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.

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

Save the countryside from Industrial Wind Farms

This government is spending millions each year providing massive subsidies to the on-shore wind farm industry which are not even an efficient means of generating "green" electricity. Private "green energy" developers are now threatening to ruin huge swathes of rural England with monstrous industrial sized turbines which are over 130 metres tall (1.5 x the size of Big Ben) in completely inappropriate sites, which aren't even particularly windy and which are extremely close to thousands of local residents. Hundreds of local campaign groups are now springing up all over the country to fight these planning applications because these developers are just interested in one thing and that's MONEY. They have no consideration whatsoever for the people whose lives would be blighted by these massive Power Stations but becuase of the subsidies they receive they can bribe landowners with rents of £25,000 per turbine per annum. These turbines can be built just 800 metres away from hundreds of residents, even though in Scotland there is already a law that these turbines cant be closer than 2 Kms. This is completely outrageous and the goverenment should be ashamed if it doesnt legislate where these Power Stations can be built.

Why is this idea important?

This government is spending millions each year providing massive subsidies to the on-shore wind farm industry which are not even an efficient means of generating "green" electricity. Private "green energy" developers are now threatening to ruin huge swathes of rural England with monstrous industrial sized turbines which are over 130 metres tall (1.5 x the size of Big Ben) in completely inappropriate sites, which aren't even particularly windy and which are extremely close to thousands of local residents. Hundreds of local campaign groups are now springing up all over the country to fight these planning applications because these developers are just interested in one thing and that's MONEY. They have no consideration whatsoever for the people whose lives would be blighted by these massive Power Stations but becuase of the subsidies they receive they can bribe landowners with rents of £25,000 per turbine per annum. These turbines can be built just 800 metres away from hundreds of residents, even though in Scotland there is already a law that these turbines cant be closer than 2 Kms. This is completely outrageous and the goverenment should be ashamed if it doesnt legislate where these Power Stations can be built.

Ban the sale of hot water domestic appliances that only have a cold water connection

There are many washing machines and dishwashers on sale that only have a clod water connection. These devices have no option but to use electricity to produce hot water. The electricity consumed may have been generated from 4 units of gas, making a considerable contribution to carbon emissions.

If these devices had hot water connections they could have generated the same heat from only 1 unit of gas or benefited from renewable heat.

Gas is also 1/4 the price of electricity unit for unit reducing the end users costs.

Why is this idea important?

There are many washing machines and dishwashers on sale that only have a clod water connection. These devices have no option but to use electricity to produce hot water. The electricity consumed may have been generated from 4 units of gas, making a considerable contribution to carbon emissions.

If these devices had hot water connections they could have generated the same heat from only 1 unit of gas or benefited from renewable heat.

Gas is also 1/4 the price of electricity unit for unit reducing the end users costs.

Population Control and Global Warming.

The world is overpopulated. Global warming is the result of there being too many people not a few of them driving 4x4s.

Any couple who has more than 2 children are selfishly voting for massive population increase and hence massive increases in energy consumption. It is not an excuse to say the average is less, a third child equals 50% increase.

A target should be set for population reduction by rewarding those with 1 or fewer children and penalising the rabbits. Reduction by 5 million every 10 years would be sensible until a total of about 40 million is reached.

There would be huge financial benefits with reduced medical, then school costs, then housing costs and elimination of unemployment.

Why is this idea important?

The world is overpopulated. Global warming is the result of there being too many people not a few of them driving 4x4s.

Any couple who has more than 2 children are selfishly voting for massive population increase and hence massive increases in energy consumption. It is not an excuse to say the average is less, a third child equals 50% increase.

A target should be set for population reduction by rewarding those with 1 or fewer children and penalising the rabbits. Reduction by 5 million every 10 years would be sensible until a total of about 40 million is reached.

There would be huge financial benefits with reduced medical, then school costs, then housing costs and elimination of unemployment.

