Amber Rudd is the Fossil Fuel Energy Secritary!

Amber Rudd is the Fossil Fuel Energy Secritary!

Amber Rudd gives a new twist to David Cameron’s administration, outright support of fossil fuels! Amber Rudd has been misrepresenting our best interests for some time! She has, on several occasions, not told the truth to the people and to Parliament. This is proof that we can not trust our current government. We should request an investigation, criminal charges against Amber Rudd, and the end of Cameron’s government.

Here is the complete article from The Ecologist:

Leaked letter: Rudd admits 25% green energy undershoot, misled Parliament

Oliver Tickell 9th November 2015

A letter from Energy Secretary Amber Rudd leaked to The Ecologist shows that she misled Parliament by promising the UK was ‘on course’ to deliver on its renewable energy targets – when in fact there is a delivery shortfall in 2020 of almost 25%. Her plan to fill the gap relies on more biofuels, buying in green power and ‘credits’ from abroad – everything but wind and solar.

Amber Rudd MP, Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Photo: Association for Decentralised Energy via Flickr (CC BY-ND).

A letter from Energy Secretary Amber Rudd leaked to The Ecologist shows that the UK is on track to miss its legally binding obligation to achieve strict EU targets on renewable energy by an estimated 50TWh (terawatt hours), or 3.5% of its 15% obligation – that is a shortfall of almost 25%.

This stands in stark contrast to her public position. On 17th September she told the House of Commons: “When it became apparent that we were way in excess of [spending limits on renewables], but  were still meeting our renewables targets, it was right to limit the  amount of money we were spending.”

As Rudd warns, this impending failure to meet EU renewables targets puts the UK at a double risk – of legal action taken in the UK, which the government would probably lose; and of enormous fines imposed by the European Court of Justice:

“The absence of a credible plan to meet the target carries the risk of successful judicial review, and failing to meet the overall target in 2020 could lead to on-going fines imposed by the EU Court of Justice (which could take into account avoided costs) until the UK reaches the target level.”

But by misleading the House of Commons in her statement, she is now certain to have a more immediate problem on her hands – demands for her resignation and a full-blown Parliamentary investigation.

Her first test will come tomorrow before the Energy and Climate Change Committee tomorrow (Tuesday 10th November) when its members grill her on her department’s annual report and accounts.

Speaking in advance of the meeting, Labour’s shadow energy secretary Lisa Nandy said: “At the very same  time the energy secretary is telling her colleagues in private we’re not  on course to meet our legal target on clean energy, she is cutting wind  and solar schemes that could help us to meet it. It beggars belief.”

The grisly detail of Rudd’s smoke-and-mirrors

The letter, to Cabinet colleagues Philip Hammond (Foreign Secretary), Oliver Letwin (Cabinet Office), Greg Hands (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Patrick McLoughlin (Transport Secretary) begins by setting out the scale of what the UK has to achieve:

“The target sets a legally binding obligation on HMG to deliver 15% of the UK’s final energy consumption across electricity, heat and transport from renewable sources in 2020, with a binding sub-target for 10% of transport fuels to be from renewable sources in 2020.
“Beyond a flat rate of renewables for each member state, the effort share for meeting the EU-wide 20% target was based on GDP. As a result of this, and the fact that the UK started from a very low base of renewables deployment, our target requires amongst the most significant annual growth in renewables deployment (16% average annual growth from 2011 to 2020) of any member state.”

And although the UK’s current trajectory is on course for a massive miss of 32-66 TWh (terawatt hours) per year by 2020, with a central estimate of a 50TWh shortfall, the UK’s public position is that there is no problem meeting the target.

Yet her public statements all indicate that everything is on track. As noted above, on 17th September she told the House of Commons: “We had a commitment to limit the levy control framework to £7.6 billion  by 2020. When it became apparent that we were way in excess of that, but  were still meeting our renewables targets, it was right to limit the  amount of money we were spending. That is why we took action quickly to  do so.”

A consistent pattern of concealing the truth

Or as she told Parliament on 22nd June 2015 – ironically in her statement termination subsidies for onshore wind: “This Government is committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon  emissions and to continue to make progress towards the UK’s 2020  renewable energy targets.

“The renewable electricity programme aims to deliver at least 30%  of the UK’s electricity demand from renewables by 2020. We are on course  to achieve this objective. Renewables already make up  almost 20% of  our electricity generation and there is a strong pipeline  to deliver  the rest.”

Note the subtle switch from ‘energy’ to ‘electricity’ in her second sentence. A DECC spokesman commented: “We do not comment on leaked documents. As the Secretary of  State has set out clearly in the House, renewables made up almost 20%  of our electricity generation in 2014 and there is a strong pipeline to  deliver our ambition of reaching 30% by 2020.  We continue to make progress to meet our overall renewable energy  target.”

However Rudd had also told Parliament a few days before on 18th June, again in the context of the early closure of support for onshore wind, that deployment was set to deliver on the 2020 renewable energy targets: “The Government are committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon emissions and the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets …

“My Department’s analysis indicates that, after taking into account an  early closure, onshore wind deployment under the RO [Renewables Obligation] will be in the  region of 11.6 GW … this puts us above the middle of the range set out in the  EMR [Electricity Market Reform] delivery plan, our best estimate of what we would need to meet our  2020 targets. It is therefore appropriate to curtail further deployment  of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with  those of the wider public.”

The message is clear, in statement after statement, she told Parliament that everything was going to plan towards meeting renewable energy targets. But she sets out the truth in her leaked letter. Until 2017 / 2018 the UK will be achieving its milestones, she writes, but after that

“The trajectory then increases substantially, and currently leads to a shortfall against the target in 2020 of around 50 TWh (with a range of 32 – 67TWh) or 3.5% points (with a range of 2.1 – 4.5% points) in our internal central forecasts (which are not public). Publically we are clear that the UK continues to make progress to meet the target.”


The cuts that are destroying a once booming British industry

Since its election to power in May 2015, the Conservative government has unleashed an astonishing series of attacks on the UK’s renewable energy sector which has included:

The government’s claim is that this has been motivated by the need to save money allocated under the ‘Levy Control Framework’ which allocates funds for renewable energy, however the depth and extent of the cuts betrays a strong ideological agenda to destroy the UK renewables industry.

Following her re-election in May, Rudd promised: “I want to unleash a new solar  revolution – we have a million people  living under roofs with solar  panels and that number needs to  increase.” However in office she has done the precise reverse. This letter now shows the desperate position those cuts have put the UK into.

Rudd’s plan to meet target without new wind and solar

The first element in Rudd’s plan to meet the UK’s target is by “Maintaining and improving existing policy performance towards the target”, she writes. “This would require us:

  • “to maintain our commitment to achieving at least 30% of electricity generation from renewables;
  • “to meet the 10% sub-target for renewable fuels in transport;
  • “and to continue support for the deployment of new renewable heating installations after the current funding settlement ends in 2015/16.”

Spot the lack of mention of anything to do with new wind and solar power? Her plan is based entirely on other means of achieving the target – even though wind is by far the lowest cost form of renewable energy, and solar is likely to become cheaper by 2020 with continued support to the point where it competes directly against fossil fuel generation.

The renewable heat incentive alone, Rudd writes, could deliver 20TWh (with a range of 15 – 32TWh), leaving a ‘central shortfall’ of around 30TWh. However she adds that “These forecasts are subject to significant uncertainty as the market for renewable heat is at an early stage and as a result of market and technical performance factors relating to renewable electricity.”

The next element is “Additional UK renewables deployment”, she writes. “Officials across Whitehall are reviewing policy options open to us to address this c.30TWh shortfall through additional deployment of renewables in heat, electricity and transport.”

Current levels of ‘renewable fuels’ derived from crops are already set to be doubled between 2017 and 2020, adding around 2 pence per litre on pump prices, but Rudd suggests that a further increase would be possible.

“An additional 12.9TWh or 0.9% points could theoretically be delivered above the sub target, at an estimated cost of £850m/year (adding a further 2.1 pence per litre on pump prices).”

But she warns that the move would be counter-productive in climate terms: “Due to limited availability of sustainable feedstocks, supply beyond the sub target appears likely to increase carbon emissions by increasing deforestation through new demand for agricultural land.”

There’s also potential to increase additional bio-methane production produced from organic wastes and some specially grown crops, however two thirds of the 6TWh this could produce have already been counted:

“The highest potential for additional renewable heat is from bio-methane injection into the gas grid, which could deliver up to 6TWh (or 0.4% points) by 2020. However a significant proportion of this (up to 4TWh) is already included in the proposals for continuing support for renewable heat post 2015/16.”

The ‘third way’ – buy it in from Norway

Rudd’s third step is certain to cause huge anger in the UK’s renewable energy industry as it involves simply buying it in from abroad, specifically from Norway’s hydroelectric dams. But it comes with one big problem – the required electrical connection to Norway won’t be ready on time:

“Additional deployment of electricity focuses on importing renewable electricity from Norway via the planned interconnector. This could deliver a maximum of 10TWh, depending on market forces. However, my officials do not expect the interconnector to be in operation until late 2021 at the earliest, and therefore would not strictly help the UK to reach its 2020 target.”

But that’s not the only problem: if the renewable power is generated in Norway then how can it be made to count as British just be importing it?

“Should this change, we believe that an intergovernmental agreement would be necessary, under which the UK would be required to make payment(s) to the Norwegian government (on top of that which would be paid for the electricity supplied through normal market mechanisms).”

Which is all very well, but it will cost the Uk money that should be going into our own renewables programme., Moreover there’s no guarantee that the arrangement would be considered valid by the European Commission or by the European Court.

So why not just buy in ‘statistical credits’ from other countries?

Nonetheless Rudd goers on to consider further “Use of co-operation mechanisms” that would allow the UK to finance renewable energy projects in other EU states.

Which raises the question: when the UK has Europe’s richest wind power resource, why would we want to do that? In the process exporting the jobs, expertise and industrial investment to other countries?

“In the absence of other measures to increase renewable energy consumption in the UK, a strategy to meet the target (and to ensure that the target is met in the most cost-effective way) would need to involve the UK purchasing renewables deployment later in the decade from other EU Member States which have over-achieved their target.

“There are two ways to do this The first would see HMG directly support a specific renewables project in another EU or European Economic Area Member State or third country, with an agreed proportion of the renewable energy generated being transmitted to the EU where the project occurs in a third country.”

And another problem then strikes: “However, at this stage there are no projects we have identified with the potential to deploy in the right time frames.” Which leads Rudd to attempt to invent a whole new market mechanism in ‘statistical credits’ for renewable energy from other EU countries.

“The alternative is to reach an agreement with an EU or EEA Member  State, which is likely to over-achieve on its target, to buy  ‘statistical credits’ from it in 2020. The market for such transactions  does not yet exist, and there is a low likelihood that sufficient  credits will be available to meet the total UK shortfall of 50TWh.”

Just one small problem there: there is currently no such thing as a  ‘statistical credit’ that the Commission or the European Court would recognise. In addition, adds Rudd,

“We believe there is a medium – low likelihood that sufficient credits will be available to meet a shortfall of 30TWh. Costs are, however, also highly uncertain. Nevertheless, trading has the potential to make a cost effective contribution towards meeting the target alongside a package of domestic action.”

Next step – try to win over other EU states

Which makes it all the more important to get other EU states on side. Not that the time is propitious – just as UK Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to win concessions from them on a host of other issues.

“In tandem with this emerging strategy, officials will seek to build a consensus with other EU Member States which we believe to be in a similar position to the UK, in particular in relation to their renewables target but also to other 2020 targets for greenhouse gas emissions or energy efficiency. This may allow us to negotiate some flexibility in meeting the target.”

The other EU countries Rudd refers to include Germany, France, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland who are also “currently off track to meet the target to varying degrees.”

However Rudd clearly has little confidence that these negotiations will be fruitful: “entrenched positions in Brussels and the need to defend broader HMG policy objectives mean that we cannot rely on this to deliver anything to significantly improve UK progress against the target.”

Nor is there ‘strength in numbers’ with other EU target-missers: “Whilst it may be tempting from a UK perspective to take comfort from  this list, it should be noted that Germany in particular sees the target  as a cornerstone of the EU’s climate agenda and has a strong domestic  policy framework in place which may well allow it to make up any  shortfall.

“In addition, the failure of other Member States to meet their  target would not provide the UK with a formal defence in legal  proceedings.”

Transport Minister warns – biofuels costly, unsustainable

In another problem for Amber Rudd’s plan Andrew Jones, minister at the Transport Department in charge of environment and innovation, wrote to Amber  Rudd in a second leaked letter, warning against further increases in biofuel use in transport on cost, food security and ecological grounds:

“I concur with you, however, that meeting the 10% sub-target for renewable energy in 2020 is  challenging. It requires a doubling of current biofuel inclusion rates  right up to the limits allowed for by fuel standards in regular petrol  and diesel in just a few years, and it will also require great care to  secure sustainable sources of biomass supply and avoid consumer  opposition …

“I should highlight that I do not consider it appropriate to go  beyond the transport sub target. As you point out, we understand that  demand at such levels appears likely to cause deforestation through new  demand for agricultural land, and it could also increase food as well as  fuel prices.

“This is why the UK Government argued strongly for the  introduction of recently adopted measures to limit food based biofuels  at EU level. As a consequence, environmental and social NGOs would be  expected to campaign strongly against it.

“I believe such campaigning would be likely to win public support,  not least given the estimated total increase of around 3 pence per  litre on fuel costs that could result.”

Between a rock and a hard place

This all leaves Amber Rudd in an increasingly untenable position. First, she has effectively admitted to having deceived Parliament. That’s something she will surely struggle to justify to the Energy and Climate Change Committee tomorrow.

Second, she has revealed the disastrous outcome of her policy to destroy the UK’s renewable energy industry. The fact that the UK is seriously considering buying in actual power and non-existent ‘statistical credits’ for renewable energy from other European countries also speaks volumes for her policy failure.

As for the idea of supporting renewable energy projects abroad instead of here in the UK, it’s not hard to imagine how that will go down with the UK’s renewable industry. The solar industry alone is set to lose 27,000 jobs as a result of cuts to solar power subsidies.

And her idea to increase the volume of biofuels in petrol and diesel has rightly been shot out of the water by transport minister Andrew Jones.

There is of course one eminently sensible and achievable solution – to restore sustainable levels of support for wind and solar energy and roll it out in bulk for 2020 at ever diminishing cost.

Rudd, clearly, has lost all credibity at this stage, both politically and with the renewable energy industry that ultimately has to deliver the UK’s targets. The obvious choice for Cameron is to bring back Greg Barker, who as an MP was a respected energy minister from 2010 to 2014, and remains honorary president of the British Photovoltaic Association. He now sits in the House of Lords.

Loss of face before Paris climate talks

​Greenpeace Head of Energy, Daisy Sands commented: “This letter shows us the dark side of the government’s incoherent  energy policy in full technicolour. For the first time, we learn that  the government is expecting to miss the EU’s legally binding renewables  target. This is hugely shocking.

“More deplorably, it is wilfully  hiding this from public scrutiny. The government is planning on cutting  support for the solar and wind subsidies in the name of affordability.  But perversely, we see that the government  believes investing in  renewable energy projects involving buying power from abroad is more  desirable than supporting home grown renewable energy industries.

“Even  more worryingly, it seems the government is seeking to haggle with the  EU to revise down our legal commitments. This policy makes no  environmental or economic sense as the UK is losing jobs and affordable  clean, renewable energy sources.

“The government’s claim to leadership in  the Paris climate negotiations requires us to have targets, but we must  meet them too.”

Green MEP Molly Scott Cato told the Guardian that Rudd had “serious questions  to answer about why she has reported something to parliament which  appears inconsistent with what she has been telling other ministers.

“The UK’s energy policy is bound by European law which Rudd appears  to be flouting. I have already raised with the European Commission my concerns about the fact that the government’s changes to  energy policy make it unlikely we will meet our renewables target.

“The  evidence in this letter shows the secretary of state is aware of this  serious situation and I will now be following this up with further  questions as a matter of urgency.”

My thanks to The Ecologist for outing this important information.

Plant Closures =/= Energy Deficit

Plant Closures =/= Energy Deficit

The UK government and DECC have decided that the best way to prop up the Big 6 energy companies is to give them billions to build more polluting fossil fuel plants.

Plant Closures =/= Energy Deficit

Billions in new subsidies for failing energy companies

The reprint of a PV Magazine article:

UK auctions capacity, sparks controversy

A capacity market auction last week led to the procurement of 49.26 GW of new capacity, mainly from fossil and nuclear fuels, at a clearing price which will cost U.K. households nearly £1 billion. The government said the capacity market is necessary to ensure the lights stay on, specifically as power from renewables increases, but the policy has sparked controversy.

National Grid, the company that owns and manages the United Kingdom’s electricity grids, has been commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to run the country’s first capacity market auction. The auction ran for four days last week, leading to the procurement of 49.26 GW of fossil fuels-based capacity at a clearing price of £19.40 per kilowatt a year a day ahead of schedule. The auction’s gross cost is £990 million and will need to be paid after 2018, according to the DECC.

U.K. capacity market: The first round

According to the Department of Energy, the purpose of last week’s auction was to estimate how much capacity will be needed in 2018/19, which is the first year the Capacity Market will be running. “Electricity providers have then bid into this capacity auction, promising if they win a contract that they will be available to provide electricity when needed. In return, they will receive a steady payment on top of the electricity that they sell”, the DECC said.

Referring to the price bids, DECC Secretary of State Ed Davey said, “This is fantastic news for bill-payers and businesses. We are guaranteeing security at the lowest cost for consumers. We’ve done this by ensuring that we get the best out of our existing power stations and unlocking new investment in flexible plant.”

Not everyone is equally optimistic though. Last week’s auction price is near the lower end of the range of prices DECC’s financial modelling had predicted could prevail under a rolling auction scheme that aims to ensure the U.K.’s lights stay on after 2018 to 2030 and beyond. However, the billions of subsidies expected to flow to power groups in the coming years could also rise.Furthermore, the list of new investments triggered by the capacity market mechanism disappoints. The main bulk of winners in the auction are existing gas (22.3 GW), coal/biomass (9.2 GW) and nuclear (7.9 GW) power plants, while new installations will only form 2.6 GW or 5% of the capacity auctioned, including a new 1.8 GW gas plant in Trafford Park, Greater Manchester, by independent supplier Carlton Power under a 15-year contract.The DECC notes that auction results are provisional until confirmed by an independent auction monitor. Publication of confirmed results are expected on January 2, and approved bidders will need to have refurbished or built the auctioned capacity in three years. Should successful bidders not make their capacity available when needed, they will be penalized.

Capacity market: An excuse for fossil fuels?

Internationally, capacity markets have sprung out of the need to compensate utilities for the loss of their power market share due to the dynamic increase of renewable energies. Traditional power market incumbents have argued their income has been severely cut, leaving them unable to build new power plants or keep operational ones alive. Responding to this, some governments have introduced capacity markets aiming to encourage new, mainly fossil-based plants that guarantee reliability of the power system when renewable plants do not generate adequate capacity.

The U.K. is the first European country to run such a market. DECC’s main argument in favor of a capacity market is that the country is facing a looming energy supply gap as old nuclear power plants and many of its polluting coal-fired stations are due to close by the end of the decade and a capacity market will make it affordable to replace them. Otherwise, DECC argues, the country risks black-outs by as soon as 2018.

However, Michael Pollitt, professor of business economics and assistant director of the Energy Policy Research Group (EPRG) at the University of Cambridge, told pv magazine that “the whole idea of a capacity market for Great Britain was based on scare mongering about electricity supply shortages, which would not have materialized. There was no serious evidence of capacity shortages developing in the light of the anticipated evolution of supply and demand. Given the actual evolution of supply (where, if anything, renewables have been added quite quickly) and demand, which has remained flat, there would have been even less of a problem that might have been anticipated.”

Asked about the anticipated closure of large nuclear and coal power plants, Pollitt said that “large power plants are built on a replacement cycle. The fact that old
plants are due to close as planned can easily be handled by the market. This
process has been going on for nearly 25 years, since liberalization [of the British energy market in 1980s].”

Therefore, Pollitt argued, “papers which show the planned closures of power plants leading to a projected deficit in capacity are economically illiterate, because they ignore how this would lead to incentives to build new plants if these are needed.”

Renewables Energy Association (REA) Chief Executive Nina Skorupska told the audience at October’s Solar Energy UK event in England that the U.K. government is planning to auction 50 GW of fossil fuel capacity via the capacity payments mechanism, while it could have plugged the capacity gap with all kinds of renewable energy and energy storage technology that replaces fossil fuels.

Instead, the British government has chosen to devise a policy that clearly intervenes in the market. Paradoxically, this is the country that first among Europeans liberalized its domestic energy market 30 years ago and — many would say rightly — pushed Europe towards an open energy market.

Arizona is the definition of Insanity

Arizona is the definition of insanity

Arizona shares a rare and enviable place in the USA list of  ‘states with highest insolation.’   Arizona is also a state with few water resources. These two facts combined make Arizona the perfect candidate state for solar PV energy generation. Arizona is also the perfect place for concentrated solar energy production. This idea as described in DeserTec’s outline will help the world to move away from oil and nuclear power.

So why has Arizona passing laws that discourage solar PV on houses?

Why has Arizona just passed a law that calls nuclear energy renewable?

The full article from Clean Technica is here. Re-posted below:

February 6th, 2015 by

Who would ever consider nuclear power to be a “renewable” means of power generation?

Well, the Arizona Senate Committee on Water and Energy, for one — there might be someone else, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other person or entity….

Arizona is the definition of insanity

Not a solar panel in sight!

The aforementioned bill that the Senate Committee on Water and Energy just passed (narrowly) is SB 1134 — a bill classifying “nuclear energy from sources fueled by uranium fuel rods that include 80% or more of recycled nuclear fuel, and natural thorium reactor resources under development” as renewable energy sources.

The approval is especially funny considering the fact that Arizona is fast approaching some serious water-sourcing issues, and nuclear power plants require huge quantities of water in order to function.

Someplace like coastal Texas or California, you could kind of understand (despite the other issues with nuclear — such as very long-lived, hard to clean up pollution), but Arizona? Right in the middle of a desert, and almost completely reliant on just a few small river systems and fossil groundwater laid down during the last ice age? Hmm…

Regardless of the water issues, though, how does one go about classifying nuclear power as a renewable energy source anyway?

This difficulty in conceptualizing nuclear power as a renewable power source was actually shared by many of the senators on the committee, though — which is why the bill passed by only one vote. One vote — that right there sums up one of the primary issues with democracy (to my eyes). All that it takes is a one-vote disparity to discount the opinions of the losing half of a near 50–50 split…

As far as the senators’ comments, here you go (Phoenix New Times):
Senator Lynne Pancrazi said she considers nuclear an “alternative energy,” but “can’t agree that nuclear is renewable;” Senator David Bradley said he “(appreciates) the fact that technology is allowing us to use rods a few times, but that doesn’t make it a renewable;” and Senator Sylvia Allen said they could argue back and forth about the definitions of renewable and recyclable, but that it isn’t the point of the bill.”

The senator behind the bill, Senator Steve Smith, didn’t really address these issues, having merely stated (while referencing “recycling” fuel rods): “Basically we just want to burn that energy twice.”

“Burn the energy twice” doesn’t sound to me like someone talking about a renewable energy resource. Perhaps that’s just me, though.

While the bill was passed by the committee, it still has to make its way through: the rules committee, the Senate, and the House of Representatives — which a similar bill last year was unable to do.

One last comment from the bill’s backer, Senator Smith, before ending this article: when asked about the differences between nuclear and renewables, he stated that when it comes to nuclear material, “we have so much that can be reused that it’s almost renewable.”

What? Do the bill’s supporters/backers really not have a better argument than that?

Image Credit: Public Domain

Bad Deal

Bad Deal for us all

A Bad Deal? The EU recently approved the UK plan to subsidise a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley. Brussels gave the go ahead to the state subsidy scheme. The plan will offers EDF Energy a set price for 35 years. This clears another hurdle on the way to the  first nuclear reactors to be built in Britain for almost 20 years. This is a big backward step for renewable energy. This is a giant step back for the EU commission that only in January this year was highly critical of the plan.

Bad Deal – Critical beginnings

In January Greenpeace published an article on the EU Commission. Here is a bit of that article: “The European Commission (EC) has delivered a fiercely skeptical initial take on the UK Government’s deal with French state owned EDF to build the first new nuclear reactor in the UK for a generation, concluding the measures definitely categorise as state aid.

The government of David Cameron has always thought this is a great idea. He helps out his friends and you and I get saddled with the debt for 35 years.

The government report looks like this:

From The .gov website: “The State aid case included both the proposed Contract for Difference, which provides the developer with an increased price certainty for the electricity generated by the plant, and the proposed UK Guarantee for the project, which will help unlock debt finance.”

Now the EU commission has approved a plant they first thought was barmy. Fortunately the NAO – National Audit Office will also look into planed subsidies for Hinkley.

From  “The National Audit Office (NAO) has begun an investigation into UK Government plans to subsidise the proposed new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The NAO is the financial watchdog which scrutinises public spending on behalf of parliament.”


A Bad Deal

Hinkley C will bankrupt us

Hinkley A is shut down and full of contaminated material with no place to go. The costs to remove all the radioactive material and dispose of it is in the billions. There is no place to put the radioactive material. That is why it is still there.

Sellafield is worse – Mirror – “The fluid is being kept in rotting containers which are open to the elements, according to a worker who leaked images of the 70-year-old plant. Crumbling containers of toxic waste abandoned 40 years ago at “rundown” Sellafield are putting Britain at risk of a nuclear disaster, it is claimed.”

Hinkley B is still operating even though many cracks to the core insulating material have been found. Many cracks in the carbon insulating material weaken the integrity of the reactor safety. If just one of these insulators gives way it could start a chain reaction.

Hinkley C will bankrupt us all due to excessive costs. The build price was £14bil, then £16Bil, and now the EU approved a state sponsored £20bil. The government is promising the operator twice the current price for electricity produced for 35 years. Here is the governments own spin.

Lets stop it now Sign the petitions. Ban building new Nuclear Power Stations

More about the crazy new Hinkley design here ->

Renewable energy sector says NO support for Hinkley C deal

Renewable energy executives infuriated.

From the article @ Energy Fair:

THE business minister Michael Fallon has infuriated renewable energy executives after “inviting” them to lobby Brussels on behalf of the government’s deal to underwrite nuclear power with billions of pounds in subsidies.

Hinkley’s £16bn price tag would make it the most expensive power plant in the world. Analysts reckon that EDF, 84% owned by the French state, will collect at least £90bn from the project.

Editors Comments: The effects of government subsidies for new nuclear power plants is devastating for our renewable energy future. All these illegal subsidies could be used to support the renewable energy systems we must have.

Renewable Energy Loses To Dirty Old Designs

From FlicWiltshire:

Today’s comments by Michael Fallon that the Tories will scrap subsidies for future onshore wind developments if they win the next election are ‘interesting’.

It begs the question: if the Tories are willing to remove subsidies for a proven low carbon, low cost solution to the UK’s future energy needs, are they also prepared to withdraw subsidies for fossil fuels, too? Subsidies which, incidentally, are much greater than those which apply to the various forms of renewable energy such as wind, solar and biomass.

Energy Minister, Michael Fallon’s assertion feels much more like political pre-election manoeuvring rather than a desire to address the longer-term realities of climate change. Have the Tories actually read the latest report from the International Panel of climate change? It’s pretty unequivocal, as is the view of the government’s own chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport.

Earlier this month, the Royal Academy of Engineering commented that limiting onshore wind development would mean we’d have to rely on more expensive technologies to keep the lights on, which in turn, would mean increasing our dependency on costly fossil fuel imports and exposure to price hikes. It would also add to customers’ energy bills.

Renewable Energy

Juliet Davenport CEO Good Energy

Renewable Energy has 2/3 majority support


There are also wider economic implications here. Research by the Renewable Energy Association and Innovas has shown that the UK’s £12.5 billion renewables industry currently supports more than  110,000 jobs across the supply chain, a figure which could rise to 400,000 by 2020. Onshore wind again currently accounts for almost 19,000 jobs in the UK, with the potential for thousands more over the next decade.

Editor note: Our ‘greenest government ever’ continues to cut funding for renewable technologies. At the same time our government is trying to illegally fund the construction of a new nuclear power plant that will be the most expensive in history. Don’t forget that the Hinkley C project still has over 700 design faults that have not been resolved.

This same EPR reactor is currently under construction in France and Finland.

Doubt about the dodgy deal for Hinkley

From the article @ Energy Fair:

This month Fallon took the extraordinary step of drafting in the renewables industry, which is reeling from a series of subsidy cuts to technologies such as biomass and offshore wind. He gathered a group of top executives at a meeting in Westminster to urge them to make supportive submissions to the Brussels consultation.

He also sent a letter, seen by The Sunday Times, highlighting the national importance of Hinkley. Fallon adds that it is “dependent on a positive state aid decision from the European Commission”, imploring executives to “support our case” by writing to Brussels.

It’s worth remembering that recent independent research revealed that two thirds of voters back onshore wind and voters of all parties prefer it as a neighbour to fossil fuel technologies like shale gas.

Torries live in cloud cockoo-land

One industry source said: “The renewables industry is somewhere between bemused and appalled that Michael Fallon has asked them to lobby for Hinkley Point’s [subsidy]. He is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.”





The Way Forward – Renewable Energy

The Way Forward

The way forward in any journey is not always obvious. There are many steps to take on the road to a renewable energy future. The next step can be in one direction or many different directions.


From Their own web site:

CrowdEnergy is a small collection of Engineers, Inventors, and Scientists.
We have specialists in SubSea Engineering, Oceanography, Marine Ecology and Conservation, Electrical Engineering, Fabrication and Design. “Imagine nerds in wetsuits and flippers…”

Ocean Energy needs our help.

Ocean Energy is a new start up company. This small but dedicated team of energy engineers has designed an environmentally friendly energy generator that works with nature. It is a system designed to generate energy without harm to any life forms.

The way forward

Wiki pic on ocean currents

Crowd funding projects are a new way forward

From the Ocean Energy web site:

ZEPHYRHILLS, FL (February 4, 2014) – Crowd Energy, having completed construction and successful testing of its first generation prototype of the Ocean Energy Turbine, will launch a major Kickstarter campaign in March 2014 to construct a second generation turbine and move the project to (SNMREC) Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center at Florida Atlantic University for verification and open water testing.

Well what is crowd funding? It is simply you! You and the money you have moving things forward where YOU say! How is that for power to the people!

The way forward


A little more on crowd funding from a marketing web site. DIY Marketers has a small posting about crowd funding. Here is the forward for the article. It is worth reading:

This article is an introduction to something you may not have heard of before — crowdfunding.  You’ve probably heard of “crowdsourcing” which uses the wisdom or power of communities and crowds to do design, solve problems, fund projects and even make small loans to third-world businesses.  And now, with a recent change in regulations, you can actually crowdfund you business.

PEOPLE are the power! – Lets start making our money count!

So now you can write to your MP or your representative in Congress or the Senate or your member of the Peoples party congress.


What ever you do, DO it soon. We are running out of time.


Building The Energy Future We Need Today

Building the energy future we need Today

I have posted many blogs in the past about building a renewable energy future today. Today I will show you some of the many places where you can help to support the cause.

Your support is needed to help create our renewable energy future. There is a company called Good Energy here in the UK that is working on renewable energy today.

building the energy future we need today

Good Energy Solar Farm And Wild Flower Meadow

You can help support Good Energy in several ways. Buying your energy from this company can help them gain the money they need to carry on further projects. If your run a business then they can help there too.

Always help support efforts to create new renewable energy projects near you. Here is a link to the Good Energy public consultation schedule. Go to these meetings and support your right to a green and pleasant future.

 The Future is Hydrogen Powered

Right now we have the parts of a renewable energy system. We can put the pieces of the renewable energy puzzle together and make a brighter and cleaner future for all of us.

Building the renewable energy future we need today is as simple as taking the right peices of the puzzle and placing them together.

Building the energy future we need today

Solar Energy To Hydrogen

If this is the future, why do we delay and look to outdated ideas? This is where the problem lies.

Corruption and greed are keeping us tied to dirty and dangerous energy

The current power system we have is run by corrupt governments and corporations. This corruptness is used to keep old ideas that are killing us and our planet.

Building the energy future we need today

Kurt Cobain On Corruption

Nuclear energy is old and dangerous. Oil is destroying our climate and killing life on earth. Fracking is polluting our water and our land and killing us.

The Wind is free and clean.

The sun is free and clean.

Hydrogen when burned creates water! hydrogen when used to make electricity makes . . . water.

Lets start using our heads and get the corrupt corporations and governments out of the process. Let us take back control of the decisions that matter in energy production and use.

Write to your MP now!

Write to your local council

Write to your representative in Congress and the Senate.

Write to your party Member in Begiing.

Send this blog link to your friends and get them to join the movement!

Video #7 Theo Simon talks about Environmentalism

Environmentalism, Capitalism & Democracy

We have sold control of our energy to companies like EDF, BG, Eon, SSE and the rest. We have given away the National Grid that transports all our electricity and gas in the UK.

These companies have made Billions each year by taking money from us. Using our state owned power generating systems they are ripping us off.

Is it time we took all this back now. The UK power companies are not going to implement the necessary changes to our power generation.

Take Back The Power to decide

In the 7th video interview with Theo Simon we discuss the nature of labels. Theo discusses the way corporations are trying to Co-Opt the very words we use to describe who we are.

Power companies want you to think that they are kind to nature. EDF wants to build a new nuclear power plant in Somerset. This is not the way forward.

The Videos that have been posted so far discuss all the facts about why we do not need a new nuke plant. The videos show why we must stop this disastrous waste of 16 billion pounds.

Video interviews show the truth for all to hear and see

Look at all the videos linked in this blog and you will have a clear understanding too. Get your friends to watch these interviews.

I need your help to get the message out in the UK. We don’t want nuclear power and we do not need nuclear power.

The DECC has made plans to build a total of 80 new nuclear power plants. This is David Cameron’s idea of being Green. In fact this is the biggest waste of money and precious time since Nero fiddled!!

We do not have the time to waste waiting for new nuclear power plants. We can begin Reducing our energy needs without sacrifice. We can start building the renewable energy future we need Today.

To see all the interview videos from the beginning click here.

How to Beat putin* The Blackmailer

How to Beat the Blackmailer

It is now clear that putin* is an energy blackmailer. putin* has tried to blackmail the Ukraine into submission. putin* is now trying to blackmail the EU into submission as well.

It is clear that putin* will hold a gun to the head of the EU and Ukraine.

blackmailer Putin holds EU hostage

Blackmailer with a GUN

putin* thinks that he can get away with murder. He holds the gas and oil that the EU and Ukraine need to survive.

Renewable energy would take away all putin’s power.

The blackmailer putin* can be neutered by taking away his power. When we the people own the renewable energy systems that drive our economies we own the power.

Using solar power, wind energy, hydro-electric, hydrogen fuel, and the power of the sun, we can neuter putin*. When we take control of the energy we have true democracy. In a democracy there are no bullies like putin*. Bullies who blackmail others are evil and must be put in a corner to chill out.

Desertec is part of the solution – fuel equality from fuel poverty

A Blackmailer wold have a hard time holding all these different power generators.

Blackmailer folly

Desertec Design for our renewable future

The large red square in the lower left of this picture is all the area needed to power the whole world. We do not need the KGB bully putin*. We don’t need his oil or his gas.

When we the people take control of our energy systems we can design a renewable future for us all. We can create a world wide system that helps the people. The blackmailer will wither and die from a lack of power and control of energy.

Write to your MP now and tell them to support the Desertec non-profit energy program today. Join with Desertec today and help them change the world.

*Please note: I have left putin’s name in lower case as a way of showing my contempt for a KGB bully. putin uses his ill gotten oil power to oppress the Russian people and Blackmail the EU and Ukraine. putin is nothing but a petty punk.


Lets Review

We’re led by climate deniers

Excerpts from The Huffington Post:

More than 5,000 properties have been flooded – The army has had to be deployed – clean-up costs could hit £1billion – most exceptional period of rainfall for nearly 250 years AND . . .

The environment secretary is a climate change denier. Yes, Owen Paterson, who was appointed as secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs in the “greenest government ever” in September 2012, thinks “we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries”. He has said that “the temperature has not changed in the last seventeen years” – despite the fact that 2010 was the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. He once claimed climate change could be positive, too, telling party activities that it “would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas”.

Our leader is pals with Frackers & Nuclear

David Cameron Likes fracking more than the environment

David Cameron Likes fracking more than the environment

David Cameron wants to frack here and we are saying NO!

Like Californians, we can see the environmental damage fracking will cause. Earthquakes have already been linked to fracking in the UK. Protests have popped up every where that fracking is considered in England. The Barton-Moss protesters just won a court ruling allowing them to stay and continue their struggle to keep our country free from fracking.


The BBC has published an article which reveals a growing concern over the damage fracking causes to our wildlife:

Fracking has the potential to devastate wildlife habitats across the UK, says research commissioned by leading wildlife and countryside groups.

Which bit of the world are you prepared to lose?


Examination of the IPCC report in The Guardian:

To understand what is happening to the living planet, the great conservationist Aldo Leopold remarked, is to live “in a world of wounds … An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”

The rime to act is NOW!

Write to you MP and tell them to switch to a renewable, green, non-nuclear energy policy Now!