It has been another energy intensive week in the news. Not all that surprising considering that fuel prices have remained high. This has started to have a knock-on effect on fuel use with retailers reporting a 20% fall in demand. Curiously, amongst all the angst, it has been argued that high fuel prices could, under certain circumstances, be beneficial for truckers.
Elsewhere carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been attracting significant coverage. A consortium of science academies from various countries has urged G8 leaders to commit to fitting power stations with carbon dioxide capturing technology to curb climate change. In the meantime it has been argued in a report that the UK has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the race for the development of CCS. Several NGO’s have clubbed together to state that there should be an emissions limit for power stations of no more than 350g of CO2/kWh to encourage CCS. Finally it appears that, perhaps unsurprisingly, companies are in a race to be second when it comes to adopting CCS technology; no-one is willing to be a potentially disastrous frontrunner.
On the bright side (perhaps) European energy and emission targets appear to be helping member states partner up with each other. Germany and France have now jointly agreed to a European Commission goal of cutting average carbon dioxide emissions for new cars. Not to be outdone, Germany, Britain and Poland are urging EU ministers to allow nations to join forces in pursuing their renewable energy targets.
Finally, you’ll all be relieved to know that scientists in New Zealand think they have cracked the problem of methane burping cows.
Friday, 13 June 2008
Thursday, 5 June 2008
Another gloomy week in energy
It has in all honesty been another rather gloomy week for energy. For starters the IEA have told that it will cost $45 trillion to halve world emissions, which is a lot of money in anyone’s book. More worryingly, despite our efforts it appears that energy consumption by UK businesses has been increasing and more widely EU industries within the EU emissions trading scheme have increased their emissions slightly. It would be unfair if I didn’t point out that businesses have been growing economically faster than their emissions, so to some extent growth is being decoupled from emissions.
High fuel prices continue to make motorists grumpy, and evidence emerges that fuel demand in Europe will drop for the first time in a decade this in 2008. Amidst the gloom, it appears that motorists should be having celebrating as the cost of motoring has actually reduced by 4% since 2005. The high cost of fossil fuels does appear to be having a positive effect on the price of carbon under the EU ETS which has shot up by 25% over the past three months.
There have been several proclamations of note over the past week. WWF have launched a report that examines the meaning of carbon ready. It appears that some tension has developed between environmental groups over carbon capture and storage. The UK Government has announced that up to 7,000 off-shore wind turbines could be deployed by 2020. Finally, GM has claimed that they will be launching their all-electric Chevrolet Volt in 2010.
Ending on a positive note, two stories have caught my eye this week. Firstly, the first green TV cable channel, Planet Green, has been launched by Discovery that will deliver eco-tainment to our living rooms. Secondly, Origo Industries claim to have invented a technology that not only captures and stores the CO2 from a vehicle but also uses the same CO2 to feed algae and produce a biofuel that you can use to fuel your car. It sounds too good to be true, but then again…
High fuel prices continue to make motorists grumpy, and evidence emerges that fuel demand in Europe will drop for the first time in a decade this in 2008. Amidst the gloom, it appears that motorists should be having celebrating as the cost of motoring has actually reduced by 4% since 2005. The high cost of fossil fuels does appear to be having a positive effect on the price of carbon under the EU ETS which has shot up by 25% over the past three months.
There have been several proclamations of note over the past week. WWF have launched a report that examines the meaning of carbon ready. It appears that some tension has developed between environmental groups over carbon capture and storage. The UK Government has announced that up to 7,000 off-shore wind turbines could be deployed by 2020. Finally, GM has claimed that they will be launching their all-electric Chevrolet Volt in 2010.
Ending on a positive note, two stories have caught my eye this week. Firstly, the first green TV cable channel, Planet Green, has been launched by Discovery that will deliver eco-tainment to our living rooms. Secondly, Origo Industries claim to have invented a technology that not only captures and stores the CO2 from a vehicle but also uses the same CO2 to feed algae and produce a biofuel that you can use to fuel your car. It sounds too good to be true, but then again…
Friday, 30 May 2008
A week of contradictions
It has been a week of contradictions. For example, there is great confusion over whether record oil prices are good or bad for the environment. On the one hand there appears to be evidence emerging that the era of cheap air fares may be over and that people are switching to more efficient cars and public transport. On the other hand it seems that high oil prices could be an ecological disaster as more carbon intensive resources, such as the Canadian tar sands, become economically viable.
To emphasise the contradictions, it worth having a look at what has been a very long week for the Labour Party. The increases in Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty announced in the budget have come under severe pressure, most notably through the HGV fuel protest in London. There is the possibility of a Government U-turn on both these measures. In addition the UK Government has been attempting to persuade OPEC to increase oil supply and challenging industry to squeeze more oil out of the North Sea. Naturally, it has been questioned how these potential policy decisions fit with the Government's commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
On the flip side there has been a call, led, perhaps unsurprisingly, by George Monbiot, for OPEC to ignore the call for increased supply. In other quarters it has been questioned whether the proposed 2 pence Fuel Duty increase goes far enough. In fact there have been several calls for the reinstatement of the Fuel Duty Escalator, brought in by Chancellor Norman Lamont in 1993, which committed the Treasury to increasing petrol duties by inflation plus 3 per cent every year.
It is no surprise that these contradictions are confusing consumers. For example, in a letter to the Guardian newspaper, one person, having bought an hybrid car on the basis of Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty messages, questioned whether they would be due compensation by the Government for this unnecessary purchase. They'll probably be even unhappier when they learn that hybrid may have higher lifetime costs than conventional vehicles.
To emphasise the contradictions, it worth having a look at what has been a very long week for the Labour Party. The increases in Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty announced in the budget have come under severe pressure, most notably through the HGV fuel protest in London. There is the possibility of a Government U-turn on both these measures. In addition the UK Government has been attempting to persuade OPEC to increase oil supply and challenging industry to squeeze more oil out of the North Sea. Naturally, it has been questioned how these potential policy decisions fit with the Government's commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
On the flip side there has been a call, led, perhaps unsurprisingly, by George Monbiot, for OPEC to ignore the call for increased supply. In other quarters it has been questioned whether the proposed 2 pence Fuel Duty increase goes far enough. In fact there have been several calls for the reinstatement of the Fuel Duty Escalator, brought in by Chancellor Norman Lamont in 1993, which committed the Treasury to increasing petrol duties by inflation plus 3 per cent every year.
It is no surprise that these contradictions are confusing consumers. For example, in a letter to the Guardian newspaper, one person, having bought an hybrid car on the basis of Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty messages, questioned whether they would be due compensation by the Government for this unnecessary purchase. They'll probably be even unhappier when they learn that hybrid may have higher lifetime costs than conventional vehicles.
Friday, 9 May 2008
Energy wonks and the acronym factory
by Jeff Hardy
Can you speak sustainable energy? Are you an energy wonk? Is a new global language being born? Can you speak in megawatts? Can you speak in negawatts?!? Confused? I am…
I’m not talking about the technical terms associated with these fabulous new energy widgets and gubbins; I’m talking about the language used in the popular press, the blogsphere and in social circles. I’m worried that I might have accidentally become an energy wonk! How did this happen? I’ve only just found out what a wonk is and now I might be one. Apparently policy used to be the predominant domain of wonks, but now wonkism (is that even a word?) has branched out into energy.
What is a wonk? Wikipedia tells us that a wonk is…
…an expert who studies a subject or issue thoroughly and excessively. This word is most often encountered in the term "policy wonk".
The origins of the word wonk appear to be a bone of contention between two camps. One believes that wonk is “know” spelt backwards (which of course is true). The other contest that it is an acronym derived from “WithOut Normal Knowledge”. Personally, I’m steering well clear of this debate…
Who is the daddy of the energy wonks? The earliest reference I can find (after an extensive minute of Googling) is Amory Lovins. For those of you who haven’t heard of Amory, he’s the chap who thinks it’s possible to wean the United States off oil (see Winning the Oil Endgame). I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Amory speak before and I have to say he makes a compelling argument. My personal favourite quote from Amory is "Energy efficiency isn't just a free lunch, it's a lunch you are paid to eat". You can read more about his research at the Rocky Mountain Institute website.
Wonk, if indeed it is an acronym, isn’t the only acronym that is commonly associated with energy. Those involved in sustainable energy planning are all too aware of NIMBY’s (Not In My Back Yard) but are becoming increasingly aware of the NOTEs (Not Over There Either), the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and the LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Use). Perhaps we need some SENSE (Supportive Environment Needing Sustainable Energy) here (I’ve just made that up).
Are NIMBYs, NOTEs, BANANAs and LULUs cynical because of the Greenwash? Does anyone believe anything that they hear, or do we assume that all environmental claims are seen through green tinted spectacles? Who can we trust to tell us the truth about all this energy stuff? My money is on those who are conducting the energy research as when this community makes claims they get peer reviewed…and let’s face it, researchers like nothing better than to shoot down spurious claims.
Can you speak sustainable energy? Are you an energy wonk? Is a new global language being born? Can you speak in megawatts? Can you speak in negawatts?!? Confused? I am…
I’m not talking about the technical terms associated with these fabulous new energy widgets and gubbins; I’m talking about the language used in the popular press, the blogsphere and in social circles. I’m worried that I might have accidentally become an energy wonk! How did this happen? I’ve only just found out what a wonk is and now I might be one. Apparently policy used to be the predominant domain of wonks, but now wonkism (is that even a word?) has branched out into energy.
What is a wonk? Wikipedia tells us that a wonk is…
…an expert who studies a subject or issue thoroughly and excessively. This word is most often encountered in the term "policy wonk".
The origins of the word wonk appear to be a bone of contention between two camps. One believes that wonk is “know” spelt backwards (which of course is true). The other contest that it is an acronym derived from “WithOut Normal Knowledge”. Personally, I’m steering well clear of this debate…
Who is the daddy of the energy wonks? The earliest reference I can find (after an extensive minute of Googling) is Amory Lovins. For those of you who haven’t heard of Amory, he’s the chap who thinks it’s possible to wean the United States off oil (see Winning the Oil Endgame). I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Amory speak before and I have to say he makes a compelling argument. My personal favourite quote from Amory is "Energy efficiency isn't just a free lunch, it's a lunch you are paid to eat". You can read more about his research at the Rocky Mountain Institute website.
Wonk, if indeed it is an acronym, isn’t the only acronym that is commonly associated with energy. Those involved in sustainable energy planning are all too aware of NIMBY’s (Not In My Back Yard) but are becoming increasingly aware of the NOTEs (Not Over There Either), the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and the LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Use). Perhaps we need some SENSE (Supportive Environment Needing Sustainable Energy) here (I’ve just made that up).
Are NIMBYs, NOTEs, BANANAs and LULUs cynical because of the Greenwash? Does anyone believe anything that they hear, or do we assume that all environmental claims are seen through green tinted spectacles? Who can we trust to tell us the truth about all this energy stuff? My money is on those who are conducting the energy research as when this community makes claims they get peer reviewed…and let’s face it, researchers like nothing better than to shoot down spurious claims.
Friday, 11 April 2008
Coconut power and rocket planes
by Jeff Hardy
The aviation industry has been under environmental spotlight for quite some time now. It’s a rapidly growing industry and as it expands so does its carbon dioxide footprint. Two tools can be brought to bear on aviation to reduce its footprint, behavioural change and technological innovation. Since I don’t want to turn this blog into a rant about travel choices I think my best bet is to stick to technology.
Very crudely speaking, the way I see it is that there are three technological options for reducing the carbon emissions for aeroplanes, weight, design and fuels. Here I’m going to concentrate mainly on fuels but it is worth briefly discussing the other two as they are equally important.
I’m going to pick on the Boeing 787 to demonstrate how advances in lightweight materials and engine design can lead to lower carbon emissions. The 787 is constructed 50% from composite materials (carbon fibre reinforced plastics) leading to significant weight reductions. Some versions of the 787 will be powered by advanced Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines which are very efficient and quiet engines. Combined these measures mean that some versions of the 787 will burn almost 30 per cent less fuel than previous generation airliners.
Whilst there plenty of room for further advances in reducing weight and innovative design, the inescapable fact is planes are currently fuelled by fossil fuel derived kerosene. So what are the options here? Well, if you believe a group of gifted and talented youngsters I taught when at the University of York green chemistry group then the answer is as follows. Take a standard passenger plane. Fill the back half with cows. Feed the cows a diet guaranteed to produce copious methane. Use the methane to power the plane. Provide passengers with gas masks and free milk. Inspired thinking, but perhaps not so practical.
More realistically there appear to be two options for fuels – biofuels and hydrogen. Both off these have been recently trialled with some early success.
In the case of biofuels, Virgin flew a jumbo jet between London's Heathrow and Amsterdam with one engine being fed enough biofuel to provide about 20% of its power. The biofuel was derived from Brazilian babassu nuts and coconuts. The key problem with using fuels derived from natural oils, according to Virgin, is that there exists the possibility that they could freeze at the low temperature at high altitude (for reference note how olive oil goes cloudy and viscous in cold weather). Not an insignificant problem it would appear.
A potential way around this is to make the biofuel in a different way. Biomass derived kerosene can made by converting biomass to synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) by a process called gasification and converting the synthesis gas to kerosene through the Fischer-Tropsch process. I’d be happy to go into the chemistry of this if anyone is interested. The advantage of this route is that the kerosene produced is quite similar to that already used and thus should be compatible. In fact Airbus has successfully tested a fuel based on the similar gas to liquid technology, where natural gas is used instead of biomass as feedstock.
It is important that biofuels are derived from sustainable sources and that they have minimal carbon emissions across their whole life cycle. If the biofuel falls down on either of these criteria then it is difficult to see the advantage in its application. This has made the headlines recently in relation to the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation.
Looking more to the future, you may have seen that Boeing have successfully tested the first manned, hydrogen-powered plane in Spain. The plane, powered by a hybrid battery and fuel cell system developed by UK firm Intelligent Energy, flew for around 20 minutes and landed safely. It’s unlikely that this technology will be suitable for powering commercial passenger aircraft, but it may be capable of providing a secondary source of energy.
This doesn’t rule out hydrogen as a potential aviation fuel in the future, far from it if you believe the claims of the European Space Agency. They are proposing a hydrogen fuelled supersonic passenger jet plane potentially capable of up to Mach 8 – blimey! Concorde on a good day managed a sluggish Mach 2. The plane could be capable of flying from Brussels to Sydney in 4.6 hours – that’s barely time to get comfy. The so called A2 is based on a special engine technology named Scimitar which seems to be described as a rocket engine with a turbo booster! It’s all rather exciting, but I think someway off so I should probably calm down a little.
For now it appears that the introduction of the A380 and the 787 may achieve some savings in carbon dioxide emissions per passenger (assuming they have a full quotient of passengers). However, it appears that in the short term, the only mechanism to reduce the environmental impact of flying is for people to fly less…
The aviation industry has been under environmental spotlight for quite some time now. It’s a rapidly growing industry and as it expands so does its carbon dioxide footprint. Two tools can be brought to bear on aviation to reduce its footprint, behavioural change and technological innovation. Since I don’t want to turn this blog into a rant about travel choices I think my best bet is to stick to technology.
Very crudely speaking, the way I see it is that there are three technological options for reducing the carbon emissions for aeroplanes, weight, design and fuels. Here I’m going to concentrate mainly on fuels but it is worth briefly discussing the other two as they are equally important.
I’m going to pick on the Boeing 787 to demonstrate how advances in lightweight materials and engine design can lead to lower carbon emissions. The 787 is constructed 50% from composite materials (carbon fibre reinforced plastics) leading to significant weight reductions. Some versions of the 787 will be powered by advanced Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines which are very efficient and quiet engines. Combined these measures mean that some versions of the 787 will burn almost 30 per cent less fuel than previous generation airliners.
Whilst there plenty of room for further advances in reducing weight and innovative design, the inescapable fact is planes are currently fuelled by fossil fuel derived kerosene. So what are the options here? Well, if you believe a group of gifted and talented youngsters I taught when at the University of York green chemistry group then the answer is as follows. Take a standard passenger plane. Fill the back half with cows. Feed the cows a diet guaranteed to produce copious methane. Use the methane to power the plane. Provide passengers with gas masks and free milk. Inspired thinking, but perhaps not so practical.
More realistically there appear to be two options for fuels – biofuels and hydrogen. Both off these have been recently trialled with some early success.
In the case of biofuels, Virgin flew a jumbo jet between London's Heathrow and Amsterdam with one engine being fed enough biofuel to provide about 20% of its power. The biofuel was derived from Brazilian babassu nuts and coconuts. The key problem with using fuels derived from natural oils, according to Virgin, is that there exists the possibility that they could freeze at the low temperature at high altitude (for reference note how olive oil goes cloudy and viscous in cold weather). Not an insignificant problem it would appear.
A potential way around this is to make the biofuel in a different way. Biomass derived kerosene can made by converting biomass to synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) by a process called gasification and converting the synthesis gas to kerosene through the Fischer-Tropsch process. I’d be happy to go into the chemistry of this if anyone is interested. The advantage of this route is that the kerosene produced is quite similar to that already used and thus should be compatible. In fact Airbus has successfully tested a fuel based on the similar gas to liquid technology, where natural gas is used instead of biomass as feedstock.
It is important that biofuels are derived from sustainable sources and that they have minimal carbon emissions across their whole life cycle. If the biofuel falls down on either of these criteria then it is difficult to see the advantage in its application. This has made the headlines recently in relation to the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation.
Looking more to the future, you may have seen that Boeing have successfully tested the first manned, hydrogen-powered plane in Spain. The plane, powered by a hybrid battery and fuel cell system developed by UK firm Intelligent Energy, flew for around 20 minutes and landed safely. It’s unlikely that this technology will be suitable for powering commercial passenger aircraft, but it may be capable of providing a secondary source of energy.
This doesn’t rule out hydrogen as a potential aviation fuel in the future, far from it if you believe the claims of the European Space Agency. They are proposing a hydrogen fuelled supersonic passenger jet plane potentially capable of up to Mach 8 – blimey! Concorde on a good day managed a sluggish Mach 2. The plane could be capable of flying from Brussels to Sydney in 4.6 hours – that’s barely time to get comfy. The so called A2 is based on a special engine technology named Scimitar which seems to be described as a rocket engine with a turbo booster! It’s all rather exciting, but I think someway off so I should probably calm down a little.
For now it appears that the introduction of the A380 and the 787 may achieve some savings in carbon dioxide emissions per passenger (assuming they have a full quotient of passengers). However, it appears that in the short term, the only mechanism to reduce the environmental impact of flying is for people to fly less…
Friday, 4 April 2008
Water, water everywhere…
By Jeff Hardy
This week I have been inspired by water and energy, in fact specifically by a paper by French scientists [1] on harvesting energy from raindrops. In the authors own words “Our system recovers the vibration energy from a piezoelectric flexible structure impacted by a water drop”. What?!? Put more simply, some materials (in this case polyvinylidene fluoride) can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. This is called the piezoelectric effect, and is similar to that which I described previously in power dressing. So as rain drops hit the material it generates an electrical current (naturally it’s a bit more complicated than this).
So how much power can you generate? The authors estimate that the available rain power in French regions with a continental climate to be almost 1 Wh per square metre per year. For comparison, in Scotland a south-facing roof receives between 700 - 1100 kWh/m2 of solar radiation during a year – oh dear. It’s probably a bit unfair to make this comparison now since this is very early in the development path of this technology. I also like this idea since I’m from the North West of England where it is very wet indeed.
This idea got me wondering about other novel ways in which water could be used to generate electricity. I thought it best to steer away from the classics such as watermills, hydroelectricity, wave and tidal power and generation of hydrogen through electrolysis or thermochemical methods. Instead I have dug out a couple of examples from the literature which interested me.
It appears that engineers at the University of Alberta in Canada have found that pumping water through microchannels in a glass disk can generate an electrical current [2]. In fact they claim “[that it is] the first new way to produce sustainable electricity in 160 years”.
How does it work? Forcing water through tiny glass channels is known to be tough because the channel walls become charged which creates an electric field that hinders the flow of charged ions through the channel. For example a negatively charged channel wall will result in negatively charged ions being forced to the centre of the channel where they will move faster than their positively charged colleagues which are attracted to the walls (because opposites attract). Over time this means a positive charge is built up at one end of the channel and a negative charge at the other – not unlike a battery! By wiring up the ends of the channel a (rather small) current can be produced. It needs some further work as the current is so small that it would take years to charge a mobile phone, but it is an interesting idea.
It is possible to generate electricity from estuaries where fresh water streams flow into the sea. This is known as salinity-gradient energy but thankfully is also referred to as blue energy. Blue energy can work either on the principle of osmosis (the movement of water from a low salt concentration to a high salt concentration) or electrodialysis (the movement of salt from a highly concentrated solution to a low concentrated solution) where the saline water and fresh water be separated by a selectively permeable membrane. In the osmosis process water pressure is created that can drive a turbine. In the electrodialysis case the movement of ions creates the electricity. The only by-product of blue energy is brackish water which would naturally occur in an estuary anyway. The global energy output from estuaries is estimated at 2.6TW, which represents a whopping 20% of the current worldwide energy demand. With figures like these it sounds rather exciting, but once again it is early days in the development of this technology and I think only a couple of test units exist in the Netherlands.
It is amazing what you can turn up when you look into a subject. Of these three topics, blue energy was the only one I had come across before this week. I’m sure if I looked a little harder I’d be able to find other interesting examples. It seems reassuring that there is so much work going into future low-carbon energy technologies. If only we could make better use of the ones available today…
[1] R. Guigon et al., Smart Mater. Struct., 17, (2008), 015038-9
[2] J. Yang et al., J. Micromech. Microeng., 13, (2003), 963
This week I have been inspired by water and energy, in fact specifically by a paper by French scientists [1] on harvesting energy from raindrops. In the authors own words “Our system recovers the vibration energy from a piezoelectric flexible structure impacted by a water drop”. What?!? Put more simply, some materials (in this case polyvinylidene fluoride) can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. This is called the piezoelectric effect, and is similar to that which I described previously in power dressing. So as rain drops hit the material it generates an electrical current (naturally it’s a bit more complicated than this).
So how much power can you generate? The authors estimate that the available rain power in French regions with a continental climate to be almost 1 Wh per square metre per year. For comparison, in Scotland a south-facing roof receives between 700 - 1100 kWh/m2 of solar radiation during a year – oh dear. It’s probably a bit unfair to make this comparison now since this is very early in the development path of this technology. I also like this idea since I’m from the North West of England where it is very wet indeed.
This idea got me wondering about other novel ways in which water could be used to generate electricity. I thought it best to steer away from the classics such as watermills, hydroelectricity, wave and tidal power and generation of hydrogen through electrolysis or thermochemical methods. Instead I have dug out a couple of examples from the literature which interested me.
It appears that engineers at the University of Alberta in Canada have found that pumping water through microchannels in a glass disk can generate an electrical current [2]. In fact they claim “[that it is] the first new way to produce sustainable electricity in 160 years”.
How does it work? Forcing water through tiny glass channels is known to be tough because the channel walls become charged which creates an electric field that hinders the flow of charged ions through the channel. For example a negatively charged channel wall will result in negatively charged ions being forced to the centre of the channel where they will move faster than their positively charged colleagues which are attracted to the walls (because opposites attract). Over time this means a positive charge is built up at one end of the channel and a negative charge at the other – not unlike a battery! By wiring up the ends of the channel a (rather small) current can be produced. It needs some further work as the current is so small that it would take years to charge a mobile phone, but it is an interesting idea.
It is possible to generate electricity from estuaries where fresh water streams flow into the sea. This is known as salinity-gradient energy but thankfully is also referred to as blue energy. Blue energy can work either on the principle of osmosis (the movement of water from a low salt concentration to a high salt concentration) or electrodialysis (the movement of salt from a highly concentrated solution to a low concentrated solution) where the saline water and fresh water be separated by a selectively permeable membrane. In the osmosis process water pressure is created that can drive a turbine. In the electrodialysis case the movement of ions creates the electricity. The only by-product of blue energy is brackish water which would naturally occur in an estuary anyway. The global energy output from estuaries is estimated at 2.6TW, which represents a whopping 20% of the current worldwide energy demand. With figures like these it sounds rather exciting, but once again it is early days in the development of this technology and I think only a couple of test units exist in the Netherlands.
It is amazing what you can turn up when you look into a subject. Of these three topics, blue energy was the only one I had come across before this week. I’m sure if I looked a little harder I’d be able to find other interesting examples. It seems reassuring that there is so much work going into future low-carbon energy technologies. If only we could make better use of the ones available today…
[1] R. Guigon et al., Smart Mater. Struct., 17, (2008), 015038-9
[2] J. Yang et al., J. Micromech. Microeng., 13, (2003), 963
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Green Budget?
By Jeff Hardy
On Thursday we witnessed the first budget from Alistair Darling. How did you feel about it? I don’t think anyone was expecting anything dramatic as there isn’t really the wriggle room for big spending and grand gestures. It was built up as a green budget, and there were certainly some announcements relating to sustainable energy within it that were interesting.
Transport featured quite heavily. Gas guzzling cars (greater than 255 gCO2 per km labelled band M) took a bit of a hammering. Vehicle Excise Duty will be raised to £425 in 2009 and in 2010 you will also have a pay a one off cost of £950 when you buy such a car. Additionally, fuel duty will be raised by 2p per litre in October this year.
Biofuels have come under the policy microscope and sensibly the Government is looking to prioritise the most sustainable biofuels – although I’m not convinced that a sustainable biofuel has yet been defined anywhere. I’m also a little dubious of the table on carbon dioxide savings of biofuels compared to fossil fuels (page 98 of budget document) in light of recent studies examining land-use changes.
The aviation sector didn’t escape and the new per flight tax (replacing the per passenger tax) is to be increased by 10% in the second year of operation from whenever it starts – it’s under consultation currently.
New homes are to be zero carbon by 2016 and non-domestic buildings by 2019 according to the budget and this seems a worthy ambition. What I didn’t see, and perhaps I missed it, is any mention of measures to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock. Without a major demolition programme the majority of houses in the UK in 2050 are already built. I’ll come back to this briefly later.
The humble plastic bag is to be phased out! Well, actually the plan is to put a cost (tax) on it so that we stop using it. Whilst I don’t think that this will halt climate change I’m glad that it has finally happened as it has proven successful elsewhere (see for example the Republic of Ireland). One caveat to my enthusiasm is that it’s important that this doesn’t have undesirable knock-on effects such as a switch by supermarkets to paper bags or something else. The idea should really be to encourage people to bring the means to carry their shopping home with them.
I want to comment on the proposed increase in winter fuel duty. I think that everyone should enjoy an affordable and comfortable home in winter (and indeed all year round). Is paying winter fuel duty every year the best way to achieve this or are there other ways to approach this? One thought would be to radically improve the insulation and efficiency of the heating systems in the homes of those at risk of fuel poverty (and in an ideal world, all homes). As a one off cost this is more expensive in a given year, but surely it would significantly reduce heating bills and must be cost effective in the long run? Energy efficient homes require less heating meaning lower heating bills, lower carbon dioxide emissions and ultimately reduced fuel poverty.
What do all these measures mean in terms of carbon emissions reductions? In all honesty, I have no idea! The environmental impacts of the measures are listed on page 107 of the Budget document. I was hoping to add them all up and present it as a lump of carbon dioxide savings. Unfortunately it’s not quite that straight forward as the ways in which the data are reported is not terribly helpful. If it helps then I think that there will be some reduction in carbon dioxide by 2020. Hopefully the very recently formed Committee on Climate Change, including UKERCs own Professor Jim Skea, will be able to help Government present these figures in a clearer and more transparent way.
So was it a green budget – does it put us clearly on a path towards significant carbon dioxide emissions reductions? No, not really. With just 11 more budgets before the Climate Change Bill 2020 target of a 26% carbon dioxide reduction, based on 1990 levels, we’ll need to see a much greater effort coming through. I think that the Committee on Climate Change will have a vital role in this and wish them good luck.
On Thursday we witnessed the first budget from Alistair Darling. How did you feel about it? I don’t think anyone was expecting anything dramatic as there isn’t really the wriggle room for big spending and grand gestures. It was built up as a green budget, and there were certainly some announcements relating to sustainable energy within it that were interesting.
Transport featured quite heavily. Gas guzzling cars (greater than 255 gCO2 per km labelled band M) took a bit of a hammering. Vehicle Excise Duty will be raised to £425 in 2009 and in 2010 you will also have a pay a one off cost of £950 when you buy such a car. Additionally, fuel duty will be raised by 2p per litre in October this year.
Biofuels have come under the policy microscope and sensibly the Government is looking to prioritise the most sustainable biofuels – although I’m not convinced that a sustainable biofuel has yet been defined anywhere. I’m also a little dubious of the table on carbon dioxide savings of biofuels compared to fossil fuels (page 98 of budget document) in light of recent studies examining land-use changes.
The aviation sector didn’t escape and the new per flight tax (replacing the per passenger tax) is to be increased by 10% in the second year of operation from whenever it starts – it’s under consultation currently.
New homes are to be zero carbon by 2016 and non-domestic buildings by 2019 according to the budget and this seems a worthy ambition. What I didn’t see, and perhaps I missed it, is any mention of measures to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock. Without a major demolition programme the majority of houses in the UK in 2050 are already built. I’ll come back to this briefly later.
The humble plastic bag is to be phased out! Well, actually the plan is to put a cost (tax) on it so that we stop using it. Whilst I don’t think that this will halt climate change I’m glad that it has finally happened as it has proven successful elsewhere (see for example the Republic of Ireland). One caveat to my enthusiasm is that it’s important that this doesn’t have undesirable knock-on effects such as a switch by supermarkets to paper bags or something else. The idea should really be to encourage people to bring the means to carry their shopping home with them.
I want to comment on the proposed increase in winter fuel duty. I think that everyone should enjoy an affordable and comfortable home in winter (and indeed all year round). Is paying winter fuel duty every year the best way to achieve this or are there other ways to approach this? One thought would be to radically improve the insulation and efficiency of the heating systems in the homes of those at risk of fuel poverty (and in an ideal world, all homes). As a one off cost this is more expensive in a given year, but surely it would significantly reduce heating bills and must be cost effective in the long run? Energy efficient homes require less heating meaning lower heating bills, lower carbon dioxide emissions and ultimately reduced fuel poverty.
What do all these measures mean in terms of carbon emissions reductions? In all honesty, I have no idea! The environmental impacts of the measures are listed on page 107 of the Budget document. I was hoping to add them all up and present it as a lump of carbon dioxide savings. Unfortunately it’s not quite that straight forward as the ways in which the data are reported is not terribly helpful. If it helps then I think that there will be some reduction in carbon dioxide by 2020. Hopefully the very recently formed Committee on Climate Change, including UKERCs own Professor Jim Skea, will be able to help Government present these figures in a clearer and more transparent way.
So was it a green budget – does it put us clearly on a path towards significant carbon dioxide emissions reductions? No, not really. With just 11 more budgets before the Climate Change Bill 2020 target of a 26% carbon dioxide reduction, based on 1990 levels, we’ll need to see a much greater effort coming through. I think that the Committee on Climate Change will have a vital role in this and wish them good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
