Elemental

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or check out my popular posts in the sidebar. Thanks for visiting!

Unless you have been under a rock for the past few weeks, you can’t have failed to notice the latest undiginified mud-slinging match between parties who are all allegedly “on the same side”. Putting aside what these puerile rants do for the image of the industry (have we learnt nothing from climate-gate?), who said what and when?

I’ll start with a chronological canter through the articles in question:

1 March George Monbiot in the Guardian’s Comment is Free (CiF): “Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off?” George rubbishes micro-generation (not the only voice to have said this, by any means) and then accuses the FiT of being a middle class salve (I think I’ve read this somewhere before – has George been ripping of Casey’s blog or are they just on the same page..). George also makes the very valid point that energy efficiency measures are not required before qualifying for the FiT, which is a massive lost opportunity (coupled with the loss of consequential improvements from Part L 2010 – maddeningly shortsighted). As usual with George, the article errs on the side of contentious, which is what we know him for.

3 March Jeremy Leggett respoonds (again in CiF) with: “Solar panels are not fashion accessories” Jeremy lobs back most of George’s criticisms (level-headedly) but as one commenter says, Jeremy sells PV. He is not exactly an independent voice. However, he does make the point that: “we would want to mix and match renewable technologies – large and small, onshore and offshore – so matching loads and compensating for the fact that solar generates by day and not by night”. I’m not sure he has the numbers entirely correct, again, one of the commenters refers to MacKay’s Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. Essential reading if you are interested in this topic.

5 March George responds on his Guardian blog: “There is no ‘green treachery’ in questioning this solar panel rip-off” George reproaches Jeremy on the jobs issue and the maths of who pays what, when. It would be interesting to know if George would support PV on a PAYS system, rather than a FiT?

5 March Alan Simpson (a Labour MP) weighs in against George, again on CiF, with: “Not the great green rip-off, by George” His key point is: “The whole purpose of FiTs is to develop a momentum for renewable energy technologies that will quickly turn them from innovations to mature market technologies.”

9 March Jeremy responds to George’s wager on CiF: “I accept George Monbiot’s £100 solar PV bet” By now my enthusiasm for the debate is seriously beginning to wane and I’m not sure how much more back and froing I can put up with…

11 March George’s final piece on his Guardian blog: “Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK” George tries to bring the debate to a close, and my impression is that it is not necessarily the technology he has a major problem with, but the FiT mechanism. Unfortunately, a bit late to voice that one – we’ve been consulting on this for what feel like forever (I wonder if George submitted a response to the consultations…) and the FiT begins on 1 April. George’s main beef is sound economics 101: “Money spent on ineffective solutions is not just a waste: it’s also a lost opportunity”.

18 March Jonathon Porritt decides to weigh in on his blog: “The war of words over home-produced electricity feed-in tariffs could cost dearly” and doesn’t address anything except the mud-slinging, which in turn drags Monbiot out to defend himself against Porritt, which is something I never imagined in a million years.

18 March Jeremy appears to have the last say, with an article in the ‘real’ Guardian: “Feed-in tariffs are not suppressing innovation in Germany or the UK” And by now, I really just can’t be bothered and am bored by the whole thing…

Now, CiF is not exactly a hotbed of level headed debate, but some of the comments on the posts are astounding. I don’t know why I read debates like this as it only makes me cross and I end up shouting at the laptop, much to the annoyance of colleagues and loved ones who share my personal space.

I did debate what I was adding to the proceedings by blogging this. Luckily, I don’t need to work out the maths as Chris Goodall has done so here. He comes out in favour of wind (not I might add a poxy turbine attached to a roof, but a 50kW stand-alone turbine – still much small than wind farm scale). And another blog (which I’d not visited in so long I’d forgotten it existed) by David Thorpe (aka Low Carbon Kid) which again covers more maths in defence of George’s argument. And then Mark Brinkley has a sideways analysis which explores the camps in terms of their support for or against nuclear power.

I did want to make some key points:

• whilst debate is healthy and to be encouraged, doing so on the pages of CiF is (IMO) either incredibly naive or an wilfully incendiary act. I’m still trying to find out of the original Monbiot piece was commissioned or sent of his own volition…
• black and white solutions DO NOT EXIST when it comes to carbon reductions – we are going to have to do lots and lots of everything, context is relevant to which actions are most appropriate to each situation; and polarising statements, whilst easy to sell to the public and politicians, are not particularly helpful
• Carbon reduction is not the only factor in installing on-site renewables. Energy security and economic stimulation (see Alan Simpson’s statement above) are also cited (in PPS22). If the building is seeking a BREEAM rating there is a further incentive to install renewables under ENE5 (on a percentage reduction of carbon). Merton rules in planning additionally mandate the installation of renewables. Now, on occasion, Merton rules have been put in place without due thought being given to the appropriateness of what the consequences are, again stimulating the installation of PV (for example) as the only solution for a site. Not because it is the most economic, but because there is no other physical opportunity to install an alternative, but to meet the planning condition something must be installed. The FiT will probably not change this – except to make the payback better than it was before. Whilst all the sterling maths that the blogosphere have done with regards to cost and carbon stack up, there is no easy, standard way to factor in these other issues. A problem highlighted in this research. If we can crack this conundrum, the rights and wrongs of FiT won’t really matter…
• all this nonsense would be silenced by an across the board carbon tax, rather than tinkering about with tariffs and incentives (I know it’s not going to happen, but maybe if we say it often enough…)

The feed-in-tariffs come into force on 1 April.

admin Opinion FiT, George Monbiot, Jeremy Leggett