The majority of the world population now readily admit that there is a looming and very real problem of global warming, and it is most probably caused or certainly expedited by the burning of fossil fuels.  The consumer is very aware of this and some most certainly wish to make lifestyle changes to reduce their “carbon footprint”. Given a choice of “do” or “don’t” most would choose correctly.  The fact that the “fair trade” market has grown exponentially over the last few years shows testament to the ability of the consumer to drive change in a market.

How can the average consumer make this change regarding their household/business energy supply?  Subject to planning and residence permissions, structural surveys, a varying degree of building works and then an installation/product cost most likely to outweigh any saving over the product lifespan - they could install a  roof-top or garden micro-generation system.  I’m all for micro-generation but it requires logical application to become sustainable.  Little point in placing a wind-turbine in the middle of a wooded valley or a photovoltaic just large enough to boil a kettle - when the lights are off.  Energy is consumed for the manufacturing of these products which must result in an overall nett-loss.

Larger (10kW+), planned micro-generation sites could however become one of the key answers – local generation for local use.  The benefits of saving the voltage drop over the huge distance of a national grid are vast.  The larger (UK) electricity suppliers however have no real incentive to adopt this system.  They can buy the green benefit (the renewable obligation certificate - ROC) separately from the producer to save their (overall) penalties and get away with paying only half the amount for any of the generated electricity.  Although modern meters have the ability to record both grid import and export none of the larger UK companies are willing to pay the same rate citing administration – they will sell to you at 12p/unit and buy from you at 4p/unit, some will simply not buy.Germany for example has a far better approach with a guaranteed “feed-in tariff” which is almost three times the consumer rates and fixed until 2024.  Germany’s power generating companies are required by law to pay this premium.  I appreciate that the ROC performs a type of subsidy for renewable energy, although unquantifiable until after the event.  However the purchase of this or the penalty charge is passed on to the consumer in one way or another.  Is it not more sensible for the consumer to get what they are paying for; either tie the ROC to the energy purchase with a greater price as does Germany or elucidate to the consumer the facts and allow them to make the choice of really buying green energy.