Last week, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne made the first annual carbon statement at the House of Commons and presented the 2050 Pathways analysis, an energy policy plan of 6 possible mixes for Britain's energy needs achieving 80% GHG emission cuts.

This is the first time that the Coalition government has presented something tangible on this subject, even though I expected that there would be a carbon budget in the Chancellor's recent emergency Budget, but the environment was conspicuosly absent then.

Mr Huhne proposes that energy efficiency in households should reduce demand (very sensible) (also probably costly). Homes in Britain dissipate a lot of heat and energy and are ill-equipped with all sorts of energy inefficient gadgetry. There is also room for technological advances, as we must move away from inefficient light bulbs but energy saving ones are not yet good enough for most people's needs and have the downside of being packed with toxic by-products, such as mercury.

The government wants the private sector to be the driving force of a nuclear revolution and pay its way to build new reactors and contribute to the significant shortfall that is predicted, as energy demand will double in the next 40 years (with a substantial electrification of households and transport), and North Sea oil and gas runs dry. This is wishful thinking, and there is little chance that the private sector will enter this field without proper incentives, because nuclear energy is immensely costly. Incentives can be in the form of land and technology leases and lucrative energy contracts. Alternatively, given that the state can ill afford to splash on incentives, and must make severe cuts to repay the national debt, the private sector can be pushed into nuclear energy by making other forms of energy generation more expensive.

Undoubtedly, by saying that fossil fuels will remain but only when fitted with CCS, Mr Huhne is implicitly implying just that.  Carbon Capture and Storage is phenomenally expensive, and if utilities will only be permitted to burn coal and gas with CCS, suddenly investing in nuclear energy will be attractive to them.

I believe that nuclear energy is fundamental to the decarbonisation of Britain, and to meet its energy needs in the long term. However, we must not forget that nuclear energy has numerous problems, not least that it is not a renewable resource. We have enough uranium to last us about one century at the current rates of consumption, much less if we engage in a full-fledged nuclear programme. Fusion nuclear energy (when and if ever commercially available), will be a renewable energy source (as there's plenty of hydrogen around) but fission is not.

Therefore, a nuclear programme, though necessary, can only be a plan with a horizon of a few decades at most to allow renewables to catch up with the level of supply that we need.  

The government intends to support microgeneration - great news. Solar energy is a brilliant solution for household supply, also recently it has been introduced to power recharging points for electric vehicles, so it can contribute significantly to decarbonise transport.

DECC has published a site called the 2050 Calculator where people can play energy secretary and design the UK's energy infrastructure, adjust demand and supply, and try to score the final goal: 80% emission cuts by 2050. Have a go!

Mikel Susperregi

mikel@carbonica.org

Perhaps one of the most significant statements that has come out of Copenhagen this week is that the US is not prepared to commit public funds to pay for the “technology transfer” to decarbonise China.  

It’s not exactly surprising that a debt laden nation does not want to give billions of dollars (and go deeper into the red) to a country with significant foreign reserves and a trade surplus that makes it better equipped than any to decarbonise itself. The US believes other developed countries are worthier recipients of the technology transfer fund (now estimated at around $100bn per annum), and all of them put together do match in order of magnitude (around 6 billion tonnes of CO2)  the environmental impact of China’s emissions (and future potential emissions). 

This is not what the Chinese wanted to hear though, and it could give them the pretext to walk or blame the US for the failure of the talks. However the US position makes perfect sense. After all China is already the single largest recipient of carbon trading funds within the CDM, and as carbon trading forecast to boom exponentially in the coming years, China will continue to receive billions of dollars every year for carbon credits originated there. In conclusion, it can expect to receive the lion’s share of private money from carbon trading even if it will not get any of the US taxpayer’s dollars.  

It is important that in addition to the technology transfer, we allocate aid to rainforest countries to protect their assets. Retaining and expanding the Earth’s capacity to absorb carbon is as important --if not more-- than cutting emissions. 

London’s ambitions to become a low-carbon leader 

London is already a world leader in finance, and carbon finance in particular. The office of the Mayor of London now has ambitions to make London the greenest city in the world. 

Yesterday I attended a workshop of business leaders at City Hall to discuss the prospects of decarbonising London’s transport and businesses, and it was very interesting to see that the discussions on transport were dominated by the electric car, which got most of the discussion time, rather than public transport. The consensus was that the use of electric cars should be incentivised more strongly.  

At the moment the borough of Westminster is the leading example of central London boroughs in allowing free parking to EVs in all pay-and-display bays. Westminster’s example should be adopted by all local authorities, also introducing a larger number of recharging points. 

Electric cars will prepare London to be decarbonised in a radical way. The important challenge then will be that the increased demand in electricity should be sourced from renewables and low-carbon sources, such as nuclear energy. 

Businesses also depend on clean energy to decarbonise their operations, so fundamentally the decarbonisation of London relies pivotally on a consistent low-carbon energy generation strategy.   

The new REVA NXR can be seen at the Frankfurt International Motor Show (15-27 Sep) and will be distributed in the UK by GoinGreen. 

 See www.revaglobal.com

EV manufacturer REVA in India has led the electric car revolution with the legendary G-Wiz, which now symbolises the electric car itself.

In the UK, the G-Wiz is the best-selling electric car. Although initially regarded as a bit niche and an eccentric choice of vehicle, Londoners have enjoyed the benefits of owning an electric car, in addition to the environmental benefits. With no congestion charge to pay and free parking in the City of Westminster and other London boroughs, the G-Wiz has gained a lot of visibility in Central London. It is now the classic EV.

We very much hope that the new REVA NXR will take the EV success to a new level, catering the needs of families and drivers who need a more spacious car, and still enjoy all the perks of tax-free driving.

Brunella

Electric cars help mitigate climate change if you recharge them with green electricity and keep the air in our cities clean and healthy.

Electric vehicles (EV) will play a key role in decarbonising our economy. It's by encouraging their use that we can turn our backs on fossil fuels and escalating CO2 emissions. The UK government is right in encouraging the switch to electric cars and offering EV grants, but this incentive should be introduced immediately and not in 2011. It is important that we prepare for drastic emission cuts, and this includes switching to EVs, gradually but in sufficient numbers and with momentum.

Critics of EVs say that they are only 30% efficient in using the power stored in the battery, and if this electricity is generated by a non-clean source such as coal-fired power stations, then the carbon footprint is comparable to a fossil fuel propelled vehicle. There is some truth in this argument, but if we don't switch to EVs, then our dependence on fossil fuels will continue and we will never deal with climate change. What we must do is demand utility companies to turn to renewables and clean electricity. The effort to generate electricty in a clean way and our switch to EV should go in parallel and we don't have to wait for one to happen to start doing the other. Governments are already investing massive sums of money in CSS (which is still an untested technology, but if all goes according to plan, CSS will be the "holy grail" of climate change mitigation). There is a long way to go but there are an increasing number of green electricity providers available, and you can choose to recharge your EV from one of these.

The additional argument is one of heath and our immediate environment. Many people living in our cities have forgotten how clean air can be, and they can only get a taste of this by going to the countryside. This is the extent of how accustomed we have become to live breathing toxic fumes on a daily basis, and our cities are immersed in soot, dust and traffic emissions. The impact of this translates in poorer health and reduced longevity. What is the price of this? No amount of EV grants is too expensive to make our cities healthier places to live in.

Brunella