Energy Revival : How the World needs to spend a lot of money in the next 50 years on Energy infrastructure, and how Fossil Fuels and Uranium are becoming scarce, so we better get it right.
It’s time that we all cared about what is happening to Life on Earth. Nobody in an alien spacecraft is going to come crashing through the clouds to save us with miraculous Energy technologies, or brand new Chemistry that beats the Laws of Physics to capture Carbon Dioxide right out of the air in the amounts we are emitting it.
As the world leaders start to slip away back to the airport, some commentators are hailing a “meaningful agreement” has been reached at the Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change talks. Others say that no deal of any significant kind has been struck.
Reaction from the Developing countries is general dismay. The Non-Governmental Organisations, “civil society”, feel they have been blocked from taking part. It’s been a complete shambles.
The time has come to start spelling out the future in graphic, technical detail – not just about the damages that Climate Change will bring – but about the only real solutions.
Real solutions do not include Carbon Trading, nor Carbon Taxation. They don’t include technofixes and technofudges like Carbon Capture and Storage and New Nuclear Power. They certainly don’t include partial commitment on Avoided Deforestation.
We have to say it and say it again : whether the leaders and corporations agree or not, the future is Carbon Emissions Reductions. The Consumer Economy is being eroded by the minute. Peak Oil, Coal, Natural Gas and Uranium are just around the corner.
Lots of shouting young people clamouring for Green Energy “in the USA” in Copenhagen. How sweet and cheerful ! Let the Free Speech continue, children, even if someone steals your banner :-
https://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/12/09/us-youth-crash-climate-denier-live-webcast-in-copenhagen/
You can bet your bottom petrodollar that there will be some bailouts at Copenhagen.
There will be the obvious benefactors, in the form of the Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, which will be set up to get money flowing from the industrialised countries to the developing countries, to enable the developing countries to buy technologies from the industrialised countries, to save the developing countries from Global Warming.
But behind the headlines, there will be some other deals being cut, in fact, one in particular may already have been sliced, judging by this article (OPEC = Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) :-
I haven’t noticed any of the major medical agencies coming out with statements of their own regarding Nina Pierpoint’s theories about the health disbenefits of wind turbines. That rather leads me to suspect there’s not much to this supposed problem that she documents :-
Why do we see so many news articles praising technologies that clearly have limitations in terms of ability to perform, complexity to implement, obvious flaws, long time delays to perfection or just look plain crazy ?
If this question has ever shambled across your mind, casting a shadow of indeterminate length or duration, be encouraged to know you are not alone.
I don’t know about you, but I would have thought that zero should mean zero. Zero tolerance on smoking in restaurants shouldn’t allow one corner of La Dolce Vita, Peckham to have a smoking table.
No, there isn’t an Italian dining establishment called “La Dolce Vita” in Peckham. I made that bit up. But I’m not making this bit up – the Zero Carbon Homes standard will only mandate a 25% reduction from ordinary energy efficiency standards :-
https://www.greenbuildingpress.co.uk/article.php?category_id=1&article_id=414
That means that new residential buildings will still emit 75% of the amount permitted today. Seventy-five is not even close to zero, in my book. Even I learned that much at school. Seems like a misnomer to call them “Zero Carbon Homes”.
So this big plan for international Carbon Trading, how long will it take to set up all the national and regional markets ? And how long will it take to get some kind of serious reduction in Carbon Emissions using the market ?
Well, judging by this week’s slalom race on the melting Climate piste, I’d say it will be a good few years yet before a functioning international Carbon market will be viable, and a good few years after that that it will start to deliver any real reductions in emissions.
That could easily take us past 2015, the year that Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre knows we have to peak our emissions or face Climageddon (unless we can produce negative emissions. Yeah. Right.) :-
https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/programme.php
Presentation Slides : https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/10-1anderson.pdf
Presentation Audio : https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/audio/10-1anderson.mp3
https://www.media.exxonmobil.com/media/microsite/index1.html?contentID=04B
It’s there, right in the script, an outright fallacy. If you were in converstion with your friend on the sofa you would have missed it.
ExxonMobil have been playing an advertisement on British television about algae. Apparently there’s green algae, red algae, golden… While the rest of the world is trying to get rid of pond scum, they’re growing it. To make biofuel. Green, Low Carbon driving fuel.
And it’s not competing with the world’s food supply. Hurrah !
And it eats up Carbon Dioxide, the narrator narrates in passing… “Algae are very beautiful… they absorb CO2 so they help solve the Greenhouse problem as well.”
Is that a hooray, also ? No, it’s not.
“Sustainable Development” is a phrase with two distinct meanings.
When people trained in Economics think about what “Sustainable Development” means, they normally assume that Nature’s continuing bounty will sustain our development path. That the pyramid of wealth, the wealth accrual machine and monetary incentives will bring more and more people and material resources into optimal production, and there will be no end to the development of the enrichment of all peoples and the quality of their habitat. Growth is good, for it brings prosperity to all, health, wealth, education, freedom from want and a top-notch built environment.
Sustainable Energy comes from doing what comes naturally. Wind, waves, sunlight. And pooping.
With some fairly minor adaptations to all sewage treatment plants, and a little AD – Anaerobic Digestion – we could hook up our off-gassing into the National Grid, and reduce our Fossil Gas use, big-time.
Watch this technology for meteoric rise. Cheap, cheerful, but slightly pongy. But they do BioGas in China and India all the time, and 2.4 billion Chinidians can’t be wrong.
Ed Miliband is today assuring us that New Nuclear Power will be safe, and that we will all have a say in the planning process – so tantalising us with the idea that we will be able to influence the outcome.
I don’t believe either of these things.
Nuclear Power is inherently dangerous, operationally unreliable, dirty, wasteful, expensive and any public money used to support it in any way will prevent us from pursuing truly sustainable Energy.
New Nuclear won’t work without Government subsidy, either for the construction of the plants themselves, or guaranteed customer pricing, or the insurance to cover the failure of projects to complete (or radioactive accident). The Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change can expect to find any New Nuclear direct public funding, price fixing, subsidy or tax breaks in court.
No, it won’t be me personally taking the Government to court.
Nuclear Power is a dinosaur technology, and judging by the number of countries that have signed up for new fleets of reactors, the Uranium fuel to run the plants being planned will be exhausted within the lifetime of the plants. With supplies of fuel running out, early decommissioning means the plants will never pay back on the investment.
Sounds like a high risk strategy to me, even before looking at the risks of radioactive explosions.
To be honest, he was taller than I expected, and more Eastern in appeareance, a kind of lanky version of Mehmet behind the deli counter at my local Turkish International Food Emporium.
David Miliband was also considerably thinner than I would have liked, considering he might one day rule the New Labour Party, who might just rule my country again. We wouldn’t want him blown away by the slightest breeze, surely, would we ? He needs feeding in my opinion.
Colin Challen MP [Member of the United Kingdom Parliament], the author of “Too Little, Too Late : The Politics of Climate Change” has told the nascent Carbon Capture industry to stop bleating for funding, effectively a bailout for the Coal industry :-
“CCS industry should support itself, claims MP : Wednesday 04 November 2009 : Labour MP Colin Challen believes the CCS industry should fund itself : A Labour MP has called on the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) industry to stop giving a “sob story” about needing government investment and instead fund new projects itself. Colin Challen, the MP for Morley and Rothwell, made the comments at today’s (November 4) Energy and Climate Change Committee meeting at Westminster, which was held as part of its inquiry into low carbon technologies. Responding to calls from industry body representatives for more government help in developing CCS plants, Mr Challen said: “It seems to me that research and development (R&D) has plummeted to a fraction of what it was. This industry has had billions of pounds out of the consumers’ pockets but yet we get this sob story about needing more money.” However, the director of technology and external affairs at Alstom – which builds integrated power plants – Philip Sharman, argued that utility companies have been investing in CCS, but said that the larger scale projects would need government help…”
Many people around the world are praying and crossing their fingers for some kind of Climate Change treaty to be signed at Copenhagen.
Practically all the nations of the world will have their United Nations delegations in Denmark’s capital this December, and many governments are hoping for a breakthrough of one sort or another on the form of words, the financial commitments and the political drive to get things done.
Trouble is, the nations can promise and sign and agree all they like, but nothing will happen, because the wrong players are in the room.
A truly epoch-changing story is evolving underneath the radar of the mainstream media, and out of sight of the Internetistas.
For some years now, Peak Oilmen (and women) have been trying to draw attention to the problems with the subsiding gushers in Saudi Arabia.
The Oil Drum, who confidently assert they know everything to cast accurate future projections for oil production, say that Saudi Arabia peaked in 2005 :-
https://www.theoildrum.com/node/5154
Apparently the wells are pumping more water than crude these days.
When discussing Renewable Energy technologies with associates, acquaintances and relatives, I often hear tones of scorn and the invariable question : “If it’s that good, why aren’t they doing it already ?”
This anti-sense meme from Classical (Neoliberal, Chicago School) Economics boils down to a perception problem. The obvious reason why Renewable Energy technologies are not already widely in use is due to the first-mover problem – it takes time to establish and roll out new technologies. People just don’t like change. And they have to get over the “investment bump” – spending the money to install new technologies.
One of my relatives takes the Scientific American magazine on subscription, postal strike notwithstanding, so I was privileged to be able to read an article in the November 2009 edition even before it hits the shelves in WH Smith at the major train stations in London, or Waterloo at least, where I looked for my own copy yesterday evening.
An uplifting, positive plan to green the world’s energy, composed by two Marks, one Delucchi, one Jacobson, both in American academia, yet not dreamers; their practical brains fully switched on and their souls engaged.
https://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html
“A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030” contains some excellent mythbusting material as well as practical proposals for turning over all our Energy supply to truly sustainable sources.
A full-colour PDF is available online :-
https://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf
It’s like they say on tee-shirts : “Look busy, Jesus is coming !”
The Great Miliband Brothers’ Flying Circus has come to town and told us to look sharp and get active :-
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
“From The Times : October 23, 2009 : Foreign Secretary David Miliband accuses public of climate change apathy : Hannah Devlin : The Foreign Secretary accused the public yesterday of lacking a sense of urgency in the face of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change. David Miliband said that people had grown apathetic about the issue when they needed to be galvanised into action before the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. “For a lot of people the penny hasn’t dropped that this climate change challenge is real and is happening now,” he said. “There isn’t yet that feeling of urgency and drive and animation about the Copenhagen conference.” Mr Miliband and his brother, Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, were opening an exhibition at the Science Museum in South Kensington designed to illustrate the potential impact of world temperatures increasing by 4C. Current models predict that this could happen by 2060 if no action is taken. Mr Miliband warned of water and food shortages, mass migration and conflict. A map unveiled at the exhibition showed temperatures increasing by up to 15C in the Arctic, storm surges hitting the East Coast of Britain and forest fires and droughts in Europe. Ed Miliband said that only 18 per cent of people believed that climate change would affect their children…”
La, la, la, fingers in our ears.
I mean, if you show us a Government-funded TV advertisement with cartoon tearful bunnies and drowning dogs, how exactly are we supposed to take you seriously ?
Image Credit : Baby Creative
Over the last couple of years, almost everything I have been involved with, the E.On Energy supply company has sought to get its big coal-dust grubby hands on. It seems. The latest twist in this saga involves the Claverton Energy Research Group.
Image Credit : Bankside Press
The big problem with re-tooling for the new Low Carbon world is not so much about changing Energy consumption behaviour, although that plays a part.
It’s not even really Energy supply behaviour, although that is probably more significant.
No, the key to the door to the greener future is investment behaviour.
The Claverton Energy Group will be holding its 8th Conference from 23rd to 25th October 2009 at the headquarters of Wessex Water, Claverton Down in Bath, England.
Advances in Energy technologies old and new will be presented amongst a wide-ranging and influential forum of engineers. The focus, as ever, will be the development of new infrastructure, within the context of the urgent need to de-Carbonise Energy supply.
An Irritating Truth
by Jo Abbess
17 September 2009
Essay to answer the question : ‘Which technical solutions offer the best potential for decreasing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions over the next 50 years?’ based on the key text, Chapter 4, entitled “Energy Supply” of the mitigation volume of the Working Group III (WG3) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf
Talking About a Revolution : Tracy Chapman
When are the intellectual and political ranks going to stop trying to apply universal guilt ? The real question to ask is not, “how are we going to get average emissions down ?” You can’t treat all the people in the United Kingdom as one blurred lump. Around 20% of consumers are conscious. Another 20% to 30% are going to be hit directly by any measure designed to put an environmental tax on Carbon, and will have no choice about responding.
Climate Change worldwide is affecting the poorest first and hardest – an expression used by everyone from Nicholas Stern through to Christian Aid. But it’s a stratification of impact that isn’t just global. The poorest in the industrialised countries are suffering hardship too : people who cannot get their homes renovated after floods, people who have to apply for Fuel Poverty assistance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or-TyPACK-g
“A Crude Awakening – Trailer”
I watched the film “A Crude Awakening” for the third time this week with the good people of Transition Waltham Forest.
Several people in the room were strongly affected by the footage of the deserted oil fields of Texas, Baku and Venezuela.
In the discussion after the film I challenged the Green Party activist in the room (hopefully without hurting anyone’s feelings), asking where Energy is in the list of electoral campaign policy priorities. I said I don’t hear strong concern from any political party. It’s a subject that’s just not there.
Unlocking Potential ..