There are 2 things going on here. One is a sensible and useful discussiion about solar and wind generation. The other is pointless and poisonous attack on a Government Minister by someone who thinks it is clever to mangle his name and try to associate him with a dictator. A new theme is appearing - 'knocking' the Civil Service.
Can we keep the things separate and continue the sensible bit? The other bit is totally unproductive.
I have 3 thoughts on the main theme:
First, for sustainability and energy security we have to use less energy or make more, so improvements at either end of the process are valuable.
Second, a real example. I've just come back from holiday in a very wet, windy and cold part of the UK. We rented a bungalow for a week, and it was a recent build. ASHP, underfloor heatimg, solar, very detailed programming of temperatures and times in each room. Very confortable and looks to me to be very efficient. It shows what you can achieve. If you look at the profits made by the big housebuilders their margins are huge, dwarfing the marginal cost of proper insulation and heating systems*. The price of a house isn't set by the cost of building it, it is set by the money that buyers and potential buyers can get hold of. There is a shortage, highest bidder rules. The day we have one more house for sale than buysres wanting it then we have real competition, until then the industry bleeds as much money as it can from buyers. I read somewhere that the cost of fitting ashp and good insulation at the outset is less than half that of retrofitting, so let's make housebuilders do things properly. The current regulations are lax, well behind the best that can be achieved. The £5k it might add to the build cost of a new house is irrelevant. OK, getting new homes right only helps with a few tens of thousands of homes at the outset and we still have millions of inefficient homes that will need retrofitting, but over 10, 20, 30 years the percentage of housing stock that is built to be efficientbecomes significant. You have to start somewhere.
(*Berkley Group as an example, 2023 profit of £600m before tax, delivered 4000 new homes. Baratt bigger but less profitable per property and at a diferent price point, 800 m before tax 17,000 homes. They claim a 20% gross margin. So with pre tax profit ranging from £50k to £150k per home, there is scope for some decent regulation)
Third, I read today that Thames Water is winding up its solar power subsidiary (being as Thames is in a financial mess). I can see the business reason, but the idea behind the subsidiary seemed brilliant: float solar panels on large reservoirs. A few innovations like that and we can make progress.
Whether it's solar, wind, or housbuilding regulation there won't be consensus from everyone, but "something must be done". That needs decisive leadership from people doing what they belive is in the best interests of the country even if some disagree. That's what leaders are for.
We are rural and you can't hear any traffic. Guess there's 'rural' and 'rural' !!
