For me, the jury's still out. But then I do like the AECB's approach...

Press Release

Green Energy: AECB Demands Value for Money

The AECB, the sustainable building association, calls on the government to stop wasting £ billions of consumers' and taxpayers' money on a 'green energy' strategy that delivers neither value for money nor energy security. Instead it should focus on the cheap and even free green alternatives that are being ignored or sidelined.

AECB challenges the government and the energy industry to show the value for money behind the 'electricity generation first' vision for a low-carbon future, and to assess other options on a level playing field.

While AECB has long maintained that renewable generation should be central to providing the essential electricity a modern economy requires, electricity is expensive, and should not be squandered. The Association wants to see every green technology supported on its merits - yet says the Association, some approaches are unfairly disadvantaged.

On the government's own admission, AECB points out, properly insulating buildings saves ten times more greenhouse gas emissions per £ spent than the current Feed-in Tariff (FiT) for renewable electricity - and will still offer five times the abatement per £, even if the tariff is cut as predicted [http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_091/pn11_091.aspx].

Research by the AECB for a forthcoming report [Less is More: Energy Security After Oil. AECB, in press (2011)]. also indicates that:

Insulating UK buildings - the worst-constructed in central or northern Europe - offers the same carbon and energy benefit as building offshore wind turbines, and at around a fifth the cost.

Nationwide energy efficiency drives; e.g., upgrading lighting systems, could abate climate change at a profit. Only changes to utility regulation are needed to make it happen. The technology is already there.

Energy consumers are being told to finance a vast increase in electricity generation and transmission, but if demand was cut few of these new power stations would be needed. An energy-efficient future could cut consumers' electricity bills, not raise them.

An "all-electric future" as currently proposed risks having too little energy storage to buffer the ups and downs of renewable energy supply and demand, posing increased risks that we cannot "keep the lights on".

As AECB's chief executive Andrew Simmonds explains: "The AECB absolutely backs the government's ambition to cut 80% of emissions by 2050. Indeed, we would like to see emissions cuts go further. What worries us is that the strategy options on offer from the government appear neither practical nor secure, and do not offer the cheapest way to get to where we need to be by 2050. In a time of swingeing austerity, that is extraordinary."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/03/ed-davey-green-policies-in-tray
Probably a more important consideration.

Just checked the link Dave and it works for me!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/03/ed-davey-green-policies-in-tray
I thought the report on socio-environmental damage interesting and food for thought when considered against current proposals.

Posted By: CWattersWhere did he get an electric car that goes that fast

Or that far

But while we are in that area, when I heard that Stephen Hawkin had reached 70, I thought, that is a powerful wheelchair.

On the news last night I saw him getting into what looked like an electric car with three other blokes. Painted the most appalling shade of pastel grey/blue, so obviously presented to put off as many people as possible from buying an electric car.

But why is he getting so many expressions of "support"? He is accused of perverting the course of justice, which is punishable by a custodial sentence for chrissake.

OK, it's his word against the word of the ex-wife he allegedly asked to lie for him, and god knows how he expects to get a fair trial since his denials have dragged this whole pathetically sordid affair into the cess-pit of tabloid sensationalism, but is there ANYONE who has followed this story since its start who doesn't believe that he was stupid enough to do what he is alleged to have done just to avoid a driving ban?

He's a clown.

The alleged offence was in 2003 when Huhne was an MEP. So it wasn't in a ministerial Prius, but the speeding was exceeding a 30mph limit in temporary roadworks in any case.

I think you can read a lot into the exact language Huhne has used in his denials.

Chris Huhne may have talked the talk, but he failed to walk the walk in most of the areas he could actually have delivered in, including off the top of my head...

Carbon Reduction Commitment
Effectively stole £1 billion from industry that was ear marked to be returned as payment to those companies who'd invested the most successfully in reducing their carbon footprint to turn CRC from a scheme with neutral overall cost to business into one that was a £1 billion a year stealth tax on business. He basically did this in order to fund the RHI and an increase in the nuclear decommissioning authority budget, thereby turning funding away from a scheme that would have funded carbon reductions from whatever method was most appropriate and cost effective for that business and into a scheme where the government prescribed the methods that were deemed worthy of funding, and anything falling outside of those set methods got nothing - plus neatly funding the NDA budget increase without having to ask the treasury for more money.

RHI
What a complete and utter farce this scheme has turned into under Huhne's 'leadership'. Hugely delayed while they tried to get to grips with how it should work, then having it's funding change from the energy companies to central taxation (in reality initially at leastvia the stealing of CRC budget money).

RHI's eventual launch for above 50kW thermal installations was then subject to a last minute delay pretty much on the day it was due to start operating, due to it apparently not complying with EU law - something DECC had had months to ensure was the case.

RHI for domestic properties was pushed back several times from April 2011 to October 2012, and from various stories in the press, looks set to be pushed back even further.

As an MCS certified solar water heating installer, I'd have to say that we'd have been better off if they'd just cancelled the entire idea 2 years ago, at least we'd have known where we all stood.

Low Carbon Buildings Programme
Virtually the first thing to happen on Chris Huhne's watch when taking office was the cancelling of the remaining LCBP grants, which were largely in place to fund solar water heating and renewable heat projects for another year until the RHI was scheduled to start in April 2011.

The justification for this was that these projects would be eligible for RHI anyway so it would amount to double funding...... well fine Mr Huhne, but then you spectacularly failed to deliver RHI on time, so the entire sectors been left with no support and no public confidence for nearly 3 years on your watch.

Renewable Heat Premium Payment
Cancelling LCBP grants of £400 for solar water heating, then replacing them 2 years later with a 1 year temporary programme of grants of £300 with lots of strings attached does not smack of a great deal of competence in government, and it's no surprise the the RHPP scheme has been a flop.

Mothballing plans for Severn Barrage
How someone who's supposedly not pro-nukes, or at least is from a not pro-nuke party can allow a report to pass that was as badly biased in favour of nukes and against the severn barrage as the one that did for the barrage last year is beyond me. Seriously, allowing the report writers to get away with adding 60% to the costs of the barrage for 'optimism bias' but only 15% to the cost of nuclear when the only new nukes being built in Europe this last decade had seen their costs more than doubling as they ran several years behind schedule... among other problems with the report that resulted in the conclusion that investment in a new generation of nukes made more financial sense than investment in a project that would provide 5-6% of the UK's electricity needs for at least the next 100-150 years.

Feed In Tariff
On your watch, DECC managed to entirely ignore the impact of the far earlier than predicted reduction in PV costs for the first 15 months of the scheme, even waving through a 4.8% increase in the FIT rate in April 2011 at a time when installed prices had already dropped by 20% - this really does take a special kind of idiocy to justify. Then eventually react to it by slashing the rate of FITs for largescale schemes last summer while leaving the ridiculously high rates for domestic schemes untouched.

What possible other result of this could there have been other than a massive surge in domestic installations as returns rose well into double figures, and most of the money previously ear marked for largescale schemes moved into the rent a roof sector?

Your panicked reaction to this, compounded by your complete failure to engage with anyone in the industry at all in the build up to it's announcement, and blustering defences of it really mark you out as being an arrogant, and utterly incompetent piece of work, and frankly, I hope you are given some time to reflect on your record from the confines of a prison cell.

Posted By: Joiner
As for the offence that sparked it all off? Unless the magistrate was a member of UKIP he'd have probably got off with moderate fine and, given his MEP salary and expenses, easily have coped with a 12-month (if that) ban by either employing a hire-car and driver or taking taxis.

He was banned from driving later that same year (mobile phone use so 'red-handed') and his then wife did act as his chauffeur.

Posted By: JoinerSome irony there.

Which is the more serious offence, moral or otherwise. Both pretty minor for grown up in my opinion.
I got banned for speeding once, 6 months off the road, no big deal, lived in a town then so was easy. But the £270 fine for speeding I got 8 years ago still smarts.

Actually, all this talk about his pending appearance in court shouldn't be in this thread at all, but in the other one started by ST.

Sorry Brian, I think a few of us have been led astray!