During the occasional bout of idle musing, I’ve often wondered what it might be like to live self-sufficiently in some rural utopia. Not as depicted in the Good Life, with the odd chicken scratching about in a patch of home-grown vegetables, but by going the whole hog and embracing the full gamut of modern technologies: micro-turbines, photovoltaic arrays, ground source heat pumps, that kind of stuff. Then I’m brought crashing back to reality by the grind of modern life.
Presumably many people have similar daydreams, particularly engineers, as they have a greater understanding of the technologies involved than the public at large. And so we thought it might be interesting to ask a few questions around the adoption of renewable technologies, widening it out to more generic issues such as the possible emergence of a decentralised energy market one day soon. Thanks, as ever, to the more than 300 readers who responded to our probing.
The starting point for the questions this time around was the recent introduction of the “feed-in tariffs” system which means there is now a financial incentive for those who create their own electricity. Forget some spurious notion of saving the world – when cold hard cash was involved we thought that might have quite an impact on the number of people considering fitting renewable technologies.
So we asked how many of our engineers had thought about fitting solar panels to their house. Nearly two-thirds said they had thought about it. The 40% who hadn’t considered solar panels gave reasons such as high installation costs, long pay-back periods and the fact that they didn’t want to spoil the appearance of their home.
Interestingly, some companies are offering to install domestic solar panels free in return for a share of the savings the individual makes on their electricity bills. Now surely such a deal, with no upfront costs, would boost interest in solar technologies? Actually, no – roughly the same amount, 58% of the respondents, said they would be interested in such an arrangement, with 33% ruling it out, and 9% unsure. Those who said no tended to be staunchly against any private company making money out of their energy usage.
What about other technologies? Micro-wind turbines received a lot of publicity in the press a few years ago so we asked if readers had considered fitting one of those. Only 30% said they had thought about it, with 70% saying they weren’t interested. There was a very strong message here: many respondents felt that micro-turbines simply would not be economic as they would generate an insignificant amount of electricity over their lifetime. It was a marketing gimmick that only a politician, someone like David Cameron, would fall for, a handful of readers remarked rather acidly.
Ground source heat pumps aroused similar interest levels – 33% of respondents considering their installation. But there seemed to be an acceptance that ground source heat pumps was a proven technology and one that over time would prove economically worthwhile. But the resistance to take-up surrounded issues such as worries over the size of garden required and fears over the cost of excavation.
What the questions did reveal was that the simpler and cheaper the technology, the more likely it was to be adopted. Moving away from energy for a moment, we asked if our panel of engineers owned a rainwater collection device to supply their gardens. Almost half had such a device installed, and many of those who didn’t said it was only because they hadn’t got round to fitting one. Generally it was thought of as a good idea.
So, we thought that was enough on individual technologies and it was time to look at some of the wider issues at play. And this set of questions revealed a huge gulf between what engineers think would represent a healthy development of the energy sector and what actually might happen.
A hefty 80% thought that, in principle, the concept of micro-generation was a good idea. Engineers welcomed the concept of a more flexible system that moved away from the centralised energy network we have today. Minimal transmission losses and limited self-generation in the event of a blackout were given as positive reasons again and again.
But cynicism quickly followed. We asked if readers believed that the big energy supply companies were committed to the concept of micro-generation? Only 6% felt they were, with a walloping 79% believing the energy firms wanted things to stay the way they are. There was a real feeling that energy firms were paying lipservice to the issue and that it would take consumer pressure to make them change their mind.
Similarly, 85% of engineers said they didn’t think the UK would have moved demonstrably away from a centralised energy generation model within the next 10 years. This came down to several factors: cost, inertia among the consumer base, and a lack of maturity and efficiency of replacement technologies. Many felt that change would come, but more likely over 50 years rather than the next decade.
Finally, we asked who should drive the change in the way that people consume energy. Was it, we wondered, the role of government to offer financial incentives to help individuals move towards low-carbon living? Yes it was, said 70%, with 24% saying No, and 6% Don’t Know. This provoked a lively debate, with a general feeling that market drivers would not lead to carbon-free living and that government regulation and incentives had to push it in the right direction.
It seems that if you want that utopia of sustainable living, you will have to go cap in hand to government to get it.