New research from scientists at University College London (UCL) indicates that stronger action is required to transform the UK’s energy system and reduce carbon emissions in line with 2050 targets.
The study, which is part of the Deep Decarbonization Pathway Project (DDPP), analysed different methods the UK could employ to decarbonise its energy system. It claims that fundamental changes are required in order to keep the UK on track for its emissions targets, such as decarbonising the power sector by 85-90 per cent by 2030, and introducing carbon capture and storage (CCS) on a wide scale for both power generation and industry.
The research – coordinated by the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) – also claims that direct use of fossil fuels in end use sectors must decrease by more than 70 per cent by 2050.
UK attempts to hit these targets are part of a wider programme to keep emissions below the level that would raise global temperatures above the internationally agreed upon 2 degrees Celsius. But according to the scientists involved in the study, radical shifts in policy are needed to achieve this.
“Without a sustained and strong policy push that increases year on year in ambition, the delivery of low carbon technologies at the necessary scale will not be achieved,” said Steve Pye from the UCL Energy Institute, lead author of the report.
“Carbon emissions need to halve by 2030 to 4 tCO2/capita, and reduce to less than 1 tCO2/capita by 2050. For this, the UK needs policies now that realise the full low cost energy efficiency potential in buildings, ensure the rapid deployment of low carbon generation technologies such as CCS, and prepare for the roll-out of low emissions vehicles in the transport sector and alternative, non-gas based heating systems for homes.
”With radical change required on a global scale, the researchers believe that strong leadership is needed from countries with the knowledge base and skills to deliver decarbonisation and the development of low carbon technologies.
“The UK is in a position to play a strong role in international engagement on reducing carbon emissions by cooperating on developing low-carbon technologies and setting an example to other countries by implementing ambitious policies that direct towards a low carbon future,” said report co-author Professor Neil Strachan, also from the UCL Energy Institute.
Though the targets listed are undoubtedly tough, even stonger action than that outlined in the report may be needed to keep emissions below the recommended levels, according to Pye.
“Despite the 2050 target already being challenging, the UK may need to be even more ambitious with actions taken prior to 2050, as evidence shows that a net zero emissions global energy system is likely to be required by the 2070s to limit global warming,” he said.
People seem to have completely forgotten that the objective is to stop the world warming. But the world stopped warming 18 years ago. So there is no longer any need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions – something that would bring poverty and disaster to billions of people in the world.
And talking of low carbon technologies, we already have them – changing from coal to gas and nuclear power. But, for some strange reason, the environmentalists oppose both. I’ve often wondered whether or not a substantial part of their income comes from renewable energy industry.
What we need is to encourage is a development of Nuclear power, gas, clean fossil fuel stations and the shutting down of old polluting coal fired stations that, under the current regime, continue in operation because it is so difficult to build a new clean one.
I generally agree with the comments by Bryan Leyland regarding the lack of influence of carbon dioxide on world warming; however, I believe that the old coal fired stations could be kept in operation for many years more economically than building new.
The UCL departments seem to be more funding sycophants than questioning scientists, and this approach is a matter for serious concern. They ought to be looking at what is really needed not what they are told is needed.
An issue that is not raised is that of energy security. The UK depends upon imported coal and gas; mainly from potentially hostile powers. We import over half of the coal used (20m tonnes / year, half of this from Russia) and an increasing portion of the gas (again indirectly from Russia). The planned “super-grid” will increase our import susceptibility. Of course there is also the issue of balance of payments as energy prices increase in the future – assuming that the world is not stuck in stagnation mode.
The media hype (and particularly BBC reporting) never questions the orthodoxy and will publish any scam claiming that the global warming Armaggedon is getting nearer. The big issue is now supporting the white elephants that we have invested so massively in while providing long term security. Energy storage seems to be the only viable means of using “renewables” effectively.
If I have a neighbour prepared to sell me what I need (at a price I can afford) at the least I am going to try to stay on good terms with him/her. It is in both our interests. Its called the supplier ‘chain!’. [The political alternative is that I invade ‘him’ and literally take what I want: because rattling my sword against his shield is hardly conducive to good neighbourness!
I had a project many years ago: to produce a vast fabric ‘enclosure’ to retain the dust developing from a vast ‘pile’ of coal at a northern port. The coal was mined (it was said by child labour) in a S American country (with remarkably a very Left-wing Government!) and shipped to the UK: to be used as a bargaining chip by the then generators of power to squeeze the Coal Board: (later British Coal) into supplying coal at very low prices. [ie sell us coal at £.9X or we will import it. [even though we know its source is very suspect?!] The economics (and morality) of the mad house?
In case we forget: but for the sacrifices [25,000,000 dead] of that country -the one our meja insists on constantly poking a finger at… we would presently be speaking a language that requires a Capital Letter for the start of every Noun!
Mike B
Following Mike Blamey’s point about Russia, we are at equal risk of becoming dependent upon the USA for our future energy: we import 10m tonnes per year of coal, 2m tonnes wood and will soon be landing large amounts of gas. We seem to be determined to make the Russians the 1984 style enemy at the door.
Who knows how friendly we will be with the USA in 10 years? They have shown a high level of self-interest in their recent foreign policy decisions.
The previous comments said it all – UCL employs a ludicrous bunch of nodding donkey scientists who endlessly tell the global warming community what it wants to hear – or they’ll get no funding.
Meanwhile the beautiful ancient forests of Louisiana are being chewed up and transported to Drax power station to provide an ‘eco’ solution – ghastly..
I am writing to provide some counterbalance to the clear “climate denier” comments sitting all in a row.
I also think it a nerve to accuse renewable energy proponents as having a “vested interest” in doomsaying while the deniers are all-too-obviously supporters of questionable resources (oil) and dangerous alternatives such as nuclear whose power is wielded much more aggressively because of their own safely vested (financial) interests.
I also challenge the first contributor to show the data supporting his claim for lack of global warming over the last 18 years!? If we want a scientifically informed chat room here, please make an effort.
Just a quick rejoinder to Anonymous. I can state that I do not have and never have had any involvement in the oil industry or for that matter the nuclear industry. I am a “denier” because the model is flawed, the temperature data suspect and real science is based on facts not consensus.
Anon.
Try climate4you.com or simply read the IPCC report that states that there has been a lack of warming for more than 12 years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/on-natural-climate-variability-and-climate-models/
My wife an I are majority owners of a hydropower scheme. It provides our retirement income.
Renewable energy does have in interest in doomsaying. It relies on subsidies that exist because of a belief in global warming and a mistaken belief that wind and solar are an effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. They are not.