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.
