Green light for Cameron's wind turbine

David Cameron hasn't yet proposed many environmental policies but he has attempted to model a green lifestyle.  He rides to work on his bike and he plans to install solar panels and a wind turbine on the roof of his North Kensington home.  Those plans received the go-ahead this evening when Tory-run Kensington & Chelsea Council approved the installation of a turbine if it is of limited size and grey in colour.  After ninety minutes of deliberations the K&C councillors said that they would review the decision in three years.

Barbara Want, wife of BBC presenter Nick Clarke, had led some local peoples' aesthetic objections to the turbine.  Ms Want gave an interview to The Sunday Telegraph last month: "These turbines cost £2,000. It's irritating that it costs so much to show your green credentials. I've young twins and a husband with cancer. Do you think I've got time to be green?" The newspaper noted that wind turbines can cut energy bills by up to 33%.  Government grants are available to help meet the cost of buying a turbine - which can be up to £3,000 (see London Evening Standard scan above).

Comments

[James Hellyer]

It's true that David Cameron favours poseur environmentalism. Yes, heavily subsidised and ugly turbines can cut your domestic energy bills. But both the funding of the subsidy and the appearance of the turbine are costs in more or less direct ways. Once again, the coat of the few's posing is paid for through the many's taxes.

[Richard Bailey]

The cynicism and pettiness that stands in the way of developing renewable energies in this country drives me potty.

It is the attitude of a certain generation and thankfully it will not last. My children look at me with disbelief that anyone can possibly argue against energy saving and renewable energy. I only hope that we haven't ruined everything by the time they inherit.

Cameron should be congratulated for leading by example. And Mrs Nick Clark should find something better to do.

[James Maskell]

Leading by example...damn Im really behind as I dont have thousands of pounds and the ability to get a wind turbine on my roof. What a failure me and 99% of this country is. This is posturing, plain and simple. Everyone can see through it. Its pathetic.

[Chris]

Its posturing admittedly but anyone denying that having a turbine on your roof isn't helping the environment isn't thinking clearly. Every little bit helps!

A few years ago recyling was merely encouraged where I live, today we have a box for newspapers, a box for cans and plastic bottles, and a big bin for compost. The green revolution is here to stay and we should all play a part in it.

[James Hellyer]

The cynicism and pettiness that stands in the way of developing renewable energies in this country drives me potty.

What cynicism and pettiness? Rolling ones eyes at demonstrating one's virtue with a subsidised windmill is exactly the same as railing against supporting a subsidised industry. Via political pressure someone is enjoying a benefit others are bearing the cost of. In the latter case, via higher taxes and more expensive goods, and in the former case... well, it's the same, but more attractive to the tabloids.

[Julian Morrison]

The irony of tax subsidized green-ness is: where's the money coming from? If people are being whipped to work harder, don't you think they'll dash about madly in their cars and burn the midnight megawatts? Any windmill that doesn't net a profit sans subsidy is anti-green.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Does Mr Angry here know that Cameron took the subsidy to put the windfarm up?

[Matt Davis]

It all depends upon what you consider to be helping the environment. There are several wider environmental disadvantages to wind turbines on private houses;
1) Noise both from the mechanism and the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh wind noise created. 2) Vibrations travel down through the structure of the building and can often be felt both in that property and those adjacent.
3) The visual impact is to many eyes an unwelcome blot on the horizon.

These are all environmental matters, the environment is not just our climate and environmental action should not just be about reducing carbon emissions.Solar panels on roofs are a far better option for householders, but are of course considerably more expensive than wind turbines.

The cynic in me also tends to believe that DC has gone for turbines because they are so very visibly obvious. Why has the environmental debate degenerated into yet more smoke and mirrors?

[Geoff]

Could somebody please enlighten me as to the licensing application procedure required for having a small nuclear reactor installed in my basement? No carbon emissions, no negative visual impact, low maintenance and, if I stand close to it for long enough, a simple way to reduce my chances of fathering children who will then need to be bought hoodies.

Also: Barbara Want, wife of BBC presenter Nick Clarke...

Surely that means her name is Barbara Clarke?

[James Hellyer]

Does Mr Angry here know that Cameron took the subsidy to put the windfarm up?

It's irrelevant whether he did or not. Windfarms are expensive and are therefore only an option for the rich, subsidised or not. As such, like hybrid cars, they offer little more than a sop to people's conscience and allow them to carry on with the lifestyle they already enjoy without making any sacrifices. That's simnply not an option for the majority.

As for subsidies themselves, I thought we'd already learnt the lesson that they rip off the consumers twice. Or is such ire soley reserved for French farmers?

[TomTom]

The subsidy comes from the annual levy on your electricity bills. Some pensioner somewhere will be cooking less and feeling the cold so David Cameron can get a subsidy..........that is the way - take from the poor to give to the rich. Maybe he will get a Designer Windmill

[TomTom]

How could "Dave" wish to antagonise Barbara Want ?

http://www.babysecrets.co.uk/

[Green ted]

So whats the alternative?

Encourage the use of localised wind turbines and solar panels or some lovely new Nuclear Power Stations?

I would rather 7 million wind turbines and 7 million homes with solar panels than a single one of New Labours Nuclear Power Stations.

You might whinge about the subsidy for wind turbines but remember the subsidy you, your grandchildren and 100 generations from now will be paying to store and clean up the radioactive toxic waste from New Labours Nuclear Power Stations.

[James Hellyer]

or some lovely new Nuclear Power Stations?

Yes please. Add some solar panels to new build houses, and have a proper drive for energy efficiency and I'll be happy.

... but remember the subsidy you, your grandchildren and 100 generations from now will be paying to store and clean up the radioactive toxic waste from New Labours Nuclear Power Stations.

The whole spectre of the cost of waste management is a red herring in any case. Along with decommissioning costs, it wasn't factored into any generation of previous British reactor (most of which were prototypical in nature). By contrast, that cost is included in projected energy costs of any new nuclear power stations, which, I might add, are now designed in such a way that they produce but a fraction of the waste of Britain's current ageing energy platform.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Isnt the sensble approach to have a mix of energy provision. Would I like a Nuclear power station next to me.... probably not..... but would I like on onshore windturbine at the bottom of my garden or a coal fired power station .... probably not in my back yard.

Am I comfortable at being reliant on oil and gas from Russia... not particularly.

Would I be prepared to have solar panels and a small wind turbine on my house... probably.

What I want to see the Government and indeed our party doing is looking harder at energy conservation. Zac Goldsmith told me that it would be more economical for the Government to pay for energy efficient light bulbs to be put in everyones houses than to build nuclear power stations - and would have a bigger and quicker impact.

Now as with microgeneration - we cant allow it to become the provision of the middle class who feel guilty about how much electric they use on all their consumer goods.

New houses are now usually built with toilets that use less water. Why cant new developments look even harder at energy efficiency?

I always use my "Nana" test. She wont pay £5 for an energy efficient light bulb when a normal one cost literally pence. How is someone like that on a state pension going to become energy efficient. That's an answer we need to address.

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

I can understand the concern of local neighbours because of issues about noise and appearance. Having said that, the local planning committee seemed to have come to a sensible compromise.

The payback in terms of initial cost to the saving doesn’t seem very economic and that would deter me. However the publicity for the party's new environmentally friendly policies is immeasurable.

The key to improving personal habits and behaviour in this field is always to reward rather than use the stick. The carrot approach can be seen in the Clean Air Act of 1956 in which coalite (a smokeless fuel) was cheaper than ordinary coal. The switch to unleaded petrol was encouraged by a reduction in the tax so that it was cheaper than leaded fuel. Both were Tory measures.

[TomTom]

I would rather 7 million wind turbines and 7 million homes with solar panels than a single one of New Labours Nuclear Power Stations.

I wouldn't. I find the sight of wind turbines as i look out of my window nauseating.

I would like more nuclear power stations - Margaret Thatcher promised one new station per year but I bet that is another pledge she failed to honour. Why you call them "New Labour nuclear power stations" beats me....are they "NuBluTory Windmills" then ?

I suppose you are all in the South where you have just a few gas-fired power stations; the big base-load coal sets are in the North on the coalfields. But you do import nuclear-electric from France through the interconnector - I suppose you will refuse that.

I am all in favour of Southern England using windmills and being uncoupled from the National Grid so we in the North can use nuclear power and coal and have cost-effective energy for industry. If things continue you will return to the power cut rotas we had in 1972 and 1974 under a Conservative Government with 4 hours on and then blackout and TV closing down at 10.30pm.

[TomTom]

If you are so keen on Green - restore the Consefvative policy of 17.5% VAT on gas and electricity which Labour blocked in 1997 but could not restore to zero under EU rules so it was set at 5%.

Let the Conservatives pledge to put full-rate VAT on gas and electricity if elected.

[Big John]

Congratulations on nearly all the above contributors, who have made a good case against wind turbines. If they are offensive to the urbanites, why are they a good idea for the countryside?
Let us face it, only nuclear is worth a prayer; that and conserving/using less energy in the first place, for heating especially. So break out grampa's woolly vests and gloves, they are a bit scratchy but better than chilblains.

[Chris]

TomTom, gas and electricity prices have shot through the roof anyway due to Gordon Browns increases in taxes on the energy companies already. Its ages since I took economics, so I can't use the correct terminology (I'm sure there's someone who can help me out), but gas and electricity are goods which people cannot now live without, if you put higher taxes on them raising the price, people will still pay them because they requie the goods. All that happens is you become more unpopular with the consumer, you don't actually discourage anyone from using energy.

