Beware the EU’s Energy Union

O n 25th February the Commission issued a Communication entitled ” A framework strategy for a resilient energy union with a forward looking climate change policy.” It is remarkable for the scope of its ambition, allied to the absence of detail on where the huge sums of money will come from to pay for all the investments and research the EU wishes to see.

The Energy Union has five main characteristics.

The first is “Security, solidarity and trust”, which is the EU’s way of presenting its intention to take over the strategic direction of energy policy in each member state, and to integrate each state’s energy and energy policy into an EU wide system under their control. The EU wishes to take over negotiating supplies of energy from outside the EU. “Particular attention will be paid to updating the strategic partnership on energy with Ukraine”. They wish to cut dependence on Russian gas (crucial for 6 member states at the moment) by saving energy, by switching more to non fossil fuels, and by importing more US gas and worldwide LNG.

The second is a fully integrated internal energy market. They wish to establish EU regulatory control over electricity, and ensure at least 10% of a country’s power is governed by interconnector arrangements to other EU states. They wish to integrate the transmission and computer systems.

The third is energy efficiency improvements to cut demand. They wish to “promote the use of road charging schemes” to cut private road transport and wish to electrify both trains and cars.They wish to decarbonise energy as their fourth aim, with a target of a 40% reduction in CO2 by 2030 compared to 1990. They wish to increase renewables further, and biofuels.

They fifthly want a union for research and innovation. Co-ordination and working together is designed to produce smart grids, demand reducing consumers, better homes, and electric transport.

Nowhere does this document give us any figures on how the mighty costs of this programme will be financed. There is mention of a large investment programme which they hope the private sector will undertake. There is little mention of the current very high costs of EU energy, other than to tell us EU gas prices are more than twice those in the US. There is just the hope that we will get better at renewables so they will become cheaper. There is no comment on how the massive Euro 120bn of current subsidies to energy will be eliminated.

The EU’s energy policy is its second worst EU disaster after the Euro. It is hostile to business, it is deindustralising much of the EU, and unfriendly to consumers. This document will make it worse.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

164 Comments

  1. Mark W
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    Well I was glad to see the UK make its first steps towards the one sensible renewable energy source, tidal lagoon power. (I’m not a subscriber to the AGW religion but have always believed in harnessing energy that is just there like hydro electric and tidal power).

    The idea of the EU getting involved is terrifying. Look at their idiotic behaviour in Ukraine. Russia for better or worse is a neighbour with abundant gas. What sort of soccer yob organisation would choose the option of annoying them.

    But the Common Agriculture Policy and EU budget accounts are in such perfect order then I guess they are ready to get stuck into energy.

    • Hope
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

      Is this the reason behind Cameron, Miliband and Clegg agreeing a few weeks ago to a climate change/energy policy? What has your leader signed the UK up to and how much will it cost us, apart from our own independent, sovereign ideas on the subject?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      Mark–Especially agree with you about tidal (and marine turbine and wave) power, Last time I lauded this here I was told that it was far too expensive, end of story; but I think that’s a load of you know what. In fact tidal lagoons must be the (real) investment to die for (as against the Gordon Brown sort or rather non sort). And we don’t need a ton of fancy figuring and decades of “planning”. Of course it is obvious that the initial cost will be very large, building a long stone barrier, but, unlike nuclear, such a barrier is never going to bite you in the bum and once built we are talking cheap regular reliable power in large amounts essentially for ever. And I like the bit about the lagoons being spread around the coast to smooth out peaks and troughs. Forget HS2 (especially as, preposterously, it is not to join with HS1–the whole point I would have thought) and Get On With It. Of course if the EU don’t like it so much the better. A pox on the paper shuffling boneheads in Brussels being excessively paid and pensioned to produce the idiocy that our host describes. How can these people ever be got rid of?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

      Tidal is not economic in general with current fuel prices, it needs very large enclosed areas which are very expensive to build and maintain. These can silt up quite rapidly if estuaries. If it were economic it would have been exploited far more than it has been so far.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 11:29 am | Permalink

        Lifelogic–Of course expensive to build but at least the man on the beach can understand what is going on and once the lagoon is built one has something worth having. I cannot imagine what the very expensive maintenance would be. If silting is all that has to be faced I reckon that can be handled. No doubt a tidal lagoon does have to be big but then lagoons usually are. Even that is not so clear in that with marine turbines (relying on fast flowing current rather than height) one needs no enclosed area at all. I even like wave power based on waves going up and down. What would the Victorians have done? Anything rather than the ridiculous wind farms.

        • lifelogic
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

          Perhaps about 30W per square meter enclosed by the lagoon wall lets say say £15 worth of electricity PA per M2. With a lot of sea walls to build (and perhaps rebuild after each storm). We do not even try to protect much of the coast and homes with sea wall protection – due to the high costs.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted March 5, 2015 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

            Lifelogic–“Coast and homes” do not produce (unarguably clean regular and reliable) energy

          • Posted March 6, 2015 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

            But so little energy in value, relative to the capital and maintenance costs.

        • Robert Christopher
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

          “I cannot imagine what the very expensive maintenance would be.”

          Fortunately, we don’t have to depend on your imagination.

          Swansea Bay tidal lagoon ‘appalling value for money’, says Citizens Advice
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11426748/Swansea-Bay-tidal-lagoon-appalling-value-for-money-says-Citizens-Advice.html

          And from the document:
          “.In conclusion, the process being used to assess Swansea Bay has significant weaknesses.
          Given the huge cost and lack of countervailing benefits of the project, the outcome of the process should be to reject the application unless there is significant change from the prices and benefits currently in the public domain.

          Or do you want Green Taxes to impoverish the poor even more than they do now?

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted March 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

            Should I have heard of “Citizens Advice”? If it’s the same as the Bureau that organisation is great for helping individuals with problems but perhaps not experts on lagoon building. It never crossed my mind to think in terms of this project as being “Green”, which to me is a term of abuse. I just felt and feel it had to be possible to make it work.

          • Posted March 7, 2015 at 8:59 am | Permalink

            Clearly a purely political project it makes no sense for energy generation building it will clearly make everyone poorer.

  2. Brian Taylor
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Stop the Subsities and spend some money on the effects of Climate Change ( if you can find any) other countries have cut Subsities, with China and India saying they will have Peak Coal in 20 years time, therefore anything we do is a waste of money and high energy costs keep closing down industry and export jobs!.
    If for £1 billion pound you get a 14 mile sea wall for a Laggoon with a couple of Turbines! Well let’s spend that money on Flood defences and build a Gas fired power station and start Fracking.

    • fedupsouthener
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

      How refreshing to read some common sense!! I cannot believe that our politicians want to stay in the EU. I thought they were supposed to be doing things for the good of the UK not dragging us into an undemocratic system which is intent on bleeding us dry and living in the dark ages while the rest of the world gets on with life. They really are a disgrace. Is it any wonder the electorate have no faith in them?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 4, 2015 at 11:35 am | Permalink

      Exactly, but every sensible engineer and scientist (with any knowledge of the subject) knows this. Perhaps they just do not have any in the whole of Ed Davey’s idiotically named Department of Energy & Climate Change. Why did Cameron fire Owen Patterson, at least he seemed to have sussed it out.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Exactly the policy is a complete disaster. Typical top down group think, politics over science insanity. Indeed almost as bad as the disastrous Euro project and worse even than CAP. There is no reason to suppose that co2 is likely to cause any catastrophic climate changes and anyway these EU measures will not make much different even to co2 on a world basis.

    Another climate propaganda program from the BBC 4 last night.

    Electric cars with current technology have no real advantages over clean petrol cars. the batteries cost a fortune are heavy do not last long and have very limited range. They save little energy as the loses occur at the power station, in transmission, in charging and in the battery while standing still anyway. Even with the £5000 subsidy and no virtually fuel tax for electricity almost no one is buying them other that a few actors and other fake greens and self publicists.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      The BBC 4 programme was:

      http://theconversation.com/bbcs-climate-change-by-numbers-supports-big-risk-in-place-of-big-facts-38193

      By three mathematicians who should surely be ashamed of themselves. Lots of nice pictures interesting asides but so little content or meat to their arguments.

      They pat themselves on the back for modelling a volcanic eruption but cannot predict the actual eruption (which you have to in order to make acurate predictions). They confuse climate change, which has always been happening, with catastropic runaway, irreversible, man made climate change which there is little reason expect. They make no mention of chaos systems and all the totally unpredictable inputs to the climate systems such as sun variations. They try to justify the temperate record fiddling that has clearly happened in the global warming academic community. Many in the government sponcered “industry” are clearly not seeking the truth but trying to justify the impending catastrophe predictions by hook or by crook.

      They also make no mention of the many advantages of a warmer co2 richer climate.

      They show footage of the 1953 East Coast flood which had nothing to do with global warming at all but fail to point that out.

      The climate is a hugely complex system with countless variables and many are unknowable and even if we knew them all we still could not predict it accurately for a months time, let alone 100 years. The climate this month affects the climate a month later so with out predicting things like the Suns output or volcanoes how can they predict it with accuracy?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:31 am | Permalink

        The sensible line to take on climate change is suck it and see and adapt if and when needed to the climate change, be it man made or natural.

        Spend the vast money saved on clean water, basic medicine, sewage systems and Bill Gates foundation types of things that have real benefits now for humanity.

        No mention of excess winter deaths of the elderly either in the uk in the programme.

        • fedupsouthener
          Posted March 3, 2015 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

          There are already an unacceptable amount of deaths from hypothermia already in the UK but it seems nobody takes any notice, or at least our government don’t.
          Cameron needs to tell Europe we won’t comply but he won’t. UKIP will have a field day with this. Their manifesto already states they want to end the useless, subsidy sucking wind industry. Can’t come a day too soon.

      • Atlas
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic,

        I agree with your critique. My other criticisms of the scientifc contents of the programme are too numerous to enumerate here.

      • Lifelogig
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

        Meanwhile it seems the morons at the EU want to ban halogen bulbs – there is not need people will switch to led when it suites them. Anyway the energ “lost” is not lost, it heats the house anyway. One assumes it is all driven by interested parties with a large consultancy budget.

        The we have the hapless Nicky Morgan education minister no less who cannot even answer the simple question “did she think academic selection could enhance social mobility”. Not a difficult one. What sort of fool would sack Michael Gove only to replace him with Nicky Morgan. I assume it was it just ‘cos he wanted a woman but why when the quality is clearly so low?

        • Lifelogig
          Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

          Will someone please save us from the army of daft Oxford PPE and Jurisprudence graduates.

        • Richard1
          Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

          The replacement of Michael Gove with Nicky Morgan is certainly unfortunate. It gives the lie to anyone who says it’s more difficult to get on as a woman, and shows how positive discrimination is likely to lead to appointment of inferior people. But I suspect the reason Mr Gove was shifted was simply that he was Public Enemy No 1 for the left wing education blob, who do unfortunately have some influence on swing voters in marginal constituencies. I should think Mr Cameron would agree Gove did a great job, but felt on a net basis he was an electoral liability. To be fair to Mrs Morgan her brief is probably to act as a peace ambassador to the teaching unions until the election.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted March 4, 2015 at 11:41 am | Permalink

            The real electoral liability is Cameron who even managed to lose the last sitting duck election with his lefty green crap agenda and his EU pre election ratting.

            Still it is too late now. Cameron is a good presenter and is good on his feet but he is defending idiotic & largely indefensible policies in most areas. Particularly his racist open door immigration policy of EU good the rest of the World bad.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

        Climate science is and has been proved accurate. Your belief that there are to many variables to make accurate predictions is just wrong and of your own making. Your belief in science only extends to accepting it if it backs up your right wing religious beliefs as we have seen on other subjects. When it does not you just try to rubbish the methodology which is more often very thoroughly examined by peers and then just proceed to make up you own facts and quote crackpot sources.
        Right wing religious beliefs on womans rights, economics and science in general. This is rational thought? It is not and should be fought by all right thinking people as without it we would be still in the dark ages believing the sun revolves around the earth.
        Worked out KW and KW/hrs yet?

        • oldtimer
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 9:29 am | Permalink

          You do not appear to have been paying attention to the science chapters of the IPCC reports. As long ago as 2001 they pointed out that the earth`s climate was a chaotic system incapable of prediction. As for the many, so-called ensemble, projections of global temperatures the actual outcomes have demonstrated them to be inaccurate and always on the high side.

          You should pay less attention to the IPCC`s advice for policy makers (seemingly the work of the propagandists) and more to the actual scientific evidence and the many uncertainties and unknowns that it reveals.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 11:50 am | Permalink

          Bazman you were the one who confused the units for energy and power not me.

          You say “Your belief that there are to many variables to make accurate predictions is just wrong”.

          How can they possibly predict the climate in say the year 2100 unless they know:- the population, all the volcanic activity between now and then, the extent and types of crops being grown, the impact of GM crops, the atmospheric composition, how much fusions is in use, the suns output, any major meteorite impacts and countless other things? Please do tell us?

          • lifelogic
            Posted March 4, 2015 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

            fusion (not fusions)

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

          I am all in favour or women being given positions on merit & ability just as I am in favour or men being given positions on merit & ability. What employer would want to do other than employ the best person for the job anyway?

          If you pass laws to favour one section you clearly must by definition actively discriminate against other sections.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted March 4, 2015 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

            Lifelogic–Don’t make the modern mistake of seeking to ignore biology.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 4, 2015 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

            That not how it works in the real world though is it. Woman are discriminated against for being woman. So favouring men discriminates against woman. You are going to tell us that woman are not discriminated against? More lies and fantasy.

          • Posted March 6, 2015 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

            Woman without children already earn more than men. Woman and men simply make different work life balance and career choices.

            Very few woman relative to men study physics, further maths or computer science at A level for example, it is their choice not discrimination.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

            How about the rest of the worlds woman are they not facing any discrimination either. It’s all their own choices? They choose not to drive or to use contraception like they choose to not study science?
            Bigoted nonsense without any basis whatsoever.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

          But it was “right thinking people” like you who went along with the practice of persecuting and murdering “heretics” who dissented from the official, orthodox, view that the sun went round the earth, so you need to be very careful on that one.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 9, 2015 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

            The heretics had science on their side you do not and that is the difference.

        • David Price
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

          Ah, the “change the name” ploy.

          AGW has proven inaccurate – the models and theory have failed to match reality. This was admitted in the 2013 IPCC report.

          When this happens in science you change the theory, not just it’s name and it is bad form to try to change or falsify the data..

          Have a read of Freeman Dyson’s views on the topic of climatologists and global warming.

    • stred
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

      We had to buy a new car last week and visited the Nissan dealer. There were 4 secondhand Leafs on the forecourt at around £12k, labelled as ‘zero emissions’- not even zero while driving! The salesman told us the batteries are now very smart and will last the lifetime of the car. Perhaps they are like ipads and can’t be changed, so the car has to be thrown away too?

      • Lifelogig
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

        Indeed despite all the tax subsidy bias no one wants them. When they get the technology to work on a level fiscal playing field fine until then do more battery r&d not a mass cash wasting roll out. The same applies to wind, vp, wave, tidal, bio ……..

        • Bazman
          Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

          But not nuclear. How are the free market fairies going to bring clean sustainable energy without any funding? Fossil fuels receive massive tax subsides not least in their pollution. A fact you seem to be unable to accept.

          • Edward2
            Posted March 4, 2015 at 8:52 am | Permalink

            Fossil fuels are not in receipt of massive tax subsidies.
            They are huge nett payers of tax and cash cows for Government who add fuel duties onto the base price of petrol and diesel for example, which bring in billions.
            It is renewables and nuclear which get huge subsidies and why electricity produced by these methods cost several times more.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 4, 2015 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

            You don’t want to look into fossil fuel subsides do you edward? Preferring to believe you own the facts. You do not.

          • Edward2
            Posted March 5, 2015 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

            Well enlighten us all with your facts then Baz
            We seem to be a bit light on them after you made your bold statement.

          • Ted Mombiot
            Posted March 5, 2015 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

            The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) report in 2013 is probably the source of your opinion Baz.

            It was widely used to by newspapers like the Guardian to try to prove that fossil fuels get huge subsidies when of course the opposite is the case.

            It also fails to allow for the huge tax take received from fossil fuels the Government makes.
            Now I don’t own these facts of course but the report is interesting to read.

            It suggests the UK government subsidised the fossil fuel industry to the tune of £4.3 billion in 2011 – around £7 per taxpayer. The UK ranks fifth on a global list of countries by total financial support given to carbon-intensive energy industries, the ODI says.
            But a closer look at the UK figures in the report suggests a more complicated picture.
            The OECD estimates that the UK fossil fuel industry received £4.3 billion of support from government in tax breaks and assistance in 2011.
            The vast majority of this went to supporting the UK’s most-used fuel – gas – which got £3.6 billion. The petroleum and coal industries received support equivalent to £539 million and £85 million, respectively.

            The OECD calls these amounts ‘support’, rather than ‘subsidy’.
            Most important to note that it defines support as:-
            “any policies that “provide a benefit or preference for fossil-fuel production or consumption, either in absolute terms or relative to other activities or products”.

            In essence, that means it includes any policies which can be seen as reducing the fossil fuels industry’s costs or boosting their profits.
            That’s regardless of whether other industries also get this help.

            If the amounts sound like a lot, it’s worth noting that over 90 per cent of the £4.3 billion figure for the UK comes from the reduced rate of VAT that domestic consumers pay for fuel and power – 5% not the normal 20% .
            The remainder goes toward providing tax breaks for technology improvements (such as improving pipelines) and investments in coal mines, and oil and gas fields.
            But investment in capital projects are allowable against profits in other industries.
            The chancellor has also allowed a number of tax breaks for companies embarking on exploration for unconventional fossil fuels such as shale gas – so the number could go up marginally.
            But research and development costs are also allowable against profits in other industries.
            But it is true to say that exploration does get marginally better treatment being a high risk investment.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 6, 2015 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

            You could use some facts from this or just look for yourself. To say fossil fuels have no subsidy is deluded how much do these massive oil spills and other pollution cost the world and the state for example in environmental and human costs.
            Shouting green nonsense will not help you.
            http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

          • Ted Monbiot
            Posted March 8, 2015 at 10:38 am | Permalink

            I’m not shouting and its not green nonsense Baz.
            Just a few facts which we dont own.
            Which you resuse to accept.
            I didnt say fossil fuels had no subsidy, read what I say, not your pre formed prejudices.

            Oil spills you say…BP for example were fined billions and paid compensation of billions more.
            And they also paid to clear up the mess.
            The USA made a profit out of the disaster.

          • Ted Monbiot
            Posted March 8, 2015 at 11:34 am | Permalink

            I have now looked at your link Baz.
            Its bases its figures on the same stupid definition of the world subsidy that all green anti fossil fuel propaganda does.
            Leading to alarmist headlines which are swallowed as fact by the gullible.
            Its like saying you are subsidised because the Government gives you £10,500 tax free pay or has allowed certain items to be zero rated for VAT.

            Its the levels of similarly defined “subsidies” between all energy sources that needs comparing.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 9, 2015 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

            Would you say manufacturing receives the same level of support via the tax system as the oil industry? If you do then you are just wrong and manufacturing takes more risk and employs more people.

          • Ted Monbiot
            Posted March 10, 2015 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

            Manufacturing gets “subsidies” as you call them.

            If you buy machinery you get allowances against corporation tax on your profits and you can claim the vat back and depreciation allowances.
            There are special tax breaks for research and development and tax breaks if you make a loss on a risky investment in new innovative technology.
            And many more examples I could list.

            The point is all industries get “subsidies” if you use your definition.

            The only way to look at fossil fuels is to compare the amounts of “subsidies” given to each source of power in relation to the size of their industry and the amount of power each generates.
            And the amount of taxes and duties they pay back.

      • A different Simon
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        Stred ,

        You got it .

        Also nobody knows how long the battery’s will last for you .

        How soon before the stories of mechanic’s being electrocuted start surfacing I wonder .

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

        Zero emission at the car but lots at the power station and the battery factories/rare earth mines.

    • fedupsouthener
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      OMG, I just despair. Just what are the EU thinking of at a time when the economics of many Euro countries are dire? Surely to God we should be investing in R&D for nuclear fusion which would give us CLEAN, reliable power. We don’t need to invest in large power stations but could have smaller units similar to that which the French use. New Gas plants are much cleaner now and we have plenty of our own gas which would not mean us relying on Russia or any other country. It’s alright going down the route of tidal lagoons but the cost will be horrendous and most that will have to be picked up by consumers both domestic and commercial. How are we supposed to compete in a modern world? This has been one big gravy train for a few people. Electric cars? Forget it. There would not be enough public transport to cope with the people who would be forced off the roads. How will reps, nursing staff, care workers, or even people who have to travel long distances to work cope? Many people living in rural areas have vast distances to travel just to get to a decent shopping venue let alone anything else. My friend is in hospital and it would be impossible for me to visit her using an electric car. We are all trying to do our bit to buy cars with low emissions but it seems this won’t be good enough for our lords and masters in Brussels. Another good reason to come out of the EU. We will be living under a dictatorship at this rate.

      • turbo terrier
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        We will be living under a dictatorship at this rate.

        We are already in Scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Jerry
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

      @LL; “Another climate propaganda program from the BBC 4 last night.”

      Indeed, and even I’m not going to try and defend the BBC for that pile of bovine by-product.

  4. Richard1
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Excellent, another opportunity for some Clear Blue Water. Comservative MPs should insist that the Conservative manifesto will pledge that the UK will have no part in the EU common energy policy. It’s irrelevant for the UK in any event. Does the report mention shale gas or is the EU still trying to stymie that industry at the behest of the green blob?

    • Lifelogig
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      Clear blue water? Not likely with Cameron he would not spot a Tory policy if it bit him on the bum let alone support it. We are labour but not quit as Crap is the message.

      • Hope
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

        Th cartel have a lady agreed a joint Claimate change plan, lol us what it is JR.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        Do right wing free market policies ever produce problems of unseen and great consequence costing large amount of money? They do. Then what more of the same being the answer in you delude world. As long as it does not affect me in your mantra in your massively subsided industry.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

          You do not even know what my industry is.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 6, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

            You are in the housing rental business you have told us this a number of times. Its pity John no closes comments as I could then show your past posts, not that it does any good as you just lie about your own posts even when the previous post is above for all to see.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      It’s a bit late for the Conservatives to pledge that the UK will have no part in the EU common energy policy when the UK is already part of it.

      Do you recall that there was the amending Treaty of Lisbon, and Brown refused to put it to a referendum, and then after two years of promising that he would hold a referendum on it Cameron caved in and announced on November 4th 2009 that instead he would swallow it whole, brazenly offering the false excuse that it no longer existed as a treaty and so it could no longer be put to a referendum?

      Well, amazingly, it’s still in the list of EU treaties on the EU’s website, here:

      http://old.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT:EN:HTML

      and one of the EU treaty amendments it ordered to be made ran as follows:

      “147) Title XX shall be replaced by the following new Title and new Article 176 A:

      “TITLE XX

      ENERGY

      Article 176 A

      1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:

      (a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;

      (b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union; and

      (c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and

      (d) promote the interconnection of energy networks …”

      and so forth.

      • Richard1
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        Cameron and the Conservatives voted against the Lisbon treaty?! Of course once it had been incorporated into the other EU treaties a referendum became an irrelevance. You could no more have a referendum on it than on any other historic treaty. Put the blame for the Lisbon treaty where its due – on Gordon Brown who signed it and the Labour govt and Labour (and LibDem) MPs who voted it through.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 5, 2015 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        Anybody who writes that ” You could no more have a referendum on it than on any other historic treaty” clearly:

        a) Has forgotten that the 1975 referendum was a retrospective referendum held after the treaty had been in force for more than two years; and

        b) Does not believe in the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, which as the supreme legal authority for the UK can order that a referendum be held in the UK on anything that it chooses at any time it chooses.

        • Richard1
          Posted March 5, 2015 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

          You miss the point entirely. Once the Lisbon treaty got incorporated into the other EU treaties – which it did as soon as Parliament ratified it along with other governments – a referendum became irrelevant. The thing there could be a referendum on is the whole consolidated EU treaty – and there will be if there is a Conservative govt.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 6, 2015 at 11:51 am | Permalink

            You really shouldn’t allow yourself to be so easily misled by whatever falsehood may come out of the mouth of your party leader, you should check for yourself whether or not what he is claiming is actually true.

            The process of “consolidation” of the EU treaties has no legal effect whatsoever; it is merely intended to present the current treaty law in a convenient form, rather than those who are interested having to look back through all the amending treaties which are in force and see how the original treaties have been modified by their action.

            Anybody who was familiar with the processes whereby the EU treaties are amended could instantly see that it was a total nonsense to claim that the amending Treaty of Lisbon had ceased to exist once it had come into force; I’ve given you a link to that treaty as a separate legal document which still exists and is listed on the EU’s website as one of the treaties which is in force; equally I could give you a link to the UK Act of Parliament to approve that treaty, which would be rendered meaningless if it no longer existed.

            By falsely pretending that it was no longer possible to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty Cameron sought to put off the renegotiations which would have been necessary after its rejection by the British people, but at the price of enough support to cost him an overall majority at the 2010 general election; and I for one believe that having already put off attempted renegotiations from 2010 to 2016 or 2017 he would probably try to pull the same kind of trick after the next general election in the event that he continued as Prime Minister.

  5. agricola
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    EU energy strategy is a form of dependence, a way of locking countries into more EU dead hand control.

    Energy efficiency is fine because it makes industry more competitive in the World market place. However the EU’s form of control has exactly the opposite effect. left to surviving in the real world of commerce the automobile and aircraft engine manufacturers have made great strides and this will continue. The market works better than political interference, particularly from a socialist entity like the EU. Politicians are there to recognise the excesses and to curb them. Our version of politician has sadly proved incapable of doing even this.

