A climate conscious Christmas?

"There’s nothing they need, nothing they don’t own already, nothing they even want. So you buy them a solar-powered waving queen; a belly button brush; a silver-plated ice cream tub holder; a “hilarious” inflatable zimmer frame; a confection of plastic and electronics called Terry the Swearing Turtle; or – and somehow I find this significant – a Scratch Off World wall map.

They seem amusing on the first day of Christmas, daft on the second, embarrassing on the third. By the twelfth they’re in landfill. For thirty seconds of dubious entertainment, or a hedonic stimulus that lasts no longer than a nicotine hit, we commission the use of materials whose impacts will ramify for generations."

--George Monbiot

This quote from George Monbiot from his Guardian article particularly struck me when I was considering my Christmassy blog post over the last few days. Although his attitude towards the Christmas mass consumerism does seem to me to be leaning towards the unnecessarily dour side (i.e. have all the gifts in landfill by the 12^th day of Christmas), I can empathise with his wider point. Having had the misfortune of experiencing Oxford Street anywhere near Christmas time, the issue of frantic mass consumerism was apparent to me. According to climate psychologist Rosemary Randall, the average Brit now has a carbon footprint three times larger than the average in the 1950s, and I’m surprised it isn’t more (Randall, 2011).

In several countries, consumerism is being used as a tool to recover from economic stagnation, most significantly being in the Netherlands (Kopnina, 2014). However, what is considered consumerism needs to be analysed, and environmental concerns considered if a movement away from the current paradigm is to occur. There have been many theories proposed in order to change the dominant economic practise, such as ‘ecological modernisation’ (EC), ‘postmaterialist value theory’ (PMVT) and the ‘Environmental Kuznets curve’ (EKC). In turn, these involve:

• EM: natural resources can be used for growth and development – an anthropocentric view.
• PMVT: greater wealth leads to greater environmental values.
• EKC: in early industrialisation materials are used intensely, up to a threshold of development were structural economic changes lead to a lessening in material use.

However, in reality these ideals have barely been considered, as the “material saturation level of ‘developed’ societies is far from sustainable” (Kopnina, 2014). What ideally needs to change is the level AND type of consumerism practised, meaning the pure volume of materials consumed and the increased consideration of the whole production chain.

All of these theories show how the issue of sustainable consumerism is still anthropocentric, which links to the proposition put forth by Crutzen in 2002, that we are living in a new geological epoch of the Anthropocene. He proposes that since 1784 (Watt’s steam engine) that humans have altered the environment so much that we are now the dominant force affecting most of the earth, therefore it warrants a new geological epoch as the earth system is vastly different from previous states. Fundamental in this shift is the use of fossil fuels and non-renewable energies which has vastly contributed to the dominance of humans in the earth system. This is why renewable technology is vital to the economic and cultural change required to prevent further ecological and environmental damage, of which Christmas consumerism is only a part!

Along that theme, a rather large Christmas present given to the Humber region recently, has been the announcement of the government approval of the ABLE Marine Energy Park which will be a huge enterprise area dedicated to the manufacture, assembly and repair of offshore wind turbines to supply the huge plans for wind farms in the North Sea. This will provide around 4000 jobs for the area and ideally act as a catalyst for the whole region to become a renewable energy hub (www.ableuk.com).

This move in the Humber region has been welcomed across the board and hopefully will act as an example both nationally and globally, to encourage the economic shift to a more environmentally conscious system, accompanied by the appropriate cultural change, which over time, could lead to a rather different Christmas!

'Renewables Obligation' - the most ironic policy

Recently, the government announcement of the retraction of certain ‘green taxes’ to ‘save consumers money’ has shed light on the confusing nature of the UK’s energy policy with various renewables incentives. Therefore I will do a quick breakdown of the main incentives to increase renewable energy production in the UK (although, it’s set to change, again, in spring 2014).

• Renewables Obligation (RO)
• Energy Companies Obligation (ECO)
• Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)
• Feed In Tariffs (FITs)
• Green Deal

ECO: Comprises three aims; 1) Carbon Emissions Reduction Obligation – helping homes which are harder to retrofit and less able to be funded through the Green Deal, 2) Community Obligation – providing insulation measures for lower income areas, and 3) Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation – companies must provide measures for low income and vulnerable households which lead to savings.

RHI: This is an incentive for the non-domestic sector and essentially provides a subsidy for renewable heat generators for up to 20 years. In spring 2014, this programme will be extended to encourage domestic renewable heat generation (Ofgem, 2013).

RO: This is meant to encourage large scale RE development. It targets electricity suppliers and requires them to acquire a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources, and the value is set annually and increases per year. Renewable Obligation Certificates are allocated and can be traded and generated, and are shown to the regulator Ofgem to show their renewable capacity. However, in a similar fashion to carbon pricing, these ROCs are criticized for being sold too cheaply, at about £46 per ROC. Market controls are imposed in a way to make sure that a surplus and therefore devaluation of ROCs occur. This is done by creating ‘headroom’ - a margin between supply of ROCs and the level of obligation (demand), which creates the much needed certainty regarding market demand.

FITs: these financial incentives are aimed at small scale generation (PV, wind, hydro, micro-CHP or anaerobic digestion), and the energy generated from these systems is sold back to the grid with a ‘generation tariff’ as a bonus for using these sources (DECC, 2013).

Green Deal: Aimed at households whose houses are suitable for retrofitting technology or certain micro RE such as solar panels. A loan is granted to the household by the Green Deal for a part (or all) of the cost, which is paid back at an interest rate of 7.5%/year. The calculations must work out that the repayments must not exceed the projected savings, therefore it is seen in theory as ‘no-regrets’ policy (a theory championed by the previous Australian government (Bulkeley, 2001)). The Green Deal can be combined with the FIT initiative and the energy generated can be sold back to the grid at times when it is not required.

These policies have come under much criticism due to the variation in claims of uptake, general mistrust of both the government, and more recently the energy companies themselves. The UK’s electricity and energy system is unusual, as having some of the most expensive energy in the world, and yet this electricity is still well below the entry price, which doesn't encourage investment. The Electricity Market Reform is looking to, well, reform the system to accommodate renewables, as the market depends on the balance between supply and demand, whereas renewables are seen to provide a less reliable supply, therefore unsettling the market (Helm, 2002).

Much to reiterate my previous post, this further exemplifies the need for policy consistency and a removal for political short-termism, as this will encourage greater uptake and investment in renewables in the UK. I think this is why supra-national agreements are required, because then the legislation is less easily changed with the changing of national parliament if there is an overarching policy which the country, not the government, has agreed to.

Houses: smarter than the policy?

Following on from last week’s post focusing on community renewables, I have down-scaled again and considered renewables and sustainability at the building/home level. This also follows on from the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the UK’s Green Deal policy which aims to effectively provide loans for energy efficiency measures such as insulation or solar panels. The number of households partaking in this scheme is vastly disputed between orders of magnitude, ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. Therefore I came to wonder about and consider the feasibility of the government aim to achieve carbon zero homes to all new builds by 2016. There is vast agreement within the building community that this aim will not be achieved as the institutional framework and supply chain innovations just aren’t in place to make the extra investments worthwhile (Osmani and O’Reilly, 2009). However, if this was somehow achieved by 2016, this would go a long way to contribute to the UK’s climate change mitigation strategy and specifically help towards achieving the ambitious 80% emissions cut targeted for 2050. Currently, housing and building heating and running accounts for approx. 27% of the UK’s emissions, therefore if these buildings became self-sufficient, this would clearly be a substantial overall reduction, and therefore have significant positive ramifications for the environment and the UK’s position in global climate politics.

There are three concepts associated with sustainable housing (Seyfang, 2010):

1) High tech method – including innovations such as ‘smart houses’, using modern construction methods which monitor and adjust energy needs in the home.

2) Low tech method – off grid dwellings – utilising materials such as recycled resources and waste.

3)Shared neighbourhood facilities – such as laundry rooms and gardens, this cuts resource use and improves social capital.

The first method, the high tech route is most widely applied so far as this also includes retrofitting which has been the most common method to improve house sustainability. However, even these techniques which are so often referred to in political dialogue (especially through the Green Deal) as having successful uptake rates, are only being applied by ‘green’ building companies and not being accepted by everyday building contractors as they are seen as too risky and uncertain to justify the initial upfront costs (Seyfang,2010).

The aim of zero carbon homes by 2016 was set in 2006 along with the Code for Sustainable Homes which aims to increase regulations and requirements incrementally up to 2050. This works by awarding a level rating to houses which achieve certain thresholds in 9 categories (Communities and Local Gov., 2006):

1) Energy and CO2

2) Water

3) Materials

4) Surface water run-off

5) Waste

6) Pollution

7) Health and well-being

8) Management

9) Ecology

The house/building is rated through a points system per category and if it meets or exceeds the requirements then it is awarded a ‘level’, between 1 – 6 depending on the standard of sustainability measures. For example, for a level 4 code rating, emissions must be at least 44% lower than building regulations standard (McManus et al., 2010).

I believe that in theory this code could be effective if the drivers behind the initiative were stronger, therefore ensuing confidence in the technology which would encourage construction companies to invest in building more sustainable homes. This broadens out to the larger concept of the need for a secure and confidence-building nationwide energy policy which doesn’t change on a whim and has long term aims to encourage longer term thinking and investment.

The drivers currently, are:

1) BUSINESS: the notion of corporate social responsibility is significant as construction companies are some of the largest businesses in the UK and when the 20 largest companies were surveyed, 65% of them had a corporate sustainability policy in place.

2) CULTURAL: increasing desire among the general population to lead more sustainable lives, customer demand could help shift the type of supply.

3) LEGISLATION: the main driver currently, through the Code for Sustainable Homes.

However, the barriers to the implementation of the code are currently too high to prevent widespread action. These barriers are threefold. Firstly, technical and design barriers, mainly regarding small scale renewable energy which is perceived as unreliable. Secondly, the cultural barrier of unwillingness to implement more experimental designs to include and integrate renewable energy. And thirdly, the perceived increased costs of this implementation and the costs of ultimately breaking the economic viability barrier of this technology (Osmani and O’Reilly, 2009).

Despite these barriers I believe that the legislation is sound, and is suitably long term (up to 2050) to provide sufficient impetus to the construction industry to implement self-sustaining homes. However, my criticism would be that there is insufficient economic incentives from government and a good way to initiate this would be to incorporate RE into social housing to show how the industry can have confidence in the technology. But fundamentally, the UK needs a comprehensive and unchanging energy policy to provide confidence in the requirements of climate change mitigation and energy security in the long term, irrespective of political ideals. This will give the holistic basis to ensure the innovations required to remove the economic and cultural barriers currently associated with sustainable and zero-carbon homes.

Love thy neighbour?

In light of the green tax reductions announced this week, indicating a pressure to move to a more regulated energy market, I was considering the influence that the ‘Big 6’ hold over the country, and what would happen if the market was decentralised. The notion of ‘community energy’ (CE) has been present in energy policy since around 2003 (with the Energy White Paper) although whether this has translated into an incentive for community energy projects or investment.

Community energy comes in various forms between the following three degrees of community involvement (Devine-Wright, 2005):

•  Information led – passive recipients
• Varying balances of partnership – between different stakeholders
• Ownership led – high local control

And is essentially a community coming together, either independently or working with private investors and/or public sectors to construct and operationalise RE on a small scale, to either use for community energy (usually schools or village halls etc) or to be sold back to the grid to reduce energy bills.

Other European countries, especially Denmark and Germany have a much higher community energy involvement than the UK. The ideas behind CE stem from issues in the 70s regarding local energy generation (Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008) advocating the ‘soft energy path’. In the 90s, there was a (marginal) ‘dash for wind’ which led to intense opposition to renewables by local communities, the CE occurred in response to this information deficit and perceived ideas (Walker et al., 2007).

Communities can have involvement in RE projects in many ways:

• Supporting the project and being well informed
• Allowing the project to go ahead (not oppose it at planning stage)
• Initiating the project through a group in the community finding investors
• Investing financially as a community
• Providing the manual construction for the infrastructure
• Administering and running the operations

However, the term ‘community’ is ambiguous as there can be communities of proximity and communities of interest (Walker, 2008). Also the parameters of community are hard to define, both socially and spatially therefore flexibility in policy is required, else the meaning of community is too constrained. Caution is required when approaching a project under the term ‘community’, as labelling it as such yet not fulfilling the perceived benefits may only increase resentment towards RE energy projects on a local scale.

In the UK, in 2001, the Community Renewables Initiative set up Local Support Teams in certain areas, and these teams had significant effects; such as more than double the applications to the Clear Skies initiative (a scheme to encourage communal/community renewable) compared to areas without the Local Support Teams (Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008). However, the Community Renewables Initiative – in its 5 year lifetime – only created 150 community projects, therefore its success is very questionable and if community energy is to be encouraged, better incentives and initiatives need to be conceived.

The benefits of community energy are shown by the example of Zschadraβ in south-east Germany where the community co-owned a local wind farm and fully owned a PV cell system, through a community club. The community energy concept was created there to deal with public spending – as energy was the second biggest expense. The school’s old oil burner was replaced with a 300MW woodchip burner which heats the school, gym, club house, bowling alley and administrative buildings, and the fuel is supplied by the residents. This community is estimated to become energy independent by 2050, and all the savings from reduced energy demand, increased efficiencies and on site renewables are passed on to the community (Musall and Kuik, 2011).

Criticisms of community energy include the assumption that all in the community will want to or be able to invest time or money into the project, whereas the reality may be that only the wealthier households could participate, therefore negating the community benefits. The project may attract only those who are already heavily involved in the community or those wishing to be involved in democratic debating (Hoffman and High-Pippert, 2005).

The increased levels of acceptance of RE associated with community energy does not necessarily translate to an increased support of large scale projects, however the potential for CE is large therefore this could propose a paradigm shift in the attitudes of renewable energy. The benefits associated with this system when run and organised correctly, and to suit each different community, would be desirable to all; increased cohesion, increased sustainability, lower energy bills, reliable supply and stronger engagement with local issues.

Here is a short video from last year, from the Community Energy Roundtable, it gives a few ideas of the benefits and challenges to the future of community energy.

We saw war in Warsaw (now say that 5 times fast)

Continuing along my theme of topical issues to address, this post concerns certain issues addressed and due to be addressed in Warsaw, at the COP19 talks. On the final day of these talks, there has been much controversy over the lack of productive debate over the past couple of weeks. There was also controversy over the allocation of two days of the conference, solely dedicated to the coal industry, which is still and set to continue to be the dominant energy source in Poland (Harvey, 2013). The aim of the previous week of talks with the higher echelons of governments, was to forge an agreement to be signed in Paris in 2015 and to come into force in 2020. There was the intention of having a focus and inclusion of developing countries into the agreements in this round of discussions, and they wanted clearer commitments to access to enabling funding, to the tune of $100 bn by 2020. This has been broadly agreed upon thus far, but no details confirmed, as the developed countries are keeping things vague; not overly surprising.

This follows the interesting narrative which was addressed in Warsaw; the notion of ‘loss and damage’, which was pushed by the states which are predicted to be more affected by the effects of climate change than others. This is pushed by these states because they are seen to contribute the least to the cause of climate change yet will be worst affected, therefore they want compensation or action to mitigate for climate change. Loss or damage is incurred when costs of adaptation are not recuperated, or when attempts to adapt are ineffective. Loss and damage will still occur now regardless of adaptive action or mitigating change (Huq et al., 2013). This idea was first proposed in 1991 by the small island state of Vanuatu, estimated to be eventually overtaken by sea level rise. The progress which was made in the dying hours of the conference, achieved an agreement from the ‘developed’ countries to create a compensation scheme, but no figures or mechanisms were set out. The idea of an independent body to monitor this process was unsuccessful, as the developed economies felt there shouldn’t be an automated compensation system following a crisis. (http://rt.com/news/climate-change-walkout-warsaw-050/). 

I agree with this, there shouldn’t be an automated system, and I’m not sure I even agree with the ‘loss and damage’ system as a whole. I think a far more sustainable way to prevent loss and damage is to mitigate, not adapt. Although adaptation is a key factor of living with and protecting against climate change, and help should be given to those states who are less economically able to provide sufficient adaptive measures or in worst case scenario; emergency aid. I believe that the developed countries should be helping where they can, but a far more constructive method would be instead of giving lump sums of money, to subsidize renewable energy technology for them or promote community renewables, while working to reduce domestic energy use and greenhouse emissions. This two tier approach would allow economic growth in the developing regions, enabling them to help themselves through climate change mitigation and adaptation. Also, the developed countries, who are (historically, at least) far more guilty in the trial of who emitted the most CO₂, would be working towards a lower carbon economy, no longer with the excuse of waiting for the developing economies.

The role of renewables in the shift to a lower carbon economy is widely accepted as critical. Although, the exact relationship between the expansion of RE and climate change trends are very hard to determine due to the vast numbers of variables, and the varying role of the carbon cycle (Krey and Clarke, 2011). Two key problems which arise when trying to create RE targets (especially in an international setting) are:

1. Strategic planning takes place under high uncertainty
2. Decision makers should be planning for large increases in RE – and this is difficult to plan on a large scale.

The expansion rate of RE is indicative of the support provided to the technology (both public and private support). It is thought that some renewables are more influenced by public support (through policy) than others; for instance, solar and geothermal are seen to be more influenced, as those technologies are less developed than wind or hydropower (Kray andClarke, 2011).

Looking to the future, as the talks in Warsaw attempted to do, indicates that much higher investment costs will be required to extract and transport conventional fuels, therefore creating a natural economic shift to alternatives. However, by this point, the emissions could be too high and stabilisation might not occur till 650ppm. Therefore CO₂ can be reduced through increased conversion efficiencies of heat and electricity plants, increased efficiencies of end of pipe solutions, improved energy management systems and carbon sequestration (Sims, 2001). Therefore RE may well not be the silver bullet we were all hoping for, but it may come to be the trusty broad sword.

Questionable Politics

Thursday’s Question Time concerned me greatly, not only due to the notion of the debate over the EXISTENCE of climate change, but the apparent lack of understanding shown by some of the people who are incredibly influential in political spheres. Nigel Lawson (NL) (previous Chancellor in Thatcher government), was predictably dismissive of climate change, especially in relation to the relationship between climate change and the effect on tropical storms in light of the terrible Typhoon Haiyan. Ed Davey (Minister for Energy and Climate Change in the current government) agreed with NL about the lack of evidence from the IPCC regarding the effects of climate change on the frequency of tropical storms, but he stressed the increased intensity and therefore increased vulnerability of people.

However, according the recently released 5^th assessment report (summary for policymakers); “extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century” (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf). This seems contradictory to the analysis that tropical cyclone activity cannot be attributed as easily to climate change as the IPCC state that it is “more likely than not” to increase intensity in tropical cyclone activity (more than 50% chance). Although there is no reference to frequency of specifically tropical storms, therefore it cannot be either refuted or claimed that climate change affects them.

On another note; NL’s claim that ‘global warming’ has happened ‘very little’, over the last 10-15 years. Where to begin? This displays an odd understanding of scientific consensus, especially over the nature of what climate change entails, regarding the time period referenced of 15 years. Considering, the idea of the ‘Anthropocene’ which claims that due to human influence on the environment, we now live in a new geological epoch (Crutzen, 2002). Geological epochs are timescales of tens of millions of years, and ‘climate’ of an area is generally established over the course of 30-35 years, therefore, to use the argument that little has changed over 15 years is misleading. More to the point, considering the frequency of extreme events, such as droughts and floods, and the intensity of them, the rate of change over the last 15 years is actually astonishing.

Stella Creasy (Shadow Business Minister) used an intriguing phrase: “we are not immune to our own responsibility”… and this was in response to a commonly made point to the tone of ‘what can we do when China and India are polluting so much more’. It is true that the industrial heartland of the world now lies to the east, however, the does not dissolve us of responsibility, both to the environment, but to other countries to lead the paradigm shift in attitudes, behaviours and practices required to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In my view, it is a very negative and defeatist stance to take, to say that there is no point changing our way of life when others aren’t doing the same. It is also an inaccurate one as a great deal is being done in China especially, to clean up and make a renewables shift, at least in policy circles.

It was refreshing to see general consensus from the speakers (except NL) regarding the actions required, and the urgency needed, especially considering the upcoming climate talks in Warsaw over the next couple of weeks. I hope that this means the UK will maintain its previous apparent strong attitude (however superficial) to climate change and its recognition of the need and benefits that renewable energy can generate if structured correctly. I say this in the light of the news that the Japanese have drastically reduced they’re carbon targets for 2020, down from a 25% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels to a 3.8% reductions on 2005 levels; which actually amounts to a 3% increase in net emissions (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reduction-in-japanese-carbon-emissions-target-for-2020-statement-by-edward-davey). Although Japan have already done a great deal in regards to energy efficiency and conservation, this seems an untimely and unwelcome alteration to a positive policy. And considering that it has reaffirmed its aim to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, I find this medium term target change an odd re-evaluation, and there are no qualifications or reasoning for it published yet. I consider that it could be related to post-Fukushima energy policy change, combined with the simple fact that due to improvements and high standards already existing, the government can afford to reduce the medium term targets while still achieving the longer term goal, and getting its energy system and network restored and revitalised following the still ongoing upheaval caused by the Fukushima disaster.

In regards to the UK, the discussion on Question Time was infuriating to listen to, due the fact that climate change is still being ‘debated’ and the fact that a 95% confidence in anthropogenic climate change is still insufficient to convince sceptics. However, this genuine frustration did seem to be mirrored in the faces and voices of the politicians and other influential business figures. This is what I will cling to when following the Warsaw discussions.

(lack of) Food for Thought

Recently, the EU has capped the first generation biofuel requirement from 10% of transportation fuel by 2020 to 6%, in light of concerns surrounding land use change and related price increases. First generation biofuels are those produced from rapeseed, palm oil, soya and other food crops (Bellona Europe) but there are moves now to transfer from these forms of biofuel to second generation fuels such as agricultural waste and algae (Besant, 2013).

Biofuels are divided into bioethanol and biodiesel, and the use of biodiesel does not require any alteration to a diesel engine (Muir, 2013), which is one of the advantages of using biofuels, which has lead to the increasing prominence of biofuels in transport (Mattison and Norris, 2007). They were also claimed to be carbon neutral as the crops ‘extract’ CO₂ for respiration and therefore this negated the CO₂ released when burnt for fuel, and that the use of biofuels slightly reduced dependence on conventional sources. However this has been progressively criticized as being too simplistic. Therefore after the Gallagher Review (independent EU report) which concluded that biofuels could actually increase GHG emissions due to land use change, the EU came under increasing pressure to alter the EU Biofuels Directive. This came into fruition in September when the requirement for biofuel use in transportation fuel was reduced to 6%.

(source: quarterbridge.wordpress.com,2013)

Other criticisms of biofuels concern the effect on food security, as Oxfam claims that the land which is currently being used for biofuels could be used to feed 127 million people. This seems incredibly high, although whether this land would realistically produce high yield crops for food, is still under debate. The land used for growing biofuels would be ideally located on land unsuitable for agriculture (Kanellos, 2008), however this seems unrealistic in countries less able to irrigate sufficiently, or in areas unable to access to fertilizers, as otherwise the area would have been likely been used for agriculture already. This is linked to the viability of growing biofuels, dependent on the area’s characteristics such as climate, water availability, if the crop is native to the area and fertilizer availability/affordability, and existing land use.

Biodiversity must also be considered, as the large areas of land given over to biofuels would only consist of one crop, and in turn this can lead to insects and pests becoming more effective at destroying that one type of crop, leading to ecological system degradation. Growing biofuels generally causes a change in species populations, leading to a changing community structure and the disappearance and colonisation of different species (JNCC report no. 456, 2011). Biodiversity change goes hand in hand with land use change.

Indirect land use change occurs when land which would otherwise have been used for agriculture is used for biofuel cultivation for instance (Earnst and Young, 2013), and therefore agriculture is pushed on to more marginal lands such as peat bogs which could release even more CO₂, require more intensive farming or have a reduced food output. These problems can be avoided through changing the type of fuel used for biofuels, for instance moving towards cultivating and using algae which is higher yielding and more space efficient (Biofuel.org).

Large scale algae cultivation (source: alibaba.com, 2013)

 

I think biofuels have their place in the future of the global energy mix, however despite the reduction in GHGs produced when combusted due to the cleaner burning fuel, I contest the idea of biofuels being ‘renewable’. Although they can be continuously grown on demand, they are not naturally occurring in the same way that heat or wind is, and to me, the negative direct and indirect effects outweigh the benefits, as there are other alternatives to reduce reliance on petrol or diesel for transport fuel. I support the capped limit on biofuels place in EU transportation fuel, however I feel this should have a caveat of finding an alternative to first generation biofuels, or a promise of investment in R&D for the use of algae for instance. Otherwise there is a danger of momentum being moved in the opposite direction to encouraging a shift to renewables and continuing to undo the positive policies applied under the Renewables Directive.

Catherine for PM...

In the UK, energy has been very prominent in the news recently due to the ‘Big Six’ energy companies proposing fuel bill increases. Over the last couple of days, the causes for the increases have been linked to renewables, and the ‘green taxes’ which are added on to fuel bill to fund policies such as the ‘Renewable Obligation Certificates’ which all contribute on average 9% to fuel bills. 

The PM in all his omniscience is now reviewing the green taxes to help reduce fuel bills. I completely agree that the issue of fuel poverty is an ever present problem which is only set to affect more and more people. However to remove green taxes and therefore necessary funding for all renewable projects is an incredibly unsustainable way of easing fuel bills. One issue is that if they are removed across the board, the consumers who could easily already afford those fuel bills will not feel the benefit, but they will feel the negatives when generation from renewables slows and over the years, prices increase far more than the cost subsidising renewables currently! 

I agree that fuel prices are too high, but I feel that this should be cause for more regulation of energy companies, more stringent requirements for investing in renewables but also subsidies to encourage more energy efficient homes for the poorest households, in order to reduce fuel bills for those who are struggling to pay, while maintaining and further encouraging renewable investment. I feel this will encourage more responsible and sustainable investing by the energy companies, leading them along a line of planning long term, which will benefit them through security and reliability for investors. 

Along a similar line, I welcomed the news that the Chinese are investing in a nuclear plant in the UK, not because of the plant specifically, but because of the message this should give to international investors. I hope that this shows that the UK is very open to investment in the renewables sector from elsewhere, which over time should reduce the industry’s dependence on subsidies, therefore both easing fuel bills through direct reduction of green taxes and increased security of supply.

It’s turning chilly, let's up the heat to a balmy... 150,000,000°C

Recently, there have been reports of advances within the field of nuclear fusion and it is moving away from the land of science fiction. Fusion differs from nuclear fission (the conventional nuclear reactors) as fission involves the splitting of atoms whereas fusion – as the name suggests – involves fusing atoms (usually isotopes of Hydrogen) together, at temperatures around 150,000,000°C. These particles are super charged to create plasma, and neutrons are released which hit the inside of the reactors vacuum chamber, which are transferred to heat and then ultimately used to produce electricity (Climatewire, 2013).

(Diagram of nuclear fusion reactions, courtesy of http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8590562.ece/ALTERNATES/w2048/sungraphic-kath.jpg click to expand)

Despite the US government shutdown (which did affect national laboratories), the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Fransisco has reported advances in nuclear fusion, although the information released is minimal. This facility uses inertial fusion, which differs from the ITER facility currently being built in France, which will use magnetic confinement fusion, but both facilities aim to recreate the fusion reactions that occur in the Sun.

The advantages of nuclear fusion are that if (and when) it becomes economically viable, it will be self-sustaining, need relatively small amounts of fuel (derived from electrolysis using seawater), emit zero carbon emissions and pose no danger through nuclear proliferation – which traditional nuclear technologies have led to. Simplified calculations show that the amount of Lithium that can be created from electrolysing seawater could provide fuel for 2700 power plants for 23 million years, although this is obviously rather speculative (Bradshaw et al., 2011)! The factor more likely to limit the renewability of nuclear fusion is the requirement for a neutron multiplier such as Berylium, which is needed for the self-sustaining mechanism.

The timeline for the possible viability of this technology is mainly theorised to be economical by 2050. Considering specifically the French ITER project; this is expected to be completed in 2019 with plasma being produced in 2025. However, by 2050, there is debate over whether renewable energy will have become so cheap by then that nuclear fusion will not be able to compete in that market (Hamacher et al., 2013).

There is a short video setting out the timeline of nuclear fusion: 

It describes an optimistic time frame and attitude towards nuclear fusion, however worth a watch, just have a pinch of salt handy.

However, despite the possible solution that nuclear fusion could provide for the global energy crisis, providing cheap and ‘environmentally friendly’ fuel, I wanted to consider the possible disadvantages and unseen effects which as far as I can see have not been considered thus far.

What could happen if fusion becomes economically viable...?

Energy security would not be a factor in international relations. Every country which could afford the technology, could have an energy surplus. However what would happen to those who couldn’t afford to create this incredibly expensive technology? These could still rely on fossil fuels, although they may be cheaper due to lower demand, which would benefit development; or those countries could implement renewable technology which would have hopefully become more affordable in a decade or so.

How would industry respond to cheap energy? I wonder if this would deter efficiency, which could lead to increases in consumption of other materials and larger volumes of waste products. Having an energy supply which is abundant and safe, with no CO₂ emissions has obvious benefits, however there is limited consideration to the downsides to achieving this. Regarding waste disposal, and the domino effect of cheaper energy leading to cheaper products leading to a more materialistic lifestyle, which could possibly lead to a higher requirement for landfill. Although, the waste could be incinerated, and financial incentives may be appropriate as this would vastly reduce the requirement for landfill.

Cheap energy would not solve the unsustainable use of other resources, for instance forest clearance (and related biodiversity and carbon sink losses) for wood or quarrying for limestone, which are come causes of environmental degradation. Therefore achieving economically viable nuclear fusion could be incredibly beneficial to solving the problem of GHG emissions, however it is not a panacea for all environmental woes.

As the majority of renewables are inherently intermittent, nuclear fusion would be best when combined with RE, to be used as the baseline fuel and RE used at peak times to boost supply (Connor, 2013). I think that nuclear fusion is incredibly exciting and could solve issues for both international relations and climate, however I would also advocate using renewables as a transition fuel, to see us through to the time when fusion can be economical. 

A critique of criticism

First of all; introductions. This blog will be a combination of (hopefully) intellectual analysis, personal comments, musings, and probably involve a certain level of frustration-venting when I come across perspectives I feel touch on misinformed, right through to those which are eye-wateringly flawed. I will aim to keep the topics within the realm of ‘renewable energy’, although dependent on topical issues, this may be extended slightly. This topic is vast, but my main interests are in the impacts of implementing renewable energy, the reasons for its apparent necessity, and the policy effectiveness (or lack of)  associated with renewables.

The most recent IPCC report was published at the end of September from Working Group 1 (the physical science analyses group). This report upgraded the likelihood that humans are the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20^th century to ‘very likely’ – meaning with a confidence of 90% (Roberts, 2013). Some other conclusions that the IPCC reported included predictions for sea level rise; between 26-82cm rise by the end of the century. These estimates are based on four simulations with varying degrees of mitigating action – and a 26cm sea level rise could happen despite extreme cut in emissions come 2020, which has given rise to commentary to the tune of ‘current policy and actions aren’t working’. However, what was also highlighted was the role of the ocean which is a huge buffer to both heat and CO₂, as the oceans have absorbed 90% of the heat trapped by GHG’s since the 1970’s (Roberts, 2013). Based on this, we may predict that the rate of absorption will eventually decrease until a possible saturation is reached, which could lead to exponential warming correlated to the decreased effectiveness of the ocean buffer.

The other key finding which is always a good headline is the predicted warming set to occur by the end of the century; which is curiously the exact same prediction as the very first estimation in 1979 (Kerr, 2013), but the certainty of this prediction has certainly improved. The figure of 1.5 – 4.5 °C warming by 2100 is based on the same four simulations as before, with the most likely warming to be in the range of 1.5 – 2 °C.

Despite the global cooperation of the IPCC and the simulations taking into account multiple tests from multiple institutions, criticisms still occur. One such remark was that the IPCC reports are just political artefacts (Brooker, 2013), which I feel is a moot point, as the possible political implications don’t detract from the truth or the validity of the study. The most common criticism of the IPCC, is that they are seen as ‘scaremongering’, however the language represents the facts, and therefore the seemingly ‘dramatic’ wording is purely used to reflect the gravity of the situation, and not intended to make people run for the hills.

A curious criticism is that from James Delingpole (2013) where he claimed the IPCC 5^th assessment report is “the biggest pseudo-scientific scam in history”, whereas somehow I fail to see how 600 raving lefties (scientists) and 50 users of taxpayers’ money (editors) from 32 countries were actually all privy to an international scheme to trick (inform) politicians into making the publics’ lives more difficult and expensive (sustainable, safer, healthier and less expensive). I think it far more likely that this is an exceedingly rigorous scientific process with positive international collaboration, with no political leanings, with respected and reliable scientists aiming to assess the reality of the global situation and make impartial policy suggestions based on the facts.