Your article (H&V News 10 Apr, p4) reported that the government claims its policies [for reducing CO2 emissions] “are saving end-users money”. This is patently incorrect.
The over-generous Feed-in Tariffs paid to subsidise wind farms and solar photovoltaic installations have increased everyone’s energy costs.
Working coal-fired power stations are being prematurely shut down and/or converted to burn biomass, which has a low cv/tonne and significant quantities are being imported from the west coast of the US.
Many ‘renewable’ sources don’t actually save the CO2 they promised, because dependable conventional generating capacity must be maintained on standby for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
Ironically, those have to be the less-efficient open cycle gas turbine generators (compared with combined cycle ones) because of their response speed.
As I write this email, wind is providing just 0.81 per cent of the country’s needs.
I accept that more efficient appliances lead to reduced energy use, but if the commodity costs and capital expenditure needed to achieve those savings is great, end-users are not saving money.
This issue is exacerbated by the fact that the stated objective of the policy is to mitigate something which is demonstrably not happening - ie catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming.
Ron Hughes, Harlow, Essex