Your Energy or Your Life!
|
Your Energy or Your Life! |
        Whichever way you look at it we are facing an energy crisis. On the one hand, greenhouse gas emission must be reduced if we are to prevent runaway global warming (the Government has set ambitious domestic targets – exceeding the Kyoto agreement – of reducing emissions by 20% per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, which it is currently failing to achieve: it also aims to reduce them by a massive 60% by 2050). On the other, we are now a net importer of gas and are about to become so for oil (by 2020 we are likely to be importing three quarters of our primary energy from Russia, the Middle East and other far from stable regions. To become self-sufficient in green energy is obviously the goal, but can this be achieved – or must we trade progress on global warming for national security, or vice versa? The Government has launched a Consultation Document entitled Our Energy Challenge, which has been represented by many in the press as preparing the ground for a nuclear future. Before we get into that debate it is worth outlining some features of our current energy market. Looking at our supply as a whole it breaks down as follows:
In other words, 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels and we need to drastically reduce our dependence on them if we are to have any hope of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. And we don’t have much time. Estimates suggest that if the planet’s temperature is not to increase by more than the 2ºC that the EU believes would be dangerous, then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should not exceed 400 parts per million – at the current rate of increase in emissions worldwide that level will be passed in just over a decade. Nuclear energy with its promise of green energy in abundance appears to offer a way out, but the choices are not as straightforward as that. For a start, a third of our energy goes on transportation and that comes, overwhelmingly, from oil: the nuclear option would impact on this proportion only insofar as it effects vehicles driven by electricity, which represent a very small part of the overall total. Put another way, until we find an alternative to the internal combustion engine we will continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and be dependent on (insecure) foreign oil markets (it is worth noting in this context that journeys to work make up more than a quarter of all the miles driven in cars and vans and that, for commuting and business journeys, almost 85 in every 100 cars carry only one driver – imagine the impact on fuel usage if we could do something about that!). The remaining two thirds of the energy cake goes on heating homes and businesses and providing them with electricity for light and to power appliances/machinery (around 20% of the greenhouse gases emitted by a car during its lifetime, for example, have been created before it even reaches the road - i.e. during its manufacture – so try to avoid buying a new car!). Heating takes almost a quarter of our total energy consumption, which leaves less than half (43%) coming to us in the form of electricity (generated 40% gas, 33% coal, 19% nuclear, 4% renewables). In terms of the debate about our energy future, therefore, the question of whether to go nuclear or not affects a relatively small percentage of our energy consumption (not even the nuclear industry would see themselves generating 100% of electricity) and should really be seen in the context of an overall energy strategy that included transport and heat saving measures (more than 50% of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions come directly or indirectly from buildings) to mention just two areas. The current emphasis on electricity generation is a reflection of the fact that our existing power stations are reaching the end of their useful lives. All but one of Britain’s current nuclear power stations are set to close by 2020 and there will a loss in the capacity of our coal-fired stations because of new EU laws on gas emissions. In total, it is estimated that our electricity generating capacity could fall by 30% if nothing is done - and that at a time of ever increasing demand. Government estimates suggest that the likely increase in renewables will only amount to 10%, insufficient to meet the shortfall. Once again, nuclear appears an attractive option. It is obviously a secure source of energy in the sense that we are not dependent on other nations for our day-to-day supply (although we will have to import uranium, and security, both in terms of safeguarding sites from the terrorist threat and the long-term disposal of waste, is a key issue), but how green is nuclear? Once a station is up and running the electricity produced is free of greenhouse gas emissions, but therein lies the rub. Even assuming that a decision on a nuclear future was taken soon, it would still take at least fifteen to twenty years to have a ‘fleet’ of ten stations operative – and that’s with the kind of fast track planning process the government envisages will be necessary to circumvent the current cumbersome enquiry process (which means you won’t have any say in the siting of a nuclear facility in your area); and that won’t be in time to plug the shortfall identified above. Worse still, this huge development and building phase will consume vast amounts of non-green energy. It has been calculated, for example, that it takes between six to ten years of a nuclear plant’s operational life just to pay back the energy taken to build them (a wind turbine takes around six months). Of course, this wouldn’t be an issue if the energy used to build a power station had been green in the first place. Unfortunately, we don’t yet live in that kind of world, so all the energy used to build new nuclear facilities will be pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during precisely that ten year window when we should be doing everything we can to reduce emissions to prevent global warming exceeding a 2ºC increase. Add to that picture the dodgy economics that has dogged the nuclear industry - especially when we are being asked to guess the likely demand/pricing structures for energy twenty years hence and of decommissioning even further in the future - and the supposed advantages of nuclear begin to look threadbare. And then there’s the whole issue of security and risk hanging over the industry. As individuals we’re not very good at judging risk; people who are afraid of flying think nothing of travelling by car where the objective risks of death or injury are much greater. Nevertheless, polls consistently show the British public to be opposed to nuclear energy despite a sizeable public relations campaign by the industry. Even if it were the solution to the problem, it would be difficult to sell. Politicians want easy answers, not unpopular policies that will cost them votes. So is it possible to square the circle, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have a secure energy supply? Yes, it is, but only as part of the kind of overall strategy mentioned above and one that focuses on real people and the day-to-day decisions with which they are faced. It is not simply a question of deciding whether to support nuclear, solar or wind, it is about changing the way we all view energy. In a desert people instinctively look to conserve water; we are entering an energy desert and will have to adapt our lifestyles accordingly. In every aspect of our lives we can do things differently. Unfortunately, the prospect of our childrens’ lives being blighted by global warming does not appear to be sufficient to focus our minds; that may only happen when some of the symptoms of climate change become impossible to ignore. Having said that, there is a growing recognition that something needs to be done and with the right mix of information and incentives significant steps can be taken towards energy saving both at home and in the workplace (a reduction of a quarter in the emissions from homes could easily be achieved through a marginal increase in grants; much more is possible). Our love affair with the car can be tackled in a positive way through encouraging car sharing and car pooling (a group of people sharing ownership and use of a car), but that will require a strengthening of our local communities so that there is both a greater identification with and trust between people. Food miles can be reduced by supporting local shops and local produce. However good our energy saving strategies are, however, we still need secure systems of generating and distributing green energy, particularly electricity. If the next ten years are critical then, realistically, we must look at a range of options, including the promotion of ‘clean’ coal technologies and trying to extend the lives of existing nuclear stations. But it is to renewables that we must devote our most serious attention (Germany, for example, has turned its face against nuclear and, last year, installed a hundred times more solar capacity than the UK). We should not underestimate the difficulties. The widespread opposition to windfarms is, in part, due to the commercial nature of the enterprise. Developers and institutional funders are the main players in the current scene and the bottom line is the only priority. That means building large wind farms where the wind conditions are best – usually on hilltops that are part of areas of outstanding natural beauty. It doesn’t have to be like that, however; local communities looking to develop their own energy infrastructures (that could include a mix of solar hot water, photovoltaic cells, hydro, biomass and other forms of micro generation) would not be hampered by purely commercial considerations and be able to site single turbines on less conspicuous, if less efficient, locations (see www.baywind.co.uk for an example of cooperative ownership of wind farms). Such initiatives might need government underwriting to get the bank loans necessary but, as very few would fail, it would be an extremely safe policy. Ultimately, the energy debate is about the kind of society we wish to live in. A future that had a significant nuclear element would inevitably be an extension of the centralised, bureaucratic state that finds making decisions about the future so difficult. By contrast, community controlled systems of energy generation and distribution would provide a model for flexible local decision-making that could respond quickly and effectively to changing circumstances. Local energy could become a symbol of local empowerment! Do contribute to the Consultation Document Our Energy Challenge. Our future is in the balance. Chris Wright 2nd February 2006 |
Action for Sustainable Living, St Wilfrid's Enterprise Centre, Royce Road, Hulme, , M15 5BJ.Email: [email protected] Tel: 0845 634 4510 Fax: 0870 167 4655 |