The Fellsassociates (whoever they are) have just published another (in quite a long line now) of reports detailing how we should move ahead to a low carbon economy.
There are some big names amoungst the authors, including one from Imperial who I have heard of.
Largely I think that they are correct. What is interesting to note is that they are NOT calling for a scrapping of renewables (etc. etc. etc.), rather restating what is already known - local generation is inefficient, the renewables obligation is really really expensive, we're going to have to rely on fossil to make up the ballance of the electricity generated for a long time yet, our power stations are closing down.
The position they are taking is one of pragamtism. You can't have a low carbon economy without nuclear. A severn barrage, whilst very expensive and having a strong negative impact on wildlife in the estuary, will generate a lot of electricity very reliably with few emissions.
Someone has finally stood up and said it - "Wind currently has a nameplate capacity of 2546MW from 2032 turbines, which actually delivers an average production of 635MW... If the initiative is left to the market, without radical government rethinking, we will get more of the same – gas-fired stations, with their dependency on imported fuel, and unreliable, highly subsided wind".
We're not arguing against wind mind - it has it's place. We just want to see more than just wind.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Presidential electoral pledges
With the candidates for the presidency announcing their energy policies I thought that I might take a quick peek.
What surprised me was what Mr. Obama was proposing - an 80% reduction in America's CO2 emissions by 2050.
Wow.
What surprised me more is that McCain is also talking about reductions - and this time with interim targets. He's only talking about 60% by 2050. All the same, the extra interim targets could make this the better plan - which makes a bigger difference to global warming (imagine if all of Obama's 80% reduction came in 2049...).
He's also talking about investing in CCS, electric vehicles and smart meters.
Now, I suspect that Obama would do the same thing - he's just not yet published enough details for us to work out the details.
So, in summary, if either the Democrats or Republicans get into the White House, and keep their promises, the world could become a very different place.
What surprised me was what Mr. Obama was proposing - an 80% reduction in America's CO2 emissions by 2050.
Wow.
What surprised me more is that McCain is also talking about reductions - and this time with interim targets. He's only talking about 60% by 2050. All the same, the extra interim targets could make this the better plan - which makes a bigger difference to global warming (imagine if all of Obama's 80% reduction came in 2049...).
He's also talking about investing in CCS, electric vehicles and smart meters.
Now, I suspect that Obama would do the same thing - he's just not yet published enough details for us to work out the details.
So, in summary, if either the Democrats or Republicans get into the White House, and keep their promises, the world could become a very different place.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Malcom Wicks
Our energy minister recently gave a speech on fuel poverty where he was heard to say that "we are not going to sacrifice fuel poverty on the altar of climate change".
It's almost a statment of the obvious - no democraticaly elected government is going to remain elected if they bankrupt their voters.
Of course, with the recent rise in oil prices (which for reasons that I don't understand force a rise in gas prices), coal is once again one of the cheaper options of generating electricity.
CCS will of course make it more expensive and I've heard that it may double the cost of generation (but remember that the cost of electricity is set by much more than the cost of generation).
Where does this leave UK energy policy? Probably somewhere between improving insulation and energy efficiency, increased winter fuel payments, and higher taxes / bills for the test of us.
...oh yes, and a new government (one which can point out that the price hikes were the fault of the previous one, and not theirs).
It's almost a statment of the obvious - no democraticaly elected government is going to remain elected if they bankrupt their voters.
Of course, with the recent rise in oil prices (which for reasons that I don't understand force a rise in gas prices), coal is once again one of the cheaper options of generating electricity.
CCS will of course make it more expensive and I've heard that it may double the cost of generation (but remember that the cost of electricity is set by much more than the cost of generation).
Where does this leave UK energy policy? Probably somewhere between improving insulation and energy efficiency, increased winter fuel payments, and higher taxes / bills for the test of us.
...oh yes, and a new government (one which can point out that the price hikes were the fault of the previous one, and not theirs).
Friday, July 25, 2008
Regulation
It's obvious really - before you can pump CO2 underground (at least inside of national boundaries) you need to have some form of legal framework.
The UK is, I believe, working on this - however so to is the US.
According to point carbon both a US House Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are working on legislation to support CCS.
Good news - provided of course that the rules they decide upon are sensible. In the UK I've heard an industry spokesman describe a risk that the health and safety executive would require any CO2 pipeline to be routed up to half a mile distant from any dwelling. The idea would be that were the pipline to leak everyone would be safe from the CO2.
Apart from (effectively) blocking the introduction of CO2 pipelines this would be pointless - afterall pipelines would always be designed to leak before they break - meaning that the risk of catastropic pipeline explosion is almost none existant. Any CO2 leakage would just be a thin plume that wouldn't cause any harm to anyone - it would dissipate into the air very rapidly.
As such I don't believe that such a stipulation would either be required, or introduced.
The UK is, I believe, working on this - however so to is the US.
According to point carbon both a US House Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are working on legislation to support CCS.
Good news - provided of course that the rules they decide upon are sensible. In the UK I've heard an industry spokesman describe a risk that the health and safety executive would require any CO2 pipeline to be routed up to half a mile distant from any dwelling. The idea would be that were the pipline to leak everyone would be safe from the CO2.
Apart from (effectively) blocking the introduction of CO2 pipelines this would be pointless - afterall pipelines would always be designed to leak before they break - meaning that the risk of catastropic pipeline explosion is almost none existant. Any CO2 leakage would just be a thin plume that wouldn't cause any harm to anyone - it would dissipate into the air very rapidly.
As such I don't believe that such a stipulation would either be required, or introduced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)