Cowardly populist green-pandering policies!!

[Jon_in_london]

So, the government want to cut overall CO2 gas emmtionns by 60% by 2050 and by 10% by 2010 while at the same time instituting a moratorium on Nookiller power plant (~25% od our installed generating capacity) construction- the existing ones will be run-down and decommisioned in the next 30 years.

Needles to say this is a populist policy that panders to the greens without taking into account the scientific realities of the situation.

I want to draft a letter to London's most popular news-rag that will dash this policy's crown into the hazard! But, alas I have no inspiration and look to you good fellows for some inspiring fact-bytes.

Cheers.

[Aoidoi]

No real good factoids, but my 2 cents:

I'm not particularly clear on the details of the proposal, but it would appear on it's face that the plan is unfeasible. Without nuclear plants the only non-CO2 producing technologies cannot possibly supply energy lost by reducing fossil fuel consumption by 60%. There are only so many windmills that can be put up, only so much of the coastline that remotely support harnessing tidal energy. I don't even know if geothermal production is possible at all in the UK, I suspect not. I suppose biomass is possible, but I don't think it works remotely well enough to be sustainable (anyone more expert feel free to correct me).

What it would boil down to is forcing people to curtail energy use by at least 50% (25% total due to nuclear + 60% x total due to fossil fuels - whatever increase in "green" energy). Carter tried pitching efficiency in the US and got no where fast. Perhaps the UK will respond differently, but I doubt it.

I'm still trying to figure out why CO2 has gotten such a bad rap... I find methane and sulfur dioxide much more unfortunate as gases go. ;)

Edit: sorry about the [sub] tags... anyone know how to do a subscript? I thought those worked. Musta been a different board.

[jj]

I wonder what the greens think of the thorium emissions from the coal plants?

[arcticpenguin]

I think I understand the politics of this. Blair probably doesn't want to be accused of Bush-like hypocrisy in fighting a foreign oil war while doing nothing to conserve oil and develop alternate sources.

Scientifically? Currently solar and wind are too expensive to compete with fossil fuels, and any research towards reducing their cost is welcome.

[arcticpenguin]

Well actually that second paragraph was as much about economics as science. Oh well.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Without nuclear plants the only non-CO2 producing technologies cannot possibly supply energy lost by reducing fossil fuel consumption by 60%. There are only so many windmills that can be put up, only so much of the coastline that remotely support harnessing tidal energy. I don't even know if geothermal production is possible at all in the UK, I suspect not. I suppose biomass is possible, but I don't think it works remotely well enough to be sustainable (anyone more expert feel free to correct me).


Is the only way to reduce CO2 emissions by that 60%, to literally reduce fossil fuel use by 60%?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by gnome

Is the only way to reduce CO2 emissions by that 60%, to literally reduce fossil fuel use by 60%?
There are some schemes on the drawing board to capture the CO2 from burning fossil fuels and pump it either deep into the ocean or deep underground.

[fishbob]

To Gnome:
Yep.

To AP:
Capturing the emissions will improve air quality but will require use of even more energy.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by fishbob

To AP:
Capturing the emissions will improve air quality but will require use of even more energy.
I'm certainly not going to defend the feasibility, economics, or long-term environmental impact of these schemes; just pointing out that someone is thinking them up.

[spoonhandler]

Pump CO2 emissions deep into the ocean? Would that be a good thing? How does that relate to the problems some have raised about higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere raising acidity of sea water and killing coral?

[arcticpenguin]

Here's a link: http://www.sparkingreaction.info/news_773B9B79-A76C-4053-9A7871B719716CF0.shtml

It sounds like they are pumping it into the ocean floor, not just into the liquid ocean.

Another link: http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1999/05/051099/ocean_3099.asp
This one is different, they are talking about clathrates.

I just don't know much about this stuff.

[spoonhandler]

Thanks ap - interesting links. I hadn't thought they would do it that way. I like the final statement on the second link - that it's expensive but viable. Hmmm...

[CapelDodger]

From arcticpenguin:
I think I understand the politics of this. Blair probably doesn't want to be accused of Bush-like hypocrisy in fighting a foreign oil war while doing nothing to conserve oil and develop alternate sources.

Actually, he's doing anything he can that's popular at the moment, apart from calling the boys home. Everything's going into Iraq at the moment. His ministers have the greatest amount of leverage and influence they've ever had. It's very visible if you keep an eye on the politics in Britain. (There's increased manoeuvering over the succession as well - and given the state of the Opposition that means succession to power.)

This policy appeals to the most important constituencies, the young and the baby-boomers. There's a bit of a gap where the Yuppies happened, but they're lost souls anyway. As far as the nuclear power issue is concerned, we all live rather too close to nuclear installations. The French and Germans have a similar problem, which is one reason why their nuclear power plants are mostly built on their borders or the coast. If a French station goes off, half the problem is Germany's, and vice versa. Way to build public confidence, guys. There a station right across the Bristol Channel from my city, with hills behind it; they pay their taxes over there, but when the **** hits the fan ...

Protesters once took a couple of barrels of sand from a beach near Sellafield and dumped it on the steps of No 10. It couldn't be removed for hours since it was active enough to count as hazardous nuclear material and required (by law) guys in white airtight kit and special vehicles to shift it. Priceless propaganda.
"Is Sellafield safe?"
"Of course it's safe, it's hundreds of miles away."

By the way, the amount of tidal power available from the West of Britain is astronomical. This coast has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and the number of islands and penisulae makes for ferocious tidal races which are natural sites for underwater turbines. And it's absolutely predictable as long as the Moon doesn't go away. Once the technology is robust enough there's a huge potential. And much of the industrial demand (and capital generation) of Britain is still in the west.