The Best News in Thirteen Years!

Brux, Nov 28th. With Professor Alan Riley of the City of London University

I just heard the best news in all the years I’ve been in Brussels.  I’m told that there’ll be an announcement next week on shale gas, which will show that we have indigenous UK gas resources for decades at current rates of consumption.

I recently wrote about a presentation in Brux by Professor Alan Riley of the City of London University, in which he looked at the geo-political implications of recent fossil fuel developments.    On Wednesday we had a lunch in the parliament, hosted by German Liberal MEP Holger Krahmer on the subject of shale gas.  We heard presentations from the Commission (Marie Donnelly  was uncharacteristically tentative in the face of sudden and major changes), and Dow Chemical.  But the most exciting, for me, was another presentation from Professor  Riley.

Professor Riley is expecting an announcement in London next week on shale gas policy for the UK.  We in UKIP have been urging for some time that the UK should urgently investigate shale-gas, and it seems that the government has decided to do so.  (I suppose they had to get something right sooner or later).

They will also make an announcement about the estimated reserves in the North West.  We heard that the Marcellus shale at the heart of the US shale gas revolution is 350 feet thick.  The shale beds in Lancashire are said to be an extraordinary 5000 feet thick.  The estimated reserves are between 14 and 28 trillion cubic metres.  On a conservative recovery rate of 10%, this would supply 15 to 30 years of current UK consumption.  At the US recovery rate of 20%, that would be 30 to 60 years.

Professor Riley points out that this is bigger than the North Sea, or renewables.  He adds that all the US experience suggests that once you get serious about shale gas, you find more and more.  And he says that there is also off-shore shale gas exploration under way, which could greatly increase the reserves.  He compares the importance of this announcement with the early 20th century transition from coal to oil.  It will have a massive and positive impact.

We in the UK have the advantage that our gas distribution infrastructure is already in place.  No gas well is likely to be more than 30 miles from a major gas main.  Other countries might have to spend billions to develop such an infrastructure.

I understand that Chancellor George Osborne, who has been widely reported to be in favour of gas, is preparing to offer tax breaks and incentives to develop our indigenous gas fields.  (BWEA please note: a tax break is not a subsidy).

Gas on this scale could well have a transformative effect on the British economy, and make us much less dependant on imports.  It will hopefully mean jobs, and growth, and prosperity.  As Maggie Thatcher famously said, “Rejoice!  Rejoice!”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to The Best News in Thirteen Years!

  1. charles wardrop says:

    Wonderful news.
    Time to invest in developing even better means of power production, a much better bet than will-o-the -wisp “Project Canute” CO2 output curtailment.

    • Martin says:

      Ever heard of sustainability?

      • grumpydenier says:

        Of course we have. Hardly a sentence goes past without somebody using the word. It’s meaningless as a concept unless you fully understand it within the context of the UN’s Agenda 21 grand plan.

        You can’t have any meaningful growth in economic and industrial output if you hog-tie it with the demands to satisfy the ‘sustainability’ meme. It’s just another way to hold back the forward march of civilisation. That’s why it’s used all the time in the under-developed regions of the world. Don’t do this unless there’s a sustainable option. Don’t do that unless there’s a sustainable option.

        All those poor people want is cheap energy and the chance to grow enough to feed themselves and their families. Every NGO demanding ‘sustainability’ at every opportunity keeps those people in food poverty. If you want to know why, just remember the old saying “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”.

        Without destitute, bloated babies to nudge our consciences, who would give them the money that enables their gravy train to roll on to world-wide conferences.

      • rfhmep says:

        Martin: Great word, sustainability. My concern is that wind and solar are clearly unsustainable.

      • Martin says:

        Grumpydenier, you clearly have a limited understanding of sustainable development. It is not just about the enfonment. I suggest you look up the Bruntland report – then you might understand that Sustainable Development always needs to be a balance between Society, Economy, and Environment. All three have to be positive effects. Shale gas is detrimental to the local and global environment, mostly detrimental to society, and of limited benefit economically. It is absolutely NOT sustainable development.

        In pure energy terms, all fossil fuels are unsutainable because they are finite. By contrast, the renewable forms of energy are those from the sun (and indirectly from the sun such as wind, wave, ocean current, wood, biomass), from the moon (tidal), and from radioactive decay within the earth (geothermal).

        Shale Gas allows rich Chinese, Australian and UK investors, shareholders in huge multi-national companies, and individual directors and executives to get exceedingly rich at everyone else’s expense.

  2. catalanbrian says:

    You still don’t get it. So UK resources of shale gas may last 60 years (your figure not mine) and what happens after that? You mention the North Sea, but do not seem to have learned from that experience – that we managed to pretty much exhaust its supplies within a few decades. We need to further develop renewables so as to minimise fossil fuel use, thus leaving some for future generations to use. Additionally there is the question of CO2 emissions which will not be minimised by the increased use of these limited resource fossil fuels. Indeed perhaps this is the greatest argument in favour of wind, hydro, tidal, etc. power generation as even UKIP cannot deny that climate change is an issue. OK you will probably not deny it but will probably haul out the “well it’s happening anyway as part of the natural scheme of things” argument. Sorry but that does not cut it at all as slowing climate change is also to be encouraged as this will give more time to develop protections against it. Indeed by acting quickly and responsibly we may be able to ameliorate its effects so that it is not the major catastrophe that it may be otherwise.

    • How many times do I have to say it? Renewables make no net contribution to electricity production, nor to emissions reduction, because of the inefficiency of running conventional back-up intermittently to complement wind (or sun). You’re following a pipe-dream. What will we be using in sixty years? For a start, we can’t be sure, but it could well be methane hydrates. I know this — that every prediction of the end of fossil fuels has been hopelessly wrong. Looks like YOU have learned nothing, Catalanbrian. And in sixty years, it could well be nuclear fusion.

      • Martin says:

        Mr Helmer, you spout utter bunkum. Who on earth elected you to office with your crazy views? If you want to see the net contribution to the power grid from renewables look no further than http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

      • Alison H says:

        Mr Helmer – you’re simply wrong.

        As someone who is in public office, you have a duty to get your facts right. Basing your extreme views on such a poor evidence base is (at best) irresponsible.

        Two things are vitally important for our future,
        1) Renewable energy (hydro, wave, sea current, tidal barrage, geothermal, solar, wind etc)
        2) Retro-fitting the UK’s poorly constructed housing stock with high performance insulation.

        You should not be advocating releasing another fossil fuel until both these two measures have been taken as far as they can go. You can’t put the ‘shale gas’ cork back in the bottle once it starts. It will urbanise our last bits of remaining countryside.

      • Alison H says:

        Mr Helmer – I made a perfectly fair comment about your article but you refused to put it online. Why not? Do you censor your contributors? Are you not willing to enter into debate?

      • catalanbrian says:

        I decided to leave it for some 24 hours just to allow my fury to abate at the misinformation peddled by someone who considers himself to be a responsible politician. I also find it offensive that you feel it necessary to capitalise “YOU” as if you were shouting at me. Your problem is that, like most politicians from minority parties with limited horizons, you only ever hear the sound of your own voice and of those that agree with you. The assertions that you make – “renewables make no net contribution to electricity production nor to emissions reduction” are just plain wrong. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and there seems to be little point in listing them all. You also very conveniently misuse figures to suit your own ends – you extend the period that estimated reserves will last by using the weasel words “at current UK consumption” which takes no account of the increase in demand that will (will, not might) occur in an economy that is growing. A relatively small annual percentage increase in consumption will erode that 30-60 year margin by a considerable amount. You are a major supporter of shale gas. I can understand that as it seems to be an easy fix solution to our energy problems and that is where you go wrong. Easy fix solutions are not always (indeed rarely are) the right solutions. Shale gas does have its major downside (and for a moment I will leave aside the pollution and seismic problems that have been associated with it) which is that its extraction releases considerable volumes of unburned methane (a serious greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, thus significantly worsening the greenhouse effect.
        Yes, in sixty years we could well have nuclear fusion but that won’t happen if we run out of energy on route and this is a distinct possibility if the likes of UKIP are allowed to dictate our energy policy.

      • rfhmep says:

        Of course you guys can all give me data on the electricity generated by wind turbines. I never said otherwise. They make a contribution. But they make little or no NET contribution, since intermitteent wind piles up ineffiociencies in the fossil fuel back-up. You could have generated the same electricity by burning that fossil fuel efficiently, so the turbines make no net contribution. Sounds to me as if you don’t really understand how the system works. And Catalanbrian — sorry you don’t like my capitals. When I work out how to do italics in this blog format, I’ll use that instead.

      • Martin says:

        Mr Helmer – the nonsense you peddle on ‘renewable energy not creating a net benefit due to the inefficiency they create in fossil fuel burning’ is offensive, and wrong. It shows up your complete ignorance on the subject.
        * Wind energy can be forecast with some accuracy several days in advance, and it doesn’t chop&change half as much as you may think – just take a look at the ‘weekly wind energy production’ graph at http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ (that’s the second graph down, third across – the line in red on your screen).
        * Hydro-electric provides a steady base-level of generation at about 0.7GW (that’s the green bars on the same graph)

      • Martin I’ve been following this for years, using the NETA site as well as more recently the Templer site, and of course the XCWeather wind map. As well as the view I have of a local unmetered wind array, and smaller micro wind turbine. Every day I have an illustration between them, of winds contribution to our well being. And I can vouch that there have been many, many, many days when this contribution has been pitiful. Even 0.0% of grid production. The year 2010 was particularly bad, and these periods of insignificant production can last for weeks, if not months, across the whole country.
        …This is before we come to the question of ineffectiveness and losses within the system caused by wind penetration. But I would remind you that Roger Helmer himself, still has an open letter to the government seeking answers to some of these questions. (A letter which needs an answer.) Until this letter is answered fully, and accurately, to everyone’s satisfaction, it is hardly correct to suggest that Roger is at fault here.
        I think it unlikely that Roger is aiming criticism at Hydro. Which is classed as ‘renewable’ as you say. But is not what most people mean when they say renewable….(Wind, and solar.) Hydro is dependant on geography, and there is little more we can produce with that. The governments plans centre on big wind and solar.

  3. Linda Hudson says:

    petrol has been developed in the North East of England, a couple of litres was produced using water and air we are told. This is exciting news, and hope our scientists get the backing they need, we dont want it to be lost to America through lack of funds needed for British innovation!

  4. maureen gannon says:

    Best news ever from our masters , as for the future Catalan we are an island surrounded by water petrol from water as Linda said,
    Sell off the cash drain banks, invest in Britain and invest in the brilliant scientists they will be our lifebelt and they are developing for the future not the now. and rid this beautiful earth of the monstrosities that blight it .
    Science does not stand still, in my short lifetime as a child the only light was by gas . and as an evacuee candles and lamps, now I speak and see my daughter in Canada via a computer. advance has been astro: and will be in the future.

  5. Phil J says:

    Very interesting Roger but when I saw the headline I thought, for one fleeting moment, that Mr Tony B liar had been prosecuted for war crimes! Oh well, another day perhaps?

  6. mikestallard says:

    This is wonderful news.

    Here is a list of the people who are totally against tracking:
    Greenpeace, Friends of the earth and most lefties.
    I imagine, but do not know, that a lot of the Civil Service and the Church of England and the BBC are therefore totally against it.
    The LibDems will certainly be against it.
    The people making a nice little killing on wind farms will be against it too. As will the many many people building the wind farms.
    Lots of uninterested people will be against it through ignorance and believing (falsely) that fracking causes explosions through taps and earthquakes.
    Newsnight will be totally against it as will most of the radio “thinking” programmes
    You are in the EU: I am not. I bet they are against it too.

    On top of that, there is are climate change believers who more or less seem to have a consensus in schools, universities, and indeed throughout the world.

    • Martin says:

      Even if shale gas does not cause pollution or earthquakes it will industrialise our precious countryside and farm land.
      You need to understand that you cannot eat money.

      • MartinW says:

        “Industrialise the countryside”? If you mean a visual impact, then that is a foolish statement. Oil wells around Poole Harbour have not ‘industrialised’ that part of the world – you’d be hard pressed to see any evidence even were you close-by – and small fracking operations surrounded by trees would be just as inconspicuous.

      • grumpydenier says:

        Even if shale gas does not cause pollution or earthquakes it will industrialise our precious countryside and farm land.

        And wind farms don’t?

        You need to understand that you cannot eat money.

        Unless you are a wind farm owner and/or a landowner.

