MY THOUGHTS ARE IN CAPITALS (SINCE I'M NOT CLEVER ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM A
DIFFERENT COLOUR!)
David Ballard wrote:
> Some quick thoughts below
>
> David Ballard
> Alexander, Ballard & Associates
> Strategy and human change for environmental sustainability
> (00 44) (0) 5600 433801 - work
> (00 44) (0) 1672 520561 - home
> (00 44) (0) 7840 544226 - mobile
> Skype: ballardd
> Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Web: www.alexanderballard.co.uk <http://www.alexanderballard.co.uk>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Chris Church
> *Sent:* 25 January 2006 15:42
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Engaging in the energy / nuclear review
>
> *Engaging in the energy / nuclear review*
>
> For anyone who cares about sustainable development in the UK /
> world-wide the next three months are a little critical.
>
> The drive for nuclear is heavily resourced and the expressions of
> neutrality from much of the government are weak at best. So what do we
> do, apart from fill in the energy review response form?
>
> *1. Let’s be clear what the argument is.*
>
> The fact that all significant national environmental groups active on
> climate are firmly opposed to the nuclear option should be a good
> starting point. These are the organisations which put climate on the
> agenda: the idea that ‘green groups don’t care about climate change’
> is not going to sell.
>
> What some are trying to do is to use most Greens’ opposition to
> nuclear as evidence that we are more anti-capitalist than
> pro-environment. PERHAPS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS HIGHLIGHT THE
> OPPOSITION OF GROUPS LIKE THE WWF AND RSPB, WHOM NO-ONE WOULD THINK OF
> AS ANTI-CAPITALIST I think that nuclear is often used as a way of
> avoiding thinking deeply about the deep hole that we are in, i.e. as
> part of an emotional blocking strategy.
>
> The idea therefore that nuclear is the ‘only way’ to tackle climate
> change is also hard to sell: indeed it is notable that the arguments
> from the energy minister et al. are shifting towards ‘we have to keep
> the lights on after 2030’ – which is basically the ‘we’ll all freeze
> in the dark without nuclear power’ line that the nuclear industry
> pushed in the ‘70s and ‘80s. It was scaremongering drivel then but it
> is the case now that without a coal industry to provide base load
> electricity we do have to work harder to make this argument.
>
> As I see the situation, the energy crisis is much more pressing than
> 2030 – see Jeremy Leggett’s new book. From this perspective – i.e.
> that oil peak is very close and may even have passed, and that the
> consequences will be extremely serious for the business-as-usual
> model, the length of time to construct new nuclear compared to new
> renewables may also be a strong argument. I AGREE WITH THIS - IT MIGHT
> ALSO BE A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR SOME FORM OF TRADABLE ENERGY QUOTA. ON THE
> OTHER HAND, SOME PEOPLE ARGUE THAT THE CURRENT ENERGY PRICE HIKE IS
> BECAUSE ENERGY WAS EXTREMELY CHEAP IN THE I990S SO OIL COMPANIES DID
> NOT BOTHER TO PUT MUCH EFFORT INTO NEW EXPLORATION AND REFINING
> CAPACITY. ALSO THE EXTREMELY RAPID ECONOMIC GROWTH OF CHINA AND INDIA
> HAS ADDED A LOT TO GLOBAL DEMAND. I WOULD'T BE SURE WHO IS RIGHT. I
> SUSPECT THAT OIL AND GAS PRICES MAY COME DOWN A BIT FOR A FEW YEARS,
> BUT I WOULD GUESS THAT WE WILL REACH PEAK OIL IN AROUND TEN YEARS - IE
> NOT ENOUGH TO BUILD A NEW GENERATION OF NUKES, BUT ENOUGH TO BRING IN
> ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLES AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT. Slesser and King
> provide some evidence in their book (which, unfortunately, I lent to
> someone and haven’t got to hand) that a renewables energy transition
> is still possible (in energy and capital terms) but that we should not
> underestimate the difficulty (wind has a 4:1 payback in energy terms).
> If the lights do go out, as peak oilers argue, then the energy flows
> for the transition won’t be there. 2030 is very optimistic indeed from
> the peak oil perspective.
>
> That’s one argument to win. We have the figures on a sustainable
> energy mix: let’s make them clear.
>
> The second seems to be about how far energy efficiency and behaviour
> change can deliver the huge changes that would be needed to make real
> cuts in electricity demand. From what I hear the government doesn’t
> think so (or want to think so), and it’s of course the case that cuts
> in power demand will be cuts in profits for some very influential
> companies.
>
> As someone else said, the decarbonising the UK conference has done a
> lot of work on this (though they did not do the sums on energy in:
> energy out in terms of infrastructure change and they did not model
> the significant capital markets implications – if our rocky financial
> system collapsed with oil peak, we will also find a transition very
> hard).
> http://www.e-collaboration.co.uk/tyndall/media/news/tyndall_decarbonising_the_uk.pdf.
> Kevin Anderson, one of the researchers, said a few days ago on the
> Today programme (a UK radio news broadcast) that nuclear was not
> necessary. HE ALSO EMAILED ME THAT "assuming over the next 15 years
> the nuclear sector were to
> be replaced with either gas or coal, the ANNUAL increase in the UK’s
> carbon
> dioxide emissions would be between a ¼ and ½ %."
>
> The report shows that 60% carbon reductions (albeit not enough) can be
> achieved without nuclear by 2050 taking either a demand reduction
> route or a carbon capture and storage route. The study showed that
> carbon capture and storage can do the job of nuclear (I am aware of
> the difficulties with it, as I am of those with nuclear!) and that the
> public much prefers it. I WOULD SAY WE SHOULDN'T GO DOWN THE LINE OF
> PUSHING CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE, AS IT HAS MANY OF THE PROBLEMS OF
> NUCLEAR IE IT IS RISKY AND EXPENSIVE, AND IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF
> LETTING POWERFUL VESTED INTERESTS DICTATE OUR ENERGY POLICY. I DON'T
> KNOW HOW THE RELATIVE COSTS OF NEW COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS WITH
> CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE COMPARE WITH WIND, BUT I IMAGINE CCS IS
> MORE EXPENSIVE - DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FIGURES? So that may be a line
> to push.
>
> We need some key figures here: just how much in total does the UK
> spend on / invest in energy efficiency and conservation each year: for
> the price of a new nuclear programme we could probably go a long way
> not just to bring all the homes in the UK to the ‘Decent Homes’
> standard but actually to the EcoHomes standard*. Anyone out there got
> these figures and want to share them?*
>
> As the earlier response put it, Brenda Boardman’s work in the report
> quoted above provided some of this information. Amory Lovins did an
> economic analysis of the opportunity costs of nuclear that I forwarded
> to this list some months ago:
> http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-08_NukePwrEcon.pdf
>
> This would knock fuel poverty on the head (and thus meet other
> government priorities), create jobs where they are needed etc. etc.
> But at the moment my impressions is that energy efficiency spending is
> an order of magnitude (or two) lower than the costs of an expanded
> nuclear programme.
>
> (And lets' not be sidelined into nukes vs wind arguments!)
>
> *2. Let’s make a fuss at every level.*
>
> I would invite each and everyone one interested to put April 26^th in
> your diaries now – the 20^th anniversary of Chernobyl – as a day to
> focus for local action on the public concerns about nuclear power. To
> do that we need a lot of well-briefed people and well-organised groups….
>
> *3. Think about how things have changed in the last 20 years*
>
> This is where the new green distribution and generation companies come
> in. It’s a very different market for electricity now. Let’s start
> insisting that the companies that we all (don’t we?) get our power
> from make a commitment that they don’t buy from any expanded nuclear
> programme, and make it clear that there is a major market that won’t
> but into this. I might suggest that every local authority that’s
> opposed to nuclear power shifts its’ purchasing contracts in the
> renewables direction and makes its’ intentions here quite clear (to
> not buy nuclear) to the government.
>
> *I would suggest that every local sustainability forum / partnership /
> network starts lobbying on this now.* http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/
> is the website for the nuclear-free local authorities network. There
> are 70 L.A.s who are members: is yours one? (and if not then what are
> you doing about it?)
>
> *4. Sharing information*
>
> If anyone has ideas on good email lists around this subject, please
> let me / us know. I wouldn’t want the Local Sustainability list to be
> overwhelmed with this issue: maybe we need a specific list on the
> energy review.
>
> Whatever you do – get involved now…
>
> Chris Church
>
|