SeekerBlog

This new report out of Oxford is very carefully and thoroughly done — an excellent resource for your archives. Here’s the press release

An urgent remodelling of the UK’s energy infrastructure is vital if the country wants to decarbonise without “the lights going out” and not be reliant on imported energy supplies, says a new report by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment (SSEE) at the University of Oxford.

“Towards a low carbon pathway for the UK” emphasises the need to remodel our infrastructure between now and 2025 to redress the balance between energy security and decarbonisation. Following up on last year’s report, “A low carbon nuclear future,” SSEE’s latest research highlights how, with the right strategy, a £100bn world-leading nuclear industry, providing over 75,000 jobs and guaranteeing a consistent, safe energy supply, while still meeting long term carbon emission targets, can be achieved.

Towards a low carbon pathway for the UK report

“Towards a low carbon pathway for the UK” explores two key aspects of the UK’s energy landscape: the future delivery of low carbon energy and the initial moves towards a new build programme, and the more immediate first steps of safely and cost efficiently dealing with the UK’s plutonium inventory.

Professor Sir David King, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford comments: “If we are to ensure we have a safe, secure and affordable supply of energy as we move through the century we need a coherent strategy that allows the UK to develop a full suite of low carbon energy sources. It is clear from our study that nuclear must play an important part in the energy mix but to do so requires a long term pathway and critical insights.

“The recent announcements on the Franco-British Accord and the desire to create a long-term strategy for nuclear up to and beyond 2050 are welcome, but we need to address the fundamental issue that energy provision is generally a 100 year programme and requires not just a long-term view, but skills and the science base to support it.”

Whilst nuclear new build is essential, with a quarter of the UK’s current generating capacity coming to the end of its life over the next ten years, the report highlights that we must also deal with the legacy issues that have been with us for many years. Failure to do so could have a detrimental effect on the whole nuclear industry in the UK. Furthermore, if we are to retain public support for nuclear as a key part of our future energy mix, then we have to demonstrate that lessons have been learnt and that there is in place a coherent policy framework which will capitalise on the opportunities and benefits on offer.

UK Nuclear Development Timeline 1950 – 2012 & onwards

An enormous challenge in meeting future electricity demand is anticipated with the predicted electrification of transport and heating increasing demand by 100% by 2050. To ensure we can keep the lights on and meet our low carbon energy targets, it will be essential to use greater levels of nuclear power. This will require either much higher uranium reserves than currently identified, or a change of fuel cycle to minimise uranium use.

Using the UK plutonium inventory to manufacture MOX (mixed oxide) fuel is the Government’s ‘minded to’ position. Coupled with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s stance on reprocessing spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors the de facto UK policy on nuclear would, therefore, be the recycling of plutonium and uranium as fuel.

The structure of the UK nuclear industry, however, is currently aligned more towards the ‘no nuclear’ stance of 2003 than the ‘new build’ stance of 2012 and the report points out the clear need for some form of independent body to advise on long-term nuclear strategy and options.

Caroline posted our “chart of the week” which demonstrates succinctly why Bill Gates refers to the politically correct “renewables” as energy farming. Energy density really does matter.

The below chart from Rutgers University Professor Clinton Andrews sums it up. Clearly, the more land used, the more disruptive to ecosystems an energy source is, to the point that electricity from biomass would eclipse all current human use of land and use 60% of the earth’s total land area in order to produce 100% of global demand. Wind land use to produce 100% of global demand would be par with all worldwide land area currently used for crops.

Percent of Earth’s land area taken for energy production for different energy sources. Taken from: Alternative Energy and Land Use paper from Clinton Andrews et al. Land intensiveness data from McDonald et al (2009), land area data from Melillo et al (2009), global energy demand data from EIA.

Roger Pielke Jr. summarizes the key points from his work on climate and energy policies that work. Hint, Kyoto is not one of these policies.

By now there is really no excuse for any professional involved in climate policy not to understand the implications of the Kaya Identity. The risks of not understanding the Kaya Identity is that one can get caught out proposing magic as the main mechanism of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Developed by Yoichi Kaya, a Japanese scientist, in the 1980s as means of generating emissions projections for use in climate models, the identity is also an extremely powerful tool of policy analysis, because it encompasses all of the tools in the policy toolbox that might be used to reduce emissions. The identity is comprised of four parts:

• Population
• Per capita wealth
• Energy intensity of the economy (energy consumption/GDP)
• Carbon intensity of energy (carbon dioxide emissions/energy consumption)

If we wish to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide with the goal of stabilizing its concentrations in the atmosphere, then we only have four levers, represented by each of the factors in the Kaya Identity.

In The Climate Fix, I simplify even further by combining population and per capita wealth, the result of which is simply GDP, and by combining energy intensity and carbon intensity, the product of which is carbon intensity of GDP.

That means that there are only two ways to reduce emissions to a level consistent with stabilization of concentrations at a low level (pick your favorite number, 350, 450, 550 ppm — the policy implications are identical). One is to reduce GDP. The second is to reduce the carbon intensity of GDP — to decarbonize. While there are a few brave/foolish souls who advocate a willful imposition of poverty as the remedy to accumulating carbon dioxide, that platform has not gathered much political steam. (See discussion of the Iron Law in TCF).

Instead, the only option left is innovation in how we produce and consume energy. That is it — innovation is the only game in town. Consequently, the correct metric of progress in innovation is a decrease in the ratio of carbon to GDP. For those who wish to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions, the proper policy debate is thus how do we stimulate energy innovation?

Pricing carbon (or energy) is not a point of dispute.

(…)

Read the whole thing, then buy The Climate Fix.