Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-17-Speech-1-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100517.16.1-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, there are a few things that I think we should bear in mind in the forthcoming debate. Firstly, the potential for energy savings in residential buildings in the coming years is disputed. What can be done easily has, in part, already been done. In contrast, renovations – particularly of listed buildings – could be very expensive. There is little point in renovating a building so that it is fantastically energy efficient if it then stands empty because the rent has soared. Even in the interests of protecting the climate, I do not believe that we should interfere with the ownership rights of citizens where renovations are concerned. There must be no obligation to install solar panels when building a house, carrying out reroofing works, building an extension or replacing a heating system, such as is the case in the Marburg model.
A further point concerns zero energy buildings. As we know, it is only possible for a household to satisfy its electricity requirements using photovoltaics if the electricity grid remains available for periods when there is less sun. In other words, for the electricity grid operator, the costs will remain the same. Combined heat and power facilities also involve expensive dual structures. Even with optimal power management, many questions remain unanswered and dramatic price peaks could occur – quite apart from the fact that in most cases, we do not yet have the corresponding intelligent appliances."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples