Main Menu
- Other links
- Sections
- About
This snapshot, taken on 07/08/2007, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
Some of the submissions received refer to questions that were available on the site during the consultation.
Q1:
The government should give much greater support to developing energy efficiency and promoting micro generation. As a householder trying to become more energy efficient and self-sufficient, it is taking me weeks, if not months to get sufficient information and advice to make an informed decision. As the support from government changes from year to year, advisers are uncertain about what levels of subsidy etc. people can expect.
It has been shown to be most cost effective to promote energy efficiency, therefore the government should provide incentives to householders, businesses, builders and energy suppliers to do so. I am amazed that housebuilders are still able to get away with building energy inefficient buildings, with no thought about the carbon footprint of the materials they are using. The example of Kingsmead Primary School (www.kingsmead.cheshire.sch.uk), shows that it is possible to build a highly energy efficient and sustainable building for no more than a ‘traditional’ school building, by getting the architect and builder to examine each step of the process and calculate the footprint of the materials etc. It is disappointing that many of the materials they used had to come from Europe. Energy efficiency and sustainable build could also boost local economies.
As a lot of energy is lot in the process of generation and supply over long distances, more should be done to encourage microgeneration.
Q2:
The government should phase out reliance on fossil fuels by providing greater incentives to promote energy efficiency, micro generation and renewable energy.
For reasons of security, carbon emissions and energy efficiency, the government should seek to reduce dependence on fuel imports, especially fossil fuels.
The technology exists for almost all households and businesses to be energy self sufficient through a mix of options (greater energy efficiency, micro generation). As yet the market does not do enough to encourage self sufficiency.
A recent survey showed that a majority of householders would be prepared to pay an extra £10,000 on top of the cost of buying a house to be more energy self sufficient. The government needs to ensure that all new build / new businesses takes energy self sufficiency into account and gives tax breaks and grants to those seeking to become more self sufficient with existing properties and businesses. Germany is demanding 3% efficiency savings year on year. The UK government should set similar targets and support their attainment.
Q3:
It would be a great admission of the failure of succesive governments to take the issue of climate change seriously if we had to fall back on the nuclear option to bail us out of our dependence on fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy has never been a cost effective way to generate energy if all ths costs are taken into account. No nuclear power station has been successfully decomissioned, and the costs of doing so, waste storage etc. are constantly escalating. The nuclear industry only survives with government subsidy. It ws only seen as more viable than tidal power back in the 1970s (the duck technology) by massaging the figures.
It is argued that nuclear does not produce carbon emissions. However, mining uranium does, and as the UK does not have supplies of uranium, we become dependent on other countries for its supply, and it is a finite resource.
In addition there is the cost of decommissioning old nuclear power stations and storing the radioactive waste, effectively passing the cost into many generations to come in the future.
Though the nuclear industry claims to have a good safety record, there has been a history of covering up problems. There is also the issue of increased risk of cancers to those living near to nuclear power stations. There is also the fact that the process leads to the manufacture of plutonium and the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation (why should we have nuclear energy and say Iran not?) and the risk of terrorists and governments using nuclear weapons.
Q4:
The government should seek to phase out fossil fuels by progressive taxation. The fossil fuel escalator tax should be reintroduced, as it has been shown to be an effective way of promoting efficiency and alternatives.
Q5:
As stated earlier, far greater support in terms of grants and tax allowances should be given to encouraging energy efficiency and self sufficiency.
All homes could be heated by renewable energy with existing technology (Solar, geothermal, biomass etc.) in various combinations with higher energy efficiency.
Qi:
Far greater incentives need to be given to encourage greater use of public transport and the setting up of integrated transport initiatives.
Aviation should be made to pay the full cost of its carbon impacts, and greater encouragement of rail use for short haul distances.
Qii: I have already stated that much greater suppot should be given to micro generation.
Qiii:
The UK needs to set a good example of moving to a non fossil fuel ecomony itself (as Sweden and Iceland are doing) and seek to promote technology transfer with less developed ecomomies.
The UK should use its clout in the UN Security Council and international financial institutions to promote energy efficiency and renewable enrgy markets.
Our response is triggered by to approaching Government driven disasters, a) the impending failure of UK energy supplies (we are already dependent foreign supplies and will be more dependent as time goes by), and b) economic collapse of the Caithness economy (due to a)).
Q.1 Four decades of HMG permitting FoE, GP, etc. to be practically the only source of information (mis-information) regarding nuclear power. This gave HMG freedom to dither and procrastinate to the extent that we are now probably heading for supply failure, and certainly for high cost energy, each because of seriously flawed energy policies, and a rabid market system worthy of a most right-wing regime. To put things right will require courage to scrap the daft dash for windmills, and build replacement nuclear plant as a 90 year? stop-gap until fusion power is available. This time lag could be reduced if we spent more money on the science/engineering of fusion, instead of on Millennium Domes, Follywood building monstrosities, etc., etc. UK's CO2 projected saving of ~0.03% on a world scale is costing UK industry heavily because competitors are playing a different game to us, but it is giving UK politicians kudos among the less well informed.
Q.2. Deliberate government policy to place UK in a position of heavy dependency on foreign, unreliable, fuel supply amounts to treason; in no way should it have happened, and immediate steps should be taken to rectify the situation by spending the £bs wasted on windmills on new nuclear build.
Q.3. “Long term liabilities” is a spin term to cover HMG procrastination, mis-management, and political expediency. The “problems” involved are political, not technical. Look beyond the blinkered personal political world, and it will be observed that the rest of the world are getting on with new nuclear power build (and the infrastructure which goes with it), muchly using techniques and expertise that we gave them. Perhaps they will sell this back to at a reduced rate, out of sympathy. The answer is clear; for fusion, assume 30 yrs. to prove the science and to see an engineering way forward, 12-15 yrs. to design, build, operate, and prove an experimental power plant, 12-15 yrs. to design, build, operate and prove a prototype, 10-12 yrs. to design, build, operate, and prove a demonstrator, and 24 yrs. to build a dozen civil plants. That’s ~90 yrs. during which time we will need about 40 fission plants. The overall comment is “get on with it”.
Q.4. Don’t allow divisive financial contortions to ruin, nor even restrain, UK economy drivers relative to our competitors. Hydrogen fuel has been relatively ignored by HMG, otherwise some of the huge wastage of resources would have been spent on nuclear power production of hydrogen, and vastly accelerated development, and production, of vehicular hydrogen engines. This technology can be adapted to domestic use where developers are currently moving forward, but with little support from HMG. These areas are much more important than Olympic stadia for example. Fast reactors would be ideal for producing hydrogen for heating and transport, and for use in gas fired, eventually fuel cell, power stations.
Q.5. This question is social, not technical. Amongst the swathe of poorly controlled HMG hand-outs, there should be room for one more.
i. The best methods should all be followed; this could be achieved by raising the issue up the financing agenda (grants, loans, regulations, etc.), and moving some of the less sensible ones lower.
ii. a) A sub-marine high voltage cable around much of the coast. b) Scrap the windmill syndrome. c) What happened to the carbon fibre technology for (same loading) relatively smaller pylons ?
iii. Seems OK, but it generally means we come off worst. The criteria must be to preserve a policy of no dependency.
iv Already noted above, but change “medium and long term” to “short term”.
Q1:
The problem must be approached from the DEMAND side FIRST. The potential for reduction of carbon emissions and energy consumption are ENORMOUS. For example, the growth in car and air transport and the very poor standard of insulation of the housing stock are two serious problems which need to be addressed urgently through a mix of legislation, tax incentives and price support. I believe that action on these three are quasi non existent in Britain at present e.g. very poor state of public transport; the absence of any taxation of air travel and implicit acceptance that more airports are nuisances that more and more UK citizens will have to accept; low expectations in term of energy efficiency for new housing developments compared to some other European countries (in particular, Northern Europe).
As well as changes in policies and practises, there needs to be a radical change of mentality, which will probably take longer i.e. question the belief that our high energy consumption life-style and high value placed on mobility as all costs is desirable and sustainable.
Secondly, choose a mix of energy sources which are acceptable in ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL and ENVIRONMENTAL terms. See below.
Q2:
If high investments are going to be made they have to be directed to developing modes of energy production which:
1 - will pay for themselves within a reasonable period of time
2 - will require none or very low investment in disposal, de-pollution, decommissionning, etc.
3 - will be flexible e.g. to reduce or increase capacity according to demand
4 - will create jobs locally with few health and safety risks
5 - will offer a measure of control to local/regional populations (and not just experts and police forces on a national level)
6 - will not be dependent on imported fuels and/or fuels which are likely to run out
7 - will have very benign environmental impacts and few major risks to populations
I believe that alternative technologies such as wind, solar, biomass and tidal power offer all these. On point 4, it is particularly important to encourage not just big scale developments but small schemes in which local citizens, businesses and organisations can get involved, including financially. Why isn’t there any support in this country for district heating using local fuel (e.g. wood in my part of Wales) like in other countries e.g. Austria where it is very common?
Q3:
Although I have lived in this country for 19 years, I am a French national and well aware of the pitfalls of an energy policy which, in France, has encouraged a rapid expansion of the nuclear provision since the 1970s:
· NOT economically profitable or even sustainable because require very large sums of tax-payers money and constant State support. Without these two, nuclear energy would be produced at a loss. The partial privatisation of EDF (state monopoly for electricity production) has not attracted a lot of big investors in the field because they know this.
· The cost of decommisioning of ageing nuclear plants and treatment and storage of nuclear waste is estimated very high in spite of the impressive amount of research which has been carried out.
· A lot of minor incidences in the running of the existing plants which demonstrate that the technology is far from being mastered.
· Lack of flexibility of the facilities: supply currently exceeds demand
· security risks: it has been shown for a number of nuclear facilities that they are very vulnerable to terrorist attacks
· a mode of production which implies a centralised State, limited accountability and the use of secrecy (close links between nuclear for civil and defense purposes like in Britain). Lack of accountability and dominance of the nuclear lobby over French energy policies.
I urge the British government not to go down that route.
Q4:
· No or low VAT to encourage demand
· Stricter regulations to apply to housing providers and building industry, transport industry
· genuine support for a low fossil fuel life-style for citizens to be encouraged e.g. redirect some of the important resources supporting road transport of people and goods (Britain spends so much less than France on its railways); re-regulation of the bus industry so that it offers a quality service instead of benefiting from public money with very few conditions attached; long-term/secure funding for cycling facilities including attention to detail e.g. adequate funding for whole length cycle path instead of a cycle path which stops after a few hundred yards and requires the cyclist to get back onto a busy road deters many people.
Q5:
Ensure first that whatever heat is produced does not escape! i.e. High insulation to benefit from financial incentives (see above).
Qii:
Not knowledgeable enough to answer this question.
Qiii:
Develop contacts and organise study visits to see example of good practise in Scandinavia, Holland, Germany and Austria.
The town of Freiburg in Germany has implemented a extremely impressive, succesful and well-coordinated transport and housing policy for the whole town. Regular study visits and conferences are organised for Foreign visitors (e.g. managers in town planning, elected officials, etc.). The website with a English language option:
http://www.freiburg-futour.de/English/index.php
Q1:
Demand side
1.1a) Embrace ‘Contraction and Convergence’ as a fundamental principle. Using IPCC data set a date (probably 2040) when all inhabitants of the planet will need to have reached a level of greenhouse gas generation which is deemed sustainable (approximately 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita). As soon as practicable, issue ‘carbon credit cards’ (as part of identity cards?) and allocate each citizen a carbon dioxide equivalent allocation calculated at the start of each tax year as necessary to reduce UK carbon consumption on a year by year basis to ensure that the target per capita consumption is hit. Each time a commodity is purchased the carbon card will be swiped and its balance reduced by an amount which matches the carbon dioxide equivalent pollution caused by the production and marketing of the commodity purchased. Once the card is empty no further purchases will be possible unless the card is topped up through the purchase of a surplus of ‘carbon rights’ from a third party holding a surplus on their carbon card.
1.1b) Tax all energy consumption on a sliding scale. Allocate each citizen a free allowance per annum and tax, on an increasing sliding scale, all further energy consumption. Set the rates so that each year a prohibitive rate (e.g. £5 per kWh rather than 10p per kWh for electricity in today’s prices) is reached when the consumption has reduced the purchaser’s carbon credit to 25% of the allocation for the year.
1.1c) Tax energy consuming devices to obliterate waste. By way of illustration, a 1p per W tax on light bulbs would quickly eliminate incandescent bulbs in favour of CFLs and, shortly afterwards, eliminate CFLs in favour of LEDs.
1.1d) Tax all road vehicles with a CO2 emissions rate up to 150g/km at a rate of £1 per g/km emissions; for vehicles beyond 150g/km tax at the 150g/km rate plus a further £1 multiplied by the additional CO2 emissions in g/km raised to the power 1.5.
1.1e) Eliminate Stamp duty on all properties with a gross annual heating and hot water carbon dioxide output equal to or less than 2500kg. For properties with a gross carbon dioxide output per annum of more than 2500kg set a rate of 1% of the selling price multiplied by 0.01% of the gross annual carbon dioxide output raised to the power 1.5.
1.1f) Set Council Tax on properties at £1 per sq m multiplied by the gross carbon dioxide output for heating and hot water in kg per annum raised to the power 1.02.
1.1g) Stop promoting the growth of air transport.
1.1h) Tax aviation fuel at a rate to match fuel taxes on road vehicles calculated on a passenger per km and a tonne per km basis.
1.1i) Establish a UK flight tax of at least 1p per km.
1.1j) Amend Building Regulations to ensure that insulation standards are raised at a rate to ensure all building are net zero energy users for heating and hot water by 2016.
1.1k) Establish within 2 years a refurbishment program, funded through the taxes outlined above, which will upgrade all domestic properties to a standard of zero net carbon dioxide equivalent output from heating and hot water provision. This programme will need to be completed within 25 years at a linear rate.
Supply side
1.2a) Centralised electricity generation is insanely wasteful: after allowing for thermodynamic losses in the power station and transmission losses the overall efficiency can be as low as 22%. The extent of wasted energy is well illustrated by recalling the fact that the US electricity generation industry wastes more heat energy than the whole of the energy required to run the Japanese economy!
1.2b) Distribution losses could be dramatically reduced by converting the majority of buildings into micro-generators by installing renewable energy devices such as photovoltaic panels and appropriately scaled wind turbines linked to the national grid. Feed in tariffs and installation grants should be made available and paid for via the taxes described in 1.1 above.
1.2c) Combined heat and power and co-generation need to be promoted with much great vigour so that within 10 years all new heating systems will generate electricity and all new electricity generators will deliver local heating. All replacement domestic, commercial and industrial boilers should be mandated as co-generators/CHP within 5 years.
1.2d) An impressive example of the effectiveness of the strategies outlined in 1.2b) and 1.2c is to be found in Woking where carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 77% and energy costs also significantly reduced. Greater London is now committed to follow the identical route.
1.2e) All UK energy could be met by renewable sources linked with the obliteration of the waste alluded to in 1.2a. Although micro-generation must be promoted (1.2b), large scale renewables, particularly wind, wave and tidal generators, must also rapidly be brought to market via aggressive subsidies at the expense of the current enormous subsidies given to fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Q2:
No comments
Q3:
3.1 There are numerous well rehearsed reasons why nuclear power is an inappropriate solution to the problem of global warming and an inequitable choice by a just society:
3.2 It is too expensive if the full cycle costs are honestly included in calculations. Government figures for decommissioning, waste disposal and security are revised upwards almost on a weekly basis and have now reached alarming heights. All these costs are covered via government funding.
3.3 Additional nuclear power would never be supported in an unsubsidised open market and it is uninsurable. Consequently it will always require enormous subsidies or a guaranteed price for its electricity provided through taxation. The tax payer has never been given an honest estimate of predicted costs nor a full account of actual costs. Undoubtedly if nuclear power new build is supported in the future the tax payer will be expected to once more pay up in ignorance.
3.4 Nuclear generated electricity is currently responsible for only 8% of the UK generated carbon dioxide. Even if nuclear generation capacity were to be doubled the reduction in carbon dioxide output would be too little too late as it would take a minimum of 12 years and UK carbon dioxide pollution needs to be reduced by at least 30% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050 if we are to make a significant contribution to saving the world’s life support system.
3.5 Nuclear power stations and nuclear re-processing plants such as Sellafield are gift horses for terrorists. Only a few kg of spent fuel mixed with conventional explosives could be used as a dirty bomb to put out of use a large area of any of our cities. Sellafield has admitted that it is unable to account accurately for its fuel movements through its reprocessing plants, apparently satisfied with estimates to the nearest tonne or so.
3.6 Management incompetence at Sellafield beggars belief. Processed fuel shipments have had to be returned from Japan because of falsified figures. A few months ago a pipe burst and leaked spent fuel rods dissolved in acid for several weeks before staff realised that the meter readings were actually indicating that less was exiting the stream than was entering it. Press reports indicated a volume of highly radioactive waste products sufficient to half fill an Olympic sized swimming pool now lies in a basement in the THORP plant. Apparently no one has yet worked out how to remove it but it has been admitted robots will have to be used.
3.7 No solution has yet been found for safe long term waste disposal. When a solution is found it will be paid for by taxation. The legacy of nuclear waste, and potential for nuclear accidents on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, raises profound questions of inter-generational justice.
3.8 It is not true that nuclear power stations are carbon dioxide neutral if the complete fuel cycle is taken into account. Furthermore, there is only enough high grade uranium ore to fuel the current world nuclear stations for about 30 years. Thereafter low grade ore will have to used and more energy will be required to mine, refine and enrich it than the nuclear power stations will be able to produce.
3.9 Further nuclear developments will serve to reinforce our grossly wasteful and polluting centralised electricity generation system. Based on past experience this will be at the expense of the necessary move towards a more efficient decentralised system centred around micro-generation as described in responses to question 1 above.
3.10 If we continue to develop nuclear power we remain in no position to influence other nations against following the same route, thereby increasing the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation and abuse by terrorists.
3.11 The best comprehensive summary of the case against more nuclear energy is contained in the Government’s Sustainable Development Commission’s submission to this Energy Review – I commend it to you.
3.12 To quote Sir Jonathon Porritt: “Anyone who goes around saying that nuclear power is the solution to our energy security and climate change problems is lying. Many people in government are simply looking for an easy fix.”
Q4:
See previous responses, particularly to question 1.
Q5:
5.1 Please see responses to question 1, particularly 1.1e), 1.1f), 1.1j) and 1.1k).
Qi:
In recent years we’ve been inundated with studies outlining how energy efficiency can play a vital cost effective role in averting global warming. In particular, with reference to energy efficiency in the residential sector, I invite you to re-read “40% House” by Boardman et al publ by Environmental Change Institute, Oxford.
Qii:
Please see responses1.2a), 1.2b), 1.2c) and 1.2d). In addition intelligent metering needs to be implemented without delay to reduce peak demand and hence overall plant capacity.
Qiii:
No comment
qiv_comments:
Please see responses1.2a), 1.2b), 1.2c) and 1.2d)
Demand side
· Ensure the opportunities are taken to underpin all Government strategy and investment with the energy hierarchy. Experience has demonstrated that the benefits of linking wider Government strategy with the opportunities to reduce energy demand has not been realised – energy policy is seen as a silo alongside a number of other thematic strategies, whereas considerable benefit could be reaped from their integration. Likewise, opportunities for energy efficiency and low carbon energy tend to ‘drop out’ of public investment in large and medium scale infrastructure development because a) they are considered too costly in the short term b) they have not been considered until plans are already well underway and/or c) the technologies are unproven or lack standardisation assurances. In all cases the Government can help by raising awareness within both the public and private sector of these opportunities.
· Integrate energy conservation and efficiency advice into mainstream business support and ensure that advice is available for all sizes of business. Advice should also include technical support for companies to utilise on-site energy saving and energy-generating technologies and should link in with current programmes (e.g. Carbon Trust, Envirowise, BREW etc.) and brokered and signposted through the Business Links. Business support staff should be aware of the opportunities for energy saving as part of their wider portfolio of business support activities.
· Stimulate and promote energy saving technologies such as mainstreaming the work being led by the Carbon Trust. Alongside this activity there is a need for the standardisation of technologies to ensure consumer confidence (i.e. ‘it does exactly what it says on the tin’)as well as developing a certification scheme for installers and that the skills base for future demands is met.
· Develop comprehensive carbon reduction programmes similar to CRed (www.cred-uk.org) in the East of England, that enable communities of stakeholders to join together to reduce emissions through energy efficiency and the utilisation of low carbon technologies. CRed demonstrates the benefits of taking a holistic view rather than focusing on specific sectors. Energy conservation is the real prize that requires a behavioural and societal change.
Supply side
· Update transmission and distribution networks, but investigate the opportunities for the development of small-scale generating capacity from renewables to help meet demand, especially in off-gas areas and the planned growth areas.
· Focus on regional strengths in developing generating capacity. For example the East of England has large growth predicted for offshore & onshore wind, biomass and biofuels and diversity. It has a wealth of service companies, a large number of existing companies wishing to diversify into this area and considerable expertise in its universities. EEDA have ensured that these opportunities have been taken through the formation of a renewable energy agency for the region Renewables East (www.renewableseast.org.uk) as cited by Sir Ben Gill as an exemplar. Regional structures provide an efficient and adaptable way to ensure the delivery of energy policy across the UK. There already exist a number of intra and inter-regional bodies and partnerships that are progressing the priorities of the Energy White Paper 2003. Full recognition and support for these groups should be recognised by central Government (as already exists within the DTi). However, the national perception that the regions are competing with one another is untrue, but rather collaborating on areas of common strength.
· Ensure long term incentives to invest in renewable energy infrastructure through public policy. The current Energy Review has developed into a renewables v nuclear debate and, as such, there is emerging concern within the renewables sector of the Government’s long term commitment to renewables. A clear message needs to come from Government that renewables is still a core element of the diversity of energy supply.
· Investigate the potential for existing offshore oil and gas infrastructure as an opportunity to capture and store carbon. The East of England Energy Group (www.eeegr.com) has began researching the potential of North Sea oil and gas fields as being a potential site for carbon sequestration.
· Bring together supply chains into regionally-based enterprise hubs based on technological strengths. In the East of England we have recognised a need to bring together the supply chain into one location and are about to build the Offshore Renewable Energy Centre in Lowestoft. The benefits of the Centre will be to profile the East of England as the region for offshore renewables, establish working and research space, establish networks and closer working links between companies and to act as exhibition and conference space.
· Ensure clear and consistent messages with regard to energy policy and pricing. At present consumers (both domestic and business) are not fully aware of the reasons for price rises and perceive it as an indirect way to collect revenue. A clear message with regards to security of supply and taxation to curb unsustainable consumption needs to come from central Government.
The public sector needs to be seen as leading by example, both in the procurement of energy efficient goods and services and the specification of high standards of energy efficient buildings as well as through the purchase of renewables and on-site generation of heat and energy. The current ‘value for money’ criteria for procurement is perceived as a barrier to delivering the objectives of the EWP. There needs to be strong guidance from central Government on what vfm means in the context of energy and sustainable development.
Q1:
The four policy aims in the consultation document should not have equal weight: this one is the most important because if climate change tips into instability it will make a mockery of the other aims.
It is not possible to guarantee a supply of energy to meet our every demand. Government must make it clear that we have to restrict our demand. The word “manage” is much too weak.
Alongside PR campaigns using role models and other strategies, taxes on energy use are essential and must be applied in sufficient measure to change behaviour.
Transport should be the main target for demand reduction.
Air travel should be a particular target. It is ridiculous that government is planning to permit (even encourage) the large increases in air travel, for example through airport expansion.
Keeping energy prices low is inappropriate; instead, they should reflect the true cost of generation, including external costs to the environment. The climate should no longer be regarded as a free good because we are all paying for its increased volatility now through extreme weather events and insurance premiums. The cost of further change will be much more than this.
Low income households should be protected by raising their income levels rather than by trying to keep energy prices low for everybody.
Heat pumps should be taken more seriously as an efficiency measure. Support mechanisms have been ambiguous about them (at best) but they do have significant potential, particularly if more houses will have their own micro-generation in the future and can supply on-site electricity from renewable sources to power the heat pump.
We urge you to consider introducing Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs). TEQs are a system for reducing fuel demand which includes everyone – individuals, industry and the Government – and which enables users to sell any permits they do not use. It is an electronic system for rationing energy in order to both reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and to maintain a fair distribution of oil, gas and electric power. The number of units available in he system would be set out in the TEQs Budget, which would look 20 years ahead. The size of the Budget goes down step-by-step, like a staircase, so as to constrain carbon-related energy use. (They used to be called Domestic Tradable Quotas and featured in Colin Challen MP’s DTQ bill last year.)
Smart electricity meters should also be introduced into homes and businesses, so that customers can see the price they are paying in real time and choose to use less power when the price is high. High price reflects high demand, so this will result in “demand lopping” and a reduction in the need for stand-by and spare generation capacity. The meters should also indicate the carbon implications of electricity use.
On the supply side, there needs to be a step change in support for research and development for renewable sources. In particular, a number of wave and tidal technologies need to be tested at significant scale.
Local communities should be more involved in ownership and obtaining direct benefit from commercial wind farms, so that they are more accepting of them.
A much more favourable tax (fuel duty) regime for biodiesel is essential.
Electricity suppliers should be compelled to make it economic for the public to invest in domestic micro-generation. Some suppliers are still thinking about it, others do not offer sufficiently good terms of payment. Legislation is required – now.
Current agencies working on delivering a sustainable energy programme in the UK are not achieving the required level of results. The approach is too reactive. A more pro-active approach would be more successful this could be achieved through;
· Review of current provision leading to a significant expansion
· Significantly improved integration of agencies working in this area
· Funding support for community based NGO’s, community groups and charities working in this area
· National public information programme and grant support
Q2:
There should be an emphasis on renewable sources of energy for heating.
Solar water heating should become the norm. All domestic new build should have to incorporate it and financial incentives for retrofit should be continued and expanded.
Biomass, including wood energy, should be encouraged more. Its contribution to rural development should be recognised where its use will support foresters, farmers and agricultural engineers in low income areas that have a plentiful supply of forest residues and under-managed farm woodlands. Support and incentives have favoured industrial and commercial applications, but community schemes should be treated equally favourably because of the impact successful community heating schemes can have on public awareness and opinion about renewables more generally. These are capital-intensive investments that build social capital as well as building energy security and price stability.
Q3:
The liabilities should not be left to future generations, but the costs of decommissioning and waste storage should be built into the short and medium term cost scenarios.
Full life cycle analysis of the carbon emissions should be employed, for example to include the implications of uranium mining and transport of fuel as well as electricity generation.
Research and development resources are not limitless. Priority should be given to energy efficiency, renewable sources, clean coal with carbon capture and carbon storage, in that order. There is no need for nuclear power, which carries unacceptable risks in relation to terrorist threat and accident.
Q4:
Government must establish a long-term framework that allows the private sector to plan ahead and invest in new technologies. It must be clear that carbon is going to become very expensive, thereby providing confidence that measures to abate it will be worthwhile.
Q5:
Keeping general energy prices low is definitely not the best strategy. Targeted programmes of investment and incentive such as Warm Front and new HEES should be better resourced and income levels raised in the poorest households.