Ed Davey’s speech for the UCL Energy
Institute’s first annual International
Energy Lecture on Wednesday night seems a good place to start, for what is
planned to be an occasional blog on energy demand issues. I hope that this blog will eventually be a collection
of thoughts and musings about issues relating to reducing energy demand and
carbon emissions.
On the day that the Energy Act
passed into law, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was
speaking to an audience composed mostly of researchers and professionals
working in the energy sector. You can
see a video of the speech here.
Most of the speech was familiar territory
but it was interesting that several times, Ed Davey characterised the UK as
taking the lead in Europe, setting the pace of change and pushing for more
ambitious targets. He was speaking a day
after news broke that two thirds of the UK’s land would be available for
licensing for fracking, and the two points are clearly linked - I wonder how this leadership position will be
sustained in the longer term when we need to move beyond the “gas-bridge” to a
decarbonized electricity supply? The
minister’s focus was on targets for 2030 but the real challenge will be
achieving targets for 2050 which is when radical changes will be required. There was no discussion about moving the
agenda beyond 2030 even though the planning cycles are so long in this sector
that such an omission is positively short-sighted.
The other clear theme from this speech was
the focus on the market as the driver of change with the government’s role
being to manage the market to enable technologies to progress to the point of
being able compete on an open market (a position he noted that solar PV and
on-shore wind were fast approaching.)
An interesting evening then, primarily
because of the way it drew together the many strands of government energy
policy and illuminating as much because of what was not mentioned as what was
actually discussed.
I don't believe Ed Davey is all wrong!
ReplyDeleteHe is right in saying that the UK should take forward a number of 'carbon reducing' energy options which include:
renewables
nuclear
shale gas
adoption of energy efficiency measures
Shale gas, while not perfect, does get us away from conventional coal fired power stations (ie ones without carbon capture). For example, carbon emissions in the US will reduce dramatically as a consequence of the switch from conventional coal to shale gas.
In the UK, if we go forward with only 'zero carbon emission' energy options (i.e renewables, nuclear, coal plus carbon capture) we run the risk that UK manufacturing becomes uncompetitive and we lose market share as a direct result of our excessive energy costs. Last week Jim Ratcliffe, chairman and CEO of INEOS, said that already the UK's energy costs are the most expensive in Europe.
On the other hand, if we abandon renewables, nuclear etc, and 'dash' 100%for shale gas (which is an untried technology in the UK), we would be taking a huge gamble with not only the UK's manufacturing future, but also our very way of life in the UK.
By the time we get to the end of shale production gas in the UK, other viable energy options could have emerged such as nuclear fusion.
In conclusion, I don't believe Ed Davey's balanced approach is wrong.
Thanks for your comment! I think the issue is really the timescale over which you consider the problem. My concern about Ed Davey's lecture was that while it was logical over the medium-term (and given how long planning cycles are perhaps 2030 is really the short-term!) there was no discussion about the long term. There is a real step change required to get to 80% carbon reduction and shale gas is not the answer to the longer term issue. You are right that other options might emerge, but we need to be doing something about that now. The lack of discussion of what happens after the "gas bridge" is a real worry, particularly since the whole lecture was framed as an "energy security" issue which in itself raises concerns about government commitment to reducing carbon emissions!
ReplyDelete