Sir,

This letter has gone to the DT, in response to the letter I copied below, and might be of interest to your readers:

“Sir – Steve Lewis (DT Letters 02-2-20) says that wind provides almost 20% of our electricity pa – ie in kilowatt hours. But he fails to address the 99% shortfall in renewables power (kW) capacity on some days, to be be met by back-up conventional power and energy storage plant. Expenditure on such back-up plant will have to increase many times, if the net zero CO2 emissions target is to be brought forward. That will likely equal the cost of new (wind and solar) renewables.

But if the U.K. consumer is expected to shoulder most of the extra cost then more companies (and jobs) will go to China, India and the like, thereby increasing global CO2 emissions while putting more UK citizens into fuel poverty.  It will also be increasingly difficult to maintain supply security, if intermittent wind generation is allowed to increase as a % of total generating capacity. 

So before embarking on another dash for expansion of renewables, we must ask if the cost and human impact in the UK is acceptable, when we are only influencing around 2% of human CO2 emissions? We could have a far bigger impact on global emissions by developing CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS), while limiting fuel poverty at home, rather than another un-costed dash for renewables. We can be better than Lemmings.

Sincerely etc,”

This is the letter to which mine refers:

“SIR – Had George Herraghty (Letters, December 31) chosen Boxing Day instead of Christmas Day as an example of wind power’s shortcomings, the facts would not have fitted his argument quite so well: wind delivered 32 per cent of the United Kingdom’s electricity for lunch and 25 per cent for teatime.

Wind now provides almost 20 per cent of our electricity annually, delivering a significant reduction in carbon emissions and lowering our dependency on imported fuels. We can now forecast renewable generation accurately several days in advance.

Steve Lewis Evesham, Worcestershire”

I believe other readers would like to add their arguments.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

 

~~~ OOO ~~~

 

Sir,

Boris Johnson maintains that ‘Remainers are just as patriotic as Leavers’ (Telegraph, January 1, 2010).

If by this he means Remoaners, they are indeed patriotic – but their patriotism is reserved for the EU.

Respectfully, Ann Farmer

 

~~~ OOO   ~~~

 

Sir,

Remainers are still moaning about the “dire” consequences of BREXIT and leaving the EU. In particular, leaving the EU with the so called “no deal” apparently terrifies the pro-EU lobby. So, let us look at the facts concerning our trade with the EEC/EU since the UK misguidedly joined the EEC in 1973.

After the UK joined the EEC in 1973 the EEC took over complete control of UK trade relationships with the rest of the world (ROW). It also rapidly took over control of most of the UK’s affairs.

In the early 1970’s UK trade with “Europe” was approximately in balance, i.e. the UK exported as much to Europe as it imported from Europe.  Since 1973, the UK, under the control of the EU, has built up a balance of trade (BoT) deficit currently costing us a figure approaching £2 trillion today. This colossal imbalance must be compared to trading with the RoW which, with no control over the UK’s affairs, has from 1973 to 2017 earned the UK a SURPLUS (profit) of £477 billion, nearly half of which was under WTO rules.

In addition, being in the EU’s customs union costs every household up to an extra £1,000/year due to EU imposed customs duties on non-EU imported goods. Also, there are no import duties on goods imported into the UK from the EU while the UK is in the EU. This alone cost the UK over £3.5 billion in 2018 alone at an average tariff of only 1%. Although it would have cost UK exporters to the EU an additional £3 billion UK taxpayers are losing out again. Hence the CBI’s commitment to staying in the EU! However, customs duties collected by the UK on non-EU imports are handed over to the EU so together with the annual loss of import duties over the 47 years of membership this must have added up to a significant sum lost by UK taxpayers. Another cost of being in the EU never published by the government or remainers!

Furthermore, the EU is demanding a bribe of £39 billion from the UK before they will even start talking about a trade agreement on leaving. Yet the EU recently agreed a free trade deal with Japan which presumably cost Japan nothing and did not include free movement of people and other EU restrictions about “level playing fields”. Why does the EU not give the UK a free trade deal based on the trade terms the UK already has with the EU? Obviously, because the EU wants to screw every last penny out of the UK that it can. But the UK has already contributed nearly £300 billion to EU finances in nett budgetary payments since 1973. This all had to be borrowed and must be costing the UK at least £6/7 billion per annum in interest payments. A cost which is going to continue even after we leave the EU! Another cost of EU membership which is never mentioned by the politicians and the pro-EU lobby.

Hence, the UK has nothing to fear from leaving the EU under WTO terms. In fact, a clean and total break from the EU at the earliest possible moment is absolutely essential, as the UK is currently liable for more costs of up to £500 billion or so to prop up EU institutions when the euro and the EIB fail. This prospect has been predicted to happen in the near future and for many people here, and in the EU, cannot happen soon enough.

Respectfully, Jerry Wraith

 

~~~   OOO ~~~


Sir,

The Sunday Telegraph 29/12, reports that the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) considered registering itself in “an EU partner country” to maintain EU funding after Brexit.

So it seems that the TBI had a vested interest in keeping the UK in the EU, with the UK taxpayer funding £2 for every £1 returned to UK institutions. That is based on £18bn/£9bn pa gross/net UK contributions. One wonders if that interest stretched back to the time that Mr Blair was in Parliament.

Let’s see if other EU countries will be happy to keep subsidising the TBI to the same extent, after its second largest contributor (the UK) has left the EU.

Respectfully, Mr King

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email