A Green Degree Blog: New Angles On Sustainability

October 23rd 2012

The UK’s Changing Energy Supply; A John Hayes Approach (Another Shambles!)

There are an almost endless number of perks to being a student at Imperial College, and in particular one studying the environmental and energy sciences, not least the free wine nights held ‘traditionally’ every Thursday night after a guest talk. However, this week’s treat was one of a slightly higher and more professional calibre - a talk by the recently crowned energy minister of state at DECC, John Hayes, the man leading the ‘greenest party ever’ forward unto the dawn.

I was unashamedly quite excited about this guest spot, as not only was it to be my first experience with a powerful politician in a public speaking environment, but it was also a man who was directly responsible for much of what I define as my most passionate of interests and enjoyments, the energy debate, and within that, the UK’s shambles of an attempt. So with this confidence, and of course a rather large expectation for something to annoy/anger/depress being said, I went to watch him speak to an audience of students, professionals, politicians and interested parties yesterday evening. The focus of the topic? The changing UK energy supply. Fascinating and current stuff for sure.

Unfortunately, it was not to be the case. Not only did I come out the talk feeling let down, disappointed, confused and kinda angry at the whole thing, but these feelings were far stronger than I thought I would experience going in. Politics never fails to surprise eh.

From start to finish, John Hayes, a man who recently replaced the much-loved by all (even greenies) Charles Hendry from an utterly un-environmentally linked background, gave us a masterclass in dodging the elephants in the room, not answering questions but doing enough to move on and being wholly like a Tory politician should be; funny in a way which boils the blood and patronisingly cocky at the same time.

When he finally stumbled onto the topic of energy sources and generation, with me believing at one point that he was never going to mention the words ‘sustainable’, ‘renewable’ or ‘climate change’, it was a speech filled with techno-political babble and attempts at covering everything possible with as little information as possible. He screamed past the likes of biomass production, solar PV and onshore wind without even mentioning offshore or tidal, focusing on the topic long enough to merely list their names, avoiding going into any deep, or even shallow conversation in regards to deployment, costs, future developments or the coalition’s stance. It was all behind us in a matter of seconds and yet it couldn’t have been more of an important topic when debating energy supply.

He only delved into onshore wind briefly when he wanted to point out, in a manner I felt similar to veiled hostility, that he had called for investigations into their costs and effectiveness, and to how best the communities affected by their development could be compensated. Of course, he was basically saying that he wasn’t prepared to talk at any length about them unless he was 100% sure they didn’t piss people off or ruin the countryside. Seems his anti-wind stance people had hoped he had dropped was still living on.

CCS, nuclear and natural gas, spiced up with some North Sea offshore drilling then became the main subjects of conversation, with each one generously fleshed out and described in a detail which was rarely employed anywhere else in his entire talk.

Posted at 9:50am and tagged with: john hayes, UK, energy, policy, politics, science, coalition, DECC, ofgem, ccs, carbon, gas, oil, wind, solar, fracking, shale, supply, anti, green, low carbon, debate, uni, talk, imperial, offshore, drilling, nuclear, market, big six,.

October 20th 2012

The Latest Terror Threat? The ‘Environmental Taliban’…What, What?

|#

Oh George, we marvel at how you consistently manage to spout something new and controversial, almost on a daily basis. You really are a character I don’t think people will be forgetting for some time to come, be that for better (unlikely) or for worse. So what has he done now? That’s if you haven’t already stumbled across the latest gobsmackingly stupid comment from the man who has simultaneously managed to upset both the wider public, most of the UK government including his own Party (22% of Tory’s voted for him out in a recent poll), the EU and most of the powerful energy industry players out there, and all roughly within a week or two. Amazing.

Mr. Osborne has now begun referring to those within Parliament who are campaigning for greener futures and a strong climate agenda as the ‘environmental Taliban’, in a stunningly short-sighted comment no doubt directed at Ed Davey and his keen followers, who in most cases are the majority of the public who know a thing or two about clean energy. It would seem that environmentalists have now moved on from being a Satanic cult (no joke, this was a real thing said by a real US political speaker) worshipping the devil that is the Earth/Gaia, and are now a group of radicals akin to dangerous terrorists. And he’s Chancellor of the Exchequer? Satan save us.

This name-calling comes at a very sensitive period for the entirety of UK energy policy, which is, for lack of a better phrase, a complete shambles, primarily driven by Osborne and his cohort of Tory followers who variously are either anti-wind, solar or renewables, and pro-offshore and fracking. Even if he meant the ‘Taliban’ reference as a joke, there will undoubtedly be people out there who do not take it so, and by extending his terminology to environmentalists as a whole, he’s including a huge number of people who believe climate change is real, we are responsible for the majority and that low-carbon is the only real solution. Hence why protests and Twitter campaigns such as #greenisworking have exploded in favour of condemning his actions (I’ve even seen one called #killgeorgeosborne, which is a likelihood seeming ever more likely…).

According to reports, the comment came as Ed Davey desperately attempts to push through a binding emissions cap on power plants for 2030, as well as clarifying legislation on the approaching switch to ‘contracts for difference’, a policy which aims to lock in value for renewable projects and promote low-carbon development, with the Treasury fronting the responsibility of guaranteeing support. Of course, Osborne doesn’t like this idea, and is rapidly becoming an aura of clean-tech skepticism and a loss of interest in decarbonising the grid, and as many fear, a reflection of the general Tory party backbench’s opinion.

Instead, Osborne has long rallied for a ‘dash for gas’, whereby abundances in domestic natural shale gas could be exploited to lower energy costs and secure resources for the future, a notion no doubt triggered by the explosion in gas extraction and a tumbling in energy costs over in America. While the idea of energy security and low costs are his way of appealing to a nation where 9% gas bill hikes are almost common place and keeping the house lit is becoming increasingly painful on the wallet, there are some rather major flaws in his plan.

Posted at 9:21am and tagged with: george osborne, Environment, taliban, energy, debate, policy, politics, ed davey, UK, parliament, Cameron, big six, coal, gas, fracking, oil, wind, solar, tidal, money, terror, green, jobs, PTC, US, Tory, climate, clean, low-carbon, Earth,.

October 16th 2012

2 Weeks Into Imperial & Time To Get The Blog Back On Track

|#

Let me start by saying thank you to anybody who actually held out on new content being posted to this blog over the past several weeks, for you harbor some commendable confidence in me and this site, an attribute I doubt the majority of people who stumbled across ‘A Green Degree’ left with, but it was not in vein, I promise you that; I’m back after a massively busy few weeks moving into London and starting my masters at Imperial College, and now it is long overdue that I update my little side project with some real bloody content!

However, this isn’t going to be like the majority of my posts on here, which follow the rule of thumb of collecting stories or articles on news events and forehead-slapping moments in the world of sustainability, putting what I like to think as my personal spin on them, and then tapping them down onto digital paper for the world to see (maybe). This time, as I feel jumping straight into a post about how Romney is bad for more than just energy, or how George Osborne is single-handedly ruining our green policy, I’m going to go for the old-school blog post - one about my recent experiences in the world of a sustainability and environment masters degree.

Coming from a Geography BSc I was pretty surprised to see fellow map-makers and coloring pencil adepts such as myself going for the same thing, and of similar age at that, and it has since been proven that my base foundation in subjects varying from policy to economics, ecology to conservation and beyond give me a slight advantage over many of those who specialized in something crazy like physics or biology. Of course the business graduates slot right in, but then business seems to be applicable to everything these days eh, the science subject that never should have been. Anyway, I’m digressing too far, back on track.

In these first two weeks alone I’ve been introduced to the nitty gritty of pure economics in the form of supply and demand and marginal costs, learnt basic legal law, been taught the ‘philosophies’ involved with understanding knowledge (I thought the same thing…) and had some fascinating guest seminars from people at the top of their game. One of the most notably impressive was a lecture on climate change in the policy and societal frame, by a fellow by the name of Clive Bates, a DECC scientist whose had one hell of a varied career, and one which I was instantly envious of, even if it meant all the handwork involved. In a few days time I will be starting work in a small 6-person seminar with a leading environmental barrister who could talk his way out of a high-security prison if he needed to, focusing on how best to go about creating a post-Kyoto global framework; a massive topic I know, but I sure am relishing the chance to get into the real science and policy of such a hotly debated idea.

