Campaigners call on the Government to give £4bn of carbon tax revenue to homes most at need
Simon Read
Monday 27 February 2012
More than nine million households will be living in fuel poverty within four years unless the Government directs £4bn a year from carbon taxes to families in greatest need, campaigners warn.
Click here to see the 'Burning money: The rise of fuel poverty' graphic
More Britons die every year from living in a cold home than on the roads, they said, with the situation expected to worsen sharply because of soaring utility bills.
A new study has revealed that there are a million more households already living in fuel poverty compared with previous estimates, taking the total to 6.4 million. The study, by energy efficiency experts Camco, suggests that the total will hit 9.1 million by 2016.
Mike O'Connor, chief executive of Consumer Focus, said: "It is a harsh truth that an effective strategy to transform the energy efficiency of our homes and to tackle growing numbers in fuel poverty will need far greater ambition and resources. Billions of pounds will go directly from our energy bills to the Exchequer as part of schemes to cut carbon emissions. That money could reap a double benefit if it was directed to reduce massively our wasteful consumption of energy."
The campaign, called the Energy Bill Revolution, was created by Transform UK, a not-for-profit organisation.
Ed Matthew, of Transform UK, said: "More people die every year in the UK from living in a cold home than die on our roads. Millions more struggle to make ends meet in the face of high energy bills. This is a national scandal."
Camco reckons that if the Government's annual £4bn revenue were recycled to households to spend on energy efficiency measures, it would be enough to bring nine out of 10 households out of fuel poverty. It could also be used to create 200,000 jobs and quadruple carbon emission cuts compared to the Government's new energy efficiency schemes, it claims.
Mr Matthew said that if carbon revenue – from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Floor Price – were recycled back to households to spend on energy efficiency measures, it could be used to help all households or used to support the most vulnerable.
"It could provide, for example, an average grant of £6,500 to make 600,000 fuel-poor homes highly energy efficient every year," he said.
"This would bring down their energy bills each year by £310 and remove nine out of 10 homes from fuel poverty in 15 years. The rest would have their homes brought up to the energy efficiency standard of a home built today."
A petition is being launched today at www.energybillrevolution.org to raise support for the Energy Bill Revolution campaign. It is already backed by more than 50 charities, unions, consumer groups and businesses, including Save the Children, the National Pensioners' Convention, Consumer Focus and the Co-operative Group.
Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative, said: "The UK can get to grips with fuel poverty and not only keep carbon emissions reducing, but secure increased buy-in from the general public. Right now the elderly and poor suffer the most, but left unchecked this is going to become an issue for everyday families."
Last week the children's charity Barnardo's said rising energy prices have left the poorest families £450 short of being able to adequately heat their homes. Barnardo's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie said: "We need to get serious about tackling fuel poverty. Families should never have to choose between whether to heat their homes or put food on the table for children."
She said poorer families are most hit by energy companies because they use pre-payment meters to pay off debt and to pay for gas and electricity.
"Effectively these families are being penalised by their payment method at a time when they need the most financial help," she said. "Energy companies have a moral duty to behave responsibly by ensuring that the poorest families are on the lowest tariffs available and that prices for pre-payment meters are brought down to the same rates as online tariffs."
She urged the Government to tackle fuel poverty by bringing forward the requirement on landlords to make their properties energy efficient for tenants.
Case study: 'I worried about the kids' health'
Lesley Perry lives with her husband Matthew and their five children in a large, high-ceilinged property in Bournemouth. It seemed like a "God-send" when they moved in, amid a shortage of council homes, but they were soon crippled with fuel poverty. The family are currently being supported by a Barnardo's children's centre.
I made curtains to try and keep the warm in as the windows didn't have double glazing – only shutters. I bought cold excluders for the doors too, but it was still cold. I started noticing damp patches appearing on the walls. I was worried about the health of the kids and our finances were really dwindling. The children's needs will always be our priority. We won't go out in the car for days because the petrol's too expensive, but that means we stay in and have to have the heating on. It's a vicious circle and we just go without if we have to.
Monday, 27 February 2012
'Bacteria battery' boosted by space microbes found in river Wear
The development takes microbial power technology a stage nearer its goal of providing a renewable source of energy
Martin Wainwright
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 08.34 GMT
Scientists have doubled the power output of a "bacteria battery" by selecting microbes from a UK river estuary, including one normally found in space.
The development takes microbial power technology a stage nearer its goal of providing a portable, independent and renewable source of power for use with low-energy devices and in parts of the world without electricity.
A multi-disciplinary team from Newcastle university focussed on the river Wear estuary to collect and test different bacteria for their power-generation potential. The microbial power process is well-established in sewage treatment and water cleansing, but remains well short of providing a significant supply of electricity.
The Newcastle survey, reported in the latest issue of the American Chemical Society's Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, shows how a prolonged dredge of just one site can come up with a formidable range of relatively powerful microbes. One of the best, whose presence startled the scientists, was Bacillus stratosphericus which is found in large quantities 30km above the Earth and brought down to the planet by atmospheric cycling.
The survey tested 75 species before combining the best into a Microbial Fuel Cell whose output then rose from 105 watts per cubic meter to 200, or enough to run an electric light.
"The research and findings show the potential power of the technique," said Grant Burgess, professor of marine biotechnology at Newcastle. "What we have done is deliberately manipulate the microbial mix to engineer a biofilm that is more efficient at generating electricity.
"This is the first time individual microbes have been studied and selected in this way. Finding B. stratosphericus was quite a surprise but what it demonstrates is the potential of this technique for the future – there are billions of microbes out there with the potential to generate power.
"We have got used to seeing road signs powered by small solar cells. In the same way, an MFC could potentially be portable and just need immersing in water or sticking in soil for the bacterial process to start."
Selected by Time magazine three years ago as one of contemporary science's 50 most important inventions, microbial power harnesses the glow-worm-like electricity naturally generated by some microbes during their processing of waste water or mud. Commercial versions coat carbon electrodes with a bacterial slime whose tiny organisms convert nutrients into electrons and pass the power into a battery.
The research brings the lead in MFC technology back to the part of the world where it first began. In 1911, Prof M C Potter at Durham university produced electricity from E.coli bacteria in his botany department, a breakthrough little-remarked at the time but followed up from 1930s onwards.
Samples of microbe "pick-and-mix" are likely to follow from an increasing range of places including the deep sea. Prof Burgess's current lecture topics include snotworms, whose ability to decompose the bones of dead whales on the seabed is attracting scientific interest.
Martin Wainwright
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 08.34 GMT
Scientists have doubled the power output of a "bacteria battery" by selecting microbes from a UK river estuary, including one normally found in space.
The development takes microbial power technology a stage nearer its goal of providing a portable, independent and renewable source of power for use with low-energy devices and in parts of the world without electricity.
A multi-disciplinary team from Newcastle university focussed on the river Wear estuary to collect and test different bacteria for their power-generation potential. The microbial power process is well-established in sewage treatment and water cleansing, but remains well short of providing a significant supply of electricity.
The Newcastle survey, reported in the latest issue of the American Chemical Society's Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, shows how a prolonged dredge of just one site can come up with a formidable range of relatively powerful microbes. One of the best, whose presence startled the scientists, was Bacillus stratosphericus which is found in large quantities 30km above the Earth and brought down to the planet by atmospheric cycling.
The survey tested 75 species before combining the best into a Microbial Fuel Cell whose output then rose from 105 watts per cubic meter to 200, or enough to run an electric light.
"The research and findings show the potential power of the technique," said Grant Burgess, professor of marine biotechnology at Newcastle. "What we have done is deliberately manipulate the microbial mix to engineer a biofilm that is more efficient at generating electricity.
"This is the first time individual microbes have been studied and selected in this way. Finding B. stratosphericus was quite a surprise but what it demonstrates is the potential of this technique for the future – there are billions of microbes out there with the potential to generate power.
"We have got used to seeing road signs powered by small solar cells. In the same way, an MFC could potentially be portable and just need immersing in water or sticking in soil for the bacterial process to start."
Selected by Time magazine three years ago as one of contemporary science's 50 most important inventions, microbial power harnesses the glow-worm-like electricity naturally generated by some microbes during their processing of waste water or mud. Commercial versions coat carbon electrodes with a bacterial slime whose tiny organisms convert nutrients into electrons and pass the power into a battery.
The research brings the lead in MFC technology back to the part of the world where it first began. In 1911, Prof M C Potter at Durham university produced electricity from E.coli bacteria in his botany department, a breakthrough little-remarked at the time but followed up from 1930s onwards.
Samples of microbe "pick-and-mix" are likely to follow from an increasing range of places including the deep sea. Prof Burgess's current lecture topics include snotworms, whose ability to decompose the bones of dead whales on the seabed is attracting scientific interest.
Wind energy companies fear government's commitment is cooling
Wind power firms express concern over future policy and reveal how investment in the UK's energy infrastructure is on hold
Fiona Harvey and Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 26 February 2012 21.42 GMT
Billions of pounds' worth of investment in Britain's energy infrastructure is on hold or uncertain because of concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy.
In an exclusive survey, the heads of some of the world's biggest wind companies, which have been considering setting up factories, research facilities and other developments in the UK, have told the Guardian they are reviewing their investments or seeking clarification and reassurances from ministers on future energy policy in the wake of growing political opposition to wind energy that culminated in this month's unprecedented attack on the government's policies in a letter signed by more than 100 Tory MPs.
General Electric (GE) Energy's managing director, Magued Eldaief, told the Guardian his company's proposed wind manufacturing investment – amounting to at least £100m directly but worth much more in its knock-on effect to the economy – was "on hold" pending ministers' decisions on future reforms to the energy market.
"Our investment is on hold until we have certainty and clarity regarding the policy environment that we are in," Eldaief said. "One of the most important things for us is political certainty, so we can justify the business and investment case for a facility in the UK. But we think there are some [political] headwinds which do not help, especially in terms of the subsidies discussion."
He added that the recent anti-wind activity was "certainly a concern". He said: "It's something we're watching very closely. We would like clarity and we would like it as quickly as possible."
Vestas, the world's biggest wind turbine maker, said it was waiting to see whether its customers were able to sign orders before committing itself to build a proposed turbine factory in Kent that would create about 2,000 jobs. Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens – all potential investors in offshore wind to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds – also expressed concerns that an anti-wind power backlash was building up in UK politics, after the MPs' letter to the prime minister called for subsidies to be slashed and cast doubt on the value of wind energy.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, warned that if the political mood shifted against wind, the company would be forced to rethink its UK proposals. He said: "If things should change, my customers will not be able to sign orders – and that is a prerequisite. We will only go ahead if we have firm, unconditional orders – we will only get orders from our customers if they are sure that the development [of windfarms] can go ahead.
"The most important issue that our customers have is a long-term policy framework – that is required to put in these investments, which are huge … [But] we have not had reassurance from the government."
Matthew Chinn, managing director of Siemens Energy for the UK and north-west Europe, whose company is planning a £210m factory that would employ 700 people in Hull, on top of its £500m in existing investments, said the firm saw a perceived lack of enthusiasm for wind power as "very significant", although it wanted to push ahead with its plans.
Akio Fukui, chief executive of Mitsubishi Power Systems Europe, which is mulling an investment of more than £30m in research and development in Britain, said: "Commitment from the government to proceed is vital. If the government commits, then investors will come."
Jorge Calvet, chief executive of turbine company Gamesa, also a potential large investor, called for the industry to rally round in public support of wind projects. Calvet said: "Supporters of wind should be a bit more vocal. The regulatory framework is the most important thing [for wind investors]."
Jim Smith, chief executive of SSE Renewables, said the political furore surrounding wind was unhelpful at a time when billions in foreign funds were needed to build clean technology schemes. "Clearly what the industry needs is clear, consistent government policy and anything that potentially upsets that is not good for the industry," he said.
While most companies said they wanted to push ahead with their investment plans, some investment bankers also expressed concerns. Simon Brooks, vice-president of the European Investment Bank, which provides backing for some UK wind farms, said the letter to Cameron "injects a bit of uncertainty", which was bad for investment.
Matthew Clayton, a fund manager at Triodos Investment Management, added: "It worries me from the level of understanding of MPs who are running the country. The arguments [put forward] about costs never seem to factor in an expected rising price of oil and gas and the fact that wind, once installed, provides almost free electricity."
Clayton said that, under some measurements, onshore wind was within 7% of oil and gas costs – even taking into account subsidies for turbines but not taking into account the tax breaks given to the fossil fuels industry. "I don't really think this [opposition] is about economics. It is largely about the aesthetics of wind and its impact on the countryside," he said. "We need to have a more honest debate about this."
Keith Anderson, chief corporate officer at Scottish Power, contrasted the situation with that in Scotland, where top politicians, the media and the public tend to advocate more wind power. Much of the company's planned £1bn investment will go to Scotland.
He warned politicians that massive new investment would be needed in the UK's energy infrastructure "despite the political noise" against wind. "We've been living off [energy generation] assets that are 40, 50 or 60 years old," he said. "We need £150bn to £100bn investment in the next 10 years. That is a serious issue."
Several potential investors also pointed to particular problems with the UK's infrastructure that must be resolved, such as the ageing electricity grid, which must be upgraded to cope with a massive influx of intermittent wind energy. Engel said: "A long-term grid plan is very important."
Ports are another key issue. While the government has promised £60m for a port upgrade on the east coast, the potential boost has not yet been detailed. Eldaief said: "From an industry perspective, that [funding] may not be adequate." Fukui added that the UK's east coast ports needed "more space than under the current plan" to cope with offshore wind.
The government should also look to skills, said Chinn. "There is a huge lack of basic engineering resources and skills in the UK," he warned.
The energy secretary, Ed Davey, said yesterday: "A responsible energy policy for this country is one that rules in all of the key low carbon technologies to help us keep the lights on and emissions down. Ruling any of them out would be folly."
Fiona Harvey and Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 26 February 2012 21.42 GMT
Billions of pounds' worth of investment in Britain's energy infrastructure is on hold or uncertain because of concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy.
In an exclusive survey, the heads of some of the world's biggest wind companies, which have been considering setting up factories, research facilities and other developments in the UK, have told the Guardian they are reviewing their investments or seeking clarification and reassurances from ministers on future energy policy in the wake of growing political opposition to wind energy that culminated in this month's unprecedented attack on the government's policies in a letter signed by more than 100 Tory MPs.
General Electric (GE) Energy's managing director, Magued Eldaief, told the Guardian his company's proposed wind manufacturing investment – amounting to at least £100m directly but worth much more in its knock-on effect to the economy – was "on hold" pending ministers' decisions on future reforms to the energy market.
"Our investment is on hold until we have certainty and clarity regarding the policy environment that we are in," Eldaief said. "One of the most important things for us is political certainty, so we can justify the business and investment case for a facility in the UK. But we think there are some [political] headwinds which do not help, especially in terms of the subsidies discussion."
He added that the recent anti-wind activity was "certainly a concern". He said: "It's something we're watching very closely. We would like clarity and we would like it as quickly as possible."
Vestas, the world's biggest wind turbine maker, said it was waiting to see whether its customers were able to sign orders before committing itself to build a proposed turbine factory in Kent that would create about 2,000 jobs. Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens – all potential investors in offshore wind to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds – also expressed concerns that an anti-wind power backlash was building up in UK politics, after the MPs' letter to the prime minister called for subsidies to be slashed and cast doubt on the value of wind energy.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, warned that if the political mood shifted against wind, the company would be forced to rethink its UK proposals. He said: "If things should change, my customers will not be able to sign orders – and that is a prerequisite. We will only go ahead if we have firm, unconditional orders – we will only get orders from our customers if they are sure that the development [of windfarms] can go ahead.
"The most important issue that our customers have is a long-term policy framework – that is required to put in these investments, which are huge … [But] we have not had reassurance from the government."
Matthew Chinn, managing director of Siemens Energy for the UK and north-west Europe, whose company is planning a £210m factory that would employ 700 people in Hull, on top of its £500m in existing investments, said the firm saw a perceived lack of enthusiasm for wind power as "very significant", although it wanted to push ahead with its plans.
Akio Fukui, chief executive of Mitsubishi Power Systems Europe, which is mulling an investment of more than £30m in research and development in Britain, said: "Commitment from the government to proceed is vital. If the government commits, then investors will come."
Jorge Calvet, chief executive of turbine company Gamesa, also a potential large investor, called for the industry to rally round in public support of wind projects. Calvet said: "Supporters of wind should be a bit more vocal. The regulatory framework is the most important thing [for wind investors]."
Jim Smith, chief executive of SSE Renewables, said the political furore surrounding wind was unhelpful at a time when billions in foreign funds were needed to build clean technology schemes. "Clearly what the industry needs is clear, consistent government policy and anything that potentially upsets that is not good for the industry," he said.
While most companies said they wanted to push ahead with their investment plans, some investment bankers also expressed concerns. Simon Brooks, vice-president of the European Investment Bank, which provides backing for some UK wind farms, said the letter to Cameron "injects a bit of uncertainty", which was bad for investment.
Matthew Clayton, a fund manager at Triodos Investment Management, added: "It worries me from the level of understanding of MPs who are running the country. The arguments [put forward] about costs never seem to factor in an expected rising price of oil and gas and the fact that wind, once installed, provides almost free electricity."
Clayton said that, under some measurements, onshore wind was within 7% of oil and gas costs – even taking into account subsidies for turbines but not taking into account the tax breaks given to the fossil fuels industry. "I don't really think this [opposition] is about economics. It is largely about the aesthetics of wind and its impact on the countryside," he said. "We need to have a more honest debate about this."
Keith Anderson, chief corporate officer at Scottish Power, contrasted the situation with that in Scotland, where top politicians, the media and the public tend to advocate more wind power. Much of the company's planned £1bn investment will go to Scotland.
He warned politicians that massive new investment would be needed in the UK's energy infrastructure "despite the political noise" against wind. "We've been living off [energy generation] assets that are 40, 50 or 60 years old," he said. "We need £150bn to £100bn investment in the next 10 years. That is a serious issue."
Several potential investors also pointed to particular problems with the UK's infrastructure that must be resolved, such as the ageing electricity grid, which must be upgraded to cope with a massive influx of intermittent wind energy. Engel said: "A long-term grid plan is very important."
Ports are another key issue. While the government has promised £60m for a port upgrade on the east coast, the potential boost has not yet been detailed. Eldaief said: "From an industry perspective, that [funding] may not be adequate." Fukui added that the UK's east coast ports needed "more space than under the current plan" to cope with offshore wind.
The government should also look to skills, said Chinn. "There is a huge lack of basic engineering resources and skills in the UK," he warned.
The energy secretary, Ed Davey, said yesterday: "A responsible energy policy for this country is one that rules in all of the key low carbon technologies to help us keep the lights on and emissions down. Ruling any of them out would be folly."
Eden Project installs UK's first employee-owned solar plant
New solar array in Cornwall hopes to make the case that renewable energy is not just for well-off householders
Chris Goodall for Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 10.01 GMT
A new 50 kilowatt PV array at the Eden Project has just become the UK's first employee owned renewables installation. Ebico, the Witney-based social enterprise that is the UK's only not-for-profit electricity supplier, lent money to a new company that put 200 panels on the roofs of some of Eden's storage buildings. Employees are now able to buy shares in the new business and the proceeds of this unique offer will be used to pay back Ebico. Savers putting in as little as £200 each will share in the feed-in tariff income for the next 25 years. Returns are projected to be over 10% per year for small investors.
Feed-in tariffs, particularly for solar PV, have been attacked because they subsidise richer householders at the expense of the rest of the population. The aim at Eden has been to show that renewables can also be of financial benefit to people not able to afford to put PV on their own roofs. I helped structure this deal and wrote the document that offers the shares to employees.
The recent changes in the solar PV tariffs mean that installation such as the one at Eden are less attractive to small investors. Other technologies, such as wind and anaerobic digestion, are now much more appropriate for employee or community financing. The returns to investors can be at least as high as we project for savers buying shares in the PV array at Eden.
The aims of feed-in tariffs are to encourage smaller renewable energy installations, push down the cost of new low-carbon technologies and, third, to assist in the decentralisation of electricity supply. The solar PV tariffs worked extraordinarily well at building up an efficient and competitive base of installers and reducing the price of household installations by about 50% in the space of two years. Anybody wanting an array on the roof of their house in 2009 would have got a quote of about £5,000 per kilowatt. Today, that price can be below £2,500 for a larger installation. There is no doubt that the PV tariffs successfully met the first two of the three aims that the government had for the tariffs.
What about the third objective- the decentralisation of electricity supply? The evidence here is mixed. Although hundreds of thousands of household PV installations have taken place, the impact on the electricity supply of the UK has been of the order of 0.1%. Wind turbines owned by community companies must surely be the next step. One 500 kilowatt wind turbine, the sort of size that might sit on a small hill at the edge of a town, can typically provide the same power output as three or four hundred domestic PV installations or twenty five times as much as the Eden array (the 50 kW Eden array will deliver about 47,000 kilowatt hours a year, or just under 1,000 kilowatt hours per kilowatt capacity. A well sited wind turbine will deliver a 'capacity factor' of over twice as much.)
The striking thing about community ownership of wind turbines is that local resistance disappears if people have a financial stake in their success. One wonderful Dutch study even showed that people ceased to hear the swishing noise of the blades if they had some ownership of the wind farm. Community ownership is the only way we are ever going to see the UK use its under-exploited resources of onshore wind. Today, the costs of the subsidies for renewable energy are borne by everybody but the benefits are largely flowing to the large electricity companies and richer householders. Larger scale community energy installations, such as the one at Eden, can achieve rapid growth of low carbon energy sources and also remove the regressive element in the feed-in tariffs.
Chris Goodall for Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 10.01 GMT
A new 50 kilowatt PV array at the Eden Project has just become the UK's first employee owned renewables installation. Ebico, the Witney-based social enterprise that is the UK's only not-for-profit electricity supplier, lent money to a new company that put 200 panels on the roofs of some of Eden's storage buildings. Employees are now able to buy shares in the new business and the proceeds of this unique offer will be used to pay back Ebico. Savers putting in as little as £200 each will share in the feed-in tariff income for the next 25 years. Returns are projected to be over 10% per year for small investors.
Feed-in tariffs, particularly for solar PV, have been attacked because they subsidise richer householders at the expense of the rest of the population. The aim at Eden has been to show that renewables can also be of financial benefit to people not able to afford to put PV on their own roofs. I helped structure this deal and wrote the document that offers the shares to employees.
The recent changes in the solar PV tariffs mean that installation such as the one at Eden are less attractive to small investors. Other technologies, such as wind and anaerobic digestion, are now much more appropriate for employee or community financing. The returns to investors can be at least as high as we project for savers buying shares in the PV array at Eden.
The aims of feed-in tariffs are to encourage smaller renewable energy installations, push down the cost of new low-carbon technologies and, third, to assist in the decentralisation of electricity supply. The solar PV tariffs worked extraordinarily well at building up an efficient and competitive base of installers and reducing the price of household installations by about 50% in the space of two years. Anybody wanting an array on the roof of their house in 2009 would have got a quote of about £5,000 per kilowatt. Today, that price can be below £2,500 for a larger installation. There is no doubt that the PV tariffs successfully met the first two of the three aims that the government had for the tariffs.
What about the third objective- the decentralisation of electricity supply? The evidence here is mixed. Although hundreds of thousands of household PV installations have taken place, the impact on the electricity supply of the UK has been of the order of 0.1%. Wind turbines owned by community companies must surely be the next step. One 500 kilowatt wind turbine, the sort of size that might sit on a small hill at the edge of a town, can typically provide the same power output as three or four hundred domestic PV installations or twenty five times as much as the Eden array (the 50 kW Eden array will deliver about 47,000 kilowatt hours a year, or just under 1,000 kilowatt hours per kilowatt capacity. A well sited wind turbine will deliver a 'capacity factor' of over twice as much.)
The striking thing about community ownership of wind turbines is that local resistance disappears if people have a financial stake in their success. One wonderful Dutch study even showed that people ceased to hear the swishing noise of the blades if they had some ownership of the wind farm. Community ownership is the only way we are ever going to see the UK use its under-exploited resources of onshore wind. Today, the costs of the subsidies for renewable energy are borne by everybody but the benefits are largely flowing to the large electricity companies and richer householders. Larger scale community energy installations, such as the one at Eden, can achieve rapid growth of low carbon energy sources and also remove the regressive element in the feed-in tariffs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
