Industry, more specifically, heavy industry is often seen as THE bad boy when it comes to carbon emissions. We've all seen those stock pictures used in articles about greenhouse gases where there's a landscape of chimney stacks spewing forth whatever it is they spew forth....? Well, even that can be virtually eliminated with current technology.
Taking the UK as an example, where around a quarter of our carbon emissions are from industry, half could be removed, simply by shifting the electricity grid from fossil fuels to renewables. That is not only feasible, but well underway here, as in many other countries.
Producing and refining oil and natural gas generates a lot of industrial carbon emissions by itself (40% in the UK). So, as we reduce the need for these fossil fuels in the likes of transport, aviation, and heating, those emissions will also reduce over time.
The other 60% of industrial emissions in the UK come from the steel, chemical, aluminium and cement sectors.
Steel
The bulk of emissions in this sector come from making 'virgin' steel i.e. Brand new steel using iron and coal. These could be dramatically reduced by replacing current carbon intense techniques (using something called 'sinter' as the raw material) with more up-to-date ones which use either 'pellets' or, possibly, hydrogen (as is being trialled by Swedes).
Better still, use recycled steel. All UK future needs could be supplied by recycling what has traditionally been 'lost' to the system. By disassembling old products to get at the steel, we can triple the steel available for recycling over the coming years. If we de-carbonise electricity, then this recycled material will be emissions free.
Chemicals
There are a great many chemicals being produced by this country. The basic way that emissions can be reduced is by improving efficiency by using the best available tech.
Aluminium
Most of the emissions come from the electrodes used in the smelting process. They emit CO2 as they're used. Improved electrodes, which only give off oxygen are on their way (Backed by big players like Rio Tinto) and should be available by the mid 2020's.
In the meantime, better recycling rates are reducing the need for 'virgin' aluminium anyway.
Cement
The cement industry has often been seen as one of the worst offenders in terms of industrial emissions. However, it has more than halved it's emissions over the last 30 years. It has worked how to reduce them by 81% come 2050.
There is even the strong possibility of carbon-negative concrete coming to the market soon. This form of concrete actually absorbs more carbon whilst hardening than is generated during production!
Demand reduction will also be important. This can be achieved by using alternative materials, being more efficient during the building process, and using partly hollow structures.
=========
Yes, all the solutions are there or on their way, and heavy industry is already working towards it. All that needs doing now is for governments to encourage them on their way, either by incentives or taxes.
Next: Farming
Thursday, 21 November 2019
Monday, 11 November 2019
A Carbon Neutral World: Aviation and Shipping
Of all the areas that need to be de-carbonised for a net-zero future, Aviation and Shipping is the trickiest. There are no clear paths towards net-zero or even dramatic reductions short of these 2 methods of transport being banned worldwide, which, I'm sure you'll agree is highly unlikely. However, I'll go through the possibilities.
Before I go on, why have I separated aviation and shipping from other forms of transport? Basically, because it's handled outside the normal UN climate change agreement process, as it's difficult to apportion the carbon produced to individual countries.
Aviation: It's unlikely that anything other than short hop flights can be fully de-carbonised in the foreseeable future. Planes can be made more efficient, traffic control can be used to shorten flights, and biofuels can be mixed with aviation fuel to reduce the carbon emissions but, fundamentally, it's difficult to make flights net-zero.
This is because there aren't any obvious replacements for aviation fuel. It may be possible to make short-haul flights all electric in time (Norway wants to do this by 2040), but the aircraft to do so are still in development (e.g. By Boeing and Airbus). Hydrogen has been looked at as a potential replacement but has it's problems. It would basically mean a re-think of the shape of aircraft (because the fuel would have to be held in the body of the plane rather than the wings, as now), making them look more like Thunderbird 2, and this would interfere with the aerodynamics.
Anyway you cut it, medium- to long-haul flights are likely to be a big greenhouse gas (GHG) producer for decades to come.
So what else can be done? Well, for start, airlines need to stop the practise of 'fuel-tankering' (where planes fly around with more fuel than they need to reduce costs)…..See here for details.
Also, in the UK, 70% of all flights are taken by just 15% of adults, which suggests that, if people became more responsible, or were dissuaded from flying so much by carbon or 'frequent-flyer' taxes, it could make a sizeable reduction in overall airmiles and therefore GHGs. I realise it's nice to have the freedom to have, say, a few weekends away in Barcelona or Prague, in addition to a couple of holidays every year, but not at the expense of future generations, surely.
Shipping It has become fundamental to how our modern, interconnected world works, with vast quantities of goods (80% of the total) being moved around the planet all year round e.g. In 2013 there 120 million shipping containers, carrying $4 trillion in goods. The numbers will have only got bigger since then.
The ships can carry hundreds of containers at a time for thousands of kilometres, and often taking weeks to do so (Speed of delivery is not generally an issue).
Unfortunately, these ships usually run on heavy fuel oil which, though cheap, creates a lot sulphur, black carbon, and nitrogen oxide pollution. It also produces 3% of global GHGs (about the equivalent of Germany as a whole).
Electrically powered ships are a reality and are evolving rapidly, but they are only likely to be practical for river, coastal, and ferry journeys. Container ships need something else.
There is currently pressure for shipping companies to make their vessels more efficient (See Carbon War Room for an example). You'd think it would be in these companies' interests to have more efficient ships as it saves costs on fuel, but those costs are small enough that there's little incentive to replace or retrofit inefficient ships. Some are making the effort along those lines though, and even trying stuff like adding sails!
Next year, there is likely to be a push to use less polluting diesel as a fuel but I'm not sure this will do much for the GHG side of things.
However, next week the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will meet to decide if container ships should reduce their speed by 20%. This could cut fuel consumption and carbon emissions by around a third, reduce underwater noise by two thirds, whale collisions by 78%, sulphur and nitrogen oxide by 24%, and mean a significant cut in black carbon.
Apart from saving on fuel costs, the measure would have no extra costs involved (e.g. from retrofits). So it makes sense if the shipping companies want to be seen to be doing their bit. See here for more.
The medium- to long-term prospect is that oil-based fuels will be replaced by alternative fuels like hydrogen. In fact, the OECD believes it's possible to have net-zero shipping by 2035 with current technology. Maersk, the largest shipping company in the world, plans to be carbon neutral by 2050 which implies it will be rolling out net-zero ships by 2030.
Next: Industry
Before I go on, why have I separated aviation and shipping from other forms of transport? Basically, because it's handled outside the normal UN climate change agreement process, as it's difficult to apportion the carbon produced to individual countries.
Aviation: It's unlikely that anything other than short hop flights can be fully de-carbonised in the foreseeable future. Planes can be made more efficient, traffic control can be used to shorten flights, and biofuels can be mixed with aviation fuel to reduce the carbon emissions but, fundamentally, it's difficult to make flights net-zero.
This is because there aren't any obvious replacements for aviation fuel. It may be possible to make short-haul flights all electric in time (Norway wants to do this by 2040), but the aircraft to do so are still in development (e.g. By Boeing and Airbus). Hydrogen has been looked at as a potential replacement but has it's problems. It would basically mean a re-think of the shape of aircraft (because the fuel would have to be held in the body of the plane rather than the wings, as now), making them look more like Thunderbird 2, and this would interfere with the aerodynamics.
Anyway you cut it, medium- to long-haul flights are likely to be a big greenhouse gas (GHG) producer for decades to come.
So what else can be done? Well, for start, airlines need to stop the practise of 'fuel-tankering' (where planes fly around with more fuel than they need to reduce costs)…..See here for details.
Also, in the UK, 70% of all flights are taken by just 15% of adults, which suggests that, if people became more responsible, or were dissuaded from flying so much by carbon or 'frequent-flyer' taxes, it could make a sizeable reduction in overall airmiles and therefore GHGs. I realise it's nice to have the freedom to have, say, a few weekends away in Barcelona or Prague, in addition to a couple of holidays every year, but not at the expense of future generations, surely.
Shipping It has become fundamental to how our modern, interconnected world works, with vast quantities of goods (80% of the total) being moved around the planet all year round e.g. In 2013 there 120 million shipping containers, carrying $4 trillion in goods. The numbers will have only got bigger since then.
The ships can carry hundreds of containers at a time for thousands of kilometres, and often taking weeks to do so (Speed of delivery is not generally an issue).
Unfortunately, these ships usually run on heavy fuel oil which, though cheap, creates a lot sulphur, black carbon, and nitrogen oxide pollution. It also produces 3% of global GHGs (about the equivalent of Germany as a whole).
Electrically powered ships are a reality and are evolving rapidly, but they are only likely to be practical for river, coastal, and ferry journeys. Container ships need something else.
There is currently pressure for shipping companies to make their vessels more efficient (See Carbon War Room for an example). You'd think it would be in these companies' interests to have more efficient ships as it saves costs on fuel, but those costs are small enough that there's little incentive to replace or retrofit inefficient ships. Some are making the effort along those lines though, and even trying stuff like adding sails!
Next year, there is likely to be a push to use less polluting diesel as a fuel but I'm not sure this will do much for the GHG side of things.
However, next week the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will meet to decide if container ships should reduce their speed by 20%. This could cut fuel consumption and carbon emissions by around a third, reduce underwater noise by two thirds, whale collisions by 78%, sulphur and nitrogen oxide by 24%, and mean a significant cut in black carbon.
Apart from saving on fuel costs, the measure would have no extra costs involved (e.g. from retrofits). So it makes sense if the shipping companies want to be seen to be doing their bit. See here for more.
The medium- to long-term prospect is that oil-based fuels will be replaced by alternative fuels like hydrogen. In fact, the OECD believes it's possible to have net-zero shipping by 2035 with current technology. Maersk, the largest shipping company in the world, plans to be carbon neutral by 2050 which implies it will be rolling out net-zero ships by 2030.
Next: Industry
Tuesday, 22 October 2019
A Carbon Neutral World: Transport
As with my previous 2 posts, I'll be using the UK as an example of what needs to be done.
Here, transport makes up about a third of our nation's emissions but we've made practically no impact on cutting them over the last 3 decades (They are about 3% down on 1990 levels). One problem is that, despite vehicles becoming increasingly fuel efficient, this has been balanced out by increased mileage per passenger.
Electric vehicle (aka EV) sales have been increasing but they still only make up around 3% of new car sales. Why is that?
Well, EVs are still more expensive to buy than their petrol equivalents (ICEs). The government gives grants for anyone buying an EV - which has made them more affordable - but is already cutting the grants (which is blamed for a recent fall in sales in this country). There is also a perceived shortage of charge points, and various concerns about the time taken to charge, and how far they can actually go on a full battery.
Contrast this with Norway, where almost 60% of new car sales in 2019 are EVs. Why? Because the Norwegian government is making a real push for EVs: No road tax; no sales tax; no charge on public ferries; no toll charges; free municipal parking; an extensive charging point system; and EVs able to use bus lanes.
Since around 50% of all UK transport emissions are from cars, then our government needs to make similar moves. And, as nearly all the major car manufactures are throwing their weight behind EVs because they see that's where the market is heading, prices will soon fall in line with ICEs as demand increases. This will eventually allow the government to ease off the subsidies for EVs.
The problem then becomes, how do you get all the old ICEs of the road? It's alright for us middle-class types, and those with company cars, but there are an awful lot of people out there that simply can't afford to buy new cars. That's why we need to get the EV revolution going as soon as possible, so EVs start coming onto the second-hand market in large numbers, sooner.
We also need to improve 'public' transport. Back in the 80s and 90s the government sold off our rail and bus networks to private companies with the promise that this would make them more efficient and, thanks to competition, cheaper. Neither happened. If we want to get more people out of their cars, and thereby reduce emissions in the transition to all EV, we need to make buses and trains cheaper, faster, less crowded, and more reliable.
Whilst electric cars and buses are already a reality and just need some encouragement from the government, lorries are more of a problem. Low carbon HGVs are still to arrive. Tesla is working on one with a 500 mile range, and there's talk of hydrogen fuel cells being a potential solution but, frankly, mass production of low carbon HGVs still looks maybe 3 or 4 years away at the earliest. Net Zero by 2050 is still doable though.
Trains: The government wants all diesel trains removed from our system by 2040. Currently, more than half of all trains are diesel in this country. The delay is because electrifying the rail system is expensive and will cost tens of billions of pounds to do. Thankfully they only produce less than 1% of the nation's carbon emissions.
So, de-carbonising road and rail transport is basically about government incentivising people/companies to buy EVs until they reach similar prices to petrol vehicles; and throwing money at electrifying the rail infrastructure.
Doing all this has two added benefits: 1) Currently, there are around 40,000 premature deaths per year in the UK due to air pollution. This is almost entirely due to vehicle emissions. So net-zero transport could save thousands of lives a year; 2) As we all know, wind and solar energy are intermittent sources, sometimes there is too little, sometimes there's too much. It's been suggested that when we have huge numbers of EVs plugged into the national grid, we might be able to use their batteries to store energy when there's too much available (say in the middle of the night) and feed it back into the grid when demand is higher i.e. Smooth out the peaks and troughs in supply.
Next: Aviation and Shipping
Here, transport makes up about a third of our nation's emissions but we've made practically no impact on cutting them over the last 3 decades (They are about 3% down on 1990 levels). One problem is that, despite vehicles becoming increasingly fuel efficient, this has been balanced out by increased mileage per passenger.
Electric vehicle (aka EV) sales have been increasing but they still only make up around 3% of new car sales. Why is that?
Well, EVs are still more expensive to buy than their petrol equivalents (ICEs). The government gives grants for anyone buying an EV - which has made them more affordable - but is already cutting the grants (which is blamed for a recent fall in sales in this country). There is also a perceived shortage of charge points, and various concerns about the time taken to charge, and how far they can actually go on a full battery.
Contrast this with Norway, where almost 60% of new car sales in 2019 are EVs. Why? Because the Norwegian government is making a real push for EVs: No road tax; no sales tax; no charge on public ferries; no toll charges; free municipal parking; an extensive charging point system; and EVs able to use bus lanes.
Since around 50% of all UK transport emissions are from cars, then our government needs to make similar moves. And, as nearly all the major car manufactures are throwing their weight behind EVs because they see that's where the market is heading, prices will soon fall in line with ICEs as demand increases. This will eventually allow the government to ease off the subsidies for EVs.
The problem then becomes, how do you get all the old ICEs of the road? It's alright for us middle-class types, and those with company cars, but there are an awful lot of people out there that simply can't afford to buy new cars. That's why we need to get the EV revolution going as soon as possible, so EVs start coming onto the second-hand market in large numbers, sooner.
We also need to improve 'public' transport. Back in the 80s and 90s the government sold off our rail and bus networks to private companies with the promise that this would make them more efficient and, thanks to competition, cheaper. Neither happened. If we want to get more people out of their cars, and thereby reduce emissions in the transition to all EV, we need to make buses and trains cheaper, faster, less crowded, and more reliable.
Whilst electric cars and buses are already a reality and just need some encouragement from the government, lorries are more of a problem. Low carbon HGVs are still to arrive. Tesla is working on one with a 500 mile range, and there's talk of hydrogen fuel cells being a potential solution but, frankly, mass production of low carbon HGVs still looks maybe 3 or 4 years away at the earliest. Net Zero by 2050 is still doable though.
Trains: The government wants all diesel trains removed from our system by 2040. Currently, more than half of all trains are diesel in this country. The delay is because electrifying the rail system is expensive and will cost tens of billions of pounds to do. Thankfully they only produce less than 1% of the nation's carbon emissions.
So, de-carbonising road and rail transport is basically about government incentivising people/companies to buy EVs until they reach similar prices to petrol vehicles; and throwing money at electrifying the rail infrastructure.
Doing all this has two added benefits: 1) Currently, there are around 40,000 premature deaths per year in the UK due to air pollution. This is almost entirely due to vehicle emissions. So net-zero transport could save thousands of lives a year; 2) As we all know, wind and solar energy are intermittent sources, sometimes there is too little, sometimes there's too much. It's been suggested that when we have huge numbers of EVs plugged into the national grid, we might be able to use their batteries to store energy when there's too much available (say in the middle of the night) and feed it back into the grid when demand is higher i.e. Smooth out the peaks and troughs in supply.
Next: Aviation and Shipping
Wednesday, 18 September 2019
A Carbon Neutral World: Heating
The World's energy needs aren't all about the production of electricity (See my previous post), they're also about heating.
A lot of that is provided by natural gas which, as we all know, is a fossil fuel and, as such, produces CO2 emissions. Here, in the UK, around 40% of our energy needs come from heating, and this produces about 25% of our carbon footprint.
Since British houses are so poorly insulated, we Brits need a lot more heating per head than in most countries with a similar climate. As a consequence, we have the highest heating bills in Europe.
This, unfortunately, has tragic results, as more than 3000 Britons a year die as a direct result of being unable to afford to heat their homes. Many of these are elderly.
So, the most cost efficient way for our government to cut the UK's CO2 and save lives, is to have a push to insulate the nation's housing stock.
And yet: the government has axed any and all schemes aimed at helping home owners to insulate their houses; Local councils have little or no budget to improve insulation in social housing; and the government has dropped the "zero-carbon" standard for new builds from 2020 because of pressure from the building industry....
Around 80% of UK homes use natural gas for heating. It's an expensive fuel, subject to price shocks, and we are becoming increasingly dependant on imported gas, something our home-grown fracking industry is unlikely to be able to make a difference on. It makes sense to decarbonise heating.
So what replaces natural gas?
There are a number of workable alternatives:
1) Electric heating
Electric heaters themselves are inefficient and would be a waste of our increasingly lower carbon electricity. It would be better to use the more efficient heat pumps. Heat pumps work like a fridge in a way. They remove heat from the air or ground outside your home and pump it into your home. It's a well known technology and, if used as underfloor heating, in a well insulated house, can provide all the heat you need, even in the depths of winter. However, heat pumps are relatively expensive. So there is unlikely to be strong enough take-up here, even with subsidies from the government.
2) Replace Natural Gas with a low carbon alternative
It is believed that hydrogen could be used instead of natural gas, with little change to the UK's existing gas supply infrastructure. Biogas is another option. It seems likely that low carbon gas of some sort will be a large part of the solution. [Note: There are also hydrogen fuel cell boilers available that can heat your home AND provide electricity, but these are pretty expensive at £12000 and upwards].
3) District heating schemes
I've described a few of these here in the past e.g. where an area in Glasgow is heating homes based on taking the heat from water in abandoned, flooded mines. It works on the same principles as the heat pumps mentioned earlier; In Newcastle, a number of buildings are being heated geothermally from a borehole drilled deep beneath the city.
In fact, there are over 17,000 district heating schemes in the UK. It's thought that can this be scaled up to provide as much as half of our heating.
The government is allegedly looking into all 3 of the above alternatives and is due to break it's long silence on the issue in 2020. It admits that any low carbon plan will have to be rolled out rapidly in the 2020's.
The result is likely to be a mix of these solutions, plus demand reduction by making our housing stock better insulated. If they get it right, we will not only have lower carbon heating, but it will be cheaper for all of us. So the elderly and poor will no longer have to sit in unheated houses for fear of large heating bills.
Other countries face the same questions over natural gas to a greater or lesser extent. So they will face the same choices if they're serious about going carbon neutral. The first countries to decarbonise their heating will gain valuable expertise in the process, and will be able to export their skills and products to rest of the world.
The race is on.
Next in this series: Transport
A lot of that is provided by natural gas which, as we all know, is a fossil fuel and, as such, produces CO2 emissions. Here, in the UK, around 40% of our energy needs come from heating, and this produces about 25% of our carbon footprint.
Since British houses are so poorly insulated, we Brits need a lot more heating per head than in most countries with a similar climate. As a consequence, we have the highest heating bills in Europe.
This, unfortunately, has tragic results, as more than 3000 Britons a year die as a direct result of being unable to afford to heat their homes. Many of these are elderly.
So, the most cost efficient way for our government to cut the UK's CO2 and save lives, is to have a push to insulate the nation's housing stock.
And yet: the government has axed any and all schemes aimed at helping home owners to insulate their houses; Local councils have little or no budget to improve insulation in social housing; and the government has dropped the "zero-carbon" standard for new builds from 2020 because of pressure from the building industry....
Around 80% of UK homes use natural gas for heating. It's an expensive fuel, subject to price shocks, and we are becoming increasingly dependant on imported gas, something our home-grown fracking industry is unlikely to be able to make a difference on. It makes sense to decarbonise heating.
So what replaces natural gas?
There are a number of workable alternatives:
1) Electric heating
Electric heaters themselves are inefficient and would be a waste of our increasingly lower carbon electricity. It would be better to use the more efficient heat pumps. Heat pumps work like a fridge in a way. They remove heat from the air or ground outside your home and pump it into your home. It's a well known technology and, if used as underfloor heating, in a well insulated house, can provide all the heat you need, even in the depths of winter. However, heat pumps are relatively expensive. So there is unlikely to be strong enough take-up here, even with subsidies from the government.
2) Replace Natural Gas with a low carbon alternative
It is believed that hydrogen could be used instead of natural gas, with little change to the UK's existing gas supply infrastructure. Biogas is another option. It seems likely that low carbon gas of some sort will be a large part of the solution. [Note: There are also hydrogen fuel cell boilers available that can heat your home AND provide electricity, but these are pretty expensive at £12000 and upwards].
3) District heating schemes
I've described a few of these here in the past e.g. where an area in Glasgow is heating homes based on taking the heat from water in abandoned, flooded mines. It works on the same principles as the heat pumps mentioned earlier; In Newcastle, a number of buildings are being heated geothermally from a borehole drilled deep beneath the city.
In fact, there are over 17,000 district heating schemes in the UK. It's thought that can this be scaled up to provide as much as half of our heating.
The government is allegedly looking into all 3 of the above alternatives and is due to break it's long silence on the issue in 2020. It admits that any low carbon plan will have to be rolled out rapidly in the 2020's.
The result is likely to be a mix of these solutions, plus demand reduction by making our housing stock better insulated. If they get it right, we will not only have lower carbon heating, but it will be cheaper for all of us. So the elderly and poor will no longer have to sit in unheated houses for fear of large heating bills.
Other countries face the same questions over natural gas to a greater or lesser extent. So they will face the same choices if they're serious about going carbon neutral. The first countries to decarbonise their heating will gain valuable expertise in the process, and will be able to export their skills and products to rest of the world.
The race is on.
Next in this series: Transport
Wednesday, 31 July 2019
A Carbon Neutral World: Energy
According to the 2015 Paris Agreement, the World needs to become Net Zero (aka Carbon neutral) by 2050 if we are to have a chance of preventing our planet from reaching more than 1.5 degrees of warming by the end of the Century.
1.5C is generally agreed to be a lot safer than the previous target of 2 degrees and, judging by amount of crazy weather we've been having recently, that view looks increasingly true.
But how do we get to Carbon Neutral in just 30 years? Is it possible? Is it affordable? What will it mean to you and me?
In this series, I'll be attempting to answer those questions.
In this first part, I'll be looking at energy.
If you take a look at the side-bar to this blog, you'll see a bunch of links under the title of 'Common Themes'. One of those links is called 'The Future of Energy'. This will take you to a series I did a few years ago about where energy needs to be headed in the coming years. Hopefully this'll persuade you that all the necessary tools we require to produce all the low carbon energy we need are already available.
The future of energy is basically clean, carbon neutral, renewable electricity, and plenty of it.
Carbon neutrality depends on de-carbonising and increasing energy production. This might seem an obvious thing to say but it's worth emphasising: A lot of the other steps on the way to net zero, like the electrification of transport and household heating, rely on this one.
Beyond helping prevent climate change, making energy carbon neutral has two major benefits: Firstly, it cleans up the air we breath when all those polluting coal fired stations are closed; and, when the gas-fired stations are also closed, it eliminates the price shocks for us homeowners that come from using a natural gas.
So, how does a country get a carbon neutral energy grid? Well, there is no one-size-fits-all solution because every country has it's own natural resources. Those in sunny latitudes, like Australia, Spain, Africa and India can make use of abundant solar energy; Others in windy regions like Northern Europe can use wind power; Countries with mountainous regions (like Norway) might use hydro; and countries with volcanic/hydrothermal activity, like Iceland and the Philippines, can use geothermal energy.
In Britain's case, we are using a lot of wind turbines, particularly offshore, and some solar. There may also be projects to use tidal energy in the future. We also use a lot of biofuel, with former coal fired stations switching to wood pellets. A sizeable chunk of our electric is from nuclear too (20%).
As a result, in 2018 the UK sourced 53% of our electric from low carbon sources and that will only increase as we close the last of the coal powered stations by 2025 and add even more wind turbines and nuclear stations to the mix. Hopefully these will phase out the remaining source of carbon on our grid, gas fired stations, by 2050.
Of course, when you rely so heavily on the weather for your energy needs, you can suffer shortages on cloudy, windless days. To get round this, the UK is building a flexible energy system based on: 'interconnectors' with other countries so that we can import electric to fill the shortfalls; energy storage for when we're producing more than we can use; demand-side management; and small gas powered stations on stand-by as a last resort.
Essentially the UK is well on way to de-carbonising it's energy, and the only uncertainty is getting enough new nuclear power stations up-and-running in time as the foundation.
There's no reason why any other country can't achieve this too with the right leadership. Britain has even dispelled the myth that decarbonising an economy can hit growth: Whilst the UK has cut it's total carbon emissions (not just energy) by 42%, the economy has continued to grow at a faster rate than most other developed countries.
So the UK government is to be congratulated on it's efforts to de-carbonise our energy over the last couple of decades. Adopting policies that effectively phase out coal stations, and incentivising the building of renewables (at least to begin with) has been the key, and there seems to be genuine commitment to seeing the job through.
Unfortunately, this is one of the few areas where our government have done well in cutting carbon. In other areas it is either dragging it's feet (e.g. Transport) or it's policies will lead to MORE carbon (e.g. Aviation).
UPDATE (21st Oct 2019): I recently discovered that the UK government has been getting planning permission for the building a number of NEW gas-fired turbines. This may just be a contingency in case things continue to go badly in getting new nuclear stations, or it could be the aforementioned stand-by stations, but I get the feeling the current PM (and cabinet) is less committed to net zero than previous ones.
Next time: Heating.
1.5C is generally agreed to be a lot safer than the previous target of 2 degrees and, judging by amount of crazy weather we've been having recently, that view looks increasingly true.
But how do we get to Carbon Neutral in just 30 years? Is it possible? Is it affordable? What will it mean to you and me?
In this series, I'll be attempting to answer those questions.
In this first part, I'll be looking at energy.
If you take a look at the side-bar to this blog, you'll see a bunch of links under the title of 'Common Themes'. One of those links is called 'The Future of Energy'. This will take you to a series I did a few years ago about where energy needs to be headed in the coming years. Hopefully this'll persuade you that all the necessary tools we require to produce all the low carbon energy we need are already available.
The future of energy is basically clean, carbon neutral, renewable electricity, and plenty of it.
Carbon neutrality depends on de-carbonising and increasing energy production. This might seem an obvious thing to say but it's worth emphasising: A lot of the other steps on the way to net zero, like the electrification of transport and household heating, rely on this one.
Beyond helping prevent climate change, making energy carbon neutral has two major benefits: Firstly, it cleans up the air we breath when all those polluting coal fired stations are closed; and, when the gas-fired stations are also closed, it eliminates the price shocks for us homeowners that come from using a natural gas.
So, how does a country get a carbon neutral energy grid? Well, there is no one-size-fits-all solution because every country has it's own natural resources. Those in sunny latitudes, like Australia, Spain, Africa and India can make use of abundant solar energy; Others in windy regions like Northern Europe can use wind power; Countries with mountainous regions (like Norway) might use hydro; and countries with volcanic/hydrothermal activity, like Iceland and the Philippines, can use geothermal energy.
In Britain's case, we are using a lot of wind turbines, particularly offshore, and some solar. There may also be projects to use tidal energy in the future. We also use a lot of biofuel, with former coal fired stations switching to wood pellets. A sizeable chunk of our electric is from nuclear too (20%).
As a result, in 2018 the UK sourced 53% of our electric from low carbon sources and that will only increase as we close the last of the coal powered stations by 2025 and add even more wind turbines and nuclear stations to the mix. Hopefully these will phase out the remaining source of carbon on our grid, gas fired stations, by 2050.
Of course, when you rely so heavily on the weather for your energy needs, you can suffer shortages on cloudy, windless days. To get round this, the UK is building a flexible energy system based on: 'interconnectors' with other countries so that we can import electric to fill the shortfalls; energy storage for when we're producing more than we can use; demand-side management; and small gas powered stations on stand-by as a last resort.
Essentially the UK is well on way to de-carbonising it's energy, and the only uncertainty is getting enough new nuclear power stations up-and-running in time as the foundation.
There's no reason why any other country can't achieve this too with the right leadership. Britain has even dispelled the myth that decarbonising an economy can hit growth: Whilst the UK has cut it's total carbon emissions (not just energy) by 42%, the economy has continued to grow at a faster rate than most other developed countries.
So the UK government is to be congratulated on it's efforts to de-carbonise our energy over the last couple of decades. Adopting policies that effectively phase out coal stations, and incentivising the building of renewables (at least to begin with) has been the key, and there seems to be genuine commitment to seeing the job through.
Unfortunately, this is one of the few areas where our government have done well in cutting carbon. In other areas it is either dragging it's feet (e.g. Transport) or it's policies will lead to MORE carbon (e.g. Aviation).
UPDATE (21st Oct 2019): I recently discovered that the UK government has been getting planning permission for the building a number of NEW gas-fired turbines. This may just be a contingency in case things continue to go badly in getting new nuclear stations, or it could be the aforementioned stand-by stations, but I get the feeling the current PM (and cabinet) is less committed to net zero than previous ones.
Next time: Heating.
Wednesday, 3 July 2019
Climate Change: Reasons to be Cheerful/Pessimistic
These days hardly a week goes by without me having both moments of confidence in our future as regards climate change and complete despair.
The reasons for this are that, on one side, we have the 2015 Climate Accord, there seems to be considerable momentum in society for climate action, the UK parliament has declared a climate emergency, the UK Government has improved it's emissions target, and we have all the tools we need to head-off climate change (with more in the pipeline).
On the other hand, we have a climate denier as President of the US, Brazil has just voted in a president who has opened up the Amazon to increased deforestation, and I remain sceptical that politicians as a whole have the backbone to implement the policies necessary to meet the climate challenge.
However, I am generally an optimist and I refuse to give up hope. Big Oil wants us all to give up so that it can carry on making profits at the expense of future generations.
Over the coming weeks, I plan on looking at the sort of changes we will have to make to stop the climate emergency.
The reasons for this are that, on one side, we have the 2015 Climate Accord, there seems to be considerable momentum in society for climate action, the UK parliament has declared a climate emergency, the UK Government has improved it's emissions target, and we have all the tools we need to head-off climate change (with more in the pipeline).
On the other hand, we have a climate denier as President of the US, Brazil has just voted in a president who has opened up the Amazon to increased deforestation, and I remain sceptical that politicians as a whole have the backbone to implement the policies necessary to meet the climate challenge.
However, I am generally an optimist and I refuse to give up hope. Big Oil wants us all to give up so that it can carry on making profits at the expense of future generations.
Over the coming weeks, I plan on looking at the sort of changes we will have to make to stop the climate emergency.
Thursday, 2 May 2019
Extinction Rebellion, Greta Thunberg and the UK Climate Debate
It's been an interesting couple of weeks here in Britain where the climate change debate is concerned.
Just as things had quietened down in the media about the school children striking about climate change than we had the Extinction Rebellion phenomenon, the sudden appearance of Greta Thunberg (who'd started of the strikes amongst school kids) in Britain to talk in Parliament, and a high impact documentary from David Attenborough called 'Climate Change: The Facts'.
All in the space of a week.
Extinction Rebellion (aka XR), are a group of climate protestors who decided to take 'direct action' in London. This meant such things as super-gluing themselves to trains and entrances to major financial institutions, blocking major roads and bridges, and generally making a nuisance of themselves. They had been planning this for months and the idea was to put climate change at the top of the political agenda in the UK. They knew that there'd be arrests, they were prepared for it, and indeed, they were counting on it. They were arrested in their hundreds, and yet, each day, more would join the protests, inspired by their actions.
Whatever you think of their methods, when governments fail to respond to strong public feeling, then all there's left is direct action. This happened with women's fight for the right to vote, and the civil rights movement in the States.
The XR protests were peaceful, good natured, and they made their point well. The arrival of Greta in Britain, to speak to XR and then to party leaders in Parliament upped the ante. To see this young woman confronting our politicians with her quiet dignity and direct, no nonsense language was, frankly, inspirational. She speaks for a generation whose future is being thrown away while governments do nothing. Those party leaders must have known they'd met their match and, for once, I think they actually listened.
And then, whilst this was all going on, there was David Attenborough's 'Climate Change: The Facts' film. If this documentary isn't a call to arms, I don't know what is.
I think the coming together of these three elements galvanised many people in this country. So the XR protests grew, and the emails/letters/calls to MPs went through the roof, dwarfing those from Brexit.
Suddenly Climate Change was back on the agenda and, not only that, at the very top.
I was sceptical that anything would actually come from this. After all, our politicians are past masters at saying the right things (to placate the voters) but doing nothing. However, the opposition in Parliament, bless 'em, forced a debate yesterday about whether there was a climate emergency. I watched a fair bit of this debate live and I've got to say I was impressed about how many MPs, on both sides of the House, actually got it. Oh, there were a few Tory MPs who got up to defend the government's record on bringing down carbon emissions, but it was pretty much unanimous - Their IS an emergency, Britain (and the World) isn't doing enough, there was plenty more we could do, and we needed up our ambition and our sense of urgency.
Bottom line: Parliament declared a national climate emergency.
Wow.
Of course, it remains to be seen if all these fine words will be turned into action, but the signs are looking good. An emergency has been declared, the government HAVE to respond.
Is this history in the making or just another false dawn?
Just as things had quietened down in the media about the school children striking about climate change than we had the Extinction Rebellion phenomenon, the sudden appearance of Greta Thunberg (who'd started of the strikes amongst school kids) in Britain to talk in Parliament, and a high impact documentary from David Attenborough called 'Climate Change: The Facts'.
All in the space of a week.
Extinction Rebellion (aka XR), are a group of climate protestors who decided to take 'direct action' in London. This meant such things as super-gluing themselves to trains and entrances to major financial institutions, blocking major roads and bridges, and generally making a nuisance of themselves. They had been planning this for months and the idea was to put climate change at the top of the political agenda in the UK. They knew that there'd be arrests, they were prepared for it, and indeed, they were counting on it. They were arrested in their hundreds, and yet, each day, more would join the protests, inspired by their actions.
Whatever you think of their methods, when governments fail to respond to strong public feeling, then all there's left is direct action. This happened with women's fight for the right to vote, and the civil rights movement in the States.
The XR protests were peaceful, good natured, and they made their point well. The arrival of Greta in Britain, to speak to XR and then to party leaders in Parliament upped the ante. To see this young woman confronting our politicians with her quiet dignity and direct, no nonsense language was, frankly, inspirational. She speaks for a generation whose future is being thrown away while governments do nothing. Those party leaders must have known they'd met their match and, for once, I think they actually listened.
And then, whilst this was all going on, there was David Attenborough's 'Climate Change: The Facts' film. If this documentary isn't a call to arms, I don't know what is.
I think the coming together of these three elements galvanised many people in this country. So the XR protests grew, and the emails/letters/calls to MPs went through the roof, dwarfing those from Brexit.
Suddenly Climate Change was back on the agenda and, not only that, at the very top.
I was sceptical that anything would actually come from this. After all, our politicians are past masters at saying the right things (to placate the voters) but doing nothing. However, the opposition in Parliament, bless 'em, forced a debate yesterday about whether there was a climate emergency. I watched a fair bit of this debate live and I've got to say I was impressed about how many MPs, on both sides of the House, actually got it. Oh, there were a few Tory MPs who got up to defend the government's record on bringing down carbon emissions, but it was pretty much unanimous - Their IS an emergency, Britain (and the World) isn't doing enough, there was plenty more we could do, and we needed up our ambition and our sense of urgency.
Bottom line: Parliament declared a national climate emergency.
Wow.
Of course, it remains to be seen if all these fine words will be turned into action, but the signs are looking good. An emergency has been declared, the government HAVE to respond.
Is this history in the making or just another false dawn?
Sunday, 24 February 2019
Are Solar Batteries Worth It?
One of the things that's been on my 'radar' lately has been battery storage for our solar panels.
Think about it - For much of the year in the Britain, a decent-sized solar array on your roof probably produces more energy in daylight hours than you can use. So the 'spare' electric goes back to the grid. But what if you could store that spare power until you could use it? That could save you some money and reduce your carbon footprint.
The way to do this is to install a solar battery storage system.
The batteries can be Lead-Acid or Lithium-Ion but the latter are supposed to be the better choice (in terms of weight and battery life). However, they are expensive - Despite the cost of Lithium-Ion batteries coming down dramatically (> 80% since 2010) - with prices in the UK currently starting at £3000 for a 6.5 kWh battery.
So, is it worth it at today's prices? Well, I did some rough calculations for our own panels.....
Example 1:
If I take a Solax 3.3 battery, costing £4000 for 3.5kWh with a 10 year warranty. I'd need to get £400 a year's worth of stored electric out of it just to break even (Assuming the battery only lasts as long as it's warranty). If I assume it stores the maximum 3.5kWh every day, it will give me 1277 kWh a year. Based on the price per kWh from my electric company of £0.1617, that gives me a saving of £204.40 per year. Just over half what I'd need to break even. But it would cut our carbon footprint by 0.69 tonnes.
However, assuming the battery stores 3.5kWh every day is a bit optimistic. Even in the height of Summer you can get days were the panels generate less than 3.5, that gets worse in Winter. So, the savings in electric and carbon would be even less (maybe half?).
Example 2:
Tesla Powerwall, costing £5500 for 13.5 kWh with 10 year warranty. Here, I'd need a return of £550 per year to break even. However, the larger capacity of the battery means I could get an increased return. Maybe as much as 2/3rds of the energy we generate of around 2000 kWh a year. This would give us a return of £328.40 a year and a saving of 1.08 tonnes a year of carbon.
An improvement, but still only around 60% of what I'd need to break even.
Bottom-line: Solar battery prices would need to halve before they become cost effective in the UK. I'm guessing that's not too far off now.
Think about it - For much of the year in the Britain, a decent-sized solar array on your roof probably produces more energy in daylight hours than you can use. So the 'spare' electric goes back to the grid. But what if you could store that spare power until you could use it? That could save you some money and reduce your carbon footprint.
The way to do this is to install a solar battery storage system.
The batteries can be Lead-Acid or Lithium-Ion but the latter are supposed to be the better choice (in terms of weight and battery life). However, they are expensive - Despite the cost of Lithium-Ion batteries coming down dramatically (> 80% since 2010) - with prices in the UK currently starting at £3000 for a 6.5 kWh battery.
So, is it worth it at today's prices? Well, I did some rough calculations for our own panels.....
Example 1:
If I take a Solax 3.3 battery, costing £4000 for 3.5kWh with a 10 year warranty. I'd need to get £400 a year's worth of stored electric out of it just to break even (Assuming the battery only lasts as long as it's warranty). If I assume it stores the maximum 3.5kWh every day, it will give me 1277 kWh a year. Based on the price per kWh from my electric company of £0.1617, that gives me a saving of £204.40 per year. Just over half what I'd need to break even. But it would cut our carbon footprint by 0.69 tonnes.
However, assuming the battery stores 3.5kWh every day is a bit optimistic. Even in the height of Summer you can get days were the panels generate less than 3.5, that gets worse in Winter. So, the savings in electric and carbon would be even less (maybe half?).
Example 2:
Tesla Powerwall, costing £5500 for 13.5 kWh with 10 year warranty. Here, I'd need a return of £550 per year to break even. However, the larger capacity of the battery means I could get an increased return. Maybe as much as 2/3rds of the energy we generate of around 2000 kWh a year. This would give us a return of £328.40 a year and a saving of 1.08 tonnes a year of carbon.
An improvement, but still only around 60% of what I'd need to break even.
Bottom-line: Solar battery prices would need to halve before they become cost effective in the UK. I'm guessing that's not too far off now.
Wednesday, 20 February 2019
School Chidren Want Action on Climate Change - NOW
Last week (15th Feb 2019), tens of thousands of young people in the UK walked out of school to join protests calling on the UK government for radical action on climate change. See here.
This was part of rolling, worldwide protests by school kids that have been going on for weeks.
They were first begun by a Swedish girl called Greta Thunberg who did a solo protest outside the Swedish parliament back in August, and it's snow-balled ever since.
The media have variously described these protesters as truants, naïve, and dupes of adults pushing an agenda.
I'm sure some of the children were truants, but I'm betting this was a very small percentage of them. If there's anything I've learnt about teenagers nowadays, it's that they are lot more worldly wise than we were back in the 20th century. This generation are lot better informed than back then and, as a consequence, care deeply about the injustices they see all around them. They haven't been duped, they know their own minds. They are concerned about their own futures and the world they'll have to live in.
Maybe they are naïve though. Naïve to think that politicians are quick to act and do the right thing.
As long ago as 1992, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, all countries signed up to a treaty that had a stated aim of curbing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. 27 years later, politicians are still trying to thrash out the details of how to do that. All the way along, scientists have been warning we need to act fast or face dire consequences, and yet the politicians continue to act as if they have all the time in the world. They love procrastinating, and kicking the can down the road where difficult decisions are needed.
Radical change will be needed, and that's what they can't face. The solutions are available and well-known. They just need the political will, of which, they have none.
It looks very much like nothing will be done until 2020 when the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement supposedly comes into effect. Even then, I'm sure no sense of urgency will suddenly appear.
Pity the poor children. Pity us all.
This was part of rolling, worldwide protests by school kids that have been going on for weeks.
They were first begun by a Swedish girl called Greta Thunberg who did a solo protest outside the Swedish parliament back in August, and it's snow-balled ever since.
The media have variously described these protesters as truants, naïve, and dupes of adults pushing an agenda.
I'm sure some of the children were truants, but I'm betting this was a very small percentage of them. If there's anything I've learnt about teenagers nowadays, it's that they are lot more worldly wise than we were back in the 20th century. This generation are lot better informed than back then and, as a consequence, care deeply about the injustices they see all around them. They haven't been duped, they know their own minds. They are concerned about their own futures and the world they'll have to live in.
Maybe they are naïve though. Naïve to think that politicians are quick to act and do the right thing.
As long ago as 1992, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, all countries signed up to a treaty that had a stated aim of curbing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. 27 years later, politicians are still trying to thrash out the details of how to do that. All the way along, scientists have been warning we need to act fast or face dire consequences, and yet the politicians continue to act as if they have all the time in the world. They love procrastinating, and kicking the can down the road where difficult decisions are needed.
Radical change will be needed, and that's what they can't face. The solutions are available and well-known. They just need the political will, of which, they have none.
It looks very much like nothing will be done until 2020 when the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement supposedly comes into effect. Even then, I'm sure no sense of urgency will suddenly appear.
Pity the poor children. Pity us all.
Tuesday, 12 February 2019
How Green Are Wood Burners?
We bought a wood burner about a year ago. Basically we wanted something better looking than our dated, inefficient gas fire (with fake coal). It was a bit expensive, taking into account lining the chimney and so on, but it's worked out well.
It looks stylish, has a touch of nostalgia about the flames, the fuel is relatively cheap, and it's very cosy. I also think it's helping to reduce our heating bill. This, and the fact that using wood for fuel is carbon neutral, makes it a nice way to reduce our carbon footprint.
Currently, there are 1 million wood burners in the UK with 175,000 being added each year. It's thought that they will account for 10% of the government's carbon reduction target by 2020, cutting our emissions by 2 million tonnes a year.
All good right? So why did the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, want to ban them?
Well, burning wood releases soot/smoke. In environmental terms, these are known as particulates. And particulates from diesel cars, industry, and, apparently, wood burning are responsible for thousands of deaths a year in the UK's urban areas.
The problem is that a lot of people are burning the wrong sort of wood and in inefficient ways.
The government is bringing in legislation to ensure all wood burners are at least 80% efficient which greatly reduces the soot produced, and wood suppliers are providing wood with < 20% moisture (the wetter the wood, the more smoke is produced).
This will greatly reduce the amount of particulates. In addition, wood burner owners need to learn what they can burn safely. We shouldn't burn treated wood and we shouldn't burn anything other than wood and plain paper (as kindling). Anything else would be unhealthy.
It looks stylish, has a touch of nostalgia about the flames, the fuel is relatively cheap, and it's very cosy. I also think it's helping to reduce our heating bill. This, and the fact that using wood for fuel is carbon neutral, makes it a nice way to reduce our carbon footprint.
Currently, there are 1 million wood burners in the UK with 175,000 being added each year. It's thought that they will account for 10% of the government's carbon reduction target by 2020, cutting our emissions by 2 million tonnes a year.
All good right? So why did the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, want to ban them?
Well, burning wood releases soot/smoke. In environmental terms, these are known as particulates. And particulates from diesel cars, industry, and, apparently, wood burning are responsible for thousands of deaths a year in the UK's urban areas.
The problem is that a lot of people are burning the wrong sort of wood and in inefficient ways.
The government is bringing in legislation to ensure all wood burners are at least 80% efficient which greatly reduces the soot produced, and wood suppliers are providing wood with < 20% moisture (the wetter the wood, the more smoke is produced).
This will greatly reduce the amount of particulates. In addition, wood burner owners need to learn what they can burn safely. We shouldn't burn treated wood and we shouldn't burn anything other than wood and plain paper (as kindling). Anything else would be unhealthy.
Friday, 8 February 2019
The Car That Runs on Air
Over 9 years ago, I came across news of a car that would run on nothing more than air.
Sounds like a hoax doesn't it? But it's actually possible.
The basic principle is that you fill the tank with compressed air, which is effectively a form of stored energy, and this is what's used to run the car.
Back then, the prototypes were being built by a French company called MDI (https://www.mdi.lu/) and Tata Motors were looking to launch a car based around MDI's compressed air engine in 2011.
It never happened. Ever since, launch of these so-called Air Cars has always been imminent but has never actually taken place. Apparently, there have been numerous issues to overcome, such as limited range, technical challenges, and safety concerns.
But these all seem to have been overcome as....
Currently Tata are saying they'll launch by 2020, Zero Pollution Motors (https://zeropollutionmotors.us/), a U.S. licensee for MDI is saying mid-2019 for the AirPod 2.0 model. This is priced at $10,000 dollars and they've already been taking deposits.
The claim is that it does 50 mph, has an 80 mile range, and can be 'charged' in 4 minutes.
If this turns out to be true then it's a pretty cheap way to drive clean. I look forward to the reviews.
Sounds like a hoax doesn't it? But it's actually possible.
The basic principle is that you fill the tank with compressed air, which is effectively a form of stored energy, and this is what's used to run the car.
Back then, the prototypes were being built by a French company called MDI (https://www.mdi.lu/) and Tata Motors were looking to launch a car based around MDI's compressed air engine in 2011.
It never happened. Ever since, launch of these so-called Air Cars has always been imminent but has never actually taken place. Apparently, there have been numerous issues to overcome, such as limited range, technical challenges, and safety concerns.
But these all seem to have been overcome as....
Currently Tata are saying they'll launch by 2020, Zero Pollution Motors (https://zeropollutionmotors.us/), a U.S. licensee for MDI is saying mid-2019 for the AirPod 2.0 model. This is priced at $10,000 dollars and they've already been taking deposits.
The claim is that it does 50 mph, has an 80 mile range, and can be 'charged' in 4 minutes.
If this turns out to be true then it's a pretty cheap way to drive clean. I look forward to the reviews.
Tuesday, 22 January 2019
Life of a Plastic Bottle
You're out and about and feeling thirsty. You go into a shop and buy a bottle of your favourite fizzy drink and you gratefully gulp it down. A moment or two of bliss on a hot day.
But what now? Carry the empty with you until you get home, or put it in a litter bin?
This is a regular dilemma for me. In truth, I should be taking a reused bottle of water with me when I'm out. It's cheaper and doesn't add to the mass of plastic out there already. But I'm never that organised and I prefer my drinks chilled.
The answer to my earlier question is: Take it home (Unless recycling bins are available). Bottles that go into a public bin are unlikely to be separated, so will most likely go to a dump or be incinerated.
By taking it home and putting it in your own recycling bin, it then has a chance to be recycled as a bottle again. This stops it ending up in landfill, and reduces the carbon footprint of the new bottle:
But what now? Carry the empty with you until you get home, or put it in a litter bin?
This is a regular dilemma for me. In truth, I should be taking a reused bottle of water with me when I'm out. It's cheaper and doesn't add to the mass of plastic out there already. But I'm never that organised and I prefer my drinks chilled.
The answer to my earlier question is: Take it home (Unless recycling bins are available). Bottles that go into a public bin are unlikely to be separated, so will most likely go to a dump or be incinerated.
By taking it home and putting it in your own recycling bin, it then has a chance to be recycled as a bottle again. This stops it ending up in landfill, and reduces the carbon footprint of the new bottle:
- 80% of all plastic ever made has ended up in the environment or in landfill.
- Today, 8 million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans, each year.
- Manufacturing a tonne of recycled plastic bottles creates 1 to 3 tonnes less CO2 than a tonne made the usual way (from oil).
Why is that?
Basically, it's cost. It is cheaper to produce a plastic bottle from scratch, from oil, than by using recycled material. That's because oil is relatively cheap at the moment.
If we are to reduce both the carbon footprint of plastic and reduce the amount of plastic going into the environment, then the economics have to change.
Raising the price of oil is clearly out, therefore governments need to make the use of recycled plastic more attractive to manufacturers. Or recycling plastic needs become less costly.
What we're doing with plastics is clearly unsustainable. We need to change our attitudes towards it.
We need to reduce the amount of plastic packaging being used; reduce the frivolous, unnecessary purchases we make; reuse wherever possible; and create a market where recycled materials are favoured against raw materials like oil.
This can only come about when governments, companies, and the public recognise the dangers of our throwaway society, and work together to overcome them.
It's a big ask but, somehow, I think we've got to learn to work together if we're going to meet the challenges that face us all this century.
(Source of figures: New Scientist, 19 May 2018)
(Source of figures: New Scientist, 19 May 2018)
Wednesday, 16 January 2019
Paying for Carbon Cuts: Green Taxes
If and when the international community gets it's act together and starts delivering on the Paris Climate deal of 2015, how do we pay for it?
There are numerous ways of doing this, but they generally have a common theme: Make sure the price of goods and services include the cost of their carbon footprint.
Just about everything we buy has carbon emissions associated with it - Energy was used in processing the raw materials, manufacturing the final product, and transporting it. A large proportion of that energy would have been generated from fossil fuels, and these are contributing to climate change.
You might think that this means that the price of everything will go up to reflect that cost. However, that shouldn't be the case. If the world is to reduce it's emissions, then the industries and companies that emit the most should be taxed the most and these taxes used to subsidise those industries and companies which are being the most efficient.
The general idea being that efficiency is rewarded (subsidies) and inefficiency is penalised (green taxes).
However, green taxes need to be used with care, otherwise you end up hitting the wrong people.
For example, you could put a tax on petrol/diesel to change people's driving behaviour and encourage the take-up of hybrid & electric cars. This sounds reasonable until you realise that this would hit the poor hardest, as they have less (if any) 'disposable' income.
President Macron of France learnt this to his cost towards the end of 2018. He applied a green tax to fuel and sparked off mass protests across France. And it's not as if this wasn't predictable either. Britain had a similar experience a decade or so ago when the UK government tried the same thing.
Using taxes in this way shows how out of touch politicians are with the poorest in society and brings green taxes into disrepute.
The poor around the world are likely to be hardest hit by climate change in the future. If we are to prevent the worst effects of carbon emissions then we cannot afford to turn the poor against our efforts before we've even begun.
They have to be protected or the battle's as good as lost.
(More here)
There are numerous ways of doing this, but they generally have a common theme: Make sure the price of goods and services include the cost of their carbon footprint.
Just about everything we buy has carbon emissions associated with it - Energy was used in processing the raw materials, manufacturing the final product, and transporting it. A large proportion of that energy would have been generated from fossil fuels, and these are contributing to climate change.
You might think that this means that the price of everything will go up to reflect that cost. However, that shouldn't be the case. If the world is to reduce it's emissions, then the industries and companies that emit the most should be taxed the most and these taxes used to subsidise those industries and companies which are being the most efficient.
The general idea being that efficiency is rewarded (subsidies) and inefficiency is penalised (green taxes).
However, green taxes need to be used with care, otherwise you end up hitting the wrong people.
For example, you could put a tax on petrol/diesel to change people's driving behaviour and encourage the take-up of hybrid & electric cars. This sounds reasonable until you realise that this would hit the poor hardest, as they have less (if any) 'disposable' income.
President Macron of France learnt this to his cost towards the end of 2018. He applied a green tax to fuel and sparked off mass protests across France. And it's not as if this wasn't predictable either. Britain had a similar experience a decade or so ago when the UK government tried the same thing.
Using taxes in this way shows how out of touch politicians are with the poorest in society and brings green taxes into disrepute.
The poor around the world are likely to be hardest hit by climate change in the future. If we are to prevent the worst effects of carbon emissions then we cannot afford to turn the poor against our efforts before we've even begun.
They have to be protected or the battle's as good as lost.
(More here)
Thursday, 3 January 2019
COP24: Katowice Climate Conference
I first started this blog in 2010 because I was very disappointed in the outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15).
At the time, many millions of people around the world expected politicians to finally sign an agreement to deal with climate change but, instead, we got a meaningless 'accord'.
At a stroke, much of the public who were clamouring for a deal, just gave up on climate change as a lost cause. So it wasn't until 2015 that a final deal was struck at the Paris conference (COP21) in 2015.
It was an historic moment, but it should have happened many years earlier. The science, after all, has been pretty clear on the issue for decades.
So what?
Well, anyone who has been following what the climate change experts have been saying for years is that: The later we start to deal with climate change, the harder the effects of dealing with it will be on society and the more expensive measures they bring in will be.
So the politicians (and climate deniers, who've deliberately muddied the waters), have let us all down - Had we started dealing with climate change when it first became a clear threat, we'd have barely noticed the measures our governments would have needed to implement.
After decades of dithering, we're definitely going to notice them now.
But even that will be nothing compared to what we'd face if we do nothing and let the climate warm by more than 2 degrees C.
Anyway, back to COP24 (Katowice December 2018). In 2015, the nations of the world agreed to keep warming to less than 2 degrees. Since then they've submitted their plans to help do that and been trying to agree rules on how to make sure these plans happen.
However, those plans, combined, would only keep warming down to around 3C. Not enough.
So the hopes from Katowice were that a) The above rules would be agreed; and b) Nations would up their ambition.
It looks like it succeeded with a) but utterly failed with b). See here for a summary.
Not only that but the climate change plans, weak as they are, don't come into effect until 2020.
Yet more delay. Yet more pain to be suffered by us when they finally get going.
At the time, many millions of people around the world expected politicians to finally sign an agreement to deal with climate change but, instead, we got a meaningless 'accord'.
At a stroke, much of the public who were clamouring for a deal, just gave up on climate change as a lost cause. So it wasn't until 2015 that a final deal was struck at the Paris conference (COP21) in 2015.
It was an historic moment, but it should have happened many years earlier. The science, after all, has been pretty clear on the issue for decades.
So what?
Well, anyone who has been following what the climate change experts have been saying for years is that: The later we start to deal with climate change, the harder the effects of dealing with it will be on society and the more expensive measures they bring in will be.
So the politicians (and climate deniers, who've deliberately muddied the waters), have let us all down - Had we started dealing with climate change when it first became a clear threat, we'd have barely noticed the measures our governments would have needed to implement.
After decades of dithering, we're definitely going to notice them now.
But even that will be nothing compared to what we'd face if we do nothing and let the climate warm by more than 2 degrees C.
Anyway, back to COP24 (Katowice December 2018). In 2015, the nations of the world agreed to keep warming to less than 2 degrees. Since then they've submitted their plans to help do that and been trying to agree rules on how to make sure these plans happen.
However, those plans, combined, would only keep warming down to around 3C. Not enough.
So the hopes from Katowice were that a) The above rules would be agreed; and b) Nations would up their ambition.
It looks like it succeeded with a) but utterly failed with b). See here for a summary.
Not only that but the climate change plans, weak as they are, don't come into effect until 2020.
Yet more delay. Yet more pain to be suffered by us when they finally get going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)