2017-06 Avoiding Climate Change Disaster

Carbon Budget

To limit global warming to 2 degrees, we can release only a certain amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. As of 2015 this worldwide carbon budget was about 909 billion tonnes CO2. As we burn more fossil fuels and release more greenhouse gases, we reduce the remaining budget. The sooner that we seriously start to address the problem, the larger the carbon budget we have remaining at our disposal to help us transition to a sustainable energy scenario. The consequences of exceeding this carbon budget would be dire for all life, and result in mass extinctions. In short, we simply cannot afford to go over budget – it is the most important challenge to our civilisation.

Staying within budget

We have to transition to a steady state solution where we run our society entirely on renewable energy. In getting from where we are today to that state we must stay within the carbon budget. We can effect this transition by a combination of energy supply and demand measures. The sooner we embark on a rapid increase of renewable supply and a serious programme of demand reduction, the more likely we are to avoid a hugely disruptive outcome.

Graph showing a business as usual approach to energy consumption

This graph shows a business as usual approach to energy consumption and a slow increase of renewable energy production. As we approach our carbon budget (the pink area), we speed up our renewable energy production capability. But, it is too little, too late, and the outcome is that we are able to meet only a small fraction of our energy needs with renewable resources.

Graph showing a concerted effort on energy demand reduction and increase in renewable energy production

This graph shows a concerted effort to reduce our energy demand in combination with an earlier and faster increase in renewable energy production. This allows our carbon budget to go further, leaving us with a much larger installed capacity for production of renewable energy and a lower energy demand. The outcome is a sustainable energy system capable of maintaining a workable civilisation.

Policy Implications

Climate change is the single largest challenge facing humankind, and we are running short of time for implementing a solution which will limit temperature rise to 2 degrees. We must focus ourselves on effecting this energy transition with a vigour normally only seen in wartime. The finite carbon budget must not be wasted. Our energy use priorities must be food, shelter and powering the transition to a wholly renewable sustainable energy supply.

Bad ideas

We cannot afford to waste energy on the unnecessary. Examples include major armaments projects (Trident, aircraft carriers) and large scale infrastructure schemes which do not contribute to the energy transition (HS2, major road and airport schemes, space ports).

Nor can we afford to implement fake solutions which would only make the problem worse. Fracked shale gas is not only a fossil fuel, but has a greater carbon footprint than coal. Hydrogen as an end use fuel is impractical as it would need entirely new infrastructure and has a low energy density which makes it unsuited to heating or transport use. Nuclear fuel is not a renewable resource. Nuclear power stations are hugely dangerous, a diversion of funding which could be used for renewables, and are highly likely to be switched off permanently after the next large disaster leaving stranded liabilities. Geoengineering is far too risky, and any positive impacts would be accompanied by negative consequences. Carbon capture and storage has not been proven, and reduces the efficiency of the power plant so that about 40% more fossil fuel (and hence power plants!) would be required to achieve the same output.

There is no magic bullet.

Good ideas

The only energy sources that do not increase the heating of the biosphere are derived from solar energy. We must deploy only energy supply solutions harnessing solar, wind, rain and biomass, alongside extensive energy demand reduction measures.

Even in the UK, the potential for solar electrical power generation is significant, as is the opportunity for harvesting and storing solar heat on a large scale. Our wind resource, onshore and offshore, is huge, and could more than satisfy the entire electrical demand. Power to Gas plants use surplus renewable electricity to produce methane from water and CO2. The resulting methane can be used to fuel existing gas fired power stations for balancing power when solar and wind do not meet demand. Alongside the rapid increase in renewable production, we must decrease energy demand dramatically. There is potential to cut demand by 80% with measures such as:

Electrical

LED lighting everywhere, immediately

Transport

Massive reduction in transportation – prioritised as per wartime economy.
Essential long haul transportation (e.g. food) to use renewable fuel synthesised via Power to Gas.

Heating

All new buildings to Passivhaus standard, requiring minimal input for space heating, saving 90% on current building standards.
All existing buildings to be supplied with district heating from combined heat and power, reject heat from Power to Gas plants, and large solar heat arrays.

Download this paper as a pdf file (61.5k bytes)

References

Gordon Taylor & Phil Driscoll, June 2017

Continue

2017-06 Avoiding Climate Change Disaster

A short paper on the actions we must take soon in order to meet a carbon budget target which will limit global warming to 2 degrees and to arrive at a viable sustainable energy scenario thereafter.

Search

Recent articles

2024-07-12 The Road to Net Zero Can Save Government Funds
Action Government SavingRemove government funding of Sizewell C, SMR, ANF and FNEF £ 1155 millionRemove government funding of nuclear fusion Up to £ 650 million to 2027Remove tax relief for the oil and gas industry Up to £ 5.7 billion/y from 2022 to 2025Remove government funding of CCS £ 20 billion over 20 years from 2023Remove government funding of imported biomass for Drax etc £ 606.8 million in 2022Total of above About £ 8.6 billion a year
2024-10-12 A Note on Climate and Energy
I watched videos on climate change by Professors Johan Rockstroem and Stefan Rahmsdorf of the Potsdam Climatological Institute in Germany.This prompted me to create the document ‘2024-10-12 A Note on Climate and Energy’.
2024-09-17 Britain’s Atomic Bomb Scandal (Channel 4 programme)
Channel 4 made a multi-part series of programmes with this title.The sub-title was: The dramatic, shocking story of Britain’s race for the nuclear bomb, the devastating fallout for the servicemen at the tests, and the veterans’ long fight for justice'. I watched all the parts, and made notes.Then I typed up the notes and followed up mentions and links to produce this document.
2021-09-29 Nuclear Power and the EU Taxonomy
Around September 2021, the European Commission considered the inclusion of nuclear power in the taxonomy for future investments in energy. This was based on a single report from the European Joint Research Centre, which still has close links with the nuclear industry and is widely perceived as playing a promoting role for nuclear energy within the European Union. The JRC Report ignored the report of the German Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply of 2011, which had lead to Germany phasing out nuclear power by 2023. The European Commision also ignored 'Sustainability at risk, A critical analysis of the EU Joint Research Centre technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the "do no significant harm" criteria of the EU Taxonomy Regulation, of 2021-09 by Dr. Christoph Pistner, Dr. Matthias Englert and Dr. Ben Wealer, for the Heinrich Boell Foundation.
2023-06-06 Nuclear Power Has No Future
The UK government proposes to build nuclear power plants totalling 24 GW.This implies Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and about six more of similar size.The Labour party proposes to include nuclear power in it’s new ‘green’ energy policy.Yet nuclear power has no future, as shown in this document of 3 pages with 52 references. The first section shows that nuclear fuel may be effectively exhausted before 2050, when the climate targets should be met. The second section shows that the costs of nuclear power have risen over time, and are now uncompetitive. So nuclear power must be replaced by sustainable and affordable options such as energy savings and renewables like wind, solar and storage. The third section shows that nuclear power conflicts with energy savings and renewables, so impairing the business case and deterring investment.So the UK should phase out nuclear power and join the rest of the world in deploying energy savings and renewables.Although this document is published after the latest Government and Labour Party proposals,I have published many earlier documents on nuclear power, dating from 2006-0-19. (See below).Most notably, my report on the Fukushima disaster was published on 2012-04-11, with copies sent to several MPs and Ministers.
2022-10-05 Nuclear Nonsense
The new UK government appears to support the previous government’s proposal of building new nuclear power plants. The Labour party proposes to include nuclear power in it’s new ‘green’ energy policy. However such nuclear proposals are nonsense, as shown in this 4-page due diligence assessment.
2022-08-12 Stopping Sizewell C and all nuclear power in favour of a rational energy policy
Among the last acts of the Johnson government was the approval of a new nuclear plant - Sizewell C. The claim was that it would increase energy security and reduce carbon emissions. But the invasion of Ukraine has underlined that all nuclear sites are targets, and reduce national security. Also nuclear power would be far more costly than energy savings and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, with storage, and could not be generating electricity before 2030. They need uranium for fuel, yet almost half comes from Russia and Kazachkstan, so that the money and carbon costs would increase twice as fast. Moreover, they require huge amounts of energy to manufacture and build, so reducing energy security until construction is complete, and this energy repaid. Yet Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are coastal sites, at risk from flooding by sea level rise and storm surge by 2100. As decommissioning and site clearance would take at least 50 years, they would need to be shutdown before 2050. Many reasons for stopping Sizewell C and all nuclear power are given in this collection of five documents.
2022-08-13 Nuclear Power And Weapons Are Killing Us
The Manhattan Project in the US covered every stage of the production of nuclear weapons. This included the mining and refining of uranium, enrichment to 80 to 90% U235 for uranium bombs, fuelling nuclear reactors with uranium to produce plutonium, and reprocessing the spent fuel to extract the plutonium for plutonium bombs. It was recognised from the beginning that these processes and plants would give rise to radioactive releases that would be harmful to the plant operators and the general public, yet they were never informed. This continues to the present day, when the nuclear weapon and power industry does everything in its power to deny and understate the many and extensive harms done to all living things. To this has been added the use of uranium in bunker-breaking bombs and tank-busting shells, that spread the dust so formed over their own forces, the enemy forces, and innocent bystanders, harming them all for generations to come. The human harms include many and extensive cancers, and also non-malignant diseases such as stillbirths, deformities and mental impairment and heart disease. With so much harm already done to humans that will take up to lifetimes to express, and so much nuclear debris laying in wait to harm even more humans, it is essential to identify every strategy and measure that can reduce the total harm.This document covers the first warnings of nuclear harms in the 1950s and - following studies beginning in the 1960s - five books of evidence by Dr Ernest Sternglass in 1981, Mr Harvey Wasserman et al in 1982, Dr John Gofman in 1990, Mr Paul Zimmerman in 2009, and Professor Chris Busby et al in 2010.
2022-06-14 Energy Transition Technologies
This is prompted by the Energy Hierarchy of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. From the most to the least sustainable, Tier 1 is Energy Demand Reduction, Tier 2 is Energy Efficiency, Tier 3 is Utilisation of Renewable, Sustainable Resources, Tier 4 is Utilisation of Other, Low-GHG-Emitting Resources, and Tier 5 is Utilisation of Conventional Resources as we do now.
2022-06-18 Nuclear Insecurities
This is a three-page re-cast of 2016-08-09 Nuclear Insecurities (below).It includes 16 criteria under the original 10 headings, supported by 21 references.