Comments for Low Carbon Industrial Strategy: A Vision

Comment on The best place in the world for green businesses by Alan

Alan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:37:43 +0000

We have a commercially viable project that will be saving 177,000 tons of CO2 in year 1 and creating and securing employment in the rural economy. We have been ignored by DECC , when we contacted The Carbon Trust they said ” we are not interested” and I think very few people in goverment know anything about renewable energy that is not fed to them by foreign major power generators as their goal is the unending Nuclear gravy train.

We are forging head with private investment and with no help or assistance from Regional development agencies. The goverment opposition is just as patheticaly impotent. The German’s, Austrian’s, Dane’s and even the Swiss are laughing at our inability to grasp the opportunities available to even the simplest of renewable technologies with Germany having around 4000 Anerobic Digestors to our “8″ only 4 of which are commercially run. Pathetic…”!

Comment on Energy for the future by Sydney Charles

Sydney Charles — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:11:39 +0000

Reply to Joe Beale
I’m not sure why he suggests ‘investing heavily in nuclear fusion as a permanebt solution’ It all made sense up till then. Is he saying new nuclear fuel would be safe and is necessary for capacity?

Comment on General comments by Steve Marsden

Steve Marsden — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:24:06 +0000

Question for James Ockenden:
I agree that CCS is not yet “BAT”, and I like your idea that we could put sequestered CO2 to some use rather than storing it underground. But how could we safely consume the volumes emitted - millions of tonnes in the UK and billions of tonnes globally?

Comment on Saving through energy and resource efficiency by Andrew Vamplew

Andrew Vamplew — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:11:32 +0000

using better insulation or smart meters are sertantly good ways to save energy. But the controlling of the energy which a building uses can only be controled through BMS (building managment system)The turning off of unwanted lighting and heating can be done through this sort of system. People tend not to turn lights off in offices when bright sun light is shineing through the windows in the afternoon, such systems will do this automaticly with the use of light sensors.

Comment on General comments by James Ockenden

James Ockenden — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:15:33 +0000

Carbon Capture and Storage is far from being “Best Available Technology” yet policymakers around the world appear to have awarded it such status without waiting for even one full-scale, full-system demonstration plant to prove itself.
As a concept, CCS is certainly not snake-oil, but it is being marketed and promoted far beyond its weight, to the extent where it may build unstoppable policy momentum without further question of whether it is a sound environmental solution for our low carbon future.
Let’s not get carried away by hype or the promise of riches for the first nations to win the race. Overenthusiasm for CCS could divert money and policy time from more established (yet still immature) low carbon technologies, such as existing small-scale pebble-bed nuclear for example, or more mature renewable technologies.
I would urge ministers to take a step back, particularly ahead of Copenhagen, and ensure CCS is prioritized as a last resort.
In terms of Britain’s competitiveness and leadership, we don’t necessarily need to build CCS into our own low carbon future to become a world leader in the science, technology and engineering behind it. CO2 is not an evil poison, it is a useful industrial gas. By focusing on industrial CO2 capture, transportation, trade and handling, we could develop advanced competitive innovation and skills to allow us to revitalise our coal industry, mitigate our own contributions to global warming, and export our technologies and skills to those nations who choose to pump the gas underground as waste.

Comment on The low carbon transformation by Amy Elliott Peace

Amy Elliott Peace — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:28:19 +0000

Transition should mean looking where we want to go, where we are, and then PLANNING a route between the two.
A low carbon economy would be better planned if the issues were split out into supply and demand. i.e. how much energy can we sustainably supply and then how do we balance the demand against it. (An excellent approach to this has been set out at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.withouthotair.com)

In order to do the planning, the Government should appoint a Chief Engineer to oversee the assessment of what’s feasible in the timeline and how it should be done. Science dictates the “why” and options for solutions, but it is instrinsic to ‘engineering think’ to be best placed to do the “how”.

Finally, without some emissions burden being put on the consumer, rather than the producer (or benchmarking done of producers), the majority of our products will end up being made overseas, thus increasing the true UK carbon footprint, as seen post-Kyoto.

Comment on General comments by John Ward

John Ward — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:45:52 +0000

Is this not all, and i will steal one of your Ministers phrases, Window Dressing???

Why does the Government go on about “low carbon industrial strategy” when it is letting the only large scale wind turbine factory in britain disappear without a fight.

600 skilled workers in a product that is meant to be in demand ( and is worldwide) what kind of strategy is this??

Comment on Leading in low carbon transport by Tara May

Tara May — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:49:11 +0000

I support the Government’s proposals on this though reading comments here I see much more can be done especially in freeing the market and public transport investment.

On a personal note, please please can we have electric plug in points at train station car parks? And a programme to support people who do not have driveways (such as me) to apply for an on-street plug in point in the pavement?

Comment on The best place in the world for green businesses by Nicci Russell

Nicci Russell — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:33:37 +0000

The arguments set out in this section apply equally to water efficieny measures, programmes and products. Retrofit jobs linking water and energy efficiency have huge potential in the low-carbon economy, as does the development of the UK water efficient products market, including through fiscal incentives such as VAT reductions but also through business support measures.

Comment on Saving through energy and resource efficiency by Nicci Russell

Nicci Russell — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:31:20 +0000

Energy efficiency measures in businesses should be accompanied by water efficiency measures. These will save on energy bills through the heating of less wasted water, and will also save on water bills: simple fixes such as switching from urinals that flush throughout the day and night to new technologies that flush far less if at all can save businesses up to 40% of their water bills. Water efficiency measures are unique in that they help both climate change mitigation and adaptation.