The war of words over home-produced electricity feed-in tariffs could cost dearly (Jonathon Porritt)

Search

My Profile

Feeds

What are feeds?

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

« The Landfill Prize | Main | Education, Education, Education »

The war of words over home-produced electricity feed-in tariffs could cost dearly

On March 2nd, Guardian columnist George Monbiot launched an extraordinary attack on feed-in tariffs and on solar photovoltaics (PV) in particular. Even for George, who has honed his invective skills to a fine point over the years, his language was remarkably intemperate: “pricey conceit … great green rip-off… scam…comically inefficient…squandering the public’s money…perfectly useless… a swindle…blinded by sentiment” etc, etc.

A lot of this seemed to be aimed, very personally, at Jeremy Leggett, Executive Chairman of Solarcentury. For years, Jeremy has been flying the flag for the UK solar industry and for the benefits for introducing the kind of feed-in tariffs that have transformed the renewable energy scene in many other countries.

Within a couple of days, Jeremy had mounted a robust defence of PV, feed-in tariffs and the importance of maintaining a long-term perspective. Citing 13 examples of inaccuracy, misrepresentation and hyperbole (reinforced by a further 12 points following up on a response from George), he has set out to set the record straight.

Over the weekend I spent a happy hour reading through this four-phase battle, point by point. It matters. There’s a lot resting on the success of these feed-in tariffs, and that in turn depends on trust on the part of the general public. A George Monbiot polemic is purpose-built to undermine that trust.

I really admire George. He’s a brilliant campaigning journalist, and a deep, persistent thorn in the side of today’s political and business elites. I often end up reading his Guardian articles metaphorically punching the air at the blows that he’s landed – on my behalf, as it were. This week’s article on biodiversity here in the UK is hugely impactful.

But I’m sorry to say, on this occasion, that he’s way out of line. Jeremy Leggett’s detailed refutation of so much of what he was claiming in the original article demonstrates just how poor George’s initial research was, and how (on this occasion, at least) his love of adopting deliberately controversialist positions simply overwhelmed basic journalistic standards.

This too is a serious matter. As one or two bloggers have already pointed out, if he’s got it this badly wrong on feed-in tariffs, what’s to say he hasn’t got it equally wrong on other critical issues?

One of the talking points for me was that George declined on a number of occasions to meet with Jeremy and talk all this through – despite knowing full well the impact his article would have. More than anything else, this reveals a streak of know-it-all arrogance that has always been there in George, but which he usually keeps under control.

But rather than take my word, why don’t you check it out for yourself on the Guardian and Jeremy’s own websites. If nothing else, it will help you get your head around the complexities of feed-in tariffs.

George Monbiot's article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff
Jeremy Leggett's response http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/09/george-monbiot-bet-solar-pv or http://www.jeremyleggett.net/solar-revolution/

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on March 18, 2010 2:35 PM | Permalink

Comments (29)

Dear Jonathan,

I find this a really odd response. My effort throughout this debate has been to establish the facts. I have referenced every factual statement, on www.monbiot.com.

Like you I simply want greenhouse gas emissions to be cut, as swiftly and effectively as possible. My opposition to the feed-in tariffs is motivated by the fact that they are a dreadfully inefficient and wasteful means of achieving what we both want. You make no attempt to refute this. Instead you simply fling out a series of slurs, far worse than those of which you accuse me.

Let me give you an example. You say of my column on March 2nd:

"A lot of this seemed to be aimed, very personally, at Jeremy Leggett, Executive Chairman of Solarcentury."

But the column doesn't even mention him, or Solarcentury. His name didn't come up until I responded to his article criticising what I wrote. Throughout this debate he and I have been polite to each other and have stuck to the facts. Where is the personal attack you mention, and where is there evidence of sentiments one tenth as vicious as the things you say here?

It seems to me that opinion on this subject divides between those who, understandably enough, desperately want to believe that the technology they love does the business, and those who are influenced by the uncomfortable facts. I'm surprised to find you in the first camp.

For all those willing to be swayed by the evidence, I urge you to read the whole debate, from March 2nd to the present day, and to check the sources if you doubt the facts. There's some fascinating material in the threads as well. It's a fair bit of reading, but the debate is illuminating and robust, though at times a bit frustrating.

So please Jonathan, a bit of fair-mindedness and objectivity from you.

With my best wishes, George

Posted by George Monbiot | March 19, 2010 10:11 AM

I found Leggett's response (linked) lacking in detail - maybe there's another link. It had all the depth of a sales brochure. One thing I liked about Monbiot's article is the links to his sources. I don't know enough about either man to give one my unquestionable trust and don't care much for ad hominem arguments.

I see a minority of people benefiting financially from PV and FIT, and someone has to pick up the bill. Me? It does seem to favour the well-off and the well-placed. I can't see how I can possibly benefit by the scheme myself (no funds, unsuitable property) so I'm naturally biased against it.

Posted by ian russell | March 19, 2010 10:23 AM

Throughout these arguments I can't help thinking that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. George seems to overlook the benefits of providing an incentive for the solar industry to expand and become more efficient, although I'm not convinced he's come to the wrong conclusion as a result. It's a fact that the UK climate is less suitable than many for solar PV, so we'd be better off subsidising solar PVs in Spain than on our own roofs. However that would be firmly out of sight for most people, and the idea of raising awareness of the issues by increasing the number of solar panels visible on roofs in every neighbourhood certainly seems to have some merit, even if it's partly flawed. I've even wondered if the whole argument is a carefully acted journalistic drama, largely decided on in advance, to make us read both George & Jonathon's writings and raise the profile of both. If that's the case then the fact that it also raises the profile of the very serious issues at stake is certainly a good thing.

Will I go for a solar panel on my own roof? Maybe, but if I do so it will be more as a financial investment with a smaller element of raising awareness among anyone who happens to walk past my house. If someone asks me whether I think I'm being green by having it, I'll be honest about my motives and say "I'm not sure". Only time will really tell whether the feed-in tariffs were a good idea, and I think it's far from being clear-cut at this stage.

Posted by Donald Allwright | March 19, 2010 2:26 PM

What we need in the Uk is not more power, it is more Peak power. Electricity when people want to use it.

Now, from personal experience, I know that I personally use far less electricity on a warm sunny day in the Summer, when presumably PVs will be at their most productive, than I do on a cold Winter's night, when PVs will have no output to contribute - But as I understand it, the feed in tariffs will be paid on production of electricity, so I'll be paying top dollar (through my electric bill) for something I don't need - and indeed, which nobody else needs.

This may be a very simplistic analysis, but if I am wrong, I would love to be put right.

Posted by Siôn Jones | March 19, 2010 3:42 PM

"But I’m sorry to say, on this occasion, that he’s way out of line. Jeremy Leggett’s detailed refutation of so much of what he was claiming in the original article demonstrates just how poor George’s initial research was"

Could you provide some examples please Jonathon? Having now read the articles, I don't see this to be the case. At no point did Legget find a factual inaccuracy, and he certainly did not "[refute much] of what [Monbiot] was claiming".

The difference between the two men seems to be that Legget believes it worth investing in an inefficient technology in order to stimulate the creation of a Solar PV industry in the UK, whereas Monbiot does not. They both make good points on this front, although I feel that Monbiot may be mistakenly assuming that this money would otherwise have been diverted to more efficient carbon reduction schemes.

Both their articles have come across civil, intelligent and even handed, and Monbiot's have consistently been well substantiated with sources. Yours, however, seemed to consist unsubstantiated personal attacks while failing to address any of the issues. Perhaps an apology is in order?

Felix Brann

Posted by Felix Brann | March 19, 2010 4:09 PM

George I'm intrigued to know where in the household sector you think the money should be directed that isn't already being targeted.

Lofts and cavities will pretty much be done (at least done by current standards) by the end of the decade, solid wall insulation should be ramping up quite nicely, virtually all boilers will be condensing and everyone'll have heating controls as a result, incandescent lighting will be a thing of the past, the EUP directive will be in full effect and churn will mean that appliances should be relatively efficient, OLED TVs should have replaced current technologies, laptops will have replaced desktops....

Maybe a good hit on draught proofing and underfloor insulation? But they don't cost much so will happen naturally or with the CERT extension / green loans.

Double glazing? Covered by the building regs.

Medium scale CHP? Possibly although I don't know how the costs work out.

Where would you direct the money?

Posted by JohnP | March 19, 2010 4:27 PM

When I first read George Monbiot’s criticism of feed in tariffs I thought it strange that such an expensive subsidy had been introduced for microgeneration without a detailed study of the long term benefits. However, the only worthwhile studies are referenced by George which seem to confirm his views. I can’t see any evidence presented which refutes them, have I missed something?

Of course we must encourage the development new sustainable technologies through subsidies, but surely microgeneration through photovoltaics in the UK is about the worst possible way to spend them. If retrofitting properties with insulation isn’t innovative enough, why spend it on battery electric vehicles, ground source heat pumps, combined heat & power or biogas installations? Photovoltaic energy parks should be similarly encouraged in lower latitude countries to encourage economies of scale.

This silly scheme is exactly the white elephant the anti-environmentalists were looking for to justify their campaigns. They invent or sometimes find a minor crack in the environmental agenda to milk and prise wide open, but this was a gaping chasm before they got to work!

Posted by Stephen | March 19, 2010 5:47 PM

Monbiot makes a well-argued case against the feed-in tariff scheme and does not slander its advocates, as far as I can see. The odd dashes of colour in his language are part of the journalist's craft, to draw in jaded readers.

If the fact he cites are right then the scheme does seem to be deeply flawed - why not subsidise ground-source heating in the Arctic?

I am highly sympathetic to environmental issues. But that doesn't mean everything with a slightly green gloss is automatically right. We ought not to abandon our common-sense, like starry-eyed converts to some new religion.

Posted by Mark Downing | March 20, 2010 7:37 AM

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Posted by Caroline | March 20, 2010 8:28 AM

I have to agree that I'd like a few more details on where George is wrong, Jeremy. He did, as always, give us his references.

However, I can't comment on Georges' blog, or the older Guardian article that sparked this, so I'm going to put my comment to him here - 'Instead you simply fling out a series of slurs, far worse than those of which you accuse me.' I'm not sure that 'way out of line' and 'streak of know-it-all arrogance' are really so far above your usual level of invective, George!

Don't get me wrong. Like a lot of the commenters here, I suspect, I admire both of you.

Posted by bill doyle | March 20, 2010 8:43 AM

Feed-in tariffs in use around the world have, if nothing else, helped advance the development of PV-technology to the point where 'grid parity' appears to be within reach and where it is now often necessary even in industrialised countries to run economic analyses to determine if a new power installation should be grid fed or autonomous PV. Only time will tell whether that was/is a good investment (nuclear power research, for instance, has likely eaten up multiples of feed-in subsidies without yielding a comparable breakthrough, I suspect).

But George is right about this: if climate change abatement measures in the UK is the objective then a lot more bang for the buck could be had by improving the deplorably inefficient existing housing stock. To those who think that we have nearly reached the end of the line in that regard I say, think again, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Applying subsidies in that way would kill two birds with one stone: avoid energy waste and eliminate the obscenity of fuel poverty deaths

Posted by J R Groeger | March 20, 2010 9:12 AM

I have a romantic streak and a DHW solar panel on my roof. I like the – albeit limited – independence it gives me in the form of free baths and showers in the summer. I would also like to extend this liberty from grid tied bondage by being able to generate my own electricity.

But my desire for independence should not be vastly subsidised by others, in the vague hope that it will encourage the development of more efficient technology or some fuzzy awareness of green issues in the community at large. Subsidy of the well off by the mass of consumers is what the FIT scheme inevitably entails, as evidenced by the disparity between the prices for units taken from or fed into the grid. It is profoundly inequitable.

Microgen has only one logical purpose – to enable independence from the grid. Until it massively improves its efficiency in comparison to large scale renewables – in capital cost, carbon cost and outright energy investment terms – it should not be given preferential treatment.

A far better way of encouraging people to embrace green power generation would be to subsidise the market price of large scale renewable energy, while assuring that the income to the generator company would be used solely to build new capacity and storage.

Sorry Jonathon, you are wrong on this one.

Posted by Jonny Holt | March 20, 2010 10:26 AM

Come on guys, we're all on the same side. Whilst you big beasts are slugging it out, Liberal Democrat Councils up and down the coutry are doing their best to make sense of all these disjointed government schemes. Of course the British climate is such that solar PV will never by 'economic' but you only have to see London from the air to realise that all those roofs will make a contribution to the city's electricity use in the summer. Any sensible policy would therefore develop storage for natural gas so that we buy it cheap in summer and use it in winter when the sun goes out.
Oh for a joined up energy policy.
Meanwhile LibDem Councils are doing theire best. Please see my web site and give them some support.

Posted by David Pollard | March 20, 2010 10:52 AM

The haymaker in Monbiot's original article, which Legget hasn't even attempted to answer - because there's no answer to it - is that, under the European Emissions Trading Scheme, any savings made by feed-in tariffs simply permit other industries to raise their emissions. This means that solar panels on every roof in the country wouldn't lower UK emissions by an ounce.

Posted by Andy Green | March 20, 2010 10:57 AM

Let us remember it isn't feed in tarrifs, but the scale of them.

External cladding of buildings is the best value for money over loft insulation, however, there needs to be a a change of planning law to allow this to be done without the bureaucratic local government planning system.

Now if we got the same £ subsidy for kWHr saved, the UK housing stock would transform over-night!

The New Noah

Posted by Peter Dawe | March 20, 2010 12:14 PM

"To those who think that we have nearly reached the end of the line in that regard I say, think again, you ain't seen nothing yet."

I'm guessing that was directed at me.

I'm not pretending that there's not a long way to go from where we are now to where we need to be in the housing sector, but there is also going to be a lot of activity going on in the next decade or two in the areas that I outlined above and many more.

The way George's argument reads is that if the FiT goes ahead we'll miss some amazing opportunity to grasp these lower cost measures. Well, no. They're already being grasped slowly but surely.

My point is that we should be doing all that *and* the FiT for all microgen technologies.

Yes we need to kick things up a notch in the energy efficiency stakes but the FiT and solar PV won't impede that. In most cases we simply need legislation to ensure that the necessary energy efficiency work is done.

We must go all out for everything, now, and in the housing sector that includes solar PV.

If George is after something truly regressive, he should be going after the surreal energy pricing structures which we have in this country which penalise low and reward high energy consumption.

Btw there was an interesting response to Monbiot's article from Alan Simpson which readers of this blog might be interested in:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/05/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff-benefits

Posted by JohnP | March 20, 2010 12:17 PM

Jonathon,

I haven't come across your work before, but I have long followed George's. Superficially, it would appear that he has been civil, that his argument makes sense and is backed up by example, and, as always, he has named his sources.

This article, without similar named sources, is simply an unsubstantiated ad-hominem attack - which also makes it hypocritical.

Monbiot appears to value your work, but based on this (admittedly minute) sample, I am struggling to understand why. Do you feel that this article is representative of your journalistic integrity?

Perhaps, even if you decide not to defend your opinion, you could at least quell my nagging doubt about undeclared interest by stating, unequivocally, that you have no such interests?

Posted by Geoff Holister | March 20, 2010 1:27 PM

As an energy and sustainability specialist I am compelled to add to this thread despite the fact that I never respond to blogs.

It is true that PV is one of the most expensive ways to produce clean electricity and therefore reduce emissions i.e. the government could save an AWFUL lot more carbon by spending money on energy efficiency rather than renewables (in fact they would get their money back!) The government have probably brought in the Feed In Tariff as domestic solar is more 'sexy' than turning lights off at night!

However, if we are to reduce emissions enough to avoid climate change we need to improve our buildings and install both small and large renewables i.e. we need to take all of the cheap AND expensive measures available.

Whilst measures such as insulation pay for themselves and need little support, measures such as small renewables need greater support as fossil fuels are still cheap. Large scale renewables currently get modest support (around 1 billion/year via the Renewables Obligation). The Feed In Tariff will support small technologies which are further away from being cost competitive (the FIT is expected to cost less than 1 billion/year according to the policy impact assessment).

We need to invest now in energy efficiency and renewables (large and small) to avoid a climate crisis. The government recently spent trillions on the banks. This investment could have instead created the renewable infrastructure that we desperately need. Investing in energy efficiency and renewables also protects us against future fossil fuel prices.

Rather than criticise the Feed In Tariffs (which are happening anyway) maybe George Monbiot could push for more energy efficiency support?

Rather than criticise George Monbiot, Jonathan Porritt could demand that his friends in industry and government invest on an appropriate scale.

Jeremy Leggett could admit that PV is one of the most expensive ways of saving carbon and energy efficiency should ALWAYS take precedence.

Posted by paul chandler | March 20, 2010 2:10 PM

Feed in tarrifs, grants, subsidies and at the like are all likely to fail in reducing carbon emissions until the correct accounting procedures are put in place.
The accounting should be based not on monetary value but on the energy used to make, maintain and dispose of the products and services.

Carbon as a result from burning fossil fuels is one source but as we all know there are other major sources of CO2 release, from farming tecniques,fertaliser production and use, warming of ocean seabeds,thawing of tundra and so the list goes on.
Mans part in this is substantial and it is his activities on the planet that is cause for most concern, so the best way is to ensure all mankind appreciates the true cost of the earths free natural resources and tax them proportionally to their environmental impact on the earths longevity and ability for it to maintain the abundance of life it sustains.
Feed in tarrifs are a smoke screen as George states in his artilcle and I am surprised that Johnathon Porrit is almost jumping into bed with the big bussinesses that he has so often complained about; as it is only these manufacturers of the equipment and the people who install them will win.
The main thrust of mans resources and energy is to provide an understanding by man that he must look after the environment in the way some tribes do around the world.
It is this fundamental change in attitude by all that is required and it is up to the leaders in society to take the moral high ground and show by example and lead from the front.
At present in the UK leaders are preoccupied by keeping their own personal greed and not willing to share with society at large the benefits the planet so bountifully provides.
Their are commentators who are slowly coming round to the view that leadership is from the front and a good example is what is happening in Greece and Ireland, where Ireland has taken the decision to reduce all public salaries by a substantial amount from the prime minister to the street sweeper, demonstrating how serious the problem is and that everyone has to do their part.
In Greece on the other hand, there has been none of the same sort of acknowledgment from their leadership on and has caused riots and intervention from the EU and outside agencies , which will probably fail in the long term due to the public's poor view of their leaders positions.

Posted by David Dunn | March 20, 2010 6:19 PM

I am happy for people to sell electricity generated by any means into the grid at any price if they can find buyers at the price they want to charge to cover their costs. That way eco-conscious people can contribute to the spread of new technology. I do not like the concept of wealthy people selling electricity at an unreasonable cost to people who have no choice, including many on small budgets. A supermarket in Canada is planning to make additional profits selling electricity for 80c/KWh based on a similar scheme to that in the UK based on a presumed rate of investment return of approx 10%.

Posted by Tim Moore | March 20, 2010 7:19 PM

FITs are causing a great deal of concerns to those of us involved in the delivery of RE systems and we're being put under huge pressure (by another level of unneccessary beauracracy) simply for our customers to qualify for FITs. For example, for a hydro system that costs in the region of 50k the cost of the turbine is about 4k. The added cost in getting just that turbine 'signed off' by FIT accreditors MCS (despite the preexisting legislation to protect our customers) will cost in the region of 10k. That is quite an unneccessary markup for less than 10% of the complete system cost, but without which the customer would not qualify for FITs. We've spent years developing low cost solutions and a good return on investment to encourage significant and efficient green electricty. FIT accreditation for bespoke systems is going to make the rate of return far lower. Not the best use of customers, consumers or governent money...

What all these comments fail to address is that the underlying issue of FITs is to aid economic recovery (and to be seen to be a bit green). All the different FIT levels have been designed to give returns in the region of 8%. Efficeincies of the different technologies be damned - in actual fact, the less efficient the higher the FIT! Quite why this is causing such debate is a little off point.

FITs are predominantly there to get money out of savings accounts and into the economy. PV (and to a lesser extent wind) has the highest number of suitable locations for installation and are also the easiest to train people to be employed in (roofers, scaffolders, electricans) therefore contibuting significantly to the green jobs agenda. and thats why they get the highest FIT.

That the more technical jobs such as CHP, AD and Hydro are being less favouvered in favour of the more widespread blue collar jobs is just a small part of it. The technologies that have the highest proportion of home grown manufacturers (and potential to expand internationally) are being ignored in favour of semi-skilled jobs for the next ten years.

This debate should really be on 'do we want jobs now or do we want significant carbon savings in the future'. Within the debates in the corridors of power jobs won.

Carbon savings, efficiency and innovative industry be damned.

Posted by Mr G | March 21, 2010 12:17 PM

"The war of words over home-produced electricity feed-in tariffs could cost dearly"

This below a picture of Johnathon in front of Parliament.

So what is the cost? In terms of influence over the powers that be?

So Greens should get together and cover up a bad scheme that looks Green? Is this article about political discipline, a sort of abstract party whip?

This is not very strategic. Do you think the deniers will not pick up on money wasted on inefficient alternative energy schemes, and will hold back from using it to rubbish the idea of Sustainable Energy sourcing in general?

One has to go the evidence, or pay the price in the longer run. Isn't that what Green politics is ultimately about?

Posted by Daniel Taghioff | March 21, 2010 12:47 PM

Jonathon,
Maybe that happy hour you spent on Saturday morning should have been 90 minutes or at least you should have given a bit longer to writing your post starting this thread.

Your accusation that a lot of George's original article was aimed personally at Jeremey leggit is completely incorrect as neither his name or that of his company was mentioned. Applying the logic of the 'one or two bloggers' that you happily made reference to, I wonder how often you have got it 'badly wrong' on other critical issues?

Whilst the interpersonal squabble should be a bit of a side show, you have upped the tempo by misrepresenting George in this manner. So you need to answer George's post on this thread. Where is the personal attack?

I expect that you will be able to declare 'no interests' as requested in a post above but methinks a personal friendship with Jeremy and long standing irritation with George might explain your entry into this debate as much as the interesting and important topic under discussion.

Posted by Mike Holden | March 22, 2010 12:21 AM

I'm afraid that FIT for PV is even worse than George says. If carbon savings from PV are lost due to the EU ETS, surely cash will be diverted from solid wall insulation and real, permanent reductions will be delayed.

Posted by steve marsden | March 22, 2010 11:01 AM

I believe JP to be wrong here. Subsidising solar energy in the UK seems mad. I am lucky enough to be able to afford solar panels on my roof; if only the roof was mine to put them on. Even if it was, I would not take advantage of FITs. It is the masses subsidising the rich, to make them feel better about themselves. This model will not solve climate change. We should be putting all this money (and much more besides) into large-scale renewables where ambient energy is high (UK off-shore wind, concentrated solar power in the sahara etc.) and developing an EU-wide grid that can transmit power over long distances. Subsidising solar power on rich people's home in the UK is like a sham; a waste of money; a placebo. You do not even need a well-sourced article by George Monbiot to see that.

Posted by Nick Marshall | March 22, 2010 12:03 PM

There are two points here, one is the spat between jounalists and sources of information, in this day and age it is not unusual for journos to get things wrong, or use selective criteria for proving a point, this is the environment we live in . I did think that JP was a bit over the top in describing apparent inconsistencies in Monbiots position.
The second point is the philosophical one of Solar energy and sustainability, I am currently considering this as an option for myown electricity needs. I have found that I cannot be self sufficient in Solar Energy without being tied to the Grid and a succession of salesmen have come to me to extol the financial benefits of making the investment which have been priced somewhere in the region of between £14000 and £17000, promising me an 8% return on my investment.
Solar Energy is being sold as a financial service tied to the grid, not as a green issue on self sufficiency and that is wrong, it is also wrong of the Governement to encourage this, one of your earlier respondents has made the same comment.
I refuse to believe that some solar panels and inverters cost this much. Admittedly Solar Energy's quote was the cheapest I had, and we are told that Germany is the world leader in PV technology , but there does not seem to be the initiative to develope batteries to store unused energy for nighttime consumption. All this is doing is making us more profligate with our use and dont forget Grid electricity comes from a variety of less than green resources.

I would not want differences of journalistic opinion/fact to take away some deep philosophical and political questions that we should be asking ourselves about the nature of self sufficiency. The representatives that I have seen from a variety of installation companies don't strike me as ECO Warriors, and it would not surprise me if they also tried to flog me a pension.

Posted by Len Jones | March 22, 2010 12:44 PM

STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS

Conceptually, I think that FIT (and the Renewable Heat Incentives) are a great way to incentivize investment in micro-generation. Certainly, the reward levels have to be well designed, and there is uncertainty about which micro-generation systems will work best in specific locations, and how much they will all contribute to people's energy literacy etc.. But we know that micro-generation is currently used by only a tiny proportion of people in the UK, and that generally speaking, the people who invest first are helping underwrite the people who come second.

I'll give a personal example.

In 2006 we installed a ground source heat pump in the UK (one of the first thousand or so to be installed in the UK). It cost a great deal of money. My general contractor was terrific - but he was learning the ropes as he went along (it was his second system). Separately I had to also hire a plumber and also electrician - and it was their first system they had worked on. The system was dug in trenches as there was no affordable system to drill directly down. It all took about 4 months.

In 2008 I had moved to Canada where ground source heat pumps (or geothermal as they are called), the price was perhaps half the cost, it was a better system, I had one, very experienced contractor, the pipes were drilled vertically down, and it all took a couple of weeks.

In a nutshell, I was benefitting from people's past experience.

Peter Winters, Haddock Research

Posted by Peter Winters | March 22, 2010 8:09 PM

Jonathon, I've just had a browse of your credentials and you seem to be a pretty solid guy as far as environmental protection goes, so I find your response to Monbiot to be somewhat anomalous. You haven't actually presented any facts to go along with any argument. This seems just to be an empty blog post on your own opinion and nothing else. As a member of the public, not belonging to any biased group at all, I expect a lot more from a public figure and leader in this field of expertise, than what I've read in this post. Instead of joining in someone else's fight, could you please simply respond to the points Monbiot has put across?

To re-emphasise:

DO - argue with facts
DON'T - mud-sling.

Thank you.

Posted by Ian | March 26, 2010 8:34 PM

I agree with some of what George Monbiot says (Guardian 2nd March) and many of the contributions above. PV is expensive, I know I have a system fitted and yet.... Energy efficiency is by far the most effective and cheapest way to cut carbon emissions and large scale renewables in theory would be more effective. But it won’t be enough. At a Spreg meeting some academics from Built Environment shared their research findings last year. They found we need energy efficiency/on site microgen and de-carbonisation of the electricity supply. But we've been no more successful at energy efficiency than on shore wind. The critics of micro-generation cannot have it both ways, either domestic emissions are not a problem or they can be part of the solution, 25-30% of emissions are from the domestic sector. In addition like double glazing which people buy (but will never pay for itself in its life) time there are other reasons to invest in micro-generation. Micro-generation puts you in touch with your energy use and encourages conservation. Rising bills will soon make it cheaper to buy your a high proportion of your electricity up front over the 25 year guarantee period of the system than all through the grid. The whole idea is to build an industry with a time ltd subsidy and drive down prices for the systems (half our cost in Germany). The challenge we face from peak oil means we will need to find new ways to power and heat our buildings in an energy constrained world. I don’t any-more believe in a technofix for peak oil/climate change but microgen will be part of the solution. In addition George ignores the massive cost increases in electricity peak oil will bring, in 2008 the wholesale price of electricity, soared not just gas. It also has a huge advantage you can stick on roofs, where it does not compete with growing things in fields. Finally at the end of its 40 year life the system on my roof currently giving us negative electricity bills can be safely re-cycled and turned into cheaper PV's for others, leaving no radioactive residue for scores of future generations to deal with.

Posted by Neil | May 4, 2010 4:21 PM

Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives