Energy monitoring & optimisation

There are a number of reasons as to why it makes sense to be on a journey to Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions now, rather than to delay, but the particular journey does need to be consistent with the effective operation and survival of the business.

The first key reason is that becoming Net Zero for all scopes of emissions (direct and indirect) is complex and needs planning and coordination across all areas of the business. Successful businesses generally work to a plan over a number of years and due to the significant impact of Net Zero on a business, it also requires long term planning for it to be a success.

A related reason not to delay with Net Zero is that there are typically constraints relating to building or equipment life and budgetary expenditure that will need to be taken into account when implementing emissions improvement measures. For example, if there is a planned expansion or relocation of the business facility for reasons other than Net Zero, there may be a great opportunity to introduce a step change in emissions reduction measures, rather than incurring the likely greater costs of retrofit of such measures further down the line.

A further reason not to delay is that as the Government legislated deadline for Net Zero (2050 for the UK) approaches, the demand on professional services to support Net Zero is likely to be significantly greater and there will be less options available at an affordable price to meet requirements.

Finally, there are ways in which implementing Net Zero measures can save you money and the sooner you get on with them, the better for your business. This includes potential short term cost savings through reducing energy consumption and also establishing a position on Net Zero that is consistent with your customers’ requirements, thereby increasing the chance of securing contracts.

Priority should always be given to reducing energy demand before determining the appropriate form and scale of renewable energy supply, in accordance with the Energy Hierarchy. However, there may come a point whereby there are diminishing returns from the implementation of demand reduction measures and renewable energy is a more economically attractive proposition.

For example, once a certain level of insulation is reached for a retrofitted building, then it may be uneconomic to carry on increasing the level of insulation and reducing the size of a biomass boiler or heat pump to supply the heat. However, it is not only the current costs that should be taken into account when deciding on the balance - the greater the level of energy demand reduction that can be implemented, the less the exposure will be to the future volatility of the energy supply market, renewable or otherwise.

Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuel energy in many cases. For example in the UK, onshore wind energy and large scale solar power give lower cost electricity than fossil fuel generation.

There are hidden costs and benefits associated with the use of fossil fuels that are not always taking into account when comparing with renewable energy.

Benefits include upstream subsidies and hidden costs include those of mitigating or repairing the damage caused by fossil fuels (external costs). When these external costs are taken into account, renewable energy can be even more attractive.

It is expected that with time and the pressures of climate impact, these external costs will be internalised and a view might be taken on this when investing in renewables.