Move income tax, to a tax on dirty energy

 

If we want to encourage clean energy development and lower electricity use, we should raise taxes on emissions created by power plants, so that dirty energy costs more to produce than clean energy. 

If a tax based on the amount of pollutants a power station produced was raised significantly it would make renewable energy economically advantages.  Making clean energy cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels would lead to a surge in renewable energy projects.  This would lower pollution, create a secure energy supply and help the economy through investment.

Obviously this would lead to higher energy prices.  The government should offset this by lowering income tax.  Maybe the Liberal Democrats could get their 10,000 income tax threshold.  Those on fixed incomes would also need an increase, paid for by the emissions tax.  This would be a fairer system of taxation.  

Why is this idea important?

 

If we want to encourage clean energy development and lower electricity use, we should raise taxes on emissions created by power plants, so that dirty energy costs more to produce than clean energy. 

If a tax based on the amount of pollutants a power station produced was raised significantly it would make renewable energy economically advantages.  Making clean energy cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels would lead to a surge in renewable energy projects.  This would lower pollution, create a secure energy supply and help the economy through investment.

Obviously this would lead to higher energy prices.  The government should offset this by lowering income tax.  Maybe the Liberal Democrats could get their 10,000 income tax threshold.  Those on fixed incomes would also need an increase, paid for by the emissions tax.  This would be a fairer system of taxation.  

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).

Wind turbines to give cheaper electricity to close neighbours initially; no wasteful turning off of turbines – excess power must be used to run new local rail-lines

People living very close to wind turbines to be given reduced price electricity. Up to certain distance further away this would apply from planning period.

Power companies not  to force the switching-off of turbines (in cases of overloading the network).  Stoppage negates the costs of planning, building and erecting the turbines, and is wasteful.(see Daily Mail, June 21, 2010 "Wind farm owners get fee to switch off".  

The surplus additional power must somehow be diverted, stored, and eventually used for useful projects and purposes, such as to power new local rail lines (such as re-opened rural lines, freight lines and E/W routes in East Anglia and elsewhere).

Power companies should have less overall control of such matters.  Householders, businesses (or future ones), and councils to have a big say about this.  Groups of people could also set up with planning permission their own suitably sited turbines to provide power for current and future purposes..

Very close living objectors to wind turbines must remember they could be gaining cheaper electricity for themselves firstly. 

In scenic areas, electriclty companies must promise to power firstly at reduced rates local people, and also fund/ power any locally proposed  new rail lines, community projects and favoured agreed businesses in the nearest  industrial area.

 

Why is this idea important?

People living very close to wind turbines to be given reduced price electricity. Up to certain distance further away this would apply from planning period.

Power companies not  to force the switching-off of turbines (in cases of overloading the network).  Stoppage negates the costs of planning, building and erecting the turbines, and is wasteful.(see Daily Mail, June 21, 2010 "Wind farm owners get fee to switch off".  

The surplus additional power must somehow be diverted, stored, and eventually used for useful projects and purposes, such as to power new local rail lines (such as re-opened rural lines, freight lines and E/W routes in East Anglia and elsewhere).

Power companies should have less overall control of such matters.  Householders, businesses (or future ones), and councils to have a big say about this.  Groups of people could also set up with planning permission their own suitably sited turbines to provide power for current and future purposes..

Very close living objectors to wind turbines must remember they could be gaining cheaper electricity for themselves firstly. 

In scenic areas, electriclty companies must promise to power firstly at reduced rates local people, and also fund/ power any locally proposed  new rail lines, community projects and favoured agreed businesses in the nearest  industrial area.

 

Scrap the renewable energy RHI scheme

Whenever subsidies are paid they distort the market place. Organisations and people compete for their slice of the subsidy cake. e.g. you put a solar panel on your roof, the builder charges more because he knows you will get a subsidy and the insurance company charges more for the same reason.

It is possible to produce a renewable heating device that is financially viable without any subsidy. This is the device that should naturally be acepted by the market place, however the proposed RHI initiative will distort the market place by subsidising less cost effective technologies.

Why is this idea important?

Whenever subsidies are paid they distort the market place. Organisations and people compete for their slice of the subsidy cake. e.g. you put a solar panel on your roof, the builder charges more because he knows you will get a subsidy and the insurance company charges more for the same reason.

It is possible to produce a renewable heating device that is financially viable without any subsidy. This is the device that should naturally be acepted by the market place, however the proposed RHI initiative will distort the market place by subsidising less cost effective technologies.

Merge Energy Saving Trust and Carbon Trust

The two bodies are both funded by the government and do a very good job. The EST mainly aims its work at households, with some targeting of businesses. The CT aims its work at businesses.  Merge them and save money. We do not need two bodies doing the same work.

 

Why is this idea important?

The two bodies are both funded by the government and do a very good job. The EST mainly aims its work at households, with some targeting of businesses. The CT aims its work at businesses.  Merge them and save money. We do not need two bodies doing the same work.

 

Power Generation

Please please stop listening to the ridiculous suggestions from the brigade of 'green glasses' wearers.

Without nuclear power generation every engineer concerned  knows we WILL run out of sufficient power.

All the other ideas will be of no use without it. The new schools will not function, hospitals will close and business will be blighted

Stop the ridiculous hand wringing act and sort out the power industry in this country. After all Thatcher ( of whom I thought a great deal) started the rot and successive governments did not implement the controls needed to stop the mess we have now.

Why is this idea important?

Please please stop listening to the ridiculous suggestions from the brigade of 'green glasses' wearers.

Without nuclear power generation every engineer concerned  knows we WILL run out of sufficient power.

All the other ideas will be of no use without it. The new schools will not function, hospitals will close and business will be blighted

Stop the ridiculous hand wringing act and sort out the power industry in this country. After all Thatcher ( of whom I thought a great deal) started the rot and successive governments did not implement the controls needed to stop the mess we have now.

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.

Renewable Energy

Go further still!  Change the Building Regulations to require ALL new builds and major building refurbishments to install solar heating and solar electricity systems. 

Why is this idea important?

Go further still!  Change the Building Regulations to require ALL new builds and major building refurbishments to install solar heating and solar electricity systems. 

Open the microgeneration market

Abolish the quango which administers the MCS (Microgeneration certification scheme) as this limits the number of products and installers that can be used in conjunction with a feed-in tariff.

This serves only to skew the marketplace for new entrants by creating an artificial  price differential between certified and non certified products with identical specifications.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the quango which administers the MCS (Microgeneration certification scheme) as this limits the number of products and installers that can be used in conjunction with a feed-in tariff.

This serves only to skew the marketplace for new entrants by creating an artificial  price differential between certified and non certified products with identical specifications.

 

 

DAB radio – another environmental issue

It is well known that the quality of reproduction of DAB is poorer than FM broadcasts and added to which literally millions of people will have to spend large sums replacing their existing radios both at home and in the car. However I have both FM and DAB radios and have discovered that battery operated DAB radios require their batteries to be changed almost weekly whereas my portable FM radio hasn't had a new set of batteries for over a year. Consequently the DAB radio is plugged into a mains adapter constantly. The resultant huge increase in power consumption is without doubt an environmental disaster when magnified millions of times.

Please reconsider removing FM broadcasts. If it aint broke – don't fix it!

Why is this idea important?

It is well known that the quality of reproduction of DAB is poorer than FM broadcasts and added to which literally millions of people will have to spend large sums replacing their existing radios both at home and in the car. However I have both FM and DAB radios and have discovered that battery operated DAB radios require their batteries to be changed almost weekly whereas my portable FM radio hasn't had a new set of batteries for over a year. Consequently the DAB radio is plugged into a mains adapter constantly. The resultant huge increase in power consumption is without doubt an environmental disaster when magnified millions of times.

Please reconsider removing FM broadcasts. If it aint broke – don't fix it!

Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations Directive 91/2002/EC

To revoke this Directive.

For existing homes being sold on, the requirement for an Energy Performance Certificate does nothing to save energy (not least because an Energy Assessor probably makes his visit by car) and is an unnecessary burden on a seller.

The purchaser`s own survey should advise on measures to improve the energy efficiency of the property.

With the shortage of housing, an older property should not be condemned simply because it is not as energy efficient as a new one. 

 

Why is this idea important?

To revoke this Directive.

For existing homes being sold on, the requirement for an Energy Performance Certificate does nothing to save energy (not least because an Energy Assessor probably makes his visit by car) and is an unnecessary burden on a seller.

The purchaser`s own survey should advise on measures to improve the energy efficiency of the property.

With the shortage of housing, an older property should not be condemned simply because it is not as energy efficient as a new one. 

 

Freedom from Electricity Blackouts – Employ Good Industry Managers

Freedom from Electricity Blackouts – write clear and concise White papers – employ good Launch Managers – like BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and/or AMEC.

The Future is bleak. I am advised that electricity power supplies will fail in winter in five years time and we will be subject to blackouts and because these will be widespread, it may be that phone lines will also be dead. Thus crime might proliferate, and contact with the Police might be impossible. Traffic lights will not work, so accidents may occur. My freedom to enjoy the opera or the cinema, to contribute to discussion in a town hall, or even just to survive in the cold – you need electricity to open your gas or oil valve, and to light the flame on your central heating.

The DTI (or the BERR) published a White Paper in 2007 “Meeting the Energy Challenge” in which all they did was frighten everybody off investing at all, because they would not risk investment or prediction themselves. The White Paper said that we are due to lose 22.5GW of electricity generation through shut-downs of capacity by 2020, and details in para 5.1.13 that a new 25 GW of capacity is needed to be operating by 2020, and a further 10GW by 2030.
This Energy White Paper presented 91 pages of waffle in Section 5.1 (Electricity Generation – Investment Framework) of the White Paper, with only one chart – showing minimal renewables growth over the last ten years and no chart at all about the predictable future. The whole section talks endlessly about the need to invest, and the support that investors need over resource prices, and that electricity market prices affect the future, but nothing is said about those prices or investment returns, presumably because there is risk in every prediction and the Government was avoiding commitment itself. Government hides the subsidies from the general public too, so we have been forced to accept Government statements on Energy as if they were SECRET. The same applies to”PEAK OIL”, which Ministers have ignored for many years.

How do we compare different technologies? Well, wind produces noise and is very visible, but does not generate stable power, and needs continuous expensive backup. Wave power cannot be seen, but is probably continuous – does it work well enough yet? The Severn Barrage is EXPENSIVE and inefficiently works on tidal velocity when lower cost more continuous output solutions work on tidal head. Coal produces smoke without CCS. Fission produces emotional waste. Anaerobic digestion needs to limit smells, but may use plant and food debris successfully. Palm oil production is destroying the Rain Forest, so WE ALL KNOW that is very EXPENSIVE. Financially they cannot be compared because the data does not clearly exist – CRAZY!!

White Papers need to be brought up to Industry Standards – they need clear charts and just a few pages of clear and concise text. It took me a while to construct my simplified Investment Chart described in the Appendix below, because I had to find the data (there was nothing in the totally inadequate Energy White Paper where it should have been of course), and it was easiest to collate and draw it for nuclear power, but its concept is equally applicable to every other Project that anybody is asked to invest in. It is time the Government reduced costs by reviewing White Paper Strategy influencing as they do Law and Policy, and to start by planning for the Country clearly enough. Why is this type of clear Investment Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power?

The cost of a White paper is not just in the paper produced, nor in the investigation and writing time taken by the authors, but primarily in the way it would affect Government Policy for the future. The lack of a credible Energy Policy so far will be extremely expensive in the long run.
To maintain this different sort of personal freedom, you may even have to repeal the Emissions Laws which dictate that we shut down coal fired power stations before they are economically ineffective. And we need to extend the life of any other Power Generation essential to avoiding blackouts.
Lord Tombs carried out a survey of the civil service a couple of years ago, and he found that there were very few professional engineers employed, and none at the highest level. No wonder the Energy White Papers/Policies are so poorly conceived.
Just how much more expensive can Government make their job? Clearly, to write a White Paper badly can cost a fortune in misinforming Policy, and in delaying the introduction of solutions.

This is now very much a Technological World, and the Civil Service must recruit Technologists to understand and control appropriate inputs from Industry. I use the word Technology in its widest sense, so you need big engineers to talk to big engineering industry, in several disciplines. Electrical Engineers for electrical power distribution, Mechanical Engineers for generating that power, and Civil Engineers for building big projects. You do not need Scientists, except for Scientific projects, and Electrical Power Supply is Engineering not Science.

The people Government had in 2007 constructing and writing Energy White Papers were clearly not Engineers. If you saw tonight's BBC2 programme "How to Build a Jumbo Jet Engine" for example, you will know how competent Big Industry has become – I think you should ask them to help you reconstruct big chunks of the Civil Service, and thus reduce your costs enormously. It is not just waste you need to tackle, but ability and competence, thus to achieve low cost over the life of a Project.

Importantly, costs hugely escalate if you have to correct thinking later on (eg. correcting already built parts) or to launch something in an emergency, so get it right first time, in time, and right at the start. This has not happened in Government Energy Policy so far.

I would suggest that you ask BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and/or AMEC to help you start again.

Appendix
Simplified Investment Chart

The chart helped me to understand why Investment in Energy of any sort is so slow – the returns are simply not good enough without subsidy in comparison with other investments. Government hides the subsidies from the general public too, so we have been forced to accept Government statements on Energy as if they were SECRET.
I find the "Your Freedom" website will not allow me to add the chart – so I describe it here – the vertical axis is minus 6 to plus 10 billion pounds, the horizontal axis is zero to twenty five years.
There is a bottom line running from zero pounds at zero years to minus two billion at eight years, which is the build cost investment line. This line continues at a slightly different slope indicating the continuing running cost to about minus six billion at twenty five years.
From the minus two billion eight year point, there is an income (from the consumer) line, rising to plus three billion at twenty five years, and a doubled income line rising from that minus two billion at eight years to plus ten billion at twenty five years. The cruncher is the FTSE 100 Investment Line which rises from zero pounds at zero years to plus ten billion at twenty five years, based upon investing the 2 billion cost of the Project in other averaged FTSE 100 Stock. Only a DOUBLED income approaches that return, or an equivalent subsidy.
Why is this type of clear Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether AD, coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power?

Why is this idea important?

Freedom from Electricity Blackouts – write clear and concise White papers – employ good Launch Managers – like BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and/or AMEC.

The Future is bleak. I am advised that electricity power supplies will fail in winter in five years time and we will be subject to blackouts and because these will be widespread, it may be that phone lines will also be dead. Thus crime might proliferate, and contact with the Police might be impossible. Traffic lights will not work, so accidents may occur. My freedom to enjoy the opera or the cinema, to contribute to discussion in a town hall, or even just to survive in the cold – you need electricity to open your gas or oil valve, and to light the flame on your central heating.

The DTI (or the BERR) published a White Paper in 2007 “Meeting the Energy Challenge” in which all they did was frighten everybody off investing at all, because they would not risk investment or prediction themselves. The White Paper said that we are due to lose 22.5GW of electricity generation through shut-downs of capacity by 2020, and details in para 5.1.13 that a new 25 GW of capacity is needed to be operating by 2020, and a further 10GW by 2030.
This Energy White Paper presented 91 pages of waffle in Section 5.1 (Electricity Generation – Investment Framework) of the White Paper, with only one chart – showing minimal renewables growth over the last ten years and no chart at all about the predictable future. The whole section talks endlessly about the need to invest, and the support that investors need over resource prices, and that electricity market prices affect the future, but nothing is said about those prices or investment returns, presumably because there is risk in every prediction and the Government was avoiding commitment itself. Government hides the subsidies from the general public too, so we have been forced to accept Government statements on Energy as if they were SECRET. The same applies to”PEAK OIL”, which Ministers have ignored for many years.

How do we compare different technologies? Well, wind produces noise and is very visible, but does not generate stable power, and needs continuous expensive backup. Wave power cannot be seen, but is probably continuous – does it work well enough yet? The Severn Barrage is EXPENSIVE and inefficiently works on tidal velocity when lower cost more continuous output solutions work on tidal head. Coal produces smoke without CCS. Fission produces emotional waste. Anaerobic digestion needs to limit smells, but may use plant and food debris successfully. Palm oil production is destroying the Rain Forest, so WE ALL KNOW that is very EXPENSIVE. Financially they cannot be compared because the data does not clearly exist – CRAZY!!

White Papers need to be brought up to Industry Standards – they need clear charts and just a few pages of clear and concise text. It took me a while to construct my simplified Investment Chart described in the Appendix below, because I had to find the data (there was nothing in the totally inadequate Energy White Paper where it should have been of course), and it was easiest to collate and draw it for nuclear power, but its concept is equally applicable to every other Project that anybody is asked to invest in. It is time the Government reduced costs by reviewing White Paper Strategy influencing as they do Law and Policy, and to start by planning for the Country clearly enough. Why is this type of clear Investment Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power?

The cost of a White paper is not just in the paper produced, nor in the investigation and writing time taken by the authors, but primarily in the way it would affect Government Policy for the future. The lack of a credible Energy Policy so far will be extremely expensive in the long run.
To maintain this different sort of personal freedom, you may even have to repeal the Emissions Laws which dictate that we shut down coal fired power stations before they are economically ineffective. And we need to extend the life of any other Power Generation essential to avoiding blackouts.
Lord Tombs carried out a survey of the civil service a couple of years ago, and he found that there were very few professional engineers employed, and none at the highest level. No wonder the Energy White Papers/Policies are so poorly conceived.
Just how much more expensive can Government make their job? Clearly, to write a White Paper badly can cost a fortune in misinforming Policy, and in delaying the introduction of solutions.

This is now very much a Technological World, and the Civil Service must recruit Technologists to understand and control appropriate inputs from Industry. I use the word Technology in its widest sense, so you need big engineers to talk to big engineering industry, in several disciplines. Electrical Engineers for electrical power distribution, Mechanical Engineers for generating that power, and Civil Engineers for building big projects. You do not need Scientists, except for Scientific projects, and Electrical Power Supply is Engineering not Science.

The people Government had in 2007 constructing and writing Energy White Papers were clearly not Engineers. If you saw tonight's BBC2 programme "How to Build a Jumbo Jet Engine" for example, you will know how competent Big Industry has become – I think you should ask them to help you reconstruct big chunks of the Civil Service, and thus reduce your costs enormously. It is not just waste you need to tackle, but ability and competence, thus to achieve low cost over the life of a Project.

Importantly, costs hugely escalate if you have to correct thinking later on (eg. correcting already built parts) or to launch something in an emergency, so get it right first time, in time, and right at the start. This has not happened in Government Energy Policy so far.

I would suggest that you ask BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and/or AMEC to help you start again.

Appendix
Simplified Investment Chart

The chart helped me to understand why Investment in Energy of any sort is so slow – the returns are simply not good enough without subsidy in comparison with other investments. Government hides the subsidies from the general public too, so we have been forced to accept Government statements on Energy as if they were SECRET.
I find the "Your Freedom" website will not allow me to add the chart – so I describe it here – the vertical axis is minus 6 to plus 10 billion pounds, the horizontal axis is zero to twenty five years.
There is a bottom line running from zero pounds at zero years to minus two billion at eight years, which is the build cost investment line. This line continues at a slightly different slope indicating the continuing running cost to about minus six billion at twenty five years.
From the minus two billion eight year point, there is an income (from the consumer) line, rising to plus three billion at twenty five years, and a doubled income line rising from that minus two billion at eight years to plus ten billion at twenty five years. The cruncher is the FTSE 100 Investment Line which rises from zero pounds at zero years to plus ten billion at twenty five years, based upon investing the 2 billion cost of the Project in other averaged FTSE 100 Stock. Only a DOUBLED income approaches that return, or an equivalent subsidy.
Why is this type of clear Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether AD, coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power?

Help Britain to see the light

Could we please be allowed to choose for ourselves whether we use incandescent bulbs that cost pennies to make and pennies to buy and provide superb lighting, or low energy bulbs that cost pounds to make and pounds to buy and pounds to recycle and force us to grope around in semi darkness. To ban the sale of 'real' bulbs on a staggered basis has forced many of us to stockpile 'bulb mountains'; a luxury that only those with the cash to buy them and the space to store them can take advantage of. For the rest of the population, buying light bulbs at up to £5 each which are particularly unattractive, often too large for the lamp that they are fitted to, and which provide little more than a dim glow is an unecessary imposition.

Please reverse this restriction. Please also impose a target on light bulb manufacturers to develop a low cost, low energy light bulb in the near future that is more acceptable to the public. When such a bulb is developed, the transition will still take place, but it will be our choice.   

Why is this idea important?

Could we please be allowed to choose for ourselves whether we use incandescent bulbs that cost pennies to make and pennies to buy and provide superb lighting, or low energy bulbs that cost pounds to make and pounds to buy and pounds to recycle and force us to grope around in semi darkness. To ban the sale of 'real' bulbs on a staggered basis has forced many of us to stockpile 'bulb mountains'; a luxury that only those with the cash to buy them and the space to store them can take advantage of. For the rest of the population, buying light bulbs at up to £5 each which are particularly unattractive, often too large for the lamp that they are fitted to, and which provide little more than a dim glow is an unecessary imposition.

Please reverse this restriction. Please also impose a target on light bulb manufacturers to develop a low cost, low energy light bulb in the near future that is more acceptable to the public. When such a bulb is developed, the transition will still take place, but it will be our choice.   

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. 

Becoming Greener

I think rather than remove red tape, in this case I would like to create some.

Essentially, I think that it should become law that all new houses built should have solar panels installed on the roof.For larger houses, this should be Solar Panels and possibly a smallish wind turbine in addition dependent on size. Also Cavity wall insulation and Triple Glazing should become mandatory. Yes Triple Glazing, not double glazing.

A further comment concerns electric cars. Yes, developing electric cars is a great idea, but not
if we use fossil fuels to generate all the electricity to run them – This is somwhat counterproductive.

Why is this idea important?

I think rather than remove red tape, in this case I would like to create some.

Essentially, I think that it should become law that all new houses built should have solar panels installed on the roof.For larger houses, this should be Solar Panels and possibly a smallish wind turbine in addition dependent on size. Also Cavity wall insulation and Triple Glazing should become mandatory. Yes Triple Glazing, not double glazing.

A further comment concerns electric cars. Yes, developing electric cars is a great idea, but not
if we use fossil fuels to generate all the electricity to run them – This is somwhat counterproductive.

Improve Government Estate Energy Efficiency

The government and the public could benefit from vast improvement in the energy efficiency of the government estate buildings. The benefits of revising the current procurement methods, generation and use of energy and mechanical equipment even in just the Whitehall district  would save millions of pounds and show that the government leads the way on CO2 reduction in the built environment. Currently, there are no mechanisms for government organisations e.g. universites/ MoD to buy from ESCO style companies offering the best solutions and joined up thinking  with regard to the power generation, renewables, and efficient heating/cooling/lighting/power/water systems, only to replace like for like outdated equipment.

A longer term, strategic approach is required, producing a step change in energy consumption, rather than demanding small cuts with very short paybacks, possibly undermining larger scale projects which make a real difference. 

Why is this idea important?

The government and the public could benefit from vast improvement in the energy efficiency of the government estate buildings. The benefits of revising the current procurement methods, generation and use of energy and mechanical equipment even in just the Whitehall district  would save millions of pounds and show that the government leads the way on CO2 reduction in the built environment. Currently, there are no mechanisms for government organisations e.g. universites/ MoD to buy from ESCO style companies offering the best solutions and joined up thinking  with regard to the power generation, renewables, and efficient heating/cooling/lighting/power/water systems, only to replace like for like outdated equipment.

A longer term, strategic approach is required, producing a step change in energy consumption, rather than demanding small cuts with very short paybacks, possibly undermining larger scale projects which make a real difference. 

Energy generation

I think that rules/information should be created make it easy for people to generate their own electricity and sell it back to the national grid. I know people can do this a little already, but making it more easy, facilitated and comprehensive could birth a whole new genre of entrepreneurship

Instead of the merely standard wind turbines, it could be made easy for small investors to take over old water mills, windmills, have local projects where fast flowing rivers or spillways could have floatable turbines run across parts that have no boats. 

We have the skills in this country to create the technology in a mass produced way to create all these power applications, and a whole new industry could be created in creating  and supplying the hardware for medium scale power generation: off the shelf projects that people could have installed could on the smallest scale could earn discounts on your energy bills. 

But medium scale endeavors like water mills could be run as a small business with a remarkably steady income. Farmers who have lots of land with good wind coverage could earn a second income with turbines, and need less subsidy. It would save the government a lot of money if it became widespread, as the scale and diversity of the power generation would be limited only by the publics imagination, and the need for building new central power stations may be reduced. If green generation of power was diverse then it would be more consistent in differing weather.

It could also mean that in the event of weather disasters or attacks power outages would be less common as power would be generated on a more local and distributed fashion.

Why is this idea important?

I think that rules/information should be created make it easy for people to generate their own electricity and sell it back to the national grid. I know people can do this a little already, but making it more easy, facilitated and comprehensive could birth a whole new genre of entrepreneurship

Instead of the merely standard wind turbines, it could be made easy for small investors to take over old water mills, windmills, have local projects where fast flowing rivers or spillways could have floatable turbines run across parts that have no boats. 

We have the skills in this country to create the technology in a mass produced way to create all these power applications, and a whole new industry could be created in creating  and supplying the hardware for medium scale power generation: off the shelf projects that people could have installed could on the smallest scale could earn discounts on your energy bills. 

But medium scale endeavors like water mills could be run as a small business with a remarkably steady income. Farmers who have lots of land with good wind coverage could earn a second income with turbines, and need less subsidy. It would save the government a lot of money if it became widespread, as the scale and diversity of the power generation would be limited only by the publics imagination, and the need for building new central power stations may be reduced. If green generation of power was diverse then it would be more consistent in differing weather.

It could also mean that in the event of weather disasters or attacks power outages would be less common as power would be generated on a more local and distributed fashion.

Remove the Display Energy Certificate Regulations to save a great deal of cost and bureaucracy.

Abolish the Display Energy Certificate Regulations which require all businesses to display a certificate rating the energy use of the building. This costs money to obtain (and inspect/regulate) and has no impact on the environment whatsoever.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the Display Energy Certificate Regulations which require all businesses to display a certificate rating the energy use of the building. This costs money to obtain (and inspect/regulate) and has no impact on the environment whatsoever.