Last week (4th March 2020), the European Union gave details of a proposed new law which is aimed at reducing the EU's carbon emissions.
The European Green Deal will: Provide 100 billion Euros to help fossil fuel dependant countries transition to renewables; Aim to reduce EU emissions by 50% by 2030, and be carbon neutral by 2050; Make the EU economy more 'circular' by increasing the amount of products that are recycled.
All useful proposals, but climate activist Greta Thunberg immediately angrily dismissed it. She said it was 'empty words' and that the EU was just 'pretending' to be leaders in fighting climate change. She said the Green Deal didn't go far enough and they were effectively giving up on the 2015 Paris agreement. She argued that you can't make deals with physics and this law would give us less than a 50% chance to limit warming to 1.5C, "Distant targets mean nothing if the current high emissions continue for even a few more years". See here for details.
So, is Greta right?
Before I answer that, let's have a recap on the physics of climate change: We've known for well over a century now that certain gases are 'Greenhouse gases' i.e. That they effectively trap heat. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an example that gets all the press, but there are number of others like methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.
The reason why so much attention is given to CO2 is because it's by far the main culprit for climate change, and we are pumping tens of billions of tonnes of it into atmosphere every year. Far more than the natural environment can absorb.
Just as worrying is the fact that, once emitted, CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for between 20 to 200 years. In other words, a high proportion of the emissions you generate during your lifetime, will around for your children and grand-children to enjoy.
That's a VERY important point: What we emit today will, for all intents and purposes, stay in the atmosphere. Therefore the problem continues to build, year-by-year.
So, there will come a point when we've pumped out so much CO2 that the agreed goal of keeping warming down to 1.5C will be out of the question. And, considering the extremes of weather we're already experiencing at 'just' 1 degree of warming, missing 1.5C would be a serious mistake.
Scientists have actually worked out how many billions of tonnes of CO2 would actually take us to the point where we miss that target. They call it a carbon budget. At current emission rates, we'll have broken that budget by around 2028. And, even if we do stay within it, there is only a 66% chance that we'll stay below 1.5C.
That's why Greta and those Climate Extinctionists, are kicking up a fuss: They know that, if we are to stay within budget, we have to take drastic action now. Setting far-off targets in 2050 and then doing what amounts to very little in the short to medium term just won't work.
Greta was right, the EU have got it wrong. They need to listen to the scientific advice, and seriously increase their ambition, otherwise we'll overshoot 1.5C by some way.
Wednesday, 11 March 2020
Thursday, 5 March 2020
A Carbon Neutral World: What Can We Do?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the world's governments actually get round to doing the right thing, and finally start acting like there's a climate emergency, and fast. Bringing in all sorts of high impact measures that would rapidly reduce the world's carbon emissions (See my previous 'A Carbon Neutral World' posts for how that might be done).
That would be a game changer but it still wouldn't be enough. Why? Because ordinary citizens like you and I need to change our ways too.
We need to look at every aspect of our lives and ask how we can reduce our carbon footprints and make changes accordingly. This is often portrayed by climate sceptics as going back to medieval times but that's ridiculous.
In fact, reducing our footprints needn't have much impact on our lifestyles, other than save us money, make us fitter and healthier, and less materialistic. Here's how:
Food
Eating less red meat (e.g. Beef and lamb) and replacing it with pork, chicken, fish and vegetables, would be cheaper, reduce your cancer risk, and cut your carbon footprint.
Beef and lamb are expensive meats, pork and chicken are noticeably cheaper. Fish might sometimes be on a par with red meat cost-wise, but it's good for you.
Vegetarians and vegans have far smaller footprints than people who eat red meat regularly, but even if you just have the occasional red meat meal and eat veggie one day a week, you've made a significant cut in your food's footprint.
Also, try reducing the amount of food you throw out. Not only is binning food a waste of money, but it adds to your carbon emissions. So plan your meals, and don't buy in more than you're family's likely to eat.
Transport
Many of us depend on a car. Unless you're in a city or town with good public transport, chances are the car is a necessity. However, not all car journey's are necessary. Get used to asking yourself if you really need to do that journey. Can you make a phone call instead? Can you get a lift off someone else? Can you walk or cycle there instead? Can a bus or train get you there? Are you just going off to buy something you don't really need or could have bought online? Can you combine several trips to the same place into one visit?
If you take this approach, you avoid wasting fuel and wear and tear on your car, and end up fitter.
If you live in a well connected city, then you're a mug to use your car, because public transport is often cheap, gets you around just as quickly, and reduces the stress of driving on busy streets. Many city dwellers actually get by without a car. It's not as convenient and you need to plan your timings and routes but it's workable. And they've saved themselves the cost of a car and it's running costs.
If you have to have a car, make it an economical one. They're cheaper to buy and run, and have lower emissions because they do more miles to the litre. If you can, get a hybrid or electric car.
Flights: Try to reduce the number you have. Just because you can afford to have several a year doesn't mean to say you should. Stay-cations can be good, getting there by train can be fun. Cutting down on the number of flights saves you money, and makes each flight more special.
UPDATE: The UK govt. issued a document last month (March 2020) that appears to be saying they'll be taking the cutting of emissions from all transport (including aviation) a lot more seriously. They actually said that want taking public transport to be the natural first choice for people. Environmentalist have described the language it uses as "Gob-smacking". Having read the 80-page document myself, it makes it clear current and planned changes aren't good enough and will be consulting widely to make dramatic cuts in emissions sooner rather than later. Let's hope this is not all political BS and they're actually sincere. You can find the doc here.
Energy Usage
It's surprisingly cheap to add basic insulation to your home. It's helps you stay warmer, and can give you significant savings on your energy bills.
There are a whole bunch of other well known ways you can reduce your energy bills and carbon emissions (Check out the rest of my blog for ideas).
Another one I'd recommend is to always replace your appliances with A-rated ones when the old ones stop working (unless you can get them repaired). A-rated white goods can save you a packet over their lifetime.
Also, when your old gas boiler dies, get a condenser boiler. These can be substantially cheaper to run.
Buy Less Stuff
Materialism is the new religion of our age. Many of us feel the need to fill up our empty lives with stuff we don't need because the adverts tell us to.
We have to have the latest clothes, replace our expensive phones on a regular basis, buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and impulse buy 'fluff' we don't actually need, on a regular basis, just to make us feel good about ourselves for 5 minutes.
It's this rampant consumerism that threatens to kill our planet one way or another.
We need to stop buying stuff we don't need, and replacing stuff that doesn't need replacing.
We need to stop being slaves to fashion. Throwing out perfectly serviceable items simply because they've been labelled as 'last season'.
When something breaks down, we should try to get it repaired first. If we can't fix it, then get it recycled. If it broke down too soon, then buy a replacement from another, more reliable manufacturer.
Don't buy 'sealed' devices which can't be repaired, or can only be repaired at great cost. Buy from manufacturers that have reliable and easily repaired products.
Look for 'modular' devices which you can upgrade without throwing out the whole device.
Re-use, repair, reduce (the amount you buy), and recycle.
UPDATE: Looks like the EU are of a like mind to me. They want all products sold in the EU in future to allow easy repair. Basically they want to put an end to our throwaway society. Read more here.
That would be a game changer but it still wouldn't be enough. Why? Because ordinary citizens like you and I need to change our ways too.
We need to look at every aspect of our lives and ask how we can reduce our carbon footprints and make changes accordingly. This is often portrayed by climate sceptics as going back to medieval times but that's ridiculous.
In fact, reducing our footprints needn't have much impact on our lifestyles, other than save us money, make us fitter and healthier, and less materialistic. Here's how:
Food
Eating less red meat (e.g. Beef and lamb) and replacing it with pork, chicken, fish and vegetables, would be cheaper, reduce your cancer risk, and cut your carbon footprint.
Beef and lamb are expensive meats, pork and chicken are noticeably cheaper. Fish might sometimes be on a par with red meat cost-wise, but it's good for you.
Vegetarians and vegans have far smaller footprints than people who eat red meat regularly, but even if you just have the occasional red meat meal and eat veggie one day a week, you've made a significant cut in your food's footprint.
Also, try reducing the amount of food you throw out. Not only is binning food a waste of money, but it adds to your carbon emissions. So plan your meals, and don't buy in more than you're family's likely to eat.
Transport
Many of us depend on a car. Unless you're in a city or town with good public transport, chances are the car is a necessity. However, not all car journey's are necessary. Get used to asking yourself if you really need to do that journey. Can you make a phone call instead? Can you get a lift off someone else? Can you walk or cycle there instead? Can a bus or train get you there? Are you just going off to buy something you don't really need or could have bought online? Can you combine several trips to the same place into one visit?
If you take this approach, you avoid wasting fuel and wear and tear on your car, and end up fitter.
If you live in a well connected city, then you're a mug to use your car, because public transport is often cheap, gets you around just as quickly, and reduces the stress of driving on busy streets. Many city dwellers actually get by without a car. It's not as convenient and you need to plan your timings and routes but it's workable. And they've saved themselves the cost of a car and it's running costs.
If you have to have a car, make it an economical one. They're cheaper to buy and run, and have lower emissions because they do more miles to the litre. If you can, get a hybrid or electric car.
Flights: Try to reduce the number you have. Just because you can afford to have several a year doesn't mean to say you should. Stay-cations can be good, getting there by train can be fun. Cutting down on the number of flights saves you money, and makes each flight more special.
UPDATE: The UK govt. issued a document last month (March 2020) that appears to be saying they'll be taking the cutting of emissions from all transport (including aviation) a lot more seriously. They actually said that want taking public transport to be the natural first choice for people. Environmentalist have described the language it uses as "Gob-smacking". Having read the 80-page document myself, it makes it clear current and planned changes aren't good enough and will be consulting widely to make dramatic cuts in emissions sooner rather than later. Let's hope this is not all political BS and they're actually sincere. You can find the doc here.
Energy Usage
It's surprisingly cheap to add basic insulation to your home. It's helps you stay warmer, and can give you significant savings on your energy bills.
There are a whole bunch of other well known ways you can reduce your energy bills and carbon emissions (Check out the rest of my blog for ideas).
Another one I'd recommend is to always replace your appliances with A-rated ones when the old ones stop working (unless you can get them repaired). A-rated white goods can save you a packet over their lifetime.
Also, when your old gas boiler dies, get a condenser boiler. These can be substantially cheaper to run.
Buy Less Stuff
Materialism is the new religion of our age. Many of us feel the need to fill up our empty lives with stuff we don't need because the adverts tell us to.
We have to have the latest clothes, replace our expensive phones on a regular basis, buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and impulse buy 'fluff' we don't actually need, on a regular basis, just to make us feel good about ourselves for 5 minutes.
It's this rampant consumerism that threatens to kill our planet one way or another.
We need to stop buying stuff we don't need, and replacing stuff that doesn't need replacing.
We need to stop being slaves to fashion. Throwing out perfectly serviceable items simply because they've been labelled as 'last season'.
When something breaks down, we should try to get it repaired first. If we can't fix it, then get it recycled. If it broke down too soon, then buy a replacement from another, more reliable manufacturer.
Don't buy 'sealed' devices which can't be repaired, or can only be repaired at great cost. Buy from manufacturers that have reliable and easily repaired products.
Look for 'modular' devices which you can upgrade without throwing out the whole device.
Re-use, repair, reduce (the amount you buy), and recycle.
UPDATE: Looks like the EU are of a like mind to me. They want all products sold in the EU in future to allow easy repair. Basically they want to put an end to our throwaway society. Read more here.
Tuesday, 4 February 2020
A Carbon Neutral World: Farming & Agriculture
For the vast majority of people, there is very little understanding of farming. Most of us live in towns and cities, far removed (in all senses) from the realities of this essential part of the economy. We have little grasp of what it means to be a farmer.
We moan about the use of pesticides, the 'overuse' of fertilisers, the destruction of hedgerows, the cutting down of forests, battery farming, the creation of 'dust bowls', livestock being given too many anti-biotics and so on.
But, ultimately this is all our fault. There are over 7 billion people in this world and our demands, especially for meat and palm oil products, are driving the farming and agriculture industry to look for ways to meet that ever-increasing demand.
After all, they are just business people wanting to make a profit. If they didn't, they'd get out of this unpredictable industry (as we're discovering in Britain at the moment, with increasing numbers of farmers selling up despite subsidies).
So, when we talk about de-carbonising the farming industry, we have to keep in mind the above, and the fact that many farms are just one or two bad seasons away from giving up.
The range of agricultural activities across the world is wide, to say the least. From subsistence farming in developing countries to factory farming of animals on an unbelievable scale in the U.S. So there is no one-size-fits-all solution to decarbonising farming.
However, the UK can be used as an example of what sort of things need to be considered:
Agriculture creates about 10% of Britain's carbon emissions through carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
CO2 is generated by farm machinery and when lime is added to acidic soil to improve it.
Methane is produced by ruminant animals like cattle from both ends, and is by far the biggest contributor to farming's carbon footprint (56%).
Nitrous oxide is produced when synthetic fertilisers are broken down in the soil, and also by the breakdown of manure.
The best way to reducing emissions is to prevent animals from producing so much methane. This could be achieved by keeping them indoors, where you can control what they eat, and deal more efficiently with what they 'output'. This sort of "intensive farming" already exists in form of battery or factory farming, although the purpose so far is more about efficiency and profit than methane control. But it could be adapted.
However, it's becoming increasingly unpopular with the public, who prefer animals to have access to fields.
You might also increase the amount of meat per unit of emission by using things like growth hormones. But this is banned.
It would be more acceptable if cattle could be breed to be less 'gassy' or come up with a food supplement that means they produce less methane. The former is unlikely to happen quickly but the latter shows promise. There are already tests to find out if various supplements such as seaweed will work. Early signs are promising.
Ultimately though, eating less meat, particularly beef and lamb, will cut the methane emissions dramatically, simply by cutting the number of farm animals.
Nitrous oxide can be reduced by farmers having a better understanding of the amount of fertiliser their soil actually needs through technology. For example, they can use sensors on drones to see the fertility of their land in fine detail. The data can then be feed into the vehicles they use to spread fertiliser, so that they apply the amount that's needed.
There is also interest in so-called no-till agriculture, where the ground isn't ploughed when planting seed. It appears that this actually increases the fertility of the soil because you're not compacting it. This locks in carbon and lets nature improve the soil naturally.
Food waste, from every step in the chain, from field to table, is also a sizeable contributor, as rotting food gives off methane. With better planning and better use of what would otherwise go to landfill, this could be cut substantially.
British farmers face considerable pressure from the weather, supermarkets, ever changing legislation, and consumer demands, but there also appears to be good news. There are promises of payments to look after the environment, there are financial incentives to generate energy by using manure for bio-gas, and there is increasing demand for sustainable forestry to supply wood-fired power stations.
On a worldwide basis, eating less red meat, stopping forests being cut down for farmland, reforesting, dramatically reducing food waste, using fertilisers effectively, and more efficient farming practices (getting more crop from the same area of land) will all prove essential in reaching net zero.
Far too much land is used simply to produce feed for livestock.
Next: What can you and I do?
We moan about the use of pesticides, the 'overuse' of fertilisers, the destruction of hedgerows, the cutting down of forests, battery farming, the creation of 'dust bowls', livestock being given too many anti-biotics and so on.
But, ultimately this is all our fault. There are over 7 billion people in this world and our demands, especially for meat and palm oil products, are driving the farming and agriculture industry to look for ways to meet that ever-increasing demand.
After all, they are just business people wanting to make a profit. If they didn't, they'd get out of this unpredictable industry (as we're discovering in Britain at the moment, with increasing numbers of farmers selling up despite subsidies).
So, when we talk about de-carbonising the farming industry, we have to keep in mind the above, and the fact that many farms are just one or two bad seasons away from giving up.
The range of agricultural activities across the world is wide, to say the least. From subsistence farming in developing countries to factory farming of animals on an unbelievable scale in the U.S. So there is no one-size-fits-all solution to decarbonising farming.
However, the UK can be used as an example of what sort of things need to be considered:
Agriculture creates about 10% of Britain's carbon emissions through carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
CO2 is generated by farm machinery and when lime is added to acidic soil to improve it.
Methane is produced by ruminant animals like cattle from both ends, and is by far the biggest contributor to farming's carbon footprint (56%).
Nitrous oxide is produced when synthetic fertilisers are broken down in the soil, and also by the breakdown of manure.
The best way to reducing emissions is to prevent animals from producing so much methane. This could be achieved by keeping them indoors, where you can control what they eat, and deal more efficiently with what they 'output'. This sort of "intensive farming" already exists in form of battery or factory farming, although the purpose so far is more about efficiency and profit than methane control. But it could be adapted.
However, it's becoming increasingly unpopular with the public, who prefer animals to have access to fields.
You might also increase the amount of meat per unit of emission by using things like growth hormones. But this is banned.
It would be more acceptable if cattle could be breed to be less 'gassy' or come up with a food supplement that means they produce less methane. The former is unlikely to happen quickly but the latter shows promise. There are already tests to find out if various supplements such as seaweed will work. Early signs are promising.
Ultimately though, eating less meat, particularly beef and lamb, will cut the methane emissions dramatically, simply by cutting the number of farm animals.
Nitrous oxide can be reduced by farmers having a better understanding of the amount of fertiliser their soil actually needs through technology. For example, they can use sensors on drones to see the fertility of their land in fine detail. The data can then be feed into the vehicles they use to spread fertiliser, so that they apply the amount that's needed.
There is also interest in so-called no-till agriculture, where the ground isn't ploughed when planting seed. It appears that this actually increases the fertility of the soil because you're not compacting it. This locks in carbon and lets nature improve the soil naturally.
Food waste, from every step in the chain, from field to table, is also a sizeable contributor, as rotting food gives off methane. With better planning and better use of what would otherwise go to landfill, this could be cut substantially.
British farmers face considerable pressure from the weather, supermarkets, ever changing legislation, and consumer demands, but there also appears to be good news. There are promises of payments to look after the environment, there are financial incentives to generate energy by using manure for bio-gas, and there is increasing demand for sustainable forestry to supply wood-fired power stations.
On a worldwide basis, eating less red meat, stopping forests being cut down for farmland, reforesting, dramatically reducing food waste, using fertilisers effectively, and more efficient farming practices (getting more crop from the same area of land) will all prove essential in reaching net zero.
Far too much land is used simply to produce feed for livestock.
Next: What can you and I do?
Monday, 3 February 2020
UK Citizen's Assembly
If, like me, you're frustrated at the lack of progress on tackling climate change, you're probably wondering why the politicians aren't getting on with it.
There could be any number of reasons for their inaction including: lack of understanding of the urgency of the problem; they're in league with the fossil fuel industry; they're too busy running the country to give it enough time; and they're afraid of the political consequences of actually treating it seriously.
My belief is that it's a mix of the above, with their relative importance varying from country to country. Ultimately though, I'm convinced that when governments actually get down to working out what policies would be needed to achieve their stated goals (e.g. Net zero by 2050), they fear how their voting public will react. And the more the politicians procrastinate, the more 'extreme' will be the measures they will have to take and, in theory, the more extreme the push-back the voters could give them.
This dilemma is further increased by the fact that there are any number of ways of achieving net-zero but some policies may be less likely to annoy the voters than others.
But which ones? Politicians have shown themselves to be remarkably out of touch with the people they supposedly represent. They are also very risk averse.
So it's very interesting that the UK now has a 'Citizen's Assembly' to sort out what Britain should be doing to reach it's carbon emission targets.
The Citizen's Assembly has been commissioned by no less than six parliamentary committees (Committees set up by the government to study and give advice on particular areas of interest). In this case, they have borrowed an idea suggested by Extinction Rebellion.
The Citizen's Assembly consists of 110 ordinary citizens carefully selected (using questionnaires) to be representative of the mix of views on climate change held by the UK's population (From "There is no crisis" to "There definitely is a crisis"). The idea is that, over a number of weekends, the Assembly will see a number of guest speakers, have the science explained to them by experts, be presented with the full range of potential ways of reaching Net Zero by 2050 (The UK's current target that's been written into law), and vote on which ways they would like to be put in place by the government.
The idea is that, given the assembly is representative of the population as a whole, any decision arrived at by them can be confidently taken up by government as a roadmap, with a greatly reduced risk of political fall-out.
If the assembly is truly representative (i.e. Not statistically biased in some way), and if they receive the best possible advice, and if the recommendations look workable, and if the government takes the recommendations, then we could be looking at history here.
The Citizen's Assembly has only met once at the time of writing, so there are a few weekends to go, but I look forward the final recommendations.
More here.
There could be any number of reasons for their inaction including: lack of understanding of the urgency of the problem; they're in league with the fossil fuel industry; they're too busy running the country to give it enough time; and they're afraid of the political consequences of actually treating it seriously.
My belief is that it's a mix of the above, with their relative importance varying from country to country. Ultimately though, I'm convinced that when governments actually get down to working out what policies would be needed to achieve their stated goals (e.g. Net zero by 2050), they fear how their voting public will react. And the more the politicians procrastinate, the more 'extreme' will be the measures they will have to take and, in theory, the more extreme the push-back the voters could give them.
This dilemma is further increased by the fact that there are any number of ways of achieving net-zero but some policies may be less likely to annoy the voters than others.
But which ones? Politicians have shown themselves to be remarkably out of touch with the people they supposedly represent. They are also very risk averse.
So it's very interesting that the UK now has a 'Citizen's Assembly' to sort out what Britain should be doing to reach it's carbon emission targets.
The Citizen's Assembly has been commissioned by no less than six parliamentary committees (Committees set up by the government to study and give advice on particular areas of interest). In this case, they have borrowed an idea suggested by Extinction Rebellion.
The Citizen's Assembly consists of 110 ordinary citizens carefully selected (using questionnaires) to be representative of the mix of views on climate change held by the UK's population (From "There is no crisis" to "There definitely is a crisis"). The idea is that, over a number of weekends, the Assembly will see a number of guest speakers, have the science explained to them by experts, be presented with the full range of potential ways of reaching Net Zero by 2050 (The UK's current target that's been written into law), and vote on which ways they would like to be put in place by the government.
The idea is that, given the assembly is representative of the population as a whole, any decision arrived at by them can be confidently taken up by government as a roadmap, with a greatly reduced risk of political fall-out.
If the assembly is truly representative (i.e. Not statistically biased in some way), and if they receive the best possible advice, and if the recommendations look workable, and if the government takes the recommendations, then we could be looking at history here.
The Citizen's Assembly has only met once at the time of writing, so there are a few weekends to go, but I look forward the final recommendations.
More here.
Thursday, 21 November 2019
A Carbon Neutral World: Industry
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)