A Place to Stand

Hunterston & 11 of the 1300 windmills needed for the same power

Another Scotsman letter. )

That Councillor Euan McLeod echoes Scottish Renewables claim that all possible power options will result in higher electricity prices so we had better just get used to subsidising Scottish Renewables doesn't make it any less untrue than it was originally.

In previous long discussion here it was acknowledged that the French nuclear figure of 1.3p a unit was indisputable. Dr John Etherington then pointed out that in quoting windmill power being promised to fall from 9 to 8p I had forgotten the renewable certificate subsidy of 5.5p (letter 30th Oct 2008). Thus the cost of nuclear is slightly less than 1/10th of wind - it is also more reliable & produces much less CO2. This was not at the time disputed by any "renewable" supporters. Instead it appears their, relatively successful, tactic has been to wait a while & come back with the same old untruths trusting that repetition & their more ready access to the media will trump mere facts.

When government funded "fakecharities" & organisations existing to obtain government subsidy get their basic facts wrong in letters it does not inspire confidence

Edited bit in bold. No problem with deleting the word "old" or the date which both tighten it up. As edited the last sentence is less meaningful since Scottish Renewables is not, or not officially, a government organisation but is one existing to obtain subsidy. Even more interesting is the removal of the word fakecharity which has also been edited out of other published letters. The term means an alleged charity whose money, or at least enough of whose money to match their advertising budget, comes from the government. Fakecharities are a growing threat to our liberty because it creates an apparently trustworthy outlet for government propaganda. Whenever the BBC run a news item on a "report" from a charity, invariably calling for bigger government, it is equally invariabley a government fakecharity.

This term has been widely used by bloggers & is yet another example of something wgich the MSM simply refuse to mention in any way.

I also did one to the Herald at the same time suggesting that there was a free market alternative to the big state socialism repeatedly proposed in the letters they published but, as always, they didn't publish it ;-

Labels: eco-fascism, letters, nuclear