All that is wrong

We’ve recently had the story of the Isle of Eigg, which provided us with a hilarious tale of ‘renewable energy’.

image

Delingpole’s comment on that needs no addendum.

Not even that story was free of its mongnative dissonance, when three days later we read that the island’s project had won a ‘Green Oscar’. And let’s face it, this world is only big enough for ONE Green Oscar.

oscar-the-grouch-1[1]

And this brings me to today’s microcosmic climate comedy.

image

For brevity. I’ll rehash the story a bit:

The rotary blades on the 30ft (9m) structure have struck at least 14 birds in the past six months – far higher than the one fatality per year predicted by the manufacturer.

Seagulls though. So what?

Headteacher Stuart McLeod was even forced to come into school early to clear up the bodies before his young pupils spotted them.

Oh, the glamorous life of a headteacher. I’m pretty sure that’s not in his job description, so I wouldn’t blame him for being a bit miffed.

School governors consulted seagull eyesight experts and investigated bringing in bird-scaring plastic owls to solve the problem, but to no avail.

Mr McLeod said they had tried everything to stop the carnage but had no choice but to shut the turbine down.

At least they’d enjoyed oodles of free electricity though, eh?

It provided six kilowatts of power an hour.

6kWh? So, when there’s actually any wind (see above), this thing can power 3 kettles, or about 12 computers? And when there’s no wind? Camping stoves and typewriters, I suppose?

Not exactly a return on their investment then. Oh wait, not to worry – it was OUR investment. Pffft, silly me.

The turbine, at Southwell Community Primary School, Portland, was installed 18 months ago thanks to a grant from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Because the school would never have put the stupid thing there in the first place if they’d actually had to pay for it and see that they achieved a return on their investment.

The cost-benefit analysis always seems to stack up differently when you’re spending other people’s money, doesn’t it?

AJ

Advertisements

About Al Jahom
Anti-social malcontent, misanthrope and miserable git.

3 Responses to All that is wrong

  1. JuliaM says:

    ‘seagull eyesight experts’..? What, they don’t do the whole bird?

  2. Simon says:

    I suspect we’ve paid twice for this abomination – during the night, weekends and school holidays there will (should?) have been huge feed-in tariff paybacks.

    As for the seagull (sea rat) eyesight experts, I’m hoping that these are few and far between, or at least not trained at our expense.

  3. Peter MacFarlane says:

    “The cost-benefit analysis always seems to stack up differently when you’re spending other people’s money, doesn’t it?”

    Indeed. Remember the four different type of spending? This would be Type 3 – spending other peoples’ money on yourself (or at least, in this case, on your own self-indulgent fantasies). It’s the type most certain to lead to enormous costs regardless of merit. As we see.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: