Category Archives: Energy and Climate Change

News and articles on climate change, vehicle pollution, and renewable energy.

People’s Climate March – Part 2

November 27, 2014Blog, Energy and Climate ChangeTrevor Larkum

[Continued from Part 1]

The exit from Temple station was severely congested with crowds of people trying to move slowly out. We were herded to the right and towards the Thames and embankment where apparently the back end of the march crowd would be found.

London Climate March - a quick selfie near Embankment (Image: T. Larkum) — London Climate March – a quick selfie near Embankment (Image: T. Larkum)

There was still some time to go before the march began so I used it to make my way through the crowd to get somewhere nearer the front, though after half an hour I was back again at Temple Station (about where I would have been if I’d turned left on leaving it – I’ll know that next time!). By the time the march started I had got perhaps halfway through the long crowd.

London Climate March - a carnival atmosphere (Image: T. Larkum) — London Climate March – a carnival atmosphere (Image: T. Larkum)

The crowd was very good-natured, there was something of a gentle carnival spirit around. I saw representatives from many different organisations including Greenpeace UK, Avaaz, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Socialist Workers, and various trade unions, to name just a few. Plus, of course, thousands of individuals like myself who had decided to ‘stand up and be counted’ even though we don’t belong to any political organisations.

London Climate March - passing the Palace of Westminster (Image: T. Larkum) — London Climate March – passing the Palace of Westminster (Image: T. Larkum)

We marched from Temple, past Embankment and then the Palace of Westminster to Abington Street Gardens. There we congregated – people standing around or picnicking on the grass – for a mass rally. Various organisers and celebrities gave speeches from a parked open-top bus. I particular concurred with the heartfelt talk from Emma Thompson.

London Climate March - the Rally (Image: T. Larkum) — London Climate March – the Rally (Image: T. Larkum)

Despite the subdued talks and the bad news they contained I felt that the overall mood of the march was very buoyant. I think for most people it will not be the end of their campaigning but more likely a beginning. I enjoyed my time there and felt it was time well spent. I will certainly be looking for further opportunities to get involved in these sorts of actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4D19mbhNGU

Of course, the London Climate March – which has been estimated to have involved 40000 people – was not the only one in the UK; there were others in Manchester, Edinburgh and Sheffild. These were just a few of many around the world. There were big marches in Australia, Germany, Canada, India, Italy and elsewhere. The biggest was in New York, with some 400,000 people attending.

IEA Says Oil Supplies May Not Keep Up With Demand

November 26, 2014Energy and Climate Change, News, Reviews and Comment, OpinionTrevor Larkum

Despite what appears to be a saturated oil market in 2014, oil producers around the world will struggle to meet rising demand over the next few decades.

In its latest annual World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that the current period of oil abundance may be fleeting, and in fact, without heroic levels of production increases, oil markets will grow dangerously tight in the coming years.

Global oil demand is expected to increase by 37 percent by 2040, with a dominant proportion of that coming from developing countries – i.e. China and India. In fact, the IEA says that for every barrel of oil the industrialized world expects to eliminate from demand through efficiency or other ways of reducing demand, developing countries will burn through two additional barrels.

The IEA predicts that the world will need to extract an additional 14 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) by 2040, which comes on top of today’s production levels of about 90 million bpd. While there is a lot of triumphalism in the United States about shale oil production and how places like the Bakken and the Eagle Ford have ushered in an era of abundance, the IEA says that tight oil production in the U.S. – along with Canadian oil sands – will only last until the mid-2020’s.

After that point, when the shale revolution peters out, oil markets revert to their old ways – that is, looking to the Middle East once again to meet global demand. And that should raise some alarm. Saudi Arabia will remain one of the largest and most important oil producers in the world, but it probably won’t be able to ramp up production much beyond its current levels. There is some slack production in Iran, due to western sanctions, but even when it returns to the fold it likely will only make a small contribution to oil production growth in the long-term.

Instead, much of the world’s hopes are pinned disproportionately on Iraq. A year ago, after the IEA released its 2013 WEO, I wrote about how the IEA was placing a surprising amount of faith in the ability of Iraq to scale up its oil production. For several years, the IEA predicted that Iraq would be able to triple its output from 3 million bpd to around 8.3 million bpd by 2035. Under that assumption, oil prices would rise only a modest amount over that timeframe.

That would have been a monumental task even before the country began unraveling in June 2014. Since then, Iraq has been plunged back into a state of war. The prospect that it can be put back together, and the requisite levels of capital investment can be put into its oil sector in order to add 5-6 million bpd over the next 20-30 years, appears fanciful to say the least.

An estimated $900 billion will need to be deployed each year beginning in the 2030s to bring enough oil online to meet global demand. But the IEA also cautions that replicating the tight oil boom in the United States will be very difficult. Different geological conditions could pose some problems, but the long lead times and opposition to drilling will also slow development in much of the world.

Unlike last year, this time around the IEA appears to be more concerned. The IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, said in a press release:

“A well-supplied oil market in the short-term should not disguise the challenges that lie ahead, as the world is set to rely more heavily on a relatively small number of producing countries.”

And in its WEO Fact sheet, the IEA declares:

“the task of bringing production above 100 mb/d rests on a fairly limited number of shoulders.”

Source: Oil Price

The scale of electricity use by fossil fuel refining

November 22, 2014Electric Cars, Energy and Climate Change, Opinion, TeslaTrevor Larkum

This is a fascinating episode of Robert Llewellyn’s (highly recommended) Fully Charged show. Ostensibly it’s a review of the rather dull Lexus is300h (just another hybrid) but actually the second half is an analysis of how much electricity is used in refining petrol and diesel fuels. He comes up with a figure of 4.5kWh of electricity wasted to refine one gallon.

This video is set to start at that point:

It gives a UK perspective on the well-known quote from Revenge of the Electric Car, usually attributed to Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla Motors) but really from the film’s director Chris Paine:

“you have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline. You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours. You basically have the energy needed to power electric vehicles if you stop refining.”

IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change

November 22, 2014Energy and Climate Change, News, Reviews and CommentTrevor Larkum

Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must be cut sharply and soon, but UN’s IPCC says solutions are available and affordable

Climate change is set to inflict “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly, according to the most important assessment of global warming yet published.

The stark report states that climate change has already increased the risk of severe heatwaves and other extreme weather and warns of worse to come, including food shortages and violent conflicts. But it also found that ways to avoid dangerous global warming are both available and affordable.

“Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message,” said the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, attending what he described as the “historic” report launch. “Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.” He said that quick, decisive action would build a better and sustainable future, while inaction would be costly.

Ban added a message to investors, such as pension fund managers: “Please reduce your investments in the coal- and fossil fuel-based economy and [move] to renewable energy.”

The report, released in Copenhagen on Sunday by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by the world’s governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.

The report comes at a critical time for international action on climate change, with the deadline for a global deal just over a year away. In September, 120 national leaders met at the UN in New York to address climate change, while hundreds of thousands of marchers around the world demanded action.

The Battle Between Oil and Electricity

November 21, 2014Energy and Climate Change, OpinionTrevor Larkum

Energy is not only a battleground between different sources such as nuclear, renewables or fossil fuels. There is also a battle between different means of delivering energy to consumers to provide light, comfort and mobility. Over the last century or more, two energy carriers have effected radical changes on human society and paved the way for a truly global economy. Oil has transformed our ability to move goods and people huge distances over land, sea and air. Electricity has transformed our homes and enabled the transfer of vast quantities of information and virtually instantaneous communication between any two points on the globe.

From a consumer’s perspective, these appear to be two different industries. Oil and gas producers exploit resources upstream and maintain distribution networks that end at the petrol pump. A different set of companies transforms primary energy into electricity and brings it into people’s homes. Two different energy sectors effectively co-exist because their products are so different in character. Liquid fuels have a high energy density and can be stored on-board a vehicle giving it a range of 1,000 kilometres or more. Electricity is difficult and expensive to store, and supply and demand must balance instantaneously. However, electricity is a very high quality form of energy that can be turned to almost any purpose: lighting, heating, motive power and the carriage of information.

