There’s an interesting article in the Guardian this morning about the budget sounding better than it actually is for microgeneration and sustainable energy. The general impression is that the amounts being put forward are not enough: Jeremy Leggett from Solar Century suggests it needs to be “billions, not millions”. While this may be hyperbole, the government certainly could be doing more on climate change and this discrepancy makes the PM’s recent claims that he wants a “technological revolution” to help solve the problem sound a bit disingenuous.
If technology is the way forward, there are arguably two options. First you can do like Germany, US, and Japan have done for their PV industries and provide support to encourage the market to adopt a current technology. Market demand can encourage innovation but more importantly, this approach gives the benefit of practical experience in installing and operating these technologies (e.g. getting the regulatory framework right and so on). The second route seems to be what the UK is following, by providing £1bn for a new energy R&D institute (which some argue may be largely for the benefit of nuclear).
Which approach will yield better results? I think that the market approach is the best way forward, allowing technologies to develop and evolve alongside the needs of consumers. In contrast, designing a revolutionary technology in a lab and trying to plop it into society is very difficult. Researchers like Elizabeth Shove have noted that although “deeply flawed”, policy makers often hold the belief that technologies can simply be created and then transferred to an adoring public.1 The UK approach of combining R&D with small market incentives might work, but I think it will take much longer for any results to be seen.
1 Shove, E. (1998) “Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings” Energy Policy 26(15): 1105-1112.
