for curtailment/constraint payments. Turbine operators are claiming huge sums of money just in order to shut down. 
( The Scotsman HERE ) ( Telegraph HERE )

Luckily for us, wind turbines are so pathetically incapable of actually generating on a reliable basis that the need for curtailment payments are relatively rare. 

Take this scatter graph from the National Grid Winter Consultation 2011 ( HERE )

Each dot represents an individual wind farm output (y-axis) against actual demand (x-axis) The line National Grid have drawn shows where curtailment payments may have to be made. Inevitably these are at times when turbine output is high but demand is low. In other words the turbine power is being generated when it is not needed. Yet they still have the nerve to claim huge curtailment payments.

This scatter graph also confirms two other shocking truths about wind power. The majority of the time the output is actually well below the capacity factor. It is only the occasional high wind occurrence that bigs up the capacity factor to the (still derisory) value of 20-25%. 

Also it confirms the rather obvious flaw in wind power in that there is absolutely no correlation between wind turbine output and demand. Look to the right hand end of the x-axis and you will see plenty of evidence of turbine output being well below 10% while demand was near maximum.

But still, there are occasions when for operational reasons, during periods of low demand and high wind that the grid needs to get turbines to shut down. When these occasions happen the turbine owners go into a feeding frenzy. They demand and get payments many times the value of the electricity the could have produced - just to shut down.

While other generation technologies can also get curtailment payments, they all seem to have more of a sense of moral responsibility than the massively subsidised wind turbine cartel.

These shockingly greedy payments demanded by the wind turbine operators are at least open to inspection.

But the REF (Renewable Energy Foundation - HERE) have discovered that as well as these outrageous payments there are a set of secretive extra payments made to turbine operators which are actually even more extravagant. ( SEE THIS REF LINK ) also (Power Engineering Magazine HERE).

Even so, all these payments get dwarfed by the massive ROC subsidy turbine operators receive. But these greedy claims for yet more cash are perhaps a clearer indication of the predatory and ruthless motives that drive the wind turbine gravy train.

Morally there is no reason a massively subsidised wind turbine should get even a sniff of a constraint payment. Bearing in mind how much of the time they have to rely on other generation to pick up the shortfall caused by their intermittency the occassional call to shut down should go unrewarded.

My original piece on the Great Wind Farm Robbery is HERE

A Letter that Demands Action

It looks like the time has come where many  in high office have finally decided to take a deep breath, grit their teeth and put the interests of the country ahead of the money men, zealots and carpet baggers of the wind turbine cartel industry.

The following letter was signed by 101 MPs

While every signature is important and courageous, perhaps we should provide an extra level of applause to those from Labour and the Lib-Dems who will undoubtedly pay a heavy price for their challenge to the narrow doctrinaire obedience demanded by their colleagues on this issue.

The Telegraph article is ( HERE ).

Here is the letter and signatories:

[quote]
The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
LONDON, SW1A 2AA
30th January 2012
As Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, we have grown more and more concerned about the Government’s policy of support for on-shore wind energy production.

In these financially straightened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies on-shore wind turbines.

In the on-going review of subsidy for renewable energy subsidies, we ask the Government to dramatically cut the subsidy for on-shore wind and spread the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures.

We also are worried that the new National Planning Policy Framework, in its current form, diminishes the chances of local people defeating unwanted on-shore wind farm proposals through the planning system. Thus we attach some subtle amendments to the existing wording that we believe will help rebalance the system.

