- Churchover solar
- Churchover turbines
- Wolvey Wolf turbines
- Copston Magna turbines
- The Arguments
- Response to McAlpine/RES
- Wind Economics
- Property Values
- Noise & Health
- Landscape Assessment
- Ecology & Wildlife
- CPRE new windfarm report
- Recommended Reading
- Sources of Information
- About Us
- BBC bias on climate change
- Latest News
- Climate change balance lost by BBC
- Energy Prices-The Times
- Turbines trash landscape benefit billionaires
- Global Warming Panic Over!
- Mini-Nukes the future
- The dirty secret of Britain's power madness
- Extreme weather the new Global Warming
- Tax Payers Alliance Energy view
- Britain can't afford wind power
- Fracking = prosperity?
- Its time to drill- Times leader
- Thoughtful article on Fracking
- Wind double subsidised
- Deluded energy policy
- The EU U-turn over energy
- Windfarm Wars Company in Churchover
- New noise guidance increases risk of harm
- Peter Lilley MP, Delingpole's new hero
- Shale Gas update 2013
- Maggie U-turned on Global Warming
- Devastatingly sad news
- 'smart' energy technology
- Engineers surveyed 2011
- Lord Turnbull speaks out
- Miracle shale gas
- Planning application refused!
- Warwickshire heritage beauty spot protected!
- How To Help
- Letters of Objection
- New Churchover PC Objection
- New Historic England Objection
- Churchover Resident Objection
- CPRE Objection
- English Heritage Objection
- Objection by expert R&F historian
- Leicestershire County Council objection
- Warwicks CC Ecology objection
- Harborough District Objection
- Churchover PC Objection
- Bitteswell PC Objection
- Pailton PC objection
- Some other Objections sent
- Rugby BC Planning Committee
- Contact Us
Roger helmer MEP corrects Philip Hammond MP
Wind power is bad economics, however you subsidise it
Below is some interesting communications between Roger Helmer (Conservative MEP), who spoke at and supported the launch meeting of ASWAR, with Philip Hammond MP, the Government's Transport Secretary.
I recently received a communication from a concerned citizen who had heard Philip Hammond speaking on television about on-shore wind power, and had got the impression that Mr. Hammond had said that such electricity generation no longer needed subsidies. Of course it receives the benefit of massive "Renewable Obligation Certificates", which are subsidies by another name.
The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP is of course our Secretary of State for Transport, and is generally a very sound chap.
But in response to my query on wind farm subsidies, he said in essence that higher carbon taxes on conventional fossil fuel power generation would gradually make on-shore wind more competitive, relatively speaking, so that soon it should no longer require subsidies.
I replied as follows:
I am most grateful for your reply to my recent e-mail on the question of subsidies for on-shore wind. The gist of it seems to be that carbon taxes will make conventional power generation less competitive, and that thus on-shore wind will no longer need subsidies.
But in terms of the overall economic impact, the effect of a carbon tax on fossil fuels is very much the same as a subsidy for other non-carbon means of generation. A carbon tax is, in effect, a subsidy for non-carbon generation. We have a distinction without a difference.
The plain fact remains that wind power is very expensive, and that it could not survive for a moment without government intervention creating a market distortion designed to give wind an artificial advantage. I fear that we in the UK are likely to end up with the most expensive electricity in the world, just so that we can do some posturing over our green credentials -- for be assured, nothing that we do will make a scrap of difference to the climate. We risk bankrupting our grandchildren for the sake of gesture politics.
I do hope that you and your colleagues will reconsider this ruinous policy.