RAE raises renewable-energy debate

Readers' comments (7)

• Iain Stuart | 22 Jan 2010 1:33 pm

  Hugo House and Isobel Dedring seem to agree that energy efficiency measures should be the first resort, with renewable energy generation coming later. Unfortunately a person who earns his living from selling (for example) wind turbines WILL NOT tell a householder to fit loft insulation instead. He won't make money doing that!
  Maybe what is needed is an organisation or agency which can offer a variety of efficiency and generation solutions, and is paid not for what he has supplied, but on the basis of the reduction in non-renewable energy consumption - maybe the householder pays the equivalent of two years saving and the government one further year as a subsidy/contribution. It would then be in the seller's interest to supply the most energy efficient and cost effective solution, or combination of solutions, to each individual customer, not the equipment he makes most profit out of. Uptake among the public may well go up as well, as there will be some confidence that he won't be paying on the basis of claimed benefits, but for the actual saving made.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• J | 22 Jan 2010 3:57 pm

  Are all new dwellings, as efficient as state of the art? Practically carbon neutral? They should be.
  
  Meantime, please could these vendors of insulation (there must be something in it for them) stop phoning (cold calling) around at unearthly hours offering their stuff. Most of us who don’t have, have good reasons why it cannot be installed.
  
  There is a limit to economy applied to older buildings, and there will always be a need for some domestic heating as in the recent cold spell. For this, the generators need to be moving themselves to replace carbon-intensive generation. Start with the big Severn Barrier, 6-7% of all our consumption.
  
  And it is admitted that CHP, most of the “H” component is wasted throughout the summer.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Simon Martin | 22 Jan 2010 4:03 pm

  Energy efficiency is a minefield for the uninitiated public, and there will always be conflicts between competing sellers offering specific products. This will lead to considerable misinformation being produced by those with a vested interest in selling a product or product range and those selling products.
  
  Cost savings are the best selling tools, anyone buying a new home or business premises as a package will obviously be attracted by low running costs. These reduced costs can be achieved through careful design and implemention of current technologies within structures.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Steve Castellani | 22 Jan 2010 5:30 pm

  The real problem with all these energy generation, or energy efficiency measures targetted at domestic households, is that these schemes magically gives birth to a horde of small contractors ready to make the most of the schemes.
  
  In the rush to grab "incentive" money, the work is carried out to an appalling standard. Naturally in this goldrush you see excessive waste and inefficient working, as well as substandard workmanship, which can possibly leave the householder with a less efficient house than they started with.
  
  Once all the incentive money is gone, we are left with a half done job, and a big mess. However the government wears the fact that the incentive money is gone as a badge to prove that it is making every effort to meet the national carbon reduction targets.
  
  Using taxpayers money to fund such schemes is the easy part, but most of this resource is wasted if the implementation is not monitored and managed.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Brian Wootton | 23 Jan 2010 1:47 pm

  I, like many others, live in a 1920s semi, with no cavity in the wall. The walls therefore need to be insulated. I do not wish to insulate on the inside as it would reduce interior space. I therefore need to insulate on the outside.
  Clearly what is needed is insulation on the outside of the house and some cladding to protect it. Fairly straightforward in principle. I have not seen any advice or products on how to achieve this neatly and easily.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Brian Pollard | 25 Jan 2010 8:28 am

  The big Severn Barrier might be 6-7% of all our ELECTRICITY consumption, but electricity consumption is only 1/8 of our TOTAL energy consumption, so the Severn Barrier would represent less than 1% of our total energy consumption.
  
  We need to get on and build the right low carbon power stations (solar power in the tropics?) because we can, and it will answer the whole energy supply requirements which include transport and manufacturing. Insulating 20 million homes better is going to take a long time and will only deal with a small part of the total problem.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Lewis Lack | 26 Jan 2010 8:40 am

  Mr House makes a good point - sadly house builders in the UK are still focused on the whole on building boxes for the cheapest price possible since it is all about their margins. It appears little attention is paid, apart from what is required by law, to insulation and almost nothing on energy efficient design.
  
  The Grand Designs in Kevin McCloud's Channel 4 programme do show out-of-the-box ideas but sadly most of the houses featured cost much more than the average UK house.
  
  So the challenge is to the UK house builders... Why not offer a completely new energy efficiency house concept which still meets your bottom line targets? For many this would be an interesting proposition if the whole life costs of running a house is presented as part of the sales process and purchasing decision.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment