SamCam’s father nets £350,000 a year from subsidised wind farm

The BBC and their pet scientists frequently lament the fact that so many people are sceptical about global warming and the attendant political policies forced upon them.

Why oh why they ask in despair does no one believe them?

Could it be for instance the inconvenient revelations in the CRU emails?  Could it be the rigged ‘inquiries’ into those emails? Could it be that both scientists and the BBC are not keen to let the public see the data or who is saying what in their secret seminars? Could it be the lack of any real ‘science’ that proves CO2 is the actual driver of climate change?

Could it be as mentioned in the last post that in the quest for a carbon free energy policy it seems that all morality and common sense has gone out of the window as illustrated by Lord Smith’s desire to deny cheap energy to the masses and impose hugely expensive renewable energy upon them instead…

Coal on the global market is so cheap that it threatens government attempts to tackle climate change, the chairman of the Environment Agency has warned.

“The government must ensure it doesn’t continue.”


Or could it be something like this example, Via Bishop Hill, of the arrogant desire to hide yet more inconvenient and very awkward truths about wind turbines….that they are wearing out much faster than claimed…and thereby also losing efficiency as well…and costing us even more?

The Government’s scientific advisor, Prof. Mackay is in full denial mode:


Readers will no doubt recall the study by Gordon Hughes, which suggested that wind farms are wearing out much more quickly than previously thought. This was the subject of a bit of to and fro at BH the other day, when Prof David Mackay, the chief scientist at DECC, appeared in the comments to dispute the findings.

Renewable Energy Foundation published some background, explaining that the two sides had in fact been discussing the issue since the original Hughes paper appeared in 2012. Hughes had apparently met with Mackay and had at that time apparently persuaded him that the model was in fact identifiable. Mackay had then shifted position somewhat, claiming only that the decline in performance was overstated (he suggested 2% per annum compared to Hughes’ 5%). However, by May Mackay had apparently reverted to his earlier position, namely that Hughes’ model was non-identifiable.

The REF’s summary of the story to date ended with this strikingly robust statement:

Professor Mackay has made considerable efforts, first to persuade us to withdraw Professor Hughes’ paper, and now publicly, and on dubious grounds, to discredit work which is obviously original and draws attention to a previously undiscussed phenomenon, the decline in load factor over time, that was not acknowledged, for example, in the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s own levelised cost estimates for wind power. This is extraordinary behaviour for a Chief Scientific Advisor to government. Rather than shooting the messenger, Professor Mackay might more fruitfully be advising government on how best to ensure that consumer gets better value for their subsidy, and that we present a more economically compelling example of the low carbon economy to the developing world. 



Ensuring the consumer gets better value for their subsidy?

Pull the other one…never happen…not as long as Cameron’s father-in-law, and his ilk, are raking in the dosh from the windfarms.


Wonder just how many investments the good Tim Yeo, Chair of the DECC, has?


Is the BBC investigating any of this?  Is it heck as like!

As Christopher Booker says:

The BBC,  now has a “narrative” shaping its coverage in only one direction on almost every issue, from global warming and wind farms to the EU and the activities of what they call our “brave” social workers. And the most telling giveaway of anyone who has passed into the grip of a “narrative” is how they instantly fall back on denigration of anyone who questions it, dismissing them as “flat-earthers”, “idiots”, “cranks”, “Right-wingers”, “creationists”, “in the pay of Big Oil”, and so on.


Also, more detail on the wind turbines from Roger Helme:

A paper  by distinguished environmental economist Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University shows that in the UK, on-shore wind farm relative output (actual output as a percent of rated maximum) declined from an average 24% at the outset to 15% after ten years and 11% after fifteen years.  Danish offshore wind farms declined even more catastrophically, from 39% initially to 15% at age ten.  The output of larger turbines (now favoured by the industry) declined more rapidly than that of smaller turbines.

This decline may be attributable to wear and tear on the mechanical parts and bearings, plus degradation of the aerodynamic surfaces of the blades (I daresay those clots of eagles’ blood and feathers don’t help).  Degradation of the blades can create instability and vibration, in turn leading to mechanical wear, damage and failure.  And offshore, the strong winds and harsh conditions constitute an extraordinarily challenging environment for wind turbines.

These findings have important implications for policy towards wind generation in the UK. First, they suggest that the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time. Second, meeting the UK Government’s targets for wind generation will require a much higher level of wind capacity – and, thus, capital investment – than current projections imply. Third, the structure of contracts offered to wind generators under the proposed reform of the electricity market should be modified since few wind farms will operate for more than 12–15 years.



The BBC’s Ethical Man laments the ineffectiveness of wind turbines  (cheap energy is only possible at the moment thanks to fossil fuels):

Professor David MacKay, the new chief scientist at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, has done the maths on this. Instead of kW, he calculates power in kWh, and he estimates that if we put wind turbines across the windiest 10% of the country, we would generate only 20 kWh per day per person in Britain.

According to MacKay, it takes 40 kWh to drive the average car 50km.

Add in offshore turbines covering a third of the available shallow water locations (44,000 turbines) and installing deep water turbines in a 9km-wide strip all round the entire British coast and you get an additional 48kWh day per person.

That’s a lot of power, but even on quite conservative estimates the average UK resident uses 125 kWh day.

It leads to a dispiriting conclusion. Wind is, at best, only a very partial solution to the problem of how to generate low-carbon energy.



Some prices to consider:




Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Trust

  1. Richard Pinder says:

    You may have noticed that there has been no television documentary stuffed with causational Climate scientists talking about the core basics of Climate science, since the “Great Global Warming Swindle” more than six years ago.

    The developments since then have been substantial but relatively secret, Martin Durkin would have to produce at least two documentaries on the subject, one dealing with the developments in the solution of the Calibration of Carbon Dioxide warming that came from studying Venus, and the other dealing with developments that originated from the correlation’s between the Earth’s cloud albedo and cosmic ray levels.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      Relatively secret in Britain due to the BBC, also be wary of the BBC’s only favoured solar scientist Professor Mike Lockwood, for the below reasons.
      (1) The association between solar cycles and global temperatures has been known for two hundred years since the work of William Herschel, it was not discovered by Lockwood.
      (2) There is suspicion that Lockwood was involved with the production of the bogus rebuttal of the Svensmerk theory using low energy cosmic rays, which seems to have been successful in fooling all known journalists with the exemption of Nigel Calder.
      (3) The fact that Galactic cosmic ray levels have been relatively unchanged in the last 200 years (The Sun changes the Galactic cosmic ray levels). Means that some solar scientists which include Lockwood, are insisting that Cosmic rays are a proxy, not a cause, this is disproved by the CERN CLOUD experiment, the 2006 Danish experiment and the work of Nir Shaviv.
      (4) Lockwood is the only Solar scientist I known who is completely ignorant of the Global evidence for the little ice age, which can be easily obtained from phoning up his colleagues in New Zealand or South African. The myth that this only effects Northern Europe, seems to be essential to the fact that he is the BBC’s most favoured Solar scientist, because it gives room for the CO2 fraud to continue.


  2. Wu Ming says:

    It’s possible, with today’s modern technology, for one man to move a wind turbine from the vertical to the horizontal in minutes.


  3. Simon says:

    I don’t even get angry about this anymore even when increased bills come through my letterbox as a direct result of this fraud because there is nothing I can do about it


    • uncle bup says:

      meh – you could always chin a leftie.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘I don’t even get angry about this anymore even when increased bills come through my letterbox as a direct result of this fraud because there is nothing I can do about it’
      That’s the spirit!
      Or you could have a gander at this one:

      Of course, it was a different time. May need to wait until Barry’s not around.


  4. lojolondon says:

    The ‘green energy’ situation is a complete scam, it is no more than a conduit for taking money from poor people and passing it via the energy companies to rich landowners. If the BBC had an ounce of decency they would blow this story sky-high, but they are complicit in this as in every other bad thing that happens on UK shores.


  5. DP111 says:

    I don’t think the so-called “scientists” in the Climate scam are true scientists.

    1. Scientists must be sceptical about any claim, especially when the claims are full of holes.

    2. They must have a genuine higher degree in a proper science subject such as Physics, and have done good research in a proper subject, before examining such an esoteric and convoluted field such as climate “science”.


  6. Thoughtful says:

    Come on Alan you are being highly disingenuous when you quote the energy figures for the average UK resident, and I would query the accuracy of the figures you supply.

    It’s a little like saying the average UK citizen eats 4 apples a day, 2 pears, and apricot, 10 grapes, and a pommegranite, which therefore equals 18 bananas !

    You have supplied figures for petrol, gas, LPG heating oil, electricity, in fact every possible power source we have. But wind generation only generates electricity so what is the relevance of petrol consumption here?

    I use around 12 – 14 KWh of electricity per day, I know because I monitor it closely. Electricity costs 4 times the price of gas per KWh (so cook on gas!)

    Ofgems figures per household average are 3300 KWh electricity per anum (9Kwh per day) and 16 500 KWh of Gas. Massively lower than the figures you have given which are the total energy used by the UK divided by the number of people, and totally meaningless in any real situation!

    You have a point that the windmills are expensive and largely useless, but when you use such obviously flawed figures, you leave yourself wide open to attacks which you cannot defend against no matter how much merit your argument might have.


    • F*** the Beeb says:

      Agreed. Trolling on here is bad enough on here without making the same mistakes as the BBC does with its own statistics and data. It just validates sad dipshits and BBC apologists like Scott et al (and the BBC itself) as they can just point to this one instance of incorrect use and claim it proves they’re somehow more reliable. A fallacy of course, but one they’ll cling to like a fly on shit.

      Be more careful in future.


    • JimS says:

      A quick calculation reveals that my transport energy consumption is ten times that of my domestic electricity consumption.
      While at the moment Apples are Apples and Pears are Pears, if the oil and gas runs out it will be Apples only, i.e. electricity will have to power everything. As ‘renewables’ will struggle to meet our current electricity demand how will it cope with heating and transport loads too?
      I have seen convincing claims that the rising demand for electrical power to support the internet/mobile telephony will cause severe problems in the near future. Japan has estimated that it only has five years before it will run out of power.
      I do agree though that it is important that critics don’t play the BBC’s game with false comparisons and pseudo-measures such as the ‘home’.


      • johnnythefish says:

        Which is why we need to get fracking across the globe to give us the breathing space we need whilst scientists research long term viable alternatives to fossil fuels – using the billions diverted from the useless studies into the mythical threat of global warming. You know it makes sense, Dave.


  7. F*** the Beeb says:

    No energy source that requires more energy to create and sustain than it actually produces is going to work. Wind is theoretically one of the few potentially sources that may genuinely be cheap and renewable, but the people in charge of the research and development of it have proven to be either unreliable or have vested interests in the financial side of it. The other options are solar and geothermal, the first of which has been stigmatised due to low coverage and the second is barely even talked about as worth pursuing.


  8. Anon says:

    While I agree with the comments on Bishop Hill, the truth is far worse. I doubt whether the Beeb will broadcast the following:

    “As astonishing as it may sound….wind turbines and solar cells haven’t prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2….the European Union’s own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn’t change — no matter how many wind turbines are erected.”

    “Every kilowatt hour of renewable energy frees up emissions allowances. These allowances are regrettably not discarded, but are instead sold and used elsewhere to offset pollution by the Spanish cement industry, Polish lignite plants and German steel mills, for example. All of the wind turbines, rooftop solar panels, hydroelectric and biogas plants in Germany have not reduced CO2 emissions in Europe by a single gram. On the contrary, they have helped lower the price of emissions allowances on the European carbon market — much to the delight of Europe’s dirtiest industries.”

    See: Climate Change Paradox: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

    Reality Check: Germany’s Defective Green Energy Game Plan