Households which contribute electricity from renewable sources to the UK National Grid are to receive payments under a new government feed-in tariff scheme, labelled the “Clean Energy Cash-back Scheme”.
Back in 2008 the UK Government outlined policies in “The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, National strategy for climate and energy” White Paper designed to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the country by 35% by 2020 and by at least 80% by 2050. Now, as part of its recently released Renewable Energy Strategy designed to contribute to achieving these targets, the Secretary of State of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, has announced that a feed-in tariff rate will be introduced in the UK for suppliers of renewable energy who feed energy back into the grid.
The Clean Energy Cash-back Scheme is a more user-friendly term for feed-in tariffs (FITs), which other countries such as Germany have used so successfully to promote small as well as large-scale renewable energy production over the last decade. The UK Government’s decision to introduce FITs is intended to simplify the incentives for using renewable energy sources, since the current system – the Renewable Obligation (RO) – is a very lengthy and complex system designed for energy professionals who generate electricity on a large scale (50kW+). The Clean Energy Cash-back Scheme has therefore been designed to benefit micro-generators (households, communities and businesses with installations of up to 50kW), while larger installations of 50kW-5MW will be offered the choice of either the FIT or the RO scheme.
In a recent media interview, Mr Miliband told the BBC that the plan to give payments to households for contributing electricity to the National Grid will mean “we can harness people’s enthusiasm for getting involved” in tackling climate change and that “individuals and communities can both play their part in the kind of clean energy revolution that we need.”
The planned FITs will vary from one type of renewable to another, although exact rates still have to be agreed and implemented. Climate change minister, Joan Ruddock, has confirmed that the new scheme will come into effect from April 2010 for most renewable sources, but has warned that plans for a similar renewable heat incentive scheme for technologies such as solar and biomass heaters would be more complicated to develop and as such will not come into effect until April 2011.
The key now is to wait and see at what level the UK Government establishes the FITs, as previous experience in other countries has shown that setting them too low can lead to a lack of take-up of renewables, while excessively high limits become economically unsustainable and politically sensitive. Charles Hendry MP, the conservative shadow minister for energy, for example, welcomes the Clean Energy Cash-back Scheme, but shares the view that judgement should be reserved until the government confirms the level at which the new tariffs will be set. “It would be a tragedy if having got a [feed-in tariff] mechanism in place it was not set at the right level that solar and other technologies need,” he said.
Meanwhile, Mike Childs, campaigns director at Friends of the Earth, believes such schemes could play a significant part in meeting the UK’s climate change targets, although he points out that “payments have to be generous enough to reward people for investing in green power”.
Source - The Renewable Energy Magazine
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Interview with Dick Strawbridge
Dick Strawbridge, BBC TV presenter and green home expert, dispels some of the myths surrounding eco home renovations.
1) Environmentally friendly installation is expensive
All insulation is environmentally friendly. Some installation has better environmental credentials, but what matters is the energy it saves. There is something nice about insulating the loft with reused sheep fleece, or recycled bottles, but if the cost of the insulation is putting you off doing it don’t think twice: buy the cheapest. Some stores have sold insulation as cheap as £1 a roll in the past. All insulation takes energy to make it, but that is not a reason not to invest in it. The savings, for both the planet and the bank account, can be impressive. Incidentally, you need about 270mm of insulation in your loft which is about a foot deep — anything less and you’re wasting valuable heat.
2) The UK is not sunny enough for solar power
For a nation that spends a lot of time talking about the weather, we don’t seem to realise just how much sunshine we actually get. Maybe that’s because we tend to concentrate on the negative aspects. Every square metre in the United Kingdom has on average about 1,000W of solar energy incident on it every day. That’s an awful lot of free power. Without getting too technical, a 1,000-watt photovoltaic system can be expected to produce 1,200kWh a year, an average of nearly four hours working at maximum power a day. Obviously, it’s much more productive in the summer, and there are lots of days when it is not frightfully impressive, however, let’s not forget we do get some lovely sunny spring, autumn and winter days. Even in the winter, my home’s solar thermal system (that uses the power of the sun to heat water) is capable of harnessing the weak winter sun to preheat the water in our hot water tank.
3) Wind turbines only function on hilltops
I fully understand the physics and know that “laminar” airflow, or streamline, is what every wind turbine loves. In theory a wind turbine on a mast in the middle of a vast plain will give the best performance, but there are not too many locations that fit that bill. So we have to compromise. Most importantly, to get good performance from a wind turbine, it is necessary to have no obstacles near it that will disrupt the airflow. A built-up area with houses, hedges, and trees is a long way from the ideal location. However, if that is where you live and you want a wind turbine you don’t have a lot of choice — and a turbine will still generate electricity in such a setting.
4) Most eco-renovation take decades to pay back the cost
Every time we decide to make an investment in an eco-project, the subject of payback comes up. It is possible to do the sums, and before we spend any hard earned cash I like to make sure that it’s a good investment. For example, loft insulation can pay for itself in two winters, and with the 2010 feed-in tariff I would expect solar PV to pay for itself in about seven or eight years, and a DIY solar thermal system to heat your hot water should have paid for itself in four or five years. But surely this is missing the point: when it comes to environmentally friendly projects we seem unable to accept the fact that it can be an investment and will add to the value of the house. What is the payback time for a new bathroom or kitchen? If you install solar photovoltaic panels you can reasonably expect them to easily last 25 to 30 years. Everyone knows a new kitchen makes a house more saleable, but in the current economic climate, how much more saleable is a house that will cost the new owners very little to run or may even generate an income?
5) DIY loft insulation is horrid and itchy
It’s a fair cop, installing fibreglass or rockwool insulation is not the most pleasant job in the world, but if you are installing your own loft insulation why choose fibreglass or rockwool? There are lots of alternative insulations that are very benign and easy to handle. You can now buy loft insulation that is made from high-tech composite material, recycled plastic bottles, hemp… the choice is almost limitless. Indeed, in our loft we have Thermafleece at one end (made from the fleeces of upland sheep that in the past has gone to landfill), and insulation made from recycled denim at the other. Lots of these materials are easy to lay and relatively pleasant to handle. However, we do have to face up to the fact that working in the loft is not the most pleasant of environments so, no matter what you sort of insulation you choose, you will end up being a bit sweaty and dusty!
6) It takes more energy to build a solar panel then it will ever create
This particular misconception has been doing the rounds for several years. It is fair to say that it takes a lot of energy to make photovoltaic panels because it is a complex crystalline structure. Depending on the type of panel it can take between two and four years of use to recover the energy needed to make it. That said, the efficiency of the modern solar panel and modern manufacturing techniques are improving every day. There are no moving parts, so it is reasonable to expect the PV panels, which are usually guaranteed for 25 years, to last an awful lot longer (some of the older ones have been going for nearly 40 years).
7) Eco-gadgets are cons
It would appear that the green revolution is a marketing man’s dream. Everywhere we go there are eco-gadgets that claim to be saving the planet. Most eco-gadgets tend to be quite complicated. Wind-up and solar-powered radios, battery chargers and numerous small electronic devices, are usually marketed as being cool. It is fair to say that they are extremely useful if you do not have access to another power supply (which does not happen very often in today’s world). So, if you find yourself in a situation where only an eco-gadget can save you they are definitely not a con. However, from an environmental standpoint, to justify the embodied energy it takes to produce them they have to be used a lot rather than being kept in a drawer full of other cool things.
8) You have to be an engineer to undertake your own eco home projects
In the 21st century there is no excuse for not being able to get stuck into any eco-project. Information is readily available and all the materials you need can usually be sourced within 10 miles. Of course, I have to acknowledge that there is some sensible legislation that means you are not allowed to fiddle with mains electricity, or get involved with structural engineering, unless you’re suitably qualified. That does not mean you can’t do most of the work yourself, which is by far the cheapest way. There seems to be a certain reticence when it comes to starting a project and a lot of excuses rather than reasons out there. If you have running water and a desire to have a water wheel, all you need is to know that the angle of the bucket is 114°. With a little bit of common sense, anything is achievable.
Source - BBC
1) Environmentally friendly installation is expensive
All insulation is environmentally friendly. Some installation has better environmental credentials, but what matters is the energy it saves. There is something nice about insulating the loft with reused sheep fleece, or recycled bottles, but if the cost of the insulation is putting you off doing it don’t think twice: buy the cheapest. Some stores have sold insulation as cheap as £1 a roll in the past. All insulation takes energy to make it, but that is not a reason not to invest in it. The savings, for both the planet and the bank account, can be impressive. Incidentally, you need about 270mm of insulation in your loft which is about a foot deep — anything less and you’re wasting valuable heat.
2) The UK is not sunny enough for solar power
For a nation that spends a lot of time talking about the weather, we don’t seem to realise just how much sunshine we actually get. Maybe that’s because we tend to concentrate on the negative aspects. Every square metre in the United Kingdom has on average about 1,000W of solar energy incident on it every day. That’s an awful lot of free power. Without getting too technical, a 1,000-watt photovoltaic system can be expected to produce 1,200kWh a year, an average of nearly four hours working at maximum power a day. Obviously, it’s much more productive in the summer, and there are lots of days when it is not frightfully impressive, however, let’s not forget we do get some lovely sunny spring, autumn and winter days. Even in the winter, my home’s solar thermal system (that uses the power of the sun to heat water) is capable of harnessing the weak winter sun to preheat the water in our hot water tank.
3) Wind turbines only function on hilltops
I fully understand the physics and know that “laminar” airflow, or streamline, is what every wind turbine loves. In theory a wind turbine on a mast in the middle of a vast plain will give the best performance, but there are not too many locations that fit that bill. So we have to compromise. Most importantly, to get good performance from a wind turbine, it is necessary to have no obstacles near it that will disrupt the airflow. A built-up area with houses, hedges, and trees is a long way from the ideal location. However, if that is where you live and you want a wind turbine you don’t have a lot of choice — and a turbine will still generate electricity in such a setting.
4) Most eco-renovation take decades to pay back the cost
Every time we decide to make an investment in an eco-project, the subject of payback comes up. It is possible to do the sums, and before we spend any hard earned cash I like to make sure that it’s a good investment. For example, loft insulation can pay for itself in two winters, and with the 2010 feed-in tariff I would expect solar PV to pay for itself in about seven or eight years, and a DIY solar thermal system to heat your hot water should have paid for itself in four or five years. But surely this is missing the point: when it comes to environmentally friendly projects we seem unable to accept the fact that it can be an investment and will add to the value of the house. What is the payback time for a new bathroom or kitchen? If you install solar photovoltaic panels you can reasonably expect them to easily last 25 to 30 years. Everyone knows a new kitchen makes a house more saleable, but in the current economic climate, how much more saleable is a house that will cost the new owners very little to run or may even generate an income?
5) DIY loft insulation is horrid and itchy
It’s a fair cop, installing fibreglass or rockwool insulation is not the most pleasant job in the world, but if you are installing your own loft insulation why choose fibreglass or rockwool? There are lots of alternative insulations that are very benign and easy to handle. You can now buy loft insulation that is made from high-tech composite material, recycled plastic bottles, hemp… the choice is almost limitless. Indeed, in our loft we have Thermafleece at one end (made from the fleeces of upland sheep that in the past has gone to landfill), and insulation made from recycled denim at the other. Lots of these materials are easy to lay and relatively pleasant to handle. However, we do have to face up to the fact that working in the loft is not the most pleasant of environments so, no matter what you sort of insulation you choose, you will end up being a bit sweaty and dusty!
6) It takes more energy to build a solar panel then it will ever create
This particular misconception has been doing the rounds for several years. It is fair to say that it takes a lot of energy to make photovoltaic panels because it is a complex crystalline structure. Depending on the type of panel it can take between two and four years of use to recover the energy needed to make it. That said, the efficiency of the modern solar panel and modern manufacturing techniques are improving every day. There are no moving parts, so it is reasonable to expect the PV panels, which are usually guaranteed for 25 years, to last an awful lot longer (some of the older ones have been going for nearly 40 years).
7) Eco-gadgets are cons
It would appear that the green revolution is a marketing man’s dream. Everywhere we go there are eco-gadgets that claim to be saving the planet. Most eco-gadgets tend to be quite complicated. Wind-up and solar-powered radios, battery chargers and numerous small electronic devices, are usually marketed as being cool. It is fair to say that they are extremely useful if you do not have access to another power supply (which does not happen very often in today’s world). So, if you find yourself in a situation where only an eco-gadget can save you they are definitely not a con. However, from an environmental standpoint, to justify the embodied energy it takes to produce them they have to be used a lot rather than being kept in a drawer full of other cool things.
8) You have to be an engineer to undertake your own eco home projects
In the 21st century there is no excuse for not being able to get stuck into any eco-project. Information is readily available and all the materials you need can usually be sourced within 10 miles. Of course, I have to acknowledge that there is some sensible legislation that means you are not allowed to fiddle with mains electricity, or get involved with structural engineering, unless you’re suitably qualified. That does not mean you can’t do most of the work yourself, which is by far the cheapest way. There seems to be a certain reticence when it comes to starting a project and a lot of excuses rather than reasons out there. If you have running water and a desire to have a water wheel, all you need is to know that the angle of the bucket is 114°. With a little bit of common sense, anything is achievable.
Source - BBC
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Climate change rhetoric spirals out of control
It was another bad week for the "warmists", now more desperate than ever to whip up alarm over an overheating planet. It began last weekend with the BBC leading its bulletins on the news that a "leading climate scientist" in America, Professor Chris Field, had warned that "the severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed". Future temperatures "will be beyond anything predicted", he told a Chicago conference. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had "seriously underestimated the size of the problem".
The puzzle as to why the BBC should make this the main news of the day only deepened when it emerged that Prof Field was not a climate scientist at all but an evolutionary biologist. To promote its cause the BBC website even posted a video explaining how warming would be made worse by "negative feedback". This scientific howler provoked much amusement and derision on expert US blogs, such as Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That – since "negative feedback" would lower temperatures rather than raise them. The BBC soon pulled its video.
This was followed on Sunday by yet another outburst from the most extreme of all the scientists crying wolf on global warming, Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In The Observer he launched his most vitriolic call yet for the closing down of the coal-fired power stations which are the world's main source of electricity, repeating his claim to a British court last year that the new coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth will alone be responsible for "the extermination of 400 species".
"Coal-fired power plants are factories of death," wrote Hansen, "the trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains". This deliberate echo of the trains carrying Jews to Nazi death camps recalled how the more extreme warmists like to equate sceptics on climate change with "Holocaust deniers". But such overheated language seemed somehow at home in the newspaper which in 1996 solemnly predicted that by 2016 half a million Britons would be dying each year from having eaten BSE-infected beef.
Later in the week sceptics were struck by an admission from Professor William Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist").
Finally there was the strange case of the vanishing Arctic ice. Just how far Arctic sea-ice is melting or growing is one of the issues which arouses most passionate interest in the global-warming debate. Observers were therefore startled last week to see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing a very dramatic drop in sea-ice cover, 500,000 square kilometres of ice suddenly disappearing in the depths of the Arctic winter.
When this was queried by a puzzled Anthony Watts, the NSIDC somewhat shamefacedly admitted that a problem had developed with one of its satellites. The data for the previous 45 days was found to be so faulty that it had been withdrawn. But inevitably this provoked the question as to why quality control seemed to be so poor on one of the world's leading official sources of climate data that it had taken an outside observer to point out that something was wrong,
This is by no means the first time that data on which the official case for global warming rests have had to be corrected, some of the more notorious instances involving temperature data supplied by Dr Hansen's GISS. Yet this is one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC itself relies. When politicians plan measures to "combat climate change" costing tens of trillions of dollars, we can at least expect them to ensure that their figures are halfway believable.
Chinese pull a fast one in space race as EU’s 'pigs with gold trotters’ remain earthbound
There has been another wondrously bizarre twist to the unending farce of the EU’s favourite vanity project, Galileo. This is the multi-billion euro programme designed to give the EU its own rival to the US GPS satellite system, which provides a free positioning fix to ships, aircraft, Satnav owners and other users all over the world.
Although I have regularly reported on this joke project since 2001, almost the only time it has excited much media interest in Britain was when, in 2007, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody described it as “not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes”. The Commons Transport Committee, of which she was chairman, had produced a report suggesting that Galileo would cost British taxpayers at least £1.7 billion, and was so pointless that it might as well be scrapped.
No episode in the story was more curious, however, than the deal signed in October 2003, whereby the Chinese government agreed to pay 200 million euros for a 20 per cent share in Galileo, to be spent on developing infrastructure and ground stations based on European technological know-how. The EU was over the moon, thinking that this would cement in China as its partner in a project always partly intended for military use, allowing it both to operate independently of the US.
A first sign that all was not well came when the Chinese, having got on with their part of the deal, using EU know-how, were shut out from top-level management of Galileo on security grounds. But, having obtained the technical information they wanted, they have powered ahead with a satellite system of their own, Compass. They are now so far advanced, and Galileo has slipped so far behind schedule, it seems certain that the Chinese satellites will be in place long before the EU system.
Furthermore the Chinese now plan to operate on the same wavelengths that the EU had earmarked for Galileo. Since their satellites will get there first, they will be able to lay claim to ownership of them. The EU would thus only be able to use the wavelengths with Chinese permission.
Having robbed the Common Agricultural Fund of €1 billion in a desperate effort to pay the soaring bill for Galileo, the Europeans are said to be “very angry”, since this removes just about the last conceivable excuse for proceeding with their absurd project. The Americans, having followed the whole saga with bemused irritation, are said to be laughing themselves silly.
MEPs prove not at all the president’s men
As an eloquent and drily humorous Euro-sceptic, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus is making the most of his country’s six-month presidency of the EU. In the European Parliament on Thursday he delivered what my Daily Telegraph colleague Bruno Waterfield called on his blog “a storming speech – the best I have ever heard in that place”. Having spent much of his life under Communism, Klaus courteously questioned the way in which the EU, like any other one-party state, has no place for opposition and is fiercely intolerant of dissenting views. The fact that his remarks were greeted with boos and jeers, followed by 200 MEPs walking out, neatly confirmed his point.
Marks & Spencer fail to go green
In a bid to earn “Greenie points”, Marks & Spencer last week announced a plan to source all its electricity from “renewables”. As a next step, nPower is to supply it with “2.6 terawatt hours” of electricity from windfarms and other renewable sources over six years. A quick sum shows that this equates to 40 per cent of the entire current annual output of Britain’s 2,000 wind turbines. Pretty impressive, until one realises that the electricity will in fact be supplied by the National Grid, most of it made from “dirty” coal, carbon-intensive gas and “nasty” nuclear. In other words, this not just a load of cobblers, this is M & S cobblers.
Source - Telegraph
The puzzle as to why the BBC should make this the main news of the day only deepened when it emerged that Prof Field was not a climate scientist at all but an evolutionary biologist. To promote its cause the BBC website even posted a video explaining how warming would be made worse by "negative feedback". This scientific howler provoked much amusement and derision on expert US blogs, such as Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That – since "negative feedback" would lower temperatures rather than raise them. The BBC soon pulled its video.
This was followed on Sunday by yet another outburst from the most extreme of all the scientists crying wolf on global warming, Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In The Observer he launched his most vitriolic call yet for the closing down of the coal-fired power stations which are the world's main source of electricity, repeating his claim to a British court last year that the new coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth will alone be responsible for "the extermination of 400 species".
"Coal-fired power plants are factories of death," wrote Hansen, "the trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains". This deliberate echo of the trains carrying Jews to Nazi death camps recalled how the more extreme warmists like to equate sceptics on climate change with "Holocaust deniers". But such overheated language seemed somehow at home in the newspaper which in 1996 solemnly predicted that by 2016 half a million Britons would be dying each year from having eaten BSE-infected beef.
Later in the week sceptics were struck by an admission from Professor William Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist").
Finally there was the strange case of the vanishing Arctic ice. Just how far Arctic sea-ice is melting or growing is one of the issues which arouses most passionate interest in the global-warming debate. Observers were therefore startled last week to see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing a very dramatic drop in sea-ice cover, 500,000 square kilometres of ice suddenly disappearing in the depths of the Arctic winter.
When this was queried by a puzzled Anthony Watts, the NSIDC somewhat shamefacedly admitted that a problem had developed with one of its satellites. The data for the previous 45 days was found to be so faulty that it had been withdrawn. But inevitably this provoked the question as to why quality control seemed to be so poor on one of the world's leading official sources of climate data that it had taken an outside observer to point out that something was wrong,
This is by no means the first time that data on which the official case for global warming rests have had to be corrected, some of the more notorious instances involving temperature data supplied by Dr Hansen's GISS. Yet this is one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC itself relies. When politicians plan measures to "combat climate change" costing tens of trillions of dollars, we can at least expect them to ensure that their figures are halfway believable.
Chinese pull a fast one in space race as EU’s 'pigs with gold trotters’ remain earthbound
There has been another wondrously bizarre twist to the unending farce of the EU’s favourite vanity project, Galileo. This is the multi-billion euro programme designed to give the EU its own rival to the US GPS satellite system, which provides a free positioning fix to ships, aircraft, Satnav owners and other users all over the world.
Although I have regularly reported on this joke project since 2001, almost the only time it has excited much media interest in Britain was when, in 2007, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody described it as “not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes”. The Commons Transport Committee, of which she was chairman, had produced a report suggesting that Galileo would cost British taxpayers at least £1.7 billion, and was so pointless that it might as well be scrapped.
No episode in the story was more curious, however, than the deal signed in October 2003, whereby the Chinese government agreed to pay 200 million euros for a 20 per cent share in Galileo, to be spent on developing infrastructure and ground stations based on European technological know-how. The EU was over the moon, thinking that this would cement in China as its partner in a project always partly intended for military use, allowing it both to operate independently of the US.
A first sign that all was not well came when the Chinese, having got on with their part of the deal, using EU know-how, were shut out from top-level management of Galileo on security grounds. But, having obtained the technical information they wanted, they have powered ahead with a satellite system of their own, Compass. They are now so far advanced, and Galileo has slipped so far behind schedule, it seems certain that the Chinese satellites will be in place long before the EU system.
Furthermore the Chinese now plan to operate on the same wavelengths that the EU had earmarked for Galileo. Since their satellites will get there first, they will be able to lay claim to ownership of them. The EU would thus only be able to use the wavelengths with Chinese permission.
Having robbed the Common Agricultural Fund of €1 billion in a desperate effort to pay the soaring bill for Galileo, the Europeans are said to be “very angry”, since this removes just about the last conceivable excuse for proceeding with their absurd project. The Americans, having followed the whole saga with bemused irritation, are said to be laughing themselves silly.
MEPs prove not at all the president’s men
As an eloquent and drily humorous Euro-sceptic, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus is making the most of his country’s six-month presidency of the EU. In the European Parliament on Thursday he delivered what my Daily Telegraph colleague Bruno Waterfield called on his blog “a storming speech – the best I have ever heard in that place”. Having spent much of his life under Communism, Klaus courteously questioned the way in which the EU, like any other one-party state, has no place for opposition and is fiercely intolerant of dissenting views. The fact that his remarks were greeted with boos and jeers, followed by 200 MEPs walking out, neatly confirmed his point.
Marks & Spencer fail to go green
In a bid to earn “Greenie points”, Marks & Spencer last week announced a plan to source all its electricity from “renewables”. As a next step, nPower is to supply it with “2.6 terawatt hours” of electricity from windfarms and other renewable sources over six years. A quick sum shows that this equates to 40 per cent of the entire current annual output of Britain’s 2,000 wind turbines. Pretty impressive, until one realises that the electricity will in fact be supplied by the National Grid, most of it made from “dirty” coal, carbon-intensive gas and “nasty” nuclear. In other words, this not just a load of cobblers, this is M & S cobblers.
Source - Telegraph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
