by frog
A company called E.ON is using some familiar scare tactics in order to win approval for a new coal fired electricity plant in the UK. The Guardian reports that E.ON says the lights will go out without their station and that they can ‘clean up’ the coal by buying offsets. E.ON’s claims for coal are deluded. We can’t afford the huge environmental cost of burning this fuel
Opposing plans for new coal-fired power plants in developed countries has become an international frontline of climate change politics. Jim Hanson, senior climate change scientist at Nasa, wrote to Gordon Brown last year calling for a ban on new coal, stating that Brown’s decision on Kingsnorth has “the potential to influence the future of the planet”. This is because coal is one of the most polluting and carbon-intensive forms of fossil fuels – producing twice the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as gas. Coal is the cause of fully half of the fossil fuel-caused increase of CO2 in the air today, and there is plenty left to burn. If we don’t limit the use of coal, avoiding catastrophic climate change will become impossible.
However, Paul Golby of E.ON, in these pages yesterday, dismissed anyone opposed to his company’s plans to annually emit at least 6m tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere – more than the total emissions of Costa Rica or Cameroon – as naively ignorant of power generation realities. He has tried to scare the public into thinking that new coal is necessary to keep the lights on.
Yet the independent energy consultancy Pöyry, in a report out today (ilexenergy.com), gives the hard numbers showing projected demand can be met, while respecting strict emissions limits and energy security concerns, using renewables and not resorting to new coal. Meanwhile Cambridge professor of physics David MacKay’s book Without Hot Air presents five different plans of how we can meet the UK’s energy needs and radically reduce emissions. Of course there are no easy answers, but for Golby to deny that there are no answers other than business as usual is dangerously untrue.
When are we going to accept what the scientists, including the Royal Society, are telling us, and commit to a renewable energy future? We don’t have to shut all our fossil fuelled plants immediately. In fact, here in NZ, it has been calculated that the cheapest and easiest way to go is to commit to 90% renewables by 2025. It’s easily done and assures our children don’t have to pull their world apart in a vain attempt to stop the ravages of climate change. By then it will be too late. ‘Business as usual’ needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Sat, August 2nd, 2008
Tags: clean, climate change, coal, E.on, electricity, generation, offsets, renewable
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
The hypocracy is astounding.
The NZ Green party are (as far as I can tell) still in favour of an ETS, and are still supporting the screwed-beyond-redemption NZ ETS proposals, and yet all this is is an example of emissions trading in action, and you are screaming foul.
Once again, I call on the Green Party to wake up.
As to the identified proposal itself; It has a surprise value of zero. The UK has finally figured out it is going to have massive electricity shortages in the future due to the decomissioning of existing plant, and there is nothing in the wings to replace it. Add to that the rising cost of natural gas and the prevalence of modern gas-fired plant in the UK and its clear that electricity is going to get proportionately more expensive very quickly. So there is nothing of error in the statement “the lights will go out”, that is the future, unless something big is done soon.
People whine about the NZ electricity system, but we are so much better placed than many places, and with a bit of thought will be able to survive the gas prices increases over the next decade plus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley – You are correct in asserting that the lights will go out soon in the UK because of the retirement of their nuclear programme. Youare wrong, however, to assert that a coal plant is the only option. they have plenty of renewable options and that was my point.
As for the Greens and the ETS, for us it is second best in the market options for putting a price on carbon. We still have a policy of a carbon tax and complimentary regulatory measures, but we are practical enough to recognise that at the moment, only an ETS is on offer politically. We will do our best to make it work, or we will not support it. What’s wrong with that position?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog – once again you are quoting a calculation that electricity generation can be 90% from renewables by 2025, so once again I ask you where can we find details of this study?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog – the UK energy situation is in a state I would call a crisis. They are about to lose a lot of generation through old age. They have a lot of modern generation that is gas fired, but gas to run these facilities (and indeed to feed the gas fired central heating that almost every home in the UK has) is becoming scarcer, leading to gas price rises just announced of 35%. Add to that failing to get into bed with EDF, who the UK hoped would revitalise the UKs nuclear generation programme, though frankly, EDF are a bit accident prone at the moment, and I wonder if a major French nuclear incident is moments away.
Although the UK does have renewable options, a quick look through MacKay’s “sustainable energy without the hot air” gives good clue as to what would be necessary to make significant generation inroads in the UK.
The underlying problem is that good planning is difficult to achieve when one is in a state of crises. Thus the UK is going to run head-long into however it thinks it can get out of the mess it finds itself in. So I expect a lot more coal to be built in the UK, and even a lot more gas, despite the fact it has no future.
And back to our ETS – An ETS in NZ is going to make no difference to global emissions. What we are doing has no practical effect whatsoever, however, NZ is seen as an environmental leader, and thus what we do will have significant political implications around the globe. It is thus vitally important that NZ gets it right. The GP supporting the ETS will be seen globally as “The Greens of the world” supporting ETS. Surely thats not right.
You (the GP) need to be really really really clear what you believe is the right approach to emissions and then stick to those guns. Supporting something on the basis of “anything is better than nothing” is perhaps the most damaging thing that the New Zealand Greens could do to emissions limitations worldwide.
So we don’t get any scheme at all soon? Well, thats actually no big deal, as we are such a small emitter. Its all about the global politics, and we will have a much bigger bang there than anything we could do with emissions here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good posts on the ETS dbuckley. The Greens are supporting this scheme because it is to do with the environment, so if they support it they are more likely to gain more votes from people who like the environment in a warm fluffy way than they will lose from people who actually know something about the environment and know this is bad policy. Unfortunately this is politics for you, where bad policy can get more votes than good policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis, my understanding is that the Greens are still in negotiations aimed at trying to make the Government’s ETS more effective (and ensuring that it is not those least able to pay for it who bear most of the cost), and they still haven’t made a decision whether to support it or not.
Personally, I’d prefer a simple carbon tax, but at the moment, and with National not committing itself to any detail of what it is proposing, the ETS is the only thing on the table.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley – I heartilly agree tht the UK energy situation is in a true crisis situation. I also agree that they will likely end up with more coal fired generation. That does not mean that I should stop pointing out just how stupid that path is and that they both have and should follow other options. In fact, our calls to point out the other options are more urgent than ever.
As for our ETS situation, I am pretty confident that the Greens support for the ETS, if it is given, will be based on a far more thorough analysis than a simple “anything is better than nothing” approach. From my reading of the flurry of activity in the parliamentary office, it is all hands to the pumps to both understand the implications and to negotiate a good outcome for New Zealand. I would go so far to say that the Greens and their caucus are the most informed of any caucus in Wellington about the pros and cons of the ETS. This is not being taken lightly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – since toad and I commented over one another, I’ll up toad’s ante – Where the hell is National on the ETS? Where are their ‘better’ ideas and proposals? Why won’t they talk to the Greens about the ETS? Are they bankrupt of ideas? We have offered to talk to them, but their handlers in Australia shut them down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog: “From my reading of the flurry of activity in the parliamentary office, it is all hands to the pumps to both understand the implications and to negotiate a good outcome for New Zealand.”
I am glad to hear this.
I have no idea what National is intending to do, and am just as frustrated as you about it.
My personal view is that the ETS cannot be fixed. At present it is too expensive for business and agriculture and at the same time won’t do much for the environment. If you make it more effective, it will be prohibitively expensive. If you make it less expensive, it will be completely pointless. I agree with you that if we are to reduce emissions, a tax would be better.
We need an independent investigation into this, to work out how much of an issue climate change actually is and what we should do about it. There are scientists who firmly believe it is a terrible disaster, and others who think we should be ignoring it and focussing elsewhere. Many politicians seem to just pick one side of the fence and believe everything those scientists say and nothing the others say. This is not how science works.
This is a complicated issue and needs to be worked out by scientists, not by politicians. I therefore agree with the call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Climate Change. The ETS as it currently stands wouldn’t do anything for a few years anyway, so there is enough time to have this enquiry early next year and not delay action at all, if the commission determined the current course was correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Two comments folks – both inviting contributions to understanding.
The recent ‘downsizing’ of the Makara wind farm, as a sop to the environmentalists who protested the noise and unsightliness of the wind-farm, suggests to me that, even if the 90% target by 2025 were theoretically possible, it would not be practically achievable because of the contest between environmentalists who want to reduce pollution and create renewable energy, and environmentalists who protest the creation of the necessary plant and equipment to achieve such renewable energy – even in such an out of the way and godforsaken spot as Makara. FIRST QUESTION How do the green party propose to unscramble this gridlock between environmentalists?
IN thinking about the potential for 90% energy from renewable resources by 2025, it seems to me that there is a vast amount of decommissioning to take place, as well as a significant investment in new plant and equipment (and the resource consents needed to put them in place). SECXOND QUESTION. How much capital, at what cost and return rates, has the green party’s analysts ‘allowed’ for in their modelling, and what sources have they postulated for this capital.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)