renewable

[solutions]

For me the renewables at least heat pumps and such are missing the point. If there was the will to build houses to the correct levels of efficiency in insulation and airtightness we would barely need heat sources beyond that generated by inhabiting a space. Infact the likely hood is we would be managing building cooling more regularly. There is no better way to save energy than to insulate and apply controlled ventilation coupled with heat recovery. Solar gain and thermal mass can all play there part too. Some of the technology I am interested in is the materials technology that will improve insulation levels. Aerogels are not new but will soon be an affordable building solution superior to pu foam a fraction of the thickness and the potential to be translucent. Vacuum facade panels and window pains will have as close to zero heat transference from one side to the other as we are going to get, when they are commercially viable they will be more than enough to heat a house. We need not only to build the houses our country needs to fulfill demand but refit everything else to bring it up to standard. It has taken over 20 years for a fraction of the recommendations put forward by housing energy studies carried out when I was a child to be adopted in to planning legislation. Only for the legislation not to be policed. I read recently that there is a big gap between what developer new build houses are achieving in energy efficiency and what they are supposed to have been capable of on paper by design. I think the renewable tech on offer will not come to play a significant role in domestic properties in the uk or be realisticly affordable without subsidies before it is superceded with simpler more effective solutions.

 

[chris watkins]

The trouble is, the government (not just ours, this applies to all governments everywhere) is notoriously bad at economic planning. So, incidentally is everyone else. Economic forecasting, even by so-called "experts" is only very marginally better than having a monkey throw darts. So whilst you might be right about the forthcoming soaring costs of energy, equally you might be wrong. I have been hearing about "peak oil" since I was in my teens, and I am now in my 50s and the date that the oil will run out keeps getting moved forward. And the adjusted-for-inflation price of oil is currently significantly below where it was when I left school.

As I say - you might be right predicting massive increases in energy costs, and I am happy for you to bet your money on it and fit renewables in your property. I am even happy for the government to insist it is fitted in all government owned property. But I do have a problem with anyone who insists that I must fit it in my property - either the one I live in now, or the one I might build tomorrow.

I don't want to use the law to impose my predictions on others, and I wish that they wouldnt use the law to impose their predictions on me.


Government programmes, however well meaning, rarely achieve what they set out to achieve.

One thing we do know is that technology can consistently surprise us. Another thing that we know is that technologies that look so convincing at one point in history can look like foolish diversions just a few years later.

The reason that we currently lack the planned generating capacity that we need is because for 2 decades governments of both colours have hummed and hawed and changed their minds about the the regulatory environment that the generators operate in. Nuclear is out, nuclear is in, nuclear is out again. Renewables must be x% by this date, or is it y% by another date?

I have no faith in any government from any party "solving" the energy issue.

So what is to be done then throw our hands in the air & wait for disaster to strike or maybe lady luck to save the day?

I think we all need to remember a few facts here, things like, that government you have no faith in, is there because we the people elect them, maybe if we all took a bit may notice/interest in what they are doing in our name they might get more right, they at least would not be able to pay themselves loads more of our money!!

The power generation industry is not a free market & it is very unlikely to ever be. Nuclear generation is a good case in point with the amount of money that governments have to commit to, not only get them built but to under-right the costs of decommissioning etc. They would never be built by a for profit company & taking the amount of time that it takes to get them online how could one be built in response to a demand?

Like it or not strategic decision have to be made about how we are going to proceed into the future & this has to involve having adult debates now! like this one. After all we are just as well place to provide input with our knowledge of how effective some of these suggest solutions are.

The Law you so dislike (lets say for example building to a certain insulation standard) is only in place because as a society we have got together & decided that we need to save energy otherwise it will effect our generating, supply or reserve capacity. If there are no rules we all know what happens the insulation does not get fitted cos it cost a little bit more.

I want to live in our society & I want everyone to play by an agreed set of rule otherwise I would move to Iraq or Syria.

 

[Nostrum]

I want to live in our society & I want everyone to play by an agreed set of rule otherwise I would move to Iraq or Syria.

I hear solar thermal is a real winner over there

 

[chris watkins]

I hear solar thermal is a real winner over there

They have been using it for thousands of years, installation is really cheap :aureola:

 

[Worcester]

Question for you all

Is The Code for Suatainable Homes Level 6 still scheduled to come into force in 2016 for new builds?

If so then how many nee build do you guys reckon will be heated by gas?
How many heated by some form of alternative (renewable) method?
or as solutions mentions above, will they almost be 'passiv haus' and need no form of heating?

 

[Ray Stafford]

So what is to be done then throw our hands in the air & wait for disaster to strike or maybe lady luck to save the day?

Hi Chris. Forgive me, but I think that you are falling into the classic trap of feeling that "something must be done = anything must be done".

The fact that a problem may or may not exist does not justify ANY policy. It has to be established that the policy has at least a reasonable chance of solving the problem, which in the case of most government schemes aimed at renewable/alternative energy technologies is very far from being the case. One must also consider what is lost or given up once a decision is made - all policies have opportunity costs.

I think we all need to remember a few facts here, things like, that government you have no faith in, is there because we the people elect them, maybe if we all took a bit may notice/interest in what they are doing in our name they might get more right, they at least would not be able to pay themselves loads more of our money!!

Two observations. Firstly, no-one voted for a coalition government, and only about 30% of eligible voters voted Tory. The actual election is decided by a few tens of thousands of voters in each of a hundred or so marginal seats. Most of these electors could not define the differences in policy between the parties on obvious things like tax and spending plans, let alone their respective energy policies. As I think you were suggesting, this is a sad comment on the state of democracy in the UK, but at least we agree that there is no democratic mandate for current government policy in this area.

The power generation industry is not a free market & it is very unlikely to ever be. Nuclear generation is a good case in point with the amount of money that governments have to commit to, not only get them built but to under-right the costs of decommissioning etc. They would never be built by a for profit company & taking the amount of time that it takes to get them online how could one be built in response to a demand?

Why not? They are in France and in many other countries in the world. The reason they wont in Britain is because they dont trust the government not to change the rules. We have already had the unedifying spectacle of the opposition effectively torpedoeing potential policy by saying "if we get in at any point, we will change the rules". Since its almost a certainty that they will get in at some point in the 30-50 years of a power stations life, it is too risky to invest. This is not a weakness of private enterprise, its just childish schoolyard politics.

I am not arguing for an unregulated free market. All free markets actually require some regulation to make them work. For example, the enforcement of weights and measures, trades descriptions and contract law are all genuine ways that a free market is aided by the government and would be poorer without it. I don't know if a single serious economist who has argued for unregulated markets since the mid 19th century - they are a complete strawman invented by those in favour of central planning.

As I said in an earlier post, the problem with the lack of investment in generating capacity is because our political parties have refused to put party politics to one side and come to a consensus on the regulatory environment in which they can make long term investments.

The Law you so dislike (lets say for example building to a certain insulation standard) is only in place because as a society we have got together & decided that we need to save energy otherwise it will effect our generating, supply or reserve capacity. If there are no rules we all know what happens the insulation does not get fitted cos it cost a little bit more.

I don't dislike the law at all. I dislike people who seek to use the law to enforce their prejudices and opinions on other people. The proper place for the law in this case is a) to enforce minimum safety standards and b) to ensure honest reporting and description.

For example, the food industry is an example of "good" regulation. If I ask for a kilo of cheese, I will get a kilo, because the weights and measures law will be enforced, and it will be cheese, because the trades descriptions law will be enforced. The whole horsemeat scandal was the exception that proved just how much we take this for granted.

The cheese will also be labelled to show me how much fat and salt there is in it. Some public money has been spent to educate me on the risks of fat and salt. After that, its left up to me, even to the point of killing myself with cholesterol, to choose how much cheese to eat.

If the people who run building control standards also regulated the food industry, we would not be allowed any fat or salt, (or beer) and it would be compulsory to eat our roughage and our five per day.

No doubt we would all be a little healthier. And also a little less free and a little less human.

Vive le fromage! To the barricades mes braves...

 

[Nostrum]

Surely the two are not the same though Ray.

We have many problems, carbon emission (if research is correct), the sustainability of a finite fuel source and global security.

If I choose to take the death by cheese route, the knock on effect to others is fairly limited.

Reducing energy wastage, controlling energy usage and trying to make a reduction in carbon emissions effects every one of us. These are the issues that should be enforced rather than the cheese's fat content in my opinion.

If what we are being told is true, we could be approaching times of energy shortage. We rely heavily on countries to supply us energy, of which most have security issues.

These policies we are working towards are international and the theory is being researched and questioned globally. If I'm correct, there are international laws now enforcing the reduction in carbon emission by 2020 with hefty fines in place for non compliance.

I 'm as skeptical as the next person, particularly when the government are involved, but I can't see this issue disappearing any time soon.

Ultimately, with something so potentially devastating as changing the planets balance beyond reversal or the risk of being denied fuel through shortage or conflict, are we really in a position to 'see how it goes' or should we be looking at a long term, time consuming solution to a problem that could well exist?

There is no easy answer, my view is if we start off small now we could save years of catch up (if at all possible) if we continue to plod on as we are.

Now, if you had compared death by cheese to being told you have to keep your windows closed, that would have been a fair comparison!

 

[Ray Stafford]

They are closer than you might think Sam. All human actions have some consequence for others.

The raising of cattle for either meat or dairy instead of dedicating the same resources to gowing grains is frequently cited as a problem both in terms of driving up the cost of food in the third world, and in increasing methane emissions - a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Both claims are undoubtedly true -the question is the level of significance that you attach to them.

I too am sceptical - in the true sense of the word. Having spent quite a lot of time reading about the subject, I still don't think that there is enough evidence yet to direct policy. That may be frustrating, but wishing that something is not true doesn't make it untrue.

There is, as yet, no such thing as "international law" except in the sense that a range (not all) governments sign up to a variety of protocols concerning things like genocide and war crimes. There are international agreements on carbon emissions, but so long as the likes of America, China and India carry on the way they are, they are irrelevant, since there is no competent or capable enforcement agency.

As I said in my response to Chris, there is a serious danger of falling into the trap of "we must do something - this is something - therefore we must do this." Its a logical fallacy.

Don't just do something. Stand there!

 

[Nostrum]

Unfortunately we cannot just stand there, the economy would grind to a halt. The 2 options we actually have are carry on moving in the direction we are currently travelling, or change direction. Thinking on our feet as it were.

 

[Ray Stafford]

Unfortunately we cannot just stand there, the economy would grind to a halt. The 2 options we actually have are carry on moving in the direction we are currently travelling, or change direction. Thinking on our feet as it were.

I agree that we do have to decide something about the regulatory environment for electricity generation, and quickly.

However, we don't have to do anything else to encourage the uptake of renewables. Those who insist that we do almost always turn out to have a vested interest of some type.

Remember that "doing something" comes at a cost. Either we have the direct cost of taxation to take money away from people who earned it in order to subsidise some incentive system, or the indirect costs of regulation, which force people to pay for something that they may not have paid for if they made their own choice.

If the doom-mongers are right, and the cost of energy rises sharply, good old market forces will do the job - just like the oil price hikes of the 70s encourage the drive to much more efficient car engines.

And if energy prices don't soar - and I am far from sure that they will - then it would have been a mistake to force people into costly installations that they didn't want.

And I have a real deep viceral distrust for people or governments who are so sure that they are right that they think that choice should be removed from people who disagree with them.