The Renewable Energy Centre

Apr 08 2013

The Renewable Heat Incentive is delayed again

Biomass StoveSo, the wonderful ‘new world’ of the Green Deal is still in the planning stages – well it is when it comes to the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (RHI) for domestic property owners. Another year of waiting has flown by, with the Photovoltaic Feed in Tariff (PV FIT) in full swing, and the promise of the RHI shortly to follow. It’s been nearly 2 years since the RHI was due to be launched for the domestic market and now we hear of another delay to spring 2014.

To me there seems to have been a gross miscalculation as to how quickly the RHI could be set up and implemented. Consultation after consultation seems to have continued without any decisions made or tariffs set. How hard can it be, when the FIT for PV was already in place and a good benchmark from which to follow?

I realise that there are more technologies to consider with the RHI but there is so much data available now as to what outputs can be achieved in the domestic market  and therefore what tariffs could be applied. Much of the renewable energy industry for the domestic market has been holding its breath waiting for the onslaught of new business due to the Renewable Heat Incentive… it simply hasn’t come.

In order to help keep these markets afloat the existing incentive scheme has been extended but at what cost? The Renewable Heat Premium Payment Scheme (RHPPS)  only helps with the cost of the technology – not the energy it produces.

In my view, these delays only serve to highlight the Government’s lack of commitment to schemes for individual householders to save energy and produce less CO2 emissions through the use of low carbon technology.

What can be done? Not a lot, I fear, but simply more waiting around for tariffs to be decided. What is clear is that the scheme, if it does finally launch in Spring 2014, will only have been running for a year before it’s time for a general election, when polices and legislation may completely change all over again.

In an age where renewable energy is becoming so much more important and a necessity rather than a ‘nice to have’ these delays are simply not acceptable nor are they helpful in moving the UK towards a low carbon existence or its EU commitments and targets.

Apr 03 2013

Fuel Poverty set to increase in the UK

High Thermostat ControlAs this cold weather continues, we are all spending far too much money on keeping warm at home and many people are reaching the point of fuel poverty.

According to the Independent (29th March 2013), the UK is now bottom of the Fuel Poverty League for Western Europe with 19.2% of UK homes, or 5 million households spending over 10% of their income on heating. This figure is likely to continue to rise particularly as the Warm Front programme has been axed.

Fuel poverty is a contributory factor in poor health and premature death especially amongst the elderly. Age UK reported that “those living in poorly insulated, cold homes are three times more likely to die from a heart attack or stroke than those living in warmer ones”.

We would like to offer a couple of suggestions to the government to alleviate this appalling situation.

  • Domestic heating oil is now four times the price it was ten years ago and the treasury’s income from VAT has risen proportionately. Why not reduce the 5% VAT on domestic energy bills to 3% or zero, particularly where the household contains pensioners or pre-school children? It is these households that are most likely to be at home and which will suffer from poorly heated living accommodation.
  • Most low-income families live in rented housing. Unfortunately there is no incentive for landlords, particularly private landlords, to improve the insulation in their properties as they do not pay the energy bills. Why not require landlords to insulate all rented accommodation to the best standards possible, with some form of financial penalty on poorly insulated properties?

Without some changes to existing legislation fuel poverty is going to increase and without pressure on landlords to improve their properties, the ever vicious circle will continue. As a result we desperately need to update our Victorian housing stock to cope with the changing weather patterns of the future.

Comments off | Category: Political Opinion | Tags:  , ,

Mar 22 2013

Children miss out on Climate Change Education

Climate ChangeThis week it was reported by those who like to over bake the cake, that climate change is no longer part of the curriculum for children under 15 years of age.

The outrage comes as the words ‘climate change’ are no longer specifically written as part of the curriculum for children under the age of 15. Many groups have reacted to this by stating that it is important for young children to be aware of the environmental impact of climate change before choosing their exam subjects. Also that they are aware of what climate change means and how it could affect our lives and what we can do to take action.

Although it is very important that we all understand climate change from a global perspective but also an individual one, the headlines about it being dropped from the curriculum could be seen as an over reaction. Saying that, the children themselves have started a petition to reinstate the words to the syllabus and many teachers are at a deadlock both for and against.

Having read, what I considered to be a very balanced article in the Guardian on this matter, I have to say that I felt the backlash to be somewhat excessive. Looking at the specific wording in the proposed Keystage curriculum, there seemed to be plenty of scope for the teaching of climate change both from an environmental and social perspective. Although the words themselves were omitted, there were many references to environment, recycling, sustainability etc… All of the guidelines are there to direct teachers towards particular subject matters and there is certainly room for interpretation for classes which focus on climate change within the syllabus remit.

On the flip side, reading through more recent articles, children are very much in support of including the words ‘Climate Change’, to the tune of 12,000 who have signed a petition so far. The concerns mainly focus on the Keystage 3 syllabus for geography which have dramatically reduced the emphasis on climate change.

Tim Oates who is in charge of assessing the current curriculum has defended his position by stating it is up to individual schools to decide on the level of detail they teach pupils when it comes to climate change. He stressed the importance of returning back to the knowledge of science rather than the issues of science. In addition he has also called for an earlier introduction of algebra to children under the age of 11.

My humble opinion on this matter is one of caution. For me, climate change is one of the biggest challenges both scientifically and politically to affect the world, as a whole, over the last 50 years and it can not be ignored. Looking at some of the language in the curriculum, it does leave plenty of scope for the subject to be fully addressed at every level. The difficulty comes with individual schools and teachers and their view of how important the teaching of this subject should be. This is perhaps where there will be a discrepancy in the level of knowledge and education that children will receive across the UK.

So on balance, should the words be included – yes they should. Let’s be clear, climate change will be an ongoing problem for many years to come. It is both essential for everyone, no matter what age, to understand the science behind it and the social issues too.


Comments off | Category: Political Opinion, Renewable Energy | Tags:  ,

Feb 26 2013

The two sides to our listed buildings planning system

Pushme-pulleyu - credit BBCWhen Hugh Lofting created the Pushmi-Pullyu in The Story of Dr. Dolittle, he accidentally hit upon the perfect model for certain aspects of our listed buildings planning system.

As anyone who has a listed property, or is in a conservation zone, AONB or National Park will testify, the listed buildings planning system and regulations can be puzzling and highly frustrating at times.

Even though we are being encouraged to insulate to save energy, some planning authorities still insist that single-glazed sash or leaded windows cannot be replaced by double glazing. This is despite the fact that modern double-glazed units can look the same, are aesthetically pleasing and many times more energy efficient. Gone are the days when double glazing had to be the ugly white PVC units of twenty years ago. With so many UK houses falling under the listed buildings planning system, these issues will continue to cause many homeowners and planning officers much time and trouble.

I have always thought that churches must be a perfect candidate for solar heating or photovoltaics. Because they are always built East-West every one has a south-facing roof, they are generally tall enough so that they are not shaded by trees or buildings, and they always seem to be freezing cold in winter. In addition many churches struggle to fund the maintenance of their buildings and so this would be an easy solution and a cost effective measure ongoing to keep the water hot or the lights on.

But the Pushmi-Pullyu’s of some planning authorities object on aesthetic grounds even when the panels cannot be seen from the ground!

So is there a way forward for these planning conundrums? Looking at the current state of play, it is unlikely, and so just like the Pushme Pulleyu’s – local planning departments may continue to have two heads trying to move in opposite directions!

Feb 07 2013

Carbon Permits – what are they really worth?

Power Station Carbon EmissionsDespite all the fresh annoucements about the Green Deal and the new Energy Bill, the UK is still struggling to meet its EU targets both for CO2 emissions and renewable energy generation.

This week there has been a lot of bad press over the carbon price – which has fallen to record lows, possibly highlighting that the trading of carbon permits is failing. Companies across Europe which emit CO2 can purchase permits if they exceed their required output levels but can also sell them if they have surplus. The buying and selling rate moves with demand but this week bidders didn’t even meet the reserve price of 5Euros per tonne.

This in itself is a worrying trend however my view of this paper trading of carbon is simply a money making exercise rather than one of controlling or reducing carbon emissions. In my humble view there should simply be a reduction cap which increases year on year (much the same as the renewable energy roadmap) so that companies invest in reducing their carbon emissions, rather than simply paying to increase them! Surely the money is better spent changing the wheels of industry which have lead us here but also to physically change the carbon dioxide levels.

Any kind of dramatic change takes time but the world has shifted in one century through an industrial revolution to create a world which relies heavily on the burning of fossil fuel. Much of the world’s economy is based around fuel and to initiate change in such a profitable sector will take time. However at the manufacturing or industrial end of the scale, ie where the output occurs, step changes could be made in relatively short periods of time to dramatically reduce CO2 output.

It may be a simplistic and shortsighted viewpoint  but is it possible that a paper trail which never ends and simply trades one way and the other in order to compensate for excessive emissions is the really the right way forward?

Industry is not just at fault, aviation, transportation and each individual homeowner holds much of the remaining responsibility. Although taxes are increasing in the aviation and transport sectors, there is currently no legislation or incentive for the majority of people to change the way they live, work and heat their homes. How would the carbon permit system work for the homeowner I wonder, would it even work at all?

Answers on 100% recycled postcard please!

Comments off | Category: Political Opinion | Tags:  , ,

Feb 01 2013

Flooding Insurance – Puppets and Puppet Masters

Jigsaw House 2012 was the second wettest year on record after 2000 according to the Met office, and they say that in the future rainfall will be much worse and more frequent.

Inconvenient and costly as a flooded home may be, if you cannot insure it, you cannot sell it. Buyers will not be able to purchase it because they will be unable to mortgage without insurance cover. Ironic really as many of the major insurance companies are owned by banking groups who are the major sources of mortgage finance.

The spectre of hundreds of thousands of unsaleable homes and angry homeowners frightens politicians because these homeowners are likely to become an army of disgruntled voters who will vote them out as soon as they can.

Insurers know this and after the 2000 floods elicited promises from the government to invest in a new programme of flood defences, by threatening to withdraw insurance from 10% of UK homes. In return they promised to continue to provide flood risk cover for all but the most extreme cases.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) was negotiating from a position of considerable strength. The scenario of 10% of UK properties having their property insurance withdrawn and thus impossible to sell, would have resulted in a housing market crash that would have had devastating consequences for the Government of the day. John Prescott was quoted as saying that the floods in 2000 were a wake up call but we doubt whether he could sleep at all with the spectre of an imminent property market collapse in the background.

In their review of 2005 the ABI called for more investment in flood defences whilst in the same document, admitting that flood and storm claims were at their lowest level for 20 years.

I predict that the government response to the 2012 deluge will be threefold:

  • Planning changes to further restrict flood plain development.
  • Announcement of more investment in flood defences. In character with most initiatives by the current coalition, it will probably be marketed as a Community Flood Defence Programme so the responsibilities and costs can be laden on hard-pressed local authorities and/or Council tax payers.
  • A parachute scheme to provide funding for insurers (as if they need it!). Probably in the form of a government grant once a threshold of flooded properties has been reached. My guess is that it will be called a Severe Flood Compensation Rebate or something similar. In effect a bribe to the insurers to keep doing what they do badly at present.

So, when your home insurance sky-rockets, your Council Tax increases and the housing market stagnates or collapses even further, you can be comforted by the idea that you are helping the profits of the banking groups and their executives’ bonuses once more. I will leave it to the reader to guess who is the puppet master and who is the puppet!

Comments off | Category: Political Opinion | Tags:  ,


Read about the renewable energy industry and view comments and opinions about climate change in the UK and globally.

Latest Posts