What price should be put on energy security? I would most happily put quite a large price!
Others disagree - the trouble is they matter - they're the people who sign off the infrastructure.
The UK does have very little gas storage. It's very expensive - gas has to essentially be contained in old gas fields and is much more expensive than oil (which requires steel tanks) or coal (which requires a big field).
Jim Watson is arguing today in the guardian that we need to increase our gas storage in this country - and I think he's right. Energy security is an issue and needs to be looked at.
I disagree, however, that this would solve the energy security problem. There is more to energy security than just having power - if it's too expensive for me to buy then it's exactly the same to me as not having any.
Diversification can solve this. If the price of gas rises greatly less gas is used in electrical generation, more coal is used. The opposite happens when the price of gas falls.
It keeps my electrical bills down.
The final argument is a limit on electrical generation emissions of 500g/KWh. This is designed simply to ban coal - it serves no other purpose.
I would also ask what the point is in this cap - after all we operate in a fixed carbon market at the moment where a scalable cap already exists.
I don't understand the difference. Why is this not merely an opportunity for people to flex their green credentials?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment