WHY 2 DEGREES?

3. WHY 2 DEGREES?

5. Early emissions peak = lower emissions reductions per year

7. Precedents for such reductions... • Annual reductions of 1% p.a. have historically ..... “been associated with economic recession or upheaval” Stern 2006 • Collapse of the Soviet Union: 5% p.a. reductions

8. Most carbon targets expect China and India to peak around 2017... Is this reasonable?

9. 2025 peak Reduction 7% p.a. X2 Stern

10. Solar Panels In Context • 3.7 kW installation ~ 2,900kWh per year • costing around £13,500

11. Solar Panels In Context • 3.7 kW installation ~ 2,900kWh per year • costing around £13,500 • Average electricity consumption is 4,800 kWh per household per year • Average gas consumption is 16,000 kWh per household per year (BERR Energy Trends December 2007)

12. The Grand Plan - Electrify and Decarbonise Energy Consumption By Fuel Other 4% Electric Cars + Electric heating + Nuclear Power + Wind Turbines + CCS + ? + ? THIS IS NOT A DEMAND REDUCTION PLAN ARE SOLAR PANELS ABOUT DEMAND REDUCTION?....... Electrical 17.5% Natural Gas 33% Petroleum 45.5% DECC 2010 numbers

13. Rebound Effect Direct

14. Rebound Effect “Improvements in energy efficiency make energy services cheaper, and therefore encourage increased consumption of those services. This so-called direct rebound effect offsets the energy savings that may otherwise be achieved.... For household energy services .... Direct rebound effect should generally be less than 30%.” Sorrell, Dimitropoulos and Sommerville 2009 Jevons Paradox

15. Rebound Effect “Improvements in energy efficiency make energy services cheaper, and therefore encourage increased consumption of those services. This so-called direct rebound effect offsets the energy savings that may otherwise be achieved.... For household energy services .... Direct rebound effect should generally be less than 30%.” Currently no data on rebound associated with solar panels Sorrell, Dimitropoulos and Sommerville 2009 Jevons Paradox

16. Diffusion of FITs by relative wealth Leicester, P.A., Goodier, C., Rowley, P.N., 2011. Evaluating the Impacts of Community Renewable Energy Initiatives, in: ISES Solar World Congress 2011 Kassel Germany.

17. Diffusion By Neighbourhoods (peer influence on demand) 252 LSOAs in Bristol (32,482 in England) each with an average population of 1,500 people

18. Large domestic adopters of FITs evenly dispersed across the countries more affluent households • Low Income Groups not benefiting widely • Few clusters = Few community projects (educational benefit maximised?) Are solar panels becoming like recycling? Remember the phrase “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”

20. But..... Renewables including domestic solar are MORE beneficial....If.... We combine them with education and community projects, learning from our peers..... Such that they have a meaningful impact on consumption of energy

21. Demand Energy Equality

22. Take Home Messages • Climate Change requires URGENT action • Are solar panels making the middle classes feel better about themselves? Is this a hindrance to URGET action / demand reduction? • Do we want equitable change? • Will solar panels dent the surface of reductions needed? • How can solar panels bring about demand reduction?

23. Huge Increase In PV installations Since FIT Came In Total Domestic Electricity Demand ~ 120,000 GWh per year 35,000 x 2900 kWh = 101.5 GWh per year ...... Less than 0.1% of demand

25. Most carbon targets expect China and India to peak around 2017

27. How Do Technologies Impact Our Demand

30. Quick NPV calcs made to compare 2kWp systems under the former and new tariff • Parameters: • Tariff:    before 43.3p/kWh, new 21p/kWh • NPV: interest rate 4% • Electricity cost: 13.9p • RPI 3.6 • Energy inflation: 6% • Efficiency: 798 kWh/kWp • 30 year degradation: 80% • install size: 2kWp • Install Cost: £9K. • Under the old tariff £9K is made over 25 years with a break even after 12 years. Under the new tariff, this is just under £2K with break even at 21 years. • This concurs with the EST website.

32. Structure • Climate change – kevinanderson • Top down system – decarb and electrifiy • Demand side management • My initial results • We must reduce our demand • Rebound effect • Phillip – are feed-in-T’s the right way to go. Social divergence • Who are solar panels benefiting? Think beyon households • Not going to say that much on FIT changes

33. What i was planning to say • Can renewable power reduce energy consumption and why should we care about consumption of energy? (yes, but more likely if owned by households and not simply seen as a money making device) • Is the FIT equitable socially? who does the FIT benefit? is the FIT like recycling; making the middle class feel better about themselves and diverting attention from a bigger problem? • Is there an other way of using renewable technologies? .... leading into a quick bit on the "demand energy equality" social enterprise which helps low income households build solar panels.

34. What trevor will say • Trevor: • If we expect people to use energy responsibly (including cutting demand) then they need to be more than passive energy consumers of a highly complex and centralised energy system in the control of a handful of large corporate players.  The evidence shows that personal and community responsibility can be generated if there is a degree of 'active control' of the energy system. • FITs have provided a mechanism for communities to take some active control of an element of the energy system -renewable energy - and could have enabled communities to develop an independent income stream to invest in meeting the needs of the community (including measures to cut demand).   Perhaps this is the element that most frightened the big corporate players and hence central government? • Does the loss of FITs have to mean that there is no hope of developing such community control?  Are there are other routes and other support mechanisms that could be used to develop community control of the energy system?

35. What alex will say • 61% Cut in Feed-in Tariff for Social Housing • The changes to the Feed-in Tariff legislation announced today will render the vast majority of • the planned social housing programmes nationally uninvestable, including the ground-breaking • £175m pension fund deal arranged by social enterprise Empower Community, states Alex Grayson, • managing partner of Empower Community Management LLP. • “Community-focused social housing schemes, whether funded by social landlords or outside • investors, offer the greatest opportunity to support those in most fuel poverty. They also generate a • community income and raise awareness of energy efficiency, as well as re-balancing the inequity of • the able-to-pay being subsided by the less able to pay”, says Grayson. • “Investor confidence in these policy-backed emergent asset classes will undoubtedly be shaken, with • very negative consequences for RHI and Green Deal investments. Where else are we going to find • the hundreds of billions of pounds of investment we know we need in our energy infrastructure and • efficiency measures if not the pension funds?” • UK pension fund and other institutional investment is urgently needed to begin to approach the • hundreds of billions of energy infrastructure and efficiency investment we know we need in the • coming decade – just to keep the lights on, never mind our binding 2020 EU emissions reduction • targets. • Empower Community, is a charity-backed, start-up social enterprise with the mission to accelerate • the transition to sustainable low carbon local economies, by bundling portfolios of small energy • projects (starting with FIT-backed solar PV for social housing) into portfolios suitable for pension • funds. Income from every project is passed back to local community funds to help pay for further • initiatives for the benefit of those communities where the project is undertaken. • The steepest cuts to the FIT, to 16.8p for social housing projects, will hit the least empowered • members of society, with increasingly cash-pressured social landlords responsible for 20% of total • UK housing also negatively impacted. • The Feed-in Tariff has been the only policy instrument that provided investable business models • for the much-vaunted ‘Big Society’ agenda and the 6,000 or more community groups trying to build • community resilience. • There will be a huge loss of investment of time and money already spent developing these new • community-based initiatives which, along with the severe job losses that will result, all serve to • further erode the much-needed trajectory toward energy and economic sufficiency that we as a • society have never needed more than now.