Greening Gas

 

Gas (methane) is a useful fuel. It is easy to store and can be transmitted long distances with low energy losses. And it’s cleaner to burn than coal. Moreover, relatively cheap and flexible gas-fired power plants are useful for providing grid balancing for variable renewables. However, natural gas won’t last forever, even with a shale gas input, and in any case, as a fossil fuel, we ought to be reducing its use to avoid carbon emissions. So what’s the alternative?

The most obvious non-fossil ‘renewable gas’ is that produced directly from biomass i.e. biogas, biomethane generated via anaerobic digestion of biomass and wastes, and used as a fuel. Biomass can also be gasified at high temperatures or converted into liquid biofuels via medium temperature pyrolysis. You can also make synthetic methane using other renewable sources e.g. by using wind-derived electricity to electrolyse water to make hydrogen and then convert that to methane using carbon dioxide from the air or from power plant exhausts. This ‘wind-to-gas’ idea is being developed in Germany for grid injection and also for vehicle fuel production. There is also some interest in this idea in the UK: http://www.gridgas.co.uk/partners.html

However these two ‘green’ sources of non-fossil methane will take time to expand. The multiple-stage wind-to-gas option is going to be expensive and some see biomass as being relatively limited given land-use constraints.  Wider use of food and agricultural wastes may change that (though we ought to reduce these wastes at source), and if it is (effectively free) surplus wind power that is being used to make syngas, then the costs are lower.  Even so it will take time.

So what can be done in the interim?  Well there is a range of low-carbon fossil gas conversion options which may been seen as transitional technologies, making use of fossil fuels, but laying the basis for a low carbon energy system. There are a number of industrial processes, including waste management processes, which can be used to make low carbon synfuels and hydrogen gas from, initially, fossil fuels or some wastes, but which might also later use 100% biomass. The gasification or pyrolysis of fossil fuels can produce a range of fuels which, and if the process is combined with carbon capture, can be low carbon overall, and in time the fossil feedstock can be replaced with biomass, making it potentially carbon negative. One even more advanced idea is to use green hydrogen (e.g. from wind powered electrolysis) to upgrade biogas to higher value synfuel, thus reducing the biomass land area/kWh needed.

What we are seeing with ideas like this is clever ‘green chemistry’, playing with carbon and hydrogen to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, initially using fossil energy and fossil feed stocks, but increasingly using renewable sources and feedstocks, including biomass and even carbon from the air, to make low carbon renewable fuel as an alternative to fossil gas.  Biomethane production via AD is of course quite widespread and there is some hydrogen production via gasification. Germany may be leading, but the UK government also seems keen to press ahead. In its report on energy networks last year it said ‘‘innovative alternatives to natural gas, such as biomethane, low carbon hydrogen and gas from anaerobic digestion plants are potential ways of maintaining the existing gas grid while reducing our reliance on fossil fuel gas.’

www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-uk-energy-investment-networks-2014

There are of course limits.  As noted above, land-use is a key issue. Biomass is land (and water) hungry. Its large-scale production for energy use may undermine natural carbon sinks and local biodiversity and possibly lead to conflicts with food production. Especially if we are talking about large plantations producing biofuels for vehicle use.  Producing renewable gas would however only be a subset of biomass use and many of the techniques being developed for its production and use are less environmentally aggressive than those for mass-burn power production e.g. using forest-derived wood pellets to fire large converted coal plants. For example, AD biogas production can be done at a range of scales and with a range of farm and other wastes.  Some environmentalists worry that the interim continued use of fossil fuels, albeit at least partly decarbonised via CCS or other carbon cycling approaches, will delay the development of fully renewable systems, but the pragmatic view is that these interim approaches will lay the basis for a fully sustainable biomass based system later on. The debate goes on, although usually focused on specific projects. For example, while some environmentalists are often concerned about emissions from some waste combustion plants, gasification and pyrolysis are usually seen as a less problematic. It may all come down to need to proper, and convincing, regulation.

As can be seen, it’s a complex field, still under development, but the potential does seem to be there for non-fossil gas to replace at least some fossil gas long term and for clever green chemistry and biology to allow for the production of interim cleaner synfuels. 

For an overview of all the options and a review of some pioneering examples, in the food industry waste management field especially, see ‘Renewable gas’, Jo Abbess, Palgrave. She doesn't cover AD in so much detail. For that see a Routledge  book, ‘Bioenergy Production by Anaerobic Digestion’ Edited by Nicholas E. Korres, Padraig O'Kiely, John A.H. Benzie, Jonathan S. West,  and ‘Anaerobic Digestion - Making Biogas - Making Energy’, The Earthscan Expert Guide, by Tim Pullen.  Stewart Boyle’s ‘The Sleeping Giant Awakes’ is also worth looking at.

Climate Uncertainties

 

There are uncertainties and conflicting views on some of the interactions involved in the climate system. Much has been made of the apparent slow down in average global temperature rises in recent years. Indeed some sceptics claim that this refutes all the climate models, with some pointing to a 17 year or more period when the running average did not indicate a rise. Explanations have been offered, for example suggesting that the heat has been absorbed in the depths of the oceans, but there is much debate about causes and effects, with some saying that the temperature pause may last for up to 20 years.  www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988 and  http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The debate goes on. For example, here are two more or less diametrically opposed accounts of the impacts of water vapour on warming, as relayed in the media. One says humidity levels in the upper atmosphere are increasing, as predicted by the climate models, the other say they are falling, and disproves the models:

www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/13/global-warming-moistening-the-atmosphere  and www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/

 

And this adjusts the story to fit! http://theconversation.com/study-vindicates-climate-models-accused-of-missing-the-pause-29477 Though this seems like one of the best explanations for the ‘pause’ so far: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/July-2015/Steps-and-cycles

Then again it is always possible that new explanations for at least some of the warming may emerge e.g: http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/astronomy-paper-implies-solar-role-in-climate-change.html  as well as new thinking on the basics: http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

However new ideas, debate and conflicts are the lifeblood of science, which moves through periods of doubt and then consensus. At present, the vast majority of climate scientists- up to 97%- are said to believe in human induced climate change: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article (though see: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003759)

This contrasts strongly with the results of a UK public opinion survey by ComRes for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a non-profit initiative with an Advisory Board including MPs, Peers and leading academics, which found that only 11% of their sample were aware of the strength of the scientific consensus, while 47% thought either that most climate scientists reject the idea that human activities are the main driver of climate change (11%), or that scientists are evenly split on the issue (35%). www.comres.co.uk

For its part though, the Global Warming Policy Foundation quoted an American Meteorological Society poll of their membership, which showed only 52% felt that global warming was mostly man-made. http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=c1d9a193f3&e=7dd8204640

Moreover nearly three-quarters of UK Conservative MPs did not accept that climate change has been proven to be caused by human activity, according to a Populus poll of 119 MPs from all parties. www.thegwpf.com/overwhelming-majority-of-conservative-mps-are-climate-sceptics/ 

What about the public? 500,000 or so people took part in climate protests around the world in 2014, including 300,000 in the USA, and big marches in London and Melbourne. In a Populus UK public opinion poll, 73% wanted world leaders to agree a global deal and 66% thought action must happen now, only 20% felt it could wait a few years. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-want-urgent-global-action-to-tackle-climate-change

However the barrage of contrarian views, as relayed by the media, seems to have had a  major impact in some countries, the US in particular, where global warming and responses to it are very politicised issues. Given that the USA has experienced many severe weather-related shocks in recent years, this may be surprising, but it remains the case that no one weather event can necessarily be directly liked to climate change. 

There is a huge social and political science agenda here- concerning how views are formed and changed.   www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000073

This debate also obviously involves climate scientists. Those who are professionally convinced that climate change is real and significant can get somewhat annoyed by the campaigns mounted by contrarian groups, especially if these groups are backed, as it is sometimes alleged, by fossil fuel interests. There may be a temptation to enter the fray, and certainly some do make public statements. On the other side of the fence, some scientists (a small number) have joined or support contrarian groups and risk approbation from their colleagues and the media.  

For example, the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), set up by Lord Lawson, is well known for its often strident lobbying on energy/climate issues, backed up by reports from academics evidently sympathetic to its views, overseen by an Advisory Council. It recently made much of the resignation of one such, who claims to have been subject to peer pressure to distance himself from the GWPF.www.thegwpf.org/the-bengtsson-affair-and-the-global-warming-policy-foundation/

The climate debate has certainly been bitter at times, with on one hand, skeptics alleging that the official IPCC stance is unduly politically shaped and, on the other, attacks being made on contrarians. Sometimes this can involve attempts to discredit individuals and their work. Since academics of all types and persuasions can and do align themselves with lobby groups, and go public, they do risk charges of bias.  That’s arguably fair enough- it comes with the territory. But personal attacks are surely much less justifiable. Although identifying political and institutional affiliations may be valid, in general critics should play the ball, not the man (or woman). While many do not see GWPF and similar groups as making a helpful contribution, the debate has to continue, with heretical and ‘outlier’ views playing their part. That surely is how good science is done. Though there must be limits! It’s pretty clear that the world is not flat…

However getting the right balance can be hard. A 2014 report by the UK Science and Technology Select Committee said that the Government was failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public. The Chair of the Committee said: ‘The Government's hands-off approach to engaging with the public and the media, relying heavily on scientists as the most prominent voice, has a resulted in a vacuum that has allowed inaccurate arguments to flourish with little effective challenge. Science is the ultimate sceptic, challenging theories and opinion and ready to abandon or adapt as the available evidence changes. Genuine scepticism should be embraced by the climate science community. Dogma on either side of the debate should be revealed as such.’ 

The Committee also accused the BBC of misleading the public about climate change, creating a ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified climate sceptics too much air time and giving opinion the same weight as fact.

There certainly have been some odd notions expressed in the media, as well as claims of inaccuracies by some participants: e.g. in relation to the cost of climate change: www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2014/March/Errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change.aspx 

See also: www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/04/calculating-damages-how-much-will-climate-change-cost/?

The debate on policy, and on the science, continues… with James Lovelock saying ‘It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain’. Is he right?

Climate and Energy Targets

The joint announcements of new emission policies and energy targets by China and the USA last year set the scene for the next and some say crucial, if not final, round of UN FCCC climate talks in Paris later this year- COP 21.

Following on from its earlier announcement of a target of cutting emissions from existing power plants by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, the USA’s proposals was for an at least 26% overall emission cut by 2025, and maybe 28%. That was matched by China’s commitment to stabilise emissions by around 2030.  These new policies raised hopes that the rest of world might now adopt progressive policies. Chinese President Xi JinPing said ‘we agreed to make sure that international climate change negotiations will reach an agreement in Paris’. Though it had not yet set a specific target, he said China would seek to cap its emissions by 2030 and would make ‘best efforts to peak early’.  To that end, a new target was set of getting 20% of China’s energy from non fossil sources by 2030, up from around 13% now, with renewables dominating.

However some saw the Chinese commitment as minimal, given that it was now a major emitter:  http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/climatechange-china-usa-kemp-idUKL6N0T22IU20141112 Indeed some US Republicans felt that China was being let off the hook, while the US made punishing commitments: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-congressional-leaders-denounce-us-china-deal-on-climate-change/2014/11/12/ff2b84e0-6a8d-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

Moreover, 2030 is some way off, and some worried that this commitment would require little more than what would happen anyway, as fossil reserves depleted and non fossil options expanded: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/clinton-well-gore-went-to-kyoto-obama-went-to-beijing That is very unclear: China’s economy is still expanding fast (7% p.a), so it will have to take positive action- and it is pushing renewables very hard.  Indeed it leads the world. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2639170/china_leads_the_world_in_green_energy_despite_us_senate_leader_do_nothing_claims.html

And, although it will clearly have its work cut out to hold emissions down, politically the new climate policy is surely it’s a step forward for China, especially given its worries about global imbalance issues and the view that the historically heavy polluters, who so far have benefited from be able to pollute without constraint, should bear the brunt of the responsibility for reducing emission now and for helping other to do so:  www.businessinsider.com/afp-china-insists-wealthy-countries-should-improve-emission-targets-2014-9  

Those issues haven’t gone away and resurfaced at the COP 20 UN gathering in Peru last December: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-climatechange-lima-emissions-idUKKCN0JG2LQ20141202. And while some in the West welcomed  the Chinese-US moves, there were some views from outsiders that were less favorable. 

The Indian Down to Earth environmental lobby organisation argued that the US-Chinese accord was in fact a stitch up – it was too limited and left the rest of the world out. Its editorial focused on ‘carbon per capita’, which, while perhaps reflecting a degree of social equity, of course favours China with its huge population, and disguises the fact that it absolute emission are, and will still be, higher than any other country. But even on that basis the deal is seen as unfair. The editorial  suggested that the deal meant that  ‘the US and China have agreed to “equalise” their emissions by 2030. Both countries would have “equal” per capita emissions in 2030. The US would reduce emissions marginally from its current 18 tonnes per capita and China would increase from its current seven-eight tonnes. Both the polluters would converge at 12-14 tonnes per person per year. This is when the planet can effectively absorb and naturally cleanse emissions not more than two tonnes per person per year.’

So it's ‘contract and converge’ on a per capita basis, but without a low enough carbon target. Moreover, the editorial continues, perhaps a little disingenuously, the deal in effect lays claim to a large share of global future emission rights: ‘the cake is carved up in such a manner that each country would occupy equal atmospheric space by 2030. We know that countries have a cumulative share of emissions in the atmosphere. The US-China deal makes it clear that both the countries individually get 16 per cent of the atmospheric space by 2030. The problem is that the occupier gets it all. This deal has defined equity as good for the US and China, but bad for the planet. At this level of emissions, the world will definitely cross the 2°C mark and go towards 4-5°C, unless India, Brazil, South Africa and all the rest of the emerging world stop their emissions right now.’

Well yes, it does inevitably put pressure on others to come up with plans and ideally better plans, so to a degree it is unfair, expecting poorer countries to do more than rich countries.  The Editorial concludes ‘it is not in our interest to believe that the US-China deal is good for the world. It sets the world on a dangerous path where all countries will want their right to pollute. It is in our interest to demand that the US and China must reduce emissions at the scale and pace needed to ensure that the world stays below the danger mark. It is in our interest to demand that we will all accept limits, but based on equity’. www.downtoearth.org.in/content/us-china-climate-deal-maker-or-breaker

India of course also has a large population, and although its economy is not yet expanding on the same scale as China, it is moving ahead and so are its emission. But it seems reluctant to limit expansion of coal use, and, though it is now pushing renewables hard (with a 170GW by 2022, 15% target), it's also pushing nuclear hard. A mixed bag

What about Europe?  The EU has set a new target of a 40% cut in emissions by 2030, far more than either the USA or China.  So it might be seen as a more equitable effort, although that was conditional on other countries also setting high targets.  Some may, others wont- notably Australia, which is in the process of abandoning most of its climate policies.  With COP 21 coming up soon in Paris, we will no doubt get to see what happens. Russia and Canada have offered to make 30% cuts by 2030, Japan 26%.

  

What’s the bottom line?  The US policy is helpful (though opposed by the right), the EU commitment is welcome (though opposed by some member states) and China is making changes (if only slowly). But the problem is significant. China had previously committed to cutting its carbon intensity i.e. CO2 /GNP, by 40-45% by 2020, compared to 2005 levels (a 29% cut had already been achieved), but that would still have allowed for continued growth in absolute emissions- which will rise to very high levels. Reuters was told that emissions were likely to peak at around 11bn tonnes CO2 equivalent, up from 7-9.5bn t CO2e now, by 2030. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/china-climatechange-idUKL4N0OQ0WB20140609 But even if they are stabilised at that level, as is now proposed, and then reduced a bit, they will still be way ahead of the emissions from all other countries.  It’s good to see some progress, with China’s emissions apparently falling (by 5%) in the first four months of 2015, but there is a long way to go. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year

That certainly seems to be the message from the weak target recently agreed by the G7 group of industrial countries, to try to phase out fossil fuel use globally by the end of the century…Let’s hope COP 21 can do a bit better.  

                                                                                                                                  

Energy Storage

 

Energy storage has come to the fore as a major issue over the last year, in part because of concerns about the increasing use of variable renewables, but also since it is claimed cheaper energy storage systems have emerged- batteries in particular. For example it been suggested that consumer could have cheap battery stores to back up output from their own roof top PV arrays. Some see Tesla’s new 7/10kWh Powerwall as a breakthrough: www.teslamotors.com/powerwall  Meanwhile a variety of large-scale storage options are available, or emerging, to help balance the grid when renewables like wind are low. The most obvious is to use hydro reservoirs for pumped storage: http://www.consultkirby.com/files/NREL-CP-5500-58655_Role_of_Pumped_Storage.pdf  

Problem solved!

Sadly, it is not as simple as it may seem. For example, there may be limits to the amount  pumped storage capacity than can be developed, and, although costs are falling, batteries are still pricey. Moreover, given lucrative Feed in Tariff export payments, there is no incentive for domestic PV ‘prosumers’ to store, rather than sell, any of the excess power they generate: www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/10/viable-battery-backup-for-rooftop-solar-still-years-away.

It is also important to establish exactly what we are talking about here: renewables like wind and solar PV, have short-term variability, which can be dealt with by the normal grid balancing system, with for example, gas-fired plants being run up and down in rapid, short-term, response. Smart-grid demand-management systems can also help, delaying demand peaks. Energy storage systems, large and small, can also play a role, though at present they are mostly much more expensive than using back-up plants. But that may change, in some circumstances. For example see http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/16/where-battery-storage-will-provide-most-peaking-capacity/. 

However, that is only part of the story. Renewable inputs can also vary over longer periods- e.g. there can be long lulls in wind availability, over days or even weeks.  If there are several different types of renewable on the grid, this may not matter much, since the lulls may not coincide: it’s often sunny when its not windy and vice versa, waves are in effect stored wind and tidal variations are unrelated to solar or wind. But if there is, for example, a large amount of wind capacity on the grid, as is likely in the future, there will be times when extra input will be needed. In theory, some storage systems can help with this, depending on the scale of the shortfall and its duration.  Unfortunately though, conventional batteries can’t help for more than a few hours and even large pumped hydro reservoirs are unlikely to be able to store more than around a few days worth of energy. Similarly for large underground compressed air storage systems: www.gaelectric.ie/index.php/energy-storage. And also possibly for ‘liquid air’ cryogenic systems: www.highview-power.com/.

This though is not a big problem, since the already existing gas-plants can be run up to fill the gap- and gas can be stored for any length of time.  Increasingly these plants, or replacements, can use green gas, biogas or gas produced by electrolysis using surplus wind derived power, rather than fossil gas, so that emissions can be avoided. Biomass and biogas can be easily stored for long periods. Some other renewables can also help during wind and/or solar lulls. Like biomass, geothermal and hydro are ‘firm’ continuous energy sources. In addition, heat can be stored and used to balance energy supply and demand. For example, if coupled with a heat store, a Combined Heat and Power plant  system, running on gas (perhaps soon green gas) can be used very flexibly for grid balancing. If there is too much wind generation and low demand, the CHP unit can switch to producing heat, for storage if it is not needed immediately. If wind is low and demand for electricity high, the power output from the CHP plant can be ramped up and heat supplied, if needed, from the store.  Heat can be stored for a relatively long time with low loses – there are even interseasonal heat stores, storing summer solar heat for winter use : ww.icax.co.uk/interseasonal_heat_transfer.html 

Heat storage makes most sense on a large scale, since the surface area to volume ratio decreases  with size, thus reducing energy losses. But there are some small scale options which, although less efficient, might catch on. For example home heat storage using immersion heaters run off domestic PV solar: www.immersun.co.uk There is an interesting debate over whether that makes sense compared, for example, to battery storage or direct solar heating!

So what is the bottom line?  Which approach will win out? Costs will shape the choice, (£200/kWh is often seen as the bench mark), but so will convenience and impacts.  We are happy to pay vastly over the odds (in £/kWh terms) for small portable energy systems- torch or laptop batteries for example.  At the other end of the scale, some cheaper energy storage systems take up a lot of room and can only be located in specific places- pumped hydro for example. In addition, the choice of system depends crucially on the end-use requirement, whether its for fast short-term power back-up, or for longer term reserve capacity.  

Assessments vary, and there are may new ideas emerging, for example for flow batteries: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2014/EE/C4EE02158D  And even ‘outlier’ ideas like mass/gravity storage: www.gravitypower.net/  But a review by the UK Energy Technologies Institute seemed to suggest that, overall for medium term grid balancing, district heating stores had the best prospects. In one of their scenarios it dominated by 2050, offering much more than anything else, including pumped hydro, the currently dominant option, presumably because there isn’t enough room in the UK for a lot more pumped hydro capacity: www.eti.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/All-Energy-Storage-May-14-Phil-Proctor.pdf and www.eti.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Energy-Storage-The-Engineer-Conference-v3-CLEAN.pdf

The debate over storage can get heated at times- unsurprisingly since potentially there is a lot of money involved. One estimate is that the global market could have a net worth of $10.8 bn by 2018. There are also major strategic issues and disagreements. Some of them came to the surface in Germany last year when the Agora consultancy claimed that, over the next 10 to 20 years, the use of energy storage was not likely to be a more effective for allowing renewables to be integrated into the grid than a mixture of other options giving energy systems more flexibility. The chair of the German DENA energy agency responded, a little bitterly, ‘electricity storage facilities are essential for the energy turnaround. Anyone who alleges otherwise is damaging the energy turnaround and, in the end, is risking the supply security in Germany’.   http://www.dena.de/en/press-releases/pressemitteilungen/dena-fordert-stromspeicher-muessen-zuegig-ausgebaut-werden.html

For what it’s worth, the International Energy Agency, says, in its Energy Technology Perspectives 2014, ‘Electricity storage is expected to play multiple roles in future energy systems, but it is unlikely to be a transformative force itself. At current costs and performance levels, particularly for high-power and high-energy applications, it falls short of delivering the conceptual flexibility potential when compared with competing options’.  But they could be wrong!

For more on storage see www.electricitystorage.org/  and www.theiet.org/factfiles/energy/energy-storage-page.cfm  along with POST’s new briefing note: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-492/energy-storage

Energy, environment and growth

 

The Cambridge Econometrics’ report for WWF last year claimed that the UK climate plan would by 2030 add £565 to the average household income, increase GDP by 1.1% and create 190,000 jobs while cutting emissions by 60%.

www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/tackling_climate_change/how_we_re_tackling_climate_change/our_climate_work_in_the_uk/the_value_of_a_low_carbon_britain

DECC has made similar claims about the benefits and viability of it’s ‘green growth’ plan: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prosperity-and-growth-hand-in-hand-with-carbon-reduction

So is it really possible to have economic growth, while cutting carbon emissions? Some say that this might be possible in some affluent countries, since they can export their dirty industrial activities and /or import produce produced (along with emissions) elsewhere. But the report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate ‘Better Growth, Better Climate’, says that economic growth and action on climate change can now be both be achieved everywhere.  It claims that there are major opportunities in three key sectors of the global economy – cities, land use, energy. By improving efficiency, investing in infrastructure and stimulating innovation across these sectors and the wider economy, governments and businesses can it says deliver strong growth with lower emissions.

The Commissions chair, former President of Mexico Felipe Calderón, said the report ‘refutes the idea that we must choose between fighting climate change or growing the world’s economy. That is a false dilemma,’ and  ‘shows how technological  and structural change are driving new opportunities to improve growth, create jobs, boost company profits and spur economic development.’ http://newclimateeconomy.report/

Lord Stern, one of the Commission team, has stressed that what’s changed is that, crucially, renewables are now getting cheap and we are also realising that the cost of continuing to use fossil fuels is not just their ever rising direct costs, as resources deplete, or the huge social and environmental impacts of climate change, growing long term, but also the huge and immediate health costs of emissions from coal - as witnessed by the air pollution crisis in some cities in China.  It’s said that this is costing around 10% of their GNP. It’s getting similar elsewhere. So now making the transition to renewables and fuel use efficiency  makes massive economic sense and will strengthen economies.

It’s certainly clear that innovation, increased efficiency and fuel subsitution can reduce impacts, but on a finite planet surely there have to be limits on consumption at some point? Renewables can, at least in theory, progressively replace all fossil and fissile fuels. We can haggle over how long that might take (30-50 years?), and over what to do meanwhile. But by 2050 we ought to be on the way to a sustainable energy system, in terms of energy resource use. However there may be other resource limits which might constrain that global project- the most obvious being land. That could limit how much biomass we can rely on.  Wind (increasingly offshore), solar (on roof tops) may not be land use limited, but there may be material constrains – ‘rare earth’ minerals especially, although substitute may be found and recycling practiced.   Water is another issue. Unlike fossil and nuclear plants, most renewabes do not need it for cooling, with the exception of Concentrated Solar Power plants, and water is not something easily available is desert areas where they would be mostly located.  But they can also be air cooled and water can be piped from the sea.

The general point is that there are, potentially, technical fixes to most problems like this.  Which means we can have growth in energy use, should we want it. Of course we must reduce energy waste as much as possible- energy efficient energy use is vital. It saves money and resources and makes it easier for renewables to meet needs.  It also reduces any social and environmental impacts from using renewables- they may be small and local, but we want to minimize them. 

What about other limits to growth?  There are absolute limits to how much energy we can extract from natural energy flows and the sun’s energy input to the planet, but these are some way off- e.g. there are plenty of desert areas for solar and sea for offshore wind, wave and tidal projects. By contrast, if we continue to expand our economic, industrial and agricultural activities, we may come up against other limits much sooner. Again land - and water- are obvious issues. To some extent you can use energy to make fresh water (by desalination) but you can’t make land, and although we have learnt how to use energy to increase the productivity of land, this can be at the expense of soil quality.  And, more generally, the continued growth of a consumer society of the current type is perhaps not something everyone wants – except perhaps those who are currently excluded from it!

The ‘green growth’ view is that all can share in it, but of course that ignores the vast inequalities and imbalances that exist at present. As with all economic growth, the benefits may only trickle down slowly and partially to the poorest, reinforced by competitive pressures and the grim reality that the poor don't consume as much as the rich. And at best, as the global population grows, and if affluence spreads, we may still hit material limits imposed by the carrying capacity of the planet.  Some greens think we already have and in any case object to what they see as soulless consumer lifestyles. They seek a shift to a steady state global economy, freed from endless pressure to keep expanding so as to sustain the skewed social structure and rapacious economy. Certainly a shift to a more sustainable approach to consumption would have many benefits, as Tim Jackson highlighted in his seminal study ‘Prosperity without growth’, although winning over the global majority to that view may prove hard: rising consumption is an endemic expectation in most cultures: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781844078943/

Ultimately though we may have no choice. The big question is whether we need to start on that now, or, if as some fear, it’s already too late and we have it forced on us.  

For an optimistic ‘deep green’ views see: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-04/how-to-shrink-the-economy-without-crashing-it-a-ten-point-plan and http://earthconnected.net/egaia-2nd-edition/buy-or-download-egaia/

Energy Saving

 It’s usually agreed that investing in energy saving measures is the cheapest energy option. But when it comes to actual programmes,  energy saving is nearly always the cinderella option. Last year, after a long delay, as part of its target to cut carbon emissions by 40%, the European Commission (EC) suggested an energy efficiency target of a 30% primary energy reduction by 2030, to follow on from the current ‘20% by 2020’ target. That’s pretty limited.  One perverse issue was that a higher level of efficiency would undermine the EU Emissions Trading Scheme -the carbon price would fall as there would be less carbon to trade! Greenpeace saw the 30% target as ‘gutless’. It had come up with its own 2030 targets - a 45% share of renewables, 40% energy savings (compared to 2005) and a 55% cut in domestic CO2 emissions (compared to 1990). That, it said, would cut annual imports of fossil fuels dramatically, with by 2030, gas imports cut by 35% and oil imports 45%. As coal power plants were phased out in the 2030s, coal imports would cease altogether before the end of the next decade. But it was not to be, and we’re stuck with a proposed 30% overall reduction non-mandatory target

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/events/2014_energy_efficiency_communication_en.htm

One problem is that we are trying to hit a moving target- energy use in most sectors  keeps growing and if energy use become cheaper, due to the development of more efficient end use technologies, we may use even more of it. That's’ the so-called rebound effect.  Cash savings from energy efficiency are re-spent on extra energy based goods and services, so that overall energy use may not fall significantly. Maybe 40% or more of the gains may be wiped out. http://e2e.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/workingpapers/WP013.pdf

One area of growth is computing and telecoms and the networking systems that enable it.  In a new report the International Energy Agency (IEA) says electricity demand of our increasingly digital economies is growing at an alarming rate. While data centre energy demand has received much attention, of greater cause for concern is the growing energy demand of billions of networked devices such as smart phones, tablets and set-top boxes. In 2013, a relatively small portion of the world's population relied on more than 14 billion of these devices to stay connected. The IEA says that number could skyrocket to 500 billion by 2050, driving dramatic increases in both energy demand and wasted energy.

Being connected 24/7 means these information and communication technology (ICT) devices draw energy all the time, even when in standby mode. The IEA probes their hidden energy costs. In 2013, such devices consumed 616 TWh of electricity, surpassing the total electricity consumption of Canada. Studies show that for some devices, such as game consoles, up to 80% of the energy consumption is used just to maintain a network connection.  Implementing best available technologies could it says reduce the energy demand of network-enabled devices by up to 65%. But in the absence of strong market drivers to optimise the energy performance of these devices, policy intervention is needed. Building on its experience in setting international policy for standby energy consumption of stand-alone devices, the IEA tries to tackle the much bigger challenge of network standby. But it’s tough: the IEA says there is a need for international co-operation across all parts of the ICT value chain.  www.iea.org/etp/networkstandby

Another big area is of course energy use in buildings- for heating lighting and  increasingly cooling.  There are houses around which can reduce energy losses and use dramatically via proper attention to insulation and building envelop design. See the IEAs recent report: www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapEnergyEfficientBuildingEnvelopes.pdf

It's a booming field with the emphasis often on new build, but there are also retrofit options for existing and refurbished buildings: http://greenbuildingmagazine.co.uk/

  Certainly there is no shortage of technology and advice, e.g.  in the UK: http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ 

However these technologies cost money and it’s not always easy to assess the real world cost effectiveness of energy efficiency measures. Indeed some say that in some situations it’s more expensive to rehab an old building with insulation upgrades than to link it to a district heating  (DH) network fed by a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant. It certainly can get pricey for high levels of energy saving, especially for hard to access high rises, but also, some say, for old terraced houses. More maybe than from CHP/DH, if available, since that has low marginal costs. A SETIS JRC study claims that CHP/DH has a lower capital cost/tonne CO2 saved than renovation. http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/JRCDistrictheatingandcooling.pdf

The superinsulation and Passivhaus lobby however thinks otherwise. And there is certainly a strong case for this approach: http://energytransition.de/2014/05/the-winner-is-passive-house/  But the debate over who is right and what to do will run and run! It is true that CHP/DH heat is in effect free (it’s energy that would otherwise be wasted), but the plants and the pipes are not, and take time to install, whereas insulation is fast. Though fully airtight buildings can have air quality/damp problems. And despite years of monitoring, evidently we actually don't know enough about real house performance even in simply physical terms: www.bpie.eu/eu_buildings_under_microscope.html#.U0gd2bw2ZO0

There is also the problem that actual energy use depends on resident’s behaviour and lifestyle –e.g. in the worst case, they may just open doors or windows when it gets too hot! Or plug in fires when it gets too cold. And we have only just got started on smart metering and similar approaches which might change behavioural  patterns. While for good or ill, full-on domestic energy or carbon rationing/trading approaches are long off. So it’s perhaps not surprising then that technical approaches are favoured. 

Certainly gains can be made. In the UK DECC says the costs of household appliance use has fallen by up to a half in some cases, due to the various device efficiency upgrades/standards. www.gov.uk/government/news/dramatic-fall-in-cost-of-running-household-goods And CHP/DH projects are at last getting going in the UK, e.g see www.cospp.com/articles/2014/04/2-6m-central-london-district-heating-contract-awarded.html But there is also a need to build houses properly. Here’s a good practice low energy housing guide: www.gbpn.org/reports/best-practice-policies-low-carbon-energy-buildings-based-scenario-analysis.  And some rehab/ retrofit examples: www.lowenergybuildings.org.uk/projectbrowser.php?fmd=0  And TSB’s analysis: www.innovateuk.org/retrofit-analysis 

However there is clearly still a long way to go in this sector.  It’s similar in other sectors, for example industry, although the clear economic benefits of saving energy have meant that action has been taken, especially by companies involved with energy intensive production like aluminium smelting and steel making.  Savings of up to 40% are deemed possible in some sectors, maybe more long term. There is all to play for. www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/edr/edr.aspx

Germany and France currently have targets of cutting overall energy use by 50% by 2050, which means all of the above plus serious attention to transport – the hardest nut to crack of all. But that deserves a post of its own.  Can it all be done- 50% cuts and even beyond?  Probably not without behavioural changes. But that too is another story!