Cough up?

"Energy bills 'too low' to combat climate change" is sure to be a headline that will provoke a lot of anger from many people, and for the 3 million plus in fuel poverty it's understandable. However, as the article mentions, the price of energy has been artifically low due to not including the cost of carbon. Similarly, the Government considered the extra £4 billion a year due to financial regulation changes was a product of a more efficient market/better regulations, rather than an unsustainable model (imagine being on a desert island: chopping down the trees provided you with shelter but later on you'd have no food)

It reminds you of the phrase: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, people have gotten used to cheaper energy, effectively subsidised by future generations, and view a return to normal levels as a cost increase. It's a hard thing to say to the public, but it is required and so measures to help those in fuel poverty should be stepped up (I'm not a fan of the Winter Fuel Allowance, I'd rather the money was spent on improving the energy efficiency of peoples homes but that's for another blog)

A lot of what was said in the article is good stuff but doesn't seem to be anything new, I'd guess that's down to a seeming lack of government action more than anything else, however, I should of course have a look at the study itself.

The Guardian is often frustrating in that regard, as it rarely has links for its content. I've spent several hours trying to find the one mentioned here for example, UCL mentions it while the closest I could get was this (incidentally that Claverton site has a lot of interesting stuff on supergrids which I'll probably mention when I get round to it.)

So yeah, expect angry radio phone-ins and letters to the Daily Mail, but the reality of the situation needs to be accepted for solutions to be created.

No such thing as bad policy & Internet comparisons

One of the points discussed at the conference was how creating a policy, good or not, was better than nothing - prime example being the Renewables Obligation. I can see the reasoning behind it, something that helps a little is better than having nothing at all, especially when cumulative emissions are the important factor (it was mentioned that there have been something like 40 consultations in the last year, but despite groundbreaking targets, there has been little strategy or guidance to reach them). However, there's no guarantee that the policy helps rather than hinders, and it also assumes you learn from your mistakes adequately every time. Granted these maybe likely, but surely not certainties.

Take the example of biofuels, specifically first generation biofuels. Here and in the USA especially, reducing reliance on foreign oil is a key governmental concern, and when biofuels appeared to help with emissions as well, it hit two birds with one stone. Subsidies for growing biofuels were created and the market grew quickly. But because it became rather profitable, they competed (and usually won) against food crops as well as doubts being raised over their 'greenness'. So we are more aware of problems they can cause and future policies can take these into account, but has it had a net negative effect on biofuels or renewables in general, either in industry investment or public perception?

Something else I was watching today (featuring Robert Metcalfe) also mentioned corn ethanol and despite its problems, it may have paved the way for similar things in the future (Kyoto Protocol another example, not an great target, but was the first legally binding international agreement on greenhouse gases). In that video of a talk from a venture capitalist, who started in all things internet, I personally felt some of the things he said were a little too simplistic and disagree with others (we'll run out of fossil fuels so we'll stop emitting carbon and so there'll be no climate change and energy people have had their chance to solve the energy problem now it's his turn) however because he comes from a different viewpoint there were some interesting points.

• The IT community thought the future would see ever larger and more powerful computers, but of course we now have distributed computing (PCs, the web). Metcalfe suggested the same thing could happen with energy (microgeneration and supergrids). I can understand the comparisons but even though benefits of distributed energy (redundancy, capacity) are similar I'm not sure how likely it will happen, for a few reasons. The internet was in my opinion a solution looking for a problem; the infrastructure in the energy sector can last for up to 50 years and the monopoly of the big six energy companies is likely to be extremely difficult to shake (although the computing monopoly of IBM/AT&T was defeated in the early years). However if we do end up with a World Electricity Grid, instead of the web, we could call it the weg (okay needs work) or what Metcalfe called the enernet.
• Whether something similar to net neutrality issues (different level of services and/or access given to different people) occurs with energy. The debate is still going on regarding the net and I'd guess energy neutrality issues wouldn't come up until a decent sized super grid was in place, if at all.
• Early on they calculated the physical limit for bandwidth of copper cables was quite low (14.4Kbps - now its in Gbps) so they were concerned about maximising efficiency like we are today in energy. But for reasons I don't know they got past that, to the extent they had so much they didn't know what to do with, along with an ever increasing desire for bandwidth/information/speed. Metcalfe said he was in favour of efficiency, but it's not a primary concern. So with energy, is the need for efficiency paramount or having plenty of energy? (e.g. desalination, extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, social development). Certainly plenty of energy allows us to do great things, but surely energy costs a great deal greater than bandwidth so there are limitations not present in computing, meaning efficiency is the highest priority.
• Don't avoid technologies that appear non-scalable (energy is a huge problem, needs huge solutions, i.e. are scalable). Seemed to be something more appropriate to America (although there are probably examples in the UK) in the regard that niche products and ideas that don't immediately show full market potential are currently disregarded. Innovation and development are unpredictable so obviously I agree that ideas shouldn't be disregarded based upon short term analysis
• Look for the silver bullet. The previous paragraph showed a 'don't pick winners' ideology, whereas Metcalfes' explaination that we should actively look for silver bullets is in contradiction of that. Now I do think that there will be silver bullets, but it's incredibly difficult, if impossible, to know what they are, so we should continue with the 'don't pick winners' ideology in policy making. As an aside, Metcalf mentioned that nuclear storage is a tricky issue as we are looking for a solution to last 10,000 years. But that technological advancement is so fast and unpredictable that we should look to hold it for 100/200 years (on site) and a solution will have been found in the meantime. Having spent the odd hour looking at technology singularities, I can see the logic behind this, but again although it might be likely, it's not certain. Is that good enough for policy making though?
  

So food for thought.

Future Topics

I've been a bit too busy recently to post a great deal, but I've had time to think about this blog. Simply put, I'm not sure what kind of blog this should be: a collection of my thoughts on various topics, or more of a regular commentary blog. The former is what it originally set out to be, with the hope of having people comment so I could refine and adapts my thoughts, but it's questionnable that there's going to be a lot of visitors -and therefore comments - if there is a post or two a month. The former is what I'd prefer but I think there's still going to be the odd "something interesting I found" post to make it seem that this is still active.


On an aside, this is just a list of topics for me to think about posting in the future and I'll try to remind myself to update:

Desertec/Solar in the Sahara
EU ETS
Electricity grid/balancing
Electric cars
Fuel Poverty
Rebound effect

Falmouth Energy Week

So monday and tuesday saw our little conference in Falmouth take place, and despite not being a veteran of such things, I thought it was excellent. The weather was perfect, things ran smoothly, all the speakers were great and the event even got on ITV Westcountry. It was almost information overload with so many speakers and topics, so remembering interesting points and facts was tricky, however most of the presentations should be put on the website in due course. Looking forward to next year and a wealthy source of blog material...

Hansards

I'll get back to finishing off my previous post on coal and nuclear some day soon (final essays have been completed so bar Falmouth Energy Week and the dissertation, my time is a little free-er)

However for anyone bored enough to be reading this, my tip for the day is the printed transcripts for stuff that goes on in the House of Commons/Lords. I only found them recently after a New Energy Focus article linked to them and while they aren't a hugely valuable source of information, they certainly are interesting and worth reading if you have the time.

Indeed the ability and freedom to read the debates going on in parliament is a great thing that shouldn't be wasted (and usually they're free from falling into partisan contests unlike PMQs). Following that up with watching them afterwards on BBC Parliament (if it's on) is a nice way to put faces to the names as well. As I said I haven't known about them for a while so I haven't really looked in depth, but it doesn't seem you can't search by department/category, instead having to search by member (so Ed Milliband, Joan Ruddock, David Kidney/Mike O'Brien) but that's a minor hassle.

So here's the most recent one

Coal vs Nuclear

This is something I've been thinking since I started studying energy policy and it's one I'm still not sure about.

It's hoped - but increasingly not expected - that renewables will contribute significantly towards electricity generation by 2020 (target of 15% of energy, meaning around 30-40% of electricity). This still leaves the majority of electricity to come from other sources. Bearing in mind the lifespan of conventional plants (40-60 years depending on the type) and the need to reduce energy use emissions by 80% by 2050, these sources are going to need to be as low carbon as possible - ideally now, definitely then.

Gas (anyone else think very little has been said about gas recently, except for a little bit when Milford Haven LNG imports started in march?) is likely to continue to be a major source, but as we depend on imports more and more, it seems unwise to continue having it as the primary source of generation when its supply will probably be minimal as we near 2050. Fusion shouldn't be part of any plans, considering it has not been proved viable on a large scale yet - absolutely research and investment should continue, just it shouldn't be the basis of any sort of plan while it's nowhere near completion. Which leaves nuclear (fission) and coal (with CCS)

It's something that seems as a "lesser of two evils" kind of problem, and my preference has switched on more than one occasion as you learn more about each.


Both coal and nuclear are parts of a centralised system, whereas (most) renewables can be centralised or decentralised. While decentralised is potentially the preferable option (in some ways greater energy security, individuals more likely to be energy aware - helping demand reduction and other efforts) it is not a crucial aspect, e.g. consumers want cheapest energy and governments want secure supplies regardless of centralisation.

Coal:

There are large deposits of coal in many developing countries, providing them with a cheap, secure and long term source of energy with which to develop, which is why many countries are planning an expansion in their coal generation. But coal is one of the most carbon intense fuels around and so a huge contributor to climate change. These countries see solving poverty/hunger/disease etc as more important than the environment and that increased energy use - coal or not - will let them mitigate and adapt to climate change better than otherwise. I'm not sure I agree
with the strategy of making the problem worse before you fix it (as well as the assumption it can be fixed later on) but regardless, there is a moral obligation of sorts for the developed countries to help developing ones, as not only does it benefit the progression of their society, but reduces the danger of climate change to everyone, including the developed countries.

This help obviously takes the form of carbon capture and storage, simply capturing the carbon dioxide and piping it into holes deep in the ground (usually). Trouble is, it hasn't been fully demonstrated yet, it's likely to cost a fair amount (the government is spending billions on full scale tests), it reduces the efficiency of a plant, it doesn't capture all of the carbon dioxide, and then there's the whole legal, technical and ethical minefield of storage. Some sites may cross national boundaries; how secure is it; how is it monitored; who is responsible if it leaks after 30 years etc. But humans are rather ingenious and could likely solve many of these problems, some might not get solved as well as hoped, but nothing is perfect and considering the threat of climate change, perhaps it's needed regardless of the drawbacks.

Which brings me onto nuclear.

There are a lot of people who dislike of nuclear, and that's because there's a lot to dislike, Chernobyl, nuclear weapons and so on, but there are some misconceptions for and against nuclear to be wary of. Historically coal has been more deadly and environmentally damaging than nuclear due to mountaintop removal mining, local pollution problems, heavy metals, ash tailings and so on. Nuclear is not 100% full proof but nor is it ready to blow at any second. It is however expensive, barely a week goes by without mention of the new plant in Finland costing twice the estimate and years late, or how the industry. It is currently intrinsically linked with nuclear weapons.

Require baseload?
Need infrastructure as well in developing countries? e.g. straight to mobile phones in africa, no landlines
Proliferation risk comes from enrichment/reprocessing - use world nuclear fuel bank when exporting tech?
Capital costs greater than coal/gas, difficulty getting finance, premium on finance because of risk/delays - http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/20/nuclear-revival-still-on-hold-mit-study-says/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/19/eon-chief-paul-golby-interview smart man, various interesting arguments to cover
CCS costs more than cost of carbon - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/654/654.pdf

So just like coal it's a question of is it needed so bad that it's worth the drawbacks. I'd have say yes, but I would still much rather see more renewables instead. If you want a nuclear dominated future, you're going to need tens of gigawatts of energy storage solutions because of the day to day variation in demand. But if you're building so much energy storage then that takes away one of the biggest problems of renewables.

To be finished and references put in asap