    Shale gas does not fit into the EU plan because it means loss of control and cheaper manufacturing costs. They would not like this in their socialist utopia, as it emphasises the unsustainability of their dream. The UK is visibly dragging itself from recession while the EU stagnates in economic limbo with growing ingredients for serious social unrest. Another EUSSR ten year plan of one size fits all is as you point out a disaster.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

      Well energy efficiency can make you more competitive it rather depends on the capital outlay needed for the efficiency achieved. Often it is not worth changing (say the single glazed windows or boiler) just to save energy.

      • agricola
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 10:32 am | Permalink

        By definition, efficiency suggests to me that actions produce a return that is quantifiable. If the action does not then it is a gesture and nothing more.

  6. alan jutson
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    We would be crazy to tie ourselves into such an arrangement.

    Simple as that.

    The creeping and strangling hand of the EU moves ever closer to our throats.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      @alan jutson; “We would be crazy to tie ourselves into such an arrangement.”

      Indeed and as “Richard1” said above, the Conservatives need to make this a red line manifesto pledge (that the next Tory government will have nothing what so ever to do with it), it’s all very well for UKIP to be against such EU policy but if they take Tory seats -even perhaps Labour seats- but then fails to cause a majority eurosceptic coalition/pact government to be formed but allow a majority Labour/LD/Green one instead then the UK will almost certainly get locked into this pile of no good.

      • Hope
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        As Dennis points out above, the UK is Aleady tied in!

        • Jerry
          Posted March 5, 2015 at 9:47 am | Permalink

          @Hope; By that rational as we are already in the EU, thus there is little or no point in fantasising about leaving!..

  7. Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Using energy for power is not unknown to this world . I do support methods to find alternatives to fossil fuel , but the strategy to develop in a centralised way is not conducive to fair trade.

    Centralisation V Regionalisation was discussed in the house yesterday. When there is a central planet and satellites of a similar structure the central sphere needs to get it right.A labour MP from Wigan touched upon this theme in an articulate speech ,the MP for Blackley seemed to have less foresight.Manchester have already brutalised many of its workers to get what they want and the potential for more dictatorship by which ever methods they choose to employ are frightening.As you pointed out Mr Redwood we have to get England heavily bedded in as our Key country.

  8. Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    I have just left a comment which may or may not have been sent as I was interrupted by a spam shot to prove I was human.

    I commented that energy has always been a method of gaining power for the world.
    I commented that I was in favour of research into renewables , but the centralising strategy in the EU is wrong and not conducive to good trade.

    I then briefly compared centralisation to regionalisation and emphasised that where there is a central planet and satellite structure the centre needs to be just right. The debate in the house about regionalisation had an articulate speaker for Wigan who touched upon this and another MP from Blackley who did not have sufficient foresight . Manchester has already brutalised many of their workers and it is frightening what potential there is for more rude dictatorship by a few king pins.

    We need to give England its centrally pivotal role.

  9. Lifelogic
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    “The EU’s energy policy is its second worst EU disaster after the Euro”. It probably is but there is very strong competition. CAP, the millions of tons of good dead fish dropped back into the sea, the absurd fake “equality” agenda, the mad employment protection laws, OTT regulation of almost everything, the attacks/taxes on trade from outside the EU, the HS trains agenda, the ERM, the absurd VAT system …….

    • Lifelogig
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      Now the banning of halogen bulbs the ones that give the nicest bright & close to natural light that is.

      • Jerry
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        @LL; “the [EU] banning of halogen bulbs”

        When did they do that! Or did you mean to say “Tungsten bulbs”?

        Also I hope, if they have banned them, it only applies to medium voltage bulbs, 110 – 240v, otherwise there are going to be all sorts of problems…

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

          It is being planned.

      • alan jutson
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic

        Halogen Bulbs to be banned …. !

        Yes, here we go again, assume given we have them in 3 rooms, we will have to stock up on those as well now.

        Still have 100 of the old candle bulbs/lamps left in stock for use on our wall lights, as new LED type look silly with the light fittings we have already.

        Money, money, money, no expense spared for those who now need to change not just the bulbs at 10 times the cost, but the bloody fittings as well.

        When will our Government call an end to this madness.?

      • Bazman
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        Daily Mail nonsense.
        http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2012/12_22_en.htm
        If a bulb produces the same light for less electricity as couple of 18w LED’s I bought from ASDA do, why do you want to use 100w incandescent ones assuming you can afford the initial investment?
        Are you promoting choice or just holding back the future? Do you have the same views on cars telling us 1970’s cars are far superior? They are not..LOL!

        • Edward2
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 8:59 am | Permalink

          Its called freedom of choice Baz.

          If all these State employees and politicians can just leave us alone on telling us what light bulbs we may use, and many other trivial issues, it would be good.
          Perhaps they could then concentrate on dealing properly with issues like health, education, defence, child abuse, unemployment, immigration etc etc

        • Jerry
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 9:02 am | Permalink

          @Bazman; It is not the amount of Lux given out but the type of light that is given out, and in certain instillations the style of the bulb can be important – for example we have a couple of 115 year old electric chandelier (genuine, not a converted gas one, and it takes normal sized bulbs not candle types!), CFLs would look stupid even if they did fit, as would all but the most recent LEDs but even these latest bulbs look ‘wrong’, that leaves either our stock of Tungsten or halogen but the latter look overly bright due to not being pearled. Also, on current average retail prices, it will cost something like £50 to £60 to fit a set of LEDs per chandelier… 🙁

          • Bazman
            Posted March 4, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

            It’s not about banning these bulbs, but improving the efficiency of existing halogen bulb for the consumer as we talked about with vacuum cleaners.
            Your Daily mail scare stories are worthless.
            Would you like to see a choice of less safe cars for the safer driver?

          • Jerry
            Posted March 5, 2015 at 10:05 am | Permalink

            @Bazman; “Daily mail scare stories are worthless.”

            Well they called it correctly regarding both banning tungsten bulbs in favour of (the then only viable) replacements -namely those awful [1] CFL bulbs, they also called it correctly with regards the idiocy of reducing the legal maximum wattage of domestic vacuum cleaners – people will either go out and but commercial units or simple spend twice the time using a low power version. I suspect when and if any such directive is issued the DM will have called in correctly again – and I say that as no fan of the publication.

            [1], and with many health problems/risks

          • Bazman
            Posted March 6, 2015 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

            We covered the vacuum cleaner one. There was no idiocy only your uninformed idiocy even when shown the facts. Wattage is not a good indicator of suction and the customer with no technical knowledge or indication of wattage/suction should be protected and the manufactures made to improve their products. The vacuum cleaner manufactures were took part in drawing up the legislation over five years.
            You must get very upset about the Euro NCAP crash test program banning certain cars from non EU countries and forcing car manufactures to produce safer cars?
            Why not just let them produce cars they see fit and the consumer chooses. I am a very safe driver and a very good one too, so I have no need for any crash test costs thank you very much! LOL!

          • Jerry
            Posted March 8, 2015 at 10:23 am | Permalink

            @Bazman; “The vacuum cleaner manufactures were took part in drawing up the legislation over five years.”

            Yes, and now they can charge us even more for what should be a very simply device!

            “You must get very upset about the Euro NCAP crash test[ing]

            Indeed I do, at least how they are used to market the vehicles! Have you noticed how driving standards have gone down in the last 30 odd years since people started to believe that they can’t be injured/killed even if they do hit a solid wall at 30+ mph never mind that oncoming car closing down at a combined speed of 120 mph, after all they just must be in front of the car that is now now alongside on the nearside…

            Oh and Bazman, as I have regularly driven historic cars designed before there were any crash tests, even seatbelts, you really can not understand just how silly your last paragraph reads…

          • Bazman
            Posted March 9, 2015 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

            Well jerry road deaths have gone down to the lowest levels ever partly due to car safety important and taking this fatalistic nonsense to the final conclusion maybe we could have a large spike on the steering wheel causing instant death should any accident occur.
            The charging more for the vacuum cleaner due to better design is just wrong and will save energy for the user and the state. Have TVs got more expensive due to lower power usage? No they have not.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 4, 2015 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

          People may have all sorts of reasons let them decided if LEDs are good they will buy them. The electricity is not wasted either as it helps heats the building.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 6, 2015 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

            Heat from lights will displace heat required from a building’s heating system, but generally space heating energy is of lower cost than heat from lighting and if the room has air con then this heat would have to be additionally removed using more energy.
            The banning of them by the state is to prevent emissions by often ignorant people like yourself and to increase the development of better light sources. Like car crash testing has to a large extent been by legislation.
            Should electrical regulations be a a voluntary requirement or unsafe protects be allowed in you isolated deluded world?
            I wonder how much of the maintenance savings are passed on to tenants from landlords with property fitted with electrical heating. About as much as banks pass on for using paper free statements. ie nothing. They have a choice of which bank or landlord to use don’t they and this makes it all O.K does it.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 8, 2015 at 10:32 am | Permalink

            @Bazman; Thanks for proving that you have read all the EU/UN’s IPCC briefing papers. Now back in the real world….

