The 2009 budget contained the world's first "carbon budget", that we've all eagerly awaited to see if it was "green enough".
The Chancellor unveiled a £5bn package for renewables and a 34% target of emission cuts by 2020 (with respect of 1990 levels).
Given a public borrowing of nearly £180bn, including tens of billions destined to bank bail-outs, £5bn destined to renewables seems like a frugal sum and proof that the UK is not sufficiently committed to decarbonise the generation of electricity.
It is clear that the country is in dire financial difficulty, with public expenditure spiralling out of control and borrowing at a level that can bring into question the UK's financial standing in the near future, but if we are all agreed that preventing catastrophic climate change is a priority then we mustn't lose focus and we must continue to invest even during the difficult times.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CSS) technologies get £90m for preparatory studies and a commitment that no new coal-fired power stations will be built in the UK without inbuilt CSS (and the old ones to be retrofitted as soon as the technology is available). "As soon as the technology is available" is the important proviso there, and no-one expects this will be before 2020 - more on this below.
Several environmentalists, including spokespeople for Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, went on the media to spin the line that the carbon budget was not green enough and was a missed opportunity. In my opinion its only fault is that it doesn't go nuclear enough.
At this stage we should be making nuclear energy a priority (and follow the French example, where their extensive use of nuclear energy means that the footprint per capita is 9 tonnes of C02 p.a. compared with 11 tonnes p.a. in the UK). The recent announcement of 11 new potential sites for nuclear stations in the UK is insufficient, given that it will take years of study, planning and bureaucracy before we even get to the building stage. It is highly likely that there will be no increase of nuclear energy capacity before 2020 and that is precious wasted time (in fact a drop in 7% of capacity if no new stations are built). The construction of new nuclear stations should proceed with the urgency of a military operation.
Without low-carbon nuclear energy we will continue burning coal and natural gas and the target of an emissions reduction of 34% is likely to be breached. Renewables remain a strong option, but more money needs to go into it to make it a reality and contribute a significant fraction to Britain's electricity generation. The government's own target is 20% by 2020 but with adequate investment wind and tidal energy can easily generate over 40% of the UK's electricity demand by 2020, and the rest through nuclear energy.
The budget allocates £525m to offshore wind energy and £405m to tidal, which is probably enough to get the interest of power companies, but not enough to aim for large-scale consistent and reliable power generation. A consortium comprising energy companies who pulled out of the 400 wind turbine London Array project is likely to perk up at the sight of the newly minted cash. It is sad that we are subsidising very expensive means of electricity production and the government's allowing energy companies to twist its arm in this way. It is highly likely that the consortium intended to carry out the Thames offshore wind project but found it strategically better to play hard to get and see if the cash cow had any cash left. Obviously the bluff worked.
My biggest worry is the blessed CSS. Clearly if this worked it would be the holy grail. The world has coal and oil to burn for centuries so if we could successfully continue burning it without releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that'd be the ultimate bargain. But, can we? CSS technologies have been tried on very small scales, extracting relatively minute amounts of CO2. Technologies to translate this into a full-fledged coal fired station where tens of tons of CO2 are to be processed every hour and filtered and compressed to be stored away is a very different proposition. The techniques are untried and untested, and there remains the big question mark as to -when and if the feasibility tests are completed- the process is economical and efficient. Most scientists currently believe that the process is hugely inefficient (40% of the energy would be wasted by comparison with non-CSS coal stations) and expensive to implement, with big question marks hanging over the storage procedures and whether the CO2 stored underground could/would/will be accidentally released into the atmosphere..
It's as if Mr Darling proposed in the budget that the UK's borrowing of hundreds of billions of pounds is going to be funded through the implementation of the magic wand that turns everything into gold -- and in the meantime we'll allocate £90m in preparatory studies to research into this magic wand.
It is certain that CSS will happen one day. The question is whether this will be soon enough to be practical or economical. We cannot plan our energy policy on hypothetical possibilities and at the moment not enough is known about the viability of CSS to say that a number of coal-fired stations will be built and fitted with CSS.
We talk about CSS as if it were a reality, but it isn't.
Now about our own homes: the budget allocates £425m to support improved energy efficiency in homes and office buildings. This is sensible, but probably not a lot of money. You can slash your carbon footprint by between 40% and one third with some simple household measures, such as improved insulation, re-fitting sockets to turn-off power from standby, using energy saving boilers etc.
A wise political move would be to introduce tax breaks for households who carry out an energy MOT and implement all energy-saving measures to reduce their footprint.
Brunella
Currently rated 5.0 by 2 people
- Currently 5/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5