Skip to content

Gatwick Join Renewable Con

January 20, 2017
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Mark Rogers

 

image

http://mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/2017/gatwick-becomes-first-uk-airport-to-join-global-renewable-electricity-alliance.aspx

 

This is no more than green virtual signalling. There is only a given amount of renewable electricity available in the UK, so whether Gatwick buys it, or somebody else, is immaterial.

Of course, they don’t say where they will get their power from at night when there is no wind.

Usually “green electricity” providers only pledge to buy as many units of renewable electricity as they sell over the year as a whole. This does not mean every unit they sell actually comes from renewable sources. When there is none available, they buy in from other sources, but then sell enough renewable back into the market at other times to offset it.

I would be slightly more impressed if Gatwick offered to shut down their operations when the wind is not blowing.

They also might have a little more credibility if they paid the full subsidy for all of the renewable power they are consuming, instead of expecting everybody else to cough up.

 

Finally, they state:

In Autumn last year, Gatwick announced that it would be the first airport in the world able to dispose of Category 1 waste on site – and convert it into energy to heat the North Terminal.

 

They might like to tell us whether this qualifies for subsidies under the RHI scheme, all of course funded by taxpayers.

Advertisements
18 Comments
  1. Athelstan permalink
    January 20, 2017 4:32 pm

    Rom the inset and I quote:

    “alliance creating enough renewable energy demand to power Holland each year” ?

    Make of that what you will [or can].

    On all other things, though it [London-Sussex by the sea and South east airport] is by far a more preferable port to fly off to destinations foreign than is the Iz lamic republic of eefrow. On most other things not least, Gatwick them paying homage to the green maniacs [irony bypass?]. I loathe it, with a fine contempt the owners of Gatwick, for, who is it that they are trying to please…..their mates in the green blob, EUrabia, the EU, the UN, therein third world nations UN claque

    The last thing on their minds……………. It’s certainly not Britons, erm you know – the proles aka the bucket seaters aka: the paying customers.

  2. Ian Magness permalink
    January 20, 2017 4:49 pm

    This utter tripe has clearly got to be a collection of lies and deceptions to make one of the biggest airports in Europe look “green” for their gullible political masters. It’s in the same league as Drax burning US forests and calling it “sustainable”. All whoppers by greeny accounting fiddle. Yes, of course, the mere idea of an airport being “green” is beyond mirth. As Athelstan implied, they should think of putting their poor commercial and public customers first for once, not least as this will, in reality, only increase charges to them for nothing in return.

  3. January 20, 2017 5:33 pm

    Virtue signalling. Says it all.

  4. Tom O permalink
    January 20, 2017 6:08 pm

    It is really nice that they buy renewable energy – assuming they are paying the unsubsidized cost of it. Now if they did that, I would be impressed.

    • January 20, 2017 6:17 pm

      Even better would be for ALL the renewable energy to be bought up by virtue signalers (Google is at it as well), meaning that other consumers would not have to pay the subsidies.

  5. January 20, 2017 6:46 pm

    It’s like Holland saying all its trains run 100% on wind energy.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/10/dutch-trains-100-percent-wind-powered-ns

    Can they say they run on wind energy 100% of the time? Of course not, or there would be a lot of miserable passengers waiting for the wind to blow or ordering taxis and hire cars 😐

    • January 20, 2017 6:59 pm

      But they don’t mention that 96% of Dutch homes have low cost gas central heating, the low cost bit being much lamented by the Blob, because they can’t entice them to change.

  6. January 21, 2017 12:15 am

    Possible scenario that Gatwick have been infiltrated by Heathrow agent
    ..who is getting them to trash their own business.

  7. Athelstan permalink
    January 21, 2017 12:52 am

    Paul, sorry O/T I know but in with the meme if you ken what I mean?

    Multi-million pound funding to help with design costs for a planned carbon capture and storage plant at Peterhead has been unveiled by the UK government.

    Shell and Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) are behind the scheme to transform the town’s power station.

    It is one of two preferred bidders in a £1bn competition to encourage the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

    The funding was announced by UK Energy Secretary Ed Davey.

    The Peterhead scheme would see greenhouse gas emissions captured and transported to the Shell-operated Goldeneye gas field.

    It is sharing the £100m of funding with the White Rose project at the coal-fired Drax power station in North Yorkshire.

    potatoEd oh my God!

    Sure enough, it all came to grief, I mean it’s moonbeam technology………..and I mean, what’s a £100 mil’ split between mates? Yikes – it’s pin money man, they’ll have to slope off back to con some marks eek “clients” – of Goldman Sachs……

    A new report from the National Audit Office has unveiled that around £100 million was spent on a competition for developing carbon capture technology before it was scrapped.

    The project would have seen emissions from heavy industry stored permanently underground, however, according to the NAO, a failure by the UK government’s energy department to agree the long term costs of the competition with the Treasury led to its cancellation.

    The carbon capture and storage (CCS) competition was the second bid by the UK government to support schemes that capture pollution from power stations or industry and store it underground – potentially helping meet greenhouse gas targets.

    Seriously though, where did it all go to……. and more to the point, whose pockets have been lined?

    I observe, £100 mil’ is chicken feed when you consider ‘we’re’ forking out £2.6 billion on ther lastest off shore birdmincer factories off the Yorkshire coast – what a ferkin waste of money that is!!! But for sure – I know I was, at the time of this white elephant proposal – we told ’em Carbon capture is an impossible green wet dream and anyway man made emissions of CO2 causing runaway warming is a figment – but hey! it’s only yours and my money!

    We’ve no money say the government, we’ve no money to pay for hospitals and social care and yet………….£100 million down the drain – just like that – it’s disappears just like magic or,………….. is it black magic what we do know, it all goes somewhere but no one seems to want to ask “where?”

    We want to effin know, we want answers and better yet, we require that socialist dimwit May and her crony eejits to bin the green agenda – faster than you can say Donald Trump.

    • January 21, 2017 11:31 am

      The CCS problem remains, the NAO is more lamenting that the govt did not get it off the ground than that money was wasted on a boondoggle. The independent NAO is supposed to check value for money in govt spending, but its energy reports are full of Green Blob speak, such as “ambitious” targets and “investment” in renewables.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 21, 2017 12:21 pm

      I was concerned that Shell were getting involved in La La Land projects that would adversely affect my shareholding. But thankfully as soon as the free cash dried up, Shell dropped the scheme. Sound management. The statement from the Shell boss was hilarious stating that he thought it was a pity that such a great scheme was being stopped and that there was a great future in it. Yes, obvious question isn’t it – if it was so great why were Shell not keen to put there own money in? Still, puts Shell in line for more free cash in the future by keeping the government happy. Keep those dividend cheques coming. I shall be buying more shares ahead of the Great Brexit Crash.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      January 21, 2017 7:21 pm

      While I agree that Mrs May is left of Maggie and Ghengis, she is by no stretch of any imagination a socialist …. we are now few on the ground and probably a threatened species who could use a £ 100m grant.

  8. Annie permalink
    January 21, 2017 3:20 am

    They could do with some proper energy to cool the car hire building, where we spent far too long waiting to collect our car last year on your first hot day of summer, after our long flight from Australia. Thank goodness our friends live nearby! They could also do with some energy to produce better signage around the place…it’s hopeless. I speak as one who used to think it was a good airport, preferable to LHR! Then I thought BHX was good but less sure since commercial interests became too dominant. Tried MAN and NCL and GLA…the latter is the best!

  9. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 21, 2017 4:06 am

    global-renewable-electricity-alliance – – – Does anyone know what this is?

    So, someone is going to clean up some of the waste they generate.
    Good, and about time. I’m not impressed.

    Years ago places used to shovel such stuff out the back door and have spring run-off carry it away. Potato processing waste was handled thusly in Idaho when frozen fries started. It went into the Boise River.
    My grandfather’s farm had an out-house that handled human waste in the same manner.

  10. Tim Hammond permalink
    January 21, 2017 11:45 am

    Surely a total con? More aircraft, more cars, more electricity used because there are more passengers, all offset by “buying renewable energy”?

    I assume Gatwick and its customers (airlines and passengers) are now emitting far more CO2 that it used to. Where it buys the electricity is utterly irrelevant.

  11. Bloke down the pub permalink
    January 21, 2017 11:59 am

    Is there a recognised figure for how much energy, described as renewable,is sold in the UK as compared to how much is generated? If the former exceeds the later, who is it that should be enforcing a truthful declaration of the facts, the energy regulators or the advertising standards people?

  12. Gerry, England permalink
    January 21, 2017 12:25 pm

    I had an email from one of these green spiv energy companies so I looked at how much it would cost me. Interesting point was that using their get a quote gave me a price £50 LESS than using their actual costs in my spreadsheet! The result? Virtue signalling would add £400 to my bill – a 40% increase. One for Guardian readers only I think.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      January 21, 2017 7:24 pm

      The notional truss are also advertising how they buy green energy and are investing in wood burning boilers in their current rag. I’ve resigned after many years as they are squandering the funds to match the political ideals of Mrs. Ghosh.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: