Stimulating innovation in renewable energy technologies: reflections on the German experience

Amber Rudd, the UK’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in last week’s speech on a new direction for UK energy policy, had a welcome section on the importance of innovation. However, it was also slightly inconsistent. Rudd said that we need to develop cheap and green technologies and that it is the government’s role to be an ‘enabler’. She also outlined the importance of creating new jobs in low carbon sectors such as offshore wind. So far so good. However, she also suggested that ‘Energy research and development has been neglected in recent years in favour of the mass deployment of all renewable technologies’. Juxtaposing innovation/R&D on the one hand and deployment on the other is not particularly helpful as research shows that a credible political commitment to deployment is key for stimulating companies’ investment in innovation and bringing down costs. In addition, phasing out competing established technologies – like the coal phase out Rudd also announced – could also become a key stimulus for investment in low-carbon innovation, as recent research from Germany shows.

Given the current energy policy debate in the UK, what can we learn from past experience of Germany when it comes to decarbonizing its electricity system, promoting innovation, enabling export opportunities and creating economic development and jobs? According to the findings of the GRETCHEN project funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research and led by Dr Karoline Rogge, Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow at the Sussex Energy Group at SPRU and Fraunhofer ISI, three key answers emerge:

  1. Consistent instrument mix: The promotion of renewable energies or other green technologies requires a well orchestrated, technology-specific combination of different instruments which stimulate knowledge development in green technologies (so called technology push), create demand for green solutions (so called demand pull) and assist the transition of the overarching system (through so called systemic instruments). In the German case, this aligned approach is exemplified by the combination of guaranteed feed-in tariffs provided through the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), increasing levels of public R&D funding for renewable energies and the provision of a skilled labor force. Interestingly for the UK, German innovators viewed support through the demand pull instrument EEG as more important for their innovation expenditures than public R&D support. They were also skeptical of shifting public support from demand pull to technology push measures, as was suggested by Rudd. In addition to the existence of a consistent instrument mix, the agreed nuclear phase-out by 2022 was considered the most important policy measure stimulating the future deployment of renewable energies. Together, this instrument mix signals attractive green markets which in turn stimulates companies’ investment in green innovation. The existing innovation studies literature supports this point and shows that the focus on government simply as an ‘enabler’ might not be sufficient to achieve a speedy transition towards a low carbon economy.
  1. Firm political will: German companies further emphasized that the strong cross-party commitment to the German Energiewende is an essential driver for their green innovation activities. This finding underlines the importance of a clear political vision and unambiguous political signals for the promotion of green innovation. In the UK context Rudd rightly points to the Climate Change Act as demonstrating this long-term political will, but the medium-term future is more uncertain given the debates about the fourth and fifth carbon budget and recent changes to renewable energy support and energy efficiency policy. The GRETCHEN project showed in the case of Germany that long-term targets by themselves are not a sufficient signal but that both the instruments in place as well as political debates drive companies’ perceptions of the governments’ political will regarding green change. This is exemplified by recent debates in Germany about the future of the EEG and subsequent changes which have created some uncertainty among investors. Partly as a result of this perceived loss in policy mix credibility, the high innovation expenditures of German manufacturers have decreased in recent years and the dynamic growth of patent applications has slowed down, too. For the UK this implies that current changes in its energy policy, such as the roll back of support for renewable energies and energy efficiency, may strongly undermine the credibility of the long-term targets specified in the Climate Change Act, and thus pose a serious threat to low-carbon innovation.
  1. Focus on the benefits of green change: However, it is exactly this green technological change and resulting export opportunities which GRETCHEN project partner GWS has shown to have positive net macroeconomic effects in terms of growth and jobs. Therefore, political debates should place greater emphasis on how the low carbon energy transitions can strengthen the economy and prosperity, as was the case in Germany. Rudd points to the importance of creating new industries and jobs also in the UK. However, for this to materialize the policy mix should recognize the economic advantages of continued expansion of renewable energies for which clear medium- and long-term market prospects are needed. In addition, benefits do not only arise on a national level, but also globally. As a matter of fact, the global expansion of renewable energies is important for climate policy, because it reduces the carbon intensity of global production chains and lowers technology costs through economies of scale and learning effects. As a result it enables countries developing their electricity supply to access renewable energies more cost-effectively. Therefore, policies supporting the development and deployment of renewable power generation technologies represent a major stepping stone for reaching an ambitious global agreement at the upcoming Climate Conference in Paris. In turn, such an agreement sends strong signals for an attractive global market for low-carbon technologies, thus further driving green change. Therefore if Rudd wants the UK to be a champion for example in developing an offshore wind or carbon capture and storage industry, this should not be just seen in a UK context but as a contribution the UK can make to solving the global problem of climate change beyond reducing emissions at home. This should be part of the answer to Rudd’s question ‘What is the UK’s role in that global decarbonisation?’. In short, the German experience shows that green innovation is clearly key for decarbonising the electricity system, but focusing on government simply being an enabler and focussing too strongly on short-term cost reductions may not do the trick. And it may mean that the UK is missing out on benefits arising from stimulating such green innovation.

