Skip to content

Renewable UK’s Crooked Opinion Poll

July 18, 2018

By Paul Homewood

h/t stewgreen

 

Renewable UK have just teamed up with YouGov to produce a remarkably dishonest survey, (even by their usual lamentable standards) which is designed to show how popular wind farms supposedly are:

 

image

https://twitter.com/RenewableUK/status/1018763194096144384 

 

So, onshore wind is the “favourite” infrastructure? Well, it may be the favourite out of these six options, but that is not saying very much at all.

 

This was the question:

image

So, onshore wind only gets 1% more of the vote than a railway line in your local area. Hardly a ringing endorsement for wind power, is it?

And a new housing estate or dual carriageway just down the road are not exactly likely to get people cheering either.

The low vote for fracking simply reflects how badly the media have reported on the process. And as for building a nuclear power station at the bottom of your garden, the question is so ridiculous, it should not have even been asked.

They might just as well have asked, would you rather be burnt, scalded or have a red hot poker up the jacksy.

A much better question would have been, “do you want a windfarm built within a mile of your home?” But we know what the response to that would have been!

 

 

There is a second question that they asked:

image

To which, 23% said they strongly supported, and 43% tended to support (in other words, could not give a toss).

 

image

  

But the question itself is fake. The government’s policy does not “exclude” onshore wind farms, it merely withdraws subsidies.

I wonder what the response would have been if the question had been:

“Do you agree that onshore wind farms should continue to be subsidised via energy bills?”

One other question in the survey gives a clue as to why 66% want onshore wind farms to continue to be built:

image

   

To which the answer was:

image

Incredibly 27% though offshore wind was cheapest, closely followed by those who chose onshore wind.

This is testament to just how successful the disinformation campaign run by Renewable UK, Greenpeace and the rest has been, ably supported by politicians of all parties who have continually refused to reveal the real costs of green subsidies, and their cheerleaders in the media, ably led by the BBC and aided by hacks like Jillian Ambrose.

 

So, at the risk of repeating myself, these are the actual costs of wind power, due to come on stream this year and next.

Offshore projects will be paid an index linked, guaranteed price of between £133.29 and £166.59/MWh, for 15 years:

image

image

image

image

https://lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds

 

Onshore wind farms will be paid £91.14/MWh, except for one project which will get £88.37/MWh.

 image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

https://lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds 

 

Wholesale market prices paid to non subsidised generators, such as gas, have fluctuated between £43.85 and £55.06/MWh this year:

image

http://www.catalyst-commercial.co.uk/reports/189/energy-market-report—jul18/

If those polled had been given all of these facts, their responses may have been very different indeed.

Advertisements
54 Comments
  1. dennisambler permalink
    July 18, 2018 10:23 am

    These are all new, coming on stream soon? How depressing.

  2. July 18, 2018 10:28 am

    RenewablUK was formed in 2009 from the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), which has been in existence for 40 years. In all the time I have been following the wind industry (and renewable industry), the BWEA and RenewableUK have consistently misled the public, with outright lies and falsehoods. When billions of consumers’ money is on offer for very little effort, liars and troughers all come out of the woodwork and lying becomes the norm.

  3. BobH permalink
    July 18, 2018 10:34 am

    I’m not sure how the strike price is made up and who actually pays. You say “they will be paid X” Paid by whom? The Government, domestic customers, or distribution companies. How does all this money floating around get on to our bills. I can’t argue your valid case until I understand in simple terms how it all works. Clearly the cost of inshore wind is about 50% greater than oil/gas so that’s a starting point for me.
    If you’ve explained this before perhaps you can give me a link.
    Thanks

  4. July 18, 2018 10:51 am

    No surprise that a YouGov poll produces such a distorted result. If you look at the responses to their ‘public’ polls you can see that a large majority of their members are voting well to the left of centre. Using James Delingpole’s wonderful description they’re “Watermelons”

    • David Guy-Johnson permalink
      July 18, 2018 3:34 pm

      That just isn’t true about YouGov. if you search their records there are a whole series of polls giving support to the good guys, i.e. the right! They don’t set the questions in polls like this so it’s unfair to blame them for a clearly skewed result. If they were using biased samples of people to get their results it would soon kill them off as a viable business

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        July 18, 2018 3:48 pm

        YouGov do good business in push polls, trading off the name they get from their other polling. Among the skills they can offer are questionnaire design as in Bernard’s perfect balanced sample, and sample population design to focus on particular demographics. They know a lot about their polling panels.

    • Robert Jones permalink
      July 18, 2018 7:48 pm

      It interests me that YouGov used to send me political polls until I cheerfully admitted that I voted Conservative. Subsequently I only get invited to comment on non-political topics such as sport, coffee, shopping and other bimbly-bombly topics of little consequence.

  5. July 18, 2018 10:51 am

    Will there be a Parliament Wind Farm?

    • HotScot permalink
      July 18, 2018 6:55 pm

      Joan Gibson

      It might interest you to know there is not a single, meaningful, functioning power station in the London area, that being within the M25 motorway system that runs round the area roughly 18 – 20 miles from the centre.

      London’s pollution is outsourced to the countryside surrounding it, yet the people living and working there persistently whinge about their air quality whilst enjoying a standard of living far higher that those areas providing the energy.

      How about they install a fleet of wind turbines in Hyde Park? or solar arrays in Regents park? Or, heaven forbid, a nuclear power station in Richmond park?

      Silly question really, when the SNP is despoiling the pristine wildernesses of Scotland with towering turbines slashed into remote hillsides.

    • Joe Public permalink
      July 18, 2018 8:46 pm

      “Will there be a Parliament Wind Farm?”

      Unnecessary.

      So much hot air is generated (plus recyclable bullshit manure), any excess would destabilise the local grid.

      • July 19, 2018 11:14 am

        So you are not in favor of harnessing all of that wind from Parliament?

  6. saparonia permalink
    July 18, 2018 10:59 am

    Reposted on G+

    They probably gave the poll to people who don’t speak English anyway and showed them the tick boxes.

  7. July 18, 2018 11:06 am

    I doubt that under existing legislation these people could be prosecuted.

  8. Bloke down the pub permalink
    July 18, 2018 11:07 am

    For education purposes.

    • July 18, 2018 12:20 pm

      Useful … but one has to suspect that RUK don’t bother with the artifice demonstrated here – it’s cheaper and quicker to make it up and lie.

  9. Stonyground permalink
    July 18, 2018 11:21 am

    Top of my list would be dual carriageway, more of them please so that I don’t lose half an hour of my life every day due to the forty-fiver drivers.

    • Hivemind permalink
      July 18, 2018 1:55 pm

      I would have put a nuclear power plant first, followed by the fracking site.

  10. July 18, 2018 11:28 am

    NOW on R4 : Another London focussed PR prog
    \\ You and Yours Special: Are we ready for a low carbon future?

    The UK government says air pollution is the fourth biggest threat to public health after cancer, obesity and heart disease.
    We speak to a father whose daughter was rushed to hospital with breathing problems – he blames poor air quality.
    We’ll find out what the authorities are doing to try and reduce congestion.

    Ministers have also committed to ending the sale of new diesel and petrol vehicles by 2040.
    But will we really all be driving around in electric cars?
    A survey commissioned by You and Yours from YouGov suggests many people in the UK still aren’t ready to make the switch.
    We’ll report from California where they already have 340,000 electric cars on the road and that number’s growing.
    Plus, an exclusive interview with JB Straubel – the Chief Technical Officer at Tesla – as they try to bring their new electric car onto the market.
    How is production going? Is Elon Musk still sleeping on their factory floor?
    (Why bother with Tesla ..they sell a few super super luxury cars ..they are not making a big improvement to cities’ air ?)

    And we’ll investigate how new battery technology could revolutionise the energy market. //

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b9v6v0

    • July 18, 2018 12:24 pm

      Part1 London PR people piled in
      Part 2 the presenter had a nice jaunt to California..spoke to port guy, Telsa guy, Edison Energy battery guy

      • Athelstan permalink
        July 18, 2018 12:47 pm

        Green beeboid jejune talks to green lobby, what else could you expect?

        Hmm and yes, I picked up on some of that quite stunningly tergid and facts Lite awful broadcast, the best she (presenter’s name Fenwick I think) could do is utter platitudinous drivel and never asked a serious question, ie where’s all dat luverly Li battery stuff gonna come from and is there sufficient supply on this planet, er, unless you start sieving seawater? Duh?

        Battery storage = stark staring bonkers.

