Friends of the Earth
Renewable Energy Association
More to come when i have chance to write it!
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Keeping the Lights On
A report and accompanying article has surfaced through Greenpeace, in response to the Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks statement in the FT regarding the governments determination to sanction a new generation of coal fired power stations.
The governments view is that the only way we can meet our future energy demand is through the continued use and development of coal fired power stations - effectively admitting that although we are still chasing our targets for renewable generation, it is not going to be enough to replace the closure of current fossil fuel (or nuclear) power stations and meet our energy demand - coal is seen as the way to fill that void, and emphasis will be placed on 'clean-coal'.
The report commissioned by Greenpeace states the opposite - it's view is that it will be possible to cater for our ongoing energy needs without resorting to developing new coal-fired power stations - it believes renewable technologies can fill the gap in the energy sector left by decommissioned fossil fuel and nuclear power stations and the steady increase in energy use (and its associated emissions).
If this is possible then this should be fully supported - ploughing finances into building more fossil-fuel power generation is counter productive - not only does it divert costs away from the development of renewable energy technologies, it also is increasing the amount of emissions that these renewable technologies have got to offset in order to meet the 20% target. There is little point in developing a set proportion of the energy market for renewables if the overall market is growing - it effectively wipes out any emissions savings.
It may be possible for renewable technologies to make up 20%, 40% or maybe even 100% of our energy needs, but there needs to be a timescale over which this needs to be done, and it needs to be tight, and has to be enforced - whilst we are developing these technologies, and putting them in place, fossil fuelled generation is still emitting massive amounts of CO2, and the atmospheric concentration of this and other greenhouse gases continues to rise.
Climate Scientists often talk about a 'tipping point' - a proportion of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that would cause global climate change to reach the point where the Earth's regulations systems will fall into positive feedback. We are seen as being close to this point and that we will reach it in the foreseeable future. We need action now if we are going to stop this.
Can we develop enough renewable generation fast enough to stop this? Possibly so, but this also has major drawbacks - for instance do we want to see every exposed place peppered with wind turbines, every major river developed for hydro-power and any spare field covered with solar PV farms?
Possibly not - I'm not sure Greenpeace would either - is it worth saving the world if there is nothing left to save? We need to massively reduce our hunger for fuel and addiction to energy if we are to a) limit our fossil fuel dependency and b) make our renewable energy dreams a reality.
It does make Greenpeace's (and other pressure groups) opposal to nuclear generation, development and research, even as a zero-carbon stop-gap to drastically cut emissions until renewable energy on a large scale is viable, seem quite odd...
The governments view is that the only way we can meet our future energy demand is through the continued use and development of coal fired power stations - effectively admitting that although we are still chasing our targets for renewable generation, it is not going to be enough to replace the closure of current fossil fuel (or nuclear) power stations and meet our energy demand - coal is seen as the way to fill that void, and emphasis will be placed on 'clean-coal'.
The report commissioned by Greenpeace states the opposite - it's view is that it will be possible to cater for our ongoing energy needs without resorting to developing new coal-fired power stations - it believes renewable technologies can fill the gap in the energy sector left by decommissioned fossil fuel and nuclear power stations and the steady increase in energy use (and its associated emissions).
If this is possible then this should be fully supported - ploughing finances into building more fossil-fuel power generation is counter productive - not only does it divert costs away from the development of renewable energy technologies, it also is increasing the amount of emissions that these renewable technologies have got to offset in order to meet the 20% target. There is little point in developing a set proportion of the energy market for renewables if the overall market is growing - it effectively wipes out any emissions savings.
It may be possible for renewable technologies to make up 20%, 40% or maybe even 100% of our energy needs, but there needs to be a timescale over which this needs to be done, and it needs to be tight, and has to be enforced - whilst we are developing these technologies, and putting them in place, fossil fuelled generation is still emitting massive amounts of CO2, and the atmospheric concentration of this and other greenhouse gases continues to rise.
Climate Scientists often talk about a 'tipping point' - a proportion of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that would cause global climate change to reach the point where the Earth's regulations systems will fall into positive feedback. We are seen as being close to this point and that we will reach it in the foreseeable future. We need action now if we are going to stop this.
Can we develop enough renewable generation fast enough to stop this? Possibly so, but this also has major drawbacks - for instance do we want to see every exposed place peppered with wind turbines, every major river developed for hydro-power and any spare field covered with solar PV farms?
Possibly not - I'm not sure Greenpeace would either - is it worth saving the world if there is nothing left to save? We need to massively reduce our hunger for fuel and addiction to energy if we are to a) limit our fossil fuel dependency and b) make our renewable energy dreams a reality.
It does make Greenpeace's (and other pressure groups) opposal to nuclear generation, development and research, even as a zero-carbon stop-gap to drastically cut emissions until renewable energy on a large scale is viable, seem quite odd...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
