Shopping for Energy

As a global family, perhaps we should source our energy needs in the same way that a normal family would, only cost now means environmental cost.

When you want something you go shopping, and that means effort and enjoyment (depending on the type of person you are!). It means comparing, discriminating, choosing and finally paying before you enjoy what you have bought. In that process, there are a few important questions:

Do we really need it (like food or heating in winter)?
How much does it cost?
Is it available?
How long will it last?
Can we afford it?

When we go shopping for energy as a global family, it should be no different.

Do we really need it? - Well, yes, because of the way we have constructed the modern world. We would die (or many of us) if we suddenly did not have access to energy.  

That is not, however, an argument for not cutting back on energy use. The truth is we are addicted to it and need to dry out. But for the moment, yes, we really need the energy fix!

How much does it cost? - The true cost is the economic cost plus the environmental cost. Different energy sources have different costs, and that is where we would be responsible to compare.

• Plutonium is frighteningly costly.
• Coal is costlier than all other fossil fuels when the full force of its health effects are taken into account (in this blog here and here ).
• Tar sands are environmentally more costly than oil; an issue of the day.
• Oil is costlier than natural gas, and too precious to waste on burning.
• Natural gas is costlier than shale gas (marginally).
• Perhaps shale gas is environmentally more costly than wind energy (but perhaps not when one accounts for the associated radioactive waste problem, which is shared by some solar and tidal sources too). 

Suddenly, shopping isn't so much fun!


Is it available? - Well, it depends if you are lucky enough to have it under your back-yard. Lucky? Well that is a matter of your view.

• For plutonium, everyone is a NIMBY.
• For coal everyone should be, and the same goes for tar sands!
• Oil should be avoided as an energy source because it should be conserved in order to make things from it.
• Natural gas is available, and increasingly shale gas will be a bridge to alternative energy sources.
• Wind, solar and tidal energy is not presently available - but will be if we can bridge to it in a reasonable way.
• Fusion is not available, but might one day if we can hold our breath long enough!

How long will it last? - Well you would not want your new television to last only 2 days! The same does for energy sources.

• For plutonium: Frighteningly long.
• For coal: Really enough for 500 years, but at what cost.
• Tar sands: As long as it takes to prop-up the Canadian economy.
• For oil: Perhaps several hundred years but at increasing economic cost for all items made from it.
• Natural gas shale gas: Perhaps several hundred years, which shoild be sufficient to convert to other energy sources and/or reduce energy demands through efficiencies and lifestyle changes.
• Wind, solar and tidal energy: Forever, providing rare earth elements can be efficiently recycled. 
• Fusion: Again forever! 

Can we afford it? - Well, that is the question.

Can the environment afford it - No!

Can we afford not to and live - No!

When we go shopping we make pragmatic decisions with an eye on our pocket and an eye on our future. That is what we need to do when shopping for energy.

Coal vs. Gas II: A perspective

Just how many premature deaths are there in the UK each year from pollution caused by coal-fired power stations? 

Greenpeace says the death toll was 2115 in 2010, which is slightly smaller than deaths due to road traffic accidents (2337).

In 2011, Balcombe had a population of 1424. 

Hence, coal deaths per year in the UK are the equivalent of wiping out Balcombe and its rural neighbours, and then doing it again in each subsequent year.

Diagram from the Greenpeace report "Silent Killers".

Premature winter deaths are even bigger (25,875 per year). That is the equivalent of wiping-out Haywards Heath (pop. 25,550 in 2006) next year! At that rate we can depopulate East Sussex (pop. 795,800 in 2012) in 30 years.

But what does it matter - these people were going to die anyway providing we do nothing. But if we did replace coal generation by gas and made some of the gas freely available for the exposed parts of our society, may be we could save at least some of these lives.

Coal vs. Gas Revisited

In June The Guardian reported on the release of an important Greenpeace report on coal-fired power generation. The summary made shocking reading:

"Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days" 

In fact a total of 240,000 years of life were said to be lost in Europe in 2010 with 480,000 work days a year. 

The UK was Europe's fifth most coal-polluted country in 2010, with 22,600 "life years" lost. Drax, Britain's largest coal-powered station, was said to be responsible for 4,450 life years lost, while Longannet in Scotland was said to be responsible for 4,210 life years lost.

The Greenpeace report is not scaremongering. In fact it is in line with studiesdone in the USA and previously reported in this blog. 

Greenpeace would like to replace coal with renewables, which is frankly impracticable. If, for example, we switched our coal generation to wind, it would require 851,000 5 MW windmills working flat-out all year. And that does not consider their effect on our environment, the radioactive and chemical pollution they cause in China, the lack of constant wind (except in some parts of the Houses of Parliament) and the lack of space for such a number of mills.

By contrast shale gas is a known, practicable, increasingly well regulated and greening industry. There are many reasons why we should produce shale gas, not the least of which is the saving of life and living potential that switching coal generation to gas generation would bring.

I would suggest we

·         produce shale gas,

·         compensate the PIMBYs,

·         tax the companies,

·         use revenues to boost the energy saving and renewable energy developments, as well as

·         making gas-fired power and heating available free to all families with children under 10 as well as those over the age of 70. 
 

Then we’ll improve social justice, save lives from coal pollution, reduce premature winter deaths (about 24,000 per year) significantly, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. 

Do nothing and coal-fired generation and pollution will go up as a result of imported coal (unwanted coal from the USA ironically), energy efficiency and renewable development will limp along, green-house gas emissions will continue to rise, and we will carry on trying to avoid thinking about the annual winter death toll.

Pimbys have been spotted in Balcombe?

It was bound to happen.

Sixty of the residents of Balcombe are protesting against the shale gas protestors. After weeks of leaving the protestors their right to peaceful protest, some Balcombe residents have had enough. 

In an anonymous letter they express their "strong disapproval of the recent & continuing protests", while not believing that "exploratory drilling or properly regulated further exploitation will unduly damage our environment".

Are these people a rare sighting of that friendly, timid but stubborn bird, the PIMBY, with its mellifluous call which sounds something like "Please in my back yard"! 

Cynics have said that, with the promise of parish councils benefitting in cash from drilling and production, the PIMBY is thinking about feathering its nest. 

I prefer the simple explanation that common sense, as exemplified by the Balcombe Parish Council's clear evidence-based report on fracking, will win out in the end for the good of all. Farmers that have been shown around oil and gas production facilities in Canada return home as converts; not because they have been bribed with money, but because they have been shown it as it actually is, and not how extreme shalegasophobes paint it.

Importantly the authors warn "Let other communities be warned that our hitherto friendly village has suffered not only from the protesting crowds but prior to that from the intemperance of self-appointed  “ activists”, unfair abuse of our Parish Council, politicisation of the village fete, unsightly banners and, above all, spreading of unwarranted fear." 

How many other parish councils will be reading this with trepidation, I wonder?

The authors' plea has gone out for "the Government, Local Authorities & the Industry to provide clear and easily understood  information on the rationale for developing a British shale oil & gas industry".

We, of course, try to do that in this blog, and all concerned academics ought to be part of the dissemination of such understanding. In particular, the call for public disclosure of data to the Prime Minister, and its follow-up, and in the Issues raised and discussed in the blog (e.g., earthquakes).