SEG energy experts respond to the Prime Minister’s ten point net zero plan

This is a repost of this news article written by Neil Vowles for the Sussex news page.

Earlier today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced his ten-point plan designed to lead the UK towards net zero by 2050.

The plan includes a ban on combustion engine sales by 2030, quadruple offshore wind power to 40GW by 2030, boost hydrogen production with the promise of a town heated entirely by hydrogen by the end of the decade, a £525 million investment towards new nuclear power and support for greener energies in the aviation and maritime sectors

The government is also proposing £1bn next year for funds to insulate homes and public building and plans to install 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028, an extra £200m invested in carbon capture initiatives, 30,000 hectares of trees planted every year, a pledge to make London “the global centre of green finance” and moves to promote public transport, cycling and walking.

Experts from the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex Business School have been reacting to the news throughout the day and analysing the positives and negatives of the proposals.

Steven Sorrell, Professor of Energy Policy, said: “This is a really important statement. It is a clear signal of the priority given to tackling climate change, and a significant step on the road to COP 26.

“The ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030 is game changing – one of the most ambitious targets in the developed world.

“The proposals demonstrate the opportunities opened up by innovation over the last few years. To be effective and politically feasible, policy must link industrial, economic and environmental objectives. These proposals seek to do that.”

Andrew Stirling, Professor of Science & Technology Policy, said: “However many points the Prime Minister may want to include in his plan, there remain some intense challenges if the Government wishes to be seen as serious either on UK energy needs or net-zero strategies.

“If the Government is serious about the net zero imperative and the crucial importance of a robust UK energy strategy, then it cannot simply ‘do everything’. Diversity is an essential quality. But a rich plurality of renewable and efficiency options means this can be achieved without any single option having an automatic place. To spend money on slower or more costly options will divert support from those that are more effective. The plan needs to be clear about this.

“With no white paper in more than twelve years of extraordinary change in global energy markets, it would make sense for the Government to first publish its analysis, before committing to its actions. To do otherwise looks like an effort to undermine scrutiny – reflecting a fear in Government that its actions are out of kilter with the realities.”

Dr Marie Claire Brisbois, Lecturer in Energy Policy, said: “Support for hydrogen will be very useful for sectors that require high energy density such as industrial processes or long distance transport.

“However, the support for hydrogen home heating is not a good use of public funds. Direct electricity use, most likely in the form of heat pumps, is far more energy efficient and cost effective for home heating than hydrogen.

“While hydrogen for home heating will help replace vanishing revenue streams for incumbent gas companies, it will be much more costly than it needs to be for those paying household bills. It’s quite easy to see the results of industry lobbying in this announcement – but it isn’t matched by sound fiscal or thermodynamic arguments.”

David Ockwell, Professor of Geography and member of the Sussex Energy Group, said: “Whilst the ambition is welcome, there is a risk that this ten-point plan fixates on technical fixes, whilst completely ignoring the significant socio-cultural and political dimensions/hurdles of such transformative goals.

“Decades of research in innovation studies and the social sciences more broadly suggest such one-dimensional techno-fixation rarely succeeds in achieving deep socio-technical transformations on anything like the scale of these ten points.

“We need 4D (4 dimensional) policy, not 1D, techno-fix policy. 4D policy addresses the socio-cultural, political, technical and economic dimensions of transformative socio-technical change. It requires engaging with and building locally embedded networks/coalitions of actors that work towards understanding and overcoming these barriers which are deeply social and political in nature. This would nurture the broader, 4D ecosystems within which transformative changes are achieved in practice.”

Dr Andrea Brock, Lecturer in International Relations and member of the Sussex Energy Group, said: “Rather than pursuing techno-fixes, what is truly needed is planned degrowth.

“A move away from individualised transport (to public transport and cycling infrastructure, not resource-intensive e-vehicles and not HS2); decentralised, locally and democratically, not corporate-controlled energy systems (and an immediate stop to all import and mining of coal); reduction, not ‘greening’ of aviation; and staying away from offsets and carbon capture and storage (CCS).”

Dr Ralitsa Hiteva, Research Fellow, said: “The proposed plan and investment focuses on traditional economic growth winners: technological innovation and industrial clusters, while the plan mentions nothing (vision and investment wise) about how these will be implemented locally/regionally and how these investments will link with and feed into local decarbonisations plans which are already underway.

“What is entirely missing is the whole system thinking: how are these technologies and investments going to work in a complementary way. Large quantities of offshore wind will need to be integrated into the grid, often in areas where the grid is really constrained. In regions like Sussex where there is a lot of solar, this will be expensive.

“Strategic investment and anticipatory investment (ahead of need) requires building interoperable infrastructure and place-based partnerships, innovation and cooperation at a scale significantly beyond existing levels. Developing interoperable decarbonisation infrastructure depends on place-based partnerships, innovation and cooperation, which requires sustained investment and incentives.”

Dr Matthew Lockwood, Senior Lecturer in Energy Policy, said: “The plan shows that the government takes the climate agenda seriously. However, the steps proposed still fall short of what is needed to get on track for net zero. Of the £12 billion announced funding, only approximately £4 billion of this is new, and is a small relative commitment relative to the ones made by the governments in France and Germany.

“To get the scale of installation on retrofitting homes, which is still below the 1 million+/year that the Climate Change Committee says we need, the supply side will be key. We will need thousands of firms able to do what is quite a highly skilled job of calculating heat loads and fitting complex kit. This capability does not exist in the UK at the moment.”

Dr Donal Brown, Research Fellow, said: “While the extension to the Green homes Grant is welcome, there is still a general feeling of short termism surrounding the government thinking on decarbonisation of buildings and especially homes.

“We now have an industry that is very suspicious of government policy in this space. The only way we are going to win that trust back is with a long-term plan with 10+ years of funding, regulation and training. That is the only way the supply chain will be convinced this is something worth investing time and money in. This will also encourage new people into the industry creating new jobs.”

Dr Philip Johnstone, Research Fellow, said: “The continued enthusiasm for nuclear including untested Small Modular Reactors is likely to be the latest in a pattern of consistent British industrial policy blunders that have nuclear as the common denominator.

“From AGRs, the PWR programme of 1979, and Fast Breeder reactors, the UK obsession with nuclear has consistently meant Britain and its workforce has been left behind in fully grasping the benefits of energy innovation. History repeats itself once again.”

Gordon Mackerron, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, said: “The Prime Minister’s plans for nuclear power add up to very little in practice.It is plain that despite his expectation expressed last year about nuclear fusion being commercially ready by 2040, this is simply not possible even well beyond that.

“Small modular reactors remain unproven and will remain so for several years. The Rolls Royce-led lobby wanted £2 billion of public spending on this commercially highly risky technology but overall nuclear development is to receive £525 million.This is still a potentially poor use of public money, because all potential reactors to be developed are a long shot at best.

“The role of nuclear in getting to net zero is inevitably small and likely to be much more costly than alternatives.”

Noam Bergman, Lecturer in Energy Policy, said “The investment in electric vehicles and ceasing sales of (new) petrol and diesel cars and vans is a welcome and important step. However, the transport plan is reliant on a techno-fix, and suggests a continuation of the current system of high-energy, high-demand personal transport in private vehicles, with a nod towards cleaner public transport and cycle lanes, for which no money is promised. Investments in cycling and walking infrastructure, joined up public transport, and reduced demand (e.g., through telecommuting) are also necessary, as electrification of personal transport is not sufficient to meet our climate goals.”

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: ,
Posted in All Posts

Transitioning to low-carbon transport must address social justice issues alongside emissions reductions

Dr Mari Martiskainen, Senior Research Fellow at SPRU and Equity and Justice Theme lead for the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS), and Dr Max Lacey-Barnacle, Research Fellow in Energy Justice at SPRU, explain why we must think beyond reducing emissions to ensure no one is left behind in the transition to low-carbon transport.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, there have been calls to re-think and re-design our personal transport system. Many people, motivated by a fear of infection, have opted for cars instead of public transport, and sales of bicycles have peaked.

Before the pandemic, we were already witnessing the growth of low-carbon transport, with the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on the world’s roads, for example, increasing from 17,000 in 2010 to 7.2 million in 2019 – though research has found EVs are not the silver bullet to solve transport emissions.

E-bikes, meanwhile, could cut CO2 emissions by up to 50% in England (approximately 30 million tonnes a year) if people used them to replace as much of their car travel as they are able to.

With the arrival of Covid-19 and social distancing, we’ve seen a rapid increase in the number of people walking and cycling, forms of low-emission active travel which both bring added health benefits.

The UK Government has committed to investing £2 billion in active travel and promised an updated Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy this year. Pop-up bike lanes, wider pavements and cycle and bus-only corridors are becoming familiar sights as local authorities adapt transport infrastructure to reflect the ‘new normal’ and lay the foundations for permanent change.

We’ll need all these means of greener and healthier travel in our move towards a net-zero carbon society. But, if we are to build a socially and environmentally sustainable world, we also need to consider who can access them and how the technologies they require are made.

Transport poverty and why green transport design must be inclusive

In recent years, research has started to highlight ‘transport poverty’. This can be understood as the inability to afford or access necessary transport services.

Someone experiencing transport poverty may, for example, be unable to afford essential transport costs, or they may live far away from public transport such as buses and trains, having to rely on expensive private cars. This in turn could mean having to make choices in other areas of their life, such as how much energy to use at home.

Being in transport poverty restricts people’s ability to travel, for example, for work, school, caring duties, healthcare, and hobbies – it therefore directly impacts their ability to fully participate in society.

In addition, certain communities may be more at risk of transport poverty. For example, those living in rural and peri-rural communities may be more likely to encounter high transport costs due to a lack of convenient alternatives to cars. Those with pre-existing health and mobility issues, meanwhile, may also be more affected, for example by limited access to active travel options.

As we move towards green transport, we therefore need to acknowledge these inequalities and begin tackling them.

From local to global – a whole systems approach

A fair and equitable move to low-carbon transport also requires considering how green transport technologies are made.

We must ensure, for example, that certain countries do not form a ‘green elite’, with little thought given to the fact that many of the materials and minerals for low-carbon technologies like EV batteries often come from polluting mines that damage their local environment. Many such mines have also been shown to have poor working conditions which often exploit vulnerable workers, especially women and children, in the least economically developed countries.

A low-carbon transport system thus needs a whole systems approach that considers the whole supply chain, from materials and working conditions, to infrastructure and practices.

This means, at first, recognising those that are vulnerable. For example, a new EV purchased in the UK may be directly linked to child labour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) where many children are used to mine for cobalt, an essential component of lithium ion batteries in EVs.

It also means designing transport systems that are accessible and affordable to all. For example, those with mobility issues may not be able to access the latest bike lanes built in our cities and not everyone can afford an EV or have the space to store a bike. This is where an increase in accessible and affordable low-carbon public transport, such as electric bus networks and new train and tram systems, can be essential to addressing issues of equity in the transition to a net-zero society.

Thus, the first step to creating a truly equal net-zero society is to acknowledge that issues such as transport poverty exist, and that some of our low-carbon transport options connect to injustices across the world.

While it is challenging, we must begin to recognise the inequalities in accessibility and affordability of transport systems, alongside acknowledging the whole-systems injustices a growing demand for new low-carbon technologies may create. Without this, low-carbon transport systems may risk increasing poverty and inequality.

Drawing upon a justice oriented lens and energy justice principles, we can begin to unravel the injustices embedded in low-carbon transport systems and find ways in which justice can be achieved.

Find out more about the Fuel and Transport Poverty in the UK’s Energy Transition (FAIR) project on the CREDS website.

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: ,
Posted in All Posts

Nuclear vs renewable energy and the critical importance of independent research

This is an adapted version of a Nature.com blog by Prof Benjamin K. Sovacool and Prof Andy Stirling, to accompany the publication of their paper “Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power” in Nature Energy. A University of Sussex press release also summarises the paper’s findings and policy recommendations.

The role of nuclear power in a low-carbon future has been subject to a long and contentious debate. Is a nuclear or a renewables pathway the best way forward, or do we need a “do everything” approach where every deployable technology is rolled out to decarbonise our electricity supply as soon as possible?

Many influential climate scientists and international organisations argue that a global shift towards nuclear power offers the best pathway to tackling the climate emergency and meeting the world’s increasing demands for electricity.

Others argue that renewable sources of energy are the best pathway towards a low-carbon electricity system and assert that they are cleaner, safer and more economically sustainable than nuclear.

In an attempt to negotiate these contending positions, a frequent mantra is that energy strategies should “do everything” in order to address the climate emergency. But – as a number of commentators have noted (for example, here and here) – this would actually be a highly irrational course of action.

Where “doing everything” involves making investments that are slower or less cost effective, which divert resources away from preferable options, or which in some other way impede them, the result would be potentially disastrous for carbon emissions mitigation.

Amidst many uncertainties, the real questions we should be addressing are about which investments offer the most cost-effective and beneficial ways forward.

Our new paper, Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power, seeks to contribute towards this debate.

Nuclear vs renewable energy – what this paper tells us

Our paper focuses specifically on situations in which real-world constraints mean strategic choices must be made on resource allocation between nuclear or renewables-based electricity.

Our research explores this dilemma retrospectively, examining past patterns in the attachments (i.e. investments) of different countries to nuclear or renewable strategies. Our paper addresses three hypotheses:

  1. A “nuclear climate mitigation” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to nuclear power will tend to have lower overall carbon emissions.
  2.  A “renewables climate mitigation” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to renewables will tend to have lower overall carbon emissions.
  3. A “crowding out” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to nuclear will tend to have a lesser attachment to renewables, and vice versa

Across the study countries as a whole we found that the “nuclear climate mitigation” hypothesis is not sustained by the evidence at an appropriate level of statistical significance. The renewable climate mitigation hypothesis is confirmed with substantial significance. And the crowding out hypothesis is also significantly sustained.

Put plainly – if countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritise support for renewables rather than nuclear power. Pursuit of nuclear strategies risks taking up resources that could be used more effectively and suppressing the uptake of renewable energy.

A windmill next to a body of water

Description automatically generated

What causes these patterns?

What might explain these patterns? Technologically, nuclear systems have been prone to greater construction cost overruns, delays, and longer lead times than similarly sized renewable energy projects. Thus, per dollar invested, the modularity of renewables projects offers quicker emissions reductions than large-scale, delay-prone, nuclear projects.

Furthermore, renewables tend to display higher rates of positive learning where increased deployment results in lower costs and improved performance, especially for wind farms and solar energy parks. This contrasts with the experience of nuclear power in France which has been prone to negative learning,” rising costs or reduced performance with the next generation of technology.

In terms of policy, the incidents at Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011), all resulted in significant tightening of regulatory requirements for nuclear reactors.

Finally, wider social factors may also work against nuclear energy, and for renewable energy, facilitating faster acceptance, permitting and deployment.

Of course, these are just informed speculations, beyond the scope of the paper itself. Other commentators will favor contrasting interpretations.

But here, perhaps the most important issue – especially given the prominence of the topic and the scale of what is at stake – is that this kind of analysis has been so remarkably neglected over recent years.

Given how highly charged and hotly contested the associated policy controversy is, it is rather strange that there is not a large body of work on these questions. Either way, the many open questions and issues of detail acknowledged in the paper show that much work remains to be done.

The critical importance of independent research – our view

We have presented the findings of our research. Now we must acknowledge the uncertainties and errors, divergent interpretations and clashing interests that make it difficult to achieve the comprehensive prioritising analysis called for at the beginning of this blog – while making a case for the vital importance of scientific scrutiny.

In an ideal world of “evidence-based policy”, energy and climate policy would only go ahead after comprehensive research into every relevant positive or negative aspect of all possible energy resources.

The resulting self-evident “facts” would be examined by objective analysts and any uncertainties eliminated, until a point where a single unambiguous ‘truth’ is determined – with grateful policy makers adopting the identified energy pathway or portfolio.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

Across various energy debates – and not restricted to any political constituency – crucial roles are often played by deliberate mis-representation of information, manipulation of discourse, co-option of leading opposing voices, direct subversion of opponents and stifling of meaningful public debate. 

Under conditions like this, the line between advocacy and scholarship (porous at the best of times) can become especially loose when analysts become passionate about their topic. The reasons for such passion can be as trivial as disciplinary identities or sectoral interests, or as deep as wider political ideologies. On all sides “theorising” can be reduced to a search for validation, and “investigation” to the selective collection of data. 

Energy debates suffer gravely from these syndromes. “Energy evangelists” on all sides are convinced they have found “the solution” to societies’ energy problems—whether this be solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells or nuclear reactors. The intensity of this advocacy (and the scale of the interests often behind it) can lead to everyone else’s solutions being treated as sacrilegious.

So, exchanges of ideas can become hostile battlefields where proponents are unable to reconcile their underlying differences.

There seems to be an especially pernicious asymmetry in this field. Those whom comparative analysis leads to be generally critical of nuclear power are labelled “anti-nuclear”, whilst no such generally-established terminology exists to the same degree for those who are (entirely legitimately – if debatably) critical of renewable energy.

The situation is aggravated by so much research in this field being (unlike our own) funded (directly or indirectly) by organisations with prior entrenched interests on one side or another.

Despite this, we have often found valued opportunities to bridge the divide with those who hold “opposing” views, but with similar open mindedness and good faith.

It is in this spirit that our analysis is offered. We are open about its background and limitations. We acknowledge that our evidence does not compel only one supposedly definitive interpretation. We are clear about the conditions attached to our own interpretations. By publishing our full dataset and the detailed procedures undertaken in our regression analyses, we offer a basis for others to contest our findings.

The “truth” of our study is in this sense not something arrived at by particular analysts claiming individually-transcendent authority, but by contrastingly-oriented analysts contending with each other in an open and pluralistic way, such as to arrive collectively at more robust understandings. This is the organised skepticism of independent science.

If our analysis stimulates reactions in the same vein, then the cause of scientific scrutiny is reinforced. If, on the other hand, it leads to less qualified assertions and ad hominen labelling, then the chance of bridging the polarised divides is sadly diminished. We hope it will do the former.

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in All Posts

A message from SEG’s Director, Benjamin K. Sovacool

This message is shared in SEG’s autumn 2020 newsletter. Join our new mailing list to get the latest updates about our research and events on transitions to sustainable, low-carbon energy systems.

Dear fellow energy sustainability enthusiasts,

Welcome to our autumn newsletter. Since I last wrote, we’ve seen the world transformed and we find ourselves at what could be an unexpected turning point on the journey to net-zero.

In SEG, our purpose has always been to understand and accelerate transitions towards sustainable, low carbon energy systems, but our work has taken on a new imperative now societies are considering how to align their recovery from Covid-19 with the demands placed on us all by the climate emergency.

In our response to the UK Government’s Post-Pandemic Economic Growth Enquiry we made it clear that our recovery must focus on building a clean, low carbon economy that’s fair and just. As researchers, it’s our job to provide policymakers with the evidence they need to deliver this and I’m proud to say that we are doing just this.

As ever, we’re working intently to make a difference. We’re researching the climate implications of working from home, working with local government to develop innovative financing models for retrofitting community buildings and exploring the viability of new economic activities in the Arctic region to deliver a just transition for the millions of people they affect – to name just a few of our activities.

Our research portfolio has grown even further recently with the launch of two new projects. LANDMARC will answer important questions about the potential for agriculture, forestry, and other land use sectors to enhance the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. EMPOCI will investigate the governance of sustainable energy-mobility transitions and identify practical ways to accelerate them, supporting the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

With the start of the new academic year, our Energy and Climate Seminar Series is once again creating a space for colleagues from academia, government and practice to tackle issues around climate change, energy policy and sustainability – and it’s now easier for you to take part in its new online format! I hope you will join us.

Benjamin K. Sovacool

Director, Sussex Energy Group

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Posted in All Posts

Project update: Modern Energy Cooking Services

This update is shared in SEG’s autumn 2020 newsletter. Join our new mailing list to get the latest updates about our research and events on transitions to sustainable, low-carbon energy systems.

In two new working papers, a team led by the University of Sussex report first year findings from their Modern Energy Cooking Services (MECS) research project mapping Kenya and Tanzania’s e-cooking socio-technical innovation systems.

These ‘maps’ consist of visualisations of the actor-networks and actor-relations in the system along with elaborations on who the actors are, the extent and nature of their interactions, sketches of significant projects, and includes a discussion of emerging issues relevant to the further development of the innovation systems in the two countries. It also includes some summary attention to the systems’ context and enabling environments.

Based on this characterisation, they conduct a socio-technical innovation system analysis to determine strengths and weaknesses and derive several recommendations that the MECS Programme could implement to further its aims more effectively.

MECS is a £40 million UK Aid funded multi-partner programme of activities, led by Loughborough University, to promote modern energy cooking services in the Global South.

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with:
Posted in All Posts

Follow Sussex Energy Group on Twitter

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual authors and do not represent Sussex Energy Group.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 88 other subscribers.

Archives

Subscribe to Sussex Energy Group's quarterly newsletter