Solar Power, Yes Please.

Over two years ago, on 15th October 2009 to be precise, i wrote a blog post all about climate change (Blog Action day 2009: Climate Change).
In that post i mentioned my feelings about solar power and the fact that here in the UK it seems to be the forgotten option when it comes to renewable power.

This topic has, once again, raised its head again over recent days.
Yesterday the High Court, here in the UK, ruled as unlawful a decision by the UK Government to change and reduce the subsidies on solar power. These are subsidies that are paid to the small consumer, typically a householder, to encourage solar power generation.

Meanwhile, two Parliamentary committees have also criticised the UK Government over the same issue.

Many commentators think that the Governments decision could sound the death knell for the production of solar panels in the UK, with the loss of many much needed jobs.
Apparently the reason behind the decision is that the installation of solar panels has proved far more popular than anyone predicted. Thereby, costing the Government more money in subsidies.

Whilst i do understand the Governments predicament, especially, in these testing economic times. Surely, we should be encouraging the use of solar power generation, not trying to put people off?
The fact that solar panels on private dwellings have been so popular shows that the general public want to install them. So, why not help them continue to fit them?

I have argued, to anyone who will listen, that we should be concentrating far more on solar power than on wind power to produce the nations renewable energy in the future.
The Government have pumped billions of pounds into wind turbines. Wind turbines that only work when there is a wind and, as we have seen recently, don't actually work that well when there is "too much wind".
Then there is the issue that, in many peoples opinion, wind turbines are a blot on the landscape. I actually quite like them myself, but do totally understand the objections. Solar panels, on the other hand, disturb nobody, make no noise and don't present a hazard to birds either.

I accept that the sun doesn't always shine here in the UK. But, ordinary daylight can still be used to generate solar energy, albeit not as much as on a sunny summers day.

So, for me, there is no issue here. Solar power should be encouraged.
The energy companies and the Government should be looking at ways of generating electricity through solar power and private householders should be encouraged to fit solar panels to their houses. This would then provide cheap natural power to the nation and help protect UK jobs as well.

But, putting on my cynical hat, i can see other reasons why wind power is usually put above solar power.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no plan by the big energy companies to use solar energy as a source of power generation. They all seem to be stuck with this fascination with huge wind turbine farms, both on land and at sea.
I do realise that for them to do this they would have to go down the route that other countries have taken and have solar panel "farms". I have seen this kind of thing in Spain. It takes land to do this and maybe that is the argument against it?

But, maybe another other reason is that wind turbines can't really be fitted to houses very easily?
Planning permission can be a real problem in this area. It can be with solar panels too, but they are nowhere near as visible, or ugly. Wind turbines, after all, are like an extension to a house, or building. Therefore requiring planning permission. Whereas, solar panels are fitted onto the house.

So, if you can't easily fit wind turbines to your house, but solar panels are easy to fit. Why would the energy companies want to encourage you to fit solar panels to your own house, helping you to generate your own electricity and therefore, reducing your need for the energy company in the first place?

If we were all able to afford and fit solar panels to our houses and buildings, we wouldn't need the energy companies at all would we? Or, at least, only for emergency power as a kind of back up.

Of course, the energy companies were created when the UK Government sold off and privatised the energy systems back in the 1980's. Which leads me to wonder, if we still had a Government owned energy system, would we still have this problem with renewable energy systems now?

I'd like to think that if we still had the old system we'd all be encouraged to fit solar panels and save ourselves some money. This way would also encourage householders to conserve energy. Because, if you're generating electricity yourself, you're bound to take more interest in how you use that energy.

This would, in turn, reduce the CO2 emissions of the UK, helping us meet our Kyoto and other targets.
It would also reduce our reliance on energy imported from abroad. Whether that be coal, gas from Russia and even electricity from France. We could not then be held to ransom by other countires and subject to their own price increases.
Surely, that can only be a good thing?

I suspect though, that this will not happen due to the power that the energy companies seem to have over the Government in the UK. They seem to be able to do whatever they want, with very little, or ineffectual Government interference.
All the time the status quo is maintained, the public will keep seeing their own energy bills rise far above the rate of inflation. As they have been doing over recent years.
The price of energy is now a major chunk of household expenditure. Something that never really used to be the case.

In my opinion, it doesn't need to be this way. Solar power needs and deserves to be encouraged and the ordinary householder needs to be given the means, at a sensible cost, to generate their own electricity.
But, what we need is a strong UK Government and some forward thinking to help provide the conditions for this to happen.

Power needs to be returned to the people.

AudioBoo - Media Savvy.

Politicians can't pull the wool over our eyes any longer. We're onto them.

Vote For Me, I Don't Know What I'm Talking About.

Listening, as i normally do, to the Today program on Radio 4 this morning, i caught an item on Herman Cain, the prospective U.S Presidential candidate.

The item was about how Mr Cain had had difficulty talking about President Obama's recent policy on Libya, when asked by interviewers.
You can read about it and see a video here.
If you can't be bothered to wade through that, the main talking point was that Mr Cain had pretty obviously no idea what he was talking about.
He fumbled and fudged his way through the questions. He couldn't talk about any specifics concerning the questions he was asked. He even had to question the interviewers to make sure in his mind that they were talking about the same topic.

Here's a quote from when Mr Cain was asked if he supported President Obama's actions on Libya.
Cain: "President Obama supported the uprising? Correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before i say 'yes i agree', or 'no i don't agree'.
He then went on to say: "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons - no, that's a different one"

It is obvious that this man, who don't forget wants to become the President and Commander In Chief of the most powerful country in the world, doesn't have a clue about a very important topic of recent U.S foreign policy.
I, for one, find this to be rather scary and also extremely worrying.
If you don't know about the important topics of recent foreign policy, what hope is there that you know anything about any of the smaller, but equally important, issues that affect your country and possibly the rest of the world?

This interview comes hot on the heals of another prospective U.S Presidential candidate, Rick Perry, not being able to name the three main agencies of the U.S Government in a televised debate.
See the video here.

All this is very funny to look at, especially from over here in the UK. But, as i said earlier, this is frightening stuff. In little over a years time, one of these men could be President of the USA!

It is, of course, quite possible that Cain and Perry may well have had their campaigns seriously damamged by these huge gaffes and quite rightly so. It's also quite probable that they will give up, if not now, then fairly soon.

But, this does beg the question, why did they think that they were qualified enough to run for President in the first place and also, why did people feel that they were good enough to do so and then support and give substantial amounts of money to them?

I realise that these two men might not be representative of all the candidates and i sure hope that there are better men still left in the race. But, it does make you wonder about the quality of political candidates and not just in the USA either. We see examples like this across the world.
Maybe, in the end, we get the candidates and politicians that we deserve?

The whole political system seems to be weighted heavily in favour of the well healed, well connected and well educated. It's almost a throwback to times past where only the Lords of the manor etc were allowed into Parliament/Government and the ordinary folk were kept out.

So, we end up getting political candidates who may have money and connections, but who have no real knowledge. Candidates like Herman Cain, who rely on advisors to tell them what to think and say. So much so, that when they're asked a question that they haven't been briefed on, they can't answer it.

Personally, i'd rather have a politician who knows their own mind, says what they really think and actually knows what they are talking about. Even if i don't happen to agree with what they say.

I'd vote for that.

Explain Yourself.

Should governments & companies explain themselves more? And if they did, would we be happy to be bombarded with all that information?

Some personal experiences & insights learned during my own working life.

Census Or NonCensus?

Has the Census run it's course & do we really need it in these days of Social Networking?

A beach vlog.

AudioBoo - Revolution?

I'm sure we'd find an excuse not to.

All In This Together?

I happened to Tweet the following this morning, after reading todays newspaper.
"Thinking of contacting HMG and asking if i can pay less tax like Barclays. Well, i had a bad 2010 as well you know. No, thought not"

For those not in the know, this refers to the story that Barclays paid very little tax (2.4%) on their total profits of £4.6bn, in 2009. This is inspite of them apparently paying out £3.4bn in bonuses that same year.
Part of Barclays justification for paying so little tax was that they had a bad year in 2008. Didn't we all?
This information only came to light because of a Labour Party MP asking for it.

Well, that Tweet certainly provoked a response and all the comments were of a very similar nature. One of digust, both for Barclays and for any Government that allows this type of thing to happen. But, the comments were about the state of the nation and of politics today.
For me, this shows something that i have been detecting a lot recently. A real groundswell of public opinion about the current government and about politics and politicians in general.

Obviously, most of the bad feeling is directed towards the current coalition government in the UK. That's no great surprise seeing as they are in power at the moment.
The coalition government are currently in the process of wheeling out a whole raft of spending cuts and inflicting them onto the UK population.

Now, spending cuts are never going to be popular, but the reaction to these is starting to threaten to get particularly nasty. The general feeling is that these cuts are going to affect the lower paid and most vulnerable in society the most.

And those spending cuts are set against a background of British banks paying multi million pound bonuses to their employees. Banks that would not be in existence if it wasn't for the monetary bailouts and guarantees given to them by the then UK government, back in 2008/9.
Bailouts paid for by the British taxpayer. Yes, that means you and me.

Yes, i know that Barclays bank, unlike  Lloyds and RBS etc, were not given any money directly in the form of bailouts. But, like all the banks, they were effectively given a guarantee by the UK government that they would not be allowed to fail. Meaning that they and the other banks, could then do what they liked and indulge in some more monetary gambling. Just like the old days.
Effectively gambling with our money. A situation that got us into this whole sorry mess in the first place.

The bank bailouts, bonuses and tax revenue debates is set against a situation where we are constantly being told by politicians that "We are all in this together".
Well, if that's the case, i'd like my tax to be reduced for 2010, a la Barclays, because i had a particularly shit year too.
Like many other people in 2010, i lost my job and now have to live within my means. Something a bank has been told it doesn't have to do.
I get no bailout. In fact when i went to the Job Centre to claim Job Seekers Allowance, i was told i wasn't eligible. Despite paying National Insurance for very nearly 36 years!
So please don't tell me and many more like me that we're all in this together. Because it is plainly not true.
And if anyone is due a nice bonus, then surely it is the British people for giving the banks the money to keep them afloat in the first place? Without our money, they would never have made those fat profits.

But, enough bank bashing. After all, we all expect the banks to behave in this way and we should not be surprised that they do so. Especially when our elected representatives are seemingly unwilling to rein them in, or control them in any way. Despite claims to the contrary.

We do though expect a little bit more, or at least we should do, from our elected political representatives themselves.

But, as we learned during the MPs expenses scandal, many MPs just don't seem to be living on the same planet as the rest of us. They are certainly living in a different economic environment to the vast majority of the population. The population that they represent.

This situtation is not helped by the fact that the leaders of all three main political parties are Oxbridge, or publically educated men. Men with very little to worry about when it comes to money.
In my humble opinion, millionaires are not the best people to be telling me that we are all in this together. Certainly not in times of austerity, like now.

So, the general consensus amongst the UK population is that our politicians are totally out of touch with reality. They live in a world, like The Queen, where they think that everything smells of fresh paint and where everything works. That is not always their fault, of course. They live in a world full of sycophants and "yes' people who are afraid to tell them of the reality of the situation.

How often have you seen, or heard about, that situation in the workplace? Where the head of a company has no idea what goes on on the shopfloor, because the underlings are too scared to tell them.
That's no way to run a country, or a business for that matter.

We have seen many examples of current politicians being out of touch and one happened just this week.

I'm sure we all know about the governments, now abandoned, proposals to sell off much of our public woodlands and forests.
Now, this is a classic case of a government being totally out of touch with the electorate. A government that, by the way, said they were going to be the greenest in history.

For a start, they seemed to fail to realise that these forests and woodlands were not really theirs to sell in the first place. They belong to the people.
But, they also didn't anticipate the huge adverse reaction that these proposals would generate. A reaction which, in the end, forced the government to apologise for their actions and to have to admit that they had "got it wrong".

So, what we had from government this week was yet another U-Turn. Although they'd never call it that, of course.

Now, it's one thing to admit that you are going to change your mind due to popular opinion. But, it is quite another to promise one thing in your election manifesto and then to do something completely different when you are elected. But, that is precisely what this government has done.

If you can't relate to those whom you represent, have little understanding of what they actually want and have to lie to get yourself elected, it doesn't exactly fill you with a lot of confidence in them does it?

Is it any wonder then that so many people these days have little, or no, respect for politicians and don't bother to vote?

I mentioned earlier about the various comments that i had on that original Tweet.
Well, here is another,  "Time to do an Egypt?"

Now, i'm sure that was meant, at least, partly in jest. But, it does get you thinking doesn't it?

Amongst those thoughts is probably something along the lines of, what did the people of Tunisia and Egypt say about their previous rulers? What was it that started them onto the road to rebellion and revolution?

Well, it could probably best be summed up by saying, amongst other things, "They (the rulers) don't relate to those whom they represent. They have little understanding of what the people actually want and they have lied to get themselves elected".

Sound familiar?

(I have a funny feeling i may well be returning to this topic, as i've not mentioned everything i intended to)

The Revolution Has Been Televised.

Just spouting off on the big topic of the day.
I don't often talk about Politics, but i just couldn't resist this one.

Sometimes, it's good to talk.

No Snow Please. We're British.

A bit of a rant about the snow & the way that we, don't, cope with it.

The Cabinet Minister, His Aide And The Media.

I came home from holiday on Tuesday and stumbled into the back end of a "news" story about the British Foreign Secretary and one of his aides.
I can't pretend to know the full details of this story, which apparently started on the Internet and then found it's way into the national newspapers. But, it seems to centre around the fact that the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, had shared a twin bedded room with his male aide, during the general election campaign earlier this year.
The aide, who is considerably younger than William Hague, has since resigned from his position.

Now, for anyone not familiar with this news item, you might be forgiven for thinking "where's the story here and why has the aide resigned?"

Well, the "story", such as it is, is that William Hague has been married for a number of years now and still doesn't have any children. And we all know what that must mean don't we, boys and girls?

The insinuation is that if you've been married for many, childless, years and you share a bedroom with a young male colleague, well then you must be.... gay. Shock, horror!

These insinuations and rumours circulated so much that William Hague felt that he needed to issue a statement denying that he was gay, or had ever had a relationship with a man.
Worse than that, in my eyes anyway, he felt compelled to tell the world exactly why he and his wife had not yet had any children.
His wife has apparently suffered a number of miscarraiges during their marraige. The latest one being earlier this year, i believe.

I'm sure that i'm not alone in feeling a great deal of sympathy for Mr Hague and his wife, for feeling that he had to divulge this, very personal, information. I'm also a little dumbstruck as to why he felt that he needed to say as much as he did.
After all, do we really need to know such personal details?

I guess this raises a number of issues?

The first, for me, is the way that the press will often put two and two together and make several hundred. And all in the "interests" of column inches and increased sales.

A supposed sex scandal, involving a cabinet minister, will always attract attention and lead to a rise in the sales of your newspaper. The poor victim of the story then has to defend themselves, even if there is no real evidence of any wrong doing in the first place.
If they do not say anything, they are then presumed as "gulity" and if they do say something, that can just help the story to rumble on and on.
It seems a little ironic to me that since Mr Hague's very personal statement, the story seems to have died a death and has been quietly forgotten by the very media that created it in the first place.
It's a pity that Mr Hague doesn't feel that he can persue these false accusations in the courts. But, being a current cabinet minister probably stops him from feeling that he can do that.

Secondly. I find it rather unsettling that there is still a real preoccupation with whether certain people are gay, or not. I thought we'd moved on from those bad old days where people felt that they needed to, or had to, hide their sexuality?
The media's, especially the press', willingness to endlessly persue any supposed story with a gay angle, is something that i find hard to take. Being gay is not a crime anymore and the press and media need to wake up and fully realise that fact.
I'm sure that if these accusations had concerned a female employee, the handling of the story would have been completely different. The general tone would have been along the lines of "well done mate, get in there".

I happened to mention in a Tweet this morning, that maybe William Hague was actually trying to save the country and us taxpayers some money, by sharing a room with a colleague? And when you consider the amount of column inches devoted to the MP's expenses scandal, earlier this year, you can see why he may have felt that way. MP's have probably become rather paranoid about spending any public money on themselves.
Even if this is not the explanation for his actions that night, maybe it should become government policy, wherever possible? After all, i'm sure not everyone really needs a single room?

During the ensuing Twitter conversation that i had about this subject. I happened to mention that i had shared a room with many men over the years and have even shared a room with a gay man before. Now, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever accused me of being gay. So, why should this happen to an MP?

If the press and the media generally are going to make these insinuations about a persons sexuality anytime something like this happens. Is it any wonder that ordinary citizens may not wish to become MP's in the first place?

Just think of the many talented, potential MP's we could be losing because of this antiquated attitude of the media. We need the right people to run this country for us and we need to make sure that those people are able to do their job without, improper, interference.

Many spy scandals in the past have been caused, at least partially, because of a persons sexuality and the problems that may be caused if that persons sexuality was revealed.
As i said before, being gay is not now against the law. But, you wouldn't know that sometimes.

Surely the safety, security, economy and future of this country is more important than a persons sexuality?
If it isn't, then maybe i should just close the door on my way out?

Electioneering.

Sorry, i mentioned the "P" word!!

A vlog about politics & the upcoming UK General Election.
Some thoughts after a discussion with my son.

Don't worry, i realise this video will not be for everybody.

David vs Goliath

I woke this morning to the news that Britain had a new heavyweight boxing champion of the world.
Now, i'm not normally a big boxing fan. But, this is a little bit different & it got me thinking.

The new champion, David Haye was around 7 stone lighter than his opponent Nikolay Valuev. (That's approx 98 pounds for you Americans out there) Haye is also considerably shorter.
So, it appeared that he was at a considerable disadvantage. But, as is so often the case with these so called mis-matches, the outcome wasn't quite what some thought it would be.

So, how did David Haye overcome his far bigger opponent. Well, to use a boxing term, he boxed clever & won easily on a points decision. Apparently, he was also pretty close to knocking out his giant opponent.

What has this got to do with anything i hear you ask?

Well, yesterday i posted a blog all about the possible future of the Internet & how the big entertainment companies wanted to radically change the way the Internet was used.
At the end of that blog i asked for people to get involved & help spread the word. But, i'm sure a lot of people might think it's a battle that isn't worth fighting. After all, what hope have we all got against the might & power of the huge entertainment companies?

I'm sure we all know the Bible story of David slaying the giant Goliath & now we have seen another great example it. One that we also know to be true, i might add.

So, don't be downhearted when it comes to trying to fight huge corporations, governments & any other David vs Goliath situations you care to think of. The little man can & does win sometimes.
I'm sure we can all think of battles, whether personal, or between countries, governments etc in which the little guy has won, or at least given their opponent a bloody nose.

Sure, you have to fight & you might even get a few bruises along the way. But, you can still win, just as David Haye showed last night.
You don't even have to knock your opponent out. Winning on points is good enough.

So, get out there & fight for what you know is right.

Blog Action Day 2009: Climate Change

Written as part of the online blogging action day.
Visit www.blogactionday.org for more details.

One of the aspects of climate change that affects us all, even those who don't believe that climate change is real, is the issue of power & the future generating of power.
We all use power, in one form or another & we are using more all the time. Even though we are switching to low energy light bulbs, or turning down that heating thermostat a nottch, or two. The consumption of power, across the world, is growing. This situation will only get worse as the countries of the so called Third World become more prosperous. Just look at China, which is currently still opening a new coal fired power station every week!

Whilst this may make you feel that whatever we do in the West is futile, it isn't. If you make the effort to fit those low enerfy light bulbs, or turn down the heating, you will actually save yourself some money. What better incentive is there than that?

Having said that, we do need to find new ways of producing our power & for a number of reasons.
- Our commitments to reduce CO2 emmisions in future years.
- The fact that, for a lot of us, our reserves of oil & gas are running out.
- To prevent us being held to ransom by other countries, whose resources we want.
- Our current power stations are nearing the end of their natural lives.
And i'm sure you can think of your own.

So, where will all this power come from? There are obviously a number of options.

- We can expand & replace our nuclear power stations.
This, as we know, has never been a very popular way of generating power. I lived through both the Three Mile Island & Chernobyl incidents & was always very wary of nuclear power. Now, i'm not so sure. The technology has come a long way & those incidents might have actually done us some good & taught us some very valuable lessons.
Although i'm still a little sceptical, i'm coming round to the nuclear power option.

- We can build new coal burning power stations.
We keep being promised a new method of burning coal & one that is more environmentally friendly. I admit, i'm very sceptical about this option.

- Then there are the renewable energy sources. Which are surely the best way to go, if possible.
So far, in the UK at least, nearly all our resources for renewable energy have been poured into wind turbines. Whilst this is a good option, there are problems with wind power, in my opinion.
Although i like the look of the turbines, so many others find them unsightly. especially if they are living next to them? By their very nature they have to be built in prominent places, to catch the wind, which only increases this problem.
They also need the wind to blow...

Other renewable options are often talked about, like wave power etc. But, the one option which is so often overlooked is solar power. Why is this?
I am constantly amazed that solar power is hardly given the time of day when it comes to discussing our future options. Is their some kind of bias against it? And if so, why?
After all, unlike wind power, we don't need the sun to shine to generate power. Daylight will do.
I know that solar power is used more widely in other countries. but, even there, i don't think it's used as much as it could be. I'm happy to be corrected by the way.
What i'd like to see, as a start, is for the UK Government to ensure that all new houses are built with at least an element of solar power generation within them. This would drive down the cost of the technology & maybe even start up a thriving new business in the process & we could certainly do with that at the moment!
Then we can start on older properties. They could also give tax breaks to businesses to introduce solar power into their company buildings.

Yes, i know that some parts of the country/world have less daylight hours than others. But, here is where a mixture of technolgies can be used.

This is not a problem that is going to go away either. But, it is something that the UK Government has shied away from in recent years. Something needs to be done & it needs to be done now.

So, to paraphrase an old anti-nuclear slogan.
Solar power, yes please.