Clarity on Performance

Following the piece I did for BBC Country File on Feed in Tariffs, I found myself in an interesting debate in the letters section of New Civil Engineer. As usual, this started me thinking, this time about communicating sustainability to the public.

The standing of climate science is currently pretty low as it has become apparent that scientists overstated some of the issues. The same happens when Government makes overblown statements about the effectiveness of renewable energy in desperate attempts to meet its own policy targets.

The announcement launching Feed in Tariffs suggested that householders could earn £900 per year from installing PV. They failed to mention that this was only true for the South East of England, on a perfectly pitched roof, facing due South; hardly representative of the average. Further, such an array would be a little too large to fit on the roof of an average 3 bed terraced house and would cost £13,000-£15,000.

I believe that there must be much more clarity on the actual performance of real systems. We have already seen the market for DIY wind turbines killed off by public reaction to the overstatement of returns by manufacturers. This has reduced the choices for homeowners, even where these could have been installed in worthwhile locations. For engineers and Government to similarly hype up the potential returns from renewable energy does not do the industry any favours.

We need to build public trust and support for renewable energy by making realistic assessments of the returns they can expect from real installations, not theoretical ones.

Speed Kills

A roadside information sign exhorting me to slow down because ‘Speed Kills’ made me think today about how we communicate issues that perhaps people don’t want to confront, such as climate change and peak oil. We see exhortations such as this all the time, yet they don’t seem to be affecting people’s behaviour. Maybe this is because the message isn’t just wrong, it is patently so: speed evidently does not kill. There have been no recorded cases of motorists suddenly expiring as they pass the speed limit. No, it is suddenly stopping that kills most motorists.

I think it is the same with peak oil. It’s no use telling people to reduce their energy consumption, which they’re quite comfortable with, because of a possible future problem. It isn’t the present condition, but the change, that’s going to knobble us. The issue is that it will be so much worse if we don’t start preparing for the inevitable now. Like speeding in a car, it’s not the present rate of economic progress that is the problem, but what will happen when that progress is suddenly halted and we hadn’t prepared for it by slowing down.

When we are communicating messages about future risks we must avoid over-simplification and blatant fallacies or we will just be totally ignored.

I’m going to think about this and write more when I have made some connections.