Energy scheme scanadal

qwert_yuiop

So it seems the other governing party and their new leader were deeply involved with loot for soot as well. The scheme is likely to be curtailed by cessation of subsidy for the obviously pointless burners, and limits on fuel combustion, as well as reduction in times of use for others. Far be it from me to say something incendiary, but finding someone to fit timers should be straightforward.

waltsalt

The BBC kept pretty quiet on the other half's involvement. Bit of shoddy journalism there.

qwert_yuiop

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678

Well, it seems my original suspicions about the fundamental flaws in the wood pellet scheme were correct. I'm off to congratulate myself with a large cup of tea made on our wood stove, heated by our home grown firewood. Feeling green.

By the way, I'm sure you know the difference between the rich and the poor here? (Apart from different levels of wealth) The rich burn pellets, the poor burn pallets.

Sugarmummy

Funny it was actually the Green Party in the UK that pushed for it......so someone hasn't done their homework if that's the case. You do realise this scheme is in England and Wales as well?? And wasn't till late 15 that they noticed discrepancies in the system..?? oh and over here pushed by both dup and Sinn Fein (Michelle O'Neill being agriculture minister at the time??) so I think we should all get our heads out of the sand dup are not the only ones to blame!! Waken up and realise it was stormont full stop! And guess what we voted them all back in again...

qwert_yuiop

Sugarmummy wrote: »

Funny it was actually the Green Party in the UK that pushed for it......so someone hasn't done their homework if that's the case. You do realise this scheme is in England and Wales as well?? And wasn't till late 15 that they noticed discrepancies in the system..?? oh and over here pushed by both dup and Sinn Fein (Michelle O'Neill being agriculture minister at the time??) so I think we should all get our heads out of the sand dup are not the only ones to blame!! Waken up and realise it was stormont full stop! And guess what we voted them all back in again...

Indeed. Arlene didn't handle it too well, though.

The obvious point here is that it takes 30 years to replace a felled Sitka spruce's carbon in a new tree.

tara747

Sugarmummy wrote: »

Funny it was actually the Green Party in the UK that pushed for it......so someone hasn't done their homework if that's the case. You do realise this scheme is in England and Wales as well?? And wasn't till late 15 that they noticed discrepancies in the system..?? oh and over here pushed by both dup and Sinn Fein (Michelle O'Neill being agriculture minister at the time??) so I think we should all get our heads out of the sand dup are not the only ones to blame!! Waken up and realise it was stormont full stop! And guess what we voted them all back in again...

Read up on the England/Wales scheme. It's different. There is a cap in E/W. Arlene's dept removed the cap here.

Sugarmummy

England didn't introduce caps until late 2015.....and shortly afterwards notified Northern Ireland civil service. There were no caps initiatilly for Arlene to remove

qwert_yuiop

Sugarmummy wrote: »

England didn't introduce caps until late 2015.....and shortly afterwards notified Northern Ireland civil service. There were no caps initiatilly for Arlene to remove

It was up to her to make that clear, and she clearly didn't. This is the first I've heard of it.

saverbuyer

Sugarmummy wrote: »

England didn't introduce caps until late 2015.....and shortly afterwards notified Northern Ireland civil service. There were no caps initiatilly for Arlene to remove

Really. The NI audit office report states

The design of the scheme crucially did not introduce ‘tiering’ of payments as operated in Great Britain where a reduced rate was applied after the equipment had been operated for 15 per cent of hours in a year. This tiering would have helped prevent potential abuse of the scheme by operating the equipment simply to increase the grant received.

The scheme in Great Britain also used ‘degression’ which allowed the amount of subsidy paid to change quarterly in response to changes in demand. From 2012 to 2016 the rates paid in Great Britain fell by 50% while the rates in Northern Ireland increased.

The fact that the Department decided not to mirror the spending controls in Great Britain has led to a very serious ongoing impact on the NI budget and the lack of controls over the funding has meant that value for money has not been achieved and facilitated spending which was potentially vulnerable to abuse.

Tiering was always in place in England and Wales. Arlene's department decided to remove it after Cambridge Economic Policy Associates Ltd and AEA Technology suggested low uptake if they didn't.

joefizz

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678

Well, it seems my original suspicions about the fundamental flaws in the wood pellet scheme were correct. I'm off to congratulate myself with a large cup of tea made on our wood stove, heated by our home grown firewood. Feeling green.

Ah the report by Chatham house who have as two major donors Chevron and Shell....

They do have a point though about burning for burnings sake (as with the RHI scheme), growing wood just for pellet boilers isnt exactly carbon neutral - it should be if planted like for like. You are burning 15-30 years worth of growth (absorption) and if its not replaced like for like (or 1.5 times in many areas) or inefficiencies are taken into consideration then it isnt.
The Chatham house report does recognise that burning recycled wood or wood chippings or wood sawdust or any of the normally discarded wood byproducts is green.
The problem lies in that a lot of the cases (like RHI) its just pure greed. Why convert new wood here or recycle the old wood (which is more expensive) when you can buy cheaper from the US where its subsidised then import at great ecological expense by shipping half way round the world. There is a lot of woodland and forest in the UK land banked for tax reasons and from a tax point of view doesnt make financial sense to dispose of and replant (I was looking at woodland here last month and prices are ridiculous due to scarcity and use for tax reasons - well beyond what a wood crop would produce).
The solution to the RHI scheme here is simple. If they burn the same or more in the summer than winter then cut them off. If they have over capacity for the size of area being heated, cut them off.
If they are also heating domestic properties (or anything else) with the non-domestic scheme cut them off.
Audit every single site and start with the friends and relatives of the politicians. Then audit them again, and again..
Let installers get their investment back over a reasonable period but if its being run as a cash cow, cut them off.
Still waiting on the names of the companies involved to be published...