Against the grain

Although technologies like solar and wind power may have entered the mainstream, it’s questionable whether the spirit that guided their development – a fully sustainable future – has. Despite the amount of ‘green noise’, campaigners claim, not enough solid change is taking place….and time is running out.

We spoke to Richard Hawkins, a leading voice in alternative energy technologies, to find out more.

Can you tell us a little about yourself?

I work for a Public Interest Research Centre. We’ve published a report with The Centre for Alternative Technology [CAT] called Zero Carbon Britain, which is an alternative energy strategy for Britain.

I am heavily involved with climate change policy. This includes current Government policy as well as the better options that are out there that the government aren’t pursuing.

What do you mean by alternative technology?

It [the phrase] has lost a lot of its value as the mainstream has caught up. Windfarms and solar energy aren’t alternative any more - they’re becoming much more mainstream.

From the subtitle of our report [an alternative energy strategy] we meant for it to tie in to CAT but also to provide a counterpoint to the government strategy.

It seems as if everyone is now keen to declare themselves ‘green’, some with some degree of questionability. Does this make you cynical?

You can get like that, but you need to look at it from two angles. What are they actually doing and what effect does that have on emissions?

The second question is ‘is it having a big effect on people?’ Is it letting them know that these are big issues and that they have to be doing extra things?

Are there any particular ‘green drives’ that irritate you?

The main one that I’d criticise is the voluntary carbon offset market, simply because it doesn’t really work and all it does it make people think that they’re green. Offsetting is not a bad thing as long as it’s within a global cap or national cap in a national area. But you just can’t prove how much carbon you’re sequestering.

Do you think there are obstacles to the wholesale adoption of new, alternative technologies as some of these may be competition to established, traditional technologies and vested interests?

I think there are significant vested interests, and I think part of what is played out in the current regulation and frameworks is that energy generation goes on within. The system of buying and selling electricity to the grid vastly favours fossil driven energy and hinders renewable growth. You can also see a number of government policies that don’t particularly inspire and help renewables as much as in some other countries.

Do you think that may be a part of the legacy of existing, long-established relationships?

It’s got to be a significant part of it. But it’s much easier [with] fossil fuels as you can just turn them on and off to some extent. We have an appalling attitude to energy in this country where we’re happy to keep a significant number of power stations on, but not providing electricity… just to be able to balance the grid. We’re wasting a tremendous amount of energy. There are some issues with the viability of doing that for both technologies.

One of the currently ‘in vogue’ sustainable energy ideas is that of carbon capture, how do you feel about it?

Within our report we ran an ‘energy model’ over 20 years to see if Britain could become totally fossil-fuel-free with the right policies in place. Within that, we saw a place for carbon capture and storage in the interim, if it can come in quicker than the current estimation.

But it is only a maximum of 85 per cent efficient, though there are some people working on theoretical models that are 100 per cent efficient. If you factor in peak oil and energy security it is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It just makes us more dependent on something that is finite and will run out.

Where we do see it being useful is if it is used with biomass (wood chips, wood pellets, etc). If you use carbon capture and storage on a smaller plant there, you’ve potentially got a carbon negative technology. When we’ve looked at the climate science numbers it looks as if we’ve a need for those as well to help us out.

It does have a place and it needs to be researched. It could have a place as an interim technology but we don’t see it being a long term technology, certainly on fossil fuels.

Considering that the majority of academic routes into engineering, including those focused on energy production, are based on traditional technologies (including fossil fuels) how can new people coming into the profession look to establish new ways of doing things?

I think it comes from an awakening within the oil industry itself that it does manage a finite product and that that product will eventually go.

At the moment a lot of the noise from these companies involves a significant amount ‘greenwash’ but they are doing research and they are ploughing money in. It’s a fraction compared to their turnover but it is a lot of money compared to what the rest of the renewable industry has.

"Engineers are absolutely key. The construction industry will also have huge growth in rolling out some of those big projects and investing in the infrastructure needed."

How you break away from that in the longer term will have to be from a governmental point of view. Those companies are locked into making profit from what they have so they will drip the last barrel of oil out of the ground to make that money. Government needs to step in to make it clear that if it comes to that then our economies are in trouble as the price of oil, coal and gas will be so high.

I think there needs to be a framework in place for government to subsidise [renewables] as it has been doing for the 30/40 years for the nuclear industry. It needs to step in now and put some of the research in.

The policy framework that we chose for our report would have significant effect in reversing that trend.

Is there anything specifically that government needs to do?

The current government climate change programme is complicated, fragmented and piecemeal. They all have ambiguous names and the average person on the ground doesn’t really know what they mean.

But really, the biggest investment has to come from companies. The way we’ve looked at doing that is to have tradable energy quotas on a national level.

"There’s a divide between the techies and the deep greens. The techies will have to appreciate that there will be major lifestyle changes, and the deep greens have to appreciate that there will be some large technological fixes as well. "

We see electronic carbon allowances as having incredible ‘shift’ in the free market. What that would do is incentive business in the short, medium and longer term in investing in renewables and the technologies around them, because that’s where you would make the most money over the long term. Economically what you’ve done is internalise the cost of carbon and that would only become more expensive as you descend that energy staircase away from fossil fuels.

In that sense, most of the money on energy generation - the actual renewable projects - would be from companies like ecotricity investing now under current market forces. The infrastructure costs would then be from government, grid strengthening, etc.

Engineers as part of the solution

What place do you see engineers having in this future?

Engineers are absolutely key. The construction industry will also have huge growth in rolling out some of those big projects and investing in the infrastructure needed. Germany has increased the jobs in this sector by around a quarter of a million people with just one policy (the feed-in tariffs). It’s really that big. There will be a massive infrastructure growth funded partly by government and by business as well.

There will also be a certain amount involved with transport and in information technology, looking at how to integrate all these systems.

Is it fair to say that we need to integrate the idea of sustainability into everything, rather than think of it as a ‘bolt on’?

Yes, we were disappointed to see that Gordon Brown didn’t merge the DTI and DEFRA into a department for energy and environment, as that would be a major step forward. We’d even say transport should be in there as well as it’s a major player in the energy sector.

Until we start breaking outside of current thinking, until we start thinking about all of those as one, as part of our energy cycle, we’re not going to find the solutions we need as quickly as we need to.

Do you still remain optimistic about climate change?

It’s an emergency rolling out in slow motion, though it doesn’t appear to be an emergency. With the Earth’s natural systems, we could trigger an irreversible cycle of self destruction.

I am optimistic, but not enough good signals are coming out of government. We need to make more green noise and we need to start offering solutions rather than just shouting.

There’s a divide between the techies and the deep greens. The techies will have to appreciate that there will be major lifestyle changes, and the deep greens have to appreciate that there will be some large technological fixes as well. Until that happens, the movement will struggle.

Find out more

Zerocarbonbritain report

 

You’ve read it. Now review it.