Two stories, dealing with differing aspects of the same problem, caught my eye today - both appearing in the Daily
The first concerns the introduction of 'smart meters' and the planned introduction to every one of the country's 26 million households. Now just one minute! What if I do not want a smart meter? It is, after all, electricity which I am using and for which I am paying. And if I wish to turn off my fridge then as it is my fridge I will decide when I wish to turn it off! I have to no wish to be able to benefit from "In terms of potentially intrusive non-physical behaviour unrelated to data, smart metering potentially offers scope for remote intervention such as dynamic demand management, which is designed to assist management of the network and thus security of supply. This could involve direct supplier or distribution company interface with equipment, such as refrigerators, within a property, overriding the control of the householder.".
Then we have the cost question with the article stating that "The cost will initially be swallowed by the energy companies, who over time will pass it onto consumers. The Government insists, however, that even with this cost consumers could benefit by as much as £100 a year because the smart meters will allow them to cut down on their energy usage."Why should I cut down on my energy use to counteract the inadequacy of government to manage the country's energy production effectively? Oh, and don't even bother to mention all that carbon emission crap either - it is an unproven science and has been shown to have had a certain degree of manipulation to its findings.
The second story concerns the latest uttering of wannabe Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Greg Clark. It seems that in order to meet the EU imposed energy commitments, the Conservative Party are now trying to bribe the electorate - but hey, whats new?
Communities would be offered shares in local wind farms, allowing them to become part-owners and enjoy a stake of the profits. Fine - and responsibility, as shareholders, for losses? And just how many members of a community would be able to benefit - a wind farm, for instance, in the 'wilds of Scotland' ain't going to have many community members, is it? And as for 'empowering' communities by offering part ownership of farms that are being imposed on them; that communities don't want and may well also be liable for costs; all based on a religion that has been shown as 'suspect', is folly of the highest degree.
The Conservative Party maintain they are different to the Labour Party. They are about as different as identical twins!