      • Martin says:

        Shale gas will,
        * generate noise.
        * generate dust.
        * generate chemical pollution from the ‘condensate tanks’.
        * generate light pollution from the drilling rig sites.
        * introduce many new potentially serious environmental risks.
        * create heavy-goods road traffic damage to our roads to transport plant, equipment, sand, water, wastewater, and toxic waste.
        * require the laying of many many kilometres of gas pipelines.
        * reduce the amenity of Lancashire resulting in reputational damage for farm land, and loss of tourist income.
        * destroy many habitats for important species.
        * release a *new* source of CO2 into the atmosphere.
        * release Methane into the atmosphere.
        * damage and divide communities .

        This countryside in question is Lancashire’s bread basket, producing important market-gardening salad crops, vegetables, sheep, dairy, cheeses, ice-creams, beef etc. On top of this you have the health value of footpath use, quiet roads for cycling, clean parks etc. If you ruin the countryside, you’ll take out the whole economy of the area.

        That’s what I mean by industrialise our countryside. Understand now?

    • Jonathan says:

      If all of these people are against Fracking, doesn’t that make you think YOU might be ina minority? Time to wake up and smell the coffee Mikestallard.

  7. neilfutureboy says:

    Indeed but the Pseudo-Liberal minister Chris Huhne is on record as publicly promising that the party would stifle the industry to keep up prices for the benefit of the windmill industry.

    There is virtually nothing which we could not do with a only a very small share of GDP if the parasites in the old parties were not preventing it (I include sending rockets to the asteroids.)

    On the other hand so long as the parasites will do anything to stifle human progress no progress will be made however magnificant gthe opportunities.

  8. Avellana says:

    Excellent news, but will ‘they’ listen? I hope they do. UKIP continues to impress me. How I wish Greenpeace et al would be kept out of high level politic. They have no remit, and have skewed UK energy policy for years just like the EU. It is only the money, follow that money and what is it are we left with?

    • neilfutureboy says:

      Greenpeace, while having no particular expertise on the subject are orders of magnitude less damaging than most of the eco-fascist lobbyists. This is because Greenpeace raise their money though relatively honourable scaremongering wghereas the rest of the “Green” charities and lobbyists are paid agents of government. They are paid by government to lobby government and to advertise publicly for more government. These “charities” routinely get 90%-100% of their money from the state. Obviously the money more eaasily comes from the most parasitic parts of government who have more to spare.

      The British state gives £13 billion annually to “charity” – overwhelmingly “charities” whose main or only work is “raising awareness” of catastrophic warming or some other scare requiring more controls, taxes and government employees.

      This is a closed positive feedback system far more destructive than the normal lobbying, however bad much of that is.

      • Avellana says:

        In the very early days I was a Greenpeace supporter and wildly supported the RSPB. I believed that planners had integrity, and that aid (whatever that was) went to the source and it was a good thing. I thought that parties stuck to their manifestos, that bankers had a paternal role in not lending to those who cannot afford to repay, that the United Nations were as near as dammit all equal in their nation states. I also thought that wind energy was going to be a good thing but after a Public Enquiry that laid bare the lies, the cover-up, the money, always the money. The resulting rejection of the application ga showed the complicity of our official decision processes at work, the mantras. If an industry or government has to use a scare tactic ie Global Warming sorry Cooling sorry Climate Change it screams that the whole basis of this sorry energy deficit and erratic supply is skewed to fit BELIEVERS rather than those in the industry of power provision . I woke up long long time ago.

  9. Andrew says:

    Excellent news, Roger. And in answer to Catalanbrian – they were making exactly the same
    predictions about Saudi oil 30 years ago, and still the oil gushes.

      • grumpydenier says:

        So what? I’ve been asking every alarmist I’ve met to show me empirical proof of a causal link between CO2 and atmospheric temperature and answer comes there none.

        You have been fed a simple graphical image on the back of which there appears a correlation between the two. CO2 is a trace gas representing approx 3% of the atmosphere’s GHGs, 90+% of which consists of water vapour. Of that 3%, anthropogenic emissions represent circa 3%. Work that out on a calculator and try convincing me that we (humans, that is) can honestly make a difference to the way Mother Nature keeps this planet ticking over. I know we all like to think we are important, but come on, get real.

