People power: A realistic solution to Britain's energy crisis?
The Claim
“We will scrap Labour’s target of [getting] 1.6% [of the UK's electricity from decentralised sources] by 2020 and significantly raise the level of ambition for decentralised energy in the UK by 2020 and beyond.”
Conservative party policy document, seen by Channel 4 News FactCheck
Cathy Newman checks it out
“Decentralised” energy is the rather nerdy term for power that comes from the people. That is, green energy – rooftop windmills and water turbines, solar panels and boilers fuelled by wood chips – that’s produced by individuals and communities rather than traditional utility companies. Senior Conservatives tell me they’d like to see around 15 per cent of the UK’s energy come from such sources by 2020. That’s a massive figure, when you think the government currently reckons only 1.6 per cent of our electricity will come from decentralised sources in the same time scale. So how on earth could the Tories do it?
Background
Britain faces a serious energy problem. Our island nation is a long way from reliable power supplies, North Sea reserves are running out and our nuclear power stations are old. Add to this the threat of climate change, and you can see why there is political consensus that the looming energy crisis needs to be tackled – and fast.
But as with so many thorny problems, the parties differ on how this can be done.
Decentralised energy
The Conservative solution, set out in a confidential policy document seen by Channel 4 News Factcheck, is small and local. They want windmills on top of your house, solar panels on your roof, boilers which heat your home as well as providing electricity – so-called combined heat and power – and biomass boilers which are fuelled by renewable products like wood chips.
Buy into the Tory scheme, and not only will you be doing your bit for the environment, but you’ll stop receiving electricity bills (because you’ll be producing your own power). You’ll even be able to make money by selling your energy back to the National Grid.
Fifteen per cent in a decade?
But is it too good to be true? The Tories reckon Britain could – with a fair wind – get 15 per cent of its energy from decentralised sources by 2020, if financial incentives introduced by the government are applied more widely.
From April householders will get cash rewards for generating their own electricity from low-carbon sources. They’ll get additional money if they sell any surplus back to the National Grid. But the Tories want to increase the range of energy sources which qualify for the incentives.
Biogas for example – gas produced from farm and food waste – isn’t covered by the government scheme, but would be under the Tories. Bigger electricity installations (generating up to 10 megawatts, double the 5MW limit proposed by the government) would also be included to entice whole communities to band together to produce their own fuel.
Expensive solution
“Individual householders becoming little generation plants and selling power back into the system is a wonderfully attractive and seductive idea,” says Professor Dieter Helm, an energy policy expert at Oxford University, who also advises the government. “We would all like to be our own power stations and make money.”
But Professor Helm fears this is an idealistic solution. This method of producing energy is extremely expensive because it’s unreliable, so it would need to be backed up by more conventional power sources.
Fueling inequality?
“There is no free lunch when it comes to the energy sector,” explains Professor Helm. “When you generate your own electricity, someone else has to buy it. In the end, other customers pay. Decentralisation is not cost-effective.”
“Consumers selling electricity back to the grid is one of the most costly things you could think of to reduce carbon emissions.”
He also fears the Conservative proposals will fuel inequality. The rich would invest in the fancy kit for their homes, and the poor would end up buying the power they generate.
“Essentially it’s going to be the middle classes that sell the electricity because they can afford the installation. Poorer customers will pick up the bill,” says Professor Helm.
Democratisation of power
Ben Warren, head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young, believes micro-generation should be encouraged. “The democratisation of power,” as he puts it, “where we control and own our own energy generation is something that is feasible.”
He believes there are two problems with the Conservative plan. First, the scheme depends on people wanting to take part. Public enthusiasm is not guaranteed. And second, Britain lacks the infrastructure to enable individuals to feed power back into the Grid.
But Warren believes the Tories should be commended for their ambition: “We are talking about technology that needs to be commercialised and made available to the public. So the Tory plans are ambitious but not necessarily unachievable.”
Nuclear option
According to Professor Helm, though, nuclear power remains a more realistic solution to Britain’s energy problem.”A few nuclear power stations make a great deal of difference,” he says.
“Decentralised energy produces lots of little bits of power, but on a scale that is intermittent and therefore needs backing up. You cannot say if the Tory target of 15 per cent is credible until you know the details. Crucially, it depends on which energy sources are included in it, and that remains to be seen”.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
The Tories had been planning to make the 15 per cent figure a manifesto promise. The policy document we’ve seen suggests they won’t nail their green colours to the mast quite so explicitly. That’s probably just as well, because to get so much energy from such small sources within just a decade would quite literally be tilting at windmills. Decentralised energy is too unreliable and too expensive, so the Tories would be fighting a losing battle. But that’s no reason to surrender. Lofty ambitions put the first man on the moon, so full marks for the quixotic vision, but with just weeks until a general election, a dose of more prosaic reality would be healthy.



There are 9 comments on this post
New nuclear build in the UK will only be at tbe behest of the French state (EdF) or massive taxpayer subsidy for both EOn and RWE.
The Conservatives will have to give up their free market credentials to get new nuclear. De-centralised generation would cut down on power lines through their heartlands and aid self-sufficiency. Nuclear power is provided by the corporate state, either in direct investment as it was in the UK, or by state loan guarantees, as in the US.
The next government should just let the energy market sort it out. .
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have a 3.24kwp PV installation, but have not had it long enough to confirm the estimated annual return of 9%pa, or £1115, which seems not bad. Running costs are nil, and I hope to power an electric car in due course. If I did not have a suitable site, but had, or could borrow, the required capital, it would be nice to be able to rent a site, perhaps the home of someone who is environmentally conscious but not financially blessed, for a small share of the income. Would someone like to set up a brokerage for this purpose? I, personally, have not yet found any flaws in the arrangement I have. I would gladly talk to anyone interested in this underated means of energy production.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In terms of carbon reduction, renewable technologies are recognised as the last and most expensive part of the jigsaw, after ‘reduction’ and ‘improved efficiency’. These two earlier steps are generally cheaper and have a very long way to go with most buildings (my area of operation) would achieve a 30% reduction at least in emissions and energy use without resorting to renewable energy source with paybacks of less than 5 years, compare that to renewables. Why would politicians focus on the most expensive option in these monetarily challenged times. I do not underestimate the macro energy issues but we should lose sight of the ultimate target of reduction in carbon emissions. To echo the professors point, the renewable incentives are set up so that those that install them will be subsidised by those that don’t install them. Let’s not lose sight of the real goal and follow the least expensive route. Do we have another option?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Watching your report I wondered how much does it cost to transport ten tons of wood pellets into central London each week to power that boiler and also what is the environmental cost of that?
On a lighter note the pellets look the same as the cat litter I buy. So I think I’m being ripped off at £1.25 for a small bag!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
you are!! We sell woodpellets and although we are looking to develop the woodfuel sector we found cat owners a willing market. It also works as horse bedding.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If it was a true fact check,where are the facts and figures.Why is an ambition quixotic.If all new houses were built with sufficient insulation and solar roof panels , the cost would be absorbed in the building and buying.As to selling back surplus to the national grid why is that particularly expensive when the grid is set up to every house??If fact check is going to be meaningful, it should be answering these type of questions instead of finding critics or advocates and using their opinion to state it as fact
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Fact check on the fact check – biogas is included in the Feed-In Tariff scheme to be introduced this April, if it is used to generate electricity, that is.
It is hard to know if the Tories’ proposal makes sense unless we know how they are defining “distributed energy”. In the electricity industry that means anything connected to the distribution network (i.e. up to 132 kV I think) rather than the transmission network (the large power stations connect directly to that). That definition would inlcude, for example, most windfarms in the 10s of MW, and is definitely not limited to individuals and communities – there is already a lot of activity amongst small generation companies investing in schemes under 5 MW.
But they say “energy”, so is heat/CHP also included here?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As usual “decentralised energy” is being taken to mean individual building scale “micro generation” which I agree is too expensive (particularly in urban areas where most of us live). UK’s centralised power stations throw two thirds of the input energy as waste heat (roughly the same amount that is needed by UK homes & businesses). If you site power stations nearer to urban areas you can use this ‘waste’ heat to heat buildings by installing heat networks. This is what Denmark did decades ago and is now reaping the rewards. Most UK customers are locked into using natural gas to heat buildings. If you have a hot water network supplying buildings you can easily switch the heat source when the fuel you are using becomes scarce, expensive or too high in carbon – e.g. Denmark gets a lot of combined heat and power generation from waste. Whereas we have many energy from waste plants that just generate electricity and chuck the heat away.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The example showed in the C4 News of a hydroturbine is actually completely misleading as under the recently published proposals for Feed In tariffs only systems accredited by the Microgeneration Certification Service will qualify for FITs. As there are no approved hydro machines or installers at present (and, as yet, no rules even written as to how machinery and installers will be approved) all existing small hydro schemes cannot get the FIT. Also there is a rule (about as anti-green as you can imagine) that no secondhand or refurbished machinery can qualify for FITs. In short, any pioneer who has rebuilt an old waterwheel or installed a hydro turbine will be shut out of the new rewards.
There is a lot of anger amoungst those who have at their own expense installed renewables and helped to kickstart the green energy movement only to see their efforts unrewarded.
See the petition at
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/GreenPioneers/
please sign and get fair play for green pioneers.
Like or Dislike:
0
0