Sellafield
From yesterday’s Observer:
In fact, Sellafield is a classic illustration of the failure of British industry. We were pioneers of nuclear power but in our desire to build our own atomic weapons, failed abysmally when it came to developing and managing our own civil reactors and reprocessing plants.
As a result, we have been left with a multibillion-pound clean-up bill and the prospect of buying either American or French reactors for our next generation nuclear plants. The lesson of Sellafield is not so much that nuclear power is dangerous but that Britain seems incapable of implementing any long-term engineering plan that comes its way, from high-speed trains to wind turbines or rocket launchers.
No longer the bridesmaid
After years of being shoehorned into BERR and Defra, the BBC is reporting that energy and climate issues are to be tackled by a new ministry led by Ed Miliband. Very sensible move and I’ll be keen to see how effective it will be in tying together the different policy threads.
Release the white paper!
The Energy White Paper was released today and there must be a lot of interest in it; it took about six hours to actually get a decent connection to the DTI’s website and download a copy. I haven’t had a chance to go through it all yet but a couple things have jumped out from skimming the executive summary and news coverage.
- The big story over at the BBC is nuclear power. The white paper reiterates that nuclear could play a major role in reducing carbon emissions and improving energy security; indeed a consultation document on new nuclear stations was released at the same time. It should make for interesting reading: what will the government do if the private sector decides it’s not economic?
- Energy policy is about more than electricity supply though and it’s good to see that the white paper starts with demand reduction.
“The starting point for our energy policy is to save energy. It is often the cheapest way of reducing carbon emissions, certainly in the short-term. It can also contribute to security of supply, for example by reducing our need for energy imports, and reduce fuel poverty through lower bills.”
I’ll have to check but this may be the first time that the importance of the demand side has been stated so clearly.
- As an example of this interest in demand reduction, the white paper has confirmed the earlier rumours about home energy monitors. All new electricity meters starting next spring will have displays showing consumption (e.g. kWh) and cost. Apparently not everyone’s happy with this move but it’s certainly a step in the right direction.
As with anything, the devil will be in the details and it’s worth remembering that the 2003 white paper made many of the right noises too. In fact, a cynic might say that the whole purpose of the new white paper was to lay the groundwork for new nuclear power stations. But the nuclear issue shouldn’t overshadow the wider themes of the white paper, that a renewed effort in all sectors – industrial, transport, domestic, and so on – is needed to deliver a sustainable energy policy for the UK.
The next steps for microgeneration
Earlier this week, Ofgem released a decision document on the regulatory implications of microgeneration. Although the report does address some of the specific questions raised by last April’s original consultation, it has a much wider scope. By considering parallel issues such as supply licence proposals and metering innovation, the report is really a big picture assessment of the regulatory situation facing UK microgeneration.
The report concludes that, while many regulatory barriers to microgeneration have been removed, some obstacles still remain. For example, many grid-connection and metering issues have been clarified, thus facilitating the basic installation and operation of a microgeneration system. However initiatives to encourage the more complete integration of microgeneration into the elecitricty system, such as the use of agents to make the collection of ROCs easier, still need work and further consultations are planned. A few radical changes are proposed as well, including the removal of the 28-day rule
In light of this report, it’s useful to step back from the regulatory minutiae and think about how microgeneration has advanced overall in recent years. On the policy front, things are looking quite good. When I began my doctorate in 2003, microgeneration barely featured on the policy agenda. However as evidenced by Ofgem’s work, government grants, increased research and media attention, microgeneration is now a major part of UK energy policy debates (especially in the domestic sector). With approximately 82,000 microgeneration installations in the UK, microgeneration is becoming more common on the ground too. However if the UK is to achieve its climate change goals, research suggests that on average two microgenerating devices will need be present in every home by 2050. Clearly then, much still has to be done to move microgeneration from rhetoric to reality.
In the next entry, I’m going to talk about an issue that intersects both the regulatory changes discussed here and the larger picture for growth in microgeneration: how to ensure that households receive a fair payment for the output of their microgeneration system.
“The ‘28 Day Rule’ requires all energy supply contracts to be terminable on 28 days’ notice. Some suppliers have argued that relaxing this rule and proving consumers with the option of having longer term contracts could enable energy suppliers to provide more energy efficiency services to domestic consumers, and the trial will test this, and whether customers can be adequately protected without the right to switch supplier.”
London aims for 20% microgeneration
Ken Livingstone yesterday set out plans to double the on-site renewables requirement for new London developments from 10 to 20%. The plans are still at the consultation stage so things may yet change but it’s certainly a promising sign.
For some reason, 20% seems like much more than double 10%. I think this is because you initially think: “Right – 10% on-site renewables. That’s a turbine on the roof” and therefore 20% must mean two turbines. Of course, this isn’t the case at all. One microgeneration installation can easily meet this requirement: for example, an average PV installation will provide about 30% of a household’s annual energy needs. What’s more, the primary goal of these policies is arguably to build efficient buildings which, p.s., then have a percent of their (now much smaller) energy needs met by microgen. In other words, the benefit to microgeneration from this policy is unlikely to be as great as some might hope.
There’s another interesting thing with this bit of news though, as shown by the following quote:
“No public money would be invested in new housing developments in the capital that are not designed to be carbon neutral over their lifespan.”
How sensible. If governments want to demonstrate their commitment to fighting climate change, acting through their procurement policies is a great way to do it. Comparing this statement with the abysmal performance of central government in its own estate, it once again seems that local government is the place for tangible microgeneration and energy-efficiency policy. Of course, it is just a statement. Who knows how things will work out in practice.
Can microgeneration and demand reduction be added?
I’ve been revising for my viva and was flipping through the DTI microgeneration strategy when I noticed a little mismatch, re: Ofgem’s demand reduction pilot (PDF). The original strategy says:
DTI will be investigating the possibility of a field trial that brings together smart meters and microgeneration to the effectiveness of smart meters combined with microgeneration technologies.
It’s a bit confusing but I would interpreted that as saying “We’re going to have a pilot looking at smart meters and microgeneration technologies working together”. To which, I’d say – great! Fantastic idea.
But when I looked at the Ofgem tender call a little more closely the word microgeneration doesn’t even appear. It’s very clearly about domestic demand reduction but the role of microgenerating households is unclear. This doesn’t mean that such a programme won’t eventually happen but it makes me wonder if, from a regulatory point of view, Ofgem is taking a strictly additive approach. That is, if they treat the benefits of microgeneration and smart metering/display monitors completely separately, they could look at a microgenerating household and a) determine that the household should get
It’s still early days and perhaps one of the tender bids will propose to investigate the demand reduction potential of microgeneration households specifically. But I think there’s a small risk that by considering demand reduction and microgeneration separately, any benefits from the interaction of the two will be lost. In other words, the 6% electricity saving that I saw in the PV households I studied (primarily arising from the use of a microgeneration generation-performance monitor) would fall between the regulatory cracks. Have to wait and see I guess!