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?
Showing posts with label emissions cap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emissions cap. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
CO2 in America
Remember the Simpsons Movie - where the EPA put Springfield under a big dome?
Well, they're taking over the world again, but in a much, much better way.
The EPA (or a body internal to it) has decided that it should think about regulating CO2 emissions - possibly only from coal, but possibly across the entire nation.
This is a fantastic thing (almost). The great thing is that it could bring the US in line with the EU, where CO2 emissions are capped and cannot (regardless of what is done) legally exceed the cap.
The bad news is that it will delay the certification process for new coal fired power stations over there for a year or two.
Perversely this bad news could be good news for the UK - if no one in the US can build a new coal power station the prices for a power station in the UK could fall, not only making Kingsnorth more likely, but lowering the cost of our electricity bills.
Life seems to me to always be one step forwards and two steps back, but today, much like the day Obama was elected, life seems to have forgotten about stepping back - at least for the UK.
Well, they're taking over the world again, but in a much, much better way.
The EPA (or a body internal to it) has decided that it should think about regulating CO2 emissions - possibly only from coal, but possibly across the entire nation.
This is a fantastic thing (almost). The great thing is that it could bring the US in line with the EU, where CO2 emissions are capped and cannot (regardless of what is done) legally exceed the cap.
The bad news is that it will delay the certification process for new coal fired power stations over there for a year or two.
Perversely this bad news could be good news for the UK - if no one in the US can build a new coal power station the prices for a power station in the UK could fall, not only making Kingsnorth more likely, but lowering the cost of our electricity bills.
Life seems to me to always be one step forwards and two steps back, but today, much like the day Obama was elected, life seems to have forgotten about stepping back - at least for the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)