Drop the bling for energy conservation

Published on Monday 23 November 2009 21:35

JONATHAN Fair (Opinion, 21 November) is correct to challenge the Scottish Government's insistence on covering buildings with "eco-bling". This has come about because of a requirement for on-site equipment to contribute at least an extra 15 per cent reduction in emissions beyond standards in the 2007 building regulations, promoted through the planning system via a document known as SPP6.

However, he is incorrect to insist the powers-that-be should reduce the requirement for low-carbon buildings. Targets can be delivered more effectively by a reduction in demand, through insulation and draught-proofing, rather than increasing supply via renewable energy technologies. These "unseen" improvements pay back in months, not years, in fuel bills and reduce carbon emissions more effectively and permanently than a renewables strategy.

Prioritising energy conservation "equipment" (insulation/draught-proofing) also addresses fuel poverty, which the development of renewable energy technology "equipment" will not – even in the long term.

SPP6 is driving this agenda. Its stated primary objective is "to support the full range of renewable generation technologies." The presumption is that "carbon reductions are secured at design stage". This presumption is flawed. Two recent, separate and independent feedback studies of on-site (ie, building-mounted) renewables report that micro-renewable devices deliver, on average, less than 9 per cent of their stated potential output, and micro wind-turbines deliver less than 4.5 per cent.

I invite Homes for Scotland to join my campaign to amend SPP6 to allow for common-sense, affordable and effective strategies to achieve energy conservation targets through means other than merely insisting on expensive and ineffective eco-bling.

PROF HOWARD LIDDELL

Hart Street Lane

Edinburgh