Finally, recent planning appeals have approved wind farm developments with the inspectors citing renewable energy targets as being more important than planning considerations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it is impossible to defeat applications through the planning system. We would urge you to ensure that planning inspectors know that the views of local people and long established planning requirements should always be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Heaton-Harris (CON), Daventry
Christopher Pincher (CON), Tamworth
Nadine Dorries (CON), Mid Bedfordshire
Karen Bradley (CON), Staffordshire Moorlands
Steve Baker (CON), Wycombe
David Davis (CON), Haltemprice and Howden
Matthew Hancock (CON), West Suffolk
Richard Bacon (CON), South Norfolk
David Nuttall (CON), Bury North
Bernard Jenkin (CON), Harwich and North Essex
Dr. Daniel Poulter (CON), Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
Anne Main (CON), St Albans
David Mowat (CON), Warrington South
Karen Lumley (CON), Redditch
Nadhim Zahawi (CON), Stratford-on-Avon
Natascha Engel (LAB), North East Derbyshire
Pauline Latham (CON), Mid Derbyshire
Sarah Newton (CON), Truro and Falmouth
Geoffrey Cox (CON), Torridge and West Devon
Brandon Lewis (CON), Great Yarmouth
Adam Holloway (CON), Gravesham
Damian Collins (CON), Folkestone and Hythe
David Morris (CON), Morecambe and Lunesdale
Graham Brady (CON), Altrincham and Sale West
Louise Mensch (CON), Corby
Robert Walter (CON), North Dorset
Aidan Burley (CON), Cannock Chase
Bob Blackman (CON), Harrow East
Nick De Bois (CON), Enfield North
Steve Brine (CON), Winchester
Robert Syms (CON), Poole
Caroline Nokes (CON), Romsey and Southampton North
Brian Binley (CON), Northampton South
Steven Barclay (CON), North East Cambridgeshire
Julian Lewis (CON), New Forest East
Lorraine Fullbrook (CON), South Ribble
Tony Cunningham (LAB), Workington
Christopher Chope (CON), Christchurch
Dan Byles (CON), North Warwickshire
Edward Leigh (CON), Gainsborough
Richard Harrington (CON), Watford
Jacob Rees-Mogg (CON), North East Somerset
Guto Bebb (CON), Aberconwy
Kris Hopkins (CON), Keighley
Iain Stewart (CON), Milton Keynes South
Mark Spencer (CON), Sherwood
John Stevenson (CON), Carlisle
Bill Cash (CON), Stone
Andrew Griffiths (CON), Burton
Simon Hart (CON), Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire
Peter Bone (CON), Wellingborough
Charlie Elphicke (CON), Dover
Justin Tomlinson (CON), North Swindon
Mark Pawsey (CON), Rugby
Stuart Andrew (CON), Pudsey
Marcus Jones (CON), Nuneaton
Alun Cairns (CON), Vale of Glamorgan
Richard Drax (CON), South Dorset
Martin Vickers (CON), Cleethorpes
Craig Whittaker (CON), Calder Valley
Bob Stewart (CON), Beckenham
Adam Afriyie (CON), Windsor
Jack Lopresti (CON), Filton & Bradley Stoke
James Wharton (CON), Stockton South
Julian Sturdy (CON), York Outer
Heather Wheeler (CON), South Derbyshire.
Nigel Mills (CON), Amber Valley
Simon Reevell (CON), Dewsbury
Mark Reckless (CON), Rochester and Strood
Paul Maynard (CON), Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Jeremy Lefroy (CON), Stafford
Jackie Doyle-Price (CON), Thurrock
Philip Hollobone (CON), Kettering
James Clappison (CON), Hertsmere
Sammy Wilson (DUP), East Antrim
David Tredinnick (CON), Bosworth
Roger Williams (LIB DEM), Brecon and Radnorshire
Nicholas Soames (CON), Mid Sussex
Graham Evans (CON), Weaver Vale
Douglas Carswell (CON), Clacton
Patrick Mercer (CON), Newark
Rory Stewart (CON), Penrith and The Border
John Glen (CON), Salisbury
Mark Pritchard (CON), The Wrekin
Caroline Dinenage (CON), Gosport
Neil Parish (CON), Tiverton and Honiton
Stephen McPartland (CON), Stevenage
Greg Knight (CON), East Yorkshire
David Ruffley (CON), Bury St Edmunds
Tracey Crouch (CON), Chatham and Aylesford
Priti Patel (CON), Witham
Karl McCartney (CON), Lincoln
James Gray (CON), North Wiltshire
Mark Williams (LIB DEM), Ceredigion
Andrew Rosindell (CON), Romford
Oliver Heald (CON), North East Hertfordshire
Andrea Leadsom (CON), South Northamptonshire
Ian Liddell-Grainger (CON), Bridgwater and West Somerset
Charles Walker (CON), Broxbourne
Andrew Percy (CON), Brigg and Goole
Andrew Bridgen (CON), North West Leicestershire
Andrew Turner (CON), Isle of Wight
Mark Garnier (CON), Wyre Forest
Andrew Bingham (CON), High Peak
Stewart Jackson (CON), Peterborough
Philip Davies (CON), Shipley
[end quote]

Huhne: Good Riddance

I understand that before the now notorious speeding offence, Huhne had already accumulated several driving convictions. If he had taken another three points on his licence (instead of the points going on his wife's licence) then he would have been banned from driving.

So it looks like this arrogant self obsessed technical ignoramus drives without any consideration for anyone else. A bit like his approach to high office in fact.

Regrettably, even though we are well rid of this egotistical bigot, the general thrust of the coalitions approach to the wind turbine scam is unlikely to change - at least in the short term.

I picked up on an email that a long term political insider said this about the government and Huhne's demise:

“I don't believe anything has changed with the departure of Huhne,
other than we have lost one of our more arrogant and ultimately stupid Ministers.”

 I don't know who made this comment, but it sounds about right.

Shock Horror Probe

Perhaps I expect too much of modern day journalism.

Take the following two articles:

The first concerns recent data on global warming ( HERE)

It is not the skeptical stance of the article that disturbs me, it is more the lack of accessibility to the released [quote] without fanfare [unquote] data -purportedly from the Met office.

I have looked for the referred to Met office document without success. Does it exist?

 All it would have taken would have been a link or reference in the above article. Is that too much to ask?

I could Google and Bing and whatever and maybe (if it exists - which I expect it does) I would find it.

But the article without a valid reference is diminished.

To be fair, it also diminishes the Met Office by them not having ready access to what they must know is likely to be controversial data. Are they hiding it? Or does it not exist? Who knows?

If you know - tell me. It would be nice to know, so I can make my own judgement.

The second is this article concerning Peer to Peer lending (HERE)

Again I admit I am quite a fan of peer to peer lending but I still look to responsible journalism for proper information on this growing sector of the financial system.

The article referred to a small increase in repayment default at Zopa (still less than that accepted at the main banks) and also a failed company that operated on the margins and outside of the voluntary regulation self imposed by most responsible peer to peer companies.

Yet these two unrelated aspects are used to taint the reputation of the three main companies trading in this field, namely Zopa, Funding Circle and Ratesetter.

Perhaps if the article had concentrated on the need for formal FSA regulation (as demanded by Zopa, FC and RateSetter) then it would have had a purpose.

As it was it simply indulged in an orgy of half truths and innuendo.

Journalism fails us when the sources are not transparent. It particularly fails us when journalists fail to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

DIY Foreign Aid on a Budget

The great thing about DIY is that it is cheap and effective.

That applies to DIY foreign aid just as much as it does to building that book shelf the wife has been moaning about for the last year.

You can get somebody else to do it, but then you know it is going to cost alot more and probably be done to a lower standard as well.

If you really want to get ripped off just get a government department to do the job. Not only will you pay through the nose, you will also get crap service. That is why much of the seven billion we spend in aid every year simply goes down the toilet.

Not only does our governmental aid fail to reach the deserving poor, it is often used to ensure they remain downtrodden.

Have a read of this Daily Mail article (HERE). AHa! I hear you say, but that is the Daily Mail, they would say that wouldn't they?

Well, how about this Zambian Economist (HERE) Incidentally she created quite a stir with her book titled Dead Aid (Amazon HERE)

So what can you do?

Personally, I have followed the advice given by the above Zambian economist (DAMBISA MOYO) and have loaned out (not given) a small amount of cash to honest hardworking folk all over the world through an organisation called Kiva (HERE)

It may be only a lousy $150 in total but I suspect it does more good than a considerably bigger sum doled out by the foreign office.

Not only that it is also relatively safe.

On Kiva you can deal yourself in with $25 (circa £18). That and you can also get your money back if necessary. This is Billothewisps Kiva page (HERE)

At least have a look at Kiva. You can make a difference as an individual by giving a hand up not a hand out. Even though you end up doing the bloody Foreign Office's job for them.

Keeping the lights on with Nuclear

You may have noticed that I am an unashamed supporter of nuclear power generation.

I do however, believe nuclear materials needs to be treated with respect. But that is true of 100's of other materials we also need for our daily needs. We need to keep things in proportion.

Nuclear energy has the potential to transform power generation around the world. It is the only viable generation source that can displace coal and even gas. It is safe and secure and remarkably resilient to even massively catastrophic events - like the recent Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami (including the clapped out 50 year Fukishima plant).

Compare Fukishima to the Banquao disaster, (Wikipedia page here) where a hydroelectric plant failed in China in 1975 resulting in at least 200,000 deaths. Nobody believes we should shut down our hydroelectric plants even after the catastrophe at Banquao. Neither should we shut down our nuclear plants because of the failure of one 50 year old, obsolete plant under ultra extreme conditions.

Particularly we should shun the insane German decision to shut down nuclear and build polluting coal plant to replace it.

But what about the risks of Nuclear? If it is so safe why did they evacuate Fukishima? Why was Three Mile island treated so seriously although nobody died?

Once, a long time ago in I heard a analogy regarding nuclear safety and the extreme precautions that are taken.

The analogy revolves around the question: "Why, if nuclear power was so safe, do we have to take so many precautions?"

Here is the analogy:

A man had two children. His children were frightened of the dark. The children believed there were ghosts and goulies waiting in the dark. Unfathomable horrors waiting for them.

Consequently, to allay their fears, their father left on the hall light. He knew there were no ghosts. But he also knew that without the light, his children would be frightened.

He took the precaution.

Much of the  rigorous safety precautions surrounding nuclear and the extreme low dosimetry involved are the equivalent of putting the hall light on.

The irony of the fathers compassionate decision was that by lighting up the hall he would reinforce the fears of his children that there actually were ghosts and ghoulies waiting in the dark.

After all why would he put the light on unless there really were bad things waiting in the dark?

Why should they believe their fathers protestations that there were no ghosts? After all he is the one that puts the hall light on.

One day the father and his children would have to confront the issue, or continue wasting resources on the unneccessary light.

For us today the stakes are much higher than a single light bulb.

But perhaps it is time the nuclear industry stopped pandering to the childish fears about nuclear power that infect our society.

Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University makes a compelling case far a more mature approach to nuclear risk in his book Radiation and Reason. It is available at Amazon (here) I also have a number of other links related to this book/reviews/websites  On This Post Here

Perhaps it is also time we treated the ridiculous and immoral scare-mongering claims made by the anti-nuclear lobby (See this Post), with the contempt and derision they deserve.

The Windscale Fire - 55 Years On

The Windscale fire was a fire in a nuclear reactor in Cumbria, England in 1957. Although the radiation release was less than Chernobyl, the pollution fell over nearby towns and also travelled across the Irish sea. Before Chernobyl, the Windscale fire was the worlds worst nuclear accident. The Windscale fire Wikipedia page is here

The enquiry into the Windscale fire searched for the casualties. It arrived at the conclusion that "statistically" 33 fatalies had resulted from the fire, although nobody could actually place names on the dead.

If you use the anti-nuclear scale that reckons around one million have died so far from Chernobyl, and one million will die from Fukishima (14,000 in the USA already), It would seem reasonable to give a conservative estimate to  the Windscale death toll over the last 55 years at  somewhere between 500,000 and 750,000.

Look at the scale of this thing.

It has been 55 years since the Windscale fire. So on average, using figures estimated from the anti-nuclear lobby's figures for Chernobyl and Fukushima, there should have been on average, about 10,000 radiation induced deaths a year.

There would have been peaks where a certain mortality took hold. So perhaps we should have seen, over this period,  a series of peaks of  20,000 - 40,000 deaths in particular years.

This would be a scale of additional mortality similar to that caused by medium size war.

Yet no medic or even anti-nuclear lobby has flagged up or protested about these tens of thousands of additional annual deaths. Nobody noticed.

Is that plausible?

Why is Cumbria (in particular) not an area of radioactive desolation? Why are the fields around Seascale not packed with mass graves? Why was the Irish population not decimated?

Unless you are one of the totally paranoid who believe in some magical international conspiracy designed to hide these deaths, you must admit, Cumbria is much as it was.

There have been no massive death peaks due to radiation induced illnesses. No mass graves, no huge health consequences. In fact a recent study into the health of the emergency responders found no long term health consequences at all, and they were the people who took the brunt of the radiation.

There was a localised rise in Thyroid cancer that was treated. This rise though was nothing like that at Chernobyl. At Windscale  iodine tablets were rapidly deployed and milk was discarded for a period of time.

Remember Windscale is still the third worst nuclear accident the world has ever seen.

Could it be a dark worldwide conspiracy and cover-up? Or is the truth that the anti-nuclear lobby's figures for Chernobyl and now Fukushima, are hopelessly over-stated.

In fact is it also possible that even the "official" figures are overstated?

Have we been frightening ourselves silly by allotting a far fetched and fanciful toxicity to nuclear material?

Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University (See this Post) believes in the second option.

And I tend to go along with him.

Nuclear Accident Casuality Figures

What are the real casualty figures for the nuclear accidents we have had so far? Can we trust the official figures produced? Or should we trust the anti-nuclear lobby instead?

Will Fukishima cause 1 million deaths? Has Fukishima already caused over 14,000 deaths in the USA as recently claimed?

Or have there been no radiation deaths caused by Fukishima?

Did Chernobyl cause 1 million deaths as claimed by the same people making the Fukishima claims?

Or were there less than 100 fatalities as found by the International committe that
evaluated the disaster?

How can we at least, get a feel for ourselves as to what the real consequences have been?

Fukishima is a recent event, so whatever claim is made and however outlandish it is, the recency of the event obscures any clear decision in the short term.

With Chernobyl, the poor Soviet era health and social care and the consequent closer monitoring of public health post Chernobyl also obfuscates the situation. It allows those with an agenda (whatever it is) to muddy the waters.

Also, we have to contend with those who fervently believe that there has been a grand conspiracy to hide the true casualty figures from Chernobyl.

To me, this proposed suppression of the "truth"  sounds exactly like the type of paranoia you get with a bad case of climate science denial. Why an international committee of world renowned experts would seek to hide the truth and fake the casualty figures is beyond me.

But there is greater clarity surrounding Windscale fire in 1957. The Windscale fire was the world's worst nuclear accident before Chernobyl. Even today is still ranked at number three.

Next post I will be looking at the 1957 Windscale fire - and I'll go looking for the bodies.

If the lurid claims for Chernobyl and Fukishima are correct, there must be hundreds of thousands of them.

Infant Mortality and Fukushima

I am prompted to write this post after a commenter on another post ( See Here ) referred to two studies on the medical effects of radiation.

One of these (the KiKK report) was legitimate science. I will come back to this in another post, because there are still some well known issues with it.

But today I want to make some observations on the other report, which proposes that the Fukushima meltdowns caused a large number of deaths in the USA in the fourteen week period immediately after the Tsunami.

The report ( Press Release Here) claims that there have been 14000 deaths in the USA in the first 14 weeks  after the Japanese Tsunami including 822 infants. It attributes these deaths to Nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima in Japan.

Scary stuff - if it were true.

Rather than having me, a mere bog standard engineer moaning about the dismal and probably dishonest methodology of the paper, you would be better off reading ( This Link ) by the illustrious Mike Moyer (Editor in charge of technology coverage at Scientific American).

If you want a complete demolition of the pseudo-statistics that forms the base of this report try This Post.. The is some more incisive  Informed Commentary Here.

 

But what I am going to do is make some observations on the consequences if this claim is true. We can then see how much this proposed increase in infant mortality has on the annual USA infant mortality rate and then see how this fits in with the infant mortality trends over the last 50 years.

The report "calculates" 14000 people have died from radiation effects in the USA from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. They also state that infants have been particularly badly affected with an additional 822 dying in the 14 week period.  So if this was maintained for a year the excess number of infant deaths would be over 3000. So I am going to assume a conservative figure of an increase mortality of 2000 children between 0 -1 year over the full year. The figure is not critical. Use you own if you like.

The following maths is simple enough.

The CIA fact book (Here) tells us that there are about 4.35 million births in the USA per year. The world bank graph of USA infant mortality rate shows 2010 as 6.5 deaths per 1000 births.

That means there are 28275 deaths of infants in the USA in a year.

(4,350,000 /1000) x 6.5 = 28275

So using this study as a base, infant mortality in the USA has, from 2010 to 2011 jumped from 28275 to about 30275. All in one year.

How does our 2000 extra deaths affect the annual infant death mortality rate?

we know  28275 deaths equates to 6.5 deaths per 1000 live births

So our new rate is  (30275/28275) x 6.5 = (as near as dammit) 7 deaths per 1000 live births

Even if the 822 deaths was the maximum and the radiological mortality stopped mysteriously at the 14 week boundary this would still push the annual infant mortality rate up to 6.7 per 1000 live births.

Do you find this plausible?

Why have the thousands of front line medical staff in the USA not noticed what amounts to a huge jump in infant mortality? Especially when we are talking about the first 800 or so casualties occurring in the such a short time.

Are all USA paediatricians asleep on the job?

Seriously, do you think it even remotely realistic that nobody has noticed the undoing nearly ten years of improvement? Except for the two anti-nuclear campaigners who discovered it in their cherry picked data?

This is the World Bank graph of infant mortality in the USA over the last few decades. This Link takes you to an interactive version so you can explore the rate year by year. Notice how the infant mortality rate has continuously declined, following a roughly exponential decay from the mid 1960's to the late 1980's .

Notice how it then heads on down (post Chernobyl) at a slightly increased decline rate. 

Let us look for some events.

Notice 1979 - Three Mile Island.

Can you see anything? To me it looks like there is no discontinuity let alone a prolonged spike.

Now look to 1986 - Chernobyl.

The only noticeable thing on the graph around this time is that the rate of decrease (i.e. improvement) accelerates towards the 1990's. Maybe the extra vigilance due to the fear of Chernobyl led to this small acceleration in decline?

Over the whole fifty year period, at no time does the infant mortality rate increase.

Of course, there will be variations month by month, day by day and location by location over the year. But this only turns into an increase and epidemic if you cherry pick your data and have an agenda.

If this report is correct we should expect the first increase in the annual infant mortality rate the USA in the last fifty years, and a large increase at that.

Mike Moyer of Scientific American wrote this about the study, it's methodology and the authors:
[quote]
... a check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.” The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.
[unquote]

This report is appallingly flawed. But it also puts politics before science. It is dishonest, immoral and cruel. Such a distortion of the truth to suite political ends is a terrible indictment of the depths that sections of anti-nuclear lobby will sink to.

Fukishima Cold Shutdown

After the Japanese Tsunami (25,000 dead) the world has focussed its post Tsunami reporting on a series of meltdowns at the Fukishima nuclear plant.

There are those who have eagerly claimed that Fukishima would result in hundreds of thousands of radiation based deaths. The highest prediction Billothewisp has so far come across is 1.4 million.

But no one has actually died of a radiation induced illness at Fukishima. Nor are there likely to be any fatalities, especially as Fukishima reached cold shutdown a couple of weeks ago.
( See This IAEA pdf )

But was Fukishima just a lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Just like at Windscale 1957? At Windscale a Plutonium fire burned for days spewing radioactive waste over the nearby village. The subsequent enquiry declared that thirty three people were "statistically" killed though nobody actually knows who they were.

Another lucky break for the nuclear industry?.

Or like the 1979 Three Mile Island partial meltdown. Lots of panic. Lots of lurid predictions but no deaths.

Was this just another lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Even the ultimate catastrophe at Chernobyl. You know - explosion, no containment vessel, burned for days, dumped its plutonium into a nearby forest, nobody doing anything effective for a considerable period, clouds of radiation over Europe,  no issue of Iodine tablets until weeks later.

The wild predictions of millions of deaths from Chernobyl remain just that - wild predictions. Truly it was socially dislocating industrial distaster. But hardly a catastrophe. Look at the Japanese Tsunami for a real catastrophe.

So was even Chernobyl just another lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Are you like me starting the get the feeling that there is something very wrong here.

Either the lurid predictions of millions of deaths are true and these deaths are being hidden from us by some fantastic dark international conspiracy, or there is something very seriously wrong with the way some people are assessing radiation risk.

After reading a book by Prof. Wade Allison of Oxford University, I am very strongly of the opinion that the latter is the case.

The book is called Radiation and Reason. ( Amazon Link Here )

There is also a website unsurprisingly called http://www.radiationandreason.com/

Here is a Link  to Prof Allison's bio on that site. Here is his Bio on Wikipedia.

The guy is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford. Don't be put off. The book is highly readable.

I think many will find Allisons book an eye opener.

2012 - The End of The World is Nigh.

Harold Camping was RIGHT!. We are all going to die, and you dear Reader will be deader than most.

21st December 2012. BOOM! The end of the world. 12:00pm sharp. Don't be late. This is the date the Mayan 13th Bak'tun on their Long Count Calender runs out. (actually it wraps over to the 14th Bak'tun - but we'll ignore that)

The Mayans may have been a stone age civilisation, but they knew (Uh...) "things". Things like, well, Um....

They were in touch with a deeper mystical and celestial presence.

They had reached that deep cosmic Nirvana that our civilisation cannot ever attain.

They were in touch with the inner psyche of the divinity at the centre of existence.

Their karma extended beyond a mere physical existence into a truly eternal Cosmic conscience..

That is why they painted their women's faces blue, then filed down their teeth to points. Finally they made them go boss eyed by balancing a ruby on their nose.

How mystical!

How metaphysical!

And how much money do you have? Arghhhh!..Ignore that last question.

YOU really are DOOMED. YOU are the walking DEAD.

But is that a fat wallet I see?.Hallelujah!!!! There is a way ahead. There is salvation. Remember though, if you have money you simply cannot enter heaven. De Facto.

Rich men and the eye of needle? Remember that?

It's no goodtrying to amend your ways now. Rushing off down the boozer to blow it all on Old Rosie (the Cider of Champions) simply is NOT going to cut the mustard.

Remember this is GOD we are dealing with. Not the planning department at the local council.

Oh OK - bad example - but just because the planning dept think they are gods doesn't make it true.

(In order to be culturally inclusive the following applies to all Welsh, Scots and Irish as well as Canadians, Australians, Yanks, Mexicans, Norwegians and everyone else for that matter, as long as they were born on a week-day or alternatively on the week-end)

Yep. I am talking to ONLY TO YOU my grubby little Englander. YOU are the only one who can be saved by Billothewisp. But YOU Have to agree to be saved.

Let's face it. Otherwise you are stuffed. Unless you agree to be saved then for you, it is an eternity of hell fire and damnation. So what is Hell? Brimstone? Whips? Boiling Oil?

Nah - that's kids stuff.

Hell is being forced to drink gassy alcohol free American lager and watch the X factor all day. The adverts will be filled with no-win no-fee lawyers. If you change channels all you will get is a continual discussion between the two members of JedWard on their understanding of the Schroedinger Wave equation.

Your eyes will be stitched open. Your bladder will be stitched shut. Your mind will be filled with images of a naked Kate Moss - but when she is 85 years old.

Serves you right. But there is hope.

Yes! Billothewisp is here to save you! Don't start thinking about it! Don't start reasoning! That only leads to hell and a wrinkly Kate Moss. What you need to do is divest yourself of all that hellish filthy lucre just laying in your bank account. Billothewisp has broad shoulders. He can absorb the shame. He can soak up the bad karma that flows from (ugh!) money. So, as soon as possible, ensure you send him all those ugly high denomination notes.

When the whole world explodes at 12.00pm 21st December 2012, you can go straight to

the front of the queue into Heaven (celebrity entrance). Just mention Billothewisp.

Be Saved. Send all your money to me! (Metaxa is also accepted in part payment)

You know it makes sense.

Happy New Year.

Love and kisses

Billothewisp.

A Christmas Carol

It was Christmas Eve.

 In a dark corner of the public bar in an obscure boozer in one of the wilder recesses of Purbeck, Carol pulled a pint of Old Rosie (the Cider of Champions).

Scrooge greedily eyed the filling glass and impatiently tapped the bar with his knuckles. 

The liquid slowly filled the glass. The smell of sour apples filled the bar. Scrooge's tapping got louder and louder.

Carol (who was not known for her tolerance of old impatient men) glared at the ungrateful customer. She finished the pouring. The glass was slid across the counter. Scrooge grudgingly passed over a handful of coins.

Scrooge licked his lips. His grubby little hands clutched round the glass of cloudy fluid. Raising it carefully to his lips, he sipped the brew. Slowly and carefully, he consumed the golden liquid.

Soon the glass was empty.

Scrooge tearfully eyed the empty glass, then like a man in mourning, he cracked open his wallet and extracted a single twenty pound note. He bought another pint of Old Rosie and then another and finally, a fourth.

Scrooge, it has to be said, was utterly hammered.

It should be remembered that Old Rosie, (the Cider of Champions) is not a brew for the faint hearted. It is rated at 7.5% ABV.

It may be that the natural cloudiness of Old Rosie is part of the brewing process, or it might be because Old Rosie is dissolving the glass.

This does have its advantages though, we now know that Old Rosie is one of the most potent sterilising agents known to man.

If during an outbreak of MRSA the patients were given a couple of pints of Old Rosie each morning, the bug would be toast.

However, I digress. Back to Scrooge.

Anyway Scrooge had imbibed four whole pints of Old Rosie before he decided to stagger home. He got about half way before the hedge looked too comfortable to avoid. He lay down.

Now at this point of course, old Scrooge is supposed to go off on three journeys of discovery, into the past, the present and the future. There he discovers the true meaning of Christmas and ends up a better and more fulfilled person.

But really, let's be serious. If you think anyone is going to be able to stand up after drinking four pints of Old Rosie, let alone indulge in time travelling and character building, then you are sadly deluded.

Scrooge was lucky. Carol was driving home down the same country lane and noticed the old man snoring away in the hedge. She woke him up and threw the drunk into the back of her car. In true Christmas spirit she dumped him 100 yards from home. Just far enough for him to stagger home, and dream up an excuse for the wife.

A true act of Christmas generosity by a bona-fide Christmas Carol.

Merry Xmas.

Love & Kisses

Billothewisp

Another day Another Template

Well, I was getting tired of the old template anyway. I thought I would upgrade to one of the latest wizzy free templates in hope of fixing the embedded comment box problem as well on the fly, but to no avail.

So I give up. It is going to have to be pop up comment boxes from now on.

Looks like this is a problem smeared all over the net, but if I wait for Google to come up with a fix I'll probably die of old age first.

Anyway no more of me droning on about how crap this is. (Thank God I hear you say).

A cidery Xmas lament is in the making

regards
Billo

Re-Functional but only just...

My inability to comment (i.e. reply) on this blog has finally been fixed by changing the comment method to a separate window from in-line. When I get daring I will change it back.

My God, don't you forget just how sloooowww modems were, though to be fair this GSM modem isn't too bad. I suppose it is all down to the amount of bloat on websites these days.

Anyway, before I start reposting I should re-visit some folk first.

I'll get the Xmas greeting done next, then its back to some dear old campaigning.

Regards
Billo

Blogger is Broken

My Blogger I/F is broken.

To make matters worse, I am currently running on a GSM modem that is as slow as a three legged dog on sedatives.

There appears to be a javascript issue where the owner of a blog cannot now  even comment on his own posts!

When I try and issue a comment it asks me which identity I wish to sign in as, although I am already signed in. Then it refuses to allow me to select anything by clicking the button. I cannot issue a comnment until logged in etc etc etc. forever ad infinitum.

Hi Ho Hum.

For those missing a reply, please accept my apologies. A reply is written and will be issued asap.
Regards
Billo




I give in.

I will have another go tomorrow, but maybe that wordpress blog beckons. I am getting sick of this and google changing stuff under your feet without testing it thooroughly first.

Intermission

A short intermission will ensue. Please feel free to leave comments but the may not be moderated or replied to for a few days as I am currently overwhelmed with other things and time is tight.

Normal abuse will resume shortly.

Any comments to this blog are always published (excluding adverts, gratuitously offensive or totally off-topic) and a reply usually issued. But there may a delay for a few days. That's all.

Love and Kisses
Billo

Safer SetBacks

Actually, the Scout Camp at East Stoke would be (much) less than 1000 feet from the nearest turbine of the proposed East Stoke (Alaska Farm) Industrial wind turbine complex.

Yet a leading Wind Turbine Manufacturer (Vestas) recommends in its technical documentation that technicians working on turbines of a similar size stay at least 400 metres away (1300 feet) - unless absolutely necessary.

A residential home for people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (i.e. some of the most vulnerable in our community)  is about 2400 feet away.

Peoples homes are within 2000 feet.

Meanwhile the Scottish Government requires a 2Km (6500 foot) setback and just about every medical expert who has studied the field agrees with them including:

•  Dr Chris Hanning (the world's leading sleep deprivation expert) 
• The French equivalent of the BMA, 
• Dr Amanda Harry ENT Specialist 
• Dr Nina Pierpont consultant pedriatrician (author of Wind Turbine Syndrome). 

All of these medics have produced devastating reports on the effects of having turbines too close to peoples homes.

Then there are  the environmental bodies, all queuing up to support a setback of around 2Km.

• The United Kingdom Noise Association
• The John Muir Trust
• The CPRE.

The only organisation who thinks having closer setback is a "good idea" is RenewablesUK the cartel trade association representing the wind turbine carpet baggers.

But, seriously folks,  you do not have to worry about the morality and social conscience of the wind turbine fraternity.

They simply don't have any.

Hat tip to my friend Linda at Windtoons ( Here )

A Wind Turbine Capacity Factor Near You.

Billothewisp has decided to have a little competition to see which parts of the UK had the highest and lowest Wind Turbine capacity factors in 2010. Then we can see what the carbon savings are, particularly for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset..

Take this document  ( Here ). It is part of a document set called DUKES. (God! how Chris Huhne must hate having to publish this stuff)

In particular take this table.

Clearly the CF winner is (at a paltry 23.9%) is Northern Ireland.

Also very clearly, the CF loser is (at a wholly pathetic 17.7%)  is The South West of England.

It also shows that the "wonder" of offshore windpower only managed a CF of 29.6%.

Hmmm. There is something wrong here isn't there?

RenewablesUK, the wind industry trade association drone on and on  about the overall capacity factor being about 30%.

But last year not even off-shore managed the illusionary 30% CF. Dismally, not a single on-shore area came anywhere close to 25% let alone 30%.

If you believe in these things, then I expect you think that even though the output may be crap, they still help reduce carbon emissions

Unfortunately the truth is somewhat less rosy.

Billothewisp has to quote another governmental/academic document to offer some clarity as to exactly what carbon saving will be made.

The document was actually brought to my attention by a Guardian article last week written by Polly Curtis.

This Guardian article itself was the usual half-baked pro-wind  "investigation", and lacked even a semblance of even handedness. (See this comically one-sided  "Reality Check" ).

But it did refer to a very interesting report by the UKERC concerning wind turbine intermittency.

The document is available here -  The Intermittency Report

The Intermittency Report points out that due to their intermittent output, wind turbines need carbon emitting backup.

Because this backup is is trying to track the wind and compensate for the turbine vagaries, it is running inefficiently at sub optimal output.

The extra carbon emissions from this inefficient operation statistically gets compensated  by the wind turbine - but only when the collective turbine output reaches  a CF of about 20%.

So, if you have a capacity factor of 30% you are in saving carbon emissions..

But, that means that turbines in places like the South-West, (CF of 17.7%),  do not even cover the inefficiency they force on their carbon based backup generators. This carbon based backup generation  emits more carbon due to having to backup these ineffective turbines than it would if they didn't exist and was providing the power on its own.

In the South West, more CO2 is emitted not less. All thanks to the pitifully ineffective wind turbines.

These turbines cost carbon while producing intermittent expensive and unreliable energy.

You could actually reduce carbon emissions by shutting down all the South-West's turbines. (rather than paying them a subsidy).

Even for offshore wind, the carbon savings are pitifully small and horrendously expensive..

Particularly, for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset, the most environmentally sensible thing to do is exactly what the local councils have voted for - rejection.

Unfortunately the lure of the filthy lucre means that both of the corporations involved are going to appeal against the democratic decisions of the democratically elected local councils.

It is going to be the usual sad scenario  of money, power and greed versus local democracy.

The cost in national resources and finance, along with the environmental damage so outweigh any possible environmental gain  that we would be massively better off both financially and environmentally by consigning the whole white elephant wind turbine fleet  to the dustbin of history.

UK Diesel Most Expensive in Europe, Soon the World

UK Diesel is the most expensive in the Europe Union and the second most expensive in the world.

(graph taken from Australian Institute of Petroleum )

The average European Diesel price is over 17% cheaper. The cheapest (Luxembourg) is over 27% cheaper.

You can  Compare Diesel Prices on European Energy Portal Here

Notice that taxation component on the graph.

UK Diesel is by far the most heavily taxed fuel in the whole of the OECD, let alone Europe.

But still, I have to admit,  the price of Diesel in Turkey is slightly higher than in the UK. (sigh)

So we come shameful second for overpriced fuel in the OECD countries.

But my fellow grubby little Englanders should not worry. George Osbourne is "On The Ball".

The proposed 3p rise in fuel duty (which also then increases the VAT  - a tax on a tax) should ensure that the UK triumphantly grasps the world crown of the most expensive Diesel fuel in the world.

Another world first for England and the UK

Hurrah!

How proud we should all be. (not)

Bankers Pull the Plug on Scottish Wind

It seems that the banking fraternity are beginning to get a little worried about sticking their snouts in the Scottish wind turbine trough.
(See Windpower Monthly article Here)

Up until now it has been easy money for both the bankers and their wind turbine operator clients. They have been backed by all political parties, with politicians fawning at their feet.

The media has fallen over themselves (especially the BBC) to promote and propagandise on their behalf.

Anyone standing against them has been villified and despised but more usually, just ignored.

But now something is stirring. Something unpleasantly related the truth about how much this joke technology is costing us and how ineffective it is.

Honourable and informed organisations like the John Muir Trust, and the Renewable Energy Foundation, as well as highly regarded engineers are diligently questioning the current madness.
(See This Post)

If (and when) the sh*t hits the fan, the last thing the greedy bankers want on the balance sheet is a large quantity of ineffective wind turbines that no-one is subsidising any more.

The first line on that balance sheet concerns Scotland.

Now if dear old Alec Salmond gets his way and Scotland goes independent then Scotland is going to have to pay the onerous ROC subsidy. This subsidy for off-shore turbines triples the final cost of the electricity generated. On-shore is slightly less eye wateringly expensive, merely doubling the cost.

However, this potential £4bn outlay leaves Alac Salmond unphased. The master plan is to get the despised English to pay or (I quote from the above link) "then there would be a severe danger of the lights going off in England"

Oh dear, Oh Dear.

Alec Salmond obviously places a great deal of  faith in the English sticking to the ludicrous "renewables" targets that have been stupidly set by the last UK government.

But of course, there won't be a UK government if Scotland goes independent.

As the UK is doing very well towards meeting its Kyoto CO2 reduction targets (much better than either Germany or Denmark) I would find it hardly surprising if this bit of UK governmental "renewable obligation" stupidity were to be quietly swept under the carpet and forgotten about.

Now tie that in to the enormous gas field found under Lanacashire and the fact we have 85 years worth of nuclear fuel stockpiled.

We can, using both the new gas and nuclear, replace coal completely. This would cut our carbon emissions massively more than could ever be achieved by wind turbines. (That is, of course, assuming wind turbines actually ever manage to cut carbon emissions in the first place).

The "renewables" feeding frenzy becomes a busted flush.

Whatever you think about the greedy bankers, one thing you can be sure of is that they will protect their bottom line. They are not going to indulge in any dreamworld, English hating Nirvana that could in all likely-hood prevent them getting their massive bonuses.

Bankers are greedy, averacious, cowardly and uncaring.

But they are not stupid.

Wind Farm Conquistadors

The Globalisation swindle that is wind energy has really plumbed the depths of depravity in Mexico. A new breed of Spanish Conquistadors have arrived. Like their forebears they have set out to rob the indigenous people of their land.

We may think we have it bad in England, where greedy multinationals hire celebrity lawyers at £20,000 a day to twist the truth and buy their own "justice".

But in Mexico, the wind companies trick the native population out of their land rights. They then get their thugs in to clear out those who won't leave.

If the locals stand up to the intimidation then they resort to death threats and beatings.

Most of these wind companies I should add, are European. Mainly Spanish.

Find that difficult to believe? Thinking old Billo might been at the cider too much today?

Well, my grubby little Englander: I have some links for you: (there are many more)
Oaxaca death threats to human rights defenders
Oaxaca possible conflict regarding wind energy projects
Wind parks take over indigenous lands

And then there is this one particularly - a call for objections by Amnesty International. Please use the link to raise a complaint if you can. The Campesinos need support.

Community threatened by wind farm staff

In Oaxaca Mexico,  there are about 14 different native groups. Collectively they are known as Campesinos. These poor and often illiterate native peoples put great store in typical traditional values. Things like: Your Word being your Bond.

For the wind energy corporate lawyers it was like taking candy from a baby.

Oaxaca is one of the poorest regions in Mexico. Here are some stats:

        * 34.5% of houses do not have running water;
        * 54.4% do not have plumbing;
        * 12.7% do not have electricity;
        * Only 37.8% of houses have all three of these basic services;
        * 40% of houses have dirt floors.

But don't go looking to any wind company for social improvement. They are too busy making huge profits. They don't even pay their bills.

To these globalised corporate monsters, the complaining Campesinos are just irritating Mexican Nimby's.

Campesinos can be ignored, and if they cannot be ignored they can be derided and treated with contempt. If they still continue to object then they can be beaten up - or worse.

Read this very important 2008 Paper (pdf) : Wind Conflicts In The Isthmus Of Tehuantepec by Sergio Oceransky.  It is Here and Here

If you are not appalled and disgusted by the attitude and comments from the company bosses that Sergio has recorded, then God help you.

But you can only swindle people for so long before it all boils over.

Recently a demostration and picket line of Campesino men, women and children was rammed by a bus carrying construction workers and security guards.

Twenty protestors were injured, some seriously. The outraged Campesinos returned the violence and an innocent construction worker was shot in the face and killed.

One killed 20 injured Mexican wind protest

When you get injustice, there are always those willing to push things further
(Read This Blood Curdling Blog Post Here)

Meanwhile the real villains, the people who should be held to account are 4000 miles away in Madrid counting their money.

This ugly world wide abuse is driven by governmental stupidity and plain old corporate greed. All this is fuelled by the ridiculous subsidies attached to this ineffectual energy source. (Yes - even in poverty stricken Oaxaca)

This abuse will continue until those in authority actually do something to stop it. It does not matter whether this abuse is happening in Oaxaca, Dorset or Ontario.

It must be addressed.

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!