The "green levy" on motorists announced in Alistair Darling's first Budget will double car tax revenue to £4 billion but reduce vehicle emissions by less than one per cent, Treasury figures have showed.
The Chancellor announced a significant increase in car tax in March.
This will result in the owners of family cars, estates and people carriers paying hundreds of pounds a year more to use the roads.
Mr Darling claimed that the duty increase was designed to encourage motorists to switch to greener cars and to reduce the environmental impact of driving.
However, the Telegraph has seen Treasury projections which disclose that while the amount raised from car tax will more than double - from £1.9 billion to £4.4 billion by 2010 - carbon dioxide emissions from motoring are expected to drop by less than one per cent.
full article
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Monday, 21 April 2008
Our fear of hydrogen fuel stations
Sir, The opening of Britain’s first hydrogen fuel station marks an important step in the possible transition to a new energy carrier in the UK.
Edmund King, president of the AA, cautioned (report, April 16) that “images of the burning Hindenburg airship could undermine confidence in carrying hydrogen tanks”. This comment relates to the airship accident some 70 years ago which claimed the lives of 36 people.
Presumably King would hesitate at making a comparable, disturbing statement about our ubiquitous use of dangerous carbon-based fuels — paraffin, petrol and diesel, the first of which was responsible for the highest single-accident loss of life, some 583 people in the ground collision of two airliners, just over 30 years ago, in Tenerife.
It is now recognised that the Hindenburg disaster was probably caused by ignition (initiated by static electricity) of highly flammable skins covering the airship, not a leak in the hydrogen tanks (the cloth canopy was coated with what nowadays would be called rocket fuel, and the metal framework construction was based on iron oxide and aluminium — a potent combination )
The “hydrogen fear factor” raised by such evocative comments therefore needs to be taken in context. Of course, hydrogen, like any other fuel, can burn or explode if improperly managed or controlled; it can be safer than conventional fuels in some situations and more hazardous in others.
full article
Edmund King, president of the AA, cautioned (report, April 16) that “images of the burning Hindenburg airship could undermine confidence in carrying hydrogen tanks”. This comment relates to the airship accident some 70 years ago which claimed the lives of 36 people.
Presumably King would hesitate at making a comparable, disturbing statement about our ubiquitous use of dangerous carbon-based fuels — paraffin, petrol and diesel, the first of which was responsible for the highest single-accident loss of life, some 583 people in the ground collision of two airliners, just over 30 years ago, in Tenerife.
It is now recognised that the Hindenburg disaster was probably caused by ignition (initiated by static electricity) of highly flammable skins covering the airship, not a leak in the hydrogen tanks (the cloth canopy was coated with what nowadays would be called rocket fuel, and the metal framework construction was based on iron oxide and aluminium — a potent combination )
The “hydrogen fear factor” raised by such evocative comments therefore needs to be taken in context. Of course, hydrogen, like any other fuel, can burn or explode if improperly managed or controlled; it can be safer than conventional fuels in some situations and more hazardous in others.
full article
Saturday, 19 April 2008
Solar so good for our house
It was with some trepidation that I went into the cellar this week to take some meter readings in order to find out how the solar panels we had fitted on our house exactly a year ago have been performing. Was the hefty sum of £8,500 we forked out last year a good investment or a waste of money?
Well, the news is better than I had expected. We, a family of four, have produced 92% of our electricity usage from the roof of a century-old terraced house in south-east London - laying to rest the idea that Britain is not sunny enough for solar power. It also disproves any suggestion this sort of technology only works in state-of-the-art, modern detached houses.
Not only will we not pay for any electricity, we should get a rebate of about £50 once a payment from the so-called renewables obligation (RO) scheme, which rewards microgeneration schemes with cash, is included.
n all, the saving for the past year will be around £500, giving a return on our investment of 6%, which is not subject to tax. Next year, when the payments from the RO scheme will double for photovoltaic (PV) solar installations, we will get about £150 back, giving a total return of 7%. That will rise further if energy prices continue to climb - which is likely after oil prices hit yet another high this week.
There is an important caveat here. I received a 50% grant for the system from the government's low-carbon buildings programme - the total cost of buying and installing the panels was £17,000. Unfortunately, the government is so pathetic at supporting low-carbon technologies that it last year cut the maximum grant to £2,500 because the scheme was so popular. As a result, demand has collapsed to the extent that the small company that fitted my system has gone out of business.
That means your return on a system purchased now will be lower - little more than 3% for one like mine this year, rising to close on 4% when the RO payments increase next year. Still, 4% that is not taxable is comparable to a building society account that you do pay tax on.
full article
Well, the news is better than I had expected. We, a family of four, have produced 92% of our electricity usage from the roof of a century-old terraced house in south-east London - laying to rest the idea that Britain is not sunny enough for solar power. It also disproves any suggestion this sort of technology only works in state-of-the-art, modern detached houses.
Not only will we not pay for any electricity, we should get a rebate of about £50 once a payment from the so-called renewables obligation (RO) scheme, which rewards microgeneration schemes with cash, is included.
n all, the saving for the past year will be around £500, giving a return on our investment of 6%, which is not subject to tax. Next year, when the payments from the RO scheme will double for photovoltaic (PV) solar installations, we will get about £150 back, giving a total return of 7%. That will rise further if energy prices continue to climb - which is likely after oil prices hit yet another high this week.
There is an important caveat here. I received a 50% grant for the system from the government's low-carbon buildings programme - the total cost of buying and installing the panels was £17,000. Unfortunately, the government is so pathetic at supporting low-carbon technologies that it last year cut the maximum grant to £2,500 because the scheme was so popular. As a result, demand has collapsed to the extent that the small company that fitted my system has gone out of business.
That means your return on a system purchased now will be lower - little more than 3% for one like mine this year, rising to close on 4% when the RO payments increase next year. Still, 4% that is not taxable is comparable to a building society account that you do pay tax on.
full article
EU set to scrap biofuels target amid fears of food crisis
The European commission is backing away from its insistence on imposing a compulsory 10% quota of biofuels in all petrol and diesel by 2020, a central plank of its programme to lead the world in combating climate change.
Amid a worsening global food crisis exacerbated, say experts and critics, by the race to divert food or feed crops into biomass for the manufacture of vehicle fuel, and inundated by a flood of expert advice criticising the shift to renewable fuel, the commission appears to be getting cold feet about its biofuels target.
Under the proposals, to be turned into law within a year, biofuels are to supply a tenth of all road vehicle fuel by 2020 as part of the drive to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the same deadline.
The 10% target is "binding" under the proposed legislation. But pressed by its scientific advisers, UN authorities, leaders in Europe, non-government organisations and environmental lobbies, the commission is engaged in a rethink.
"The target is now secondary," said a commission official, adding that high standards of "sustainability" being drafted for biofuels sourcing and manufacture would make it impossible for the target to be met.
Britain has set its own biofuels targets, which saw 2.5% mixed into all petrol and diesel fuel sold on forecourts in the UK this week. The government wants to increase that to 5% within two years, but has admitted that the environmental concerns could force them to rethink. Ruth Kelly, transport secretary, has ordered a review, which is due to report next month.
full article
Amid a worsening global food crisis exacerbated, say experts and critics, by the race to divert food or feed crops into biomass for the manufacture of vehicle fuel, and inundated by a flood of expert advice criticising the shift to renewable fuel, the commission appears to be getting cold feet about its biofuels target.
Under the proposals, to be turned into law within a year, biofuels are to supply a tenth of all road vehicle fuel by 2020 as part of the drive to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the same deadline.
The 10% target is "binding" under the proposed legislation. But pressed by its scientific advisers, UN authorities, leaders in Europe, non-government organisations and environmental lobbies, the commission is engaged in a rethink.
"The target is now secondary," said a commission official, adding that high standards of "sustainability" being drafted for biofuels sourcing and manufacture would make it impossible for the target to be met.
Britain has set its own biofuels targets, which saw 2.5% mixed into all petrol and diesel fuel sold on forecourts in the UK this week. The government wants to increase that to 5% within two years, but has admitted that the environmental concerns could force them to rethink. Ruth Kelly, transport secretary, has ordered a review, which is due to report next month.
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
