2016 Regs to be Watered Down?

The problems of defining, and then actually supplying, zero-carbon homes continue. There does seem to be some muddled thinking going on here. Somehow HMG needs to really think through (i) high quality, low energy-requiring homes and (ii) grid decarbonisation. A community energy fund just feels like the worst kind of off-setting and it's no wonder that the building industry is against it. But I'd be more sympathetic to their case if they'd sort out all the quality issues that exist in their sector. Passivhaus or similar is easily doable - why can't the UK building industry train their employees properly, manage their on-site quality control well, and produce decent homes? And why on earth have we had no prosecutions for homes failing minimum standards?

Lawson vs King

Woh! Just seen that the CBI is to host a debate between Nigel Lawson and David King. It would be fun to be present at that given that I find both to be somewhat outspoken. Will there be a decent referee? And how many judges?

Lomborg U-turn?

The Grauniad (I guess that's showing my age!) has an "exclusive" suggesting that Bjorn Lomborg's new book will declare that climate change is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today". The book will apparently call for significant investment in ways of resolving the climate change issue by the end of the century. That's an interesting timescale. Sure, climate effects show huge hysteresis but there's something a tad complacent about the way Lomborg's argument is put across. To be fair, it may be dodgy reporting rather than anything else but I just don't get any sense of urgency from the article. Also worrying is the implication that climate engineering is high on Lomborg's list of interventions. I quail at the thought of the law of unintended consequences once again letting rip!

Still, if the report is half-way accurate it's an interesting and timely publication given the problems that the IPCC faces at the moment. Perhaps Lomborg should not be compared with Hitler after all. (Actually I thought that was an absolutely crass statement by Pachauri and totally unworthy of someone in his position).

Nuclear Delays

Piece in the Guardian yesterday about the HSE's 2nd quarterly report on their Generic Design Assessment of proposed nuclear stations. As you might expect, the Guardian has a more sensational take on the situation than the HSE. One thing that struck me was HSE's comment that they are having to use more "technical support contractors". I chatted to some old colleagues a few weeks ago who vouchsafed that they are being inundated with work - particularly training up scientists and engineers for future operational work. The country has a huge skills gap given that the last station to be built was Sizewell B, that the research and engineering expertise was scattered to the four winds upon privatisation (20 odd years ago - tempus fugit!) etc. It rather makes one wonder if there are going to be a few repetitions of mistakes from the past.

Which reminds me of when I started at EST and became aware of all the problems that there had been with condensing boilers. Of course, those problems were just the same as we'd experienced in the power industry for years. Interesting that there'd been no cross-fertilisation - and it begs the question of how much more knowledge is being re-discovered, how much research is being duplicated, just because we are not good at cross-sector learning.

Back to the HSE. Their report does highlight a number of areas where the plant designers have been slow in bringing forward information or (more worrying, this) where the quality of what is being provided is poor. Delays happen, of course. This puts pressure on HMG ultimately to ensure "the lights don't go out" which I think they will achieve by breaking CO2 pledges (see my post from 24th August). Time will tell. But if there are quality issues now, what is likely to be the situation further down the line - especially if delays mount up and there is generated a tendency to cut corners?

Solar PV on the up

Encouraging article in the FT today (sorry, can't add a link - I've used up this month's free allocation and I'm too mean to subscribe) noting that a record number of homeowners have installed PV panels this month (2200 homes). It's all down to FITs which have really converted the economics (just wait until my inheritance rolls in!). Hopefully the vast majority of those installations will perform well (we don't want a repeat of the old double glazing salesman scenario). What is not clear is how many people are funding the installations upfront and how many are taking up the "rent your roof" offers. Also, there's nothing about advice on optimal usage (timeshifting appliance operation, for instance). Hopefully that is being given but one wonders.

Parenthetically, this summer has been great for my solar hot water system - my gas usage has been way down - I know the payback period is horribly long but none-the-less it gives me a sense of satisfaction.

On the double glazing front, our local paper this week carries an advertorial for a glazing concern trumpeting the fact that its windows have BFRC ratings. Without outwardly lying the article is misleading in that it states that the BFRC rating range is A to G (true) but doesn't say anything about Building Regs requirements (soon to be Band C or better under Approved Document L1B). It would be very easy for the uninitiated to think they were really "doing their bit" when all they are in fact doing is complying with minimum standards! I feel a letter to the press coming on.

Charles Hendry and the Energy Gap

There's a badly written piece on Energy Minister Charles Hendry in the Telegraph - but it does contain some interesting pointers. He is obviously keen to see strong investment in nuclear capacity and "sees it as his job to remove barriers to investment". This doesn't yet amount to direct subsidies, that would rock the coalition boat too much, but there's obviously a certain amount of scratching around for wriggle room - somehow increasing the cost of carbon to benefit all non-carbon generators (watch for rising energy bills). Don't get me wrong - I think there's a need for nuclear and C-pricing is one way of helping that happen - but why can't we be upfront with the debate? Incidentally, he's reported as saying there's a prospect for Magnox fleet life extension. I think that's sloppy reporting - aren't only Oldbury and Wylfa are still operating/ Presumably the comment was about the AGRs?

There's also mention of relooking at FITs and the RHI. The legislation has reviews of the former built in - so no surprise in comments about that. And the RHI looks expensive so expect that to be watered down if and when it comes forward.

No mention at all about the demand side (surprised?). Makes one wonder how joined up they are in DECC.

All-in-all I'm not convinced that there's a coherent approach to meeting electricity demand - and 2015 is getting awfully close.

Peak Oil

Hmmm. The Guardian online today picks up on a bit from the Observer suggesting that minister are more concerned about peak oil that they have hitherto let on. About time too! "Experts say they have received a letter from David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to the DECC, asking for information and advice on peak oil". DECC officials did not deny this but said it was a 'routine' enquiry. Why can't they just come out and say that peak oil is a concern? Later on in the article there's apparent official endorsement of the IEA's position that there is sufficient resource until 2030 as long as investment in new reserves is maintained. But 2030 is only 20 years away. Isn't this complacency rather worrying?