| Questions & Answers |
|
|
|
What is zerocarbonbritain?zerocarbonbritain is an updated version of a UK energy strategy developed by the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT), based on over 30 years of research. It addresses the global crisis which has arisen out of the increasing problems of climate change, resource depletion and global inequity. The strategy is split into two parts. The first part is composed of a recommendation for an effective energy policy at international and national level. The second details one possible scenario: Island Britain, an energy model which illustrates the extent to which such a policy framework can shape the future of Britain’s energy production and consumption. It must be emphasised that the Island Britain scenario is illustrative, not prescriptive. In other words it demonstrates that Britain is already capable of becoming zero carbon and self-sufficient, all the while supporting high levels of well being for the population. Realistically Britain will still be part of the global network, enabling us to import and export energy, such as importing biomass from Scandinavia or exporting electricity from our huge wind resource. Such links will simply make zerocarbonbritain cheaper and easier. Who is the report aimed at?Primarily, the strategy is intended to act as a reference point for politicians and policy makers. It is also intended to spur discussion and debate amongst the whole of society. Who wrote it and who supports it?zerocarbonbritain is a collaboration between the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT), its Graduade School for the Environment, and, Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC):
Contributing authors include: Tim Helweg-Larsen, Jamie Bull, Paul Allen, Peter Harper, Peter Meirion-Jones, Tariq Abdulla, Richard Hampton, James Livingstone, Nick Swallow, Linda Forbes, Sue Waring, Duncan Josh, Gavin Harper, Arthur Girling and Jo Abbess. It was peer reviewed by Godfrey Boyle from the Open University, an engineer and author of numerous books on renewable energy. He concludes that it is technically achievable and should be adopted by politicians. The foreword is by Sir John Houghton, former Co-chair of the IPCC and former Director General of the UK Met Office. It has also been reviewed and supported by Richard Blanchard, Brenda Boardman, Colin Campbell, Rod Edwards, Rob Hopkins, Gavin Killip, Sarah Mander, Bob Todd, John Twidell, David Wasdell as well as the entire CAT team. How long did it take?The report took one year to write. It is a 30 year update of CATs 1977 Alternative Energy Strategy (AES 77), which was the first of its kind. The motivation behind it was a realization that conventional energy sources (both fossil fuel and nuclear) were ultimately finite, along with growing awareness of some of the environmental hazards posed by their continued and growing use. AES 77 showed Britain’s energy demand could be reduced and our renewable energy generation increased, in order to reduce damaging emissions and slow the rate of resource depletion. Its approach was poles apart from the mainstream thinking of the day, in which energy demand was predicted to continue the near-exponential growth it had undergone since the end of World War 2. CATs vision shaped the thinking, if not the action of the Britain’s policy-makers. Its approach influenced energy ministers from Tony Benn to John Battle, showing how energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources could be integrated into a viable new policy for Britian. Can I get a copy?Yes, it’s available free to download from the website, or colour hardcopies are available for £15 (plus p+p). Just go to our homepage and click on ‘downloads’ in the menu bar. How can I get involved?Of course, we encourage your support and there are several ways which you can help. Go to ‘Join Us’ on the homepage or download our lobby information. What do you mean by ‘zero-carbon’?The term zero-carbon refers to an economy where there are no carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil etc.). What about harmful pollutants other than carbon dioxide?As an energy strategy zerocarbonbritain only considers greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Other greenhouse gas emissions (for example methane that is released from areas such as life-stock and agriculture) will also need budgeting. This will need a different framework and we will continue researching ways of minimising all greenhouse gas emissions. What is the latest climate science that the report responds to?To answer this question, it is essential first to understand the distinction between global warming and radiative forcing. Global warming is the measurable rise in temperature of the atmosphere at the Earth’s surface, and is the result of radiative forcing. Radiative forcing results from an imbalance between the radiative energy received by the Earth, and the energy radiated from the Earth back into space. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act like a blanket around the planet resulting in more energy entering than escaping: causing a radiative forcing. Much of the energy has been absorbed by the actions of melting ice and evaporating water. Both are very energy-intensive processes, although they do not cause a net increase in temperature. So the energy absorbed in these phase changes remains in the Earth system, though it does not result in temperature rise. Radiative feedback is the climates response to radiative forcing: Either amplifying the effect (a positive feedback) or dampening it (a negative feedback). What is of fundamental concern is the potentially overwhelming effect of a number of interrelated, positive feedbacks, initiated by external forcings (principally greenhouse gases). It now seems that positive feedbacks are dominating negative feedbacks. Some examples of positive feedbacks include:
Evidence now shows that, to varying extents, each of the feedbacks listed above is now in operation. It is imperative that their progress is effectively countered before they become irrepressible. Why 2027?Climate change science testifies to the urgent need for our planet to become zero-carbon. We need to balance radiative forcing as soon as possible – maybe today. This is an emergency situation so calculations were made to see how quickly it could realistically be done. The authors have shown that is technically achievable in two decades. Is the strategy based on sound economic theory?zerocarbonbritain is based upon a global strategy for Contraction and Convergence (C&C) which is facilitated on a national level by Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs), allocating carbon allowances amongst individuals and businesses. Both of these are the most economically efficient methods of dramatically reducing our current emissions levels. However, a detailed economic analysis of our energy model is not contained within the current report and will be an area our continued research now focuses on. What is Contraction and Convergence (C&C)?Contraction and Convergence, proposed by the Global Commons Institute, is a coordinated plan to reduce global carbon emissions in a deliberate and controlled fashion. Its main objective is Precaution & Equity, by moving to equal per-person entitlements to emit carbon dioxide and involves a simple two-step solution:
Step 1: (Contraction)
Step 2: (Convergence) At present, the existing socio-economic framework works against the widespread adoption of less carbon-intensive technologies. Although this is partly due to existing infrastructure and the influence of vested interests, the main reason is that the external costs of burning fossils fuels have not yet been fully internalised. What are Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs)?Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) work at a national level to distribute Britain's carbon budget derived from the C&C model. TEQs provide the key driver to delivering a Zero Carbon Britain, moving individuals and businesses towards a common goal: a race out of carbon. TEQs are a system of electronic carbon allowances that integrate industry and personal into a single scheme. You take the split of emissions between domestic and industry which is currently 40/60. You allocate the 40% equally per person to individuals for free and tender/auction the remaining 60% to business and other organisations. On a personal level you only use TEQs for fuel (for fossil-fuel based electricity, gas, coal or petrol etc.). You don’t use your TEQs for all purchases; this is a common misunderstanding. You only use TEQs on the primary fossil fuel energy you buy. Everything else is reflected in the price of the products you buy, business has to buy their TEQs. So if you were to go to the supermarket, the only place you’d use your TEQs would be the petrol station for petrol or gas/coal on the forecourt. Once you’re in the store you don’t use your TEQs, everything is reflected in the price. So an organic locally produced apple will start to become increasingly cheaper than the more expensive non-organic air-freighted carbon-intensive New Zealand apples. Anything that is fossil fuel intensive starts to become more expensive. At the start of the scheme one years worth of TEQs are allocated, and you get topped up every week - so you’ve always got a years worth of them in float, you’re not going to run low for a number of years, so everyone has time to adapt and get used to the system. You could either have a carbon oyster card, a carbon credit card or more likely your carbon account would be linked electronically to your debit & credit cards, to allow totally seamless transactions. You can check your balance by mobile phone, at an ATM, on the internet or at a post office or bank and probably lots of other places. You’d also be sent TEQs account information, letting you know how you’re doing and providing information on how you could reduce your need for TEQs and where to go about doing so. TEQs are also tradable. You can buy and sell them very easily. So for over 60% of the population that means a windfall in the first few years, as they use less than the average and can sell their surplus (electronically). Much like the lower-emitting countries can in the Contraction & Convergence framework. And TEQs don’t expire. This trade leads to a fluctuating price of TEQs, much like the fluctuations of a currency. So you can expect to see TEQs prices being added to petrol station price stands, alongside Diesel and Unleaded as well as at Post Offices and banks. The better everyone is coping the lower the price will be, because there will be less demand. Equally, if lots of people continue to use too much fossil fuel, they can do this initially, but at a great and increasing great expense, because they’ll have to purchase extra TEQs on the market. And this will put the price of TEQs up, because all of this happens within a national cap, there are only so many TEQs available. However, if the price of TEQs rises, this will stimulate an even greater demand for zero- and low-carbon technologies and products, moving the price of TEQs lower again: the system will largely regulate itself. Another misconception with a carbon allocation system is that there is an initial ration, the notion that we must all give up half of everything immediately. This is not the case with TEQs. The system starts where we are now. It starts by using the per person emissions from last year and allocates that amount this year, then year on year it reduces. So in effect what you achieve by the end of the period is a radical change in our energy use, but you’ve achieve this gradually, step by step, year by year. If you run low, which you may after a few years of excessive energy use, then you can buy more at the point of purchase of fuel, or online, or at an ATM, through your mobile phone - it’ll be very easy to top-up your account. You can also opt-out of the system to some extent, you can sell all your credits as soon as you receive them, every week (you would probably tick a box somewhere on a form or on the web) and then when you buy your fuel you will pay extra as the petrol company or whoever would have to buy the TEQs for you, that would all happen instantly in the transaction. So if your Granny doesn’t want anything to do with this system, she doesn’t really have to. Business has to buy the TEQs it needs. They will most likely do this through their banks. One very important point that can be overlooked is the role of government in this system. Because government has to live within the system and purchase TEQs for its own activities, just like everyone else it becomes a facilitator of transition; rather than a block on it. Most of the actually work would still be done by individuals and business; government’s role becomes to facilitate the transition: through policies that enable a smooth descent down the energy staircase. It will stop investing in road building and instead invest in public transport and cycle paths. It would remove the barriers for renewable energy take-up and re-enforce strategic parts of the grid to allow wider distribution of the massive renewable resources in Scotland and other further a field. And it will have potentially very significant funds to do this with. The revenue from auctioning TEQs to business can be used to act as a “war kitty” to ramp-up projects such as “Warm Front” (a current government programme which is retrofitting people’s homes with insulation etc.) as well as investing in infrastructure changes to public transport and the strengthening of the national grid. This is a very important point, because there will, under the TEQs system, be a certain number of people, the poorest 2% of households according to recent studies, who emit more than average (going against the general trend that the more you earn the more you emit). While TEQs would assist the poor on the whole, those households would be potentially worse off under a TEQs system, after 3 or 4 years. Those households would need likely be the first people to benefit from the governments programme of infrastructure investment. They would be the priority in insulating homes etc. It’s important to remember that TEQs while being a very progressive policy does not solve every social problem. So under a TEQs scheme government will need to play an active role in assisting those sections of society that need help. So the system is effective because it:
How will this affect the average British person?TEQs will provide an incentive for people to be careful in their use of fossil fuel. In the early years most will receive more than they need, but support will be provided to help those in difficulty, in the same way in which government provides benefits to citizens in need of them. As, within the TEQs system, a year's worth is allocated at the outset, topped up weekly, there will be a number of years for everyone to get used to the system before even the highest emitters within the poorest of society start to run out. The auctioning of TEQs to industry will raise the government revenue needed to fund these benefits. Will there be carbon poor?’See ‘How will this affect the average British person? Surely the strategy is only effective if all countries in the world are involved?Absolutely. Climate change is a global problem that needs international co-operation. This strategy defines a necessary global carbon budget. Contraction and Convergence, if adopted globally, would allow low emitting countries to increase carbon dioxide emissions until they meet their fair share. If they receive more entitlements than they require they could sell these to other countries. zerocarbonbritain assumes Britain is able to buy these carbon credits within the 20 year timeframe. China’s per capita emissions are about a third of ours and most of the energy they are currently using is to provide goods used by the rest of the world. As well as investing in coal-fired technologies they are also encouraging wind power. China installed 1,347MW of wind energy in 2006. Its capacity is now 2,604MW, making it the sixth largest market worldwide. By how much and by when can we reduce our carbon emissions?The report finds that it is possible for Britain to reduce its energy consumption by 50% by 2027 and that remaining energy could be generated using renewable technologies. How much energy does Britain use today?Current British energy use is about 2,400TWh per year. What is the policy on housing and who will pay to demolish inefficient housing?This is a measure that will need further support, from secondary legislation and financial support from Government through the auctioning of TEQs to industry. Can people still fly? What about offsetting?The expansion of high-speed, frequent rail and sea services will see a dramatic reduction in domestic and short-haul flights within our 'Island Britain' scenario. People will simply be travelling by less carbon-intensive transport. Train, ferry and coach fares would become cheaper, more frequent and more accessible. In moving towards a zero-carbon economy there seem to be no easy fixes for international aviation. A number of airlines are currently researching synthetic fuels and hydrogen as a zero-carbon alternative to existing fuels. However, the latter still raises a secondary concern that high altitude flights would introduce water vapour to the atmosphere, a potent greenhouse gas at that level. Within our policy framework and 20 year zero-carbon target the challenge would lie with the aviation industry to innovate and develop a zero-carbon form of aviation. What’s the policy on food?The ‘Island Britain’ scenario shows that it is possible for Britain to be self-sufficient in food. We would largely see a move to organic food, as it uses much less energy and less fossil fuels than non-organic food. This would not all be to Soil Association standards, but simply fertiliser free. Food producers will be required to purchase TEQs necessary for production. Therefore food that requires less fossil fuel energy, and so less TEQs, will be cheaper and in more demand. This will result in energy intensive food becoming more expensive, encouraging consumers to alter their diet accordingly. However realistically, international trade will continue and we will still be able to eat imported food. Is this unfair for farmers?We will need to use all our land as productively as possible, for food, animal feed, grazing, biomass and fuel oils for agricultural machinery. Farmers will have a challenging transition over two decades but they will get more value from the land as food will be seen a valuable commodity. Can’t we just rely on technology and silver bullets?The silver bullets are, by definition unproven, so should not be relied upon. However the strategy encourages much greater financial support for research in these areas. Should any silver bullets become technologically feasible then they will simply make the move to zero carbon even easier. Why no nuclear?It is accepted that nuclear electricity is a low-carbon energy source. It is also a relatively well-understood class of technologies. In this strategy, existing plants will continue to generate until the end of their designed operational lives. It has nevertheless been decided to exclude new nuclear capacity from the scenario, for local and global energy security reasons. The conventional case against nuclear power is well known:
These are serious drawbacks but could potentially be overcome. However the terrorist threat is more serious. An incident involving a nuclear power station may well result in the need to shut down a large proportion of the network’s nuclear capacity, leaving a critical gap in supply. Its large-scale, centralized nature, coupled with the need for high levels of safety and security in its operation, render it subject to compromise in ways that could not happen to a distributed mix of renewable sources, however variable. Since climate change is a global problem that can only be solved by co-coordinated action, the international dimensions of a British energy policy must also be considered. If, as its advocates suggest, Britain and other developed nations make new nuclear power a core component of their response to climate change, it will be very hard to make a foreign policy case why less wealthy countries should not be granted access to the same technology. The UK Sustainable Development Commission, in its report The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy, reaches the following conclusion: “If the UK cannot meet its climate change commitments without nuclear power, then under the terms of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, we cannot deny others the same technology”. Isn’t offshore wind very expensive?Britain has a massive wind resource both on-shore and offshore – figures quoted by the BWEA for offshore are up to 3,212TWh/year. This scenario intends to have 14% of that installed by 2027, providing about 50% of total electricity supply. Wind turbines are now a mature technology and power outputs are steadily increasing. Denmark in particular relies on a large proportion of its energy coming from the wind. Wind power matches Britain’s demand profile with more wind in the winter when demand is 30% higher. Although wind power is intermittent siting them across the country ensures that fluctuations are smoothed out. While offshore wind is indeed more expensive than onshore wind, under our TEQs framework, wind becomes a much cheaper option, TEQs would drive investment into these technologies, reducing their price overall as well greatly increasing installed capacity. So while, at present, wind energy is slightly more expensive than fossil fuel based energy, under a TEQs system this would be reversed to reflect the true costs of burning fossil fuels. What is the on policy on the Severn barrage?Tidal energy, unlike wind and PV, is predictable and regular. The 11% of UK electricity, which this technology can supply, is equivalent to the predictable and continuous base load currently provided by nuclear power stations. When sites are spread around the coast, the intermittency of generation can be considerably smoothed out. Tidal energy can be utilized with barrages, lagoons and turbines. Barrages and lagoons generate power by trapping seawater at high tide and releasing it through turbines at low tide. To make a scheme worthwhile, the difference between high and low tides should be at least 5 metres. Barrages have a large impact, both on shipping and on the local environment. Tidal lagoons can avoid these impacts, using a huge constructed lagoon in an area of sea with a big tidal range. The strategy doesn’t recommend a Severn tidal barrage, which would pose considerable impact on the local environment. Instead it recommends building tidal lagoons. Friends of the Earth Cymru calculate that this could generate 58TWh/yr, 5–7TWh more than the proposed barrage. As the tide pulls water though narrow channels in estuaries or between islands and the mainland, it creates fast tidal currents or streams. This energy can be captured by turbines - rather like underwater wind farms. There is around 16TWh available around the British coast. Explain Tidal Lagoons...See What is the on policy on the Severn barrage? Explain electric vehicles and V2G…Electric vehicles are in effect a big battery. Therefore when not in use, they can be plugged straight into the national grid. An emerging protocol called V"G (or Vehicle-to-Grid Power ) shows that they can then be both charged and discharged and act as a huge amount of distributed storage capacity within the grid, supporting intermittent supply. Owners will benefit by receiving financial reward (either reduced electricity bills or payments) when their vehicles are discharged during times of high demand. You could imagine the range of tarriffs from doctor to student. The doctor's tarriff is "always charge" so that they can totally rely on their car being ready to drive as they need. However, a student may have instead a '30% minimum' tarriff, so that they can rely on always having 30% charge, but above that, the grid can use the battery to overcome the variability of renewables - when there is surplus it charges the battery, when there is demand it can discharge the battery. Other options such as taking the train or coach or renting a car will probably prove most cost effective. Other options will probably also arise from a zerocarbonbritain such as car leasing and community cars clubs. Do we have enough materials for batteries and is the technology ready?Lithium ion batteries currently use chromium, which is in short supply but new production techniques are emerging at the moment that do not require chromium. We will also undoubtedly need a variety of different battery technologies. The technology is available to increase the range of electric cars but it has yet to be commercially utilized. However not many individuals require their cars to regularly travel long distances. How much will it cost to implement the policy and power-up renewables?Our research prioritised cost in terms of energy. Considering if we have the energy resources to be able to build our renewable energy future. Which we do. Stern has already highlighted the decreased cost of adaptation on climate change over mitigation and his research is already being built upon. One of the key areas we are extending the strategy for its next publication and beyond is a full economic analysis. Does the strategy account for / deal with a rising population?The WorldBank and others have highlighted the interdependence of population growth and climate change. In addition, though birth rates are falling a demographic momentum along with longer life expectancy is likely to continue population growth for the duration of our 20 year forecasting. Without a policy framework some companies will decrease their energy demand to decrease cost, this leads to a natural decrease in energy use for the same level of output which the US refer to as Carbon Intensity. However this has to be balanced with population growth to consider if the base line of energy demand will increase. In our scenario, prior to calculating our efficiency figures we factored in a growth rate in energy demand which is caused by a combination of economic and population growth.            |