Can we take the boundary between these two energy carriers for granted? Although the division appears clear and logical at the moment, history shows that nothing can be taken for granted. When oil was first produced, it was not to fuel the internal combustion engine. It was to provide a fuel for lighting to replace ever scarcer whale oil. Oil fractions that could have been used for transport were discarded as waste. However, through the innovative efforts of Edison and Westinghouse and by virtue of its greater power, flexibility and safety, electricity drove oil and gas from lighting markets. Oil has retreated from other markets too. Against a background of abundance and low cost supplies, Winston Churchill felt able to switch the Royal Navy from coal to oil prior to the First World War. But the high prices and scarcity associated with the 1970s oil crises drove oil from its markets in power stations and industry as companies responded to price signals and governments responded strategically to a deteriorating energy security situation. Lower oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s have not reversed these trends. There is now a prospect that global demand for oil will peak in the next 10-15 years – it may even have peaked already. Meanwhile, global demand for electricity increases at a rate that will lead to a doubling every twenty years.

There are reasons to suppose that the battle of the energy carriers is not over. The International Energy Agency’s latest Energy Technology Perspectives report focuses specifically on harnessing electricity’s potential. The next battleground involving oil and electricity could be in the transport sector. Several factors are involved. Two are environmental. In emerging economies, where car ownership is growing rapidly, transport-related air pollution is a major cause for concern and the attractions of electric vehicles are considerable. Electric vehicles can also help in the fight against climate change by making use, indirectly, of low-carbon energy sources such as renewables or nuclear to fuel the transport sector. Technological change is also playing a role. Energy storage technologies are developing rapidly and the cost and performance of battery technology in particular are improving. This will extend the range of electric vehicles and partly (though certainly not completely) erode the advantage of oil in this respect. Finally, in an uncertain world, it will allow more countries to reduce their reliance on imported transport fuels.

The new battle will not necessarily be clear cut. Improvements in extractive technology and access to new unconventional sources mean that oil will not be physically scarce. As with any major technological transition, it may take decades to work through. And “compromise” technologies such as hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles may help to make the best of both worlds, though at a cost.

The “eco-machine” of the future is now up for grabs. It may take a long time before we see an all-electric future for vehicles. But it is certain that the future will be both more electrified and more electrifying.

Source: Huffington Post

Do Auto Emissions Kill As Many People As Car Crashes?

November 20, 2014Energy and Climate Change, OpinionTrevor Larkum

Carbon-dioxide emissions have documented negative effects at a planetary level–but could the other gases coming out of vehicle tailpipes be as hazardous to overall public health in total as car accidents are?

In the public discourse to date, the answer has previously seemed to be “no.” Emissions generally aren’t discussed in terms of individual deaths, but rather in the context of climate change or as a contributing factor to specific illnesses.

Now, researcher David Levinson suggests the answer is not that simple. In a post on his blog Transportationist, he argues that the impact of crash-related and emissions-related deaths could be roughly comparable, depending on how you crunch the numbers.

More deaths from air pollution

Levinson cited data from the 2010 Global Burden of Disease Study, which found that 36 deaths per 100,000 were attributable to air pollution, compared to 15 for road and transportation-related injuries–the vast majority of which involve cars.

In this case, air pollution is defined as fine particulate matter and ozone only, but the study does not differentiate between transportation-related emissions and other sources.

However, as Levinson’s colleague Julian Marshall noted in the same post, it’s hard to attribute a death to air pollution.

Pollution doesn’t appear as a cause on death certificates–it’s inferred by looking at higher instances of events like heart attacks in areas with high levels of pollution–and tracking an air pollution-related death to a specific source is even more difficult.

In addition, the 2010 study found that transportation-related injuries were responsible for more years of life lost than air pollution–653 per 100,000 people, compared to 565.

That’s because fatal car crashes tend to involve younger people, so they shorten lives more dramatically.

A matter of perspective

Eric Jaffe at CityLab came to largely the same conclusions–finding a larger apparent number of air-pollution-related deaths under a somewhat non-specific definition, but with car crashes cutting lives shorter.

He said the two problems could be “more on par than we typically treat them.”

Following that argument, automotive emissions should be viewed in the same category as traffic deaths–but the link between cause and effect isn’t as apparent.

Air pollution caused by emissions is already linked to respiratory illnesses.

Recently, a new study from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (via Gothamist) found that it may also be linked to ADHD in children.

The study found a higher instance of ADHD-like symptoms in children exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), a byproduct of burning fossil fuels.

It shows the need to curtail emissions from burning hydrocarbon fuels overall, but it also demonstrates how varied their effects on health and lifespan can be.

That sharply contrasts with the immediate and grimly apparent toll of car crashes.

Should electric vehicles be compulsory in city centres?

November 20, 2014Electric Cars, Energy and Climate Change, OpinionTrevor Larkum

The subject of making electric vehicles compulsory in city centres in the UK, and indeed many other areas of the world, is one which keeps popping up time and time again. The Liberal Democrat party in the UK has been pushing for greater adoption of electric vehicles within city centres and, don’t shout this, a ban on diesel and petrol vehicles. This is now something of a hot topic and one which will continue to appear in the political domain as we approach general and local elections.

How would you feel about making city centres a no-go area for petrol and diesel vehicles? Is electric vehicle technology of sufficient reliability to support such a dramatic and controversial move?

Air pollution

If we look back 40 or 50 years ago the argument was whether vehicles powered by diesel and electric were making any contribution to air pollution whatsoever. The situation today is very different and all parties agree that non-electric vehicles are pumping out a number of pollutants which are causing major problems within city centres with regards to air pollution. The quality of air in and around city centres is impacted more than any other areas simply because there is limited space, limited airflow and the pollutants tend to hover over the city like a bad smell.

Air pollution within city centres has been linked to an array of health conditions such as asthma and other breathing issues. When you bear in mind the cost and the impact of such health conditions on the individual and health services, perhaps we should now be looking towards diesel and petrol free city centres?

Quote from ElectricForum.com:

“The reputation of BMW is based upon luxury therefore many people are now asking the question, would you buy an electric powered BMW? Is BMW Daimlers joint-venture just a way to placate the green movement? Would an electric BMW be a mass-market seller?”

Infrastructure investment

What came first, the chicken or the egg? There is no doubt that local government and federal government investment in charging networks across the UK and other countries has increased dramatically of late. However, there is a feeling among some experts that the actual investment required to create a suitable and reliable infrastructure has not yet been reached. The argument being, do local authorities invest now and push motorists towards electric vehicles within city centres or do they wait for a gradual transfer and then invest?

If you take a step back and look at the overall cost of air pollution not only in terms of cold hard cash but also health issues, perhaps these do far outweigh the potential investment required to create a reliable recharging network infrastructure?

How will motorists react?

When it boils down to the nitty-gritty politicians will only push through potentially controversial issues which will have the support of the masses. It is an interesting debate as to whether motorists are now moving towards electric vehicles en-masse and would support such a ban in city centres. Let’s not forget, motorists have been a cash cow for many governments around the world in relation to road taxes and the heavy levies cast upon petrol and diesel.

Would any political party be brave enough to take the risk of losing votes by banning petrol/diesel vehicles in city centres in favour of electric vehicles? Politicians can shout and scream about the environment, pollution, etc but the bottom line is they will not push through any controversial changes until they are sure they will not impact their core voting public. When that will be remains to be seen.

Source: Electric Forum

Fossil fuel promises are being broken, report says

November 19, 2014Energy and Climate Change, News, Reviews and CommentTrevor Larkum

World governments have been breaking promises to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, a report says.

The Overseas Development Institute says G20 nations spent almost £56bn ($90bn) a year finding oil, gas and coal.

It comes despite evidence that two thirds of existing reserves must be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.

A government spokesman said the North Sea oil and gas industry “creates jobs and generates investment” in the UK.

The spokesman said the tax regime for oil and gas includes a number of allowances which reduce the tax burden on specific, challenging gas or oil fields.

Allowances did not constitute a subsidy, he added.

The UK government has previously said it was helping firms find fossil fuels within the UK to increase energy security, attract royalties and help with the balance of payments.

Fuel exploration

However, the report said subsidies were irrational, a waste of public money and harmful to the environment.

With rising costs for hard-to-reach fossil fuel reserves – together with falling coal and oil prices – renewable energy was a better way to invest taxpayers’ funds, it added.

The report’s authors said the UK had introduced national subsidies for exploration valued at up to £757 million a year.

Those included tax breaks for North Sea exploration worth £528 million to Total (HQ France), £256 million to Statoil (Norway), £144 million to Centrica (UK) and £45 million to Chevron (USA) between 2009 and 2014.

The report also traced G20 governments’ funding of fossil fuel exploration overseas.

The UK has been spending £418 million annually in public finance for exploration in Siberia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Guinea and Ghana, it said. The funding was through export finance guarantees.

The USA has been spending £883 million annually in public finance for overseas exploration in Colombia, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia, the report added.

Great Britain Will Likely Miss Its 2030 Climate Goal, New Study Warns

November 19, 2014Energy and Climate Change, News, Reviews and CommentTrevor Larkum

If Great Britain wants to keep its carbon emission reductions on course, it’s going to need to make some significant policy changes.

That’s the word from a new report just released by London’s Imperial College. The researchers ran models of six likely scenarios for how Britain’s economy and carbon emissions could behave under current policy. The country’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has recommended that Britain get its emission rate — the amount of carbon dioxide released for every unit of energy produced — down to 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (gCO2/kWh) by 2030. But in all six scenarios, the rate remained at or above 100 gCO2/kWh in that year.

The problem is the country’s coal generation. Great Britain has already closed 8 gigawatts (GW) of coal power, leaving 19 GW spread between nine plants. And in every scenario, at least 5 GW of coal-fired power remained in operation in 2030. These coal plants were mostly built back in 1960s and 1970s. They tend to be extremely dirty and inefficient, and rank among some of the biggest carbon emitters in all of Europe. The power sector also accounts for about half of the country’s total emissions.

In 2008, Great Britain passed the Climate Change Act, which established the CCC and legally committed the country to getting its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions down to 80 percent below their 1990 levels by 2050. Subsequent legislation has created various tools for getting there, and empowered the Secretary of State to lay down an official target for the country’s power sector in 2016. For the moment, however, the CCC’s recommendation is the best goal post available.

The primary policy for hitting it is the European Union’s (EU) Emissions Trading System (ETS), a cap-and-trade program that includes Great Britain. But the country also has a Carbon Price Support (CPS) law, which sets a floor for how low the price of emissions on the ETS can drop within Britain’s market, and which rises over time. There are also regulations on emissions set by the EU as a whole, along with Britain’s own emissions performance standard (EPS) — which sets a rate limit for carbon emissions, but only for newly built power plants.

People’s Climate March – Part 1

November 17, 2014Blog, Charging, Electric Cars, Energy and Climate Change, Model S, Renault, Tesla, ZOETrevor Larkum

Fast Charging the ZOE at Toddington (Image: T. Larkum)

On 21 September I had a bit of an adventure, travelling down to London to attend the People’s Climate March – my first ever protest march.

I have been concerned about climate change for about three years, and have blogged about climate and energy for the last two. Wanting to know more about the scientific understanding of it I completed an online educational course ‘Climate Change in 4 Dimensions’ earlier this year. While I would highly recommend the course, learning more about the subject has only reinforced my concerns. The scientific conclusions are clear – the climate is changing fast, it’s caused by human carbon dioxide emissions, and it’s going to have major impacts on our lives and especially on the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Having made many changes in my lifestyle to reflect my concerns – including installing solar panels on our house, switching to a renewable energy supplier, and buying and blogging about my Renault ZOE electric car – it seemed to me that the next natural step was to become more active politically. I’m not sure what direction that will take long-term, but I felt it was necessary to start by ‘standing up to be counted’ and attending the first ever Climate March.

Slow Charging the ZOE at Highgate (Image: T. Larkum)

I toyed with the idea of going by train but somehow it seemed most appropriate to go by electric car. I therefore headed out along my regular and familiar route down the M1 towards London, stopping as usual at the Toddington Services fast charger on the way. I then drove into north London and parked up at a slow charger in Highgate (the same one I had used previously when attending a rock concert in Kentish Town).

Tesla Model S in Highgate (Image: T. Larkum)

I walked south from where I parked to Kentish Town underground station so I could take the tube down into central London. On the way I was surprised to pass two electric cars – clearly they are more popular in London than in Northampton – and I took that to be a good omen.

The first was a navy blue Tesla Model S parked on Highgate Road, in a bus lane outside a restaurant. It’s a big, good-looking car – though I don’t imagine that most people can tell it’s electric.

Renault ZOE in Highgate (Image: T. Larkum)

Then a few minutes later I saw a ZOE, much like mine apart from being white. It was just parked in a side road, probably in front of the owner’s house, looking perfectly natural.

Climate March poster on the Underground (Image: T. Larkum)

The trip on the underground was uneventful, heading to Temple for the start of the march. I was encouraged on the way to see a couple of posters by the escalators publicising the event. I anticipated that would mean the march would be well-attended, and so it transpired.

[Part 2]