Life will go on after Clearskies ends in the spring of 2006. Maybe not quite as we know it and maybe not quite as everyone in the industry would like. It will come down to how well the government listens to the various contributors' views on the Microgeneration Strategy and Low Carbon Buildings Programme currently out for consultation. How big will the pot be? This will depend on how convincing the responses are from stakeholders, how much money can be extracted from the chancellor's piggy bank and what the political imperatives are.
At a recent meeting to discuss the certification of products and installers under the Microgeneration Strategy and Low Carbon Buildings Programme, government officials were seen to be visibly cringing when pushed to confirm what form the microgeneration scheme would take and how much money would be available. The stock answer is, and I paraphrase it, "We don't know yet, that's why we're having a consultation period".
There is an unfortunate use of terminology in this consultation document. The government and its departments are constantly being told that 60% of the energy used in domestic buildings is for heating, however, the word microgeneration seems to infer the generation of electricity. When we add to this confusion the words demonstration, exemplar and emerging, which by their very nature infer that the technology is new and untried, what are they to think?
As most BFF readers know, most of the "emerging technologies", have actually been around for many years and, in the case of wood fuel, since the start of time. What has happened, however, is the technology (for that read efficiency, ease of use and controlability) has continued to improve, and due to this, is finally being more readily accepted and adopted in the UK.
This is not to say all renewable technology is tried, tested and proven appropriate. Just because it works, it does not necessarily mean it will be cost effective or appropriate for all installations. With this in mind the plan seems to be to make the microgeneration strategy "technology blind". But how blind will it really be?
By way of an explanation let's look at a hypothetical example. I have just bought a house with a need for a new boiler. I have a south facing roof area for a solar panel and am on a windy slope so would like to put up a small wind turbine. Let's start by looking at the boiler options.
The new Part L of the Building Regulations is almost insisting on a condensing boiler (those electronically controlled units that many plumbers don't like!), while British Gas would like me to use a microCHP at a mere 3,000 installed. However, my prefered option is a wood pellet boiler which barely gets a look in under the building regulations as, regardless of its super efficiency, it is lumped in generically as a solid fuel appliance, which isn't highly rated.
Other aspects to consider are the fact that a condensing boiler or a microCHP unit will fit into my kitchen or utility room, however, to have a pellet boiler will generally require a dedicated boiler room.
Now if the grant is technology blind and I hadn't cottoned on to the issues of climate change and the fact that gas is a contributor to climate change and that it will be price unstable, I may think I was being environmentally responsible by using a gas boiler or microCHP unit.
Another thing to remember is that the gas industry has substantially more lobbying power than the wood pellet industry and certainly a lot more money to develop the market as it wants, which is already highly evident from the way Part L has developed.
Now back to my example. If there has to be a choice between a pellet boiler or a solar thermal system (and just tacking it on to my existing heating system, yes I know we can integrate the two!) and the grants are technology blind, which do I choose? The cost and positioning of the solar thermal panel is easier and considerably less expensive than for the wood pellet boiler. The wood pellet boiler has far fewer demonstration installations in the UK than solar thermal has and solar thermal has been in the UK for a lot longer and as I write this in my south facing office the sun is streaming in. With this kind of influence on us how will the pellet boiler get a fair look-in? Remember, with a little effort, wood fuel can generate heat all year round, whatever the weather.
Finally what about that wind turbine for offsetting my electrical footprint? I have to have planning if I am to install it above 4m in height and think of all those possible objections I could incur from my neighbours. Is it worth the hassle for the amount I'll generate and the saving I'll make from the grant?
So, technology blind grants, in my opinion, are not the answer to supporting the, dare I say, "emerging" renewables sector in the UK. There have to be some drivers to encourage those technologies that are less able to compete initially.
To conclude, the real goal is for the whole of the renewables market to be commercially and economically viable without grants. To be frank, this will only happen when energy (heat and electric) is paid for appropriately.
1. www.dti.gov.uk/energy/consultations/microgen.pdf
Gideon Richards
