The net result is confusion. Somewhere at some point some leadership is needed. This could be from the government or from industry - but at the moment it is not clear in the confusion which direction we are heading in.
Builders (and I include all brands of architects, surveyors, bricklayers etc) want to build and make money. Carbon Neutral houses do not make sense to them. New forms of heating from new industry players also do not make sense to them. The costs of building increase and their commercial nature is threatened. The result is uneducated twoddle that only builders can comment on. Alternatively misinformed comments abound for instance:
"For they argue that growing wood (or other biomass crops) just to burn is really just another form of offsetting. And that, as wood burning releases more CO2 than mains gas (per kWh), pretending biomass is a near zero-carbon fuel is a conceit. And to subsidize wood burning, which is what the Renwable Heat Incentive proposes, is a nonsense."
The Renewable Heat Incentive has not been announced - but the discussion document did not suggest what to do with the wood waste made probably as a bi-product of the construction or paper industry ie not a crop to burn. In that sense the waste is destined for landfill or incineration - why not use it for home heating!!!!!! Wood pellets are not "wood burning" - and subsidising log burning is not on the agenda. I am at a loss to see what the motive is for these sorts of articles - other than it is a "cause" to fight motivated by politics or greed or both.
The problem with articles like the two above - or even from Ryan Air boss - saying that the whole carbon argument is flawed ("please let me burn more fuel") - gets airtime as he has power.
What is really scary is when an article is in the paper it gets jumped on by lots of people - repeated, reblogged, tweeted, and then blogged again.
Unfortunately governments and scientists have the same problems even though they may have "clever people". Most of us do not trust governments and some may not like to admit that they simply have not got the brain to understand what scientists are on about. The whole thing is too difficult - that will either make you think that you should do more research and not make a decision - or take some action as you have a strong gut feeling - or believe something as someone you "like" has said something. Alternatively if you are in business you defend your position for what it is worth.
We think pellet boilers look really nice!
Somewhere in the middle the consumer will get a small percentage of the facts, some of the opinions and have to make their minds up on who is right. Perhaps they could all go to Brighton on the next Bank holiday and have a fight - the modern equivalent of mods and rockers.
The reality is that business has to take a position based on greed - and then fight for position. The right and wrong of it all at this point is irrelevant - its what other people "believe" is what counts.
We believe that biomass boilers made to a high standard and can supply controllable heat to small and large buildings alike. The fuel cost is currently less than gas.
So is biomass a dead end?
At the moment Wessex Installations is getting enquiries, we are doing surveys, and installing. On a micro level it is not a dead end for us. Some support would be nice - and whilst you cannot expect interested parties to drop their baton and take yours - clear leadership in any direction would make our jobs more straightforward.
We would prefer to be discussing whether individuals want fuel stores (at an increased cost) or whether they are happy to pour in the fuel themselves. Austrian boilers like Windhager and Oekofen do provide high quality automated solutions.
Governement incentives such as the Renewable Heat Incentive seem to be supported by the Guardian, the Climate Change Committee, the civil servants at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Renewable Energy Association, Friends of the Earth, the Centre of Alternative Technology, most of the companies selling renewables and possibly a few others including a much diminished Labour party.
Those against are the Energy companies, builders, right wing conservatives and their think tanks, anti climate change lobby, the Telegraph, and anyone who thinks their heating bill and/or tax bill will rise as a consequence of the policy (that may be a larger amount of people than I would like).
In the middle are the liberal democrats who both support in principle yet do not come off the fence at the same time.
A sobering thought is that many people have not seen a biomass boiler working. In fact "a survey said " 93%. During a show in the summer I had lots of wood pellets available to look at - and for many who visited the stall - it was the first time they had seen them.
For those that still do not know - a virtual look!
All this argument and many people do not know what they are arguing about.
On the other hand wood pellet producers such as Balcas on a national level or http://Energy2burn.co.uk on a local level have been working to ensure that there is a supply chain of wood pellets nationally. They are also working hard to show people little pellets of wood and explain how it burns.
Boiler manufacturers have ensured that their boilers are saleable through putting them through an arduous accreditation process. Installers have also become accredited. There are therefore a number of people who can supply heat. They are not as big as British Gas - and they do not get the subsidy that the big energy companies get for Nuclear or research and development or Renewables Obligations.
These are people who are taking some action - you can argue whether it is forwards or backwards - but they are largely investing their own cash into their businesses and taking a risk that a growing number of people will like what they do - and I do think it is "like" rather than feel it is "the right thing to do".
I am sure that within the "spin" we will find out what turns people on - whether we should be talking more about remote controls and modems, the cost of the fuel, the design, or the price and availability of oil. Strangely it never seems to be about how "green it is" it is almost as though it is a given.
Meanwhile no doubt British Gas and RWE National Power will continue to argue about who is "greener" despite the evidence. The marketing campaign last year had many rolling in the isles - but perhaps it worked on others. The building industry will squeak at the pressure they have been put under to provide carbon neutral homes and even more about renewable heating. The present UK government will continue to be "the greenest government ever" against little competition this side of the industrial revolution - (although Maggie helped to shut 150 collieries).
Until there is a puff of smoke from the Autumn revue very few of us know what to believe in reality. In the pro biomass camp we take heart from the fact that people still have jobs at DECC and the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is still on their website. The Climate Change committee were appointed to find out "the truth" and they want the RHI. The UK is signed up to meeting carbon targets. 47% of carbon produced in the UK is heat - and the RHI is the only strategy in the melting pot that reduces carbon emissions.
On the "dark side" the lobby power of energy and construction companies is not to be ignored. RWE National Power do refer to electricity as "clean energy". For those of you who have not been to a power station please see Didcot below:
Chris Huhne has said repeatedly that he is a supporter of "renewable heat" and that "they" are investigating the RHI ........ support but no action (as yet).
