|
| NATURAL ENERGY |
November 5, 2009 |
27 |
| Scrap carbon targets – they’re unachievable…. |
by Nick Rosen
|
| |
Roger Pielke: at last – clear thinking
on carbon ……. what matters is our greedy, wasteful
power companies.
NEXT WEEK (13th November) a major report will
announce that the UK government’s carbon
reduction targets are unachievable and illusory.
The report, from the prestigious Institution of
Mechanical Engineers implies that the official
targets would require the building of 30 Nuclear
power stations in Britain by 2015 (an impossibility),
and IMEchE has called for a huge rise in off-grid
energy production as the only sensible way to
take a big chunk out of UK carbon emissions.
The report is based on ground-breaking academic
research which shows that the UK government is
amongst the most farcical in the world when it
comes to reducing carbon emissions. I MEchE says
that unless the UK massively ramps up “distributed
energy production” the country will only
achieve 25% of its planned carbon reduction, at
most.
The report echoes the announcement last month
from the government’s own Committee for
Climate Change (the CCC) that the aim of reducing
carbon emissions 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 is
never going to happen under current policies.
The Kaya Identity
Both reports are based on the work of an obscure
but brilliant American academic – Roger
Pielke of the University of Colorado. Pielke’s
work unravels the UK Climate Change Act of 2008
by working backwards from the targets set by the
CCC, shows that it would require a revolutionary
change for the targets to be achieved. Pielke’s
work relies on the so-called Kaya Identity which
sets out clearly the only variables that can influence
carbon emissions.
The formula of the Kaya Identity consists of two
primary factors: economic growth (or contraction),
typically represented in terms of GDP, and changes
in technology, typically represented as carbon
dioxide emissions per unit of GDP.
The Kaya Identity looks like this: Carbon dioxide
emissions = population × per capita GDP
× energy intensity × carbon intensity
Each of the two primary factors is typically broken
down into a further two sub-factors. GDP growth
(or contraction) is comprised of changes in population
and in per capita GDP.
Carbon dioxide emissions per unit GDP is represented
by the product of energy intensity, which refers
to energy per unit of GDP and carbon intensity,
which refers to the amount of carbon per unit
of energy. Together the four factors of the Kaya
identity explain the various influences that contribute
to increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide, as follows:
(1) carbon dioxide emissions = population × per
capita GDP × energy intensity × carbon intensity
(2) P = total population
(3) GDP/P = per capita GDP
(a) GDP = economic growth (contraction) = P ×GDP/P
= GDP
(4) energy intensity (EI) = TE/GDP = total energy
(TE) production/GDP
(b) carbon intensity (CI) = C/TE = carbon emissions/total
energy production
(5) EI×CI =‘carbon intensity of the economy’=
TE/GDP×C/TE = C/GDP.
“According to the
logic of these relationships,” says Professor
Pielke, “carbon accumulating in the atmosphere
can be reduced only by reducing (a) population,
(b) per capita GDP, or (c) carbon intensity of
the economy.”
No political will for carbon reduction
Clearly there is no sign of population decreasing
in Britain in the next ten years – quite the opposite
– thanks to the huge rise in immigration and the
higher birth rate of immigrants, forecasters are
expecting double digit growth in the time period.
Nor is there any political will for a further
fall in GDP (such as the one the UK is currently
experiencing). The credit crunch, followed by
the bank bailout means that it would be quite
impossible to sell a fall in economic output to
the British people. The vast debts accumulated
when the country bailed out its banking system
means that GDP has to grow at above trend for
the next decade.
That leaves only one other option
– reducing the carbon-intensity of the economy
– i.e. the rate at which carbon is created per
unit of GDP. But it is literally impossible for
the UK to achieve the rates of “decarbonisation”
needed – rates of about 5% per year – however
many wind farms it builds, and however many nuclear
power plants it (realistically) commissions —
hardly any of which will be in operation by 2020.
“We have the smallest shift to renewables in the
EU,” says British legislator Alan Simpson, MP.
“Ministers and Civil Servants are beholden to
the Big 6 (power companies) to keep the lights
on.
Big Power is the roadblock
The big power companies are allowed a return on investment of 25% according to Simpson, who is energy advisor to Britain’s Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband. And carbon incentive schemes like the Renewables Obligation are “entirely skewed in favour of the big companies.” says Simpson.
So actually one of the main aims of policy should be to reduce total power consumption and clean up the power industry – which has a vested interest in UK PLC continuing to burn energy.
The CCC said: “In the 5 years 2003-2007, emissions reductions averaged 0.5% per annum: going forward, reductions of 2-3%pa will be required to meet the carbon budgets. A step change in the pace of reduction is needed.
Declining economic activity is likely to have produced an emissions cut of around 2% in 2008, and recession could reduce emissions in the first budget period by a total of 40-70 million tonnes. But recession induced reductions must not be confused with underlying progress, which could be undermined by a recession induced fall in the carbon price. The UK should now aim to overachieve emissions reductions in the first budget period.”
Distributed Energy Production
Keith Millard, President,
Institution of Mechanical Engineers said: “the
UK is at a key point in determining how to secure
its future energy supplies. “In the UK, 66% of
our energy use is associated with electricity
and heat sourced from central facilities via the
grid.
“The emissions created by transporting this
electricity and heat mean that there is a genuine
benefit in looking for methods of generating and
supplying energy nearer to its point of use.
“Distributed
Energy Systems, are all about the local supply
of electricity and heat which is generated on
or near the site where it is used rather than
centrally. This will help address a range of issues
in addition to carbon reduction; these are energy
costs, exposure to price volatility, distribution
losses, and energy reliability. In addition, Distributed
Energy Systems can provide opportunities for local
economic development and provide energy for communities
which are off the gas or electricity grids.
“A
Distributed Energy System is a collection of energy
sources, energy storage and distribution linked
to local demand. They may contain a fossil fuel
element (eg a gas-fired combined heat and power
plant) but they will predominantly be based on
local sustainable sources such as waste, geothermal,
wind, biomass or, for coastal sites, wave and
tidal power. They can truly be called a ’system’
when they have some interdependency and indeed
the demand they meet also has some form of control.
The recognisable features are low transmission
distances (and hence losses) and small scale plant
interspersed in other local facilities.”
Roger Pielke said: “The approach to emissions
reduction embodied by the Climate Change Act is
exactly backwards. It begins with setting a target
and then only later do policy makers ask how that
target might be achieved, with no consideration
for whether the target implies realistic or feasible
rates of decarbonization. The uncomfortable reality
is that no one knows how fast a major economy
can decarbonize.
“The failure of the UK Climate
Change Act is yet to be broadly recognized, but
when it is, it will provide an opportunity to
recast carbon policies in a more effective manner….
Setting targets and timetables for sectoral efficiency
gains and expansion of carbon-free energy supply
would be a step in the right direction. Such a
policy focused on incremental improvements in
decarbonisation offers the only feasible approach
to the challenge of mitigation. |
|
|
|
|
