Click to get your own widget

Thursday, November 01, 2012

All God's Chillun Got Enough Windmills


     Mike Haseler of SCEF has been making a big thing of this graph, I think rightly.

      It is the share price of the big windmill manufacturing firms and it shows that the money men think the windmill building sam (not us subsidisng the ones already in place, which continues) ends just about now with the end of Kyoto. The windmill producing companies have become essentially valueless - which means all the investors think nobody is going to be paying for any in future.

    Which provides quite a lot of context to the recent row between Tory John Hayes and LibDem Ed Davy over whether we need more subsidised windmills.

Coalition row erupts with Lib Dem Energy Secretary slapping down Tory minister who declared 'enough is enough' on onshore wind farms


Onshore wind farms give other renewable energy sources a bad name, Energy Minister John Hayes tells the Daily Mail
Existing and planned sites are enough to meet environmental goals

Research into effects on house prices, noise levels and military radars has been commissioned, said Mr Hayes
Comments spark a furious coalition row, with Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey insisting 'I'm in charge'

  One might almost think some Tories secretly actually know what is going on outside the Commons. It seems reality will let Hayes win this. Which in turn means that if there aren't going to be more windmills then the government have to allow something to take its place - shale gas and another defeat for Dany being the realistic option.


Labels: , ,


Comments:
Orchestrated or not, the SEPA overreaction to the finding of a weak source of radioactivity at Dalgety, would appear to suit those intent on keeping any debate about nuclear power emotively charged and irrational. As the above article states those with a technophobic agenda see global warming as an excuse to hearken back to what they imagine were simpler purer times. With the world set to exceed seven billion humans soon ( if not already ) there is no going back that does not include huge human casualties and fatalities. Instead of trying to second guess where the climate is likely to shift, it would be much more prudent to make much of what we depend on less weather sensitive. Short term profit at the expense of the long term security should not be allowed to dominate markets. The only way I can see this happening is if large concentrations of financial power have increasing responsibilities placed upon them. They are the main beneficiaries of a stable world order so they should do the most to help that long term.
 
Post a comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.