Some readers might not be familiar with George Monbiot. Mr. Monbiot is a columnist with The Guardian newspaper and has written on issues ranging from the Iraq war to globalization to race relations, &c. In recent years though, his main focus has been climate change and he’s been quite vociferous in calling for both government action and personal responsibility in dealing with the problem.
Which makes his recent comments on microgeneration all the more confusing. In an article for the New Scientist, Monbiot writes that “small is useless” and lambasts “those who maintain that our own homes can produce all the renewable electricity and heat they need…[they] have harmed the campaign to stop climate chaos, by sowing complacency and misdirecting our efforts.” He cites Bill Dunster and Jeremy Leggett as examples of those who have been, shall we say, overly optimistic in estimating the potential contribution of microwind and PV. As a green architect and director of a PV installation firm respectively, the cynical reader might believe that the claims of these men were intentionally misleading.
I think it’s worth a detailed rebuttal of Monbiot’s column:
Microgeneration can’t provide all the electricity that a household needs. - Calculation issues: Dunster claimed that a microwind turbine can provide “up to half of your annual electric needs”. To determine if this claim has been fulfilled, one must account for the amount of generation and the level of demand; however Monbiot only critiques the generation side. My research has found that those who adopt PV have typically installed a large number of efficiency measures and thus have lower overall demands; for these efficient households, over 50% of needs can be met, though 30% is more common. In Leggett’s case, the numbers are more robust but the lesson here is simply “don’t believe everything you read in a book on PV, written by someone who owns a PV company”.
- Trust issues: Monbiot says that over-optimistic claims will “generate more anger than power”. I think it’s worth mentioning that consumers are not being misled here. I’ve found no mention of complaints lodged against either Solar Century or Bill Dunster with the Advertising Standards Authority. Furthermore my research found that PV households were told by their installers how much electricity they could expect their systems to produce before making a purchase decision; these respondents had owned their systems for, on average, 2 years and only 1 respondent out of 63 complained that the performance had not met expectations. In other words, those buying PV knew what they were getting into and largely got what was promised to them.
Large-scale renewables would be a better use of money. - Funding: I’ve not done a detailed analysis of large versus small-scale renewables but it’s worth mentioning that microgeneration is paid for largely by households themselves. Yes the government does provide grants (£3.5 million last year) but households have to stump up thousands of pounds themselves. If more and more households want to do spend their own money on microgeneration, I don’t have a problem with that. The government’s contribution (i.e. my tax money) is small in comparison to what they’ve spent on war (not to be facetious but it is) so it’s money well spent in my books. After all, there are other benefits namely…
- Increased awareness: Monbiot concedes that “some campaigners accept that micro generators can make only a small contribution, but argue that they are still useful, as they wake people up to green issues.” This is not a minor detail. First, my study found that households can reduce their overall electricity demand by as much as 35% after the installation of PV due to increased awareness of energy use in the home; on average it’s about 5%. The benefit isn’t restricted to those who own the system either. Microgeneration has a growing presence in the media and public familiarity with the topic has done wonders to emphasise that individuals must take responsibility for their contributions to climate change.
Ultimately this is my complaint with the column. Small is not useless. It makes a real contribution to offsetting the carbon impact of domestic energy consumption, consumers are not being misled, and what’s more, it’s being funded primarily with private money and a small amount from the public purse (about 0.00035% of GDP). Most importantly, microgeneration enables households to actually do something to “stop climate chaos” as well as raising energy awareness and encouraging further action. Offshore windfarms and other centralised renewables do little or nothing in this regard.
Certainly consumers considering a microgeneration system should be sure to get as much information as they can on their preferred technology (the LCBP website is a good start). However they shouldn’t be discouraged from becoming personally involved in the fight against climate change. In this regard, I think Monbiot has accidentally thrown the baby out with the bath water on this one.
EDIT: You can read some interesting responses to the original article on the New Scientist website (registration required).
