A reduction in energy consumption has played a big part in the UK’s progress to net zero, so how come the government appears so reluctant to encourage further efficiency gains? In a column on the July/August issue of Energy in Buildings & Industry, Andrew Warren looks at how decisions appear to be driven by those who are more interested in supplying more energy rather than reducing demand.
Demand is just as important as supply
The global impact of wars in Ukraine and Iran is regularly labelled as energy -driven. But the more accurate phrase is surely “fossil fuel” driven. Imposing extreme price volatility ,and frequent scarcity, of oil and gas.
Such pressures are making little impact upon those who rely upon non fossil fuel electricity.
Increasingly the world is dividing between those who want to electrify their economies to achieve greater energy security and sovereignty. Like China and Europe.
And those that persist with trying to deploy 20th century thinking into the second quarter of the 21st century. Like Trump’s America. Despite the undeniable truth spelt out by the International Energy Agency that the vast bulk of new electricity investments worldwide are now concentrated on solar and wind sources. Winning on both economic and security grounds.
Global objective
But there is another compelling reason for seeking to electrify economies: to combat the threat of runaway climate change. This November will see the 31st UN annual Conference of the Parties (COP),with a headline global objective, dubbed “35 by 35”. It aims to raise the share of final energy demand met by electricity worldwide from just over 20% ( also the current UK share) to 35% by 2035.
The intention is to shift away from direct fossil fuel usage. And to transition to electric technologies. This of course is absolutely in line with the decade-old UK Government policy of achieving “net zero by 2050”.Worth remembering this is also a legal objective for every other European government as well as for the overall European Union. Indeed for every OECD country .But one.
Implementing this policy has ramifications for every company, indeed every household. Logically, it is sensible initially to seek to achieve success within the easiest and most manageable sectors.
Possibly why the only short-term objective set by the present government is to seek to deliver a largely non-fossil fuel based electricity industry during this decade. Progress to date has been impressive: thirty years ago, 92% of British electricity was generated from fossil fuels. Now just one-third is.
Forecasting error
How did this occur? The most critical contributory factor is that we are using so much less energy than we did before. Twenty years ago, we were consuming almost 162, 764 kilowatt tons of energy. By 2015 it had dropped 16% ( to 140,122 ktoe). Last year it was down to 128, 357 ktoe. Making a consumption drop of around 24%.A saving of over 1% p.a.
Worth noting that, back in 2005, official Government forecasts were perversely projecting – as today- an enormous increase in consumption. Official planning was based on an increase of over 25% in energy usage by now. A quite stupendous forecasting error- almost 50% wrong!
What has been happening with electricity usage? Although the actual reductions have not been as great as, for instance for natural gas (down 34%), it is worth remembering that in 2005 our grids were coping with consumption levels at 368 terawatt hours(TWh) of electricity. Last year the equivalent electricity consumption figure had dropped to just 322 TWh. That is a 14% reduction over 20 years, even as we are well into electrifying the economy.
Despite this real world experience ,Government is still creating policy based on absolutely enormous consumption growth. According to energy department deputy director Will Lochhead, from now on they believe demand will rise by 10% every year to 2030, by 50% by 2035, and over 100% by 2050.
Worth shouting about
All told, the UK has delivered a remarkable record of long term reductions via improvements in product and building efficiency, greater commercial expertise and changing consumer habits.
Strangely, it is leading to much scoffing from doctrinaire climate change sceptics. Like the present Conservative energy spokeswoman Claire Coutinho, who perversely dismisses such achievements as “disastrous”. But surely only for purveyors of pollution?
Even as he persistently attacks current UK carbon reduction policy, present US energy secretary Chris Wright does acknowledges the truth that “ three-quarters of the reduction in greenhouse gas is because they just don’t use that energy anymore.”
As the eminent Oxford professor Nick Eyre frequently points out, this means that much of the easy, uncontroversial transition towards net zero is being achieved simply by expediting the more rational use of energy. And as every energy or facilities manager can attest, there remain thousands of cost-effective opportunities to reduce demand still further. Yet to be delivered.
This level of achievement is truly one from which everybody involved should gain great satisfaction. it is a proud record that those responsible for running public policy might be expected to be shouting from the rooftops.
But the official silence is deafening.
Delivery vacuum
Symptomatic of this wilful neglect is the way that the UK government is now organised. There is no section of the UK industry department, or energy department, or transport department, or buildings department, mandated to consider delivering minimising energy waste from a strategic point of view. Instead the much touted Energy Efficiency Deployment Office was quietly abandoned.
Official statistics show that energy efficiency has long been the largest employment provider in the green economy. But there is nobody within Whitehall taking any responsibility for the undeniable truth that-since the sudden decision last December to abandon all funding from energy companies for nationwide insulation or fuel poverty alleviation programmes- a delivery vacuum has been left, which has already led to over 17,000 job losses in the installation sector.
Contrast that with the outcry when the motor industry or the steel industry even threatens less than one-tenth that number of redundancies.
It is an unbelievable twelve years since a UK government published any sort of long-term strategy paper considering the demand , rather than the supply side, of energy. The last one included a preface from the then Secretary of State ( Ed Davey), correctly pointing out just how many power stations can avoid being built so long as we deliver on energy efficiency. Quite so.
We have been delivering. This success should be built upon. And not constantly undermined by those anxious just to sell us more and more energy.
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 