Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Charles Stanley Logo
 
 
Tuesday, 9th February 2010

Bernard Ingham: The next crisis will leave us all in the dark

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 October 2008
ISN'T life a hoot? After 10 years as Chancellor of the Exchequer and one as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has discovered "the weaknesses of unbridled free markets". No wonder he didn't see the debt crisis coming. But then he wouldn't have, would he? He had banished boom and bust.
As he is clearly a late developer, he will not have spotted the next two crises on the horizon. It is going to be a close run thing which hits us first – inflation or a power shortage. But you can see them coming as clearly as any approaching rainsto
rm over the Pennines.

Pensioners would say that inflation has already hit them hard. Theirs is put at more than 13 per cent compared with the official entirely unbelievable figure of 5.2 per cent. But we ain't seen nothing yet. You cannot fling hundreds of billions at the banks, demand that they continue to lend as they did irresponsibly in 2007 and then spend and borrow yourself like a demented fraudster without debauching the currency through humdinging inflation.

We are back to where we started before Margaret Thatcher tamed
the tiger.

Equally, you cannot have as daft an energy policy as the UK's without running into severe trouble. It doesn't add up and is failing on all counts.

It is doing nothing to secure our electricity supply without which no modern nation can call itself civilised. The Government has known for a decade that we shall lose a third of our generating capacity through age and infirmity within the next 10 years.

Yet no replacement power stations are being built, apart from totally useless wind "farms". Ed Miliband, a "green" Doncaster MP who has become head of the new Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), is predictably dithering in the face of the fanatics over whether to sanction more coal-fired power stations.

The Government witters on about fuel poverty while it rushes headlong to give 100 per cent subsidies to wind developers, the fat cats of the energy scene, whose electricity is the dearest form of carbon reduction yet devised by man.

Yet the wind revolution is grinding to a halt in the face of public revulsion at the desecration of landscapes and ravaged property values, rising costs and technical problems. And, of course, wind does little to reduce greenhouse gases, the sole justification for its development.

The Government's belated commitment to nuclear power has lost momentum with the formation of the new DECC, with the celebrated Joan Ruddock, of CND fame, as a junior Minister. You couldn't make it up. What is more, while the Prime Minister says "we do not live by markets alone", the Government insists that nuclear, which brings security of supply, cheap power and carbon reduction, is left to that very market while it hugely subsidises wind – a form of power that cannot tick any of those boxes.

The sheer loopiness of UK energy policy is demonstrated by three simple examples. In Scotland, more than 14,000MW of wind capacity is operating, approved, planned or proposed yet the cross-border grid can carry only 2,250MW south to consumers.

Such is the sheer manipulation of the subsidy system that it has reduced our largely carbon-free hydro-electric generating capacity because the owners have engineered down their plants to qualify for hand-outs. And, believe it or not, nuclear, which emits next to no greenhouse gases, still has to pay the climate change levy designed to reduce carbon emissions.

Against this background, you will not be surprised to discover that,
to "green" acclaim, the first action of the MP for Doncaster North in his new role as Energy Secretary has
been to raise the UK target for eliminating carbon emissions from 60 to 80 per cent of the 1990 level by 2050 without having a clue as to how to do it. So what, you may say, he has 41 years to do it in. Ah, yes, but for the foreseeable future only wind and nuclear can replace carbon-rich coal, oil and gas.

My engineering friends calculate that to hit that 80 per cent target we shall need to build another 233,300 2MW wind turbines (on which we could not rely) or 162 nuclear power stations. Don't ask me where we would put all that little lot, assuming we could build them. Currently. Britain has only 2,500 wind turbines and 10 nuclear power stations.

You now understand why the Great Gordon mucks up your life. He can't run a whelk stall. Have fun brushing your teeth in the dark.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 October 2008 8:22 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Yorkshire
 
Prev
1
Next
1

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 22/10/2008 16:53:13
Bernard Ingham forgets that it was Mrs Thatcher that began the trend to privatisation. Gordon Brown can only regulate the electricity industry - he cannot build a power station - only allow the private sector.

The "credit crunch" has one great advantage in that uneconomic projects like building a nuclear power station will have great difficulty in finding funds. The daft carbon trading idea was supposed to balance the nuclear losses, but with rising prices for gas and coal, the fossil fuel fired stations that are to be levied to provide the credits for the nukes will go bust if they are made to subsidise their rivals.

Competition is supposed to keep prices down, but inevitably means a few brown-outs as happens in the US where spare capacity is marginal.

Bernard Ingham helped the free market to prevail - for that we are eternally grateful, for it will mean no more nukes! He should rejoice in it, rather than bemoan its consequences.
2

Tomhow,

Wetherby 24/10/2008 10:55:49
Thank you Mr. Ingham for feeling sorry for pensioners. Pity that your sorrow did not extend to opposing Margaret Thatcher's decision to break the link between the State pension and average earnings, the move which Barbara Castle introduced to protect older people from the ravages of inflation.
When Mrs. Castle announced the improvement to pensions to the Commons, she explained that the move would be paid for by an increase in National Insurance contributions.
Prime Minister Thatcher broke the link and the result is that the State pension is almost £30 a week less than it would have been under the Castle formula. Mrs. Thatcher conveniently forgot about the increase in NI contributions and the extra revenue was maintained to pay out unemployment benefits needed after the Iron Lady had destroyed the country's industrial base and threw millions of workers on to the dole.

Tom Howley, Wetherby


3

Pete T,

Herefordshire 24/10/2008 11:12:52
One quick point.

Bernard Ingham has in the past been employed as a spokesman for the nuclear power industry. He has appeared on Newsnight at least once in that capacity. I don't know if he is still in this position but it would be have been good in the cause of transparency for him to declare this interest. Will he do so now?
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.