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 5, 2015 at 8:22 am | Permalink

          I do not mind people choosing LEDs, as many will, but why should they be forced to by law? It is about being free individuals or being enslaved by the state.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 6, 2015 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

            Many laws exist to protect the state as well as the individual. This is called the greater good and if you want to live in county where this is trounced on a massive scale then move to Russia or the like, most of you are supported by the MCSSS and would not last a day there. Not a day..

          • Edward2
            Posted March 7, 2015 at 9:11 am | Permalink

            I dont know what parts of Russia you have been to Baz, but Ive been there several times for both business and pleasure and as you can see, I lasted more than one day.

            Entrepreneurs will always survive. Its those who look to the State for everything they need who would struggle.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 7, 2015 at 10:43 am | Permalink

            You either had a guide or spoke fluent Russian and if you were to do real business or any business for that matter you would find that it is like layer cake with not one person doing anything without permission from the layer above. Step outside this and there will be consequences. ‘Entrepreneurs’ will not survive in this criminal state and certainly not the nice MCSSS beneficiaries old chap. Russians are just so vulgar.

          • Edward2
            Posted March 10, 2015 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

            Well I survived and others I know have too.
            More than the day you claim us toffs would last.
            And did good profitable business too.
            I used a local agent but that is common practice in most overseas business visits.
            Maybe you went to a rough part!

    • Bazman
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

      None existent mad employment laws? You have never come with any.

      • libertarian
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 10:11 am | Permalink

        Bazman

        Its not that each individual law in itself is bad, Its the shear number of laws/rules/directives and guidelines ( which sometimes also conflict with each other) , the arcane language, the huge amount of time, paperwork and cost in just administering employment legislation.

        With the bulk of our economy now in the hands of small businesses all you are doing by making employment so complex and difficult is to slow down the rate of job creation and keeping wages low as the money has to be spent on sorting out admin.

        I suggest before you lecture us any more about this, go set up a company and employ someone then come back and tell us how easy it is

        • Bazman
          Posted March 6, 2015 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

          Never seemed to be much of a problem for the small companies and one man bands I have worked for.
          I suggest the bleating confused ones just do as the Tory William Hague MP said and just got on with the job and stop looking for excuses and you should just stop writing apologist nonsense to worsen the pay and conditions of the average person including the self employed.

  10. Iain Moore
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    “This document will make it worse.”

    But the British establishment will go along it. Attach a bit of climate change nonsense to anything and they are all for it.

  11. Shieldsman
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    There is only one answer to this IDIOCY leave the European Union with all its Diktat’s.
    Your leader wants to stay in the EU, and blindly hopes to gain minor concessions to freedom of movement.
    Promises of a 2017 EU Referendum are ‘pie in the sky’ he will never get it enacted. He will never have sufficient backing to force through the Parliament Act.
    A vote for the Tories in the hope that Cameron will deliver a EU Referendum is a wasted vote.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

      @Shieldsman; Well a Tory government after May 7th is the best hope we have as a vote for UKIP could, and is more than likely to, cause a Labour government that will sign us up to this policy, no doubt with added bells and whistles…

  12. Ted Monbiot
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Worthy words, but missing the method of paying for it all.
    Apart from extra taxes and even higher energy prices for businesses and individuals.

    I will make two predictions :
    1. That there will be regular EU wide power cuts in the future as a rising demand meets reduced capacity.
    2.That the reduced economic activity caused by the costs of high energy prices compared to other main world competitors, will result in an inability to pay for this plan.

    • Lifelogig
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

      Indeed. But the bureaucrats will still get good salaries and pensions.

    • libertarian
      Posted March 4, 2015 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      Ted Monbiot

      There won’t be power cuts in EU. France and Germany don’t actually take any notice of the rules. France produces its energy from nuclear and Germany from coal.

      Its only us that gold plate and implement this claptrap

  13. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    I just re-fitted half my house with halogen bulbs and can now see properly. Seems I am to be slapped back to dim CFL’s (mercury) and expensive LED lamps (gallium this and that). No thanks the EU again!

    I have converted flourescent battens in a garage/utils room to LED strip for £15 each (parts). Thats more than half the price of those in Screwplace etc. A fair bit of work with stuff from China (+taxes etc) that has no relationship to reliability that I can find. Just look at that CE mark on China power supplies and think electrical safety…for one!

    Have I saved anything on the planet..or will I? Somehow I don’t think so – for the time being though I can see all the trip hazards. Any lawyers reading this?

    Climate Change by Numbers and the BBC mathematicians…..LOL

  14. Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Foreign hands that attempt to control and manipulate within our borders should be “knuckled”. What we have , how we get it , how we control and pay for it is our affair – no-one elses . The bureaucrats in Brussels every now and again feel it is their duty to come out with some edict or other to prove they are there to justify their existence ; the full impact of these so-called directives are never properly thought out and are never effectively monitored and controlled . Previously I have illustrated how foolish they are and I have no intention of wasting my time by repeating the example again .

    Brussels is a waste of time and money quite apart from being the biggest threat to our bureaucracy and independence . The election should focus on this malaise – it is a vote winner confirmed by the polls .

  15. oldtimer
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    In short it is bonkers.

  16. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    When is your leader going to stop rolling over and letting the EU dictate to us? I know the answer – never! Having forced us to stop using incandescent lightbulbs I read that they now intend to force us to ban the use of halogen light bulbs. Is this meant to be energy saving or just more cost for consumers and job creation for electricians? These people in the EU commission are out of control.
    You may well be right in that the “EU’s energy policy is its second worst EU disaster after the Euro” which brings me to ask you this question – what can and are you going to do to prevent it?

  17. David Murfin
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    “Renewable” is another weasel word. There is no such thing as ‘renewable’ energy. Entropy increases, and tomorrow’s energy depends on tomorrow’s sunshine or the moon continuing to circle the earth and pull the tides. While both are very likely, the cost of extracting that energy is not small, while the word ‘renewable’ encourages waste. One thing is certain: today’s means of extraction – wind turbines etc, will need to be renewed.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

      Exactly:

      By “renewable” energy the green religion seems to mean:- nuclear fusion on the sun that is radiated to the earth and then used (but within a short time of its arrival). This rather than stored for many years a fossil fuel and then used which is apparently bad. So burning wood ship round the world is good but burning local methane is bad – why god only knows?

  18. Ian wragg
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    What’s the betting that the funds will come from the net contributers if it ever flies
    It gets more like the Soviet Union by the day. The beneficiaries will of course be Siemens in Germany and Alstom in France perpetuating the stitch up of the past
    The 10% interconnect power is interesting as Germany needs to stabilise their grid frequency and what better way than to export the problems.
    I assume all 3 legacy parties will gleefully sign up to be seen saving the planet when it’s all about ensuring french and German dominance.

  19. A different Simon
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    There are advantages to Poland of not to have to negotiate with Russia directly .

    As for “Security, solidarity and trust” , offshoring your energy production and policy to someone else is the exact opposite of energy security .

    The EU will be able to decide which countries have industry and which don’t .

    It seems to have been decided by the great and the good that “command-and-control” is the way forward .

    We know what happens when the authorities make a mistake – the establishment goes in to denial and eventually ends up pushing on a piece of string .

    The market on the other hand rectifies errors much more quickly .

    If Cameron , or Miliband , signs this it will be an act of treason .

  20. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    If anybody wants to read the original document, 21 pages, it is here:

    http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/energy-union/docs/energyunion_en.pdf

    Quite apart from various thoughts about the substantive issues raised, the questions which immediately spring to my mind are:

    1. How much of this could be achieved through existing EU laws?

    2. To what extent would any new EU laws which are required be decided by qualified majority voting, and conversely to what extent would the MPs we will shortly be electing still be able to stop them by insisting that the government exercises a veto?

    3. What are the attitudes of the two coalition parties and the main opposition party towards these proposals? Despite past vagaries I think we should be able to assume that UKIP would oppose the whole principle of extending the powers of the EU in this or indeed any other direction, while the Greens would only oppose any of the proposals on the grounds that they do not go far enough in destroying our economy and taking us back to the Medieval Period in not to the Stone Age.

    4. When were the relevant competences conferred upon the EU, and with the agreement of which UK governments and political parties, and could any of it be seen as having been approved directly by the people in the 1975 referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EEC or “Common Market”?

    Reply 3 new pieces of legislation are cited in the 15 action points which will doubtless fall to be decided by qualified majority.

  21. acorn
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    The actual cost of electricity in the UK is 55% higher than it is in Germany and one of the dearest in the EU. What makes the total delivered price much higher in Germany is the taxes. The UK has the lowest tax rate, by far, in the EU with VAT added at 5%. Germany adds VAT and Levies of nearly 50% So if you want to make money making electricity, come to the UK. Much more of the price you can sell it for, goes in the Generator’s pocket, rather than the Taxman’s.

    Its a similar tax regime for natural gas, but the basic gas price in the UK is about 10% dearer than Germany. (Eurostat: Electricity and natural gas price statistics).

  22. Tad Davison
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    ‘It is remarkable for the scope of its ambition, allied to the absence of detail on where the huge sums of money will come from to pay for all the investments and research the EU wishes to see.’

    Knowing the EU, and the Keynesians who run it, they’ll just print it by the ton!

    Tad

    • Tad Davison
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      Just to add:

      ‘The EU’s energy policy is its second worst EU disaster after the Euro. It is hostile to business, it is de-industrialising much of the EU, and unfriendly to consumers. This document will make it worse.’

      The surprising thing, is so many people failed to see this coming. I’ve been in touch with an old friend recently who was one of the original Maastricht rebels. He told me fifteen years ago what was likely to happen to our energy policy as a result of ever closer union.

      I am convinced most MPs just go along with what they are told, and spit out the official party line parrot-fashion. They don’t take the time to properly consider the implications of their actions in voting for more of the EU. That should tell us that the respective party hierarchies already know this democratic deficit, and still push it anyway. And that has its own commentary, for it tells of the depth of the EU duplicity.

      Only by getting rid of people like Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband, can we hope to reverse it, but there’s more to it than just an energy policy with inherent failings and flaws. It is inextricably linked to some disastrous foreign policy decisions too, especially where Libya and Russia are concerned. I am sure that Russia would like to sell us their gas at a competitive price, but the US and the EU has made that nigh impossible by stoking up a hostile situation that should never have happened in the first place.

      Still, the US will step into the breach and sell us theirs having effectively eliminated the competition.

      If we DO become energy self-sufficient in the UK with fracking and the proposed tidal lagoons in places like Swansea Bay, I hope we keep it to ourselves to put our own industries at an advantage for our own indigenous people. But if we give way to the EU on this, the game is up.

      Tad Davison

      Cambridge

      • graham1946
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

        I doubt it, Tad.

        If we ever get our own gas from fracking it will all be sold on the world market for the benefit of the big corporations, not the British people. It happened with North Sea Oil – never did the people or industry get any price or other advantage out of it. It was used up far too quickly and sold far too expensively, just to suit the corporations and the Stock Exchange. The taxes were in the main wasted on welfare and running huge unemployment, dressed up as disability which the government are now trying to reverse. Hence we ended up with nothing, whereas we could have had a sovereign wealth fund like Norway. Now it’s nearly all gone and we ares still struggling for power and to stop the lights going out. What a shower!

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        Tidal lagoons are rather an expensive nonsense I suspect. Fracking yes please.

  23. Posted March 3, 2015 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    There was a tv show on a couple of nights ago (BBC4, Sunday 1st March “Storyville”) promoting the eu and warning that its demise would be a disaster.

    As a piece of propaganda it failed miserably as the contributors seem to have no grasp of realty and quite frankly the opinions they expressed revealed their ignorance.

    Surely it goes without saying that if you are going to try to persuade people to a point of view you shouldn’t put people on the telly who don’t seem to know their subject.

    It really is scary to think that people like them could be running the eu

    • Bazman
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      Its here and is semi fictional. You would have it not shown as does not fit your world view. How democratic is that?
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054v0v2

      • Edward2
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 9:07 am | Permalink

        If I may guess that Kenneth is similar to me in thinking the programme was a woeful piece of propaganda.
        I would not like to ban it, but I was disappointed the programme did not discuss the pros and cons of the EU, the Euro and the future direction of the EU.
        No mention of any current problems, no scenes of the poor unemployed in many EU nations for example.
        Balance is what we assume the BBC would try to provide instead of a very badly argued partial programme.
        A proper debate.

      • Jerry
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 9:08 am | Permalink

        @Bazman: Yes it should not have been shown, just as that Ch4 programme should not have been, this close to a GE, the problem is that it is fictional and whilst both were billed as fiction many will take them as anything but.

        Such programmes could have been made and screened a year and more ago, one has to ask why they have suddenly found the need to do so now…

        I would actually have no problem with factual programmes.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

        “How democratic is that?”

        I don’t think I have an answer to that particular question. I have read that the citizens of Athens were induced to vote in favour of sending a fleet to invade and conquer Sicily on the basis of false information about its size and population and military and other resources, and it was a disaster; so maybe effective democracy requires the citizens to be told the truth rather than being fed a pack of lies?

  24. Colin Hart
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Does Mr Cameron have any intention of renegotiating this?

    • turbo terrier
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

      Does Mr Cameron have any intention of renegotiating this?

      He will do what he always does. 3/5ths of nothing

  25. Matt
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    I honestly don’t understand how these things get through.
    The French use nuclear for their electricity. It’s low CO2 and has served them well for decades.
    The Germans have a lot of energy intensive industry and high energy prices must hit them harder than most.
    Who exactly is in favour of this nonsense?

  26. forthurst
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    In an article orginally published in German Economic News, in English translation, it is reported, “In the past ten years agricultural corporations have been increasingly cultivating rapeseed in Ukraine. This is connected with the increased needs of the EU for biofuels. About 90 percent of rape is exported to the EU and processed there. The federal government reported as part of the inquiry that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) had awarded 2,014 loans to a total of 131 Ukrainian and 55 international agroholdings.

    To the question of the Left Party, whether the agricultural concerns DuPont and Monsanto would receive KfW loans for its operations in Ukraine, the federal government was not willing to give a clear answer.

    Growing GMO crops for biofuels to ‘save the planet’ is arguably more of a criminal racket than using agricultural land for growing poppies. The global warming scam is a major fraud which impoverishes the many for the profit of a few.

  27. graham1946
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Well, if they think the UK is going to provide any electricity into their interconnectors, they’ve got another think coming. Due to the criminal neglect of our power production by politicians of all stripes (particularly Labour who should have dealt with this 15 years ago), and their bovine belief in renewables (mostly wind, not much else seems to get a look in) we are going to be pushed to keep the lights on at all. We already import French power, so we’re already in the interconnector business to that extent. We have been closing down perfectly viable generating sets without replacing them with anything remotely comparable in efficiency or cost, just for the pet theories of some political nut jobs who should not be let anywhere near our levers of power.

    The cost, whatever it is, and is most likely not of concern to the politicos, will be borne as always by the people, particularly the poorest, just like that wealth transfer scheme from rich to poor which renewables has become. We need more than to just get out of the EU, we need a new set of politicians with the country’s interests at heart, not their own.

    • graham1946
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      Sorry, last paragraph should of course read ‘poor to rich’ not the otherway around. Getting to excited. Apologies.

  28. rick hamilton
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    We are beginning to see the end of democracy in the EU, as the Jean Monnets and other true believers always intended. A faceless gang of highly paid bureaucrats, whom nobody elected and who cannot be got rid of, justify their existence by generating a tidal wave of legislation that never appeared in an election manifesto and nobody ever asked for.

  29. Martyn G
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    John, thank you for this truly frightening briefing. I dread to think how it will go forward with the UK government of any hue so bound into further integration with the EU.
    I suppose that having already surrendered almost all vital areas of national sovereignty to the EU and in the process selling off (mostly to companies of other nations) all of our essential infrastructure, this will seem a minor issue to almost all MP (excepting your good self and a small number of other like-minded others) to simply sign up to without considering the consequences in their desire to appear as ‘good Europeans’. I despair.

    • Kenneth R Moore
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

      Indeed the situation is truly frightening – and all we have to repel the Eu’s long march is a prime minister who is a Conservative in name only. He’s just another in the long line of British elites that appear to hate their own country.

      Our long term prospects have never been more bleak – atleast in 1914 and 1938 the common man or woman had the chance to fight back. In the 70’s we had a manageable population , a demoralised but large British owned manufacturing sectors and North sea oil and gas.
      What have we got today – a bunch of overpromoted college kids that think any problem can be dealt with by media manipulation or playing around with interest rates and quantitive easing….

      It seems there is nothing to stop the Eu’s wrecking ball. John Redwood has been a worthy fighter but he alas is nearing retirement. Who will fill his shoes when he hands in his Westminister security pass.?. For every JR on the Conservative benches there are 5 Eu lap dogs that seem to have jettisoned all reason, principle and sense of history. It just fills me with despair.

      If only we had stayed out of the Eu, kept control of our core industries, maintained sensible border controls and not accepted political correctness..

      What have our children’s children got to look forward to ..being a member of a minority called ‘white English’ possible having to accept whatever rules that the majority foreign born newcomers and the Eu wish to impose upon them. Living in a tiny bedsit because the population is 100 million and there isn’t space for full size homes anymore . Traffic jams, concrete and tarmac everywhere, a health service bursting at the seams without the means to pay for it..