        The majority of CO2 is released due to a natural cycle occurring mostly by interchange with living plants (without CO2 all living things will die) so as the planet gradually emerged from the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial expansion) increases in temperature led to increased plant growth leading to increased CO2.

        Have you, perhaps , noticed how much better the plants in your garden grow in the Spring and Summer, compared with the winter? It’s a simple thing to grasp when you think about it.

      • Jonathan says:

        Grumpydenier – you are of course right. There is no ‘proof’ that changing climate is man made. But you would have to agree that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a powerful greenhouse gas, and that CO2 concentrations have increased massively since the 1800s, see http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA3.html for example.

        You also have to admit that there have been a number of significant global events such as retreating glaciers, metling Greenland ice, more ice-free ocean in Arctic summers, reduce Artcic sea ice thickness, numerous major weather events.

        The effects above are short term. Climate is long term. It is not mechanistic. So it will be a very long time before there is enough statistical evidence to establish cause and effect. But, with a good understanding of all the scientific processes involved it is only reasonable that confidence in a causatory link should gradually increase.

        So how long will it be before you become one of the many, and cease to be one of the few?

    • catalanbrian says:

      It will, repeat will, still run out one day.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        Certainly not before the rare earths required by windmillers do.

        Actually, oil won’t run out. Ever.

        Scientists are already producing oil from algae, and with GM this can potentially be used to produce as much oil as we currently consume.

        More proof that we have no real technical problems. What we have is a wholly corrupt political class committed to impoverishing us & hacktivists paid by the state to “raise awareness” of their scare stories. There is not one single independent scientist, not funded by the state, anywhere in the world who supports the CAGW fraud. Nor do I know of a single online hacktivist who can be identiofied as not being a government paid prostitute. I challenge Cantalabrian to be the first.

      • MartinW says:

        I’m sorry to say, many of the statements in your posts above are simply expressions of belief. It’s also disappointing that you have seen fit to denigrate Roger Helmer, someone who has a long and varied career in industry before moving to politics. But, sadly, this is sort of gratuitous offensiveness that we have come to expect.
        I do agree with one point: that new sustainable sources of energy should be sought(though there is no urgency). I rather think that geothermal will be one of the major sources, and I would like to see much more R&D directed towards it.

      • Martin says:

        Neilfutureboy – oil from algae is renewable energy – it is powered by sunlight. If this becomes economically viable then this would be a massive breakthrough and I would welcome it. Fossil fuel oil is not sustainable and WILL run out.

  10. Charles Wardrop says:

    Those pointing out that fossil fuels will run out usually do not indicate what to do against that day, and national,international commeentators and politicos, so involved in the blind alley of Canutian/Quixotic anti-AGW blethers and expenditures, seem to discount the need for PRACTICAL proposals, or, at least, R&D. (I include the rather self-important “Catalanbrian”)
    Does anyone know how much money and effort are being put into the development of better means of electricity generation, additional to shale gas harvesting, which shd tide us over?
    Thorium reactors and, of course, nuclear fusion, not to mention better electricity storage, come to mind, but perhaps there are even more revolutionary ideas out there?

  11. Andrew Shakespeare says:

    And the other excellent bit of news — mucho hard-core congratulations on that stunning result in Rotherham ! I thought UKIP would do well, after all the publicity, but second, while the Tories came fift,h is nothing short of astonishing !

    And the LibDems lost their deposit for the second by-election in a row. Excuse me — hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Rumour has it the prime minister’s gone for a little lie down, and was last heard calling for his smelling salts. Meanwhile, Little Nicky has been sending aides down to Marks & Spencer all morning to buy him new underpants.

    Seriously Roger, very, very well done to all UKIP.

    • Martin says:

      Don’t get overexcited – its only a protest vote. Single issue parties never succeed when there are national elections.

      • grumpydenier says:

        Shale Gas allows rich Chinese, Australian and UK investors, shareholders in huge multi-national companies, and individual directors and executives to get exceedingly rich at everyone else’s expense.

        God, but you people are so naive. Who do you think is creaming the money from wind farms? It’s certainly not the man in the street, all he gets is the bills. Do some research on the rental incomes earned by the landed gentry who host these wind farms. How many UK manufacturers and installers are involved in the construction, shipping, installing and maintenance of these useless things?

