MCS and micro hydro

The recently released proposals for MCS accreditation of installers for small hydro is inappropriate and unworkable.

Proposed accreditaion standard is objected to by working hydro memebers of the Hydro Working Group – so much for an "industry led" process. How can an Installer Standard be issued with so much industry led objection to it?

In partcular the requirements in Appendix A are virtually impossible to fullfill.

I have 15 years experience as an engineer working in small hydro , and I could not fulfill the requirments of Appendix A.  They are impractical, unnecesary and expensive.

Why is this idea important?

The recently released proposals for MCS accreditation of installers for small hydro is inappropriate and unworkable.

Proposed accreditaion standard is objected to by working hydro memebers of the Hydro Working Group – so much for an "industry led" process. How can an Installer Standard be issued with so much industry led objection to it?

In partcular the requirements in Appendix A are virtually impossible to fullfill.

I have 15 years experience as an engineer working in small hydro , and I could not fulfill the requirments of Appendix A.  They are impractical, unnecesary and expensive.

Scrap plans to build any more wind farms

Wind farms are inefficient, only working at their design capacity for a fraction of the time and  are unsightly, despoiling HUGE tracts of previously unspoilt, wild, desolate, beautiful wilderness .    That feeling of "getting away from it all" , so important for the mental well being of millions of ordinary people, would be lost.

They are also extremely noisy for people living close to them.

Where they are built invariably tends to be in isolated rural areas. Which are deathly QUIET at night. So regardless of the low , by industrial standards, decibel rating, nobody can get to sleep!

Again, detrimental to health, increased cost to the NHS and  a probable productivity loss to the nation.

Because they cannot ever provide enough power for the future needs of the UK, especially in winter, when we need more power than at any other time, (Winter wind is of much lower strength than at other times of the year), they need to be "backed up" with conventional power stations.

These (coal, gas and nuclear), need to be kept running at all times. They cannot just be switched on or off at will.

So their ( the wind farms )  existence is an uneccessary duplication of power generating capacity.

Why is this idea important?

Wind farms are inefficient, only working at their design capacity for a fraction of the time and  are unsightly, despoiling HUGE tracts of previously unspoilt, wild, desolate, beautiful wilderness .    That feeling of "getting away from it all" , so important for the mental well being of millions of ordinary people, would be lost.

They are also extremely noisy for people living close to them.

Where they are built invariably tends to be in isolated rural areas. Which are deathly QUIET at night. So regardless of the low , by industrial standards, decibel rating, nobody can get to sleep!

Again, detrimental to health, increased cost to the NHS and  a probable productivity loss to the nation.

Because they cannot ever provide enough power for the future needs of the UK, especially in winter, when we need more power than at any other time, (Winter wind is of much lower strength than at other times of the year), they need to be "backed up" with conventional power stations.

These (coal, gas and nuclear), need to be kept running at all times. They cannot just be switched on or off at will.

So their ( the wind farms )  existence is an uneccessary duplication of power generating capacity.

Scrap stamp duty relief for zero carbon homes

Stamp duty exemption for new Zero Carbon homes sounds like a good idea but…

It only applies to the first sale. Given that the vast majority of zero carbon homes are built by individuals and not by building companies stamp duty would have already been paid on the plot and there would never be a first sale.

This legislation is therefore a waste of paper as virtually no one will get the relief.

It would be more useful to give Stamp Duty relief to all Level 5 and Level 6 houses on every sale.

Why is this idea important?

Stamp duty exemption for new Zero Carbon homes sounds like a good idea but…

It only applies to the first sale. Given that the vast majority of zero carbon homes are built by individuals and not by building companies stamp duty would have already been paid on the plot and there would never be a first sale.

This legislation is therefore a waste of paper as virtually no one will get the relief.

It would be more useful to give Stamp Duty relief to all Level 5 and Level 6 houses on every sale.

Solve some of the problems

Scrap (temporarily) immigration until work is available for all U.K. born (& 2nd generation)

Provide work for all 16 year old and above and scrap ALL benefits, saving enormous amounts in Admin. costs EXCEPT for Military injured on active service, who should automatically be given Blue Badges (Disabled Drivers) or free travel, ALL Hospital Treatment and Medication also free.

Jobs to be createdwhere neccessary for disabled (e.g. Toilet Attendants, Car Park Attendants, Lift Men/Women, Cal Centre Operators etc etc

ALL transport to be electric wherever possible to cut cost of Oil imports

All Defence spending to be in U.K. ONLY: thus no dependance on parts from another country, jobs for u.k. citizens no outflow of cash to pay for Americal, Canadian etc products

ALL operations owned by overseas interests (e.g. Anglian Water: France: Electricite de France, France Telecom, Santander, Telefonica, Deutsche Telecom etc) so that we are not held to ransom by external influences.

Encourage ALL  development of electrically powered items to replace any item using imported fuel. (Think WW2 convoys – if it had to be brought in by convoy substitute a home grown item) and havingdeveloped the electrical power unit EXPORT, EXPORT, EXPORT

Finally ensure NO building work granted permission unless green and ecologically sound

AND ALL rules/laws RIGIDLY enforced by Policing policies under close Governmental scrutiny

Why is this idea important?

Scrap (temporarily) immigration until work is available for all U.K. born (& 2nd generation)

Provide work for all 16 year old and above and scrap ALL benefits, saving enormous amounts in Admin. costs EXCEPT for Military injured on active service, who should automatically be given Blue Badges (Disabled Drivers) or free travel, ALL Hospital Treatment and Medication also free.

Jobs to be createdwhere neccessary for disabled (e.g. Toilet Attendants, Car Park Attendants, Lift Men/Women, Cal Centre Operators etc etc

ALL transport to be electric wherever possible to cut cost of Oil imports

All Defence spending to be in U.K. ONLY: thus no dependance on parts from another country, jobs for u.k. citizens no outflow of cash to pay for Americal, Canadian etc products

ALL operations owned by overseas interests (e.g. Anglian Water: France: Electricite de France, France Telecom, Santander, Telefonica, Deutsche Telecom etc) so that we are not held to ransom by external influences.

Encourage ALL  development of electrically powered items to replace any item using imported fuel. (Think WW2 convoys – if it had to be brought in by convoy substitute a home grown item) and havingdeveloped the electrical power unit EXPORT, EXPORT, EXPORT

Finally ensure NO building work granted permission unless green and ecologically sound

AND ALL rules/laws RIGIDLY enforced by Policing policies under close Governmental scrutiny

National Curbside Recycling Strategy

 

At my previous house, the local council would recycle (at the curbside collection scheme) the following items:

  • Plastic
  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Cardboard
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in my household only 'throwing out' a black bin liner that was around half full every week.  We took things like light bulbs and remote control batteries (etc.) down the local tip when we had enough to justify a journey. Things like old clothing (etc.) was sent to the local charity shop.

We moved house last year, and even though the move was only a few miles, we came under a different council.  This council only collected the following items:

  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in the amount that we disposed of increased almost overnight.  I also sold my car (as we were closer to better public transport links), so I thought that I could kill 2 birds with one stone by going to the tip on my bike (get some exercise and do something good for the environment).  I was told that they only allowed vehicles into the tip (bikes don’t count) due to ‘health and safety’ concerns.  Now I know that the amount that I can carry on a bike is only small, but it was more to do with doing a little, rather than nothing at all.

After speaking to colleagues at work, I found that some people can recycle all of the above, others only some of the above and some can recycle all of the above AND cooked/uncooked food waste. I do find it strange that in this day and age, the amount that we can recycle varies depending upon where you live, surely it must cost more for each council to have an individual policy on curbside collection, rather than a national strategy / policy?  And why is it that there are no facilities to recycle plastic drink bottles (for example) on the high street?

Why is this idea important?

 

At my previous house, the local council would recycle (at the curbside collection scheme) the following items:

  • Plastic
  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Cardboard
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in my household only 'throwing out' a black bin liner that was around half full every week.  We took things like light bulbs and remote control batteries (etc.) down the local tip when we had enough to justify a journey. Things like old clothing (etc.) was sent to the local charity shop.