      Reply I will be contesting the next election!

      • Kenneth R Moore
        Posted March 4, 2015 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

        Excellent news I suspect you and like minded colleagues will have much work,post election, clearing up the mighty mess left by the Conservative New Labour copying ‘modernisers’. I hope that Mr Cameron will be dispatched as efficiently as possible from office so the party can start to recover it’s repuation.
        Perhaps the party can then try a strategy not tried for a very long time – actually thinking and acting in a Conservative way. Perhaps when the time comes to elect a new leader, Mp’s will be less inclined to be dazzled by a single slickly delivered speech, and look a little deeper into the integrity and background of the candidates.
        The party will need wise and experienced hands – we need a political titan to get us out of the mess we face ..a modern day Powell both fearless and wise.

  30. william
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Please read the letter to the FT, dated 26 February, from Ronald Stewart Brown,which tells you everything you need to know about the EU’s madness on this subject.

  31. BeeCee
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    It is in fact the EU which is the disaster, hence everything it touches goes bad. Only some 13% of EU legislation gets Parliamentary perusal whilst another 50% or so slips straight through. Our host will know the accurate figures.

    The domestic cost of one KWH of electricity is now four times the cost of one KWH of gas.

    And still BroDave allows the Libdems to throw away billions more on windfarms and the ‘Renewable Utopia’

  32. ian
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Look like something politician in uk will want at any cost, the ink already dry on the paper.

  33. Timaction
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    But Mr Redwood you are in a Europhile Party, all three legacy parties being Europhile and wanting a United States of Europe. Only one party wants out of the EU and our sovereign democracy returned here. So we all need to vote for that party to remove us from the unelected dictators.
    With over 65% of our laws now made in the EU since 1993, why do we need so many MP’s in Westminster?

  34. Atlas
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Agreed John,

    The EU and Energy is already a disaster area.

    Isn’t it fascinating that the only answer to any issue is “More EU centralisation”; so all the lights go out together??

  35. Posted March 3, 2015 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Sounds eminently sensible in the face of Russian provocation to look at energy security for Europe.

    Interconnector arrangements again eminently sensible – for example when Spain produces too much solar energy it could be spread where necessary.

    What I would prefer to see given the European Union’s habit of failure, is to get involved and make sure it is a continent-wide success.

    • forthurst
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      “Sounds eminently sensible in the face of Russian provocation to look at energy security for Europe.”

      This is obviously a reference to the boasted of $5 billion investment by US Under-Secretary of State, Victoria “**** the EU” Nuland, in provoking mayhem in Ukraine in preparation for the country being pillaged by the “West”.

      “Interconnector arrangements again eminently sensible”

      Does the idea of each EU vassal obtaining > 10% of its electricity from its neighbours, irrespective of any other considerations, sound like a scheme designed to achieve security of supply? If so, what would be the rationale?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

      I have just one thing to say to the wishful thinking in the second clause of your last sentence, James:

      “Qualified Majority Voting”.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

      @James Winfield; “Interconnector arrangements again eminently sensible – for example when Spain produces too much solar energy it could be spread where necessary.”

      Well yes, they might be able to export it to Portugal or southern France depending on were the PV instillations are actually sited, but forget anything much further, unless someone in the EU is also going to change the laws of physics (or have some very large cables as interconnections)…

      It is always best to generate electricity as close to were it will be used as possible!

  36. John E
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Watch for the effect of the solar eclipse on March 20th. The solar power is going to be switched off for a while. The impact on the grid in Germany will be interesting.

  37. majorfrustration
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    All good stuff JR but be advised that the Tory Party needs to stand up and be counted.
    Frankie Maude is standing down here in West Sussex but in actual fact he may not have made the cut come May. Immigration, Whitehall waste, Overseas aid and the EU plus too many MPs – deal with the issues and stop giving us tutorials – but with the great and the good it was ever thus.

  38. Bob
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Would be sensible not to have our gas supply flowing through the Ukraine but then the EU blocked South Stream.

    • forthurst
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

      “Bulgarian companies continue their work on Russia’s South Stream natural gas pipeline project fulfilling all their contractual obligations although Russia announced last year the suspension of its project, Bulgarian [Ambassador Boyko Kotsev] said on [March 2].” TASS

      “The construction of the Bulgarian stretch was launched on October 31, 2013. However, the European Commission later started an anti-monopoly probe into the South Stream project, saying it contradicted the norms of the Third Energy Package, which requires the separation of gas production, transportation and sale to prevent gas suppliers from dominating the infrastructure.” TASS

  39. ian
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    The new con housing policy for the under 40 should push up house prices a few per cent before election and win some votes and if they win another 35 per cent by 2019. Pop go the weasel, there nothing like a bit of GDP.

  40. peter davies
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Frightening – Does the UK under any of its current treaties already bind it to crap like this?

    The political establishment really need to wake up and leave the EU sinking ship ASAP.

    Reply This is a statement of EU policy. They already have many of the powers they need to enforce this. The renewables and carbon targets rule our energy policy and create high cost energy. They plan to take additional legal powers under QMV

    • Atlas
      Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      John,

      Can the UK not claim overriding National Interest ?

  41. stred
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    This all seems to be in line with the Green movement’s grip on the EU Commission. A side story which I came across while finding out which new car to buy is the move to ban diesels. All my cars are diesel and in 5 years time, every time I leave the London home, as published on the net, I will have to pay £10 to visit anyone before midnight and then another £10 to come back after midnight. We almost bought a lovely year old diesel 308 but found it has a Euro 5 engine which will not comply. Even E6 engines are only a maybe. It is still unsold, buyers are becoming wary and prices dropping.

    As I have a lung complaint, I started to look up the reasons for this sudden panic and found that a lot of it is driven by a company based in Marlow and run by an ex-banker and with a slick website. Cleanairlondon gives an idea as to why Boris decided to go with the flow. There are estimates of deaths in London such as 5061 from particulates and 2684 from NO2. They speculate about 7500 in London and 55000 in the UK. The latest report estimates 60000 and the Green lobby is asking Pres Junker not to junk the commissions efforts but to prioritise it- or ‘condemn hundres of thousands to death’! There are tweets from one of our Meps along the same lines.

    Firstly, the figure for particulates seemed a bit odd, as the panic stems from the tenfold increase in diesels over the last decade and since 2005 many of them have been fitted with filters, which trap and burn the carbon. If the cause has been removed, the figure of 2684 deaths should have gone down. There is an article in airquality news 05.2013 reporting the study by Carslaw and Rhs-Tyler showing that newer diesels emit more NO2 than older E4 and 5 engines as a proportion of other emissions. The new killer must therefore be NO2 and new diesels must go! Google the net and you will hardly find a word against the new Green warcry. Apparently we now have the highest NO2 levels in the World in Oxford Street. But a link to the ONS on the Cleanairforlondon makes interesting reading.

    According to the Deaths Registered in England and Wales, released 29.10.2014, the deaths from lung disease stayed the same for men over the period 2003-13, while for women it only went up slightly. Other diseases went up a bit and down a bit, but the main change was the huge 3x increase from dementia. And this is thought to be because we are all living longer and can’t die of some other disease!

    But most puzzling of all is the information given by Defra on their latest measured level of air pollution site. Remember the lower legal level for NO2 is supposed to be 40mg/c.m and the horror levels in Oxford Street were 98. Current levels across the UK included:-

    Marleybone Road 90 and Westminster 49. But Eltham and Haringay 15 and Kensington 1. Outside we have Aberdeen roadside 94 and Inverness 26. In Oxford roadside 29 but Oxford not roadside 3. Canterbury 4, Eastborne and Horley 3.

    I am not a scientist, but I have a theory. If you stick a NO2 meter in a road beside a queue of old buses and taxis holding each other up or next to the still daily wait to get into the Dartford or Blackwall tunnels- or even better inside the tunnels, you will get a high reading that will scare everyone shitless. Wheras almost anywhere else you will get levels between a third and a tenth of the legal or safe limit.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of the Green lobby, in this case run by a banker.

  42. A different Simon
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Will each nation be able to decide how much spare capacity it has ?

    Will nations be allowed to retain energy security and self sufficiency ?

    Or will it be forced to rely on it’s neighbours ?

    Yet more ratcheting towards ever closer union .

    In our fear of world government we failed to notice it’s arrival and are only now beginning to realise that we are already living under it .

  43. turbo terrier
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Thought provoking and frightening, highlighting how bad things have got.

    How many will this add to the food banks and unemployment figures in the longer term?

    It is playing into the hands of UKIP and all the time we are handicapped with the calibre of the three existing leaders this country does not have a hope in hell of getting out of the mess we find ourselves in.

    How much longer can this go on?

    Way past the GE unless we have a complete total change in leadership and put in people with vision and above all knowledge of how the real world works.

  44. turbo terrier
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Somebody in the country has got the right idea.

    Why so few politicians?

    It ain’t rocket science.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2976692/Why-EU-s-plan-ban-halogen-light-bulbs-make-blow-fuse-JAMES-DELINGPOLE.html

    • Bazman
      Posted March 6, 2015 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

      Pandering to right wing anti EU nonsense on the scale of UKIP is the right idea? That ain’t rocket science.
      X ray machines where once used in shoe shops and are now banned. That wondeer material asbestos banned. In Victorian times many things where lethal and have now been banned or regulated. How absurd and pointless. where has the choice gone?!
      Welding and gouging equipment uses truly eye watering amounts of electrical energy is he going to tell me that the EU has plans to limit this too? They stupidly have to have safety standards which apply across the EU so maybe they will?!

  45. Posted March 3, 2015 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    Irrespective of the merits, or otherwise, of the EU energy policy it is depressing to read these kinds of comments.

    “There is no reason to suppose that co2 is likely to cause any catastrophic climate changes” , ” climate change nonsense ” and “AGW religion”.

    Co2 is the main non condensable greenhouse gas. If the Earth didn’t have the GH effect then it would be 33deg cooler than it is. Humanity is on track to double the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by the end of this century. Isn’t this reason enough to be just slightly concerned?

    And yet, those without any scientific knowledge, whatsoever, see fit to make such nonsensical claims! Why is it that they also tend to inhabit the more rightward regions of the political spectrum? Does that give them some extra scientific insight into the problem?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 4, 2015 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      I have some scientific knowledge, BSc DPhil in physical chemistry, and for that very reason from the start I was as sceptical of the growing “We are all going to fry” hysteria as I had been of the previous “We are all going to freeze” hysteria; and as the years have gone by since then I have been increasingly appalled by the thoroughly unscientific falsification of data and manipulation of models which has been going on, and disgusted by the systematic attempts to suppress, and even criminalise, dissent for what are corrupt, largely political, reasons.

      And as this is not the first time that we’ve seen the politicisation and perversion of science we should be able to recognise it for what it is.

      • Posted March 5, 2015 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

        Denis,

        With your DPhil, you should be smart enough to know the scientific argument is neither “we are all going to fry” nor “we are all going to freeze”.

        Rather it is that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and that doubling its atmospheric concentration will likely produce a warming in the region of 3C. The Earth, in the previous pre-glacial period, the Eemian, ~120k years ago, was naturally 2C warmer than currently. Seal levels were also 5m higher which would have meant that much of present day Eastern England would have been under water.

        Had there been Parliamentary constituencies in those days, the Tories might never have had a majority!

        You might want to check all this with your old alma-mater. I think you might have slightly lost touch with present day scientific thinking in the intervening years!

        • Ted Monbiot
          Posted March 7, 2015 at 9:18 am | Permalink

          So why if global CO2 levels are still rising has there been no rise in temperatures since 2000?
          Totally the opposite of the computer models predictions of rapidly accelerating rises from 2000.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 7, 2015 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

          Before questioning my scientific credentials you might care to say something about your own. When were you last engaged in any practical scientific research?

  46. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    So it seems energy is just another policy (like immigration) to which the politicians will say ‘sorry nothing I can do it’s Eu policy’. Don’t like the idea of road charging – tough you have got it and there is nothing you can do at the ballot box to change it.
    Ye gods how did we drift into this position ?.

    Most politicians assume that the rapid economic growth we have seen over the last 100 years (driven by access to relatively cheap energy reserves) will continue indefinitely.
    However the era of cheap easily recoverable oil and gas is coming to an end. This further power grab of the Eu will just make a bad situation even worse.

  47. Richard
    Posted March 3, 2015 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    “Nowhere does this document give us any figures on how the mighty costs of this programme will be financed.”

    Indeed and, like the policy to reduce all CO2 emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050, the technology does not yet exist.

    Clearly the sole purpose of this document is to announce that the EU will be slowly but surely taking total control of everything to do with energy.

    So just as for the “ever closer union” EU policy statement our rulers in the future will tell us that we should have realised all along that this document stated that the EU will take control of our energy production, distribution and pricing and it is now too late to do anything about it.

  48. c777
    Posted March 4, 2015 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    Time to get out methinks…..
    But then again what else do we expect when the EU’s energy policy is influenced by organisations like these?

    “The Green 10 are ten of the largest environmental organisations and networks active on the European level. They coordinate joint responses and recommendations to EU decision makers. Membership of the Green 10 alone is more than 20 million people.”

    http://www.green10.org/

    Its just incredible, the naivety or insanity of the EU’s decision makers, what’s even worse is the inability of national parliaments to refuse to implement this disaster in the making.
    They are elected to represent the British people not the EU.
    They seem to think that’s not the case.
    In fact in the instance of our own Parliament they appear to be complicit in it.
    My guess is this insanity will stop when blackouts become common place and mass unemployment starts.
    Then these fools will have to face the anger that they so rightly deserve.

  49. Matt
    Posted March 4, 2015 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    I see Bazman is on form again with his “facts”.

    I’ll content myself with the point that if it can’t make testable predictions it’s just not science. It may have science in it, but that doesn’t make it science. There’s a sprinkling of science in ghost hunting, that doesn’t mean we should believe it.
    The CO2 global warming effect is science. Modern climate change hypotheses are built on this but depend on so many weaker guesses and assumptions that I think the ghost hunting analogy is entirely justified. People like Bazman like to conflate basic Co2 global warming science with modern climate change dogma to confuse us. Don’t fall for it.

    Anything other than burning stuff is always going to be more expensive.
    I judge electricity generating technology on 2 things:
    1. What does it cost to make a Joule of energy.
    2. Can I have the Joule of energy whenever I want it.

    If a technology fails on (2) it’s not worth considering.
    If it passes on (2) then I’ll consider it.

    The rationale for this is that I know how difficult it is to store energy on a large scale.
    The battery in my laptop costs about £100 and will store 575kJ (about 160 Wh, 0.16 ‘units’) of energy.

    This is critical. Humanity has yet to develop, or even come up with a reasonable idea for, technology for storing energy on the scale on which we need it.
    Until that technology is available (or at least on the horizon), intermittent sources of energy are only practical on very small scales in specialised circumstances.

    I’d really rather use fossil fuels, but on the off change that the climate change people are partially right, I’ll pay the extra for nuclear.
    Just don’t bring me anything without an on switch as I know at least enough to know that it’s almost useless.

    • Bazman
      Posted March 6, 2015 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

      Energy has an environmental impact or cost to argue otherwise is for the birds and humanity cannot develop in a world polluted by dirt and CO2.
      How is this clean sustainable energy to be developed without any cost? Free market fairies are not going to bring it especially when any profit is just given to bosses and shareholders with no thought to the future or even the customers future costs.
      Your battery is not the only way to store electrical energy and if that storage method proves ‘viable’ that word again rarely mentioned on this site then what should it not be used?
      Should alternative energy soured become a direct threat to fossil fuel in the future what will be your argument for restricting them, because for sure there will be one?
      Its like the incandescent haters getting a big leccy bill. They then are on the road to Domestos using LED’s and the like. This is what will happen as sure as night follows day.

      • Matt
        Posted March 10, 2015 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        The whole point is that there is no viable energy storage technology. Nor does anybody have half an idea of how to make one.

        Look. I know you have your ideals and perspective on the world. That’s all very well. But you still have to choose from the list of viable options. Until energy storage technology advances a very, very long way beyond where it is now, intermittent energy sources are all but useless. Therefore wind, solar and all similar technologies are not on the list of viable options.

        It’s lunacy to start building the intermittent energy generating capacity without having the slightest idea of how we’re going to store it. Hundreds of giant wind farms across the country is not R&D. It’s political folly dressed up as environmentalism.

        Apart from the manageable problem of relatively small quantities of extremely toxic waste, nuclear works. It’s worked for decades.
        If you actually wanted to cut CO2 production, this is what you’d build.
        Not to mention the fact that there unlike energy storage technology, properly clean nuclear technology actually is on the horizon. This is where the nuclear waste actually stays in the reactor providing yet more energy until it reaches far smaller, less hazardous and more manageable quantities.

        But never mind that. Because the environmental movement don’t want a solution they want the issue. So that they can tell us all what to do. I used to be a huge supporter of conservation and genuine environmental campaigns. It’s all been taken over by climate change nonsense.

        I have a PhD in this stuff. Nuclear works, alternative doesn’t. It’s that simple.

  50. Posted March 6, 2015 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    The EU might ask itself why Germany is burning so much filthy lignite coal. Two reasons – it’s cheap and wind farms are unreliable energy generators.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page