This week, I thought I would break the tradition of telling you things and instead I like to seek your opinion. The UK 2009 budget will be announced on 22 April – it’s the first budget since the Committee on Climate Change announced the carbon budgets and of course it’s also a recession budget. Rather than speculate on the rumours that are flying around, I thought it might be interesting to ask your opinion on the following:
“If you were Chancellor, what measures would you include in the budget that would firmly put the UK on a path towards a resilient, low carbon economy?”
You can leave your comments under the blog entry with the same name at the following weblink - http://ukerc.blogspot.com/. Don’t be shy!
After Easter (no newsletter next week) I’ll feature some of the comments (he said optimistically hoping to be inundated) in the newsletter. The comments will be anonymous so please feel encouraged to download what’s on your mind.
In other news, I delighted to report that NERN has officially passed 500 members (506 and counting). By the end of this year it would be fantastic if we could have more than 1000 members, so please do tell you energy research friends about us.
Friday, 3 April 2009
More acronyms for you - DTCs, EIT and KICs
Top of the news list this week is that there are heaps of excellent PhD studentships up for grabs at Sheffield and Leeds (and possibly I suspect elsewhere). Why? You may have heard that the EPSRC has supported 44 Doctoral Training Centres (DTC) across the UK. According to the EPSRC these DTCs:
"aim to provide a supportive and exciting environment for students to carry out a challenging PhD-level research project together with taught coursework. The new centres will each take in around 10 students per year for five years starting in 2009."
So if you are an energy student looking for a PhD opportunity then these are the DTCs you should be looking out for:
University of Bath - Sustainable Chemical Technologies
University of Birmingham - Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and their Application
University of Leeds - Technologies for a Low Carbon Future
University of Manchester - Nuclear Fission Research, Science and Technology AND
Industrial Doctorate Centre in Nuclear Engineering
University of Nottingham - Efficient Power from Fossil Energies and Carbon Capture Technologies
University of Reading - Technologies for Sustainable Built Environments
University of Sheffield - Sheffield Training in Interdisciplinary Energy Research: STIER
University of Southampton - Industrial Doctorate Centre in Transport and the Environment
University of Strathclyde - Doctoral Training Centre in Wind Energy Systems
University of Surrey - Industrial Doctorate Centre in Sustainability for Engineering and Energy Systems
UCL - Industrial Doctorate Centre in Urban Sustainability and Resilience AND
Doctoral Training Centre in Photonic Systems Development
Plenty of choice for even the most discerning graduate I would hope.
This week I've also been learning about the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Rather than try and explain what EIT is, I've lifted a suitably vague description from the website:
"The EIT has the potential to become a key driver of European sustainable economic growth and competitiveness through the stimulation of world-leading innovation. Next to and beyond research and technology, EIT will focus on education, entrepreneurship, business creation and their capitalization in order to boost Europe's innovation capacity. This will be done in a cross-fertilizing effort with existing European programmes on Research and Technology, innovation and entrepreneurship."
You may wonder why I'm boring you by discussing the EIT (I'm not just filling space – honestly). Well as it happens there is an initiative in the pipeline that might be of interest to some of you. The EIT is soon launching a call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). The call is expected imminently (although from experience don't hold your breath). You can read all the details about KICs here, but I thought it might be worthwhile giving the very top level highlights.
Three KICs are expected in the first call, and two are of interest for this community – one on sustainable energy and one on climate change and mitigation. A KIC is an international consortium of researchers, technologists, educators, business people, entrepreneurs (yes, non-EU partners can be involved). The difference between a KIC and other programmes is that the EIT is not giving money to fund research. The EIT wants to provide money (up to perhaps 25M euro per year) that will enable a KIC to do something dramatic and exciting. EIT funding is additive to funding already available to the consortium (e.g. won research grants, business grants, etc). This KIC funding (I'm refusing to say "KIC start" here) could be used for several purposes. One strong idea is to facilitate people movement to a central location where they can innovate to their hearts content. Another suggestion I believe I heard was for the money to be used to provide funding to small businesses to de-risk product development. The overall aim is that the KIC will:
"deliver a measurable impact on society from an economic, scientific, educational and entrepreneurial perspective."
So, as I mentioned, it's all a bit vague right now, but it did seem to me to be something slightly more exciting that I first imagined. I'll try to keep an eye out for the call (which may well debunk a number of the myths I've just propagated) and will update as and when appropriate.
"aim to provide a supportive and exciting environment for students to carry out a challenging PhD-level research project together with taught coursework. The new centres will each take in around 10 students per year for five years starting in 2009."
So if you are an energy student looking for a PhD opportunity then these are the DTCs you should be looking out for:
University of Bath - Sustainable Chemical Technologies
University of Birmingham - Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and their Application
University of Leeds - Technologies for a Low Carbon Future
University of Manchester - Nuclear Fission Research, Science and Technology AND
Industrial Doctorate Centre in Nuclear Engineering
University of Nottingham - Efficient Power from Fossil Energies and Carbon Capture Technologies
University of Reading - Technologies for Sustainable Built Environments
University of Sheffield - Sheffield Training in Interdisciplinary Energy Research: STIER
University of Southampton - Industrial Doctorate Centre in Transport and the Environment
University of Strathclyde - Doctoral Training Centre in Wind Energy Systems
University of Surrey - Industrial Doctorate Centre in Sustainability for Engineering and Energy Systems
UCL - Industrial Doctorate Centre in Urban Sustainability and Resilience AND
Doctoral Training Centre in Photonic Systems Development
Plenty of choice for even the most discerning graduate I would hope.
This week I've also been learning about the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Rather than try and explain what EIT is, I've lifted a suitably vague description from the website:
"The EIT has the potential to become a key driver of European sustainable economic growth and competitiveness through the stimulation of world-leading innovation. Next to and beyond research and technology, EIT will focus on education, entrepreneurship, business creation and their capitalization in order to boost Europe's innovation capacity. This will be done in a cross-fertilizing effort with existing European programmes on Research and Technology, innovation and entrepreneurship."
You may wonder why I'm boring you by discussing the EIT (I'm not just filling space – honestly). Well as it happens there is an initiative in the pipeline that might be of interest to some of you. The EIT is soon launching a call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). The call is expected imminently (although from experience don't hold your breath). You can read all the details about KICs here, but I thought it might be worthwhile giving the very top level highlights.
Three KICs are expected in the first call, and two are of interest for this community – one on sustainable energy and one on climate change and mitigation. A KIC is an international consortium of researchers, technologists, educators, business people, entrepreneurs (yes, non-EU partners can be involved). The difference between a KIC and other programmes is that the EIT is not giving money to fund research. The EIT wants to provide money (up to perhaps 25M euro per year) that will enable a KIC to do something dramatic and exciting. EIT funding is additive to funding already available to the consortium (e.g. won research grants, business grants, etc). This KIC funding (I'm refusing to say "KIC start" here) could be used for several purposes. One strong idea is to facilitate people movement to a central location where they can innovate to their hearts content. Another suggestion I believe I heard was for the money to be used to provide funding to small businesses to de-risk product development. The overall aim is that the KIC will:
"deliver a measurable impact on society from an economic, scientific, educational and entrepreneurial perspective."
So, as I mentioned, it's all a bit vague right now, but it did seem to me to be something slightly more exciting that I first imagined. I'll try to keep an eye out for the call (which may well debunk a number of the myths I've just propagated) and will update as and when appropriate.
Copenhagen
As I'm sure most of you have heard; there has been an International Scientific Congress on Climate Change this week in Copenhagen (10 – 12 March). The main aim of the congress was to provide a synthesis of existing and emerging scientific knowledge necessary in order to make intelligent societal decisions concerning application of mitigation and adaptation strategies in response to climate change. There was heavy emphasis on influencing policy.
The conference, which was attended by 2500 delegates from 80 countries, has produced a set of six preliminary messages, which have been handed to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen ahead of the COP 15 meeting in December. I've reproduced these messages in full below:
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on 'dangerous climate change'. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2 Celsius will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches - economic, technological, behavioural, management - to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
Many of you will have noticed there have been a number of stories in the media relating to the congress. Here are a few snippets I've picked out.
One that caught my eye immediately was the headline 'Top scientist: don't trust politicians on climate change'. In essence, John Ashton told scientists that "the truth could be lost to political expediency or mischief and urged scientists to couch their conclusions in terms that could not be misunderstood or go unheard." And I thought I was cynical!
The Hadley Centre have suggested that even with drastic CO2 cuts there is only a 50:50 chance of restricting global temperature rise to 2 Celsius in 2100. This, 'best case' scenario would require emissions to peak in 2015 and decrease at 3% per year thereafter. For every ten year delay the additional temperature rise will be 0.5 Cesius.
Renewable power could account for up to 40% of global electricity demand by 2050 but only if there adequate financial and political support.
We should dump the "inefficient and ineffective" Kyoto protocol and replace it with a global carbon tax according to leading economist William Nordhaus.
And finally, according to Terry Barker, "combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits".
The conference, which was attended by 2500 delegates from 80 countries, has produced a set of six preliminary messages, which have been handed to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen ahead of the COP 15 meeting in December. I've reproduced these messages in full below:
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on 'dangerous climate change'. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2 Celsius will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches - economic, technological, behavioural, management - to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
Many of you will have noticed there have been a number of stories in the media relating to the congress. Here are a few snippets I've picked out.
One that caught my eye immediately was the headline 'Top scientist: don't trust politicians on climate change'. In essence, John Ashton told scientists that "the truth could be lost to political expediency or mischief and urged scientists to couch their conclusions in terms that could not be misunderstood or go unheard." And I thought I was cynical!
The Hadley Centre have suggested that even with drastic CO2 cuts there is only a 50:50 chance of restricting global temperature rise to 2 Celsius in 2100. This, 'best case' scenario would require emissions to peak in 2015 and decrease at 3% per year thereafter. For every ten year delay the additional temperature rise will be 0.5 Cesius.
Renewable power could account for up to 40% of global electricity demand by 2050 but only if there adequate financial and political support.
We should dump the "inefficient and ineffective" Kyoto protocol and replace it with a global carbon tax according to leading economist William Nordhaus.
And finally, according to Terry Barker, "combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits".
Energy career options
You'll have seen above that UKERC is organising a webinar on Delivering a sustainable energy system: Career options? It's aimed at A-level and undergraduate students who are interested in a career in energy, but who might not have appreciated the full breadth and complexity (and thus opportunity) of the energy system. As a presenter in the webinar I feel obliged to heartily endorse the quality of the speakers and make a plea for you to advertise the event to anyone, in our target audience, who you think might benefit from participating.
The UKERC webinar is part of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Festival of Social Science (FoSS). Since UKERC is participating, I thought I'd have a look at the "competition" with regards to other energy related events in the festival.
The FoSS, which runs 6 – 15th March is designed to communicate information about the social sciences and how social science impacts on our lives. The events take a variety of formats, from traditional lectures and seminars, to exhibitions, film screenings and topical debates. Furthermore, they are aimed at a range of different audiences, including policy makers, business, the media, the general public and students of all ages.
I've been looking through the programme and have cherry picked some events that interest me, and hopefully you as well.
Within the programme aimed at school and college students, in addition to the UKERC webinar, the Sussex Energy Group Climate Change Debate on 11th March will bring together three teams of sixth form students to debate possible solutions to climate change. Fulham Primary School are running an event on Lowering carbon emission by sustainable travel on 12th March – it sounds like a great idea to get the kids involved in this at such an early age.
For those who have a specific interest in a subject, the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods is organising a workshop on Climate Change: Social Science and Civil Society Perspectives on 9th March. The workshop aims to achieve a meeting of minds between academics, environmental groups and members of the policy community with interests in the social science research agenda (broadly conceived) into the climate crisis. On the next day, 10th March, RELU-Biomass are running a stakeholder meeting on "How will energy crops affect our landscapes?" at Rothamsted Manor.
Elsewhere in the programme, there are some really events that have caught my interest including:
Curious People
The Credit Crunch: Gender Equality in Hard Times
The Social Life of Plants
The 'Credit Crunch': Consequences for UK Households
Talent and Autism
Research and evidence in policy making debate
In the energy news this week, a couple of stories have snagged my attention. Scientists have been using satellite images of the gravitational force across the surface of the Earth to identify likely new of oil and gas fields. The method works on the basis that such deposits are surrounded by relatively light materials than have less gravitational force than surrounding materials. Worryingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the tool is expected to be particularly useful for identifying resources that will be uncovered as the Arctic ice melts.
The Independent has followed up my breaking news story of last week to announce that "Britain fails to deliver on pledge to lead world to 'green recovery'". Well, perhaps they weren't exactly following up my story...
The solar industry is apparently celebrating a historic milestone due to the production of a solar module with a cost below $1 per watt of generating capacity. The Chinese car industry is also celebrating their achievement in coming from nowhere to producing the first commercial petrol plug in hybrid car. The car, made by Build Your Dreams Auto, can be recharged by mains electricity and can travel for 62 miles on a full charge before switching the petrol engine. For those interested in running off and purchasing one, it costs a rather reasonable £15,000.
For those of you wondering where the animal related news is, you be delighted to know that a brand new species of psychedelic bouncing fishhas been discovered. I'm struggling to work out the energy angle here, but it probably has something to do with the bouncing.
The UKERC webinar is part of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Festival of Social Science (FoSS). Since UKERC is participating, I thought I'd have a look at the "competition" with regards to other energy related events in the festival.
The FoSS, which runs 6 – 15th March is designed to communicate information about the social sciences and how social science impacts on our lives. The events take a variety of formats, from traditional lectures and seminars, to exhibitions, film screenings and topical debates. Furthermore, they are aimed at a range of different audiences, including policy makers, business, the media, the general public and students of all ages.
I've been looking through the programme and have cherry picked some events that interest me, and hopefully you as well.
Within the programme aimed at school and college students, in addition to the UKERC webinar, the Sussex Energy Group Climate Change Debate on 11th March will bring together three teams of sixth form students to debate possible solutions to climate change. Fulham Primary School are running an event on Lowering carbon emission by sustainable travel on 12th March – it sounds like a great idea to get the kids involved in this at such an early age.
For those who have a specific interest in a subject, the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods is organising a workshop on Climate Change: Social Science and Civil Society Perspectives on 9th March. The workshop aims to achieve a meeting of minds between academics, environmental groups and members of the policy community with interests in the social science research agenda (broadly conceived) into the climate crisis. On the next day, 10th March, RELU-Biomass are running a stakeholder meeting on "How will energy crops affect our landscapes?" at Rothamsted Manor.
Elsewhere in the programme, there are some really events that have caught my interest including:
Curious People
The Credit Crunch: Gender Equality in Hard Times
The Social Life of Plants
The 'Credit Crunch': Consequences for UK Households
Talent and Autism
Research and evidence in policy making debate
In the energy news this week, a couple of stories have snagged my attention. Scientists have been using satellite images of the gravitational force across the surface of the Earth to identify likely new of oil and gas fields. The method works on the basis that such deposits are surrounded by relatively light materials than have less gravitational force than surrounding materials. Worryingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the tool is expected to be particularly useful for identifying resources that will be uncovered as the Arctic ice melts.
The Independent has followed up my breaking news story of last week to announce that "Britain fails to deliver on pledge to lead world to 'green recovery'". Well, perhaps they weren't exactly following up my story...
The solar industry is apparently celebrating a historic milestone due to the production of a solar module with a cost below $1 per watt of generating capacity. The Chinese car industry is also celebrating their achievement in coming from nowhere to producing the first commercial petrol plug in hybrid car. The car, made by Build Your Dreams Auto, can be recharged by mains electricity and can travel for 62 miles on a full charge before switching the petrol engine. For those interested in running off and purchasing one, it costs a rather reasonable £15,000.
For those of you wondering where the animal related news is, you be delighted to know that a brand new species of psychedelic bouncing fishhas been discovered. I'm struggling to work out the energy angle here, but it probably has something to do with the bouncing.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Green spending in the economic downturn
Firstly, a big thanks to those of you who responded to last call for discussion on low carbon heat and my house. Thanks to NERN members I've learned the importance of sealing skirting boards and also have a bundle of literature comparing low carbon heat technologies.
Perhaps it's a sign of the economy woes, but I'm struggling to spot any job and funding opportunities at the moment - if you have heard of anything please do let me know.
This week I've been inspired by a piece in the Guardian – "Great clean up – can economic rescue plan also save the planet " – in which the green claims of the global economy recovery plans are scrutinised. Thanks to whoever pinned that up on our notice board!
So how much do experts think we should be spending on green measures? Sir Nick Stern thinks that green measures should comprise 20% of these plans. The UN has suggests an annual target of 1% GDP.
How do the various economic recovery plans match these ambitions? I should place an important caveat here that I'm going from a HSBC table in the Guardian – I just thought I'd make it clear that these figures might not stand up to scrutiny (particularly since the article itself seems to contradict them).
Unsurprisingly, it is a rather mixed picture. South Korea is leading the way, devoting nearly 70% (3% of its GDP) to green measures in their $36bn package. China is next, pledging one third of their mighty $581bn package (I estimate 4.6% GDP) to green measures, with a focus on energy efficient (which as we see is a good thing). You'll note I haven't mentioned the UK yet – I'm getting there. What about the USA? Well, of the whopping $825bn recovery package, around 16% is pledged to green measures (which by my rough calculations is around 0.9% US GDP) – so quite reasonable. In Europe, out of an overall recovery package (announced so far) of $253bn, 14% appears to be attributed to green plans. Germany is the leading light here, pledging 19% of their package to green investments (although representing just 0.3% of their GDP). In Europe both Spain (10%) and France (8%) have pledged a greater proportion of their recovery packages to green measures compared to the UK (7%). Of the total UK recovery package, at $29.9bn (about the same in euro and dollars at current exchange rate – only joking), representing about 1% of UK GDP, only $2.1bn appears to be earmarked for green things (0.07% GDP). Bottom of the pile are Japan (2%), Italy (1%) and India (0%).
So overall the packages represent a 13% spend on green measures. Although this is lower than Sir Nick Stern's proposal for 20%, it strikes me as better result than it could have been had everyone retreated into an "economy first, green second" shell. Assuming of course I'm no being greenwashed.
For those who are interested, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at LSE have released a policy briefing "An outline of the case for a 'green' stimulus ", which ranks green measures on economic factors and climate change impact. The central argument is that a 'green' fiscal stimulus "can provide an effective boost to the economy, increasing labour demand in a timely fashion, while at the same time building the foundations for sound, sustainable and strong growth in the future". The paper then goes on to score various measures against both economic and climate change criteria and produces a league table of measures. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those that score most highly are all related to energy efficiency. Some may raise an eyebrow at the fact that carbon capture and storage and advanced battery development prop up the bottom of the table. The reason is that neither offers an immediate shot in the arm for the economy; however, both are important medium- and long-term priorities so should be supported by appropriate measures.
Perhaps it's a sign of the economy woes, but I'm struggling to spot any job and funding opportunities at the moment - if you have heard of anything please do let me know.
This week I've been inspired by a piece in the Guardian – "Great clean up – can economic rescue plan also save the planet " – in which the green claims of the global economy recovery plans are scrutinised. Thanks to whoever pinned that up on our notice board!
So how much do experts think we should be spending on green measures? Sir Nick Stern thinks that green measures should comprise 20% of these plans. The UN has suggests an annual target of 1% GDP.
How do the various economic recovery plans match these ambitions? I should place an important caveat here that I'm going from a HSBC table in the Guardian – I just thought I'd make it clear that these figures might not stand up to scrutiny (particularly since the article itself seems to contradict them).
Unsurprisingly, it is a rather mixed picture. South Korea is leading the way, devoting nearly 70% (3% of its GDP) to green measures in their $36bn package. China is next, pledging one third of their mighty $581bn package (I estimate 4.6% GDP) to green measures, with a focus on energy efficient (which as we see is a good thing). You'll note I haven't mentioned the UK yet – I'm getting there. What about the USA? Well, of the whopping $825bn recovery package, around 16% is pledged to green measures (which by my rough calculations is around 0.9% US GDP) – so quite reasonable. In Europe, out of an overall recovery package (announced so far) of $253bn, 14% appears to be attributed to green plans. Germany is the leading light here, pledging 19% of their package to green investments (although representing just 0.3% of their GDP). In Europe both Spain (10%) and France (8%) have pledged a greater proportion of their recovery packages to green measures compared to the UK (7%). Of the total UK recovery package, at $29.9bn (about the same in euro and dollars at current exchange rate – only joking), representing about 1% of UK GDP, only $2.1bn appears to be earmarked for green things (0.07% GDP). Bottom of the pile are Japan (2%), Italy (1%) and India (0%).
So overall the packages represent a 13% spend on green measures. Although this is lower than Sir Nick Stern's proposal for 20%, it strikes me as better result than it could have been had everyone retreated into an "economy first, green second" shell. Assuming of course I'm no being greenwashed.
For those who are interested, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at LSE have released a policy briefing "An outline of the case for a 'green' stimulus ", which ranks green measures on economic factors and climate change impact. The central argument is that a 'green' fiscal stimulus "can provide an effective boost to the economy, increasing labour demand in a timely fashion, while at the same time building the foundations for sound, sustainable and strong growth in the future". The paper then goes on to score various measures against both economic and climate change criteria and produces a league table of measures. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those that score most highly are all related to energy efficiency. Some may raise an eyebrow at the fact that carbon capture and storage and advanced battery development prop up the bottom of the table. The reason is that neither offers an immediate shot in the arm for the economy; however, both are important medium- and long-term priorities so should be supported by appropriate measures.
Friday, 20 February 2009
DECC Heat and Energy Saving Strategy
Not a huge amount of interesting news this week, so I've decided to share with you some selected highlights of the DECC Heat and Energy Saving Strategy that is now open for consultation. Or to put it another way, I've had to read the whole thing and therefore I'm going to inflict it upon you.
My first impressions are that it is really quite ambitious. Its overarching aim is for emissions from all buildings to be approaching zero by 2050 (I had an immediate mental image of a motorist claiming to be approaching zero speed after removing their foot from the accelerator at 100mph – I'm too cynical!). In practice the aim is that overall emissions from buildings will be reduced by more than 80% in 2050. Greater emission cuts [than the UK 80% target] from buildings are required in order to take up the slack from other sectors that will find it tougher going (for example transport). The top level policy measures proposed are as follows:
My first impressions are that it is really quite ambitious. Its overarching aim is for emissions from all buildings to be approaching zero by 2050 (I had an immediate mental image of a motorist claiming to be approaching zero speed after removing their foot from the accelerator at 100mph – I'm too cynical!). In practice the aim is that overall emissions from buildings will be reduced by more than 80% in 2050. Greater emission cuts [than the UK 80% target] from buildings are required in order to take up the slack from other sectors that will find it tougher going (for example transport). The top level policy measures proposed are as follows:
- All lofts and cavities will be insulated where practical by 2015. This represents a significant acceleration of the current strategy. The current CERT scheme may be superseded by a new Community Energy Savings Programme (dependent on how a trial scheme performs).
- Numerous accredited home energy advisors and plentiful information on energy saving and low carbon technologies will be available to homeowners and landlords to help them save energy and money.
- Innovative financial support packages will be developed in order to encourage people to install more expensive energy saving (for example solid wall insulation) and low carbon energy generation technologies (for example heat pumps or solar thermal). This is an area that fascinates me and I'll come back to it below.
- An examination of Building Regulations to see whether energy saving measures can be installed alongside other necessary building work. A new voluntary code of practice relating to energy efficiency and energy saving will be discussed with the building trade.
- District heating and combined heat and power (CHP) will be re-examined and mechanisms to encourage uptake will be scrutinised.
My interest was piqued by the discussion of financial mechanisms to encourage the installation of low carbon technologies in buildings. The premise that installing such technologies will save energy and make homes more attractive for sale seems sound to me. The fact that the up-front costs puts people off is also true. So what is the Government proposing here?
One option is for Government to provide a bigger subsidy for the technologies – perhaps 50% or more (or less) of installation costs.
Option B, crudely put, is that you will take out a loan to pay the up-front costs of technology installation (for example solar thermal can cost £2-3K to install) and you will then pay back the loan plus interest, over an extended period of time (think mortgage lengths), out of the money you save. The key thing is that the loan repayments are less than the total money that you save, so, in other words, you will be paying less on energy monthly after you install the technology. So what happens if you chose to move house? On average we move house about every 9 years in the UK (I am way above average!) – what happens to the shiny new technology and of course your loan? So far it's not quite clear, and in fact the Government is looking for innovative ideas (ask the banks how they are feeling about innovative financial ideas right now). One possibility is the loan will be passed onto the new owners through an as yet undefined mechanism. Who will be giving the loan? Energy companies and mortgage companies are possibilities as both are used to long term customer relationships. What happens if you want to switch to a better deal for energy or mortgage? This is yet to be worked through, hence why they are consulting.
Option C is to apply an Energy Services Company (ESCo) model. Here companies would install the low carbon energy generation equipment, at no up-front cost, and charge consumers for the use of the services over a contract period. The ESCo would also maintain the equipment. How does the customer save money and the ESCo make a profit? The ESCo would receive any subsidies such as the feed-in tariff (or ROCs) and Renewable Heat Incentive and use these to offset the charge paid by the householder. If the householder moves then in theory the contract could be passed to the new home inhabitant. What if they don't want the service? I guess some technologies (but all) could simply be removed and installed elsewhere.
I've just used the EST tool to self-assess my house (a 1985 mid-terraced house) for its energy efficiency and achieved a B rating. I've pretty much exhausted the energy efficiency measures that I can easily install (double glazing, cavity wall insulation, condensing boiler, thermostatic control and low energy bulbs) and my energy usage has been significantly reduced. I'm now seriously considering adding a low carbon heat technology (probably solar thermal or air source heat pump) to my house; this is why, in addition to the day job, that I'm interested in the incentives and mechanisms proposed. Of the three options I'm probably more attracted by A and C. Option C is would potentially be the least effort on my behalf but I have sneaking suspicion that I'd be able to save more money with A (and I'm a very stingy Northerner). I'd love to hear your thoughts on the mechanisms (especially if I've totally misinterpreted them) and also the technology choices. I know the NERN newsletter isn't supposed to be a "help Jeff make decisions" forum but if I don't get to abuse my position now and again then I feel I would be missing out.
I promise to write about energy news next week.
Happy eco-valentine's day
Its official, energy consultation season 2009 is now open. I'm aware of three that are currently circulating the policy world, the DECC Heat and Energy Saving Strategy (HES), the Ofgem one on introduction of charging arrangements associated with Offshore Transmission Networks and the Energy and Climate Change Committee inquiry into the future of Britain's electricity networks. I'm almost certain that I've missed one or two as well. Is suspect UKERC will be responding the DECC heat and energy saving consultation.
From a personal perspective, as someone interested in fitting low carbon heat technologies at home, I was pleased to see in the DECC consultation mention of loans to cover the system costs (probably). I was slightly disappointed to when I realised that it's unlikely that any such system will be in place before 2011 though. On the home front, the Scottish Government's budget was passed after some last minute adjustments. Now included is a £30M commitment to energy efficiency in Scottish homes.
In European policy, MEPs have backed a proposal for an 80% cut in EU emissions by 2050. The proposal is outlined in the Laperouze report on the Second Strategic Energy Review. Other measures suggested include, making the 20% 2020 energy saving target a legally binding one and increasing this to 35% in 2050, and generating 60% of EU energy from renewables in 2050. There are also a number of interesting proposals relating to the EU grid.
In the news this week there are some clever ideas for adding energy generation to existing structures. The first is to converting the kinetic energy of cars passing over sleeping policemen (that's speed bumps for the non-UK readers) into electrical energy. It sounds like a good idea, although when I tried it out on a friend (the idea, not driving a car over him) he did express concerns over digging up the UK's roads and the price of copper wire (always interesting to take a natural reaction to new ideas).
The other idea is to fit wave energy generation technologies to offshore wind turbines to increase the output from a single installation. The proposal, by Green Ocean Energy, could generate an additional 500kW per wind turbine. I wonder if it is a step too far to consider the possibility of fixing a tidal stream turbine to the platform somehow?
Finally, the Guardian newspaper has suggested some eco-friendly Valentine's Day options for those who will be celebrating tomorrow – yes even love has a carbon footprint (albeit a soft and furry one I'd imagine). In a situation reminiscent of a myriad of low budget horror movies, I'll actually be braving a Valentine's celebration tonight on Friday 13th! If you don't hear from me next week, assume the worst…
From a personal perspective, as someone interested in fitting low carbon heat technologies at home, I was pleased to see in the DECC consultation mention of loans to cover the system costs (probably). I was slightly disappointed to when I realised that it's unlikely that any such system will be in place before 2011 though. On the home front, the Scottish Government's budget was passed after some last minute adjustments. Now included is a £30M commitment to energy efficiency in Scottish homes.
In European policy, MEPs have backed a proposal for an 80% cut in EU emissions by 2050. The proposal is outlined in the Laperouze report on the Second Strategic Energy Review. Other measures suggested include, making the 20% 2020 energy saving target a legally binding one and increasing this to 35% in 2050, and generating 60% of EU energy from renewables in 2050. There are also a number of interesting proposals relating to the EU grid.
In the news this week there are some clever ideas for adding energy generation to existing structures. The first is to converting the kinetic energy of cars passing over sleeping policemen (that's speed bumps for the non-UK readers) into electrical energy. It sounds like a good idea, although when I tried it out on a friend (the idea, not driving a car over him) he did express concerns over digging up the UK's roads and the price of copper wire (always interesting to take a natural reaction to new ideas).
The other idea is to fit wave energy generation technologies to offshore wind turbines to increase the output from a single installation. The proposal, by Green Ocean Energy, could generate an additional 500kW per wind turbine. I wonder if it is a step too far to consider the possibility of fixing a tidal stream turbine to the platform somehow?
Finally, the Guardian newspaper has suggested some eco-friendly Valentine's Day options for those who will be celebrating tomorrow – yes even love has a carbon footprint (albeit a soft and furry one I'd imagine). In a situation reminiscent of a myriad of low budget horror movies, I'll actually be braving a Valentine's celebration tonight on Friday 13th! If you don't hear from me next week, assume the worst…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
