Tim Yeo: he\’s a very naughty boy

This is insane:

The Energy Select Committee will argue in a report released on Monday that the Government is being \”deeply irresponsible\” by refusing to admit that households will be subsidising up to 10 new nuclear power stations as a result of the reforms.

However, the committee believes that wind, tidal and solar power may suffer because incentives are not tailored to each sector.

The Government favours a blanket package of measures aimed at encouraging all low carbon generation, because it has publicly committed not to subsidise the nuclear power building programme.

We don\’t atually give a shit about which technology provides us with low carbon power. We care only that we get low carbon power. So, of course, incentives and subsidies should be simple and unique. One system for all.Onshore wind should get the same deal as offshore wind, as solar PV, as tidal, as wave, as nuclear, as hydro. For what we actually want to have is that low carbon power in the most efficient manner possible. So set that one incentive and may the best system win.

Tailoring it to specific technologies is simply repeating the idiocy of the previous government, where the least efficient system, solar PV, gets the lion\’s share of the available subsidy. What sort of cretin would spend the most money on the least effective solution?

Tim Yeo, chairman of the energy select committee, said it was \”not too late\” to change proposed reforms to the electricity market to make them simpler.

\”The Government must be up front about the support it is giving to nuclear and not hide subsidies in a one-size-fits-all design for long-term energy contracts,\” Mr Yeo said.

The sort of cretin who has extensive investment interests in various green energy production technologies perhaps? As Mr. Tim Yeo does?

You cannot hope to bribe or mission,
thank God! the British politician.
But, seeing what the man will do
invested, there\’s no occasion to.

6 thoughts on “Tim Yeo: he\’s a very naughty boy”

  1. Tim writes: “We care only that we get low carbon power.”

    And he exaggerates the ‘we’ bit. A bit like the warmist lobby exaggerates the ‘catastrophic’ bit.

    What we need is the most cost-effective energy, with mixed supply to provide flexibility and security against any international political and trading problems.

    Keeping down pollution (be it sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides or nuclear waste, etc) is important, as part of the overall cost-benefit analysis. CO2 is not a pollutant, in the normal meaning of the term; neither is H2O (though people do drown).

    One cannot save the planet from an atmospheric gas that is, in historical terms, close to its all-time low. All that CO2 in fossil fuels and limestone came from the atmosphere. The planet will not complain if it goes back there.

    The evidence for human existence (let alone society) being threatened by CO2 is just plain lacking.

    Best regards

  2. Low carbon power: yes this is preferable to keep all that soot out of our lungs, but why do we need low carbon dioxide power, which is what I presume you mean?

    The risk: is that at some unidentified point in the distant future, climate will change and Mankind will be destroyed or at least brought to the brink of destruction.

    The risk level is? Approaching zero.

    This based on historic record of Mankind developing not merely despite climate change but because of it, particularly warmer climate, and Mankind”s evident ability to survive in extremes of climate, to create his own climate and becasue changes in climate takes place over long periods.

    It is hard to imagine any climate change that could bring about within a space of five years, the devastation which befell Europe in the early 40s, and from which within a decade it was difficult to believe the scale of destruction that had taken place.

  3. Surreptitious Evil

    The risk: is that at some unidentified point in the distant future, climate will change and Mankind will be destroyed or at least brought to the brink of destruction.

    The risk level is? Approaching zero.

    No – the risk is approximately equal to 1. Given a long enough timeline and the known stellar evolution of Type G2V stars.

    Erudite comment from elsewhere in the blogosphere (not mine):

    “The universe is full of the remains of civilisations that took the entirely economically sensible decision not to travel to other planets. These are intensively studied by xeno-archeologists from the few civilisations that took the risk.”

  4. If we smash politics and the scum –like Yeo–that float on its pond, then all else, including an intersteller future will be ours.

  5. The Energy Select Committee are, without exception lying thieving scumbags. There is no subsidy going on of nuclear. Inn fact government parasitism is designed to cost the nuclear industy many 10s of billions. For example Ative paid £14 billion for British Nuclear purely because they knew the government was only goi8ng to allow new plants on these sites, if they allowed any.

    The AP 1000 is available off the shlf for £700 million. Everything above that is government parasitism.

    I note that Tim “air travel is too good for the common people” Yeo says windmills will get ” blanket package of measures aimed at encouraging” which is a very long way of spelling “more subsidies”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *