EU Referendum

Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts

Via the blogs, we learn that feed-in tariffs are a total rip-off. But how can that message possibly prevail when the BBC's "take" is that buying in to the scam offers "a great return on investment!" And, needless to say, the Beeb is also talking up the news that the world's biggest offshore wind farm off the Kent coast has been officially opened.

As always, the BBC sprays out figures, but no information. We get told that there are 100 turbines in the £780m wind farm, and that these "are expected to generate enough electricity to power 240,000 homes" – perhaps the most dishonest way going of describing the capacity of these machines.

In fact, getting proper statistics from the media is a losing battle, but Vattenfall, the project owner, has it on its website that there are 100 Vestas V90 wind turbines, with a total capacity of 300 MW. This is sufficient, it says, to supply more than 200,000 homes per year with clean energy.

By the time you take in the load factors (about 26 percent), however, and apply the rather understated government-inspired domestic consumption factor, you actually get 131,000 homes – but even then the figure is fiction. On cold, windless days, the number is zero. On a breezy summer night, when the power isn't needed anyway and the National Grid is having to pay suppliers not to produce electricity, it could be a lot more. Such are the games they play.

But there are no games when it comes to the subsidies. On top of the £40 million in electricity sales, Vattenfall will collect at least £60 million a year in Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) top-sliced from our electricity bills so that we do not notice the theft. And theft it is, an undisclosed tax paid to these rip-off merchants for producing unsustainable electricity.

Over term for the 20 years these turbines are suppose to last, we are looking at a public subsidy of £1.2 billion – enough to build a 1GW nuclear power station – a plant with a deliverable capacity more than 13 times this wind array. That is the extent of the rip-off to which we are being subjected.

And for that, it appears, we get 21 full-time green jobs. But if we gave them a million each and told them to get lost, that is not even a rounding error on the amount we are dealing with. We would get to "save" (i.e., not spend) £1.2 billion, less £0.021 billion. Instead, we pay - effectively - nearly £60m per job for the 20 years. These must be the most expensive jobs on the planet - we could even have 20 David Camerons for the price of each worker.

As with my previous thread, I ask why we tolerate this. That much, of course, is rhetoric. We tolerate it because, individually, we are powerless against the might of the state. But that will not always be the case. We need to make it so before the state ruins us.

COMMENT THREAD

Li Ka-Shing, Asia's richest man, has bought EDF's British electricity network business for £5.8bn. This is a deal we are told, that will see its £500m pension deficit for UK workers reduced by a quarter.

Advisers to Li Ka-Shing said the investor was "delighted" by the deal and could now look to buy more regulated assets in the UK. They said he had been attracted by sterling's stability and the regular returns of the UK power market.

However, there is every reason why EDF customers – and the British nation – should not be "delighted". The market has been "surprised" by the £5.8bn price tag – 45 percent over the "mooted value" – after the Hong Kong investor entered a bidding war with another consortium.

Scottish and Southern Energy, a potential third bidder, withdrew earlier in the process saying the asking price was too high considering the assets' deteriorated state. We thus have a situation where Li Ka-Shing is paying massively over the odds.

EDF, of course, is keeping hold of its much more valuable electricity generation business, and has been keen to sell off the UK distribution side in order to reduce debt after its £12.5 billion takeover of British Energy in 2008.

But, while EDF will be happy, in the nature of things, nothing is for nothing. Li Ka-Shing will want his money back. And, in a relatively competitive market, there are few options for major price increases. One other option is to "sweat" the assets, squeezing every penny profit, while cutting back on the investment.

But, if Scottish and Southern Energy felt it could not make money out of the business, despite already having a similar business in place, it is very hard to see how Li Ka-Shing can squeeze out a sufficient return. That is not a happy proposition - there must be a hidden agenda here, which does not bode at all well.

COMMENT THREAD

If I stood up, in all seriousness, and said that the moon was made of green cheese, my readers – I hope – might look a little bit askance at me, and conclude, as many already have, that I have finally lost it.

Yet, when we get ministers making assertions of the same order of impossibility, it now seems that the role of the media is diligently to record such exudations, affording inane jabbering more respect and credibility than it could possibly deserve.

Such was the case in June last year when Labour minister Lord Hunt got up on his hind feet (an impressive achievement for him), to pour out a stream of drivel, only to have the media uncritically to record his nonsense, as if it had any more value than the stuff you scrape off the sole of your shoe.

Yet, just over a year later, we have The Sunday Telegraph at it again – different minister, same drivel.

This time, it is that slime Huhne, a detestable example of a human being if ever there was one, a man who can actually state that offshore wind turbines are "incredibly competitive" in producing electricity, and have a newspaper print it, without the equivalent of a snort of derision.

The story is actually on the front page, but if you had journalists and editors worthy of their name (and pay), their front-page headline would be: "Minister claims offshore wind 'incredibly competitive'", with a list of worthies saying it isn't, the thrust of the story being that any energy minister who came out with such tosh is not fit for office.

And that really is the story. In such a vital issue as the national electricity supply, we really do have an energy minister who is not fit for office, backed by a man masquerading as prime minister whose only qualification is that he is similarly unfit.

Yet, far from a newspaper actually saying so, we get this unmitigated tripe regurgitated from the mouth of Huhne: "We have a tremendous natural resource in the Dogger Bank, which is an enormous shallow area of the North Sea, the same size as Wales ... It's relatively cheap to put wind turbines in that shallow area. It's beautifully windy so it does actually produce a lot of electricity – that is a really important natural resource for us."

This really, really is garbage, and we've said so many times. Offshore is hideously expensive and, while the North Sea may be shallow, the winter storms there are amongst the most vicious and cruel on the planet ... in part because of the shallowness of the water.

That alone makes for huge expense, and raises enormous questions about maintenance and durability, none of which have been addressed, much less answered. Yet, to base your energy policy on wind machines in these waters – in preference to nuclear, as Huhne is doing – is madness. No, it is beyond madness. It is insane, and it is about time the media started saying it, loud and clear.

But what do we get from The Sunday Drivel? Er ... an editorial telling us that "nuclear power must not be the poor relation", and offering the view that "the exploitation of renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power is undoubtedly sensible."

For "sensible" read "suicidal", and you are close. But in those two words, you also see the progression of the media from what it once was to what it has become. That is the march of progress. The only difference now between newspapers and ministers is that you can burn newspapers to keep warm.

And this must be part of the reason why, these days, the media has nothing to say to us. These days I look at the newspapers more with amazement than interest, marvelling at how they are able to fill so much space with material of such little consequence. But, as a source of information, increasingly one is forced to look elsewhere.

COMMENT THREAD

"BRITAIN faces years of blackouts and soaring electricity bills because of the drive toward green power, a leading energy expert warned last night."

That's in The Daily Express this morning. Something like it has been published elsewhere many times, particularly in The Daily Mail, by Booker and others. I've lost count of how many times I've written about it, and you would not thank me if I went back into the blog and found out.

There is not a single expert in the field who says different, who does not agree that the present "green" policy is the road to perdition. Wind does not work, solar is an expensive rip-off and the rest of the renewables don't amount to diddly squat.

Yet still the politicians prat about. There is a sort of equivalence between now and the thirties, when the politicians were ignoring the advice of the experts to re-arm. But in this case, we have the bizarre situation where the politicians are spending more, to achieve less – much less.

They really do not seem realise what is going to happen to them or their successors. We talk in our jokey way about rising up and slaughtering them all. But if you take a cold, hard look at what is going to happen to this society when the lights go out and the supermarkets shut down, slaughter is the least of what is going to happen.

These people are worse than stupid and time is running out. What is it going to take to get through to them?

COMMENT THREAD

powerstation[i-powerstation]As if the Large Combustion Plant Directive isn't doing enough damage, the "colleagues" are now working on a revision
to the infamous directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), which they are now calling the Industrial Emissions Directive.

The directive applies to virtually all production processes, including electricity generation plants, the revision taking the "opportunity" to ramp up the emission requirements.

Originally set to apply to existing plants from 2023, it now appears that the luvvies in the EU parliament are pushing to have them included by 2016, which means that up to 14 power plants could close, putting energy security at risk.

The CBI has woken up to the danger and has put out a warning, prior to the parliament vote on 4 May ... two days before our general election, when no one will be taking a blind bit of notice.

The CBI is calling for power plants to be given until 2021 to prepare for the proposed changes which, it says, "will allow other low-carbon forms of energy to be built to replace the lost capacity and ensure a smooth transition."

I have no means of knowing which way the EU parliament will vote, but even if the original text is approved, it is still bad news for us all, as it will significantly add to costs – not that you would glean this from the fawning CBI press release.

The EU parliament voted this through the first reading on 10 March which means that it is up for its second reading on 4 May. If the amendment is then endorsed, the measure goes for conciliation, where the Council of Ministers – which has agreed the 2023 transition period – will have to give ground or the measure will fall (and is thus likely to give ground).

The best bet, therefore, is for this to be stopped on 4 May, but with attention elsewhere – not least on the deteriorating Greek situation - sod's law could apply and the thing might slip though without any real drama.

If that happens, there is a good chance that the lights will go out on or around 2016. That will be the parliament after next in the UK. Whoever is then prime minister of our provincial government will have the dubious pleasure of explaining to us all how lucky we are to be in Europe but not ruled by Europe. If there was any justice, it would be that idiot Cameron, forced to eat his words, but he may be political history by then.

COMMENT THREAD

World+Bank[i-World+Bank]
The World Bank has approved the $3.75 billion loan for Eskom's 4.8GW coal-fired electricity plant in South Africa, despite the abstentions of British, US and the Dutch representatives.

Some 125 environmental groups had written to the World Bank demanding rejection of the loan. Local groups also put the British government on the spot, challenging the Labour government on its "green" credentials, calling for it to vote against the loan.

When the decision was announced, there was no immediate word on how the UK did actually vote, but a later report stated that the UK abstained. Offering a bland statement, an official spokesman for DFID said, by way of explanation: "The project raises several sensitive and potentially controversial issues which it has not been possible to resolve before this period began."

The US Treasury said it abstained due to "concerns about the climate impact of the project and its incompatibility with the World Bank's commitment to be a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation."

A Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesman said it had advised its representative to abstain, citing concerns that Eskom was not doing enough to develop alternatives to coal. "The Netherlands believes Eskom is doing relatively too little to develop alternatives to coal, so we don't think this is a good proposal," a ministry spokesman said.

There is some early reaction but we will wait to see how the greenies react en masse – they are going to hate it, not least because this will be one of the biggest coal-fired plants in the world.

Costing about £11 billion for the complete development, the first of the 800 MW units (of six) is scheduled to be on-line for the first quarter of 2012. When fully operational, in 2015, it will be burning 14.6 million tons of coal per year, with an expected life of 40-50 years. And the South Africans have ruled out any prospect of carbon capture.

You can see why the greenies are so upset. The plant will add potentially 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over term - about three times the total UK annual emissions from power stations, motor vehicles and homes. It effectively makes a nonsense of our attempts to cut our emissions, especially when India is planning six of these units, dwarfing any UK reductions.

Strangely, although The Guardian covered the loan issue on 1 April, and The Times on Tuesday, UK media response has been sluggish.

The Times was first into the fray, remarking that Britain effectively had the casting vote on the loan because of the US abstention, following with a reaction from Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser for Greenpeace.

Davis is saying: "Britain could have stopped the loan if it had wanted to but it took the easy way out. Abstaining at this late stage is effectively allowing it to go ahead. The plant will be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, paid for partly with aid money intended for the world's poor." She added: "Hopefully Britain's abstention means this will be the last plant of this kind subsidised by the UK taxpayer."

The Guardian skirts the UK dimension, instead remarking that the vote had been widely seen as a test of the Obama administration's commitment to new guidelines put forward barely three months ago, shifting aid to the developing world away from coal and fossil fuels to less polluting energy sources.

This paper also cites environmental groups, notably Karen Ornstein of Friends of the Earth, and again the focus is on the US. Says Ornstein: "I am not going to give them points for abstaining. This was totally the easy way out ... If the US were to follow its own clean coal guidance for multilateral development banks it would have had to vote no on this loan." Michael Stulman of Africa Action adds that the entire project was misguided, and would do little to help poor South Africans.

The Financial Times has environmental campaigners claiming that they were given inadequate time to respond to the proposal, saying they "will not let the matter rest". Earthlife Africa and GroundWork, two South African campaign groups, have already complained to the bank's inspection panel asserting that its rules are being broken.

These two groups issued their own press release, calling the decision a "governance disaster", declaring:

This is an assault on the livelihoods and way of life of global citizenry. Instead of using its financial resources to help developing economies leapfrog from carbon intensive development and promoting investment in clean and ultimately cheaper alternatives, such as wind and solar, the World Bank is propagating "business as usual". This is akin to fighting a fire with petrol.

On might, on that basis, expect the BBC to come in strongly, but its coverage is muted.

On the other hand, South Africa's Business Day comes to the defence of the Bank (sort of), citing its spokesman saying that the loan was brought about by "unique circumstances" including South Africa's energy crisis of 2007 and early 2008, and the global financial crisis that exposed the country's vulnerability to an energy shock and severe economic consequences.

That is as maybe, but there are other loan applications in the offing, specifically from India. It is going to be interesting to see how the Bank deals with these if it is looking for "unique circumstances" as the justification for granting approvals.

It is thus Roger Pielke Jr who puts the issue in perspective. When GDP growth comes into conflict with emissions reduction goals, he writes, it is not going to be growth that is scaled back. Further, when rich countries wanting emissions reductions run into poorer countries wanting energy, it is not going to be rich countries who get their way.

He adds that when energy access depends upon cheap energy, arguments to increase energy costs or deny energy access are not going to be very compelling. The South African coal plant decision well illustrates many of the political boundary conditions that shape climate policy. Policy design will have to accommodate these conditions, rather than ignore them or think that they will somehow go away.

That succinct summary draws the battle lines - development or greenery, but not both. Even if the likes of the UK are prepared to wreck its economy in pursuit of green obsessions, developing countries are not prepared to follow. And, so far, the NGOs have not been able to prevail. But, the battle will doubtless continue.

COMMENT THREAD

kyrgyzstan2[i-kyrgyzstan2]
Covered widely by the media, the reports of the rioting in Kyrgyzstan yesterday vary widely in tone and content. But, even if you have to drill down into the piece, not even The Guardian can conceal the reason for the unrest, which has seen protestors beat a Cabinet minister to death.

"The violent rolling protests appeared to be largely spontaneous rather than a premeditated coup," it says, eventually telling us that a "leading expert" has said the government had triggered the protests by imposing punitive increases on tariffs for water and gas. "In the last few months there has been growing anger over this non-political issue," said Paul Quinn-Judge, central Asia project director of the International Crisis Group.

"The government thought they could get away with it," he adds. "Most people agreed. But in the last few weeks we have seen several rumblings in the secondary towns and cities in Kyrgyzstan. There has also been a crisis inside government. Now it has all come together in one giant wreck."

Even the BBC is forced to concede this point but, in fact, the problem has been grumbling for more than "a few weeks". Unrest was reported by Radio Free Europe at the end of February, identifying the protestors as responding to the "electricity price hike".

There is much more to it than that, as The Daily Mail indicates, but even on 23 February the Institute for War & Peace Reporting had Timur Toktonaliev in Bishkek writing: "Soaring energy costs anger Kyrgyz", with prices for electricity having risen 100 percent and the cost of central heating shooting up by 500 percent. Clearly, energy prices have been the primary trigger of current events, something not at all made clear by this compilation of video news clips (courtesy Newsy.com):

[Loband: Object Removed -]

And therein is a lesson. For a country with a violent past, not too much can be read into it, but every society has its limits of tolerance and, where we have our own government determined to drive up energy costs, this could become a factor in triggering open dissent in this country as well.

Here, the crucial issue in Kyrgyzstan was that the prices were driven up by government fiat, albeit following a decision to remove subsidies which had enabled energy to be sold at less than the cost of production. It can be assumed, from this, that where government action is directly responsible for price hikes, governments will take the flak.

It is far too extreme to suppose that we will any time soon see a Cabinet minister beaten to death on the streets of London, although there are not a few who would leap at such an opportunity if it was presented. But it is not a happy or a stable government which relies only on constant police protection to keep its members alive and safe.

Ministers, therefore, would do well to note the events in Kyrgyzstan. Even remote possibilities are still possibilities and, the way our politicians are behaving, they could yet become probabilities and then certainties.

COMMENT THREAD

shale+gas[i-shale+gas]
It is utterly bizarre but by no means unusual that an item of huge political significance should be consigned to the business section of a newspaper. Such is the case with as story in The Times telling us: "Dash for Poland's gas could end Russian stranglehold."

This is shale gas again, the influence of which we reported last month, which is not only re-drawing the energy map of the world but re-defining the politics.

The Times tells us that American technology to produce shale gas is unleashing a scramble for drilling rights in Poland, where experts believe vast reserves of unconventional gas exist that could help to weaken Russia's grip on Europe’s energy supplies.

There are technical problems in exploiting this resource, as this recent story makes clear, but despite that ConocoPhillips is poised to launch Poland's first shale gas drilling programme next month near Gdansk on the Baltic coast.

Two other American oil groups — Exxon-Mobil and Marathon — and Talisman Energy, of Canada, are set to follow in what could be the equivalent of the North Sea bonanza, boosting reserves in EU member states by 47 percent - enough to make Poland self-sufficient for the foreseeable future.

Up to press, EU energy policy has been predicated on the supposition that the bulk of gas supplies will come from Russia and her less stable neighbours. This in turn has heavily influenced foreign policy, as well as the attitude towards renewables – the latter a reflection of the need to reduce reliance on imported energy.

As and when local supplies come on-stream, however, and the realisation dawns that the original assumptions on which policy is based are no longer valid, perceptions will change and, in their wake, policies will also have to change.

Before that, though, the balance of power will already have shifted. As each new well in Poland is drilled, Russia's power diminishes – economic and political. No longer will it have quite the same power to hold the Europeans to ransom, threatening to withhold gas supplies.

What is not realised though is that the UK is on the other end of the same geological formation that is providing Poland with its potential bonanza, and there is also the prospect of significant deposits in the North Sea being found. A new source of cheap and reliable energy, to replace dwindling stocks of conventional North Sea gas, could transform the UK's lacklustre economy – and restore our status as a net energy exporter.

Classically though, as the politicians were behind the curve in anticipating the financial crisis – with the Tories still talking about "sharing the proceeds of growth", even as the banks were beginning to crash around them – they seem to be similarly lagging, talking up the need for generations of austerity, just when we might be on the brink of an economic renaissance.

All of this, of course, might come to nothing, although the emergence of unconventional energy sources is having a profound effect on the US, so there is no reason why it should not have a similar effect here. And if it does, it will mean that the political tectonic plates are moving.

But, as always, the politicians – so immersed in weighty affairs of state - will be the last to realise.

COMMENT THREAD

Power+Station[i-Power+Station]Blogging – or, at least, writing this blog – involves a great deal of heart-searching, not least to avoid falling into the trap of pursuing personal obsessions to the detriment of objective coverage.

