Current

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Why governments shouldn't invest

Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 10/27/2010 10:17:00 am

Wind turbines: still expensive, still pointless, still costing us billions of pounds.

The main reason that governments shouldn't invest is because they are utterly shit at picking winners—after all, their investments are made with magic money, which falls from the sky more of which can easily be extorted from taxpayers with the stroke of a pen—so who cares if they lose money, eh?

As another glaring example of just how utterly useless the state is at working out good investments, it's worth remembering that Our New Coalition Overlords™ are merrily spunking our cash up the wall on wind farms.

It's also worth reminding ourselves that, owing to the vagaries of the wind, these monstrosities currently are only providing some 25% of their rated power, and require 90% back-up from conventional power stations—if we rely solely on wind, the lights will go out. Fact.

Nonetheless, the government is investing in factories... Or, rather, they are pushing our money at massive corporations that are going to build factories.
... Britain celebrated more than £300m of investment in new manufacturing centres by rival manufacturers GE, Siemens and Gamesa. Following a boost from the government's Infrastructure Plan on Monday, GE said it would invest £100m in a manufacturing plant. Spanish firm Gamesa said it would spend €150m (£131m) setting up a worldwide centre for offshore wind, including a turbine factory; and Siemens said it would build an £80m wind turbine factory.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about "celebrated", but the Grauniad likes to put a positive spin on these things. Anyway, these companies are investing in new wind farms, and the government is providing "a boost", i.e. cash, in the form of capital, loans and, of course, the colossal subsidies that are the only things that make windmills in any way profitable.

How lovely.

But wait! What is this article actually about...?
Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, said today it would close five production plants across Scandinavia and cut 3,000 jobs.

The group said the surge in demand for wind power it had hoped for in Europe had not materialised and it would have to shift production away from Denmark and Sweden towards Spain to protect profits.

It is closing four plants in Denmark and one in Sweden, including one in Viborg where it has been manufacturing since 1989. The factory moves follow Vestas' decision to move production of turbines away from the UK last year, when it closed its Isle of Wight facility.

It still employs 500 people in the UK, who are unlikely to be hit by the company's latest round of job cuts, but a spokesman could not it rule out. The company employs 250 research and development specialists on the Isle of Wight, and 250 other staff primarily at a sales centre in Warrington and a spare parts and repair plant in Bristol.

Right. So, a massive enthusiasm for building useless bloody windmills has not materialised because, presumably, everyone has realised that they are bloody useless.

So, just as Vestas is closing factories and shedding jobs, our government is providing "a boost" for other companies to set up windmill factories in this country.

Nice going, you morons.

A tip of the horns to The Englishman.

UPDATE: an interesting comment from Adam Bell...
... you've got this entirely wrong. Vestas make onshore turbines; notably 1.5MW and 3MW models. Siemens, GE and Gamesa are coming to the UK to build offshore turbines, which range from 6-10MW. Vestas doesn't yet have a player in this market, so isn't coming on board.

Demand for onshore has dropped in Denmark and Germany as all the good sites are taken up. Vestas is responding to the market by relocating its production facilities to places where onshore demand is strong, notably Spain and to a lesser extent the US. This is the market doing what it should.

Demand for wind and other renewables is still being driven less by environmental concerns than the very hard-headed realisation that it constitutes a useful hedge against rising gas prices. You know, as happens whenever Russia feels like Europe isn't paying it enough attention. As such, the economic downturn and the resultant lower commodity prices have decreased demand for renewables—but as soon as the economy picks up again that demand will return, most likely in 2013-4.

Food for thought?

Labels: , , , ,


Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 10/27/2010 10:17:00 am


24 Blogger Comments:

Anonymous Brian said...

2.4 million from the Scotish Government for 100 jobs in an ex Vestas plant in Scotland that can't pay its bills (Telegraph today)

10/27/2010 10:53:00 am  
Anonymous Ian E said...

The idiots who ru(i)n this country have been emitting wind and hot air for so long, it is hardly surprising that they have fallen for this grotesque idiocy! I just wonder how much it will cost to clear up the wrecked wind factories in twenty years.

10/27/2010 11:52:00 am  
Anonymous Adam Bell said...

Chris, you've got this entirely wrong. Vestas make onshore turbines; notably 1.5MW and 3MW models. Siemens, GE and Gamesa are coming to the UK to build offshore turbines, which range from 6-10MW. Vestas doesn't yet have a player in this market, so isn't coming on board.

Demand for onshore has dropped in Denmark and Germany as all the good sites are taken up. Vestas is responding to the market by relocating its production facilities to places where onshore demand is strong, notably Spain and to a lesser extent the US. This is the market doing what it should.

Demand for wind and other renewables is still being driven less by environmental concerns than the very hard-headed realisation that it constitutes a useful hedge against rising gas prices. You know, as happens whenever Russia feels like Europe isn't paying it enough attention. As such, the economic downturn and the resultant lower commodity prices have decreased demand for renewables - but as soon as the economy picks up again that demand will return, most likely in 2013-4.

10/27/2010 12:05:00 pm  
Anonymous T England. Raised from the dead. said...

When it comes to wind power Saul Griffith is the man to listen to, he is the man behind Makani power.
I remember him talking about having to put wind turbines way up high to make best use of them, which is why I suppose he has came up with this kites tap wind energy.

The man is a genius & should be listened to when it comes to the realities of using green power, he is a matter of fact type person who, although doesn't ever really want to buy another car to help do his bit for the environment & has an office in a no longer used x military airbase, thinks saving polar bears from the climate change needs not be considered.

If you’re into green issues & have never seen Saul Griffith: Climate Change Recalculated you’ve missed a treat.

10/27/2010 12:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never mind the Bell comments, wind turbines are still inefficient wherever you put them. The rated capacity is a joke. They will not make up for any loss in conventional generating systems. And people are beginning to realise. If it were not for the huge subsidies hidden in our energy bills they would not exist. These taxes should by right be itemised on all bills, as VAT is.
Derek

10/27/2010 12:22:00 pm  
Anonymous Blue Eyes said...

I would say that the government's record on winner picking is less a result of the supply of further money available and more that it isn't the ministers that stand to lose something.

I know it's a bit splitting hairs, but...

The update is interesting, but even if correct I still don't think it's the job of government to provide seed capital for these guys. If generators want to buy turbines then great fantastic do it. I don't see why taxpayers should have to build the factories when they are also going to be the ones buying the electricity that comes out at the other end.

10/27/2010 12:41:00 pm  
Anonymous Devil's Kitchen said...

BE,

"I don't see why taxpayers should have to build the factories when they are also going to be the ones buying the electricity that comes out at the other end."

I think that it's because governments see jobs as a benefit, not a cost.

But that is, of course, because they are primarily politicians and not driven by such sensible things as economics.

In fact, having democratically elected politicians "running" an economy will result in an almost textbook definition of the perils of perverse incentives...

DK

10/27/2010 12:52:00 pm  
Anonymous Scooper said...

Adam Bell. You seem to be missing the point - wind turbines whether onshore or offshore are useless and will contribute little towards energy security. Wind turbines generate electricity using huge magnets, the raw materials for which are completely controlled by the Chinese. I've seen two different estimates, but China controls the supply of between 90 - 95% of rare earth metals which are needed to make these magnets. We've seen them getting stroppy already with the USA for the supply of resources so I wouldn't like to depend on them for a secure supply of anything.

If energy security is high on the agenda for power production, we should be investing in natural gas exploration in the North Sea (shale extraction) moving into the latest generation of nuclear. Wind power endangers energy security if anything.

The investment in green manufacturing of this sort is political only and the price we have to pay for letting a fool like Huhne loose on decision making. Most of these windfarms are just vanity projects and the money would have been better off spent improving the technology for power production and storage. I would love to see renewables as our main source of energy but the current technology just won't cut it. Here's a link to a book why explains why this is the case and should be mandatory reading for anybody interested in the future of energy production.
P.S I am not the author!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Hungry-Robert-Bryce/dp/1586487892/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1288181680&sr=8-2

10/27/2010 01:17:00 pm  
Anonymous T England. Raised from the dead. said...

The world’s oil will be all but gone by the end of the century, as a major contributor to global warming it looks like those who want an end to the use of fossil fuels will get their way, there is however a problem with that, a very big problem with that, we rely on fossil fuel for almost everything we do, what are the alternatives to not using fossil fuel?
Solar, wind, wave, bio, nuclear, fusion & more!

Let’s look at some figures as to get our head around what we are trying to achieve.
The average person uses around 2.2 KW as they go about their life, an average American uses over 11KW, that takes the worlds global energy consumption to 13 terra watts or put another way, 13 million, million watts.
As the governments of the world are always telling us to be fair, I think the example I have from Dr Saul Griffith & Brian Cox is rather fitting!
Let’s say we want to give each person on the planet 5KW by 2035 to use as they go about their lives, doesn’t sound too much does it? Sounds fair & we have 25 years to achieve it, but can we do it without fossil fuel?

If we have 6 billion people on the planet each using 5KW of power that comes to 30 terra watts of global consumption, can we mix & match energies to make up the power?

For the major chunk of the power we would need 5,000 nuclear reactors, that’s two & a half full size reactors to be built each week for the next 25 years.
You would need to build & install a full size 3 mega watt wind turbine every 3 minutes for the next 25 years (& not forgetting the land to put them on).
What about solar to raise 10 terra watts, you would need 250 sq metres of solar cells to be put up every second for the next 25 years.
What about Bio fuel, 2 terra watts. You would need 4 Olympic size swimming pools filled with genetically modified bacteria to be built every second.
The amounts above don’t take into consideration a population increase.

Alternatives to oil are out there, but as we can see we should be building all those things now, as were not, what are we going to do about the oil running out?
What are we going to do about sharing the power around the world, because trying to raise the power needed for everyone to have a fair share is an almost impossible task.

Our saviour could be fusion power, sounds like science fiction but we are getting quite close to engineering a machine that can produce fusion power, that closeness can’t come soon enough, but most seem to be hoping within 50 years.

10/27/2010 01:38:00 pm  
Anonymous BashTheMsm said...

wind power is useless because it is not dispatchable. as long as folks expect something to happen when they flick a switch, wind power will be only a toy for politicians.
however, them politicians are so hell bent on driving us back to the preindustrial era that the wind turbines might come usfeul to the elites in order to keep their high profile lifestyle, while the rest of us will be back to a stage where our days will be spent looking for food and energy.
even if costs of energy produced with wind will become competitive with coal or gas, it still will be unpredictable. try to run any factory, with the power coming and going.

10/27/2010 01:53:00 pm  
Anonymous T England. Raised from the dead. said...

As we can see from some of the figures above using alternative energy sources like wind & solar may seem like a nice way to power ourselves but creating the amount of energy we need for us all to survive is almost insane, there seems to be only one real hope & that is fusion, the best thing about fusion power is that it doesn’t produce carbon dioxide & so no global warming, not that the oil running out won’t help with that anyhow!

Our future is dependant on developing fusion power. This will take a massive effort by many countries around the world & has already been ongoing for a good few years now, the experts seem to think we aren’t too far away from getting the engineering right that will allow us to do this.
We know the science of it works, so “all” it seems we have to do is get the engineering right. Although that trips of the tongue what we as human beings would have achieved by creating such a machine will be the greatest engineering feat ever.

From what I understand we have two main ways to make fusion power, the first is nuclear fusion at NIF, using 5 hundred trillion watt laser beams & we should know by around 2011 if laser fusion is possible, if not they will look to prototype fusion reactors that extract energy from stable plasma at the national fusion research centre, but if that doesn’t work then we could be in real trouble!
The sad thing is that we spend more on ring tones than we invest in fusion.

There is a lot of science involved with lighting a star on earth to create fusion but its nice to know that IF we can get fusion power to work not only are our energy worries over but so are the worries about global warming.

10/27/2010 02:39:00 pm  
Anonymous BashTheMsm said...

"using 5 hundred trillion watt laser beams"

how many wind farm would take to power that stuff?
we are at least 50 years away from fusion, and could be even longer. in the meanwhile, if we keep chasing this pie-in-the-sky dream of renewables, we will run out of money and energy long before we manage to achieve self-sustained, power producing fusion.

10/27/2010 05:16:00 pm  
Anonymous Alexander said...

Makes you independent of natural gas? How wrong can you be?

As we have no significant hydro, you have to construct fossil fuelled standby plant at 90% of the rated maximum power for the windmills. The cheapest is a CCGT.

So, because the maximum expected capacity factor of the windmills is 31%, you have to use natural gas for 69% of your electricity.

So, the windmills lock you into natural gas. This is the lesson we need to bang into the head of the useless politicos in charge of energy. The Germans and Danes are giving up on wind because it does not reduce CO2 more than about 5% [because the thermodynamic efficiency of the standby plant is reduced by the need for continual cycling].

10/27/2010 05:16:00 pm  
Anonymous Rightwinggit said...

Thorium reactors.

Already up and running.

The British isles are rich in thorium.

10/27/2010 06:54:00 pm  
Anonymous T England. Raised from the dead. said...

Not sure how much more DK can suffer but as this took me ages last year to put together & i don't get much chance to use it, I'll continue, fair enough DK if you delete ;O)

I’d like to look at another savoir, permaculture, that sounds like some hippy type of garden farming but it has some real benefits & a quick look at some figures shows how.
We have three ways of doing farming, drudgery, throw fossil fuel at it or we use permaculture.
A garden forest (permaculture) can have a high yield, a garden forest working at maximum yield can feed 10 people per acre & that is double the amount we can feed from an average acre of arable farmland now.
A vegetable garden with an experienced gardener can produce up to five times more food per metre than a large farm, these figures shouldn’t be ignored.

So we do have away forward, something we can do about oil & food shortages & one good thing, if you can call it that, is that global warming, as we know it, will become a thing we used to worry about! Phew!

So how can I convince you of fusion & permaculture?
To start with I need the help of Rebecca Hosking, the wildlife film maker & I will also need to give quotes from other experts in their field as I continue.

Most, if not all of our farms are dependant on fossil fuels.
The energy crisis will likely bring about a revolution in farming & change our country side forever, this change will also affect what we eat & where it comes from.
The problem to start with for many people will be how much hard work farming normally is, farmers children in many cases are encouraged to get out of the hard farming life. That may be why the average age of a farmer is now around 60 & there are only about 50,000 of them left.
Just looking at that figure must make us think we have neglected farming & farmers for too long, the thing, is if we don’t get back into farming we will be dependant on imports that, as the oil runs out, will be more expensive & harder to source.
Oil expert Dr Colin Campbell says, “despite searching the world with all the modern technology we have at our disposal we are finding less & less oil, we have been using more oil than we have found since 1981 & so are now just sucking down into our inheritance”.

You can always find experts that will argue about nearing to the date & peak of oil production but there is no serious doubt we are getting close to a turning point for mankind, sounds dramatic, but when we reach that peak we are on a down hill slope, there is a date that some believe oil will start to dry up & that is 2013. The oil decline means fuel shortages & prolonged economic turmoil. The impacts could be disastrous, it can even lead to war.

At the moment if we didn’t have oil we would starve, even your humble sandwich takes large amounts of oil to produce it, from the farmer sowing the seed & using his tractor to harvest, to the plastic wrapping that wraps around your loaf.
Apart from transport like cars, trucks & aeroplanes agriculture is the most fossil fuel intensive industry, when we look at the figures of how much calories to calories we need we see that it takes about 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce just one calorie of food, this can’t go on.

As we can see so far, we don’t have to just worry about fossil fuel running out because we won’t be able to fill up our car, the oil running out should make us worry about every part of our lives..................

10/27/2010 08:24:00 pm  
Anonymous SadButMadLad said...

I maybe wrong but I thought the whole thing about wind and other renewables is not that they take over from all other forms of generation, but that they add to it. So on nice sunny/windy days we use less gas and coal.

Government interference does not work in as it twists everything out of kilter. Be it by forcing customers to pay an extra renewable tax or by paying above market rates to individual generators for their feedins. So you get stupid situations where you could end up with someone shining arc lights on solar panels and actually ending up in profit.

10/27/2010 10:32:00 pm  
Anonymous Cerberus said...

Adam Bell: "Demand for wind and other renewables is still being driven less by environmental concerns than the very hard-headed realisation that it constitutes a useful hedge against rising gas prices."

To start with there are no environmental concerns. The only serious concerns there are centre on loss of face.

The control freaks hitched their wagon to a fantasy, CAGW, in order to grow the state. Now it's crumbling around them. But all hell will freeze over before they admit they wrong. If they have to permanently tear the guts out of Western economies that will be done without even a second glance. Once the state juggernaut gathers momentum it will take more than sweet reason to bring it to a halt in less than decades. They will happily pervert the minds of whole generations of school children in an effort to embed the big CAGW lie deep in their souls. Their propaganda outlets will maintain the steady drip, drip, wherever the opportunity arises so the lie becomes second nature. The entire climatic history of the world will be (and is being) rewritten as necessary, Stalinist fashion, to suit their requirements.

And how can something that is demonstrably useless be a hedge against anything? Give me strength. Wind power (if it even merits the use of the word) is not available on demand and we cannot store it. If we had the terrain and the investment in hydro then maybe, but we don't have those things and we can't conjure up mountains and valleys and dams out of thin air, let alone the pumped water schemes.

All the power in the world is of NO use unless it can be made available when there is demand either by being switched on at source or by cracking open a store of the stuff.

As for the supposed 25% load factor, that has to coincide with peak demand during the day to be of much use, so maybe 10% to 20% would be a more realistic measure. And on top of that, you want it to be available at the time of the year when it's needed. In January and February the wind wasn't there, so the wretched junk didn't produce.

The only thing the windmills can efficiently produce is economic ruination. Environmental? Not remotely, the very opposite, an environmental disaster, as anyone who has to live near them is all too well aware.

10/28/2010 12:56:00 am  
Anonymous Cerberus said...

Adam Bell: "Demand for wind and other renewables is still being driven less by environmental concerns than the very hard-headed realisation that it constitutes a useful hedge against rising gas prices."

To start with there are no environmental concerns. The only serious concerns there are centre on loss of face.

The control freaks hitched their wagon to a fantasy, CAGW, in order to grow the state. Now it's crumbling around them. But all hell will freeze over before they admit they wrong. If they have to permanently tear the guts out of Western economies that will be done without even a second glance. Once the state juggernaut gathers momentum it will take more than sweet reason to bring it to a halt in less than decades. They will happily pervert the minds of whole generations of school children in an effort to embed the big CAGW lie deep in their souls. Their propaganda outlets will maintain the steady drip, drip, wherever the opportunity arises so the lie becomes second nature. The entire climatic history of the world will be (and is being) rewritten as necessary, Stalinist fashion, to suit their requirements.

And how can something that is demonstrably useless be a hedge against anything? Give me strength. Wind power (if it even merits the use of the word) is not available on demand and we cannot store it. If we had the terrain and the investment in hydro then maybe, but we don't have those things and we can't conjure up mountains and valleys and dams out of thin air, let alone the pumped water schemes.

All the power in the world is of NO use unless it can be made available when there is demand either by being switched on at source or by cracking open a store of the stuff.

As for the supposed 25% load factor, that has to coincide with peak demand during the day to be of much use, so maybe 10% to 20% would be a more realistic measure. And on top of that, you want it to be available at the time of the year when it's needed. In January and February the wind wasn't there, so the wretched junk didn't produce.

10/28/2010 01:04:00 am  
Anonymous Adam Bell said...

Many interesting responses, thanks.

@Scooper: You may wish to look up that noted leftie Tim Worstall on the subject of rare earths. They differ from gas inasmuch as they're much more equally distributed about the world - the reason for the Chinese stranglehold is that they're the only chaps with appropriate extraction facilities and sufficient disregard for the resultant pollution. We can rely on the market here, I would aver.

On shale gas, I'm very much agnostic - the only reserve estimates I've seen tend to come from people who want lots of money for their lovely fracturing technology. I think this is a wait-and-see technology.

@Alexander: You give figures of a share of generation of 31% wind to 69% gas. As an advocate of wind, I think this is rather generous to wind! There a few points to make. The first is that if you need to buy an expensive thing, buying something else that despite its initial high cost will eventually result in you using 25% less of that expensive thing is certainly a good deal. The second is that a lot of subtle investment is going into large-scale rapid-reaction biomass plants, providing us with one option for wind-shadowing following the end of natural gas. The second is that advocates of the third-generation nukes keep claiming they're rampable easily, which if true provides another option that'll save nuke fuel too.

@Cerebus: Your points are largely covered above, but I would say that it doesn't necessarily matter when the wind blows under our current set-up, as we're already getting about a third of our baseload from rampable gas in any case. You still get the fuel savings, and you will up till when wind is taking up to about 30% of our capacity. Coincidentally, that's the amount we're talking about building.

10/28/2010 02:32:00 pm  
Anonymous Jack Hughes said...

It's simple:

we did windmills 200 years ago. When something better came along we jumped at the chance.

10/28/2010 10:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Cerberus said...

What I find interesting is the general assumption here that, other than fossil fuel and windmills (which are a joke), salvation lies in developing fusion reactors.

Well, after 50 years of research it looks as though fusion is still 50 years away, and there is no certainty that the technical difficulties that are known can be solved satisfactorily,

Yet there is another source of virtually limitless power which no-one appears to have heard of. And the very reason that no-one has heard of it is because governments have kept mighty quiet about it and it has never been mentioned when the future of energy is discussed publicly.

I am referring of course to thorium.

Thorium is much more abundant than uranium and every ounce of it can be used in reactors, unlike uranium which requires enrichment.

One ton of thorium is equivalent to 3.5 million tons of coal in terms of energy produced. Thorium reactors produce a tiny fraction of the by products of uranium reactors and do not present the huge difficulties of storage for many thousands of years because their half lives are measured in tens of years.

Compared with uranium, thorium reactors can be designed to be inherently safe, free from the danger of meltdown, or even operate in a sub-critical state using an accelerator.

Thorium reactors can even be used to efficiently rid us of plutonium.

The advantages of thorium are so great when you start to look at them that this has to be the power source of the century if it can surmount the obstacles which currently bar the way.

There is one reason uranium has ruled the roost. Uranium reactors were the means by which governments could produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

10/29/2010 12:31:00 am  
Anonymous IanH said...

Thorium is indeed the disregarded fission game changer, useless for bombs yet plentiful and cheap. Just what you dont want if you wish a return to the agrarian dark ages. Unless you see your self as a potential feudal aristocrat or priest.

Shale gas has crashed the price of natural gas in the USA (look at the performance of the natural gas exchange traded fund), it isnt just snake oil salesmen selling fraccing techniques, it works and amazingly well. Should we believe that US geology is unique in its wealth of shale plays?. Watch the EU machine impede development of shale gas in Europe through tax ,regulation and eco crap at every turn. Its covered in the 'nohotair' blog in depth.

10/29/2010 09:11:00 am  
Anonymous Cerberus said...

I have been thinking more and more that if governments had not gone down the uranium route (for the weapons' material) and chosen thorium for power plants instead, we might not be where we are today, on the eco-fascist road to economic collapse. Thorium is potentially so much more practical than uranium as an energy source that the perfectly valid environmental concerns that prevented the wider tale-up of nuclear power would never have come to the fore.

10/29/2010 10:10:00 am  
Anonymous cos said...

Alexander is right. Wind is unreliable and needs back up from CCGT, pumped storage or other. Offshore has an unproven reliability record and very poor payback even in good sites (and we have plenty of those around our coast). Marginal cost may be zero, but the initial capital cost is huge and the useful economic life not proven. Nuclear is the only serious option. 'Investment' in windmill manufacturing plants is a bit like the trains 'manufactured' in the UK, basically assembly of subcomponents. The returns on this capital don't get reinvested in the UK, they go straight back to the parent corporations, as does the intellectual property gained from development of these technologies. Rubbish deal.

10/29/2010 11:38:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Archives

Previous Posts

Archives

Testimonials

  • "The best British political/libertarian blog on the web. Consistently excellent but not for the squeamish."—Christopher Snowdon
  • "[He] runs the infamous and fantastically sweary Devil’s Kitchen blog, and because he’s one of the naughtiest geeks (second only to the incredibly, incredibly naughty Guido Fawkes) he’s right at the top of the evil dork hierarchy."—Charlotte Gore
  • "I met the Devil's Kitchen the other night. What a charming young man he is, and considerably modest too..."—Peter Briffa
  • "The Devil's Kitchen exposes hypocrisy everywhere, no holds barred."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "People can still be controversial and influential whilst retaining integrity—Devil's Kitchen springs to mind—and attract frequent but intelligent comment."—Steve Shark, at B&D
  • "Sometimes too much, sometimes wrong, sometimes just too much but always worth a read. Not so much a blog as a force of nature."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "The Devil's Kitchen—a terrifying blog that covers an astonishing range of subjects with an informed passion and a rage against the machine that leaves me in awe..."—Polaris
  • "He rants like no one else in the blogosphere. But it's ranting in an eloquent, if sweary, kind of way. Eton taught him a lot."—Iain Dale
  • "But for all that, he is a brilliant writer—incisive, fisker- extraordinaire and with an over developed sense of humour... And he can back up his sometimes extraordinary views with some good old fashioned intellectual rigour... I'm promoting him on my blogroll to a daily read."—Iain Dale
  • "... an intelligent guy and a brilliant writer..."—A Very British Dude
  • "... the glorious Devil's Kitchen blog—it's not for the squeamish or easily offended..."—Samizdata
  • "... a very, smart article... takes a pretty firm libertarian line on the matter."—Samizdata
  • "By the way, DK seems to be on fucking good form at the moment."—Brian Mickelthwait
  • "Perhaps the best paragraph ever written in the history of human creation. It's our Devil on fine form."—Vindico
  • "Devil's Kitchen is the big name on the free-market libertarian strand of the British blogosphere... Profane rants are the immediate stand-out feature of DK's blog, but the ranting is backed up by some formidable argument on a wide range of issues particularly relating to British and European parliamentary politics, economics, and civil liberties."—Question That
  • "... an excellent, intelligent UK political blog which includes a great deal of swearing."—Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
  • "I like the Devil's Kitchen. I think it's one of the best written and funniest blogs in the business."—Conservative Party Reptile
  • "The. Top. UK. Blogger."—My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
  • "For sheer intelligence, erudition and fun, Iain Dale's Diary, Cranmer and Devil's Kitchen are so far ahead of the rest I don't see how they can figure in a top ten. They are the Beatles, Stones and Who of the blog world; the Astair, Bogart and Marlon Brando of the blog world; the Gerswin, Porter and Novello of the blog world; the Dot Cotton, Pat Butcher, Bette Lynch of the blog world..."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "It's the blogging equivalent of someone eating Ostrich Vindaloo, washed down by ten bottles of Jamaican hot pepper sauce and then proceeding to breathe very close to your face while talking about how lovely our politicians are... But there's much more to his writing than four letter words."—Tom Tyler
  • "God bless the Devil's Kitchen... Colourful as his invective is, I cannot fault his accuracy."—Tom Paine
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is a life-affirming, life-enhancing blog ... This particular post will also lead you to some of the best soldiers in the army of swearbloggers of which he is Field Marshal."—The Last Ditch
  • "... underneath all the ranting and swearing [DK]'s a very intelligent and thoughtful writer whom many people ... take seriously, despite disagreeing with much of what he says."—Not Saussure
  • "... the most foul-mouthed of bloggers, Devils Kitchen, was always likely to provoke (sometimes disgust, but more often admiration)."—The Times Online
  • "The always entertaining Mr Devil's Kitchen..."—The Times's Comment Central
