[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Energy]
UK must transform to meet future energy needs, warn top engineers
The changes include a transformation of draughty homes, plus vast expansion of renewable and nuclear power
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 07.00 GMT Article history
{{The UK must transform in order to meet the energy needs of the coming decades, warn top engineers.}
{Photograph}: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images}
The UK's most eminent engineers have warned that the biggest set of investments and social changes ever seen in peacetime are needed to meet the country's energy needs in the coming decades, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The changes include a transformation of the nation's draughty homes and cuts in how far people commute to work, as well as a vast expansion of wind and solar power and dozens of new nuclear or "clean coal" power plants.
The authors of the Royal Academy of Engineering report, published today , say the existing level of political will and the market-led approach to energy planning cannot deliver the fundamental restructuring needed.
"We are nowhere near having a plan," said Prof Sue Ion, who led the report. "These are massive projects. It requires a huge exercise all through government, and needs to come from the very top and go down through all departments such as transport and local government."
"What we are talking about is making sure our children and grandchildren have an energy infrastructure that is fit for purpose."
Another author, Prof Roger Kemp, from Lancaster University, said: "It needs the political enthusiasm that was behind the war on terror after 9/11."
The team devised scenarios for the UK in 2050, starting with achievable cuts in energy usage and the maximum possible amount of renewable energy. Next they calculated how much fossil fuel could then be used while still meeting the UK's planned action on climate change, an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050. In all scenarios, that left an energy gap that was filled by dozens of new nuclear power stations and coal stations fitted with technology to prevent carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.
In the two scenarios identified by the engineers as most probable, fossil fuel use fell by 75%, renewable energy rose 20-fold and about 40 new nuclear or clean coal plants were needed (see details below). The remaining fossil fuel has to be split between heating homes or powering transport, with social consequences for both.
If home heating is to be decarbonised by the use of electric heat pumps, said the authors, gas boilers would have to be all but banned and community heating schemes built. If cars are to be electrified, then a vast new charging infrastructure is needed, said Kemp, including a smart, interactive grid that charges vehicles when renewable energy from wind and the sun is most available.
Kemp suggested the long commutes to work common today could not continue: "We have to think about constraints on where we live. Car mileage has been going up since 1950s and shows no sign of slowing." But he said: "One of the problems of transport is that it is a very emotional issue."
A critical factor was cutting demand for energy, said the author Prof Roland Clift, from the University of Surrey, primarily by increasing the energy efficiency of homes. "The UK has notoriously inefficient buildings. We need to put huge effort into the unsexy business of retrofitting. It is a frustration to me that this was said 10 years ago, but very little has happened since."
The transformation needed is so substantial that they said it would "inevitably involve significant rises in energy costs to end users"' said Ion. But the report notes that the renewal of the UK's energy infrastructure, mostly built in the 1970s, is required regardless of the need to cut emissions to tackle global warming.
Prof Nick Cumsty used another war analogy: "It's like going to war with Hitler: it is not what it costs but what you have to do or you will be overwhelmed." In October, the government's adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, said a "step change" was needed in the rate of carbon emissions cuts.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "Large parts of the report are very much in tune with our thinking." Last month, the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said in a statement: "For the longer term [beyond 2020], Britain will need a more interventionist energy policy. The scale and upfront nature of the low-carbon investment needed is likely to require significant reform of our market arrangements."
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The government has been too slow and too hesitant in the past, but next week's budget offers them a chance to fire the starting gun for a low-carbon economy. Britain has faced up to massive challenges before and has emerged stronger and more prosperous because of them. The decades ahead will improve our energy security and generate thousands of new jobs."
What the UK needs in 2050 to keep the lights on and fight global warming
Renewable energy:
> More than 20,000 wind turbines, on and off onshore
> 36m² of solar panels on each house, or equivalent
> 1,000 miles of Pelamis "sea-snake" wave power machines
> A tidal power barrage across the Severn and 2,300 tidal turbines elsewhere
> The burning of farm, forest and food waste for electricity, and transport biofuels, equivalent to 26 large coal-powered stations
Low-carbon energy:
> About 40 new power stations using either nuclear or "clean coal" technology
Fossil fuels:
> Use cut by 75% compared with today and used largely for transport or home heating, but not both
Energy efficiency
> 20% cut in energy use by white goods and gadgets, and a 40% cut in home heating
[Business > Nuclear]
Labour's nuclear ambitions hurt as councillors reject landfill waste plan
Campaigners in King's Cliffe, Northamptonshire, are rejoicing
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 March 2010 16.27 GMT Article history
Government plans to further its wider nuclear ambitions by allowing waste to be disposed of in ordinary landfill sites have fallen at the first hurdle with a council rejecting a proposal supported by its own planning officers and the Environment Agency.
Villagers in King's Cliffe fought a vocal and successful campaign to convince Northamptonshire county councillors they should prevent waste company Augean from turning a former local clay pit into the country's first low level radioactive dump.
The decision, which was taken on Tuesday night, is a setback for ministers who believe public support for a new generation of nuclear power stations partly depends on developing a credible way of dealing with waste.
Britain's one purpose-built repository – at Drigg in Cumbria –is beginning to fill up and the government wanted to relieve pressure on it by opening up landfill for very low level materials such as rubble.
But the council's development control committee unanimously voted against a scheme that could have seen 250,000 tonnes a year of nuclear waste put into landfill close to the historic hamlet of King's Cliffe on the border with Cambridgeshire.
Ben Smith, a Conservative who chairs the committee, said he was a supporter of nuclear power but it was "crazy" to cart rubble and contaminated soil 90 miles from the former atomic research centre at Harwell in Oxfordshire to be stored in Northamptonshire.
"The treatment should take place on the site where the problem arises and quite frankly this must surely send a message out to anybody contemplating nuclear energy," he added.
The meeting heard that more than 200 letters of objection had been received and a petition of more than 3,000 names collected, with several people speaking at the meeting itself.
Clare Langan, 45, who lives in King's Cliffe and campaigned against the plans, said: "It really is a victory for common sense and I think the councillors who debated the matter today and the chairman should be commended. I think they have put people's health ahead of a company's wealth.
"People felt very strongly about it because, yes, it's our backyard, but what's really important was it was a precedent for the rest of the country.
"You can't dispose of this material on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis. There's got to be a proper plan in place," she added.
Augean, which has been hit by fines for breaching environmental regulations in the past, has not given up yet on its plans, according to Gene Wilson, Augean's technical director, who added: "Naturally we are disappointed that Northamptonshire county council was not able to support our application. We will be considering how best to take these important proposals forward."
The decision will be watched carefully in Cumbria where waste companies are also pushing to use a landfill site at Lillyhall and a disused strip mine at Keekle Head for radioactive waste.
Labour councillor John McGhee said the committee had a duty to protect the people of Northamptonshire but added: "We will be setting a precedent, not just for King's Cliffe, not just for the north of the county, or Northamptonshire, but for the whole country."
[Environment > Energy]
UK must transform to meet future energy needs, warn top engineers
The changes include a transformation of draughty homes, plus vast expansion of renewable and nuclear power
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 07.00 GMT Article history
{{The UK must transform in order to meet the energy needs of the coming decades, warn top engineers.}
{Photograph}: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images}
The UK's most eminent engineers have warned that the biggest set of investments and social changes ever seen in peacetime are needed to meet the country's energy needs in the coming decades, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The changes include a transformation of the nation's draughty homes and cuts in how far people commute to work, as well as a vast expansion of wind and solar power and dozens of new nuclear or "clean coal" power plants.
The authors of the Royal Academy of Engineering report, published today , say the existing level of political will and the market-led approach to energy planning cannot deliver the fundamental restructuring needed.
"We are nowhere near having a plan," said Prof Sue Ion, who led the report. "These are massive projects. It requires a huge exercise all through government, and needs to come from the very top and go down through all departments such as transport and local government."
"What we are talking about is making sure our children and grandchildren have an energy infrastructure that is fit for purpose."
Another author, Prof Roger Kemp, from Lancaster University, said: "It needs the political enthusiasm that was behind the war on terror after 9/11."
The team devised scenarios for the UK in 2050, starting with achievable cuts in energy usage and the maximum possible amount of renewable energy. Next they calculated how much fossil fuel could then be used while still meeting the UK's planned action on climate change, an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050. In all scenarios, that left an energy gap that was filled by dozens of new nuclear power stations and coal stations fitted with technology to prevent carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.
In the two scenarios identified by the engineers as most probable, fossil fuel use fell by 75%, renewable energy rose 20-fold and about 40 new nuclear or clean coal plants were needed (see details below). The remaining fossil fuel has to be split between heating homes or powering transport, with social consequences for both.
If home heating is to be decarbonised by the use of electric heat pumps, said the authors, gas boilers would have to be all but banned and community heating schemes built. If cars are to be electrified, then a vast new charging infrastructure is needed, said Kemp, including a smart, interactive grid that charges vehicles when renewable energy from wind and the sun is most available.
Kemp suggested the long commutes to work common today could not continue: "We have to think about constraints on where we live. Car mileage has been going up since 1950s and shows no sign of slowing." But he said: "One of the problems of transport is that it is a very emotional issue."
A critical factor was cutting demand for energy, said the author Prof Roland Clift, from the University of Surrey, primarily by increasing the energy efficiency of homes. "The UK has notoriously inefficient buildings. We need to put huge effort into the unsexy business of retrofitting. It is a frustration to me that this was said 10 years ago, but very little has happened since."
The transformation needed is so substantial that they said it would "inevitably involve significant rises in energy costs to end users"' said Ion. But the report notes that the renewal of the UK's energy infrastructure, mostly built in the 1970s, is required regardless of the need to cut emissions to tackle global warming.
Prof Nick Cumsty used another war analogy: "It's like going to war with Hitler: it is not what it costs but what you have to do or you will be overwhelmed." In October, the government's adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, said a "step change" was needed in the rate of carbon emissions cuts.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "Large parts of the report are very much in tune with our thinking." Last month, the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said in a statement: "For the longer term [beyond 2020], Britain will need a more interventionist energy policy. The scale and upfront nature of the low-carbon investment needed is likely to require significant reform of our market arrangements."
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The government has been too slow and too hesitant in the past, but next week's budget offers them a chance to fire the starting gun for a low-carbon economy. Britain has faced up to massive challenges before and has emerged stronger and more prosperous because of them. The decades ahead will improve our energy security and generate thousands of new jobs."
What the UK needs in 2050 to keep the lights on and fight global warming
Renewable energy:
> More than 20,000 wind turbines, on and off onshore
> 36m² of solar panels on each house, or equivalent
> 1,000 miles of Pelamis "sea-snake" wave power machines
> A tidal power barrage across the Severn and 2,300 tidal turbines elsewhere
> The burning of farm, forest and food waste for electricity, and transport biofuels, equivalent to 26 large coal-powered stations
Low-carbon energy:
> About 40 new power stations using either nuclear or "clean coal" technology
Fossil fuels:
> Use cut by 75% compared with today and used largely for transport or home heating, but not both
Energy efficiency
> 20% cut in energy use by white goods and gadgets, and a 40% cut in home heating
[Business > Nuclear]
Labour's nuclear ambitions hurt as councillors reject landfill waste plan
Campaigners in King's Cliffe, Northamptonshire, are rejoicing
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 March 2010 16.27 GMT Article history
Government plans to further its wider nuclear ambitions by allowing waste to be disposed of in ordinary landfill sites have fallen at the first hurdle with a council rejecting a proposal supported by its own planning officers and the Environment Agency.
Villagers in King's Cliffe fought a vocal and successful campaign to convince Northamptonshire county councillors they should prevent waste company Augean from turning a former local clay pit into the country's first low level radioactive dump.
The decision, which was taken on Tuesday night, is a setback for ministers who believe public support for a new generation of nuclear power stations partly depends on developing a credible way of dealing with waste.
Britain's one purpose-built repository – at Drigg in Cumbria –is beginning to fill up and the government wanted to relieve pressure on it by opening up landfill for very low level materials such as rubble.
But the council's development control committee unanimously voted against a scheme that could have seen 250,000 tonnes a year of nuclear waste put into landfill close to the historic hamlet of King's Cliffe on the border with Cambridgeshire.
Ben Smith, a Conservative who chairs the committee, said he was a supporter of nuclear power but it was "crazy" to cart rubble and contaminated soil 90 miles from the former atomic research centre at Harwell in Oxfordshire to be stored in Northamptonshire.
"The treatment should take place on the site where the problem arises and quite frankly this must surely send a message out to anybody contemplating nuclear energy," he added.
The meeting heard that more than 200 letters of objection had been received and a petition of more than 3,000 names collected, with several people speaking at the meeting itself.
Clare Langan, 45, who lives in King's Cliffe and campaigned against the plans, said: "It really is a victory for common sense and I think the councillors who debated the matter today and the chairman should be commended. I think they have put people's health ahead of a company's wealth.
"People felt very strongly about it because, yes, it's our backyard, but what's really important was it was a precedent for the rest of the country.
"You can't dispose of this material on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis. There's got to be a proper plan in place," she added.
Augean, which has been hit by fines for breaching environmental regulations in the past, has not given up yet on its plans, according to Gene Wilson, Augean's technical director, who added: "Naturally we are disappointed that Northamptonshire county council was not able to support our application. We will be considering how best to take these important proposals forward."
The decision will be watched carefully in Cumbria where waste companies are also pushing to use a landfill site at Lillyhall and a disused strip mine at Keekle Head for radioactive waste.
Labour councillor John McGhee said the committee had a duty to protect the people of Northamptonshire but added: "We will be setting a precedent, not just for King's Cliffe, not just for the north of the county, or Northamptonshire, but for the whole country."
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます