|
Thomas, S
Thring, R
Tiesen, P
Tilley, S
Thompson, J
Twiss, D
Wallace, F
Walthew, R
Warren, J
Weeks, K
Westlake, S
White, G
Whitfield
Wilden, D
Wilkins, E
Woolley, K
Wright, J
Young, B
Some of the submissions received refer to questions that were available on the site during the consultation.
Q1:
On supply side pressing need to double the % of electricity from renewable sources, decentralise the national grid and expand
microgeneration and ensure enough land is available for biofuels. Explore new international partnerships with gas exporters
and ensure the planning system can deliver the supply.
on the demand side energy efficiency needs a massive boost, need to get tough and not just market the message but insist on
it, theres lots of carrots but no sticks, need to set up a system where the energy companies and the govt provide the capital
to install domestic renewables and then the customer just pays it back, an obligation on utlities to provide interest free
loans to cover this or better still just install them on the houses and then reoup the expense from bills, people just pay
when there bills have gone up 30% recently, so if they got a ‘free’ solar thermal system and new boiler and then there gas
was 1p per kWh more for the next ten years - would they really complain??
Q2:
Save the gas for burning domestically and generate the electrity from renewable sources instead. Wind the only really feasible
option at present but some miscanthus plants are worth investing in and eventually these ‘power bouys’ look good - visit http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/
more more info
Q3:
Yes the specific condition is that the waste management system needs to be ‘closed loop’ ie recycled in situ, not exporting
it around the world and this will decrease the risk (environmental and safety and seccruty etc) but also crucially make people
take ‘ownership’ of the waste and face the responsibility of what they create - if this cannot be done then there should be
no nuclear new build
Also need to look at cliamte change adaptation - flood defences, all te nuclears on the coast and we are lead to beleive will
be goen in 100 year, if its going to take 10-15 years to build and then 25-35 years lifetime of the plant then you’re talking
about coastal sites which by 2050 will already be starting to surcome to tidal inundation and therefore be inappropriate for
nuclear plants.
Id like to see nuclear plants only developed in large urban area, see how people feel about the health and safety of the sites
then!! its the only way to ensure nuclear is compatable with a deomcratic society, had accountability and ownership from local
communities etc.
Q4:
yes they should be VAT free, would be a major shot in the arm for that industry and by generating a 17.5% price differential
i think this would revolutionalise that market and lead to huge uptake.
Q5:
Landlords should be sued for corporate manslaughter if their tenants freeze to death, vulnerable groups should be housed in
‘zero heat’ houses, so super insualted that they cant possibly get cold. The Warmfront grant needs tweeking, more funding
for it full stop, less means testing, less beaucracy, make more pensioners eligable for it, enable OAP homes etc to claim
it, funded byt removal of the winter fuel payment whihc subsidies energy consumption and should go to buidling regs standards
+50% on lofts and include solar thermal ofr off gas communities, less monolpoly by EAGA who dont deliver best value, charge
more that the grant and then expect vulnerable customers to find the difference and are generally cow boys, there should be
a second (higher) standard in the building regs if houses are being buit as ‘affordable’ social or houses for elederly they
should have stricter standards of energy eff.
Qi:
potentially its massive, in my house whihc is 1970’s ex council 2 bed semi, i have just the basics, low energy bulbs, about
350mm in the loft, cavity wall, im a pretty frugal and only turn the boiler on for a few hours a day in the winter, Ive also
recently gone for solar thermal, and im fairly warm blooded - but apart from the thermal nothing that fancy, just a few hundred
quids worth of investment, but my bills are literally a couple of hundred pounds a year, when i speak to mates who spend that
in a month and hear of the ‘average’ bill going over a grand per annum, im amazed - that the potential of energy eff then
- basically saving the whole nation about 80% on its bills, with very little effort, something i would say should be popular
and easy to do, its a damning failure of this govt im afraid that more has not been done in this area.
Qii:
A good thing if more gas networks go into rural areas, i think comapmies building new capacity could fund the neccessary upgrading
of the infrastructure through section 106 agreements perhaps?
Its a big probelm though if you commit all this capital to outdated mode of transmission from centralised large scale generators
when we all wnat ot move in the opposite direction to microgen,
Qiii:
Need to work on our ‘special relationship’ obviously china and india need our help too to avoid the ‘dirty’ pahse of development
we went through, if the wind farm technology comanies were state owned we could just give them our latest designs for free
- that would help, i appreciate with patents though, they are going to be looking at uneconomic old versions and hence not
going down our windy path for another 20 years - can the planet wait this long, or should govt force some action NOW!
What a bout all the rural electrification programmes in africa giveing energy to the poor and needy a good thing yes, but
with all the money we are giving them, should be insist this is done in a carbon free way??
Qiv:
capital is the main theing for wood burning stoves or ethanol cars etc, they cost more upfront so people need a grant from
the govt to pursuade them to invest, also ensuring adequate supply of fuel, using planning
Q.1. Up until fairly recently, there has been no financial incentive to either save energy or to invest in carbon neutral
energy. As a result, most of the money the govt. has spent on promoting energy conservation/low carbon energy has been wasted
and mis-used.
The UK has had one of the lowest energy cost levels within the EU, and as a result also has the lowest level of re-cycling,
lowest levels of insulation standards, lowest level of uptake of renewable energy , and yet the highest level of ‘old people
dying of cold’(due to poor insulation standards) . (We probably also have the highest number of renewable energy conferences/workshops/study
tours/ feasibility studies/demonstration projects/energy promoter/advisors/consultants(?) in the EU.)
A simple fossil fuel (or carbon) tax as they have in Denmark and other countries would, at a stroke, reduce the need for all
this promotional /extolling effort and would tune everybody in to using their energy more sensibly and to using alternative
energy where appropriate.
Because oil has been so cheap in the past 20 years, renewable energy has been relatively more costly, and this has prevented
wide uptake. I have found that when oil prices go up then we sell more biomass fired boilers.
The government’s promotional efforts make very little , if any, impact on our sales, other than to increase the the number
of ‘time waster’ enquiries we receive.
Q.4. You cannot combine wanting to produce low carbon heat, and to promote energy saving, whilst at the same time wanting
energy to be ‘affordable’, if you mean by ‘affordable’ low cost. What exactly is meant by ‘affordable ‘ ?
Other countries, including recently Ireland, have come to the conclusion that a carbon tax is the most cost effective way
of promoting carbon reduction
Q1:
· Ensuring there is an uptake of zero heating standards in new house building programs (Ref GIR 53).
· Ensuring all renewable energies are rapidly implemented if they are commercial viable or supported at the research stage.
· Funding cycle paths not roads!
Q2:
· Not relying on imported gas but instead creating a diverse net work of renewable energy generators.
· Supporting energy storage devices including biomass.
Q3:
· Nuclear power is not necessary if we use renewables.
· Before any decision on nuclear is made, answer these questions:
· What is the true full life cost (In terms of Money, embedded energy and Carbon) of Nuclear.
· What is the potential contribution to total energy from nuclear?
· What is the long term cost of waste disposal?
Q5:
To heat every home adequately and affordably:
· All new homes should be built to zero heat standards as demonstrated by the Hockerton Housing Project. www.hockerton.demon.co.uk
All old homes should be encouraged to install high quality draft stipping, insulation and heat recovery ventilation systems.
Q1:
Basically I think you had the right idea with the energy white paper, which was an excellent summary of all the issues. Though
I feel this was conservative in its approach to renewables, it has the right focus.
The government needs to on the supply side:
· use the planning system to remove obstacles to the use of renewables in the UK - in particular outside of AONB and conservation
areas, all microgen needs ‘permitted development’ status, looking at using public sector land for renewable developments,
reducing the extent to which aesthetics can contribute to applications failing - similar to delivering more affordable housing,
remove the beaurocracy and lets get busy building!
· demonstration microgen on every school by 2010
· ensure we move away from a centralised national grid
· insist that all ‘green’ power sources say in excess of say 10kWp are connected to the grid free of charge.
· Improve emissions from rail and get HGV’s off the road
Demand side -
· Do more to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the public sector
· Strengthen (again) the Building Regs. part L1/2
· Reward good energy saving behaviour - talk of lower council tax etc
Link between CO2 and car tax - very good - working well, look how many small cars on the road (Increase the differential -
inrease the effect)
· Look at a ‘surcharge’ for two car households
· Workplace car parking charging needs to be rolled out more urgently
Q2:
Personally im not so worried about being dependent on foreign gas. I think we should reinforce ties with Russia and increase
trade in all goods and services to create mutual interdependency, dangle the carrot of EU membership genuinely and look for
other suppliers too but I think dependency on gas imports is an acceptable risk for the massive benefits it brings - we’d
need to import uranium / coal / oil too.
Gas is a cheap, abundant and relatively clean fuel, so in line with the aims of the department i see no reason why we should
be alarmed that it comes to dominate our energy supply. It should do more in transport too!
Of course we need a diverse mix of energy, and in the much longer term of course it is finite and we must start to displace
gas with biomass and biogas as much as possible now, improve efficiency and build long term interdependent partnerships to
secure supply etc. But dont be so alarmed, we are using gas for a reason its a good fuel.
We need to extend the gas network into more rural areas as it will continue to be a cost effective way to eliminate fuel poverty
and reduce co2 emissions. We also need a massive national drive to produce our own biogas through Anaerobic digestion of food
and green waste - potentially ammnending the Household Recycling Act to put a statutory duty on LA’s to collect this waste
- economic incentives for farmers to grow biomass and develop AD sites and again streamlining the planning and permitting
regime for AD.
Q3:
I think the energy white paper was correct - no one should be against nuclear on principle or ideology but be scientfic /
logical and assess its feasibility, reliability etc, personally i’m not so worried about the radiation, i think the safety
record in the UK is excellent - id live near one but... as in the Energy White Paper I beleive the situation remains that
nuclear is unsustainable and uneconomic.
The new generation of nuclear power stations are impressive but they havent removed the waste problem - this is the main reason
they are unsustainable and the main reason they are uneconomic. There are also other environmental issues and the other issue
I see is the way it locks Uk into centralised power generation thus undermining microgeneration.
The liabilities should not be unwritten by the public purse - polluter pays principle - oecd.
So the conclusion seems obvious - nuclear is not an option unless a sustainable form of waste management can be found. The
policy should remain unchanged - door’s open - but its guarded.
Q4:
They should be encouraged - the Energy Efficiency commitment has been very valauble to us in LA’s there’s no way we would
get near of H.E.C.A targets without it.
I think the issue for use in rural areas, is that the EEC needs to reflect the added cost of measures to save energy in ‘hard
to heat’ homes - it would help to get the market in solar thermal going if EEC could cross subsidise with the Clear skies
/ LCBP grants - some more support needed for internal wall insualtion too - its really worked on the cavity wall insualtion
etc, no the payback period on measures is 1-2 years people are installing it right left and centre - the same would happen
with other measures if we could get the cost down im sure.
The Renewables Obligation is a system which provides the same level of financial support for all eligible renewable projects.
Hence the cheapest technologies (onshore wind and landfill gas) at the best sites receive more support from the Renewables
Obligation than is actually necessary to see them developed. The conclusion here is that the ‘subsidy’ from RO could be better
spent elsewhere - if the finanices were transfered to other projects, these sites would have still been developed and other
less economic ones would be worth developing too, so net result more renewables same cost.
Also look at Germany - recently won a case with the Eu to subsidise renewable insualtion materials (sheeps wool) - not a bad
option as rockwool so energy (and thus CO2) intensive to produce.
Q5:
INSULATION, INSULATION, INSULATION
and education, education, education
Rural areas need to be connected to the gas mains
Qi:
Its absolutely critical - the govt has missed a big opportunity here - the building regs are still not stringent enough on
U values - you are talking about adding what maybe £50 to the cost of a new build by adding some extra inches of loft insualtion
and it would achive so much.
Efficiency in the long term, need a crystal ball - the next big thing i think LED lighting Danger there will be diminishing
returns, most gains offset by increased consumption.
I hate to be old fashioned but all the carrots in the world dont work without a stick - people need to be hit hard, in the
pocket if they waste energy. A real concern for me is the growth in SUV ownership, atleast in my area alot of them are genuinly
country folk, but when I go to birmingham and see clean shiny ones i dispair - change the car tax so there’s an extra charge
for any vehicle over say 2.5 Litre engine.
Higher energy prices are already improving efficiency in my area, i cant cope with the volume of enquiries regarding insualtion
schemes already! The flip side is the fuel poverty and the drag on the economy.
Qii: Not an engineer sorry
Qiii: The China CO2 capture and storage is a good idea - would be good to look linking to biodiversity conservation - perhaps
a carbon tax in the Uk could fund reforestation and rainforest protection abroad . Also be good to look at technology transfer
to the developing world - a kind of Marshall PLan for energy - dont think the African’s would complain about having wind turbines
spoliing their views! UK firms could make a lot of money out of installing and maintaining them too!
Qiv:
RO for these sectors had been discussed alot - its one mechanism Im not sure its the best - the best mechanism for encouraging
technology is the market - as the price goes up the market will drive forward alternatives -govt can assist this by taxing
carbon and by incentivising R+D into such measures.
Q1:
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that (1) we MUST go for nuclear power as a major source of energy, and (2) there MUST be a major
swing to greater use of public transport. If these two are not addressed there is no chance whatsoever of dealing effectively
with CO2 emissions or global warming.
SOEMTHING HAS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE USA AND CO2 EMISSIONS!
Q2:
The gas (and electricity) market must be stabilised so far as price rises are concerned. It is completely unacceptable to
have the shambolic situation over energy price rises that we have experienced recently.
Most people would accept that energy prices have to rise, but it should happen in a controlled way. The perception (true or
not) that energy companies are profiteering must be dealt with. If they are profiteering they should be hit hard; if not they
need to give very good explanations which are understandable to the man in the street.
If the government wishes to win the next election it should do something to reassure pensioners that the situation is under
control. Current perceptions are that the situation is chaotic and out of control.
Q3:
It is ESSENTIAL that we should go for nuclear new build. Obviously the waste management situation has to be dealt with. The
public perception about nuclear waste and “radiation” is completely irrational and driven by pressure groups; their arguments
need to be dealt with as a top priority.
(Nuclear waste contributes 0.1% to the total radiation background and we are always hearing hysterical reports about it. Radon
gas contributes about 50%, but we rarely, if ever, hear about it.)
Q4:
Interesting possibiliteis, but not likely to be of significant benefit.
Q5:
Major incentives to encourage energy conservation should be continued/instituted, and and energy prices must be stabilised,
even if they have to rise in a controlled way.
Qi:
There MUST be a strongly driven shift to the use of public transport for as many people as possible. Investment in all kinds
of public transport should be a top priority.
There MUST be a shift to the use of rail transport for goods. The road transport lobby is a malign influence which should
be challenged.
Qii:
No comment.
Qiii:
Energy conservation has to be forced into the collective conscience of the USA.
Qiv:
Any measures which will make a signficant contribution to energy provision should be considered. However, if the primary provision
of energy is not dealt with speedily, it will all be too late.
Q1:
The Government should immediately set building standards for all new homes to ensure that they are as well-insulated and energy
efficient as we currently have the technology to provide. There should be no corners cut and all should have solar power and
the capacity to generate its own electricity. There is talk of needing 25% more homes in the next 20 years: there is no time
to lose in setting these standards.
Planning permission should not be needed to install a range of electricity generating items, even if it does mean windmills
on roofs and the modern equivalent.
Existing homes should be encouraged to install solar power and electricity generating equipment as well as basics such as
cavity wall insulation. The government should give simple guidance for such equipment, which to many is difficult to understand
and impossible to weigh up the differences between the systems. (Teenagers should receive education on these topics at school.)
Priority should be given to developing a system that will heat the home as well the hot water.
Q2:
If every home and business were made energy efficient with the capacity to generate its own energy, this would massively reduce,
if not eliminate, the need for central generation and importing of fuel. Self-sufficiency is the only completely safe option.
In the end, we can rely on no other country and we are already seeing countries such as Russia and Iran flexing their power
muscles. As fuel becomes more scarce the UK will be held to ransome: it is only a question of time.
Q3:
Nuclear should only be used in the most extreme of last resorts. It is dangerous and unfair to saddle future generations with
the waste, let alone ours, and the security issues hold us hostage to terrorism and human error.
Q5:
See answer to 1 above. There could be grants and/or interest free loans repaid from the fuel savings made over the lifetime
of the technology installed. A massive public information campaign aimed at all age groups concerning energy saving and the
personal financial benefits and the environmental benefits emphasised.
Qi:
See earlier answers.
Public transport should be that. Free transport for all children to go to school and very cheap transport for the rest of
us. It should be reliable and frequent. A few empty buses midday is a small price to pay, compared to lots of cars with one
driver driving all over the place, because there is no alternative. Where we live, our son has just had to choose between
secondary schools and the nearest suitable one (just 3 miles away) is the most expensive to travel to. The others drop in
the London area, making transport there either free or very cheap. To go locally is £2.80 each way if you are over 16 and
£2.80 for under 16s before 9am with £1.40 for the home journey. This is why the school run is so massive and time-consuming.
Transport should also be environmentally friendly. Dartford has has millions spent on new bus lanes: why was this not a tram
service to cut out the need for diesel fumes etc? The new lanes will cause huge traffic jams and I have not found anyone who
is expecting to use the service as the local transport joining to the system is too infrequent.
Freight should go onto the rail network and overseas lorries should have to have an expensive licence to travel on our roads,
as with permits to drive in Austria and Switzerland. The amount of Eastern European freight since the new countries joined
the EU is staggering.
Services should be local.
We should also look at the numbers of immigrants as Britain is already the 4th most densely populated area and any significant
increase in the numbers living here is in itself unsustainable. To continue with a policy that allows all EU members to move
here while other EU countries do not have such a policy is misguided, to say nothing of not policing illegal immigrants. This
is not a racist policy, just a practical sustainability concern. Every person uses energy and water resources.
Qii:
Significant new builds should be avoided by using the current supplies more efficiently.
I am responding as an individual.
I would like to make the following points:
1. Over-reliance on 'renewables' will lead to direct environmental damage in the UK as pressure grows to approve wind farms
and other developments (and their associated infrastructure) regardless of damage to wildlife, wildlife habitats, and the
landscape. So-called 'green energy' developments in the wrong place are not green at all.
2. Over-optimistic assumptions on energy efficiency, coupled with reliance on renewables, will also lead to the pressures
outlined in 1. above.
3. A new generation of nuclear power stations offers the best hope for providing secure energy supplies with minimal environmental
damage. Nuclear should be judged on its merits.
4. Relying on gas imports from unstable parts of the world is unacceptable.
5. Bio-fuels must be treated with great caution. Stringent measures will be needed to ensure that their adoption does not
cause environmental damage in the EU and worldwide. The destruction of rain forests to produce bio-fuels is tragic and wholly
unacceptable.
To sum up: In looking at the environmental impacts of future energy policy the government must take a realistic view of the
likely practical consequences of the various options. It must recognise that renewables have their own environmental costs
and disadvantages. Security of supply and minimal impact on the environment in the UK and abroad should be two key drivers.
Q1:
Significantly invest in alternative and newly emerging energy generation technologies
Q2:
Significantly invest in alternative and newly emerging energy generation technologies
Q3:
it is true that the fail-safe mechanisms built into the new breed of reactors are better than ever, The nuclear industry boasts
about the impossibility of meltdowns such as Chernobyl but this has been overstated to the point of lying. While it remains
possible to create the right conditions for melt-down or leakage to occur by whatever unlikely means – it’s still possible.
Air craft collision and terrorist action can create these conditions - Damaged damper rods and mechanisms will not work regardless
of whatever fail-safes are in place and no amount of expensive security and defence can ever guard against a determined attack
or accident.
It is also true that the new reactors produce less than half the radioactive waste than the older plants. - But, our current
waste problem remains unsolved and is likely to remain a dangerous unsolved problem without any permanent solution.
Britain currently has 470,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste, enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times. This waste will
remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Some authorities state the safety of this waste must be guaranteed for at
least 1 million years. A new generation of reactors is likely to lead an increase in high level radioactive waste by a factor
of four. No-one knows what to do with this waste and the safety and environmental problems it causes appear technologically
un-solvable. We cannot add further to the legacy of waste for future generations.
Nuclear waste is an incredibly serious problem bristling with security, environmental and safety issues.
The Nuclear Industry says such waste radioactive material is useless to terrorists because it cannot be used to create a bomb.
This is an incredibly dangerous untruth; Such material can be used to produce a ‘dirty bomb’ – a device that simply uses conventional
explosive to disperse radioactive material over a very wide area. Of course it would be even easier for terrorists to simply
dump radioactive waste into a water supply to produce catastrophic action way beyond anything we have hitherto seen.
The history of accidental discharges, leaks, health and safety infringements, environmental pollution, errors, accidents and
human casualties arising from the nuclear industry is grave. And, excepting for unfortunate leaks and discharges ‘our’ existing
stockpiles of radioactive waste still have not been dealt with in terms of finding and agreeing ‘safe’ long term storage.
We cannot afford this legacy or further add to it. It is extremely unlikely that an environmentally friendly and safe solution
to this problem will ever be found. We cannot and must not add to this terrible legacy.
The safety and security of nuclear power generation and it’s waste cannot be ensured and presents an excessive liability to
all humankind and the future of all life on earth.
For the above reasons we cannot and must not make further use of nuclear power.
Your goals are now not in the appropriate order.
First and foremost the aims of this and any government have to be to ensure that the population is able to access adequate
food and heat. The heat to sustain bodily temperature, and also in a form to provide for the cooking of food.
Other energy is required to provide for the the running of the variety of equipement which modern living in the Nothern hemisphere
has developed, and is now deemed to be a necessity.
The means of propulsion for the enormous number of all means of transportation is a major concern.
As stated, the U.K is responsible for only 2% of the worlds production of CO2. As other countries certainly China and India,
but also many others in the South and East increase their industrialisation and modernisation our % in world terms will become
even less significant.
We should not be concentrating our efforts on our CO2 emission but, ensureing adequate supplies of energy sources for the
future. The very immediate, and future.
Our home produced gas is all but exhausted. Supplies from Russia are extremely vunerable , in many ways.
Cost is already rising sharply and likely to ever increase, gas is not of unlimited supply.
The world reserves of oil are strictly limited, and oil with its wealth of uses should not be frittered away as fuel.
Logically only nuclear energy is the way to improve on the situation. By producing electricity through nuclear means we can
in many instances provide a means of energy to replace gas. Domestically, house-hold would find it comparively easy to exchange
one type of cooker for another. Industry too could in most instances modify their methods.
The energy source for vehicles, aircraft, etc., is not so easy to solve at this moment in history, but if we cease to use
oil to heat our homes, either directly as I do, or indirectly through power stations, at least we will give man kind a little
longer to seek a solution.
Because bulk energy has to be constantly available windfarms and the like are not a logical alternative, although one can
understand the wishes of the proponents .
I understand the concern held by many over the issue of nuclear waste, but mankind did not create the world , we simply have
to make the most of what we have, and much of that is being used at rate which will ensure its' disappearance in the foreseeable
future. When the problems are looked at from an unbiased stand point, we really have few options available, in fact only one
, Nuclear energy, as quickly as possible.
Rather than concentrating on CO2 reduction, the public should be encouraged to consider the financial savings to be gained
from certain actions, this will make them think far more posively in terms of energy savings. Money talks.
Q1:
Legislate to stop businesses having lights (and electrical equipment) on - including illuminated signs - when the businesses
are closed (cleaners and caretakers can turn lights on as and when needed), as this is a huge waste of electricity.
Stop school selection (eg 11 plus and faith schools) so that pupils are able to attend their nearest school. Traffic is always
much worse in term-times.
Legislate so that ALL new buildings have to be insulated and energy efficient eg all have solar panels and mini-wind power
generators, grey water recycling, double/triple glazing, efficient toilets etc etc.
Have different tariffs for domestic fuel and water according to use so that eg excessive domestic users have to pay more over
a certain limit. Commercial buildings could have something similar according to size of buildings and number of staff.
Environmental taxes.
Tax air fuel.
Ration air travel.
Q. Does digital TV use more electricity? If so why must we change to digital from analogue?
Encourage alternative power for vehicles.
Nationalise buses and trains so fares are comparable and tickets interchangeable. Use minibuses (instead of large empty buses)on
little-used routes so they can be more frequent.
Stop watering golf-courses and park lawns.
Ensure new driveways are made of porous substances.
Stop water leaks.
Q2:
Build more off-shore wind-generators and wave-power generators.
Q3:
Cost - both start-up, running, decommissioning and waste.
Danger from leaks.
Danger from waste.
Viability of uranium source.
Terrorism vulnerabilities.
DO NOT BUILD THEM
Q4:
Other pollution besides carbon.
Q5:
Incentives and grants for energy efficiency and insulation. Subsidies for the poor.
Qi:
See answers to Q 1
Qiii:
Set good example and put pressure on other countries.
Qiv:
Energy crops on suitable land that is currently set-aside land.
Q1:
Demand. Apply fuel tax at automobile rates to aircraft fuels. The EU emission trading scheme is too mild a constraint to CO2
production.
Manage demand. Develop metering facilities which recognise load type, and remove load from none essential uses (e.g. air conditioning)
during spikes in demand, to reduce size of spinning reserve.
Supply. Incorporate consideration of the prospective sea level rise into deliberations. Energy generating tidal barrages could
protect against flooding of estuaries. Civil engineering design to include for a worst scenario height, but initially construct
for present sea level + spring tides + storm surge, and then increase height gradually in advance of estimated sea level rises.
Encourage every idea in existing /new technologies which emit zero GHGases and do not pollute, especially those that use the
unlimited natural forces (e.g. solar, wind, sea). Encourage all local generation and heat providing technologies, so saving
transmission losses. Seek to use every source of wasted heat from electricity generation, in district heating, industrial/commercial
processes, horticulture etc.
Q2:
Fortunately our Island geography has more high wind speeds and marine effects than the EU, and solar. The potential is very
large and available. Therefore the big investments mentioned are best made to utilise these. While new technologies develop,
tidal barrages can be constructed using existing technologies. The turbidity of the Seven estuary would be reduced permitting
increased sea flora and fauna, an advantage for our SthWst fisheries. Infrastructures for transmissions to be built as required.
Emphasis on local generation would reduce that power requirement for infrastructure. The prospect of dependence on gas imports
should stimulate stronger efforts to generate more from the non-finite sources. Regrettably several EU countries have presently
more renewable generation than Britain.
Q3:
By pointing to the efforts to solve the problems of nuclear waste disposal, it cannot be claimed there is a solution. Rather,
after several decades without finding a solution , it does seem that there is no acceptably method of disposal. Logically
we should use safe renewables and not generate hazardous waste, which is a threat to us and our successors.
Decommissioning costs are enormous.
As many commentators observe, nuclear power stations are a potential target to a terrorist.
NPStations take several years to balance their environmental footprint of embodied CO2, whereas a wind turbine takes several
weeks.
Nuclear generation experiences such a frequency of shutdowns as that its reliability is questionable.
The Sustainable Development Commission confirms there is time to make choices. It is not reasonably to choose nuclear power.
Q4:
Maximise energy efficiency and insulation.
I suggest an embodied CO2 assessment for all and every end use, so that a choice may be made to favour the least worse GHG
emitter. E.g. analogue sound broadcasting uses 1/10th energy to that of digital, (yet the quality of digital sound is by far
inferior). With biofuels, for oilseed rape biomass production, nitrogenous fertilisers produce 6 tonnes of GHG /tonne of fertiliser,
and cause soil to release nitrous oxide. Yet N2O is 310 times more potent than CO2 in it’s global warming effects.
Q5:
See Q4
Qi:
Transport
Smaller engines and regenerative braking.
Hydrogen filling stations should increasingly be provided for fuel cell powered vehicles in Cities and industrial areas to
reduce air pollution there, and allow better respiratory health for all. The costs saved thereby in care and treatment should
be assessed and included in economic balance sheets and the increased quality of life of the people be recognised
Residential:Business:Public Sector
Require every appliance to be rated according to the energy it consumes and insulation.
In new building design maximise use of non-finite energy sources and low carbon embedment.
Qii:
More.........for wind power grids, tidal barriers, etc.
Less.........for microgeneration, and local generation for
local demand
Qiii: The Company ‘Airtricity’ programmes for marine arrays of offshore wind farms would encompass the geography of several
countries
Qiv: Continue to identify, and remove all blocks (legal, institutional, historical etc.), so as to incorporate these technologies.
Thoroughly seek to use heat presently wasted, (e.g. that at cooling towers of coal stations).
Q1:
Reduce dependence on fossil fuels particularly gas for the generation of electricity. The supplies are increasingly less secure
and very dependent on political stability elsewhere in the world. The gas should be utilised for domestic comsumption due
to the established distribution infrastructure already being available. The mainstay of non CO2 power generation is the adoption
of Nuclear Plants to provide the base load capability. Tidal generation is the only consistent renewable generation source
as solar and wind are too dependent on the vagaries of the climate.
It should be bourne in mind that some substantial rotating plant generating capacity will be required to maintain system stability
and frequency control.
Hydrogen as an energy transfer medium has many benefits. Ultimately eliminating the dependence on the established electricity
distribution system by utilising fuel cells for both domestic power sources and for transport purposes. No CO2, only water
from the hydrogen and oxygen combination. Limitations for this approach would be the need to establish a hydrogen distribution
infrastructure and as hydrogen is not a primary energy source there would need to be substational energy capacity for the
production of the hydrogen. The advantage with the hydrogen economy would be that even intermittent generating capacity like
wind and solar could play its part as the energy reserve would be in the form of the hydrogen gas.
Q2:
As discussed above the global political instabilities are a concern for the long term stability of gas supplies. This coupled
with the generally increasing demand for energy from China and India is bound to have a major impact on the world energy markets
and lead to dependence on supplies over which we have very limited control.
Q3:
As an interim solution, the utilisation of the established PWR generating technology would allow a substantial reduction in
the current CO2 burden. An option for the future would be the adoption of the intrinsically safe Modular Pebble Reactor technology
where even a coolant deprived temperature transient would automatically be less than the fuel melt temperature and hence would
achieve intrinsic safety in operation.
The higher temeperatures of this type of reactor would also be of benefit for either chemical the production of hydrogen or
for producing better steam conditions if used for the generation of electricity. A mixed selection of generation should be
considered, however the system stability issue with too much dependance on renwables must be taken into account.
The blindingly obvious aspect of the debate is that work must start now or we will all be out in the cold from both a physical
and political point of view.
Q4:
Stop skewing the playing field and start to address the real needs of the country by providing affordable and reliable energy
supplies.
Q5:
Use gas for domestic puroses where the distribution allows and ensure that supplying companies do not exploit their customers
by having two phased businesses that make huge profits from exploration and supply but seem to be unable to operate at a profit
when interfacing with the bill payer.
For those customers using oil the same principle as above applies.
For all consumers, particularly electricity user there is the need to decouple final energy costs from the apparent vagaries
of the global market. Currently the interelationship of energy costs and the market are too interdependent and produce an
intense frustration for end users. e.g oil price up- therefore Gas price up- therefore electricty price up.
Qi:
Give genuine incentives to improving efficiency rather than just penalties for not complying. Individuals that do not have
the neccessary resources to improve personal effiencies, i.e. insulation, efficient heating systems, more efficient transport,
low energy appliances, suffer twice under the exisiting arrangements in as much as they do not benefit directly form the greater
benefits of any given process or equipment, but they pay the extra burden of higher operating costs as well.
Qii:
There is the opportunity to start looking towards the hydrogen economy as a longer term option for the distibution of an energy
transfer medium that should ultimately eliminate the need for major electricity distribution networks, although it is recognised
that large energy users will still need bulk power supply capability.
Qiii:
Independence rather than interdependence is the only option that retains control.
Qiv:
Hydrogen,hydrogen and hydrogen, with non CO2 generation as the primary energy source. Nuclear being the mainstay for this.
Q1: Firstly clearly set the priority as reducing demand. For every pound spent on delivering renewable energy, cleaning up
existing technologies etc. one hundred should be spent on energy efficiency ie reducing demand.
Q2: If you need to make big investments then there are three areas in which to do it - energy efficiency, energy efficiency
and energy efficiency. Don’t make ANY big investments in generating capacity and networks.
Q3:
The main considerations are:
1) Nuclear is not carbon-free and the carbon emission savings are actually tiny, instead of using a sledgehammer to crack
a nut (and goodness knows what else) we should be looking at efficiency savings (will outperform nuclear in carbon reduction
pound for pound many, many times over) and if necessary small-scale decentralised power
2) Nuclear is a fossil fuel and if the world relys on it it will run out quickly
3) Nuclear is extremely costly and extremely risky
4) The production of nuclear waste is in direct conflict with the princples of sustainable development
5) New nuclear will not go up without a fight - do you want to take it on? Do any companies or investors fancy it? And at
what cost to the taxpayer?
Nuclear does not add up financially or environmentally. Address these issues by ruling it out and committing 100% to energy
efficiency.
To summarise I OPPOSE ANY new nuclear build until at least a hundred-times as much money has been spent on energy efficiency.
Q4:
Please don’t waste your time.
Q5:
Best practice currently allows us to build inexpensive houses which require virtually no heating. So why are we not building
them?
Qi:
The potential is massive. Far too big to ignore. And it’s not long-term potential either, simple measures could make massive
savings in a very short space of time.
Qii:
Distribution networks are inherently efficient. By-pass them and think small-scale.
Qiii:
Yes. Air travel. It cannot be ignored as a major contributor to climate change as the Government clearly is at present. It’s
utterly ludicrous to consider building costly and risky nuclear plants on the basis of tiny carbon savings will disappear
into the massive emissions cause by the increase in air travel which you currently condone.
Qiv:
Ok assuming energy efficiency has been done to death then introduce some measures to clean up what energy is left. But worry
about it then.
I am responding as an individual and wish to address in particular questions 1 and 5.
I am concerned that not enough is being done to inspire or demand lifestyle changes which will impact on domestic and transport
energy usage. I was shocked by a statistic I read which said that everyone switching off their little red standy lights on
electrical items in the home would save an amount of energy equivalent to the output of a whole nuclear power station! There
are many other statistics like this. Much more needs to be done to encourage energy efficiency in our everyday lifestyles
and so reduce the demand for energy. This could involve reorganising public transport, encouraging micro-generation, well
insulated houses, and many other small scale incentives and initiatives which would add up to huge savings. To have every
home adequately and affordaby heated should mean making homes more energy efficient, rather than wasting a lot of the heat
through poor insulation. The higher tax on large fuel inefficient cars in the latest budget is encouraging, but we need more
changes like this. Use should be made of those groups which are skilled at encouraging their members to make lifestyle changes,
for example faith groups - much work has been done recently on faith-based response to sustainability issues.
The current Energy Review may be a last opportunity to put the UK energy strategy on a sound basis before the consequences
of previous political dithering start to have serious consequences, for example shortage of supply, price rises, economic
downturn, or even international conflict. It must be hoped that this and other relevant reviews currently being undertaken
enable politicians to endorse and promote a sensible long term strategy for the national benefit.
I would like to offer the following specific comments for consideration during the Energy Review currently being undertaken
by DTI:
Security of supply:
Recent interruptions of gas supply by Russia to Ukraine and Europe, and the UK’s future dependence on imported gas, have highlighted
the importance of security of energy supply and resilience against abrupt changes in political and market conditions. Failure
of nations to have resilient and secure energy supply strategies has historically resulted in international conflicts to secure
control of energy and other raw material supplies. The failure of the DTI to anticipate the end of self sufficiency in gas
supplies for the UK is particularly disappointing as it had been widely predicted in technical journals since the early 1980’s.
It is important that the UK should have security of supply by using diverse sources of energy [gas, oil, renewables, coal,
biomass, and especially nuclear] and establishing national strategic reserves for any which are significantly dependent on
import [or can be predicted to become so].
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power is an obvious way of reducing dependence on imports, reducing discharge of gases which may cause climate change,
and provide long term stable electrical supplies. Generation costs can be competitive given a sizeable construction programme
[eg France] and appropriate amortization periods and discount rates are selected. Reliance on simple ‘market forces’ will
always result in choices based on the shortest pay-back period and lowest capital investment, such as resulted in the ‘rush
to gas’ for electricity generation in the 1990’s and the UK’s current dependence on long term importation of gas from politically
unstable parts of the world.
Nuclear Waste
The technical issues associated with storage and disposal of nuclear waste are well known, and many countries are already
managing their wastes or have programmes leading to solutions in the near term [eg; USA, Finland, Sweden, Germany, France,
Switzerland]. Short term political considerations have stalled attempts to progress engineered repositories in the UK and
consequently effectively inhibited consideration of new construction of nuclear stations. Successive ministers have deferred
decisions often by calling for more studies, more reviews.
Public opinion can be influenced if politicians provide informed leadership, and by offering compensatory benefits to localities
considered to host facilities. For example in Sweden extensive public education & consultation have resulted in local acceptance
of radioactive waste facilities, and in France Departments hosting facilities have been offered financial benefits.
In the UK, for example, a subsidy of electricity charges or local taxes would encourage expansion of employment in the host
region as well as directly benefit local householders, and do much to compensate local populations and alleviate opposition
to nuclear repositories.
A national radioactive waste repository has to be established whether or not new nuclear stations are planned; the current
lack of such facilities due to historic political indecision should not be advanced as a reason to eliminate the Nuclear Electricity
option. Nuclear Power is safe, environmentally favourable, economically competitive, and substantially immune from international
fluctuations in availability and price of fuel.
Q1:
Supply - replacing current coal fired power generation stations a with the most advanced efficient combined cycle gas stations
would produce significant environmental benefits and massivly increase supply simultaneously. Govt could speed this process
up with a fiscal regime designed to make retofitting and replacement more economic (e.g. tax breaks) and a planning regime
to make it easier to get planning permission on existing sites and also make the use of coal less economic, a carbon tax or
SO2 tax would discriminate against coal and further encourage this switch.
Demand - Energy efficiency needs to be made more compulsary, whilst in theory its nice to educate and incentivise, and i appreciate
behaviour is important, people need to be forced to do the basics atleast. Efficiency needs to be linked to everything, esp
planning and mortgages etc, people should not be able to do any extentions or buying and selling of properties without making
the loft and cavity walls first comply to current building regs standards, literally every opportunity any authority has to
grant permits to buinesses to should link into energy efficiency, bit like the PPC regime does with industry, you can have
a licence but you need to invest in energy efficiency to get one, be in a taxi, a resteraunt, an air line etc, they all need
permission from some authority to operate and this oppurtunity should be seized to make effiency a condition.
Q2:
Essential services fire hospitals etc, need to produce their own electricty to secure supply, i assume most have a back up
generator, but in line with policy goals perhaps the should all be compelled to have a renewable microgeneration capacity.
More ports need to develop a capacity to handle LNG.
Big issue is domestic use, most people have boilers about 10 year old, so SEDBUK rating say D-C about 65% efficinet, new condensing
boilers are nearly 95% efficienct, so 30% of all gas is wasted! This is a scandal if we are running low and its getting more
complicated to import gas. I appreciate the building regs are helping in new build but something needs to be doen to force
or help more people get rid of these old boilers.
One thing im aware of with my elderly mother is the WarmFront grant, what a mess this is and how the private contractors are
creaming alot of public money e.g. charging DEFRA a hundred pounds to ‘install’ lightbulbs which are provide free by local
authorities and energy suppliers! She could only have as new boiler if it was broken, why not change the rules to say all
old people can use warmfront for a new boiler, just if their current on is old say more than 8 years, rather than actually
broken, otherwise ill go back and break the boiler!
Q3:
Austrialia is the only place to put the waste, no on in the UK will have it, so unless they want ot get rich being the worlds
nuclear dumping ground, im afraid the technmology is dead in the wate, i think we should keep one station for research and
look at fusion, but as they close, i think they need to be replaced with gas and wind.
Ive seen figures that theres a more finite supply of uranium than gas anyway, so if this is true, nuclear is not long term
and unless a cheap landfill option is avialable for the waste, then there is no option but to abandon nuclear powert im afraid.
Q4:
Im not a big fan of offsetting emissions i think it just justifies wasting energy, cleanses peoples concience and enabling
them to switch of to the reality of climate change and im not convince it works to plant trees which then die back and release
all their co2 anyway, nontheless planting trees in the developing world is a good thing for other reasons, wildlife, jobs,
soil etc. the focus should be efficiency and microgeneration. need to transfer the grants from solar panels which are not
generating hardly any electricty or abating much carbon and transfer it to near to market technologies like wind which actually
work. If you subsidise a solar panel by £400, its still a waste a money and unafordable to 90% of the public, if you added
an extra £400 to the grant for a wind turbine, when the retail installed for £1.5-2.5k, you could get thousands being sold
and a real dint in co2 emissions, bigger bank for OUR buck etc.
Q5:
Id like to see princes trust, young offenders, community service etc being given millions of rolls of loft insualtion for
free by the govt and forced to go out into the community and help old folk make their homes warmer, national service for the
community rather than the military!
I think in terms affordability its predominantly about the fuel type isnt it, out in rural shropshire here the old folk have
not got mains gas and so use electric, lpg or oil = x5, x4, x2 the cost! So make the utilities roll out to rural areas, this
was always going to be the case with a privatised company wasnt it you should have seen it coming, look at africa the private
water companies only supply towns where they get economies of scale and make higher margins. Ofgem must act to force investment
in gas infrastructure in rural areas, and the Housing corp could help by insisting all funded social housing developments
in rural areas, say over 12 units MUST be connected to mains gas!
Yet another example of this govt not understanding rural life!
Ps - the Winter Fuel Payment is not helping efficiency - you know the phrase give a man a fish food for a day, give a man
a fishing net food for life, so why does the govt give hundreds of pounds each year to subsidise the use of fossil fuels when
it could pay for loft insualtion, and they would then save £200 per year anyway - this is an election bribe basically for
the grey vote, not helping the environment, or fuel poverty in the long run - jsut pause the funds for one year, and say this
year you all get £100 of loft insualtion instead for all over 60’s
Qi:
In the short term there is massive ponential for savings, but once all the ‘lowest lying fruit has been plucked’ this will
become harder and more expensive to save the energy. Public sector should be leading the way more to reduce co2 emissions
rather than beaurocratic legally binding targets - i would pay all public sector organisations a performance related bonus
for the energy they save, so if they reduce their energy bills by 10% say they not only get the savings to keep but this is
matched by a reward of more funding from govt, perhaps even staff bonus payments, cut our bills and you can use the cash for
a staff social at the end of the year, etc, worked well in the factory i used to work at, each year at xmas there was several
hundred quid in the kitty for the xmas party and the company saved thousands and thousands of pounds (and tonnes of co2)
Qii:
Gas mains should be capable fo transport hydrogen in the future as the CH4 runs out it should be seemless to put H2 through
the same mains, is this technically possible? i dont know, but should be planned for
Qiii:
the danish on wind farms!
the americans need to be engaged on energy conservation from a homeland security angle, how you work with them i dont know,
perhaps joint funding of r+d onto hydrogen and free up trade restrictions for low carbon technology so british firms can build
wind turbines in america and vice versca more easily
Russia on gas - goal is security of supply - WE SHOULD STOP SPYING ON THEM FOR STARTERS!! they’re no the enemy any more the
should be our best friend
Qiv:
Tax free for the bio element of biofuels would help, tax breaks and easier planning for biodiesel refineries.
Work with vehicle manufacturers to get them to warranty biodeisl that is not BSEN590 standard, VW will warranty cars on 10%
biodiesl, peugout are talking avout warranty on 25% biodiesel soon, so why are all the rest allowed to get away with saying
only 5% is acceptable?
Afforestation programme to support heat from wood and larger grants for capital investment in the bioamss boilers would help.
Q1:
Develop safe nuclear resources
Q3:
In the long term there can be no alternative to nuclear energy. The focus of research and development must be on waste management.
|
 |
Better Business Framework
Energy
Reports & Publications
Confident Consumers - A Fair Deal creating Prosperity & Success for All
(147Kb)