Skip to content

Dumb and Dumber – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Claire Perry

March 18, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

  If you thought Claire Perry was bad enough, step forward Jeremy Corbyn’s hopeless Shadow Business & Energy Secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey.

From The Mirror:

 

image

Britain will struggle to keep the lights on and could face power cuts after the government has cancelled crucial energy projects, Labour have warned.

Labour’s Shadow Energy Secretary Rebecca Long Bailey said the government risked failing "in one of the first duties – keeping the lights on".

The government has scrapped nuclear power plants planned for Moorside, Cumbria, Wylfa Newydd in Anglesey, and Oldbury, Gloucester all in the last six months.

They would have generated enough power for 17 million homes.

Tory Ministers also killed off plans for the world’s first tidal lagoon power plant in Swansea Bay – enough to power nearly 150,000 homes each year.

Ms Long Bailey continued: “When the Wylfa plant was cancelled Greg Clark announced an energy white paper for summer 2019 – six months down the line.

"That’s the sign of a Government absorbed in its own meltdown, not the real issues facing our country.

"Ministers should come clean to the public about the gaping hole in their plans and what that means for our energy security.

“Labour has been consistent in its support for nuclear as part of our energy mix, calling on the government to take a public stake in new nuclear projects. We would end the short-sighted and ideological Tory ban on onshore wind and mobilise huge investments in renewable energy.”

The Government’s ban on onshore wind, introduced in 2015, is blocking nearly 800 shovel-ready onshore wind projects – enough to power more than three million homes each year.

The combined lost capability would have been enough to quarter 20 million homes – or three-quarters of the UK’s households – Labour said.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-energy-failures-raise-fears-14149517

 

It is hard to know where to start with such a such a load of drivel

For a start, the government has not “scrapped nuclear power plants plans”, as she claims. The Moorside project was cancelled by Toshiba, whose nuclear power division is effectively bankrupt.

Wylfa and Oldbury have been scrapped by Hitachi, who were unable to reduce costs enough to satisfy the government, who it is understood were only prepared to offer a strike price around the level of the offshore wind at the latest auction, which would be about £80/MWh.

Long-Bailey is entitled to criticise the government for not offering more, but she needs to tell the public just how many billions in subsidies she is prepared to pay to get the nuclear capacity she wants.

I asked this very question of our local Labour MP, Angela Smith (before she joined the Second Referendum Party!). I got no answer.

The gormless Long-Bailey might also have mentioned that we are in the current nuclear power mess because Gordon Brown sold off our own nuclear industry for a pittance and Labour themselves kept kicking the nuclear can down the road when in power.

 

She then goes on to make a series of claims about wind power, which show she is totally unfit to be put in charge of our energy policy.

First she repeats the claim that the government has banned new onshore wind farms. Even her chums at the BBC have been forced to withdraw such fake claims.

As I am sure she knows, the government has simply stopped offering subsidies to new projects. So perhaps she would like to tell us how much she wants to add to our power bills to subsidise new schemes?

According to her, there are nearly 800 shovel-ready onshore wind projects. So why are they not being built, Rebecca? Nobody is actually stopping them. Could it be they cannot afford to operate without subsidies?

Then she compounds her ignorance by claiming that these 800 wind projects are enough to power more than three million homes each year. Unfortunately that is only the case when the wind is blowing hard enough.

It is precisely this problem of intermittency which threatens our energy security. Her plans to add yet more wind power just make the problem worse.

Worse still, her plan of building the nuclear power plants along with thousands more wind farms will create vast surpluses of power when demand is low and the weather is windy. So what does she propose to do with that? Quite apart from the grid problems they pose, such surpluses completely wreck the economic viability of both wind and nuclear power, both based largely on fixed costs.

 

If she is serious about keeping the lights on and reducing energy bills, there is a simple solution – build more CCGT plants.

Unfortunately, such incompetence is all you can expect from someone who studied Politics & Sociology, and who only got the job because there was nobody competent left.

It is frightening that she could be in charge of the nation’s energy policy in a year or two.

27 Comments
  1. March 18, 2019 5:38 pm

    When it comes to MPs and energy policy, the lights went out years ago for most of them. The pro-wind majority seem oblivious to the on-off nature of the wind itself, which raises strong questions about their common sense, not to say their intelligence levels.

    • March 18, 2019 5:47 pm

      The wind power marketing industry has cracked that problem, every wind farm now comes with a free battery, job done as far as True Believers are concerned.

    • Allan M permalink
      March 20, 2019 10:34 am

      Too many desk pilots!

  2. March 18, 2019 5:45 pm

    The only glimmer of hope here is support for nuclear power from the Magic Money Tree, but that will be snuffed out by wind/solar power, which is getting close to impacting on the concept of baseload power. Why would private nuclear money invest in the UK when there is a risk that the power station might have to reduce its output/income for long periods?

  3. Oliver King permalink
    March 18, 2019 5:51 pm

    Steady on Paul, I studied politics and I’m not that thick, although I did give the sociology nonsense a miss.

    • bobn permalink
      March 18, 2019 8:20 pm

      Hopefully you studied a science subject as well as the creative arts subject 😉

      • europeanonion permalink
        March 18, 2019 8:38 pm

        No, you’re OK.

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    March 18, 2019 5:55 pm

    Rebecca Long-Bailey is not the cause of the UK’s energy problems, but not understanding the basics, she has no hope of improving the situation.

    Good luck to you all. You are going to need it.

    • March 18, 2019 6:44 pm

      Everyone reads from the party script if they value their position, understanding of anything else not required.

    • dave permalink
      March 18, 2019 7:01 pm

      “Good luck to you all.”

      Was that not the message from the captain to his crew in the, doomed fishing boat in “The Perfect Storm,” as it was forced to leave the eye of the storm and go through the wal,l into the full horror?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 19, 2019 1:36 pm

      Getting our retarded MPs to understand anything beyond filling in their expenses claim forms, cutting a ribbon or making gormless appearances on TV is the problem we face.

  5. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 18, 2019 6:51 pm

    Wind <3% of demand at the moment. Has been ~30% recently. But this is the problem!

  6. keith permalink
    March 18, 2019 6:56 pm

    I’m pretty sure she is being advised by people in the Energy Department. If she is it just shows what a total band of idiots are employed in Government circles. Of course she may be getting her info from the Green energy people and we know greedy ass***** they are and will tell her anything to make help them make another buck.

    • Robert Jones permalink
      March 18, 2019 7:55 pm

      But she is right to suggest that this Government is fumbling its way towards a very poor position with some of its recent pronouncements. The BEIS under her stewardship is blithely following the inanity of the Climate Change Act (2008) and the entirely dispassionate and unbiased proposals of the Climate Change Committee, but without applying any sort of ‘so what’ test.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        March 19, 2019 1:38 pm

        And what evidence is their that Labour would do anything better or different? None that I have seen.

  7. March 18, 2019 8:20 pm

    Remember what Labour Minister Margaret Beckett said about nuclear power before Gordon Brown sold off our nuclear industry: “over my dead body”. Many thought that a good idea (burying her in a nuclear power station foundations).

  8. Velcro permalink
    March 18, 2019 9:10 pm

    Many years ago, I worked as a junior engineer in the UKAEA. It was a great experience. We never claimed we knew everything, but we were all imbued with a sense that we were doing something truly beneficial to society. It has been sad to see the UK’s nuclear capabilities destroyed. Wind power does not meet growing demand by itself, of course, due to its intermittency. For every 100 MW of installed wind capacity, on needs something like 90MW of coal or gas or hydro backup. In that sense, wind power is a fuel extender rather than a demand meeter.
    I left UK to live in NZ many years ago, and watch with sadness the collapse of UK’s energy industry and health system and societal cohesiveness in so many respects; and would not live in UK again.

  9. BLACK PEARL permalink
    March 18, 2019 10:42 pm

    Thick as pig shit
    Shouldn’t MP’s have to sit some sort of entrance exam covering a wide range of how things work before they get the badge and hands on the purse strings ?
    Just being a political animal / vote prostitute seems to be the qualification which doesn’t serve the country at all well.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 20, 2019 1:36 am

      I disagree. Not that they don’t do really dumb things.

      The MPs, and Congressmen here in the U.S., are exercising powers outside our constitutions. Limit their power to only what is constitutionally authorized, and it doesn’t hurt for them to be dumbasses.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 19, 2019 1:39 pm

      That’s an easy question to answer – the truth!

  10. Hugh Sharman permalink
    March 19, 2019 7:34 am

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Long-Bailey sounds like a nice-enough lass. But how on earth did the dreaded North Islingtonian fhubarb wine lover decide she is in any way qualified to be an energy minister?

    Even more frightening, Claire Perry actually has the job!

    As I have discovered from personal experience, she is protected by a bevvy of civil servants who intercept even the mildest of critical correspondence addressed to her, while keeping their own names secret.

    So she is kept in ignorance of her own follies.

  11. TinyCO2 permalink
    March 19, 2019 8:07 am

    I agree about her shortcomings and mistakes but I have sympathy with her idiocy because we are not hearing dire warnings from the heads of the electricity grid. On the contrary they’ve been pro renewables.

    And why not? Supporting renewables is a no brainer for people who want to do well. The government are for them. The opposition and also rans are for anything green and expensive. The media loves ‘free energy’. The public are dubious, but broadly pro ‘clean’ electricity. Other countries are enthusiastic about us committing energy suicide, even if they don’t phrase it that way. It’s not even as if renewables get the blame for high energy prices as the media etc still blame the fossil fuel companies. So if you were in charge of the grid, why wouldn’t you push renewables? Other than the tricky issue of a looming electricity black hole?

    Nah, no worries. Nobody who was trying to ‘save the planet’ could possily be in trouble for a few blackouts. Not when there was a government to blame, who would somehow make it the fault of fossil fuel power suppliers. At most, the worst a grid boss would suffer is early retirement with a massive bung to keep quiet. Whereas one who tried to go against the tide would be bullied out with nothing but a reputation as being a rogue element.

    • John Palmer permalink
      March 19, 2019 9:41 am

      Yes, Tiny….a very succinct and accurate summary of our situation – sadly.

    • March 19, 2019 12:05 pm

      National Grid gets more income from more generators, cables and controls, and seems to have Ofgem in its pocket.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        March 19, 2019 1:50 pm

        Ofgem were ordered by Labour to ignore the global warming taxes that are making our electricity steadily more expensive. That leaves them a bit short of an explanation other than blaming the generators, which is what they have done. I don’t really understand why the generators are so slow to defend themselves other than they must think they have something to gain by not upsetting the government with the truth.

  12. Russ Wood permalink
    March 23, 2019 12:55 pm

    Well, if one of a Government’s first duties is to “keep the lights on”, then the so-called Socialist (actually kleptocratic) South African ANC government has failed miserably. With the monopoly electricity supplier ESKOM neglecting power station maintenance, and the national government allowing a large number of municipalities to get away with not paying their bills, we are now literally living in “Darkest Africa”! The current state of “load shedding” deprives parts of South Africa (at least in rotation) with two 4-hour power-outs a day. It’s bad enough trying to run a household, and big companies now ABSOLUTELY have to have their own generator, but the impact on small businesses and shops is pretty bad. In the midst of widespread unemployment, I foresee small businesses and the jobs they provide melting away. We’re due for a review by the ratings agencies in a few weeks, and with only being one notch away from ‘junk’ status, I hate to think what is liable to happen to the economy! (Mind you, a couple of years ago, one ANC minister said that if the economy collapsed, “then we’d just pick it up and do it OUR way”….)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: