AECB challenges value for money of Government’s green-energy strategy
AECB, the sustainable building association, has called on the Government to stop wasting £billions on a ‘green-energy’ strategy that delivers neither value for money nor energy security. The association’s advice is that the Government should focus on the cheap and, even, free green alternatives that are being ignored or sidelined. The association has challenged the Government and the energy industry to show the value for money behind the ‘electricity generation first’ vision for a low-carbon future and to assess other options on a level playing field.
The association wants to see every green technology supported on its own merits, but argues that some approaches are unfairly disadvantaged.
On the Government’s own admission, AECB points out, properly insulating buildings saves 10 times more greenhouse-gas emissions per £ spent than the previous Feed-in Tariff and still offers five times the abatement per £ with the reduced tariff.
Research by the AECB for a forthcoming report indicates the following.
• Insulating UK buildings, the worst constructed in central or northern Europe, offers the same carbon and energy benefit as offshore wind turbines — at about a fifth of the cost.
• Nationwide energy-efficiency drives such as upgrading lighting systems could abate climate change at a profit. Only changes to utility regulation are needed; the technology is already there.
• Energy consumers are being told to finance a vast increase in electricity generation and transmission. However, if demand were cut, few of these power stations would be needed.
• An all-electric future as currently proposed risks having too little energy storage to buffer the ups and downs of renewable-energy supply and demand, increasing the risk of not being able to keep the lights on.
Andrew Simmons, chief executive of AECB, says, ‘What worries us is that the strategy options on offer from the Government appear neither practical nor secure and do not offer the cheapest way to get where we need to be by 2050. In a time of swingeing austerity, that is extraordinary