It is these few things that make not only studying at Imperial, but studying a masters stick out from the rest of the competition, and anything I’ve experienced prior. Here, we don’t so much get taught ‘stuff’ like in an undergrad degree, but instead we are taught how to think, how to view the world holistically and as critically as we can, and to basically act like the rational, selfless and well-informed monkeys we all really should be. We aren’t being told the history of this, or the importance of that, we’re being given life advice and direction so strong, I’m starting to think the 80% employment rate just months after graduation is not such a ridiculous claim as it seems; and before you think it, that’s employment in relevant sectors, not just part-time behind the local bar.

Not only this, but as quite possibly the first group of generations which really has a stake in the globally apparent climate crisis and all the other bad things associated with it, and a strong responsibility to kick our ancestors hard in the ass before hopefully setting things up nicely for the future, we’re all highly invested in the course, as are it’s directors. Despite the 40+ age of this particular course (Environmental Technology for those interested) I can’t help but feel now is the most important time for this course, and so many others like it popping up around the world, and the fact that they’re thriving is a silver-lining to say the least. In the words of our course manager, we will become the ‘environmental crusaders’ this world so desperately needs; whilst I’m unsure crusader is the best term to be used to be taken seriously, it sure makes us feel good.

Something that really stuck out to me today however, and this is a point that really needs emphasizing, is that I’m frankly not surprised much of the public is neither emotionally or intellectually invested in the green way of life. This occurred to me whilst sitting in a lecture about ‘public perceptions of risk’, in which the ins and outs of environmental risk management, health and safety and security were spelled out, in words about as clear as mud. What’s worrying is that these topics are central to everything us environmental scientists do, as risk governs everything in our society, and yet if I struggled to a) get my head around it, or b) actually bother to pay attention due to boredom, how will the public ever do the same?

You hear it all the time, how information and education is the key to putting the developed world on a path which will save us from that rapidly aging phrase ‘climate change’, and I have always believed it to be true, and yet only know do I see what a huge challenge it will be. Sustainability is what I believe to be the future of a harmonized society, and in particular the clean management of energy resources to power our hungry ways, in both developed and developing worlds, so that emissions are kept low (or ‘optimal’ - typical economic view on the system) and our quality of lives nice and high.

This is just me though, and I only have to speak to three or four other coursemates to hear their plans for fixing the future, one bit at a time; some see water as key, others the market or harsher law on the historical polluters, whilst even more are heading for the hands on approach, designing and implementing the very things which will bring about this necessary change. It’s a great working environment to say the least, and gives me confidence that we may actually be able to get some bloody progress made before it’s too late. Then again, ask me in a month’s time, I may not be so happy-go-lucky as I am now!

Anyway, I’ve rambled on romantically and gushingly on the subject of my past several weeks of life, and this isn’t really what my blog was originally for, but I felt like bringing any readers up to speed about it all before getting back into the real-world stuff, and boy is there no shortage of it right now.

So as of this post, ‘A Green Degree’ will be back to its old ways (please write if you had issue with the old ways, always appreciate feedback) and will hopefully be bolstered by this new fangled degree which I’ve just spent 1,000 words praising, and my newfound holistic (they love that word at Imperial) view of the sustainable world.

If you made it this far, you’re either maddeningly bored or far too kind, so whichever one you were, please check back in a couple of days for some proper content!

Love x

Posted at 9:14am and tagged with: blog, imperial, university, life, experience, study, Environment, sustainable, energy, kyoto, geography, clean, green, holistic, lectures, overdue, green degree, student, graduate,.

October 12th 2012

Don’t Worry, Content Is On Its Way!

|#

Hello to anybody out there who actually still reads this little project of mine, or to those who stumbled across it as of this post, or to pretty much anyone who glimpses this page, I have an update on the massive lack of content there has been on the site for a good 2 weeks now!

Firstly, there is more on it’s way, don’t you worry (if you even did…), I don’t plan on dropping this blog for anything, but every now and then life gets just that bit too busy for any real quality posts to be published.

In this case, that busyness is due to me just having started a masters degree at Imperial College in good old London, studying the only thing I really care for, the environment! I’m 2 weeks into this mega course and haven’t had any spare time to just sit down, get angry about something in the news and write up a rant about it, but things are finally starting to settle down.

The house is still in dire need of furniture, heating and fixed doorknobs, and the process of making new friends and breaking multiple blocks of ice is consuming most of my free time, but amidst this madness sits one of the best courses on environmental topics the country can pretty much offer (I’m excited and privileged to say the least!) and I’m loving every single second of it.

For those of you who are still reading, and interested in the nitty gritty of what my course actually entails, here’s a brief but hopefully informative executive summary. Environmental Technology is its name, although ‘technology’ in the sense of the practical application of science and policy to solve some of the most pressing matters of our age (cliched eh). So we cover what seems to be everything on the broad topic, such as environmental economics, policy and law, pollution, ecology, the philosophy of it all, all the way down to good old statistics and development. It’s a big one to say the least.

Going further still, I chose my optional module to focus entirely on Energy Policy, with intricate studies of each and every form of energy generation available to us, the good and bad, how we use them, how we implement them and what policies drive them forwards. This is the subject I look forward to the most by a wind-farm filled country mile.

So effectively, this post is just to confirm that ‘A Green Degree’ isn’t dead, not yet anyway, and will, if anything, be rising from the posting drought a much more well-informed, well written and more confident medium, with this mammoth of a masters course injecting a little extra class and professionalism it was deeply lacking.

So for now, keep your eyes on this space, a new post will be with you in the next few days, and enjoy living the good green life!

James Beioley

Posted at 6:57pm and tagged with: blog, university, masters, Environment, imperial college, london, information, confident, posting, green, technology, lectures, energy, policy, law, pollution, economics, ecology,.

September 28th 2012

Total Sees Some Sense In The Arctic Whilst Shell Plans World’s Largest Offshore Refinery

|#

In a turn of events unrivaled in recent fossil fuel developments, one of the major world players in oil exploration and refining, has recently stated what many of us rational thinkers had thought would never be uttered; drilling in the Arctic is a bad idea. Joy! Finally someone a the top of the very issues that got us into this climate mess in the first place has perhaps seen some sense.

The CEO of Total, the world’s fourth largest oil conglomerate and not a company known for it’s environmental conscience has turned the table on its head, directly attacking and condemning the efforts of Shell and Gazprom in exploring the melting Arctic for new hydrocarbon reserves. CEO Christophe de Margerie openly admitted the high risks and potential dangers associated with offshore drilling in the Arctic, or anywhere for that matter, but it’s how he phrased the next part that slightly lessens the impact of this revelation.

According to de Margerie, Total will not be carrying out any exploration in the polar region, as a spillage “would do too much damage to the image of the company” and thus is not worth the risk.

So it seems that Total is scared of drilling the Arctic because of something not really connected to environmental or green issues whatsoever; it just doesn’t want to tarnish the record of its oh-so untarnished reputation as an oil demon. What’s instantly and obviously worrying is that there is absolutely no mention of the risks such a spill would have on the ecology, species, humans and general environment of the Arctic region, a highly sensitive and fragile part of the planet, and one which is already taking a considerable beating from a warming climate. It just shows that even when these behemoths of the fossil fuel world seem to be doing something right for once, there’s generally not a pure and environmentally-friendly motive behind it, but just a way of saving their own skins, not those of the ones at risk.

However, if the threat of ruining their rep in the same way that BP has blackened its name with the Deepwater Horizon disaster is strong enough to stop them from drilling up north, then I can somewhat condone it. Hell, it may even be useful to use this idea as a force to turn other companies such as Shell against the idea of drilling, but this is a whole new mission impossible of itself.

Posted at 9:46am and tagged with: oil, drilling, offshore, carbon, emissions, Environment, energy, shell, gazprom, total, acrtic, save, greenpeace, melt, ice, sense, business, money, refinery, natural gas, ship, world, largest, ecology, species, BP, disaster, spill, fossil fuel, grist,.

September 22nd 2012

The Wind Industry Is Booming, But Boy Do Some Bleak Futures Lay Ahead

|#

Of all the renewable technologies open to us these days, there’s no doubt that wind is the outright winner in the capacity and cost race, and more specifically, onshore wind, those gleaming white towers some countries are lucky (and tolerant) enough to have dotting their countryside and coastal regions.

Global wind deployment was once again up last year, this time by a relatively humble 6%, equating to just shy of 42GW of energy capacity installed, when compared to the average of 23% for the five years leading up to 2010, but is nonetheless signs of rampant and continued uptake the world over. Asia takes the biggest bite, with 52.1% of the global share, most of that in China, in which a recent study undertaken by multiple parties has concluded that Chinese capacity could reach 300GW by 2020, and 400GW by 2030; they are absolutely HUGE numbers, and if achieved, mark a seriously devoted agenda from the communist-cum-capitalist nation.

Closer to home, Europe has fallen in the rankings, taking just 24.5% of new installations for 2011, with again, a large majority of that down to one country, Germany, whose brilliant FiTs and policies allow for cost-effective and quick deployment of wind turbines throughout the country to the tune of almost a 1/3 of all European cumulative additions.

However, a draft government regulation released a few weeks ago in Germany seems to be stifling this growth just as it gets some real pace, or at least in the offshore department. Offshore has unfortunately been a much less avidly followed form of wind energy, due to its high costs, difficult maintenance and installation issues and generally poor policy and regulation worldwide, but Germany has always been one of the leaders. This new announcement would slash incentives for offshore generation prices, from 1 Euro/MWh to 0.75 Euros; whilst this cuts costs slightly for consumers on the renewable section of their bills, it will ultimately put future projects off and may stunt growth of a crucial area for the industry.

On the plus side, the UK achieved a milestone for wind energy generation recently by producing 4.1GW of electricity, over 10% of the country’s needs, using those spinning blades to boil cups of tea and burn toast, beating the previous 3.8GW record set in May. Some decided to lessen this triumph by stating that 4.1GW roughly equals the output of just one single coal and biomass-fired plant, Drax, which is not only more reliable but not as expensive. Surely they can’t be serious? When Germany produced over half their energy needs via solar and wind earlier this year, I don’t remember seeing any rabid comparisons to numbers of coal or gas plants over there, so why here?

Posted at 10:00am and tagged with: wind, energy, sustainable, renewable, emissions, coal, gas, turbines, economy, politics, policy, rewards, windfall, farm, clean, green, asia, china, trade, war, onshore, UK, america, USA, elections, europe, electricity, germany, investment, PTC,.

September 13th 2012

Japan Nuclear-Free By 2030s, But How Will They Fill The Gap?

|#

It would seem a decision on the fate of nuclear power in Japan has potentially been decided this week, with the announcement by the prime minister’s leading democratic party that policy will be settled soon which intends to ‘realise a situation where the number of nuclear plants operated be zero in the 2030s’, effectively hammering home the final nail in the industry’s coffin.

It has long been thought by followers of the nuclear market that Japan would eventually cut all ties and close down their operations post-Fukushima, but for a long time the prime minister was caught in two minds; on the one hand, he had an angry Japanese public to answer to for the Fukushima disaster, whilst he and the business sector believed Japan would need to nuclear to progress without blackouts and that the benefits outweighed the possible risks. Now it seems that the public may have won, with this statement no doubt gratifying many concerned citizens, although it may not seem to be coming quick enough for some.

Since the Tohoku earthquake, all of Japans fifty reactors have been offline, bar two in the same plot restarted earlier this year, for regulation and safety checks, leaving the country with a gaping energy deficit of 30%, the amount fission provided up until the fateful tsunami. With the closure in full effect and possible edgings towards restarting the nuclear fleet being banded around, a country normally peaceful and well conformed to government life was up in arms, with protests in the thousands rattling the streets of Tokyo, demanding an end to nuclear and it’s inherent dangers. This was certainly a Japan not often seen by the global public, not least the media.

Unfortunately, Japan has had to heavily rely on oil imports since the shutdowns across the country, ramping up their consumption of Middle Eastern black gold considerably, whilst at the same time employing strict and tough efficiency rulings and energy-saving requirements back home, just to stop the nation from all out blackouts during the summer months. In effect, this increased oil consumption not only stalled what looked to be a peaking industry, but also contributed greatly to the carbon being dumped into the atmosphere, carbon which otherwise would have been left in the ground had the nuclear plants been left on or restarted.

This is the crucial point of the entire ‘end to nuclear’ debate currently being hotly contested all over the developed world. If we choose to dump nuclear, an industry which provides a large chunk of global energy supply, we must be prepared to replace it with something else, and that doesn’t mean more oil, coal and natural gas from elsewhere in the world. That is clearly backward thinking and progress.

September 7th 2012

Carbon-Capture & Storage: Why All The Bother?

|#

I’m sure many of you have, at some point in your journeys through the energy and renewable world heard the term ‘carbon-capture and storage’, or more simply ‘CCS’, but might not have known fully what it was, how it works or why it is being given such prominence in modern policy discussion. Well here’s my attempt at giving you a brief but hopefully in-depth look at the technology and the science surrounding some of the obsession associated with big oil companies, the Republicans and general economists.

CCS does mostly what it says on the tin; it aims to capture carbon or CO2 from the fumes and emissions given off by dirty industry, such as oil, coal or gas burning power plants, usually by grabbing the stuff out of the air with scrubbers or biological substances, before condensing it down into liquid form which can be easily transported. This lovely carbon-ooze is subsequently pumped elsewhere, generally far from the source, and deep into the Earth’s crust, within depleted fossil fuel reserves or geologically appropriate formations, such as aquifers or rock beds.

Via this technology, it is greatly hoped that carbon emissions from our already well-established dirty fossil industries can be hugely reduced, without radical changes in attitude and infrastructure required. We’ll see why this is not the grand idea is sounds to be.

The whole science of capturing the CO2 has been relatively well-tested on a small scale, with multiple projects spanning from the start of the millennia, such as simple scrubbing of power plant chimneys. However, capture on a larger scale has proved a much more ambitious and expensive venture, with price-tags commonly running into the hundreds of millions if not billions just for the initial CCS stages. Examples of these include projects in Denmark through Vattenfall, pilot capture facilities in Sweden and Norway and greater Europe, with plenty more in the planning stage (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/qics/). Unfortunately practically all of the projects currently in play, whether they’re still in planning or near-completion, only involve the ‘capture’ part of CCS, merely test-beds for working out the kinks in collecting the stuff for subsequent storage, with the resultant carbon being released into the atmosphere once the experiments are complete. Only eight (in 2011) CCS plants were actually injecting CO2 back into the ground worldwide, with at least three of them acting purely as partners to deep-sea offshore drilling platforms, collecting their waste and pumping it back into the seabed, to no real net gain to society.

As for the larger scale storage aspect of CCS, nearing 100 projects are in place since mid-2012, but current financial and political woes have all but put the majority of these on the shelf, no doubt for the indefinite future, seen as far too expensive, risky and a distraction from the real issue at hand. Specifically, the EU recently slashed its fund for CCS from a prospective £4.8bn to just £1bn, with finalised figures coming in a month or so, meaning that the 12 projects originally guaranteed funding are no in serious jeopardy. Similar issues are being experienced by the industry globally, as the idea of big, high-risk, high-dollar energy resources such as nuclear rapidly fall out of favour with both the public and professionals.

This however does not seem true in the US, where the [unfortunate] boom in shale gas extraction has fuelled great interest in ways to reduce the already disgustingly damaging practice of fracking and shale prospecting. Shell has been a major player in this region of the world, jumping on the natural gas bandwagon without hesitation, setting up shop in Alberta, where one of the world’s largest reserves of shale gas resides. Just google this yourself and switch to images and before long you will understand why myself and many others recoil at the very idea of extracting this utter mess. Anyway, back on topic.

Posted at 9:48am and tagged with: carbon, CCS, capture, storage, oil, coal, gas, fossil, fuels, industry, climate change, risk, fields, power plants, energy, dangerous, science, technology, money, CO2, wind, solar, renewable,.