        In UK by such and such a date they’re – provenance of quote unclear (perhaps; butlins, Westminster, Merkel diktat, ccc, deben, lord haw haw, coco the clown – someone any road) ‘predicting some 26 million electric buggies on UK roads’,
        she asked “where’s all that juice going to come from”

        green advocate replying, he said, “not everyone will charge their cars up at 6 o’clock”…………which is rather besides the point.

        Oh dear, oh dear me, still it’s HMG policy, driving us all into a unilaterally self imposed economic catastrophe for reasons as yet still unexplained.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 18, 2018 12:55 pm

      Pollution is the new battlefront for the warmists given the failure of the predicted warming to appear and the disinterest of the public despite all their scaremongering. Their evidence for pollution being present in sufficient quantities to affect health is sketchy as Paul has shown in the past. I used to drive around London during 1990-91 and on hot still days experienced a mild restriction on breathing. I have worked in London since 2010 and have not had any problems. A look at the pollution charts Paul has put up shows clearly that the air is much cleaner now than 1990. People are also not good at separating a smell from damaging pollution.

      I note that the BBC programme involved a child and here as in other countries such as the USA there is the unexplained rise in asthma cases, particularly in children. As the air has got cleaner cases have risen.

      • July 18, 2018 2:29 pm

        Gerry, we have been pointing out for years the direct correlation (which as we all know is not causation!) between improved air quality and the increase in childhood asthma.

        The most likely scenario appears to be the mania for killing 99% of all known germs DEAD!! and the resulting effect on the immune system which no longer has anything to do so, on “the devil finds work for idle hands” principle, goes and finds something!

        I had/have three nurses among friends and family and they all had/have a variation of the same household motto: more cleanliness, less hygiene. And a realistic approach to children getting their hands dirty!

      • saparonia permalink
        July 18, 2018 9:40 pm

        And note that for the first time after 50 years of getting my anti histamines on prescription, I am told to go buy some from the shop by the receptionist. Ofc I waited and saw the doc for them.
        People don’t have allergies any more, it’s all air pollution. I bet the little girl has never had a skin prick test.

      • July 18, 2018 9:46 pm

        Is a lack of sunlight/VitaminD a factor ?

      • July 19, 2018 11:12 am

        I have seen some recent articles pointing to some of these increasing childhood problems such as asthma and even autism as being correlated with some of the vaccinations. I was vaccinated for diphtheria, rheumatic fever (I think–my mother had actually had it is a child), and of course small pox when I started school. When the polio vaccine came out, I had the 3 rounds of that and later the oral. I had the chicken pox and 2 kinds of measles–all in grade school, along with everyone else. That was pretty standard for the time.

        Now, however, they are vaccinated for everything. There seems to be mounting evidence from parents that their child has undergone a significant change with some of the shots. I, too, wonder about not letting nature build up immune systems. I also ignore the flu shots which are seldom the strain they decide is coming around. Every 6-8 years I actually get the flu.

  11. Steve Borodin permalink
    July 18, 2018 11:36 am

    With a constant stream of technologically and scientifically illiterate propaganda from the British Bigotry Corporation piped into every home, 1984-style, how can they fail?

  12. Dave Ward permalink
    July 18, 2018 11:36 am

    “And as for building a nuclear power station at the bottom of your garden”

    They’ll have to put a compulsory purchase order on my fruit cage first….

  13. saparonia permalink
    July 18, 2018 11:47 am

    Carbon release and volcanism are indications of cooling. They occurred before Ice Ages. Ice redistributes from polar regions as rain and snow, the melt is not a symptom of warming, it is part of the process of cooling. Technically we are still in an Ice Age as we still have continents covered in ice. Additionally the Sun has dropped into it’s minimum and this will also have a cooling effect. This year there will be reductions in harvest expectations.
    I would say that we are badly in need of educating ourselves about survival, and this game being played is hampering our future.

  14. Ian Wilson permalink
    July 18, 2018 11:50 am

    We are constantly being told the cost of wind power is ‘plummeting’. Do you or any readers have any FACTS as to how it compares with, say, five or ten years ago?

  15. TinyCO2 permalink
    July 18, 2018 11:59 am

    My neighbours and I are all under threat of three of those (road, rail and houses) but we’d far rather have fracking or a wind farm. Bloody Northern Power House.

  16. July 18, 2018 12:17 pm

    RenewableUK are simply a bunch of advertising / PR goons who’ve gotten a juicy gig outside Soho – that they indulge in Whiskas style polls shouldn’t be a surprise – however dishonest and irritating that is 🙂

    Their claiming to be a “not for profit trade body” rather rankles …. I wonder if they use that to swerve taxes?

    “And as for building a nuclear power station at the bottom of your garden”

    I’m fond of running the Banana Equivalent Dose past people who object to “radiation” – and onwards to the excellent XKCD radiation chart

  17. Athelstan permalink
    July 18, 2018 12:50 pm

    yougov, albeit indirectly – part funded by the EU.

  18. Phoenix44 permalink
    July 18, 2018 12:55 pm

    The graphic is wholly dishonest. People only said they would support reversing the ban on a windfarm if there was strong local support for a windfarm. All that says is that people think they should be allowed to make their own decisions about what goes in locally.

    66% do not think the government should reverse its ban on onshore wind at all.

    • July 18, 2018 1:58 pm

      no, no, no …. you’ve read the survey report – that’s simply not acceptable

  19. EternalOptimist permalink
    July 18, 2018 1:23 pm

    Can I vote for number 3. Red hot poker up the jacksey.

    signed – JS Gummer

  20. July 18, 2018 1:57 pm

    I can’t wait to see how the BBC covers this!

  21. saparonia permalink
    July 18, 2018 2:30 pm

    We could include additional Infrastructure changes, such as relocating the House of Commons to the Scilly Isles.

  22. saparonia permalink
    July 18, 2018 2:41 pm

    The poll was released 16th July 2018.
    This link was posted 28th June 2018 by the Guardian, photo from Scottish Power
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/28/archaeologists-stumble-on-neolithic-ritual-site-in-suffolk

  23. July 18, 2018 3:16 pm

    Here’s another question: Are you happy to fork out billions (more) in subsidies for a power source that sometimes (e.g. this morning) delivers less than 1% of the UK’s electricity requirements?

  24. W Miller permalink
    July 18, 2018 4:01 pm

    Perhaps clarity on all the subsidies paid to all tech should be included such as to coal, gas and nuclear, because it’s not like people aren’t paying for subsidies to these technologies as well.
    Perhaps a question like, You pay to contribute to subsidies via your energy bill already would you prefer those subsidies to go to a) coal and oil b) gas c) nuclear or d) renewables. Perhaps then it would be a bit more honest and the results would still show a preference towards low carbon technologies.

    • July 18, 2018 4:45 pm

      What subsidies do you pay to gas?

    • martinbrumby permalink
      July 19, 2018 7:41 am

      Of course, fossil fuels are awash with subsidies.
      Only tiny difference is that they have to fork out huge wads of ‘subsidy’ to HMG.
      On the other hand, in the case of Ruinables, they receive huge wads of ‘subsidy’ harvested by HMG from taxpayers and energy users.
      I know it is a rather arcane and subtle difference, but if you really concentrate, you will understand!

  25. July 18, 2018 4:23 pm

    Are you funded by big carbon?

    • July 18, 2018 5:26 pm

      Wish I was!!!

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      July 18, 2018 8:46 pm

      I’m funded by Big Chocolate, but fail to see why that’s of interest to anyone.

      • saparonia permalink
        July 18, 2018 9:42 pm

        I’m allergic to chocolate

  26. July 18, 2018 6:55 pm

    Were any of these people consulted on their understanding physics?

  27. saparonia permalink
    July 18, 2018 9:49 pm

    more on the bandwagon:
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-republican-is-proposing-a-23-carbon-tax/
    *House Republican Is Proposing a $23 Carbon Tax*
    _Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) is preparing to introduce legislation that would pause federal regulations on climate change in exchange for an escalating tax on carbon emissions, according to draft legislation obtained by E&E News_

    • Athelstan permalink
      July 18, 2018 10:56 pm

      RINO.

  28. George Lawson permalink
    July 19, 2018 9:14 am

    How utterly ridiculous to ask whether people prefer a wind farm to housing, dual carriageways, fracking or railways. They would get an entirely different response if they had the courage to ask the simple question… Do you want windfarms in your area or not.. It is quite worrying that government officials should accept this drivel, hook, line, and sinker. .

  29. Athelstan permalink
    July 20, 2018 7:37 pm

    here’s one for the endlessly gormless green blob advocating the vision of electric vehicles:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: