Britain's Energy Future

[PowerSwitchJames]

Britain's Energy Future...new study for the government

http://fpc.org.uk/publications/172

[PS_RalphW]

Briefly scanned this document. 70 pages on energy policy and I
cannot (yet) find one reference to to demand reduction through
conservation, or depletion of global oil or gas supplies (although
UK depletion is acknowledged as an economic and geopolitical
cost).

The conclusion opens

The UK Government has shown impressive leadership on mitigating climate change and the transition to renewable energy.

This is a well written summary of current government (in)action
whilst a large grey elephant stands in the middle of the room.

[skeptik]

Britain's Energy Future...new study for the government

http://fpc.org.uk/publications/172

So what have we got here... The Foreign Policy Center, which I'd never heard of before. Looks like an ofshoot of the Prime Ministers Office staffed by Tony's Cronies.

Yet another tome of hot air. Almost as bad as the 2003 white paper. This time the major concerns are to address the Prime Ministers 'vision' of global warming being the greatest threat to humanity in the history of the universe ever. (I think Tony B is probably obsessed by Mann's fraudulent hockey stick graph) The other concern is that those nasty Ayrabs might turn the oil taps off.

The 2003 DTI Energy White Paper (largely blather and targets, which not surpringly the country is not meeting.) envisaged our economy running on no nukes or coal, a modest increase in renewables and an ever increasing ammount of imported hydrocarbons, especially natural gas. Volte Face. Now Twigg and co propose we get off our imported oil and gas addiction using increased renewables to make Hydrogen to run the economy!

"Hydrogen would be best produced using renewable electricity, and
though this is a huge task, it is achievable over a decade or two."
(p22 of 73 in pdf)
...yeah right. And when Ive seen a flying pig I'll let you know.

Gawd... Mr. Twigg & co, we have more immediate and pressing problems. Forget about the fantasy of Hydrogen. By the time all the technical issues are sorted out we probably wont be able to afford the infrastructure anyway. Its just a diversionary tactic of G.Bush. Fergeddahbahtit.

I cant take this very seriously. As with the 2003 White Paper, this is mostly hot air (vague aspirations , 'goals' and targets - no specific proposals for action) produced by a bunch of young New Labour policy wonks from the Politics and Economics / Bachelor of Arts, chattering classes. The philosophy being - we'll just tweak the markets a bit and everything will be fine. New Labour still has its nose firmly up the crack of big business, especially the multinational energy corporations.

I dont think any of them really understand the subject, and doubt any of them could define an Amp or an Ohm. I imagine changing a fuse would be the limit of the technical ability for anybody from The Foreign Policy Center.

The entire treatment is superficial and lacking in technical rigor. Nothing worked out numerically. They sense that there is a problem with the current policy but seem to be floundering. So they've come up with a 'business as usual' scenario with more windmills producing hydrogen to run our motors tacked on to it...

The word 'depletion' does not occur once in the entire document. There is no mention of the concepts of Energy Quality or EROEI, let alone entropy or thermodynamics. I doubt their brains could get round the concept of 'lifestyle change' (wot? no holidays in Goa?) and the need to re-organise how society does it's business. "The American way of life is not negotiable" as G.Bush said. Looks like the same applies to the "New Labour way of life" too..

File under 'mostly useless' though if it provokes anybody into seriously considering the subject I supose it will have done some good. ...next please.

[clv101]

Excellent rant! I think you should write to the authors.

[PowerSwitchJames]

We've already sent this letter, should anyone be interested to know:

Dear Sir,

I've read this publication with considerable interest. It sets out the increasing dependence the UK and the World has on international energy sources very clearly - and how exposed these sources are to political unrest.

There are two factors not represented in the document that, I believe, should be addressed by the future programme. One is that of resource depletion - in particular oil. The other factor is a consideration of energy balance.

The debate over the feasibility of increasing World Oil supplies above current levels is now becoming more widespread. It is not necessarily merely a case of increasing investment in refining capacity or further exploration. The concern being expressed by many knowledgeable people (including leading oil company executives) is that we are reaching the point where we can't increase production - because we can't find any more oil. Not only that, but that we will soon be at a point where supplies will start to fall - the so called 'Peak Oil' point. In addition to environmental and polical factors - this alone is sufficient to require rapid action to seek a reduction in oil dependence.

The other factor is energy balance - or 'energy economics'. Evaluation of alternative energy solutions cannot be made purely on the basis of financial cost. We have to move to sustainable energy sources - ones where the total energy produced is more than the energy invested. As with 'Peak Oil' there continues to be a hot debate on this subject - however no-one would argue that an energy system that took more energy to create and operate that it delivered is a viable way forward. In financial terms this leads to energy bankruptcy.

Powerswitch is working to raise awareness on the issue of Peak Oil. However we are also involved in the debate on alternatives - be they ways of producing energy from others sources - or ways of living that that result in less energy consumption. We are also interested in mechanisms to encourage energy efficiency. One being considered at present is 'domestic tradeable quotas' or DTQs. These are being advocated as a way of 'policing' or 'incentivising' a reduction in carbon based energy usage.

If the FPC has any queries on the above I would be happy to respond.

Regards

[peaky]

skeptic has put the whole thing very well. I was amazed at the way people can talk about straightforward issues in really fancy ways and not get to the nub of things really. The document's full of all sorts...

There's shallow sleight of hand:

The White Paper expressed these goals as follows:

to put the United Kingdom on a path to cut emissions by
some 60 per cent by about 2050 with real progress by 2020;

to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;

to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond, helping to
raise the rate of sustainable economic growth and
to improve our productivity; and

to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

The authors then point out that: "Clearly there is tension between these four goals. Electricity produced from renewable sources has generally been more expensive than fossil-fuel based alternatives and thus sits uneasily with the aim of making electricity as affordable as possible."

Indeed, not to mention the oxymoron of "sustainable economic growth" and the idea that UK Plc can "promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond" in a world of increasingly diminishing energy supply.


Table 2: National Targets for Share Electric Power
produced by Renewable Sources by 2010

Austria 78.1
Sweden 60.0
Portugal 39.0
Finland 31.5
Spain 29.4
Demark 29.0
Italy 25.0
France 21.0
Greece 20.1
Ireland 13.2
Germany 12.5
UK 10.0
Netherlands 9.0
Belgium 6.0
Luxembourg 5.7

Below this sad table it says: "There is no doubt that the UK government has the political will at the highest levels." Yea, right

And

"The UK government has adopted, quite appropriately, a policy principle that the market should decide.." this tacit support of the government's great efforts is peppered throughout the entire document.

I almost choked on my cornflakes when I got here:

CONCLUSION
The UK Government has shown impressive leadership on mitigating climate change and the transition to renewable energy.

This is the government that's failed to meet it's Kyoto targets and is aiming for just 10% of electricity from renewables by 2010. The government that is planning more road building . The government that is planning terminal 5. The government that is planning new houses in the South East.

There is no concept in the document of an energy descent in this country, apart from a woolly mention of "conservation". There's no mention of Peak Oil or Gas.

And these are the people who are going to guide our ship through the increasingly stormy waters. I'm glad I'm getting the lifeboat inflated

[isenhand]

And these are the people who are going to guide our ship through the increasingly stormy waters. I'm glad I'm getting the lifeboat inflated

Membership is now open for the Honourable Society of Rats for all of us who are leaving the sinking ship.

[Billhook]

One such unconsidered nub is Blair's supposed target of a 60% cut in UK GHG emissions by 2050.

1st - To achieve a global cut that ends the addition of man-made GHGs to the atmosphere the UK's proper goal is of over 80%.

2nd - The problem - of excess GHG concentrations in the atmosphere - will continue to get worse until that requisite global cut is achieved.

3rd - Blair's target of 60% cut by 2050 is thus actually proposing to allow the problem to get worse for at least TWO GENERATIONS.

regards,

Bill