More haste, less speed

There is little question that the hot story this month is the arrival of the long-awaited Energy Review from the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU).

The purpose of the study was to give an unbiased perspective of the energy situation in the UK today, in 2020, and beyond 2050.

The results are not what many were expecting. After years of sustained government pressure on construction professionals to produce increasingly energy efficient buildings we are now apparently being told that the situation is not as desperate as previously reported. It suggests that while we should still be concerned about the energy situation we are in a relatively healthy position in terms of supply meeting demand.

The study makes clear we should keep our options open with regard to innovation in energy production technology. Some may argue, though, that this is another example of UK decision-makers sitting on the fence. Is it not about time we made a decision on a preferred source for our energy requirements? Energy consultant Bill Bordass thinks we should still encourage new ideas but remains sceptical about the likely success of this approach. "I don't think there is any harm keeping our options open, providing we vigorously pursue alternatives while we do. The problem with Britain is that we sit on the sidelines until it is too late," he argues. "If we move to more renewables, generation will become less centralised and the grid will be used more as an exchange mechanism than a supply network."

Paddy Conaghan, partner at Hoare Lea, says the PIU is right not to commit to a particular source: "I think it would be wrong to second guess evolving technologies when each year we see new uptakes drive unit costs down. Also, if renewables are to make significant inroads on carbon emissions we need to harness them all."

The review explains that a fundamental concern should be the security of the UK's energy, following the experience gained from the California blackouts and the threat of terrorist attacks. It suggests that a diverse energy system in terms of types of energy and supply is the answer. Bordass believes there is an alternative: "In my opinion the safest way is to focus on energy efficiency – so we don't need to use it. A supply-side only solution is stupid because it will always lead to over consumption. We should look at having a decentralised energy supply, which means we won't have big strategic targets like nuclear installations."

Hoare Lea's Conaghan thinks including nuclear power in the diversity equation is fraught with difficulties, but it may need to be part of the plan anyway. "While I believe that nuclear should not form part of the plan, unless we get other carbon cutting and energy diversification measures moving pretty quickly, nuclear may become our only chance. At the moment that's not really a cause of much joy," he says.

Perhaps the most surprising and controversial statement from the review relates to UK greenhouse gas reduction targets. It reads as follows: "It would be unwise for the UK now to take a unilateral decision to meet the RCEP (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution) target, in advance of international negotiations on longer-term targets. Greenhouse gases are global pollutants, and it would make no sense to incur abatement costs in the UK and thereby harm our international competitiveness, if others were not contributing."

If the government adopts this suggestion in its Energy White Paper response, due to be published later this year, then it will undoubtedly cause a furious reaction from many sectors in the construction industry. While it could be seen as offering reassurance to all those struggling to meet energy demands a policy change that moves away from the government attitude of 'achieve these targets or else' to one of 'never mind – thanks for trying' will not be viewed favourably by those who have spent countless hours designing and erecting energy efficient buildings. Conaghan believes it would be wrong to back out now: "We can effect both the necessary improvements in energy efficiency and the progressive changeover to low carbon technologies without loss of amenity and lifestyle, and without cost burden, with just a minor rescheduling of cost imperatives driven by a simple reality check. The UK should be leading – we have the know-how and the opportunities are immense. Look at Denmark – its lead in wind power is now the basis of a £4 billion/year industry. But we cannot lead and then gripe about being out front!"

Bordass argues that if any legislation follows the PIU's recommendations it will be for politically-led economic reasons rather than a genuine concern for the nation's economic stability: "As I see it the problem is that buildings last a very long time and so you really do have to invest for tomorrow. This does not fit well with the short-term thinking of commerce.

"Governments should be there to sort this out, but in fact they are often the worst offenders with their next-election time horizons, non-joined-up-thinking, and the dead hand of the Treasury. If we actually invested properly to get buildings 'over the hump' they would become both cheaper and better."