The question I must constantly address in selecting a topic is whether the subject matter is objectively important, or important just because I think it is.

In that context, readers may recall my post late last month where I argued that a secure supply of cheap energy underwrote the very fabric of our civilisation, and the economy, making it the most fundamental issue that any politician had to address.

Thus, it is of some comfort to see a letter to The Daily Telegraph from Miles Templeman, Director-General, Institute of Directors, who informs us of a survey of 1,800 business leaders last month.

Reflecting – and effectively vindicating – my own concern, the respondents identified "ensuring secure energy supplies" as the single most important issue facing the next government. Some 85 percent said that new nuclear power stations should be built in Britain.

Templeman goes on to say that political indecision, flaws in Britain's strategic planning system and the persistent threat of windfall taxes on the profits of energy companies have discouraged private investment in new capacity, and have left us dangerously exposed to power shortages over the next decade.

He concludes: "The next government must deal with this problem. If this results in a fast-track planning process and building lots of new nuclear power stations, so be it."

If we had grown-up politics, this would be a central issue in the coming general election. But, in the scheme of things, it is regarded as a technical, specialist concern, outside the run of mainstream politics. It is thus largely ignored by the political commentariat – a reflection of its lamentable superficiality.

It is not altogether untoward, therefore, to note the current focus of the Tories on their "big society" and then to point you to the comments of Gerald Warner, who is a tad dismissive of the idea.

The contrast, to me, points up the core ailment of contemporary politics. We have politicians sticking their noses in issues which are none of their business and where they can only do harm, while neglecting those issues where intelligent and timely intervention is essential.

It also points up another important aspect of our politics, namely that which politicians tell us is important (as a political issue) isn't necessarily so, while the issues they do ignore are not necessarily unimportant.

When, perhaps, we have the happy coincidence of politicians identifying and dealing with the really important issues, instead of what they think is important (to them), then perhaps we will have reverted to grown-up politics. In the meantime, I will continue to write about energy because, as a political issue, it really is important.

COMMENT THREAD

anglesey[i-anglesey]
A great deal is heard about the need for more nuclear energy, but we hear very little about progress in the popular media about renewing the nuclear estate.

An indication of the timescale, however, comes in the regional newspaper, The Daily Post, with an update on plans to commission a new nuclear reactor at Wylfa in Anglesey, North Wales.

The existing plant, one of the original Magnox reactors, was in the news last year when it had been taken over by the state owned Nuclear Decommissioning Agency. This meant that EU rules on state aid prevented selling electricity at below market rates to the local aluminium smelter, thus forcing its closure.

With the plant itself now due for closure in December, the site has been acquired by a consortium of E.ON UK and RWE npower, calling itself Horizon Nuclear Power. It is saying that "given the right market conditions" it aims to apply for planning approval in 2012. All things then being equal, it will construct a nuclear facility with up to 3,300MW of generation capacity. The target for completion is 2020.

This is the first of what will be the new batch of up to ten new nuclear plants, and that gives some indication of where we stand. The 2020 date is undoubtedly optimistic, and some slippage is almost inevitable, more so as already the greenies are gathering (pictured) to express their disapproval.

On that basis, the very earliest we can expect new nuclear capacity it about 2020, but possibly a good few years later. That is progress, of a sort, but rather confounds Ed Miliband's hopes that some of the new plants could be producing energy by as early as 2018.

The energy gap, therefore, is there. It is real and it is going to take a lot of gas capacity to fill it. The wind fantasy is never going to deliver.

COMMENT THREAD

perpetual+motion[i-perpetual+motion]Let's see now, we have a bunch of bureaucrats officiously developing schemes to make energy more expensive, all in a bid to force us to use less in the interests of saving the planet.

That, inevitably, means that an increasing number of people in low income groups cannot afford energy at all, or are forced to pay such a high proportion of their incomes on basic energy costs that they fall into the category defined as "fuel poverty".

To deal with that, we have another bunch of bureaucrats officiously developing schemes to compensate those people, in an attempt to ensure that these people are able to maintain at least a basic level of warmth and comfort.

Being bureaucrats, whose only real talents are in making thing more complicated and expensive, they fail dismally in their endeavours. We thus learn that the number of households in "fuel poverty" – or spending more than 10 per cent of their income on heating – has doubled to around 4.6 million this year.

Confronted with this predictable failure, what do our gifted MPs do? Ah! They suggest an even more complex and expensive scheme, better able to target the people who are missing out – one which will require even more bureaucrats and which will, in the scheme of things, prove no better than the system it replaces ... if indeed it is implemented.

But do they even consider the root cause of much of this "fuel poverty" – the fact that we have another part of the government making energy more expensive? Er ... Nooooooo. So the bureaucratic machine grinds on, the nearest thing to perpetual motion every invented, extracting more and more money from us while we get poorer and poorer – and not just "fuel poverty".

When we have a set of MPs who can put two and two together – or, more to the point, abolish two sets of bureaucrats instead of creating more – then we will have representatives worth voting for. Until then, we can only shake our heads in sorrow and wonderment, and wait for the unseasonable snow in what is, officially, British Summer Time.

COMMENT THREAD

American Thinker tells a tale of woe about the costs of "green" energy ... but then look at the advert:

Wind energy is an especially good choice when investing in green power because it is one of the cheapest and cleanest renewable energy sources available and it does not produce air pollution. The world continues to watch to see how successful these "wind farms" are going to be when put to the test of powering larger grids. If early indications are any hint, wind will literally take the world by storm and be one of the premier energy sources for the entire world.

For a minimum of $10,000, you too can have a slice of the action (results not guaranteed).

COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE

LNG_ship_online[i-LNG_ship_online]
Aside from the peripheral and most decidedly ephemeral pre-occupations of today, an event is heralded in The Times which signals that the geo-political tectonic plates are moving – with profound repercussions in the short and medium-term.

That event is the imminent completion of a $40 billion deal between the Australian oil and gas producer, the BG Group, to supply natural gas to China. This amounts to 3.6 million tons of LNG a year for 20 years, shipped from BG's proposed export terminal in Queensland.

This is by no means the first of the giant Australian gas deals but what makes this very different and very special is that this is coal bed methane, providing further evidence that this hitherto untapped resource is poised to make a significant contribution to the world's energy supply.

Alongside shale gas, it helps re-draw the global energy map, positioning huge reserves of cheap energy in easily accessible, democratic countries. By so doing, it marginalises some of the more inaccessible and unstable regimes, reducing their ability to disrupt the global economy and their political clout.

In political terms, the significance of this cannot be over-estimated. Not least, the impact on Russia and the central Asian republics is likely to be profound. Their high-cost product is proving to be less attractive and necessary, to the extent that plans to exploit some of the Siberian gas fields are already on hold.

The news today of the TNK-BP conglomerate walking away from the vast Kovykta gas field development is not entirely unrelated. The Russian market has been severely dented by the increased availability of LNG and its failure to clinch an important supply deal with China.

As importantly, emerging economies such as China (and, to an extent India) are winning the race to secure supplies of cheap energy – thus underpinning their future prosperity and stability. By contrast, Western economies – and especially the UK together with other European nations – are saddling themselves with high-cost, unreliable cul-de-sac technologies such as wind power, creating a huge drag on their productive economies.

This is what our politicians do not seem to understand. While Clinton (or whoever) might have said, "it's the economy stoopid", underpinning every modern economy is cheap and reliable energy. Thus, it comes down to "It's the energy stoopid". It really is that important, that fundamental.

Yet, as we see today, we have serried ranks of politicians seemingly determined to undermine the very basis of our economy, our prosperity and stability, throwing away the advantages which made our nation great and which we need to exploit to ensure our continued prosperity.

Collectively, they conspire to engineer what amounts to economic suicide, while they prattle endlessly over their mindless trivia. There cannot be a more desperate, deadly betrayal than this, other than the wider failure of the political classes and the media to alert us to the importance of what is going on and to mobilise protest and dissent. We deserve better than this.

COMMENT THREAD

floating+nuke[i-floating+nuke]It comes to something when even my newsagent complains about the amount of coverage in the newspapers today about the near-geriatric Samantha Cameron in pod again – a reflection of the values of the trivialised, London-centric media which is concerned only to publish items of interest to itself.

Meanwhile, in a publication which still has the elements of a real newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, we see an authored piece from Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, introducing a term which will be unfamiliar to most non-specialists and certainly the bulk of "Fleet Street" hacks and their editors.

That term is "small modular reactor", singled out by Chu as one of the most promising areas for development, an area in which the US is anxious to lead in order to give it a "key competitive edge".

These are mini nuclear power plants. Typically, they would be less than one-third the size of current plants, their compact designs allowing them to be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. They would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival.

That said, the amount on offer from the US government for research is fairly modest, at $39 million, but it is enough to inspire General Atomics to press ahead with a design for what is being called the "Next Generation Nuclear Plant program". As part of this programme, Westinghouse Electric is also planning to design a pebble bed reactor.

Reviewing the international field, what comes over is the extraordinary range of projects under development, including a Russian idea for using their KLT-40S reactor designed for their fleet of icebreakers.

The plan here is for a 150 MW unit producing 35 MW of electricity (gross) and up to 35 MW of heat for desalination or district heating. Two working units can be mounted on a 20,000 ton barge for use at suitable locations, providing immediate supplies without the need for major site preparation works. The first unit is due to be completed next year (pictured – click to enlarge).

A US project under development is the "Hyperion Power Module", a 25 MW unit measuring five feet by seven, easily portable with no moving parts. It can supply electricity for 7-10 years without refuelling, before being replaced. The manufacturers claim they will be able to deliver units from 2013 onwards at a price of $50 million.

Toshiba, in Japan, has two "micro-nuke" projects in progress, one called the Rapid-L, which will deliver 200 kW, and another called 4S – the "Super-Safe, Small & Simple" nuclear battery system. This would be factory-built, transported to site, installed below ground level, and would drive a steam cycle generator. Sizes range from 10-50 MW.

After fears that the programme had stalled, Westinghouse is considering further investments in the South African pebble bed project while, this month Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, reached an agreement with the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Ltd for the development of a 200 MW reactor.

China, on the other hand, has already had an experimental pebble bed unit running since 2003, which has passed all safety tests, including a deliberate coolant shut-down. This led to the reaction progressively diminishing, dying away within three hours well within safe temperature limits.

A larger version, the HTR-PM, was approved in principle in November 2005 and construction is starting this year. It is now planned to have two 250MW reactors coupled to a single 210 MW steam turbine. This is to pave the way for an 18-unit (3x6x210MW) full-scale power plant on the site in Shandong province.

This technology could redefine our perception of nuclear generation as the reactors can easily be throttled up and down between 40-100 percent without loss of thermal efficiency, and with rapid change in power settings. This takes them away from merely providing base load and gives a capability for dealing with peak load requirements as well.

Also developing their own reactor designs are Argentina and South Korea, both with prototypes at an advanced stage. France has developed the NP-300 PWR from submarine power plants, aiming it at export markets for power, heat and desalination. It has passive safety systems and can be built for applications of 100 to 300 MW.

Nowhere in the long list of projects under development, however, will you find the UK mentioned. Our media is besotted with Samantha, while the fantasy of renewable generation dominates the consciousness and our MPs get worked up about the non-problem of nuclear waste - leaving the French to work on waste minimisation.

In a country where the biggest growth industry is environmental managers, climate change consultants and carbon traders, we drown in a sea of trivia as the world leaves us behind, to wallow in our decline.

COMMENT THREAD

CBM[i-CBM]The wind may not make the bird choppers go round as fast as the greenies would like, but it does move the ice in the Arctic. That, at last, Geoffrey Lean is conceding, catching up with the rest of us.

Meanwhile, from an excellent report on the wind experience in Ontario, it seems that the bird choppers there are just as useless as they are here – which does not exactly come as a surprise. Once again, also, we see the familiar refrain about the need for back-up, thus duplicating the network at huge expense.

Another death knell for this useless fantasy comes with the news on developments in coal-bed methane (CBM), which is now being taken so seriously that Royal Dutch Shell and PetroChina have purchased technology pioneers Arrow Energy for £2.1 billion.

With coal seams that stretch from the Pennines to the Irish Sea rich in methane gas, work is also in progress to exploit this resource in the UK, with suggestions that there is enough gas to generate electricity to supply seven percent of UK domestic needs for 15 years. A pilot plant already operating at a site between Widnes and Warrington.

With shale gas, this technology is another "game changer" which will take the edge off energy shortage problems – at the very least buying enough time to get the much-delayed nuclear estate renewal in hand. The crisis that might be is very much beginning to take on the mantle of the crisis that never was.

As always though, it takes non-specialists a while to catch up – and the greenies even longer, who must hate the idea that their doom-laden projections of energy shortages are not going to materialise. And, as new supplies flow, renewable energies becomes less and less attractive. The wind not only bloweth, but changeth. The bird choppers are doomed (or would be if the politicians had any sense).

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]The week before last, Booker had a go at the Tories on their energy policy, picking out, amongst other things, their enthusiasm for carbon capture.

I'd already expressed some reservations but the one thing of which you cannot accuse the Tories is of being a listening party. Their latest policy document calls for speeding up of the programme, despite the technical problems and the fact that there is no certainty that large-scale carbon storage is even feasible.

With perfect symmetry, however, the issue has been debated in the Scottish Parliament (pictured), following which it voted by a clear majority against plans for new coal-fired power stations, on the basis that it did not accept that carbon capture was viable.

Scottish ministers have been touting CCS as their get-out, but MSPs weren't buying it, citing exactly the same work that Booker and I had relied on. While they are thus refusing permission for any coal-fired generation, however, we would take a different view – ditch CCS and just get on with building high efficiency coal plants.

We did venture an opinion earlier that Scotland and England seem to be in a race to see which can run out of electricity first, and this puts Scotland well in the lead. One can only hope – for the sake of the Scots - that the generators get on with building CCGT plants, although the MSPs seem mad enough to stop them as well.

That notwithstanding, the Tories, locked into their greenie mantras, seemed determined to dig themselves – metaphorically – into a hole under the North Sea, and commit us to the best part of £4 billion for this fruitless exercise.

Assuming they get elected, this and the rest of the policy they are adopting is set to cost us in the region of £20 billion, over and above that which is necessary to maintain an electricity supply, which is fairly good going for just one policy area.

I would like to imagine that, had the Tories comes clean – so to speak – and told the public that their greenery was a cul-de-sac and they had come up with a stunning new plan to save us £20 billion, they would by now be on their way to a landslide victory.

But we will never know if that could have been the case. The Tory rule of politics seems to be that when you are in a hole, dig deeper and fill it with carbon dioxide, leaving the public to pay the bill.

It really isn't carbon dioxide we should be burying.

COMMENT THREAD

Con+energy[i-Con+energy]
There are four tranches here in what has been a developing post, expanding as different aspects of the policy are explored. However, this is so much like shooting fish in a barrel that further exploration seems unnecessary, and a little tedious. Clearly, the Conservatives have not been able to get to grips with the idea of an effective energy policy. For what it is worth, therefore, the narrative starts here:

A lack of coherence

Whether you agree with it or not, a useful measure of a policy produced by a political party is its coherence – whether it actually makes sense within the parameters it sets itself. Taking a deep breath and diving into the Conservative Party green paper on energy policy, that is what one needs to look for – and it is something you will not find.

Page 26 sinks the entire edifice. It is there that one learns of the abhorrence of permanent energy subsidies, which "are ultimately paid for by consumers – whether as additions to their energy bills or through taxation." Energy markets, therefore, "must be sustained without permanent subsidy to any form of generation."

Thus we fund that, where subsidies are required, "it is with the restricted and time-limited purpose of overcoming the initially higher costs of the research, development and deployment of emerging technologies."

If we now go back to page 20, we see advocated not only the perpetuation of the system of feed-in tariffs that will be launched in April, but a massive extension of the system. There is, of course, no reference to cost, or duration, but the current system is based on commitments of 20-25 years.

We can, of course, play with words here, but in political terms, that length of time is, effectively, permanent. It will most likely see me out.

But there is another dynamic at play here – the careful choice of the battlefield, and the closing down of the discussion. The Conservatives chose to major on "permanence", not cost. Consumers, on the other hand, might prefer a very small "permanent" subsidy as against a massive, "non-permanent" subsidy lasting 20-25 years.

Needless to say, that is not one of the options on offer. The battleground has thus been defined – we can be ripped-off mercilessly, as long as it is not "permanent".

The illusion of value for money

For want of coherence, however, this Green Paper prefers to playing to the gallery. Choosing the theme "value for money" (page 13), and picking words they know their readers will want to see, the authors tell us that: "For businesses and for households, energy is a major component of their costs."

No shit, Sherlock!

Government, we are thus wisely informed, "should seek to minimise the costs of energy to consumers." And so we learn that: "Trading arrangements should expose, not distort, the full costs of each form of energy."

If that was the cases, of course, the hideously expensive forms of electricity generation, such as wind solar power, would fall by the wayside. In an undistorted market, we would go for nuclear, coal and gas.

But, built into the Green Paper is an inherent and fatal contradiction. Not only do we require energy, the paper helpfully tells us that: "We are required to raise our proportion of renewably-sourced energy to 15 percent from 2.5 percent today" and, "We have committed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 34 percent from 1990 levels".

The Conservatives have fully bought into these targets, which means massive costs. The one thing not on offer, therefore, is value for money.

Instead, contrary to their professed aversion to distorting the market, they aim to develop the UK's very own version of "cap and trade", with a floor price for carbon on the Climate Change Levy (page 16). They then intend to apply it to electricity generators, using it as a top-up charge when they think the EU's ETS carbon price is too low.

Thus, the Conservative idea for bringing us "value for money" is to take the utterly mad EU scheme and add to it with one of their own, making it even more expensive. Then, by favouring insanely expensive renewables, they aim to distort the market by making investment in the most inefficient forms of electricity generation more profitable than conventional generation.

And this is what is supposed to be a Conservative policy?

Being different

"Ultimately the cost of achieving a diverse and resilient energy system has to be paid for by consumers. Reducing that cost depends on incentivising the necessary investment in the most economically efficient way – which is what this reform will deliver," says the green paper (page 17).

"We will reduce costs to consumers and risks to investors by allowing feed-in tariffs to be used for future investments such as round three of the offshore wind development programme and wherever this would offer better value for money to the public and reduce the cost of capital for investors," it then goes on to say (page 20).

Our actions are "focused on ensuring that Britain has a more robust, more diverse, less polluting and lower cost supply of energy," we are then told (also page 20).

"Our policy aims to reduce the rise in consumer prices compared with what would happen if Labour's policies were to continue" (page 24), the legend continues.

"In the coming decade, the biggest challenge ... will be in achieving Britain’s targets under the EU Renewable Energy Directive ... Because so little progress has been made on renewables under Labour, the drive to reach our committed level now has to be made over an inappropriately compressed timetable, with all that implies in terms of cost" (page 24), is the next offering.

And so we come to: " ... we will reform energy policy with aim of reducing and offsetting the cost of the investment required. It is not possible to say that the cost of electricity in the uncertain future will be less than the cost in the past, when fossil fuels were cheap plentiful and secure. Our aim has, therefore, to be different: it is to ensure that the cost of energy will be lower than it would have been had Labour's policies continued. (page 25)"

That is our future – we will pay more, but not quite as much as we would have had to pay under Labour. But, given that the Conservatives neither cost their ideas, nor offer an analysis of Labour's costs, we only their word for it.

However, this policy makes a great play of reducing the cost of investment (in renewables) while seeking to reach the EU target. Our best hope of savings, though, is the current of muddle, where the uncertainties have dissuaded investment in the ruinously expensive renewable technology.

To that extent, the best defence we have is Labour's incompetence – if that's what it is. This allows the utilities quietly to get on with building a new generation of CCGT plants – cheap and highly efficient – while playing lip service to the renewable quota.

Thus, while Labour's headline policy might well be more expensive than the Conservative plans, its real policy is actually one of constructive failure – or "benign neglect" if you prefer.

Under those circumstances, a much desired failure to meet the renewables quota is far less expensive than a heroic success, which is cheaper on paper but in fact costs a whole lot more. If being "different" means a zealous drive towards meeting EU "commitments" at a theoretically reduced but actually massively increased cost, then we need to invest in failure.

And Labour seems to be very good at that.

A capacity guarantee?

Now entering extremely murky territory, the green paper addresses the very real issue of insufficient generating capacity (page 15). The Conservatives believe that developers should be incentivised to build enough generating capacity to provide a reliable electricity supply at times of peak demand.

In this, they recognise the problems arising from the ongoing loss of old power stations and the increasing penetration of variable forms of generation, such as wind power. If, as is the case, wind continues to be given preferential access to the grid, then conventional standby sets will only called upon to deliver at peak periods, and when the wind drops.

The power supplied by these units will be very expensive, meaning – as the green paper suggests – that "price spikes could get even spikier", as the grid has to pay eye-watering spot prices to keep the system running.

It says something of how far the Conservatives have departed from their traditional principles that they expect this to provoking public pressure for regulatory curbs on prices which could make back-up capacity uneconomic.

The problem thus having been created by the regulatory requirement for renewables (and the regulatory-mandated market distortions), this then creates price peaks in conventional generation. Yet the party seems quite at home with the idea of regulatory controls, which make the provision uneconomic.

Rather than address the original distortions, of course, the Conservatives are intent on exacerbating them, and then they propose other interventions to overcome the consequences. One of the suggestions is "to acquire the power to secure the new capacity required – either directly, as a requirement on suppliers to have sufficient contracted capacity available."

One really cannot see the government actually building its own power stations – which is what the first part of this statement appears to mean – which leaves forcing utility companies to build capacity. And how would it do that? And, bearing in mind the restrictions on government under EU state aid rules, who would pay?

Unsurprisingly, no detail is offered, leaving us to move on to another option – capacity payments. This, as the description would imply, are payments to generators simply for having the capacity available. The Labour government has already abandoned this system but the Conservatives would consider reintroducing it, with a new regulator to determine and administer the payment system.

Remarkably, this is the very antithesis of a market system. And, whatever its failings, the market is far better at judging the market. Administratively set capacity payments are more likely to distort energy prices and result in over-investment, leading to even greater costs than the system was set up to avoid. Yet here we have the Conservatives going for a statist, bureaucratic, regulatory approach.

This tells us a great deal about a party that aspires to government - perhaps all we need to know.

COMMENT THREAD

Leaf--001[i-Leaf--001]You can tell that civilisation as we know it is coming to an end when they call a car "The Leaf", the new Nissan electric fantasy which is going to cost the British taxpayer £20.7 million in grants, topped up with a soft loan from the European Investment Bank of £197.3 million.

We are told that this thing will have an average range of 100 miles and a top speed of 90mph, although the egregious hacks writing this stuff forget to tell us that it is one or the other – not both. They don't tell either that you need a calendar rather than a speedometer to gauge the acceleration.

Nor, of course, do they tell you that, in terms of net efficiency, the electric car performs far less well than a petrol-driven motor, by the time you have taken into account the power station and transmission losses, to say nothing of the conversion losses in charging the batteries.

And then, since about 40 percent of our electricity comes from coal, and will do so until it is replaced by gas generation, the odds are that this wonderful "green" car will be driven by fossil fuels, only very inefficiently at one stage removed.

None of this, of course, will impinge in the slightest on the greenie brain – or that of Mr Brown who is so proud of this exercise in applied fatuity. But, not only – as we saw yesterday – do green issues bring out the meanness, they make you stupid as well.

A far better option – in terms of energy efficiency, thus reducing your "carbon footprint", if that's what turns you on – is to use gas power directly. Or, rather than use coal to produce electricity, use it to produce petrol and drive a sensible car.

That is certainly an option the being looked at. According to the Globe and Mail, researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington have developed an economic and clean way to turn lignite, the cheapest kind of coal, into synthetic crude which can then be refined into petrol.

This is the answer to a gas-guzzler's prayer. Canada, for instance, has more energy in its "proven, recoverable" reserves of coal than it has in all of its oil, natural gas and oil sands combined: 10 billion tons. The world has 100 times more: one trillion tons. These reserves hold the energy equivalent of more than four trillion barrels of oil. They are scattered in 70 countries, mostly in relatively easy-to-mine locations and mostly in democratic countries.

The United States alone has 30 percent of the world's reserves, and if the technology can be scaled up successfully, this could represent a historic moment in energy production – a secure supply of petroleum and liberation from the tyranny of the Middle East and other unstable regions.

What with the promise of shale gas and the potential for thorium-powered nuclear reactors – and access to a plentiful supply of fuel – there is no prospect of an energy shortage some time soon, not for a hundred years or more. And by that time, we will doubtless have other technological solutions, not that any of us will be around to care.

But, of course, that does not account for today's greenies, who are intent on driving us back into the economic dark ages, saddling us with dead-end technology, all in pursuit of their mad obsession over global warming. Thus, do we see public money frittered away on "The Leaf". I cannot wait for autumn.

COMMENT THREAD

shale[i-shale]A run of articles over the last week, most notably from The Economist and The Financial Times, highlighted the transformation in the energy industry, as increasing amounts of shale gas reach the market.

That, with other unconventional sources of gas, seem set to banish the nightmare prospects of energy shortages for the foreseeable future, providing a substantial source of new fuel for electricity generation.

We are on the verge of moving to an era of shortage to one of plenty. The geo-political and economic ramifications of this are substantial, and the longer-term impact on our energy policy is, to say the very least, interesting.

We picked this up over 18 months ago in a piece written in August 2008, although I should have read my own work more carefully before writing this and this.

In an online briefing, however, energy expert Nick Grealy tells us that the very recent changes in natural gas extraction technologies must lead to an update of UK energy thinking. The only uncertainty lies in how up-to-date UK policy will be, he writes.

While the overall impact will be positive, it must be emphasised that there will be a period of disruption. Widely, strongly and long held opinions over key issues will be found to be no longer applicable in a world where accessible natural gas reserves have grown so rapidly. All current assumptions on UK energy policy, therefore, need to be revisited and updated according to new realities, not past dogma.

Not least, several assumptions underlying the 2007 Energy White Paper are no longer valid, simply because it was predicated on a natural gas shortage that no longer exists. Most energy experts, and the general public have been told for many years that UK natural gas is in terminal decline, prices will inevitably rise and that "security of supply" will be a continuing issue.

But, Grealy says, UK natural gas production levels will be increasingly irrelevant in an over-supplied globalised market. Over supply will lead to lower prices which in turn may make carbon taxes to tackle carbon production and use a more palatable alternative.

Natural gas is not a "low carbon alternative", we are told. But the public will be aware that it is a least carbon intense and more economical alternative to oil and coal. Who will make the case? None of the political parties and few energy or environment professionals appear to have the knowledge about the new gas paradigm and an up-to-date view.

The potential is for natural gas to be a bridge to a no carbon future, even as it provides a substantial reduction in carbon use in the short to medium term. This is a positive good news message that all should welcome. Any energy actors who act in an overly sceptical or obstructive manner will simply be swept away by events.

Not everyone shares Grealy's optimism, viz this piece in The Times at the end of last year. But Grealy is unrepentant. He is convinced that the good times are about to roll.

This is definitely one to watch. What price renewable energy when gas is plentiful and far cheaper?

COMMENT THREAD

Booker+energy[i-Booker+energy]The statement last week from the Met Office that they were no longer going to rely on their seasonal forecasts provoked obvious responses, but one wonders whether the implications have fully sunk in.

While the headline "barbeque summer" predictions have provided endless entertainment, these forecasts have a strategic purpose. They are used by local authorities, power generators and others for planning purposes. And it was last year's optimistic forecast that contributed to the lack of preparedness for the hard winter, leaving many highway authorities short of grit and salt.

Thus, if the Met Office is no longer going to offer forecasts to public utilities and other commercial users, these will be "flying blind", and will either have to plan on a worst case scenario or risk not being able to deliver if we experience next winter anything like we have just suffered – or even worse.

No more so it this the case than with electricity generation. During the intense cold last month, reserve capacity was briefly down to seven percent. An outage by a major power station would have precipitated power cuts, leaving vast areas of the country in the dark and cold.

Delays and incompetence by successive administrations, and the slavish adherence to the "green" agenda means that we are already operating with inadequate margins. And, to that extent, we are already living on borrowed time. Our lights stay on in the winter entirely by luck, rather than judgement.

For sure, the utilities are responding to an expected shortfall by building new CCGT plants, which means that price rather than power cuts may be the future issue. But that does not rule out the possibility of major breakdown, or a deterioration in the political situation elsewhere in the world, that leaves us short of power.

Thus, the Booker column today is particularly apposite, with him pointing out that, in order of political priorities, the security of our energy supplies probably comes second only to dealing with the mounting deficit.

The specific issues that Booker raises have been rehearsed so frequently on this blog that they need no repetition, other than to point out that Mr Cameron seems to be on the brink of achieving what many might have thought impossible – delivering an energy policy which is even worse than Labour's.

What is particularly damning though is that the Tory response, as is so often the case, is simply to ignore the issue. One assumes that they hope that by not talking about it, it will not become a debating point during the election campaign.

However, that may be a forlorn hope. Last week, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband – possibly sensing that there is political advantage to be gained - challenged Cameron to spell out his "renewable energy strategy", claiming that conflicting signals from Conservatives were "creating uncertainty for industry".

Miliband homed in on the inconsistencies in the Tory approach to wind power, where they are opposing onshore turbines, allowing free rein to Conservative controlled councils which have turned down 60 percent of applications for new wind farms.

This challenge, if repeated, may force Cameron out into the open, fronting a repost with his commitment (so far unpublished) to ramp up micro-generation. This stance could propel energy policy into the mainstream as the likes of Monbiot pitch in and tear the Tory plans to shreds. That will sour both the greens and the hard-headed realists, leaving the Boy with another political wreck on his hands.

One can see the Boy's problems though. The only short-term answers to this mess are to commit to lifting the closure threat to the coal-fired powers stations, imposed by the EU's large combustion plant directive, supporting the rapid development of new coal-fired plants, expanding the coal industry and ditching the renewable policy altogether.

In the longer term, he needs to put the nuclear energy programme on an emergency footing, with the sort of priority afforded to it that is usually only given in wartime.

Not only would that be personally impossible for Cameron to do – he is, after all, a sincere believer in the warmist cult – it would destroy his party's carefully nurtured, if fading, green credentials. Tellingly, it would also put him on a collision course with the EU. None of those things the Boy could even contemplate. The fact that a robust, no-nonsense approach might win him the election is neither here nor there.

Thus, it seems, the Tories will continue to attempt a fudge, skirting round the edges, trying to avoid a real debate. Labour will continue cherry-picking inconsistencies while studiously avoiding mention of their own, aided and abetted by the political claque and the media lobby correspondents who are completely out of their depths.

Yet, despite their self-important prattling, this time they may not have it all their own way. There is now the growing influence of the internet. Legend has it that president Obama's online presence and e-mail campaigning made a significant contribution to his electoral victory last year, and this is provoking discussion on this side of the Atlantic on the role the "new media" will play in the election.

Some pundits appear to be believe it will be quite limited, not least as the overtly political blogs have degenerated into poor replicas of MSM political diaries, concentrating on low-grade party political tat and personality politics.

But that is to ignore the wide range of "technical" blogs such as Watts up with that, which have readership levels which outstrip even the biggest of the British political blogs. They are dealing with highly political issues – real politics instead of Westminster bubble gum. And it is real politics, such as whether the lights are going out, which may increasingly call the shots and decide where votes are cast.

Unless Mr Cameron can answer satisfactorily the deceptively simple question, "how are you going to keep the lights on?", he may be riding for a fall.

COMMENT THREAD