(This article was written in response to a call from climate scientist Myles Allen for voters to avoid voting Green in the UK general election. Myles’ s piece in the Guardian is here.)
Myles Allen wants the Greens to revert to being a party solely concerned with the environment. He says that by offering a full slate of policies we are weakening our appeal to people who those want a focus on climate change and other urgent ecological issues. He says that by linking our policies on the environment to wider ambitions for improving Britain, we are diluting our appeal to our natural supporters. In fact he thinks that our environmental concerns are little more than a cloak to disguise our ambitions for more equitable Britain. We aren’t really interested in arresting climate change, he seems to say. Our secret desire is to build a fairer society.
At the European elections in June of last year, Oxford voters like Myles cast more votes for the Green Party than any other political grouping. In any reasonably fair political system one of Oxford’s two MPs would be wearing a Green rosette on May 7th. Why do so many of his neighbours support the party when Myles himself think that our approach is muddy and confused because it aims both at climate change objectives and at broader social goals? In my experience of talking to local voters, most of them see the strongest of connections between environmental and other political issues. Local Green councillors have shown that action on climate change is wholly compatible with improving the services offered by councils and public services. For example, improving public transport is good for the environment and good for communities. Getting recycling rates up reduces methane emissions as well as reducing the need for new landfill sites. Investing in municipally-owned wind farms is profitable and will reduce council tax for Oxford voters. Improving access to locally grown food reduces energy consumption and helps bind communities together.
Dr Allen’s research group continues to warn us that fossil fuel consumption must eventually fall if we are to avert accelerating climate change. Partly as result of his work, most people know that economic growth based on the increasing use of fossil fuels is extremely unlikely to be possible or desirable. So they back the Green New Deal, an attempt to rebuild Britain’s manufacturing, agricultural, forestry and building industries around low carbon alternatives to our wasteful use of coal, gas and oil. Our focus on clean technology is an attempt to use British engineering skills to decrease pollution levels and diminish the harm we impose on the environment. This is neither pointless from a climate change standpoint nor from the need to improve employment prospects for young Britons.
Right at the heart of the Green campaign is the slogan that Dr Allen seems most to dislike ‘Fair is worth fighting for’. Briefly, let me say why I think fairness is important. The UK faces some major challenges, of which reducing emissions is one of the most urgent and important. So far, Britain has transparently failed to achieve progress on this and many other issues. The Green hypothesis is that this failure partly derives from our unequal and fractured society. How can any political party build consensus on the need for large scale sacrifices or for difficult choices if some groups in society are so well off as to be insulated from the cost? Societies that put fairness at the heart of their policy-making, such as the Nordic countries or even less well-off states like Costa Rica, find it easier to build cohesion and a shared commitment to undertaking painful changes. Those who want action on climate change should vote Green both because of our commitment to taking action on emissions and because we are more likely to build the sense of fairness and shared purpose that will make it possible to achieve those reductions.
Much to my personal regret, Myles will not be marking his cross against the Greens in three weeks time. So who will get his vote in Oxford West and Abingdon? UKIP, the people who think that climate change is fabrication? Labour, which wants to build a third runway at Heathrow, and has expanded road building? And having been in power for thirteen years has pretty much the worst record on renewable energy of all European countries? The Conservatives, whose new prospective MPs are said to be agnostic on climate change and who have opposed almost every onshore wind farm? Or finally, the LibDems, who have just proposed reducing fuel duties for transport and whose councillors blocked the nearest wind farm to Oxford for ten years while backing new local road schemes? Dr Allen wrote last year that ‘emission reductions are urgently needed to avoid dangerous climate change’. Who else does he trust more than the Greens to achieve these reductions?
-
Chris, current UK final energy demand is 82kWh/d (2008 figure from DUKES 2009). Green Party policy is for lots of energy efficiency. So, out of interest, why do you write, in the Guardian comments section, of meeting an energy demand of 120kWh/d? That’s about a 50% increase on today’s levels! In reality, with decent energy efficiency measures, we should be able to bring energy demand down to 40-60kWh/d, AND save money and increase quality of life, all at the same time.
Even Professor MacKay, when building energy scenarios, only uses a target figure of 68kWh/d. He uses higher figures only to argue that Britain doesn’t have enough renewables to meet our energy demand – but that’s clearly not a valid argument, because even he has to admit that Britain has at least 180kWh/d of renewable potential – more than twice current final energy demand.
Given that we can now put wind turbines in depths out to 700m, the technical potential of Britain’s resources is over 850kWh/d. That’s more than ten times current final energy demand.
So clearly, Britain can make an energy plan that adds up, and needs neither the risk nor the expense of CCS and nuclear. On this, as with many other subjects, Green Party policy is based on clear and solid science.
-
Dear Andrew,
David MacKay’s book and mine both use 120-124 kWh per person day. We’ve used different methods though both the estimates come from DUKES. I’m not sure why these numbers differ from the much lower figure you mention. One thought: are you using the input energy into electricity generation, or the output of electricity (about 40% as much)? Please forgive me if this seems a silly question.
Although there is clear scope of energy use reduction, these reductions are often expensive or difficult to achieve. Tell a householder that they can save £200 a year by proper solid wall insulation at a cost of about £10,000 and they won’t be that interested.
David MacKay sets up a case that 50% of UK energy need can be avoided by efficiency measures, taking the number down to about 60 kWh/person/day. He then asks for plans to meet this need and provides figures for how much energy might be generated by renewables. I dont think it is unfair to his argument to say that he suggests that nuclear is likely to play a big role. CCS is equally important because of the increasing fraction of worldwide CO2 pollution coming from coal fired electriity generation. We absolutely have to crack how to capture and store CO2 in the ground.
Offshore wind is going to be very useful to the UK. Most estimates see a maximum extractable resource of 50 GW. If I have done my arithmetic correctly, that is about 8 kWH per person a day at an assumed 40% capacity factor, or less than 15% of total demand *after* aggressive energy efficiency measures.
As I write this, the volcanic ash cloud sits over Britain because of the almost still air of the last six days. I don’t figures for current wind electricity production but I doubt whether it would power a medium-sized town. And another 50 GW on Dogger Bank and elsewhere wouldn’t be much help either.
Best wishes,
Chris
-
OK, three issues – variability, final energy demand, and the offshore resource.
Variability
Independently, reports by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, McKinseys, Jacobson & Delucchi, and the ECF, have all dealt with variability within scenarios of 100% renewables, and each has shown that we can keep the lights on. That really is a settled question, technically. Yes, sometimes it isn’t windy: but then, we wouldn’t build a grid with 100% supply from wind, no interconnectors, no smart grid, no storage. 100% renewables grids can be built affordably, and with a lower risk of loss of supply than we have in today’s grid.
Final Energy Demand
Yes, as you suspected, the figure of 120-124kWh/d includes the heat wasted in power-station cooling towers; it also includes all the energy used by the oil and gas industry, petrol refineries, and so on. That’s why that figure is so much larger than our current energy demand.
In Dukes 2009, p13, chart 1.2 gives primary demand as 234.3MToe/y, of which 65.5% is “Final energy consumption”. 65.5% x 234.3MToe/y = 153.5MToe/y = about 204GW or 82kWh/d. And that’s what we need to produce, together with 6-10% to cover losses in transmission and distribution. That figure would be further reduced by energy efficiency savings in transport, heating, lighting and appliances.
For example, as soon as we electrify cars, that reduces final energy demand by about 25GW (10kWh/d), because electric engines are about four times as efficient as fossil fuel engines.
Yes, solid wall insulation is expensive; once done, it should last for a century or more. But that’s the priciest end of efficiency improvements. Many homes lack basic insulation: cavity walls, loft lagging, hot water tank lagging, double-glazing, all of which have much quicker payback times, and offer us another 5-10kWh/d (8-25GW) savings.
In summary, an energy demand (including system losses) of 68kWh/d is reasonable, without much of an effort in efficiency. If we want to get serious about efficiency, as the Green Party Manifesto does, then we’d be looking at a final energy demand of 41kWh/d: call it 46kWh/d including system losses.
The offshore wind resource
50GW mean power is about the available ONSHORE wind resource. MacKay calculates 20kWh/d (=50GW). PIU & AEA studies had figures in the range 35-120GW, so 50GW mean power is about right. But that’s onshore. The *offshore* resource is many times larger. MacKay acknowledges 48kWh/d of offshore wind (120GW), and he assumed no increase from current offshore capacity factors, he blocked out two-thirds of waters shallower than 50m, and all waters beyond 50m depth (even though we can put turbines out to 700m).
My estimate of the technical potential of offshore wind in British waters is 2200GW (880kWh/d) [1]. That’s not installable capacity, that’s technically available mean power using today’s technology. So just 10% of that would be the equivalent of all of our current energy demands, before any energy efficiencies. Not that we’d have a 100% wind portfolio – that’s unwise and quite unnecessary, given that we can harness at least six other renewable technologies in useful quantities.
Clearly we have enough renewable resources to meet that several times over, showing that we need neither CCS nor nuclear to meet all of our energy needs. That’s true of the world as a whole, of Europe in its entirety, and of Britain alone.
Once the election’s over, let’s meet and go through the numbers. I think we’d both get a lot out of it.
Good luck in Oxford,
Andrew


3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.carboncommentary.com/2010/04/15/1512/trackback