Before getting on to the point in hand today, a hello to my correspondents, Eli, Paul, Students, and other occasional readers who have kept an eye on this space even when it appeared vacant; thank you for your patience.
I’ve been working for an engineering company for eight months now, having left the teaching profession. I’m still working towards the masters degree but the heart attack has slowed things down a bit. Fortunately, there may be the opportunity to study an area where there is a synergy between the job and the philosophical interests.
Since everyone is on the sea ice bandwagon these days, today’s comment is on the development of renewable energy in the UK. Comments, as always, welcomed.
There is no question that renewables are continuing to expand rapidly, though this has little, if anything, to do with climate change concerns. In my experience as a supplier of the technology, the vast majority of decisions are based on purely economic considerations. Developers are following the Merton Rule, in the belief that this will facilitate planning applications; in this case, the renewables are add-ons which are considered to be justifiable expenses against the gains to be made from a successful development. There are a few cases where companies express a concern with addressing climate change, but this is a contingent benefit, not a motive, and in most cases is a fortunate and marketable by-product of other forces.
There is also a real and rapid growth of interest in small-medium sized wind farms, often in the guise of Community Renewables Projects. Three motives appear to exist most strongly; such projects can get a degree of funding, reducing capital costs and increasing ROI; they can attract equity or bank funding using existing, tried and tested ‘bankable models’, making them lower risk, and, finally, they offer the prospect of medium-term energy security for villages and small towns and their businesses, in an environment of uncertainty over the National Grid’s ability to meet expected demand after 2014. For some areas, too, promoting wind energy projects is a marketing opportunity, promoting the ‘green’ credentials of an area and encouraging the all-important tourist/visitor numbers to continue.
The Private user/domestic renewables market is slightly different. Farms and isolated locations are still regular buyers of off-grid technology, though energy prices are critical motivators, too. There are a much greater number of private indviduals who are committed to thinking in the longer term and doing their bit towards reducing greenhouse gases, but even this commitment only remain robust where the economic realities add up: nobody wants to waste their money.
Being more energy efficient, in particular about heating, is still the biggest and most effective way of reducing a carbon footprint. On a commercial scale, replacing old oil-fired boilers, steam boiler systems, or inefficient old air-conditioning systems, are both cost-effective and successful greenhouse gas reducers. Of the renewable energy technologies in the UK, wind is the most efficient in both financial and productivity terms, in a large proportion of locations, but arguably still the most controversial, as it is visible in a way that solar pv, for example, is not.
In very few cases do people in the UK opt for renewables purely on the grounds of contributing towards reducing our carbon footprint. Do I think this is a good or a bad thing? I feel that it shows that, in most cases, the climate change argument is known but not well-understood, or that people are unwilling or unable to look at our world and our problems on a large enough time or geographical scale, or probably both. There may be a parallel in the global leisure clothing market; many people express a desire to avoid exploitative practices in manufacturing, but this does not stop them from buying the product. There is an interesting moral comparison here; many people are keen to sypathise with the suffering of others (like the 200 million displaced Indians who hace barely hit the headlines this week), but their actions and decisions are in contradiction to their expressed desires. Perhaps this is a demonstration that, if there is a perceived conflict of interest between one’s own wealth/comfort and the very survival of distant and unfamiliar others, the others still lose out.
So, if there is to be a real change in the UK, a change which gives hope that the world is not sliding inexorably towards meltdown in the coming decades, we first need to have courage. People, commercial and private, need to actually do the things they think matter, rather than finding excuses not to, or waiting for someone else to pay the price. The British are well-known (even though this is a racial stereotype/cliche) for our pluck, phlegm or spunk. I’d like to see more evidence of it in the climate change and renewables debates.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 31, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Dennis
Hey, Fergus! Glad to see you back in the saddle. You’ve been missed. I wrote a piece a few weeks ago that I wanted to share with you. It’s here:
http://samadhisoft.com/2008/07/19/emotional-non-negotiables/
I guess my other news is that my wife and I have finally secured permanent immigration rights to New Zealand. We’ll be going as soon as we can sell our property and business here. But, given the state of the markets, that might be a while yet.
Cheers!
September 10, 2008 at 3:50 am
Hank Roberts
I see much being made of solar electric, likely because it’s more profitable, but very little about solar hot water — which is, along with adding insulation, the best first step for most homeowners to take. Any idea why?
September 10, 2008 at 10:49 pm
fergusbrown
Hi Hank,
This is probably because the underlying concern is more about energy security than energy efficiency; Solar PV offers energy which can be used for our domestic indulgences, whilst solar heating is basically for heating and hot water (though on a larger scale, HVAC systems are a promising technology).
If government wanted to promote efficient and sustainable solutions, solar heating is better value for money, but doesn’t (on the surface of things) help resolve the pressing problem of what happens when the power stations are decommissioned in 2015 and the replacements aren’t there yet.
Solar electric is not the worst thing you can do, but pound for pound, it doesn’t match up to heating or wind for cutting carbon. Loft lagging is even less sexy but more efficient still.
Lovins covers the benefits of using modern alternatives to AC in ‘Factor Four’ and elsewhere; in the USA, more than the UK, this is an area where huge cabon efficiencies can be made profitably if corporates can be convinced to spend, or property owners can be compelled to invest up front.
More on renewables soon.
September 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hank Roberts
I recall during the first oil boycott serious attempts, at least in California, to require effective attic insulation as a standard for rental housing (along with things like plumbing that works, electricity that’s safe, roofs that don’t leak when it rains, control of lead paint exposure — basic health issues). The landlords and their lobbyists were able to defeat the idea.
The waste costs the landlord nothing because the tenants in rental housing pay the heating bills– and the tenants have little motivation to improve the landlord’s property.
September 12, 2008 at 8:10 pm
fergusbrown
Sometimes it is a good idea to force businesses to do things. Most of the time, the effect is not economically damaging, because industries have a talent for passing on the extra cost into the market. The Clean Air Act was a good idea. A lot of safety regulations are a good idea, notwithstanding the many which are a pain in the bum.
Effectively, regulating to make all new build energy efficient to a minimum standard (eg, properly insulated) would not damage the developers, would benefit the buyers, and would help reduce fossil fuel dependency. Where’s the catch?