Last week 101 Conservative MPs wrote to the Prime Minister expressing their concerns about the scale of subsidy being handed over to giant energy companies (usually foreign) to enable them to build uneconomic wind farms and their concern about the bias in the planning system against local objectors. Although I was an enthusiastic supporter of this letter, I could not sign it myself without resigning my position as a PPS. Following discussion with the Whip's Office, I sent a personal letter to the Sec. of State at the Dep't of Energy and Climate Change. By the time my letter landed on the DECC desk, the recipient in the big chair turned out to be Ed Davey, rather than Chris Huhne. Anyway, my letter was not confidential and it follows;
"Dear Secretary of State,
Over the last few months I have been approached by a large number of constituents who have raised their concern about the level of support there is available for onshore wind energy generation.
In these financially straightened times, my constituents believe it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines.
In the ongoing review of renewable energy subsidies, my constituencies have asked me to ensure that the Coalition Government considers dramatically cutting the subsidy for onshore wind and spreading the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures.
Finally, recent planning appeals have approved wind farm developments with inspectors citing renewable energy targets as being more important than planning considerations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it is impossible to defeat applications through the planning system. My constituents urge you to ensure that planning inspectors know that the views of local people and long established planning requirements should always be taken into account.
Yours sincerely. Glyn Davies. MP for Montgomeryshire.
I suppose you could look at my letter as No 102 on the list. Intestingly, all Conservative Assembly Members have tonight signed a letter supporting the MP's letter of last week. There is no doubt that there is a real antipathy to onshore wind blowing up in the Conservaive Party.
6 comments:
Glyn, yours is a very important letter on behalf of everyone in Wales. Thank you
Dear Glyn,
Just read this 13 Feb 2012 , maybe this is not the best place for this information,but since the majority of our news channels are not reporting it,someone needs to for the sake of our children.
Reuters: Contamination concerns growing… High radiation levels 270+ km from meltdowns — Gundersen: Over half of Japanese living in contaminated areas… Includes areas 400 km away from Fukushima.
http://enenews.com/reuters-
If everyone is happy to pay a 5 X more subsidy for Wave/Tidal Power than Wind Power, then lets go for it. To quote a well known saying “he who hesitates is lost”.
When will we come to our senses and kick Nuclear Power as it is just an accident waiting to happen.
Just to reassure JohnJ in case he's not aware - we don't have earthquakes or tsunamis in Britain.
“FRESH OFF THE PRESS FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO LOVE NUCLEAR YOU CAN HAVE IT WITH YOUR LAMB.
Published: February 21st, 2012 at 12:02 pm ET
By ENENews
Title: Chernobyl still affects Norway
Source: The Foreigner
Author: Michael Sandelson
Date: Feb 21, 2012
Today, reports have surfaced that some sheep in certain parts of Norway contain 4,000 Becquerel per kilo of meat, almost six times higher than recommended by Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) officials.
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority's Magnar Grudt tells NRK, "It's way above the allowed limit for meat trading. 600 Becquerel per kilo is the maximum permitted for sheep." [...]
" [...] we never thought we would still be measuring radioactivity in sheep today. It's unthinkable."”
Anon>
'we don't earthquakes or tsunamis in Britain'
No all we need is a power down for a certain time, i.e no power INTO the plant.
Good plot for terrorists blow up a few Pylons. Any other ideas please?
Why on earth do we complain about win power subsidies.
EACH UK HOUSEHOLD PAYS £266 FOR NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING EVERY YEAR.
Posted in News, Market by Peter Bennett Published on 06 December 2011
A recent study commissioned by Engensa has announced the results from a survey conducted by TNS that examines UK consumers’ knowledge and understanding of their energy bills.
The survey indicates a distinct lack of awareness of the true cost of energy subsidies to the UK consumer. 60 percent of respondents are unsure how much UK households pay for solar energy subsidies, with only 6 percent of those surveyed correctly answering “less than £2 per year”. Over 60 percent of those surveyed admitted that they did not know to what extent a household personally subsidises solar, with 6 percent believing that it costs “more than £100 per year” to subsidise solar technology.
To further compound the confusion over the cost of energy subsidies, 65 percent of respondents did not know the average contribution to the nuclear industry; only 4 percent correctly answered that the cost of nuclear decommissioning is “more than £250 per year.” The actual cost each UK household pays for nuclear decommissioning is £266.
Is not this chain around our children's neck shameful and immoral ?
Post a Comment