  • "Frankly, this is ranting of the very highest calibre."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "I don't mean it literally, or even metaphorically. I just find that his atheism aside, I agree with everything the Devil (of Kitchen fame...) says. I particularly enjoy his well crafted and sharp swearing, especially when addressed at self righteous lefties..."—The Tin Drummer
  • "Spot on accurate and delightful in its simplicity, Devil's Kitchen is one of the reasons that we're not ready to write off EUroweenie-land just yet. At least not until we get done evacuating the ones with brains."—Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • "This hugely entertaining, articulate, witty Scottish commentator is also one of the most foul-mouthed bloggers around. Gird up your loins and have a look. Essential reading."—Doctor Crippen
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is one of the foremost blogs in the UK. The DK is bawdy, foul-mouthed, tasteless, vulgar, offensive and frequently goes beyond all boundaries of taste and decency. So why on earth does Dr Crippen read the DK? Because he reduces me to a state of quivering, helpless laughter."—Doctor Crippen's Grand Rounds
  • "DK is a take-no-prisoners sort of libertarian. His blog is renowned for its propensity for foul-mouthed invective, which can be both amusing and tiresome by turns. Nevertheless, he is usually lucid, often scintillating and sometimes illuminating."—Dr Syn
  • "If you enjoy a superior anti-Left rant, albeit one with a heavy dash of cursing, you could do worse than visit the Devil's Kitchen. The Devil is an astute observer of the evils of NuLabour, that's for sure. I for one stand converted to the Devil and all his works."—Istanbul Tory
  • "... a sick individual."—Peter Briffa
  • "This fellow is sharp as a tack, funny as hell, and—when something pisses him off—meaner than a badger with a case of the bullhead clap."—Green Hell
  • "Foul-mouthed eloquence of the highest standard. In bad taste, offensive, immoderate and slanderous. F***ing brilliant!—Guest, No2ID Forum
  • "a powerfully written right-of-center blog..."—Mangan's Miscellany
  • "I tend to enjoy Devil's Kitchen not only because I disagree with him quite a lot of the time but because I actually have to use my brain to articulate why."—Rhetorically Speaking
  • "This blog is currently slamming. Politics certainly ain't all my own. But style and prose is tight, fierce, provocative. And funny. OK, I am a child—swear words still crack a laugh."—Qwan
  • "hedonistic, abrasive but usually good-natured..."—The G-Gnome
  • "10,000 words per hour blogging output... prolific or obsessive compulsive I have yet to decide..."—Europhobia
  • "a more favoured blog from the sensible Right..."—Great Britain...
  • "Devils Kitchen, a right thinking man indeed..."—EU Serf
  • "an excellent blog..."—Rottweiler Puppy
  • "Anyone can cuss. But to curse in an imaginative fashion takes work."—Liftport Staff Blog
  • "The Devil's Kitchen: really very funny political blog."—Ink & Incapability
  • "I've been laffing fit to burst at the unashamed sweariness of the Devil's Kitchen ~ certainly my favourite place recently."—SoupDragon
  • "You can't beat the writing and general I-may-not-know-about-being-polite-but-I-know-what-I-like attitude."—SoupDragon
  • "Best. Fisking. Ever. I'm still laughing."—LC Wes, Imperial Mohel
  • "Art."—Bob
  • "It made me laugh out loud, and laugh so hard—and I don't even get all the references... I hope his politics don't offend you, but he is very funny."—Furious, WoT Forum
  • "DK himself is unashamedly right-wing, vitriolic and foul mouthed, liberally scattering his posts with four-letter-words... Not to be read if you're easily offended, but highly entertaining and very much tongue in cheek..."—Everything Is Electric
  • "This blog is absolutely wasted here and should be on the front page of one of the broadsheets..."—Commenter at The Kitchen
  • "[This Labour government] is the most mendacious, dishonest, endemically corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent, illiberal fucking shower of shits that has ruled this country..."—DK

Blogroll

Campaign Links

All: Daily Reads (in no particular order)

Politics (in no particular order)

Climate Change (in no particular order)

General & Humour (in no particular order)

Mac,Design Tech & IT (in no particular order)