Despite a flurry of headline-jerking agreements at Dubai’s COP28 a UN Report suggests that global warming will reach 3 degrees. This conclusion, issued by the UN Environment Programme’s ‘Emissions Gap Report’, is based on the continuation of current policies. This assumes, for instance that in the UK and the USA, the targets for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 not achieved. This, by the way, is by no means an unreasonable assumption. In fact, as things stand at the moment, it’s dead right!
Achieving the 2050 net zero target means that all heating, transport and industrial energy uses need to be decarbonised. Then the production of electricity will have to be greatly expanded. That, actually, is the easier task eg if you consider that the whole of the UK’s energy supply could be supplied by electricity from offshore windfarms occupying less than 10 per cent of the UK’s seawaters.
The more difficult tasks include changing the heating systems of all of the buildings of the country to use (mainly) heat pumps. It also includes decarbonising all of our transport. Now that is possible, but apart from targets (which come and go with this Government) to do this, we need some serious investment programmes and also technological development. This is just nowhere near happening.
Even in the case of the targets for electric cars, the relaxed targets of this Government effectively ensure that there will still be a lot of fossil fuel use by motor vehicles by 2050. As for air travel, well, we need a revolution there, perhaps including a very rapid transition to electric battery planes which is not yet technologically possible, new types of decarbonised synthetic fuel derived from renewables and/or less air travel.
To achieve net zero we have to go a lot further than just achieving 100 per cent of our electricity from low carbon sources by 2030, something that is promised by the Labour Party in the UK. Achieving the 2050 net zero target means that all heating, transport and industrial energy uses need to be decarbonised.
Then the production of electricity will have to be greatly expanded. That, actually, is the easier task eg if you consider that the whole of the UK’s energy supply could be supplied by electricity from offshore windfarms occupying less than 10 per cent of the UK’s seawaters.
The more difficult tasks include changing the heating systems of all of the buildings of the country to use (mainly) heat pumps. Now that is possible, but apart from targets (which come and go with this Government) to do this, we need some serious investment programmes. This is just nowhere near happening.
Even in the case of the targets for electric cars, the relaxed targets of this Government effectively ensure that there will still be a lot of fossil fuel use by motor vehicles by 2050. In the USA, of course, the situation is even worse from the point of view of achieving 2050 net zero targets.
Given all of that it does seem likely (on the basis of the UN analysis) that we are facing a temperature increase of 3 degrees above industrial levels. Temperatures have now risen by 1 degree and the effects are apparent. Yes, these COP events are, as Greta Thunberg said, by and large, just ‘blah blah blah’.
By David Toke
Read about the 100%RenewableUK energy model and how it compares to the Government’s net zero plan. 100%RE gives lower emissions for much lower overall cost! Our new report concludes that a 100% renewable energy mix for the UK would save well over £100bn in achieving net zero by 2050, compared to the UK Government’s current strategy. It would also mean more than 20% lower cumulative carbon emissions in the process. The study, carried out by renowned energy modeling academics at LUT University in Finland, involves hour-by-hour simulation of different scenarios for reaching net zero for UK energy systems. Click HERE for more information, including links to the report itself and accompanying material
You can see the youtube recording of our seminar on 100percent renewable energy for the UK held in London on April 22nd HERE
Interesting how we continue to conflate 100% renewables with Net Zero, and by gold-plating the IPCC’s more extreme predictions we are opening a door for Nuclear – the sole alternative – with whom, we are in a fight to the death, if we want renewables to provide 100% of future power.
For starters, Net Zero and renewables are not the same.
1) Renewables are proven and practical, whereas…
2) Net Zero is a concept that may not be achievable, or even necessary, for all we know.
Critically, however, Net Zero is also subscribed to by IAEA (nuclear), who list the IPCC as a principal collaborator. So pushing the IPCC line. rolls out the red carpet, for Nuclear’s preposterous low-CO2 nuclear propaganda. All day, every day, nuclear shills and trolls are pushing out anti-renewables propaganda, whilst nuclear-backed FutureLearn and other courses go to great pains to point out every possible downside of renewables, whilst nuclear gets off scot-free.
If you cannot see that this is a fight to the death with Nuclear – they most certainly can.
In the eye of the public, the worse we paint the deemed climate emergency – real or not – the more the public perceives a coming power shortage, and the more headroom we create for the dishonest nuclear power argument.
In any case, in this fight, you are failing to make our best moves. Banging the climate crisis drum – true or not – is by no means our strongest argument for 100% renewables. There are at least two stronger cards to play, the weaker of which, surprisingly, is death-dealing nuclear pollution – notwithstanding Ian Fairlie’s excellent work exposing it.
As I see it, the unanswerable argument for 100% renewables is this:
************
Distributed nuclear power – large or small reactors – and bunker-busting cruise missiles cannot exist in the same world – one of them has to go – and the missiles are not going away anytime soon. We have enough nuclear exclusion zones already. At least six in the UK alone.
************
Fossils are as good as gone so climate/CO2 arguments are moot. We get rid of nuclear and we have 100% renewables by default. Our best play, then, is to attack Nuclear for all we are worth. Show how dangerous, unhealthy, dirty and expensive it will be, and how little we will need it.
Let nuclear bump up the climate “crisis” for us. Why do their work for them?