There has been some discussion lately about how the ECO – the Energy Company Obligation under the Green Deal – is regressive, and will put up energy bills. This is inherent in the way ECO is structured – but it is worth noting that the Feed-in Tariff for renewables works in the same way – but if anything, is even more regressive.
I wrote this article for the AECB in January 2012, and will also expore this aspect of the ECO a little more in a forthcoming article in Green Building Magazine (due out in Spring 2013)
View or download article: FiT and ECO will never solve fuel poverty
An opinion piece I co-wrote with Sofie Pelsmakers (author of The Environmental Design Pocketbook) appears in the February 2013 issue of the CIBSE Journal.
We look at the carbon footprint from biomass burning (high, even according to DECC) and point out the unintended consequences of well-intentioned planning requirements for ‘renewables’ and ‘sustainability’ – that lead to biomass plant eating up the budget, efficiency being sidelined, and CO2 emissions being high instead of low.
Read the article here: Biomass – the heat is on
Sofie and I also wrote a longer version for the AECB ‘Soapbox’ column – here:
Biomass heat: facing the carbon reality
DECC recently ran a consultation on electricity demand reduction (closed January 31st, 2013). I worked with David Olivier and other AECB members to help to compile the AECB’s response, which can be read/downloaded here -with kind permission of the AECB.
Electricity Demand Reduction – AECB response to DECC
The response drew in particular on AECB’s report Less is More, which also informed the short article on energy efficiency I posted on this site earlier.