Creating Green Jobs, At A Cost Of £198,000 Each!
August 22, 2021
By Paul Homewood
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wind-of-change-for-the-humber-region
That works out at £198,000 per job.
25 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
In The Real World on ‘Green’ renewable… timleeney on ‘Green’ renewable… Phillip Bratby on ‘Green’ renewable… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… bnice2000 on Global Heating Will Increase P…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Why doesn’t this surprise me?
Created & protected?
So, how many in each category?
The German Marc Becker of Siemens and the Spaniard Jon Riberas of GRI Renewable Industries were very pleased to receive UK taxpayers money to make it worth spending their Deutschmarks and Pesetas on Humberside.
What a waste of money, are we supposed to be impressed, it is like paying one group to dig holes and another group to fill them in, no net gain. If the projects were any good private capital would step in and finance them.
Absolutely right
“the finalisation of detailed agreements and grant funding amounts will only follow a satisfactory due diligence phase”
.. due diligence!? …that ship has already sailed methinks.
And sunk st3ve ??
Reblogged this on Roald J. Larsen and commented:
“Green” = Subsidized
In Norwegian law, we have a wording that states that a business owner cannot operate a business on the government’s credit. That does not apply to the new “green” criminals, obviously, and it’s the same here.
Two things missing from government; efficiency and cost benefit analysis.
Only two things Neil? You are far too kind. I think our fellow travellers on this site might be able to ramp the numbers up somewhat.
Effectiveness is also missing and intelligence.
Of course all the parasites who are benefitting from the myth of AGW are the same ones that need the to keep the myth as an established fact to keep the money rolling in. The Useful Idiots are an added bonus to the liars and frauds, but a liability to humanity.
The search for intelligent life on earth continues
but all that can be found is western imbeciles that make TBlair appear a genius.
Subsidising our way to
prosperitypenury.Cheap, for government work….
But wait for the cost over runs.
As my father always said “an elephant is a mouse built on government contract”.
See also HS 2…
“£266m UK government and private sector investment.”
I can’t find a breakdown anywhere of the proportions of public/private finance. I would assume that the corporate fraction has guaranteed subsidies/profits from the public money to attract it, otherwise there is no incentive to “invest” in greencrap. Does anyone have the figures available or are they deemed “commercially sensitive information”?
‘Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:
With less than a hundred days to go until the climate summit COP26, we need to see more countries embracing new technologies, building green industries and phasing out coal power for a sustainable future.’
Sorry, bud, you are on your own, throwing away what works for something hypothetical.
And just what new technologies are they to embrace? You are putting the people’s money into more windmills, which UK has had for 70 years.
‘investment to develop the next generation wind turbines’
Which still don’t address intermittency and destruction of flying animals. So when the wind dies, even more ‘capacity’ will be lost. Perhaps if the children clap real hard, the wind won’t die.
That’s not correct. Jobs are paid for from the operating costs of assets, not the investment required to create the assets. If the assets produce no cashflow then there won’t be a single job created by those assets.
Yep. I think we all get that.
The amusing bit is that we have spent billions buying windmills form Siemens over the last decade and are now paying them to do some final assembly work in Hull. The idea that we are world leaders in windmills is such nonsense that only a politician could claim it … however, we have probably wasted the most money on them!
And only a British politician would think being “world leader” at something means anything. It smacks of neocolonialism.
Well I think that analysis is a bit rubbish
A firm infrastructure spending is not the cost of a job
As it has the infrastructure to sell 10 years later if it wants.
We are masking the true Taxpayer cost of the green job
which is the government total grantfunding divided by the number of jobs
cos the taxpayer is not getting any money back out on the deal.
However the government is keeping the grant funding secret
except it comes out of a pool of £188m or something
And if we assume the government is using that entire fund
The taxpayer cost per job is something like £130K per job
Essentially these are not extra jobs but rather at the moment your spending money partially goes down a supply chain about using gas to generate electricity
The plan is is increasing the amount of eletricity generated from wind so in future the spending will move into a wind industry jobs chain.
essentially everytime a wind turbine guy gets a job, a gas turbine guy loses his.