h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning all,

I was idly watching a programme covering heat loss from homes and therefore the carbon emissions which occured to produce the lost ,or wasted, energy.

It set me thinking . Apparently we lose enormous amounts of heat through the roof and walls - both of which can be insulated ( or cavity filled ) but the costs involved would not be recovered in lower bills at current energy costs for 10 to 15 years. Hardly an incentive then.

With the government's interest in us doing something to reducing carbon emissions what would posters view be on the following suggestion.

*The government to put a tax of say 20% on all domestic energy and to collect that tax into a "Pool" which FIRSTLY gave back the 20% to pensioners, SECONDLY paid for the insulation of lofts and walls *.

This "might" encourage people to use less in the first place ( Perhaps saving the 20% because of the cost), but should in any event provide the cash for a grant system to reduce energy production all round.

For those who currently leave all the lights in the house on, all appliances on standby ( where capable )and keep the heating on too high and for too long the "tax" could raise significant sums for us to nationally cut the carbon emissions.

I expect I'll get shot down for this one!

And for the next suggestion that if the energy tax pool became large enough, it could provide FREE rush hour public transport, which combined with extreme parking charges , might get some cars off the road too.

Standing by with tin hat on!

Novo

"*The government to put a tax of say 20% on all domestic energy and to collect that tax into a "Pool" which FIRSTLY gave back the 20% to pensioners, SECONDLY paid for the insulation of lofts and walls *. "


Hmm, firstly I'd say, why make the pensioners pay in the first place - if you're going to add another tax, then it'd surely be simpler to make pensioners / the unemployed / handicapped persons / etc. exempt from paying it.

Secondly, looking at not just this government's, but all previous governments' record of using taxes for the wrong purposes and the amount of money they tend to waste on bureaucracy when a new method of getting money out of us is concerned - I'd say a good percentage of your tax would get wasted.

I'm always suspcious of people who propose a new tax in one breath and specifically exclude themselves from it in the next...

Many local authorities and energy comapnies already give grants to help with things like loft insulation and cavity wall insulation, you can search for what grants are available inyour area using this website:
http://www.est.org.uk/myhome/gid/index.cfm

Morning Whisky,

My thought was a Levy placed on the energy suppliers, say, based on a quarter turnover of energy sales . That ought to be easier to collect. then I would pass it back to the categories who get pensions or allowances, via their existing methods of payment. Not TOO much additional beaurocracy and waste there if the percieved gains are worth it.

I am aware that grants already exist for loft and wall insulation , but they are limited to the categories of people receiving some kind of benefit now.

I was attempting a wider view, where , since the gobvernment can't hit it's own targets, and wants US to help, the help wanted could be achieved by taking a tranche of cash from us all to make the "Carbon Fund" for want of a name, to be used as suggested in Post 1.

In theory it would eventually pay for itself and should dramatically cut the emission figure.

Just trying to "think outside the box" here!

Well according to that website there are grants available to me for various things, and I am neither a pensioner (they get lots of help with stuff like this) nor on benefits.

Where are you getting your stats from on recouping the cost of putting in energy-saving measures?

I was talking to my wife last night, along similar lines to this. We wondered if the Government might lend citizens the money to install (say) wind turbines, and the loan would be repaid out of the savings made on energy bills. Granted, there would be practical details to address, but the basic idea seems reasonable. As Novo has pointed out, we need to *do* something in addition to talking about it here!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Last night's Newsnight had some stats on payback times for various improvements such as cavity wall insulation and double glazing and they weren't very encouraging. Cavity wall insulation, I think, had a payback period of 18 years. I looked at solar panels and they just don't make economic, common sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4736228.stm

There are several grants available for solar panels. I looked at installing a microturbine a while back - there used to be grants for those too (the Clear Skies programme) but they have just come to an end unfortunately - I hope that a similar programme comes in to replace Clear Skies asap.

Hi Fatkelli,

See WA's post above. The 'stats' as you call them came from the programme. Interestingly they claim that double glazing takes about 25 years to recoup it's installation costs.

As far as the Grants ar concerned, I am a pensioner, but still work part time. Doubtless because I am on a 'list'somewhere I often get leaflets telling me about all the energy saving grants available, but when I read them I find I am inelligable because I am not receiving one of a whole host of benefits! Perhaps my total income is too high.

But that is my point. I am trying to find a new way to raise the cash for us all to be able benefit individually, and for the nation as a whole to use less energy.

My preferred choice would be to go back to nuclear power, but I recognise that is objected to by some and is costly and time consuming to set up new stations. And would probably be too late!

Novo

Morning Novo,

Reaches back and puts his old engineers hat on. Nuclear is the only option that is safe; including Windscale, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island when compared to the number of mining deaths, secure; look what happened in Europe when Russia turned off the Romanian gas tap not to mention Saudi, Iran and Iraq and clean; low carbon footprint including building and re-processing. How many people have died from Nuclear waste and the industry is now fifty years old?

Specifically: how many people have died as a result of the Cherobyl leak? I.e. have cancer deaths in the Ukraine increased as a result? I assume such deaths have occurred, but know of no definite figures....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I realise this report is from the Nuclear lobby but it does appear to be authoritative and accurate. The answer seems to be 56 subsequent deaths attributable to radioactivity.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

Well I think if the government was really serious then they owuld change things to make it economically more viable.

I think the grants have to make it pay for itself in a much shorter time. People might be more inclined to make the investment if it paid for itself in 2-3 years. But given how often we all move a 20-30 investment just isnt going to appeal to anyone not a rampant ecologist.

"Interestingly they claim that double glazing takes about 25 years to recoup it's installation costs"

Hmmm, that's a highly dodgy figure I'd have thought, and extremely variable...

If you've got perfectly good single-glazed windows then it's probably not economical to install double glazing. However, in certain cases, if you've _got_ to change your windows, then you can recover the difference in price between single and double glazing in just a couple of years.

http://www.clear-skies.org/

Seems like Clear Skies is about to be replaced with something Am cross with myself for missing the boat originally. I'd be happy to see it pay for itself within 8-10 years, which a microturbine would have done (one claimed 5 years) if supported by a grant.

Have just emailed my local council about it to see what they have available

Afternoon WA

From my own post you know that I am pro nuclear. I agree completely with you post.

Wearing your "old Engineer's Hat", have you any idea how long it would take to build and comission enough power stations to generate the electricity we use? Also, is it technically feasible to re-comission mothballed stations in a shorter time?

It seems to me that time is of the essence. It probably won't affect me as long as there is gas to fire up the crematorium ! but you may recall I have 10 grandchildren and I don't want them shivering becuase our government nor we did anything to halt or lessen the carbon problem.

I haven't started on subsidised air travel yet - no tax on aviation fuel etc. - but I was concerned at the waste I cause in my own home by leaving lights on etc. It all adds up, and I was trying to think of a way to cut usage, without simply banging the price up to a prohibitive level, - rather to construct some way of making the lazy and profligate help to pay for insulation to cut the usage down.

Fatkelli
I have tried to look at you sight but the office server won't let me see it! Have noted the address and will look this pm at home.

Novo

And one thing I would like to know is what effect does the heat produced by an engine contribute to overall world temperature? The heat given off by an engine in a car for example, compared to the greenhouse effect supposedly caused by the CO2 released at the same time.

Novo,

Quick response before I UK forcast demand runs at about 55,000 MW and there is usually around 67,000 MW availble. Latest Nuclear power station designs generate up to 1600 MW and take between 5 and 7 years to build.

I don't think technology is the problem planning and politics will be.

Thanks WA

So we need around 40 stations then. Mmmmm, I think you are right about the planning and the politics!

Better go back to the 'insulation' drawing board, meanwhile reducing house temparature, switching lights off, and NOT leaving electronic kit on 'standby'

Novo

I think it would help if we passed a law that stated that no new TV can be sold in the UK with stand by functinality.

If the manufacturers didn't want to take the funtionality out of the TV itself they could just remove the button from the remotes...