Also, a higher tax on all electricity means the little environmentally friendly electricity that is being produced would also be sbject to this tax.

[Sam]

It would seem from the posts above that nobody actually wants energy. Power stations are a reality and they have to be somewhere, I hear people moaning about how windfarms wreck "their environment" and I wonder whether they'd prefer a good old fashioned coal station in their back yard. Nobody likes anything that generates electricity if it's near them because by definition it's big and ugly. If you ask me we should go and invade some middle eastern country with vast oil reserves thus securing our supply for generations to come... oh wait a second...

[Richard Bailey]

The glass is always half empty with you lot, isn't it.

[TomTom]

Chris, you are speaking of Gas and Electricity as having Inelasticity of Demand - but at what level of Consumption. Does that mean if I burn all my lkights and appliances 24 hours a day I have still got ZERO Elasticity of Demand ?

Further, the principle of Taxation is to tax items which are Inelastic in Demand or you get no revenue. Taxation is to raise Revenue so you tax what people consume and hope they don't stop consuming it.

Now the question is why the last Conservative Government went into the 1997 Election with a "green policy" of putting 176.5% VAT on electricity and gas..................Labour were pledged to retain zero rating but because the Tories had advanced the legislation could not zero-rate it under EU rules so settled for the EU minimum rate of 5%

[TomTom]

whether they'd prefer a good old fashioned coal station in their back yard

The village of Ferry Fryston is now the site of Ferrybridge Power Station on the junction of the M62/M1

[TomTom]

176.5% VAT

no they did in fact propose 17.5% after discussing the matter amng themselves

[TomTom]

In 1997 the Election was held with the Conservatives having imposed 8% VAT on Gas and Electricity with the rate to increase to 17.5% after the Election.

Labour won and reduced the VAT rate to 5% the minimum allowed by the EU.

Have the Conservatives since put such a "green" policy of 17.5% VAT on gas and electricity in their Manifesto ? Will they ?

[Editor]

Four successive comments is excessive, TomTom. Can you group your thoughts together please? - otherwise threads become cluttered.

[Chris]

TomTom, Britain has a big enough burden of taxation, and green taxes on energy are already being applied directly to the suppliers, who then pass it on to the consumers. We should be helping the environment by making people want to help save the planet, not by raising the tax burden.

As for energy being inelastic, it is to a certain point. I know very few people who would use their computer less, or watch less TV to save on power bills, they'd simply curse the electricity company, curse the government and then go and vote Labour.

Avenues to explore should include removing VAT on energy saving items, such as the long life lightbulbs, and appliances which use less electricity. You're always much more likely to get sympathy for a cause if you ask for it, rather than raid someones wallet.

[TomTom]

removing VAT on energy saving items, such as the long life lightbulbs

Chris I am merely highlighting Conservative policy issues. You cannot btw remove VAT from anything under EU rules you can only lower the rate to the EU minimum.

That should have been clear to you from the example I gave above.

[Renny]

Tokenism maybe - but we have to start somewhere in building our carbon free Jeruselem. Good work DC.

[TomTom]

carbon free Jeruselem

Are you nuts ? "Carbon-free" means no human-life whatsoever ! Carbon occurs in all organic life !

You want a world where no living matter exists ?!!!!!!!!!!

Renny you are worse than Pol-Pot........this is the most absurd policy I have ever heard. How do you proose to annihilate the human race and all living vegetation ?

[Editor]

TomTom: I've warned you before about personal abuse. I won't warn you again.

[TomTom]

TomTom: I've warned you before about personal abuse. I won't warn you again.

No need to bother - anyone who has no idea that we are a carbon-based life-form is not with arguing with. If we cannot even agree the chemical composition of human beings there is little to debate.

[Henry Mayhew]

I am more interested in understanding the improvements made to nuclear power stations and systems in the last 30 years than I am in debating the actions of a politician. Is it right that new technology substantially reduces the volume and toxicity of waste? If so, that is surely a significant fact.

[Chris]

Chris I am merely highlighting Conservative policy issues. You cannot btw remove VAT from anything under EU rules you can only lower the rate to the EU minimum.

I am knowledgable that VAT can go to a minimumm of 5%, however that doesn't stop the government introduycing subsidies that would effectively eradicate the 5% VAT paid. High impractical but still technically possible.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"But both the funding of the subsidy and the appearance of the turbine are costs in more or less direct ways."

"The visual impact is to many eyes an unwelcome blot on the horizon."

Perhaps they could build one of those cheap, beautiful nuclear power stations instead, with a pretty little toxic waste incinerator alongside?

That would look lovely in a landscaped garden, complete with water feature, rockery and hole in ground filled with depleted uranium.

All for a very reasonable price I'm sure.