This week,
we learned from an
ICM poll on energy sources that two-thirds
of people would rather have a wind turbine near their house than a shale gas
well. Overall, 64% of people would prefer their energy to come from
renewable sources, with only 7% preferring fossil fuels.
That’s all
very well, say the fossil fuel proponents, and of course we all want clean energy eventually, but for now we need coal, oil and gas because
renewables just can’t fill the energy gap. Burning carbon is just a necessary
evil, right? Right?
Wrong. The
“necessary evil” argument is, in fact, a bucket of pure distilled cobblertosh.
Here is my attempt to debunk a few myths about gas power vs. renewable energy.
1) There is enough renewable energy to power
the world. This can be demonstrated by a simple calculation. According to
figures from the Centre for Alternative Technology's Zero Carbon Britain
report, it’s perfectly possible to power a good, “Northern-style” quality of
life with around 16,800 KWh per person per year[1].
This assumes that we live less wastefully – with good public transport and
car-sharing schemes, efficient and comfortable homes, more local food and
manufacturing, less throwaway consumerism, less frequent flying, and so on –
but that we also continue to have stuff like fridges, TVs, good public
services, hospitals, sports stadiums, cinemas etc.
Meanwhile,
according to Government energy advisor Professor David Mackay, there is enough wind, solar, tidal, wave, hydro
and geothermal energy out there to provide 22,000 KWh/person/year, even on a world of 9 billion people. This assumes that we use existing generation technology only, on a realistic scale, and is still more than enough to give
everyone on the planet a good quality of life.
2) We already know how to solve the
variability problem. The wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t always
shine (well, it does, but you know what I mean). Renewables don’t always give
us power exactly when we want them. There are at least five solutions to this:
energy storage, demand management (e.g. using smart appliances that only draw
power when energy is abundant), a good source mix (sun plus wind plus hydro
plus tidal), energy sharing between countries/regions, and using wood, grass or
waste gas in back-up generators. According to the Zero Carbon Britain Report,
the combination of these five options is already good enough to allow us a zero-carbon
electricity grid. The best of the five options is probably storage, and so as
this technology improves we’ll be able to rely less on the others (especially
wood/grass/biogas-burning generators, which come with sustainability risks of
their own).
3) There are perfectly good heating alternatives. Buildings and/or water can be heated by solar power, ground
and air source heat pumps, and a limited amount of sustainable wood fuel, with
electric heating to fill the gaps.
4) The technologies will improve as we go along. We need to get to zero carbon as fast as possible, to have a decent chance of avoiding runaway climate change. For example, leading climate scientist James Hansen states in his recent book Storms of my Grandchildren that we can only afford to burn the conventional oil and gas we have already found, and should immediately stop drilling for any more; we must also immediately pull out of "unconventional" fuel sources like shale gas and tar sands, and halt global coal use by 2030. The
technologies we have are already good enough for this transition, but will almost
certainly improve as we go along – allowing us to minimise the riskier options
like bioenergy. The important thing is to get started, and begin moving in the
right direction by shutting down fossil fuel extraction and consumption
infrastructure, and replacing them with efficiency and renewables.
The main
problem with the Government’s proposed new “dash for gas” is that it takes us
in exactly the wrong direction. Yes, we probably want to shut down the coal
plants and coal mines first, and leave existing gas-fired power stations
running for a little longer; but building new ones would lock us into decades
of new carbon-burning infrastructure and shut out the clean solutions that we
desperately need. These solutions already exist, and – if fairly shared - are
already good enough to give everyone on the planet a good quality of life. Don’t
let anyone tell you otherwise.
Much of the research in this article is based
on a not-yet-released project I’ve been working on with the UK Tar Sands
Network and a graphic design team. This will show how the world can be powered
without fossil fuels, in the form of an infographic and accompanying briefing.
Watch this space for updates...
[1] The final page of the Zero Carbon Britain
report shows a total consumption of 804 Tera-Watt hours (TWh) per year plus
exports of 174.4 TWh per year. When this total of 978.4 TWh/year is divided by
the predicted 2035 UK population of 71 million, it comes to just under 13,800
KWh/person/year. However, according to a recent study, the UK’s CO2 emissions (and
therefore energy use) should be counted at about a third higher than is usually
reported, because of all the energy used to manufacture goods overseas that are
then imported into the UK. In Zero Carbon Britain 2030, this “overseas
factories” figure should be significantly lower, as many more things are
produced locally and more efficiently; however, to ensure that I am being
absolutely fair and as cautious as possible, I’ve added 25% to the amount of
energy needed for a good quality of life, to make sure it definitely includes
all the manufacturing required. This brings the total to around 16,800 KWh per
person per year.