We moved house last year, and even though the move was only a few miles, we came under a different council.  This council only collected the following items:

  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in the amount that we disposed of increased almost overnight.  I also sold my car (as we were closer to better public transport links), so I thought that I could kill 2 birds with one stone by going to the tip on my bike (get some exercise and do something good for the environment).  I was told that they only allowed vehicles into the tip (bikes don’t count) due to ‘health and safety’ concerns.  Now I know that the amount that I can carry on a bike is only small, but it was more to do with doing a little, rather than nothing at all.

After speaking to colleagues at work, I found that some people can recycle all of the above, others only some of the above and some can recycle all of the above AND cooked/uncooked food waste. I do find it strange that in this day and age, the amount that we can recycle varies depending upon where you live, surely it must cost more for each council to have an individual policy on curbside collection, rather than a national strategy / policy?  And why is it that there are no facilities to recycle plastic drink bottles (for example) on the high street?

Microgeneration Certification Scheme

Abolish the MCS which is due to be implemented April 2011. This idea from Ed Milliband certifies the products and companies who sell renewable energy products. These products are already CE rated at manufacture and are subject to local building regulations when fitted. If companies and their products are not accredited then consumers who buy non accredited products are not eligible for the costly green initiative RHI.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the MCS which is due to be implemented April 2011. This idea from Ed Milliband certifies the products and companies who sell renewable energy products. These products are already CE rated at manufacture and are subject to local building regulations when fitted. If companies and their products are not accredited then consumers who buy non accredited products are not eligible for the costly green initiative RHI.

Reduce minimum temprature requirements in shops, offices schools etc

Shops, offices, schools and any public buildings are always heated to a level that means the occupants are uncomfortable in anythig other than the lightest clothing. The minimum temprature requirement should either be abolished or at least reduced (and enforced).

Why is this idea important?

Shops, offices, schools and any public buildings are always heated to a level that means the occupants are uncomfortable in anythig other than the lightest clothing. The minimum temprature requirement should either be abolished or at least reduced (and enforced).

Cut red tape on Bin Collection

The duty of care – environmental protction act 1990 and the enviromental protection duty of care regulations 1991 state that I must complete a waste transfer notice every year for each waste container I use. This basically states what type of waste I put in the bin and costs me £80 + VAT for each container per year (£160+VAT in my case) for the waste disposal company to administer this document.

 

In simple terms I put cardboard in the cardboard bin and general waste in the general waste bin. Others put glass in their glass bins, plastic in their plastic bin etc etc. To me this seems like a massive waste of time, resources and ultimately money for small businesses with no improved result.

Why is this idea important?

The duty of care – environmental protction act 1990 and the enviromental protection duty of care regulations 1991 state that I must complete a waste transfer notice every year for each waste container I use. This basically states what type of waste I put in the bin and costs me £80 + VAT for each container per year (£160+VAT in my case) for the waste disposal company to administer this document.

 

In simple terms I put cardboard in the cardboard bin and general waste in the general waste bin. Others put glass in their glass bins, plastic in their plastic bin etc etc. To me this seems like a massive waste of time, resources and ultimately money for small businesses with no improved result.

biomass power generation

Remove the subsidy for biomass generation.  The costs of the subsiby are passed on to all elecricity consumers, private and business, by the ROC system.  Yet the burning of wood fuel in this country (where we have little forest cover) would mean the import of huge quantities of wood.  Calculations of the carbon costs ofcutting it, reducing it to chips or pellets,drying it, transporting it across the globe, transhipping it and moving it to power stations shows that biomass generation produces more carbon outputs than generating electricity in gas-fired installations.  Yo this carbon output we can add figures forthe releaseof carbon from deforested land.  So environmentqlly the idea is (or should be) a non-starter.

A further disadvantage is that subsidising demand for wood for burning, rather than making things, puts at risk UK supplies for our struggling wood-based industries, and the thousands of jobs that depend on it.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the subsidy for biomass generation.  The costs of the subsiby are passed on to all elecricity consumers, private and business, by the ROC system.  Yet the burning of wood fuel in this country (where we have little forest cover) would mean the import of huge quantities of wood.  Calculations of the carbon costs ofcutting it, reducing it to chips or pellets,drying it, transporting it across the globe, transhipping it and moving it to power stations shows that biomass generation produces more carbon outputs than generating electricity in gas-fired installations.  Yo this carbon output we can add figures forthe releaseof carbon from deforested land.  So environmentqlly the idea is (or should be) a non-starter.

