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.