Pages

September 27, 2010

The cost of ONE 'green job', you wonder? In UK it's 4.5 million dollars per year.


EUReferendum does a nice job of presenting the latest chapter of the ongoing farce that is Green Power.
Booker, thank goodness, will get slightly more coverage with his column than I did with my post covering the same territory.

Certainly, it cannot be said often enough – especially as it is being ignored by the BBC and almost all of the media – that "the world's largest wind farm" opened off the Kent coast last week, is going to cost us £1.2 billion in subsidies over the 20-year working life of this installation. The corrected headline, by the way, reads "billions" and not "millions".

At a time, supposedly, of economic stringency, it is offensive beyond measure that this government – like its predecessor – is encouraging such huge amounts of money to be top-sliced from our electricity bills, "by far the most important and shocking aspect of this vast project" writes Booker.

But what is equally offensive is the silence of the media on this aspect. Those outlets which have reported on the installation have been completely silent on the fact that, for the subsidy we are being forced to pay, we could have a 1GW nuclear power station, which could yield a staggering 13 times more electricity, with much greater reliability.

The obscenity does not stop there, though. The Swedish owners, Vattenfall, may have commissioned 100 turbines but they are only the first stage of a project eventually designed to comprise 341 of them. When complete, this will generate subsidies of £1 billion every five years.

And even then, that is not the end of it. A final claim for the Thanet wind farm (which Mr Huhne boasts is "only the beginning") is that it will create "green jobs" – although the developers say that only 21 of these will be permanent.

Now, when you work it out, each of these are costing, in "green subsidies" alone, £3 million per job per year. That is £57 million for each job over the next 20 years. The Government gaily prattles about how it wants to create "400,000 green jobs", which on this basis would eventually cost us £22.8 trillion, or 17 times the entire annual output of the UK economy.

9 comments:

The Underground Pewster said...

Can you say, Gone with the wind?"

Anonymous said...

Something is not adding up.

What pray tell are they doing that should cost them 1.2 billion# a year after these are built. It is like some kind of underground government or something. Who are they paying that too?

I am thinking black opps.

Sincerely

Ron

sig94 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sig94 said...

Of course it adds up. Those dollars are already earmarked for Al Gore's buddies. Ya gotta follow the money. This is all tied up in carbon credits where "green" power is supported by those investors who bought the carbon credits. They're the ones who receive the subsidies through dividends. Where do the dividends come from? Easy - from the rate payers who are forced by the government to pay inflated prices for green power.

And they don't even have the decency to wear latex gloves when they ram it up your ass.

LL said...

The Los Angeles Times ran a story last week on the City of Los Angeles' stimulus funds. The city estimate was US$2.2 million per shovel-ready job (paid to the worker at minimum wage).

DC said...

Shovel-ready? If that is not a Washington, D.C. phrase ...

banned said...

BBC Radio News (and probably TV) duly parroted "...300MW of electricity, enough to power 200,000 (or even 240,000) homes." in an effort worthy of Pravda with no mention of what happens on windless days or subsidies; a real Tractorstats broadcast.

In a similar way my citys bus service is not run for the benefit of its passengers but in a way that maximises local authority subsidies for its private company provider.

Nickie Goomba said...

Banned said it best... What happens when the wind stops?

Anonymous said...

Ah so it is subsidi.....I mean black opps....