A further disadvantage is that subsidising demand for wood for burning, rather than making things, puts at risk UK supplies for our struggling wood-based industries, and the thousands of jobs that depend on it.

End fossil fuel subsidies

With fossil fuels wasting £8 billion per year from UK taxpayers ,it is the first to be scrapped (more than 8 times that of any help for British renewables)

Presently the airlines pay no tax on kerosene ,losing £ billions for the treasury and losing even more as tourists spend their holidays and money abroad.

The Export Credit Guarantte department gave away £750 million of our taxes last year for foriegn oil,gas and coal power stations ,more than any help for British renewables.The Tories claimed last year to end this sham ,we await with baited breath!.

Internationally £255 Billion is given to coal ,oil and gas industry to keep the prices artificially low and distort the market.

Why is this idea important?

With fossil fuels wasting £8 billion per year from UK taxpayers ,it is the first to be scrapped (more than 8 times that of any help for British renewables)

Presently the airlines pay no tax on kerosene ,losing £ billions for the treasury and losing even more as tourists spend their holidays and money abroad.

The Export Credit Guarantte department gave away £750 million of our taxes last year for foriegn oil,gas and coal power stations ,more than any help for British renewables.The Tories claimed last year to end this sham ,we await with baited breath!.

Internationally £255 Billion is given to coal ,oil and gas industry to keep the prices artificially low and distort the market.

Personal and energy independence from state & command economy

Humanitarian plea for the Liberal Conservative coalition to make some cetaceous snorts against the imprisonment of The Tokyo Two – Greenpeace activists imprisoned for exposing illegal whaling activities.
At the same time, you could practise the sincerest form of flattery by adopting the new Japanese policy of fitting every new home with its own renewable energy source – batteries included!
I also support Greenpeace’s new [r]evolution energy policy document for decentralised energy.

By the way, the coalition is not the Greenest government ever – this government persists with trying to put one over on the people of the flying pig of nuclear power without subsidies: you seem intent on being a curse on your descendants and everyone else’s.

These two issues are civil liberties issues, as well as environmental issues. The Tokyo Two are being used to intimidate whistle-blowers. And nuclear power is a failed command economy solution, which already requires 800 nuclear police, recently incorporated in a larger force. Freedom and security are not compatible with the horrendous threats posed by fission energy productions.

Why is this idea important?

Humanitarian plea for the Liberal Conservative coalition to make some cetaceous snorts against the imprisonment of The Tokyo Two – Greenpeace activists imprisoned for exposing illegal whaling activities.
At the same time, you could practise the sincerest form of flattery by adopting the new Japanese policy of fitting every new home with its own renewable energy source – batteries included!
I also support Greenpeace’s new [r]evolution energy policy document for decentralised energy.

By the way, the coalition is not the Greenest government ever – this government persists with trying to put one over on the people of the flying pig of nuclear power without subsidies: you seem intent on being a curse on your descendants and everyone else’s.

These two issues are civil liberties issues, as well as environmental issues. The Tokyo Two are being used to intimidate whistle-blowers. And nuclear power is a failed command economy solution, which already requires 800 nuclear police, recently incorporated in a larger force. Freedom and security are not compatible with the horrendous threats posed by fission energy productions.

Abandon the current compliance process for Code for Sustainable Homes

The Code sets out laudable aims for standards within new homes. However the compliance procedure is very beaurocratic and expensive.

A large part of the cost is hidden in that it is borne by contractors in the accumulation sorting and recording of evidence of compliance. Suppliers of materials are also bearing the cost of demonstrating compliance, including sometimes complex audit trails, which is being passed on in higher prices.

A very large proportion of the standards are subject to other legislation with much duplication of approval. For example energy, water usage, sound resistance between dwellings and domestic waste are all covered by the Building Regulations, site waste management plans are mandatory for projects over £350k. The standards escalator set out in the Code can be dealt with relatively simply by adjustment to the other regulations. The Code also has a number of areas which can be outside the developers control. For example: Density of development, particularly the number of storeys in a building, are subject to planning control with it being very difficult to achieve high levels of Code compliance in some geographical areas under local planning policies and their implementation.

Central Governments Planning Policy Statements could also assist. For example by making it clear that an insistance on single glazing by Conservation Officers is only appropriate on particularly sensistive buildings (Listed grade 1, possible grade 2*, for example).

Additionally under compliance with the Code a number of criteria have been 'fudged'. Heat pumps are efficient heat transfer systems but if the electrical power generation is taken into account they are no more efficient than a gas boiler (or offer lower CO2) but they enable a much higher thermal performance score to be achieved. Similarly larger dwellings score better than small ones as a consequence of geometry. Thermal performance should be based on the number of Kilowatt/years for each person that a dwelling is designed to accommodate, irrespective of heat source and building size.

Why is this idea important?

The Code sets out laudable aims for standards within new homes. However the compliance procedure is very beaurocratic and expensive.

A large part of the cost is hidden in that it is borne by contractors in the accumulation sorting and recording of evidence of compliance. Suppliers of materials are also bearing the cost of demonstrating compliance, including sometimes complex audit trails, which is being passed on in higher prices.

A very large proportion of the standards are subject to other legislation with much duplication of approval. For example energy, water usage, sound resistance between dwellings and domestic waste are all covered by the Building Regulations, site waste management plans are mandatory for projects over £350k. The standards escalator set out in the Code can be dealt with relatively simply by adjustment to the other regulations. The Code also has a number of areas which can be outside the developers control. For example: Density of development, particularly the number of storeys in a building, are subject to planning control with it being very difficult to achieve high levels of Code compliance in some geographical areas under local planning policies and their implementation.

Central Governments Planning Policy Statements could also assist. For example by making it clear that an insistance on single glazing by Conservation Officers is only appropriate on particularly sensistive buildings (Listed grade 1, possible grade 2*, for example).

Additionally under compliance with the Code a number of criteria have been 'fudged'. Heat pumps are efficient heat transfer systems but if the electrical power generation is taken into account they are no more efficient than a gas boiler (or offer lower CO2) but they enable a much higher thermal performance score to be achieved. Similarly larger dwellings score better than small ones as a consequence of geometry. Thermal performance should be based on the number of Kilowatt/years for each person that a dwelling is designed to accommodate, irrespective of heat source and building size.

Remove the Regulations Concerning Energy Performance Certificates

The requirement to provide Energy Performance Certificates should be removed.  These are a complete waste of time and benefit nobody except the solicitors who charge fees for providing a report which typically advises changing to energy efficient light bulbs.

Why is this idea important?

The requirement to provide Energy Performance Certificates should be removed.  These are a complete waste of time and benefit nobody except the solicitors who charge fees for providing a report which typically advises changing to energy efficient light bulbs.

Feed In Tariff for first movers

Feed in tariff benefit requires installation of proven technology by qualified installers.  This excludes first movers and amateur installation.  It hampers aquisition of new skills by unqualified, but experienced tradesmen.

Feed-In Tariff should be available, subject to inspection and evidence or calculation of energy saving, by Building Inspectors. 

New technology might be defined as one capturing less than 2.5% of the market, e.g. Exhaust Air Heat Pumps.

Why is this idea important?

Feed in tariff benefit requires installation of proven technology by qualified installers.  This excludes first movers and amateur installation.  It hampers aquisition of new skills by unqualified, but experienced tradesmen.

Feed-In Tariff should be available, subject to inspection and evidence or calculation of energy saving, by Building Inspectors. 

New technology might be defined as one capturing less than 2.5% of the market, e.g. Exhaust Air Heat Pumps.

Repeal that part of the protected species law which allows them to be killed

Now that the PM has experienced a bat chase (!!), maybe he will have held it in his hands, and found it to be remarkably clean and as warm as we are. Their fur is very smoothly kept, and feels pleasant to the hand. If you were an enthusiast you would love their "funny" faces too, because the technology they embody allows them to see in the dark!!

Bats are protected by law, but uglier cold blooded people are killing them, because it appears the bat protection law allows wind turbines an exception, and terminal damage to their lungs in the vortex wake of the rotating blades is allowable. This must have been because politicians did not care for bats, and were willing to exterminate them in the cause of their money games.

So nasty were these games that they deliberately hugely subsidised such bad ideas as wind turbines thinking that they actually generated electricity economically, when of course they do not, since they require such huge quantites of backup electricity supply, generated mostly by fossil fuel, that CO2 is hardly reduced at all.

And they are hideous too – would the PM want one in Whitehall? Just beside the Cenotaph would do – he would soon complain about the sickly low frequency thumping of the passing blade, coming seismically through the ground, reminding himself meanwhile that the slow rotation of the blades generates no electricity whatsoever, still killing bats and eagles and other raptors too.

Politicians have played with the electricity generation market, subsidising some technologies more than others because of their mistaken beliefs about them. Surely it is time that all complex subsidy of electricity was stopped, thus making the market clearer to everybody, including the media. And then the wind turbines would be exposed for what they are – a blight on us all.

I hope Mr David Cameron now loves bats.
 

Why is this idea important?

Now that the PM has experienced a bat chase (!!), maybe he will have held it in his hands, and found it to be remarkably clean and as warm as we are. Their fur is very smoothly kept, and feels pleasant to the hand. If you were an enthusiast you would love their "funny" faces too, because the technology they embody allows them to see in the dark!!

Bats are protected by law, but uglier cold blooded people are killing them, because it appears the bat protection law allows wind turbines an exception, and terminal damage to their lungs in the vortex wake of the rotating blades is allowable. This must have been because politicians did not care for bats, and were willing to exterminate them in the cause of their money games.

So nasty were these games that they deliberately hugely subsidised such bad ideas as wind turbines thinking that they actually generated electricity economically, when of course they do not, since they require such huge quantites of backup electricity supply, generated mostly by fossil fuel, that CO2 is hardly reduced at all.

And they are hideous too – would the PM want one in Whitehall? Just beside the Cenotaph would do – he would soon complain about the sickly low frequency thumping of the passing blade, coming seismically through the ground, reminding himself meanwhile that the slow rotation of the blades generates no electricity whatsoever, still killing bats and eagles and other raptors too.

Politicians have played with the electricity generation market, subsidising some technologies more than others because of their mistaken beliefs about them. Surely it is time that all complex subsidy of electricity was stopped, thus making the market clearer to everybody, including the media. And then the wind turbines would be exposed for what they are – a blight on us all.

I hope Mr David Cameron now loves bats.
 

Energy performance certificate regulations

The Energy Performance of Buildings ( England and Wales) ( Certificates and Inspections) Regulations 2007 should be scrapped. The regs are in to make every building get a DEC/Energy performance certifcate- the justifcation being that it will cut our carbon emissions. The epc is a waste of time- no one looks at it and it will not help the environment. Currently councils are made to get DECS for all their buildings which will cost thousands to councils when evreyone is being forced to cut costs.

Why is this idea important?

The Energy Performance of Buildings ( England and Wales) ( Certificates and Inspections) Regulations 2007 should be scrapped. The regs are in to make every building get a DEC/Energy performance certifcate- the justifcation being that it will cut our carbon emissions. The epc is a waste of time- no one looks at it and it will not help the environment. Currently councils are made to get DECS for all their buildings which will cost thousands to councils when evreyone is being forced to cut costs.

Stop reinventing the wheel for climate change organisations

Government keeps reinventing the wheel.  Every year a new round of funding comes from government looking at how we can reduce the effects on climate change but instead of building on what is working they are looking for new ideas to pilot and stick a government badge on.

Why not support what is already out there and help develop this rather than starting again from an unproven blueprint?

 Keep binging out new organisations only confuses the general public and depletes funding.

I have found this particularly frustrating for The Greening Campaign that is a proven programme and yet has little support from government because it is not a 'pilot' that someone can stick a badge on for 6 months before it gets dropped.

Government support is important and yet elusive for community groups in the long term.

Why is this idea important?

Government keeps reinventing the wheel.  Every year a new round of funding comes from government looking at how we can reduce the effects on climate change but instead of building on what is working they are looking for new ideas to pilot and stick a government badge on.

Why not support what is already out there and help develop this rather than starting again from an unproven blueprint?

 Keep binging out new organisations only confuses the general public and depletes funding.

I have found this particularly frustrating for The Greening Campaign that is a proven programme and yet has little support from government because it is not a 'pilot' that someone can stick a badge on for 6 months before it gets dropped.

Government support is important and yet elusive for community groups in the long term.

Align time in England and Wales with Europe

Let's make the most of the sun during summer. If this upsets the Scots they have their own parliament – they can choose to stay as they are now.

Why we allow 5 million Scots to determine something that affects more than 50 million other citizens seems daft to me.

Why is this idea important?

Let's make the most of the sun during summer. If this upsets the Scots they have their own parliament – they can choose to stay as they are now.

Why we allow 5 million Scots to determine something that affects more than 50 million other citizens seems daft to me.

Tax employers by commuting distances

There are dozens of carbon taxes, and I hope my idea should replace a plethora of them! Here's a tiny story to start: It started when my I considered my friend, call him John, a nurse, is employed by an agency who sends him 70 miles to Manchester every day to the hospital job they gave him. Actually there is a hospital just  a short walk from John's house. I am quite sure there are agency nurses travelling every day from Manchester to the hospital next to John's house. How clever we are to allow this! My idea is… make businesses audit the number of commuting miles made by their employees (and agency staff), and then tax these miles. This will cut commuting miles dramatically. It should stop employers carelessly dragging in employees from all over the country, when there are potential employees on their doorstep. Businesses can easily avoid the tax, by incentivising their employees to move closer to their workplace, or having them work more from home, etc. Businesses can also move closer to their employees, and 1) pay lower than city rates 2) pay out less in wages i.e. employees need less income to support their travel to work costs! 3) do some decent tax accounting against relocation expenses (for both staff benefits and workplace removals). The green benefits are obvious.

Why is this idea important?

There are dozens of carbon taxes, and I hope my idea should replace a plethora of them! Here's a tiny story to start: It started when my I considered my friend, call him John, a nurse, is employed by an agency who sends him 70 miles to Manchester every day to the hospital job they gave him. Actually there is a hospital just  a short walk from John's house. I am quite sure there are agency nurses travelling every day from Manchester to the hospital next to John's house. How clever we are to allow this! My idea is… make businesses audit the number of commuting miles made by their employees (and agency staff), and then tax these miles. This will cut commuting miles dramatically. It should stop employers carelessly dragging in employees from all over the country, when there are potential employees on their doorstep. Businesses can easily avoid the tax, by incentivising their employees to move closer to their workplace, or having them work more from home, etc. Businesses can also move closer to their employees, and 1) pay lower than city rates 2) pay out less in wages i.e. employees need less income to support their travel to work costs! 3) do some decent tax accounting against relocation expenses (for both staff benefits and workplace removals). The green benefits are obvious.

Repeal the regulation that results in lifts using double the energy necessary

Repeal the current regulations which requires all modern lifts to return to the ground floor, every time they are used. 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the current regulations which requires all modern lifts to return to the ground floor, every time they are used. 

Remove registration under Microgeneration scheme

Currently any installer of 'green' energy (in particular photovoltaic power from solar panels) has to be registered under the Microgeneration scheme or their customers will not be able to claim back the Fixed Income Tariff for generating such power – or the supplement for returning it to the grid.

This is not a SAFETY requirement, because there is no bar on an unregistered person or company connecting a system to the grid (providing they comply with the relevant Building Regulations), it is simply a way of a Quango-type organization making a lot of money out of small businesses.

Why is this idea important?

Currently any installer of 'green' energy (in particular photovoltaic power from solar panels) has to be registered under the Microgeneration scheme or their customers will not be able to claim back the Fixed Income Tariff for generating such power – or the supplement for returning it to the grid.

This is not a SAFETY requirement, because there is no bar on an unregistered person or company connecting a system to the grid (providing they comply with the relevant Building Regulations), it is simply a way of a Quango-type organization making a lot of money out of small businesses.

Reduce Environmental Regulatory Burden – The Mining Waste Directive: One Step Too Far.

 

Simple put: Why would a large multinational company invest money in the UK? It's easier and there would be a higher rate of return if they invested their money else where. Our increasingly restrictive environmental legalisation is going to finish the UK Extractive Industry for good. 

I work for a large multinational company as a geologist in the UK's Extractive Materials Industry. We supply materials such as aggregates, cement, asphalt and concrete, so that the UK can build and grow.

The company however (and the industry as a whole) is really suffering in the economic downturn, with volumes declining by up to 50%.

There is one thing however that's not declining, and that's the amount of Environmental Legalisation that continues to be implemented, seemingly on a monthly basis, and the industry just cannot cope with it. The minerals industry desperately needs the regulatory burden to be eased.

The latest piece of major legalisation to shortly affect my company is the Mining Waste Directive, which has been interpreted from EU Law by DEFRA and is being implemented by the EA. This is a completely useless and unbeneficial piece of legislation, as everything the new directive covers is already covered in other legislation!  It is pure and simple unnecessary duplication.

The UK quarrying industry (which is already the most legislated and safest in the whole world) ALREADY has two main tiers which govern every move that the industry makes. These are Planning Permissions and the HSE 1999 Quarries Regulations. Legalisation that the industry works well with.

By way of a very short account of what this entails, the means that every soil bund, material stockpile, silt pond and excavation is covered by a planning permission, a restoration plan, method of working plan, phasing plan, H&S risk assessments, geotechnical stability analysis, archaeological studies, ecological studies, dust studies, air quality studies, hydrogeological risk assessments, flood studies….. I could go on.

We now have to add to this Environmental Permits and (which cost money!) so that the EA can approve, along with the Planning Authority and the HSE where we are allowed to place bunds, stockpiles and ponds.

Just drop the Mining Waste Directive…. it really isn't required. It's for other less well regulated countries from the EU, where there isn’t ANY existing regulation in place.

Senior Geologist from the UK Minerals Industry

Why is this idea important?

 

Simple put: Why would a large multinational company invest money in the UK? It's easier and there would be a higher rate of return if they invested their money else where. Our increasingly restrictive environmental legalisation is going to finish the UK Extractive Industry for good. 

I work for a large multinational company as a geologist in the UK's Extractive Materials Industry. We supply materials such as aggregates, cement, asphalt and concrete, so that the UK can build and grow.

The company however (and the industry as a whole) is really suffering in the economic downturn, with volumes declining by up to 50%.

There is one thing however that's not declining, and that's the amount of Environmental Legalisation that continues to be implemented, seemingly on a monthly basis, and the industry just cannot cope with it. The minerals industry desperately needs the regulatory burden to be eased.

The latest piece of major legalisation to shortly affect my company is the Mining Waste Directive, which has been interpreted from EU Law by DEFRA and is being implemented by the EA. This is a completely useless and unbeneficial piece of legislation, as everything the new directive covers is already covered in other legislation!  It is pure and simple unnecessary duplication.

The UK quarrying industry (which is already the most legislated and safest in the whole world) ALREADY has two main tiers which govern every move that the industry makes. These are Planning Permissions and the HSE 1999 Quarries Regulations. Legalisation that the industry works well with.

By way of a very short account of what this entails, the means that every soil bund, material stockpile, silt pond and excavation is covered by a planning permission, a restoration plan, method of working plan, phasing plan, H&S risk assessments, geotechnical stability analysis, archaeological studies, ecological studies, dust studies, air quality studies, hydrogeological risk assessments, flood studies….. I could go on.

We now have to add to this Environmental Permits and (which cost money!) so that the EA can approve, along with the Planning Authority and the HSE where we are allowed to place bunds, stockpiles and ponds.

Just drop the Mining Waste Directive…. it really isn't required. It's for other less well regulated countries from the EU, where there isn’t ANY existing regulation in place.

Senior Geologist from the UK Minerals Industry

Blanket planning permission 4 solar panels, windmills, satallite dishes

I think wind farms are beautiful, so just ignore my point about that perhaps and concentrate on the simpler part.

If I want to extend a building upwards by the height of solar panels and water tanks, and I have had the strength of the building inspected, surely this could be enough to allow automatic planning permission just as previous generations argued for their sheds and porch extensions to be covered automaticaly.

Why is this idea important?

I think wind farms are beautiful, so just ignore my point about that perhaps and concentrate on the simpler part.

If I want to extend a building upwards by the height of solar panels and water tanks, and I have had the strength of the building inspected, surely this could be enough to allow automatic planning permission just as previous generations argued for their sheds and porch extensions to be covered automaticaly.