Karoline Rogge & Florian Kern

Interested in finding out more? Then take a look at the GRETCHEN report “Green change: renewable energies, policy mix and innovation” which Karoline and her project team from Fraunhofer ISI, GWS Osnabrück and University of Jena just published based on research funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) as part of its funding priority “Economics of Climate Change” under the ref. no. Econ-C-026. Karoline and Florian are also currently involved in a project looking at policy mixes aimed at stimulating the emergence and diffusion of low energy innovations in the UK as part of the UK RC-funded Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand (CIED).

KarolineKaroline Rogge is Lecturer in Energy Policy and Sustainability in SPRU, and Senior Researcher at the Fraunhofer Institute of Systems and Innovation Research. Karoline’s interdisciplinary research focuses on the link between policy and innovation in the energy sector, and ranges from studying the innovation impact of single policy instruments, such as the EU emissions trading system, to evaluating the effects of comprehensive policy mixes for promoting the low carbon transition. Karoline has extensive project management experience and in-depth knowledge of German, European and international climate policy. She has advised the German government for ten years, including as a member of the scientific secretariat of the German Emissions Trading Stakeholder Group and has acted as a consultant to the OECD and World Bank. Karoline is currently leading the GRETCHEN projectinvestigating the influence of the policy mix for renewables on technological and structural change in Germany.

Dr Florian Kern

Florian Kern is a Senior Lecturer at SPRU and Co-director of the Sussex Energy Group (SEG). He has more than eight years of experience in research, consulting and teaching in the area of energy, climate and innovation policy and socio-technical transitions. Florian’s research focusses on policies and policy processes aimed at stimulating the transition to a low carbon economy. His work draws on innovation studies as well as policy analysis and political science. He has published in journals such as Technological Forecasting & Social Change,Energy Policy, Policy & Politics, Environment & Planning C, Policy Sciences and Environmental Politics. Florian is leading one of the cross-cutting projects of the Centre on policy synergies and trade-offs.

 

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in All Posts, CIED, policy, renewables

Tackling Fuel Poverty – Whose responsibility is it?

By Mari Martiskainen and Sarah Schepers, Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand, November 2015

Fuel poverty – an issue affecting 2.35 million people in England alone, one that has wide-reaching causes and implications not only for those directly affected, but also for the wider society and economy. Annually, It costs the NHS approximately  £1.36m as a major contributing factor in several thousand deaths from the cold weather and thousands more hospital treatments for related illnesses. With no long term policy support, it is fast becoming a major public policy issue. Read more ›

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in CIED, Community Energy, Housing

What are we doing when we DO open science and inclusive innovation?

Adrian Smith, Research Fellow at the Sussex Energy Group and Convenor of Grassroots Innovation Project at the STEPS Centre, wrote a blog post on 12th November 2015 on ‘What are we doing when we do open science and inclusive innovation?’ that was published by the STEPS Centre following the ‘launch’ event of STEPS América Latina earlier this month. The event aimed to explore the politics of technology and science in society that support pathways to sustainable development, and Adrian’s article provided some insightful closing remarks to the first day, which focused on inclusive innovation and open science: two of four topics central to the work of STEPS América Latina.

You can read Adrian’s blog post on the STEPS Centre Website in full here.

 

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in All Posts

Mari Martiskainen on fuel poverty for ‘The Conversation’

A photograph of Mari Martiskainen smiling

As thousands die, the UK must face up to its responsibilities on fuel poverty

Mari Martiskainen, University of Sussex

As we approach winter, many of us start turning the heating back on, but there are thousands of people across the UK who dread the onset of colder weather as they are forced into the fuel poverty trap. It is a phenomenon that kills, and worse, something we have become accustomed to. Another year, another set of headlines that should shock us into action, but rarely do.

In 2013, an estimated 2.35m households lived in fuel poverty in England. Furthermore, there are an estimated 26,000 deaths each year which can be linked to the cold weather during the winter months, and at least partly explained by fuel poverty.

Fuel poverty statistics for England (2003-2013)
DECC, 2015. Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report.

Fuel poverty is a persistent problem, but what exactly is it? There is no one global definition of fuel poverty, but many countries use the initial UK definition. In brief, you are in fuel poverty if you need to spend more than 10% of your income on heating and electricity in order to have the required energy services to cook, have lighting, keep warm, have a hot shower and so on. This definition has been updated since, but the old version is still widely used across EU countries. It also means that it is possible to be fuel poor even though you may not be otherwise living below the poverty line.

It is estimated that anywhere between 50m-125m people live in fuel poverty in the EU, and that figure is expected to rise in the coming years. Whichever end of that range you choose to believe, then this is a significant number considering that there are around 500m people living in the EU. While the issue of fuel poverty has been recognised in many countries, awareness is still lacking.

Cause and effect

There are usually three causes linked to fuel poverty: the poor energy efficiency of housing stock; high energy bills; and low incomes. As a combination, these three factors often mean that people vulnerable to fuel poverty have to make hard decisions over which room of the house to heat and whether to wash clothes by hand or not wash them at all. Furthermore, being fuel poor also means that you are more likely to suffer from poor health, especially respiratory diseases like asthma, as well as anxiety and depression. The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group estimated in February that the impact of cold homes cost the NHS some £1.36 billion every year.

There have been numerous programmes in the UK, which have been aimed at fuel poverty, including the Winter Fuel Payments. However, it seems that official action on fuel poverty has not been able to get to the root of the problem – especially given that the government’s commitment to deliver energy efficiency measures has reduced considerably in the last two years.

Being fuel poor often has a stigma attached to it and it is not always easy for authorities to immediately recognise those who may be in need of help. The persistence of the problem has prompted others to dive in. These have included health workers, who can see a benefit in helping those who live with fuel poverty and have respiratory or other health complaints. It is a simple equation as lifting people out of fuel poverty usually also improves their health, which then reduces their need for hospital visits. You also get interventions from civil society; community groups which address sustainable energy often have both the means and the motivation to offer help.

Energy Cafe in action.
South East London Community Energy (SELCE)

Those community-run initiatives can include “energy cafés” like the events run by South East London Community Energy. Around ten energy cafes have been set up across the UK by different groups, to provide information and advice for those vulnerable to fuel poverty. They often involve getting volunteers into a high street location for a limited amount of time, from where they can hand out advice about energy issues to the public. This might focus on energy market engagement – like how to switch energy providers, on energy efficiency or behaviour change. These community-led cafés are pretty well placed to reach those at risk of fuel poverty; it can be as simple as an informal discussion over a cup of tea.

Stepping in

However, the immediate question this raises is clear. When ad hoc initiatives start to address national concerns, then it is time to ask whose responsibility is it really to tackle fuel poverty, and who should pay for it? Should it be community groups, health authorities or the government?

Community groups are well placed to access people in a subtler manner than government agencies or energy companies might be able to. However, many rely on volunteer time and grant money – both often intermittent and limited.

While fuel poverty has been tackled from many angles, the problem ultimately cannot be solved without dedicated, long-term, government action to address the quality of the housing stock, not only in terms of improved energy efficiency but also in terms of improved quality of life. It is vital that we as a society address fuel poverty as part of a wider ethics issue, and ask the government can it really afford to lose another 26,000 people to fuel poverty this winter?

The Conversation

Mari Martiskainen, Research Fellow, University of Sussex

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in All Posts, CIED, Community Energy, Housing, policy

All at sea: making sense of the UK’s muddled nuclear policy

A new ‘The Conversation’ post by Phil Johnston and Andy Stirling

Philip Johnstone, University of Sussex and Andy Stirling, University of Sussex

The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has recently been waving huge wads of cash at different (but similarly delinquent) parts of UK nuclear policy. In August, he sailed triumphantly up the Clyde to the Trident-hosting Faslane Naval base to announce £500m of investment. This was a move many considered to be jumping the gun, or even “arrogant” given that no final decision has been made on its renewal.

A few weeks later, on his tour of China, Osborne was announcing an astonishing £2 billion loan guarantee to city investors if the developers of the Hinkley C reactor go bust. And this is additional to a guaranteed strike price of £92.50 per megawatt hour for 35 years (roughly double the current price of electricity – and significantly more than the current strike price for several renewables). As Simon Jenkins writes in relation to the chancellor’s recent announcements: “You can accuse George Osborne of many things, but austerity isn’t one of them”.

No laughing matter

It has got to the point with Hinkley C where one must wonder how Osborne, the secretary of state for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd and the chief executive of EDF, Vincent de Rivaz, manage to keep straight faces while repeating what a good deal the project will be for everybody. The French state-owned energy firm EDF is due to partner with the Chinese under the deal announced by Osborne in Beijing, and Rivaz’s boss, Jean-Bernard Levy, has admitted that the Chinese state is the only investor that can be persuaded that the project is viable.

Even this is only possible, with still-secret commitments that the Chinese can then build their own further nuclear power stations in the UK. Indeed, there is now virtually no commentator in the British media, or elsewhere, who seriously considers the Hinkley C project to be a sensible idea. As the most expensive nuclear power station ever built, left and right are united in recognising it as one of the worst infrastructure project decisions in British history. Experts formerly claiming nuclear to be a “necessity” now seem to have realised that other low-carbon pathways are not only possible, but manifestly more attractive.

Off the grid. Power games.
Nayu Kim, CC BY

British journalists who were noisily insisting people were wrong to protest against Hinkley C are now themselves equally vociferously arguing against the power station. As support for renewables are cut and commitments to Hinkley remain, international observers look on in wonder at UK energy policy – but for all the wrong reasons.

It seems a sorry end for the unusual partisan attachment that the UK government has shown for new nuclear since 2008. With all the efforts of orchestrated pro-nuclear advocacylambasting anyone daring to depart from complete ideological commitment to new nuclear – it might be expected that nuclear plans would be looking more secure. But the main aims now seem to be blame management and saving face.

Route map

Never plausible to anyone recalling past episodes of nuclear enthusiasm, the latest bout of zeal for a “nuclear renaissance” has now lost all credibility. With global investments in renewable electricity two years ago overtaking those in all fossil fuel generation put together, the direction of change is clear. Numerous international assessments show renewables are already price-competitive even with optimistic costings for new nuclear.

Panel beaters. Renewables are outpacing nuclear.
BELECTRIC UK, CC BY-SA

Despite better nuclear engineering and a worse renewable resource, developments in Germany reinforce the picture. Even in the UK, where official analysis tends to remain eccentrically romantic about nuclear, the picture has long been clear for anyone with an open mind. As early as 2003 the most detailed energy white paper for decades found nuclear power “unattractive” – before being overturned by a cursory revision that was itself rejected by judicial review for being too superficial.

Specialist analyses for the UK government – of kinds that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has resisted making public – repeatedly find many renewables to offer better value than new nuclear. This is borne out in the government’s own data for electricity contracts. And, for any project with such a long lifetime, perhaps even more damning is that renewable costs keep dropping, while nuclear costs keep rising.

So it is an understatement to say it is odd that DECC is cutting support for onshore wind, solar power and ending support for home energy efficiency – while unswervingly staying committed to extortionate new nuclear power. Former minister for energy, Ed Davey, puts it bluntly:

Twitter

For Davey, the only explanation can be one of partisan commitment by Osborne – because “he just wanted a nuclear power plant”. It is sure that Osborne is no environmentalist. With so much nuclear work contracted abroad and UK employment allowed to haemorrhage in other sectors – for instance in steel and solar power – it doesn’t seem Osborne is motivated by jobs.

Attracting Chinese infrastructure investment may play a role, but the realities make it clear there are many more economically promising alternatives than nuclear. And encouraging Chinese involvement in a technology with such grave national security implications further compounds the oddity. George Osborne’s nuclear obsession really does require some kind of explanation.

‘Deep state’

As we have explored elsewhere, perhaps the best clue lies in Osborne’s trip up the Clyde to Faslane; maybe the real commitment here is to maintaining Britain’s nuclear arsenal. Amid the clamour of the recent China visit, it was also announced that a big slice of Hinkley contracts would go to Rolls Royce – the makers of Britain’s nuclear submarine reactors.

HMS Vigilant returns to port.
Defence Images, CC BY-NC

The calculation seems to be, that trickle-down from foreign power reactor manufacturers may be just enough to sustain a national industrial capability sufficient to continue the nuclear-armed status that current debates remind is so emotively cherished both by Tories and at the top of Labour. There are tantalising signs that this lay behind the strange reversal in nuclear white papers mentioned above. If this is not at the bottom of Osborne’s mind, it is difficult to know what is.

If so, the implications for the health of UK politics are extremely serious. The Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party is raising these issues anew. All sides are limbering up for the coming argument over Trident. But if the above analysis is true, then massive financial pre-commitments are being made (and some already firmly in place) on an unprecedented scale, that risk effectively locking in a decision before the process of making it has ostensibly begun.

With mainstream press reports of senior British Army figures mooting mutiny under a Corbyn government, this carries more than a whiff of something akin to an unaccountable British “deep state”. For anyone who cares about democracy – whatever their views on nuclear power or nuclear weapons – now is the moment to ask some searching questions about what nuclear policy is doing to British politics. And there seems no-one better to ask than Osborne.

The Conversation

Philip Johnstone, Research Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex and Andy Stirling, Professor of Science & Technology Policy, SPRU and co-director of the ESRC STEPS Centre, University of Sussex

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All Posts, nuclear, policy

Follow Sussex Energy Group on Twitter

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual authors and do not represent Sussex Energy Group.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 102 other subscribers.

Archives

Subscribe to Sussex Energy Group's quarterly newsletter