        Research Constraint Payments and see how much is paid to these rent seekers when they are asked to turn the bloody things off.

        Wake up and see that there is a massive amount of wealth distribution going on here. The trouble is it’s all going the wrong way – from the poor to the rich.

  12. neilfutureboy says:

    It is fairly obvious from the unusual number of alarmists on this particular thread, all asserting catastrophism & decling either to produce evidence or reply reply to the evide3nce given in answers that we are seeing a group targeting.

    In those circumstances I note with interest that neither Cantabrian nor any co-workers of his have decided to answer my challenge:

    “There is not one single independent scientist, not funded by the state, anywhere in the world who supports the CAGW fraud. Nor do I know of a single online hacktivist who can be identified as not being a government paid prostitute. I challenge Cantalabrian to be the first”

    The refusal of any of these people to identify themselves, or even take umbrage at the description, argues strongly that all of them & statistically therefore the overwhelming majority of online commenters anywhere who criticise sceptics are part of the alarmist PR “industry” who, directly through the civil service & quangos and indirectly through government funded “charities” are merely saying what they are paid to.

    • catalanbrian says:

      I am not quite sure what I am expected to do to convince you that I am not a “government paid prostitute” but in case you are interested I am a small farmer growing olives and almonds in rural Catalunya. I receive no funds from governments/business or for that matter anyone else. My income is solely derived from my farm and a small UK non state ( am not yet of UK pensionable age) private pension. My views are honestly held and cannot be purchased by others. As it so happens my house is off grid and I obtain my electricity from batteries charged by solar panels with a bit of back up from a diesel generator (about 35 hrs running per year). My farm is not ideally located for wind generation (the wind is too gusty) otherwise I may not need the diesel generator. I do of course use oil products. I need a tractor on my farm and I also have a car, so I am not one of those tree hugging, yoghurt knitting, mother earth people who eschews 21st century comforts. I am just a normal bloke who cares about the environment around me and would rather like future generations to enjoy it as well.

      It is worth adding that I live in sight (and earshot) of a newly constructed wind farm. Since it was commissioned in June this year there have only been two days when these turbines have not been turning at generating speeds. And the noise is only really noticeable when the wind is coming from the turbines and wind speeds are very low so there is no local wind noise such as the rustling of leaves.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        Well you could verifiably identify yourself ratherr than merely asert. I, for example, am Neil Craig from Glasgow and you can check my ID easily online. Regretably it is very common for pseudo-environmentalists to claim to be people they aren’t for example I have met online several “green nuclear physicists” who “now” oppose nuclear power but demonstrate less knowledge of nuclear physics than I.

        Also if you are telling the truth it must be a pure coincidence that so many alrmists have chosen this particular thread.

        Also if you were what you said you would know that anybnody in Spain with solar panels is government paid. There was a recent scandal when people were found to be producing solar power at night – by powering the panel with a searchlight powered by the mains. Such is the amount of subsidy available to such people it was profitable to do so.

        You have also made claims about knowing far more on the subject of all “renewables2 than Mr Helmer which certainly doesn’t fit with your alleged biography. Perhaps you might explain that.

        If what you said is true you can prove it easily. If you don’t the assumption must be that you can’t.

  13. Charles Wardrop says:

    It takes all sorts, so there must be fanatics, or there might be no rational, sensible people.
    Alternatively, “…and the band played: believe it if you like!”

  14. charles wardrop says:

    My reference to fanatics, etc., above, refers to”catalanbrian’s” remarks about his present lifestyle and his denials of any vested financial interest in “Greenery’.

  15. Avellana says:

    I am sure olive growing has its down sides and solar panels MUST work there. Here in the North of Scotland where it gets dark about 4pm right now, when there’s snow lying over the panels plus its weight, hmm? (and yes we have had our first snow of the year today). Snow does not combine with these panels here. The stress factors on buildings do not accomodate the weight in some instances, usually low grade housing of which the modern housing is vulnerable . (Come back Clerk of Works PLEASE!) These panels are a non starter. Wind? Well try as I might, there is no leaf rustling in these monsters we have on our beloved ridges. The sound is insane industrial, wildlife is banished, broken raptor and bat carcasses in tall heather unrecorded, drones of diggers, archaeology ridden roughshod, geology blasted for their concrete bases, feeder burns for our salmon at risk from blocked culverts, peatland cut exposed drained shifted tamped and messed. Delicate sub montane heath scoured away for the colossal footprint ot wind.
    Petrol, diesel, oils all used in this voracious industry that scars and plunders for less than 1% of our energy source. The big hydro schemes now owned by foreign companies who also are heavily involved in building turbines here. In turn they ‘use’ hydro to provide back-up for wind everytime the wind changes. When they breakdown, as they do, when they stop and start. The last time I tried to get the amount of energy TAKEN by a wind turbine cluster to operate, I was told it was commercially sensitive.For this subsided industry. How mad can it get?
    Oh yes and the poor folk who live in single storey stone cottages don’t qualify for any of the insulation grants…. But we can be happy for the cub scouts, the things we used to find the money for ourselves by raising it ourselves. Now they got their new hall and the Council will know how to spend the rest of our money. Eh? It just so happens that this is being paid for by crippled businesses, the infirm, elderly, the unemployed, those living in poor housing, stretched families. Is it not the case that the gap between rich and poor is greater now than it was at the beginning of the 20th century? Just like olives we here work too but using and paying for even less energy, sporadic at best – is not on.

  16. catalanbrian says:

    neilfutureboy. Stop being paranoid. Not everybody that disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy. You make assumptions that are fundamentally incorrect. As far as I know there is no general payment for having solar panels in Spain, although I suppose it is possible that there are schemes such as those in the UK if the panels are connected to the grid, but as I stated i am not, so I have had no payment, nor subsidy. And whilst I am on the subject of subsidies I am probably in agreement with you as I don’t agree with them either.

    You imply that there is a large number of “alarmists” that have chosen this particular thread. I think that if you were to bother checking there are more people supporting your view than there are “alarmists”. Does that mean that I should suspect that you are all in the pay of big oil companies and others interested in non renewable energy? Of course not.

    Additionally I cannot operate the searchlight wheeze as I am about 3km from the nearest power line so I would need a very long extension cable!

    Finally I hasten to add that I don’t think that I have claimed to know more about renewables than Mr Helmer.. The situation is simple. Mr Helmer (and you) have one view, with which I disagree and I have a different view. That’s it. No conspiracy, no payment from other parties, and above all no alarmism.

    • neilfutureboy says:

      As I said you can easily identify yourself if it would help your case. You choose nnt to, repeadtedly. Obviously anybody is free tio draw the conclusion.

      I assume that, though you are 3 km fro0m the nearest electricity line, though within sight of the nearest electricity producing windmill you have a phone line passing very close, since you manage to be online. This sounds like a quite remarkable location.

      I must accept your claim not to be a government paid fake hackitivist as being exactly as truthful as your claim not to have claimed to be able to lecture Mr Helmer on the “facts” of which you are clearly ignorant. Anybody looking at your first contribution, Mr Helmer’s reply and your response will see that that is untrue.

      I note no other alarmist here has come forward as not being state funded.

      • catalanbrian says:

        Being close to wind or other generators or power lines does not mean that household power is available – the high voltage power line actually runs underground along the road on the boundary of my farm and comes within 20 metres of my house but this does not give me any power. I have no ‘phone line – satellite internet. I still cannot see where I have claimed to know more than Mr Helmer – I simply take a different view to him. And just because I decide to keep my identity confidential does not mean that I have anything to hide.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        But bearing in mind the long record of non-factuals from promoters of alarmism, including the inability to name a single scientist anywhere in the world who supports the “scientific consesnsus” of catastrophic warming & is not paid by the state, it does not entitle you to any assumption that you aren’t.

        Since you (or othe alarmists here) aren’t going to identify yourself I don’t think progress can be made. Perhaps, at some time in the future, an alarmist activist, online or elsewhere, who is not in receipt of state payment will be found. Until then, not.

  17. catalanbrian says:

    I agree. It is clearly not possible to make progress with paranoid lunatics

    • neilfutureboy says:

      I think it is couterproductive and a sign of intellectual bankruptcy to have to sink to insults, but can now admit that my dealings with alarmists do support your contention.

  18. Pingback: Strange bed-fellows: Gazprom and Greenpeace | Roger Helmer MEP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s