The UK Government’s new Bioenergy Strategy released last week aims to accelerate the use of renewable energy generated sustainably from biomass. Bioenergy is stated in the strategy as ‘one of the most versatile forms of low carbon and renewable energy’ and is proposed to be used for heating, electricity and transport fuel.

The Government’s overall goal is to meet the renewables target by 2020 and the carbon reduction targets by 2030 and 2050. To achieve this, the focus has to be on new technologies (e.g. wind, solar) and biomass energy as well. The strategy predicts that 11 per cent of all UK energy will come from biomass by 2020. This number can be achieved sustainably using domestic and international biomass resources and be sustained in the long term in spite of the expected emergence of international demand for biomass feedstock.

The Government also recognise the risks of bioenergy, emphasised by many green organisations. To address the concerns (e.g. food security, biodiversity) the Government states that sustainability and affordability are the highest importance and the strategy sets a framework of principles to guide UK bioenergy policy in the future. Amongst others the principles state that the biomass used for bioenergy has to deliver genuine carbon reductions over its full lifecycle and future bioenergy policies must assess risks to food security and biodiversity.

Alongside the strategy the government released several reports on issues relevant to or affected by the proposed bioenergy strategy. For instance, a report on the UK jobs in the sector highlights that increased use of bioenergy would create around 50,000 jobs by 2020. Analyses on the bioenergy feedstock suggest that the amount of waste going to landfill at the moment would decrease by using it for bioenergy.

The Government used a holistic approach in preparing this strategy but did not seek to answer all the questions about the issue. One thing is perfectly clear though that the Government wants sustainable and affordable bioenergy to be an integral part of UK’s energy production in the future.

A new £1 billion competition has been announced by the UK Government to support the development of industrial scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. So far CCS has been developed on small scales but no commercial scale test of the technology has ever been undertaken.

The Government’s previous attempt to incentivise the development of commercial-scale CCS collapsed in October 2011 following the withdrawal of all nine companies participating in the scheme, citing concerns over the financial viability of the programme.

Changes have now been made, meaning that the competition announced today will accept applications from schemes that trap carbon dioxide pre-combustion, as well as post-combustion, and will also be open to both gas as well as coal fired power plants.

One or more demonstration plants will be funded and it is anticipated that the selected projects will be up and running by 2016 – 2020. By the end of the 2020’s the Government expects 12 – 20 new plants to be fitted with the technology.

Alongside the £1 billion fund, Ministers have also announced £125 million to support research and development of CCS, including a new £13m CCS Research Centre; a virtual network coordinated by the University of Edinburgh. Ministers will also announce shortly the details of how the technology can be supported in the long-term. One approach that the Government favours is believed to be to encourage ‘clusters’ of power plants to develop, with these then supporting each other and sharing best practice in the development and utilisation of CCS.

Original articles:
Fiona Harvey, the Guardian, 3 April 2012 – New push for carbon capture and storage with £1 bn competitionDavid Shukman, BBC, 3 April 2012 – New UK attempt to capture carbon

The UK is engaged in ‘the most complex negoitations the world has ever tackled’, as it works with other nations to forge an agreement around how to address dangerous climate change. So said a senior policy adviser from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) yesterday evening, at an event organised by the All Party Environment Group.

Greg Barker, junior Minister of State at DECC was due to speak but was unfortunately called away on business and so was not able to brief those present on UK climate policy. However, in the course of 30 minutes or so we received a broad overview from a senior official regarding the Cancun negotiations in December 2010, and what the outcome of these might mean for the UK. He descibed Cancun as a ‘relative success’, highlighting progress on reporting and verification of countries’ emissions, reasonable progress on financing, some progress on carbon markets (including the inclusion of Carbon Capture and Storage in the Clean Development Mechanism) and progress around forestry (REDD +). Success was to agree upon this set of issues and to demonstrate that countries can make progress in a multi-year negotiating context, he said. The agreement had laid the foundations and building blocks of an ultimately successful strategy, he commented.

However, the official acknowledged that significant challenges remain for the next round of climate negotiations in Durban, later this year. We are not on a trajectory towards 2 degrees centigrade as yet (a point highlighted strongly on this morning’s Today Programme, highlighting an analysis which showed that we would need a doubling of effort, and then doubling once again to move to a 2 degree path – with the majority of effort needed by developing economies, where climate change is not currently high on the agenda). The negotiations didn’t address ‘who pays and how much, or the legal framework under which reductions in emissions could take place (a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and which countries take on responsibility, and how much).

The speaker moved on to consider the UK’s contribution to mitigating carbon emissions and highlighted a very recent agreement to co-operate on the development of dedicated ‘low carbon zones’ within China. These will cover 180 million people, whose energy use emits as much greenhouse gas as Germany and Italy combined. The overarching message was that the UK has to get its own house in order, and be seen to do so, before it can expect to influence other nations to tackle their emissions. The UK emits only 2% of the total amount of greenhouse gases which enter the atmosphere. We could reduce our emissions to zero and make hardly a dent – however we will be very strongly affected by the impacts of climate change which result from the actions of other countries. Therefore we must ensure that we influence others to act and must lead by example.

It was disappointing not to hear a comment from Government on adaptation, as well as mitigation. Mitigating climate change – emissions reductions – was the focus of the talk and it would be interesting to hear what actions, if any, the Government is considering to adapt the UK to the climate change we are already committed to because of gases already in the atmosphere. A comment on how changing people’s behaviour could influence climate change would also have been welcome – particularly given that behaviour change is a focus for activity within the Cabinet Office at present, and the focus for the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.

It was clear that Government expect industry to lead the way in finding innovative technologies, and money, to mitigate emissions. Yet equally important is educating the public and influencing a cultural shift in society, particularly in the context of the ‘Big Society’ agenda, a point which was overlooked.

David Cameron has now announced his new Cabinet, including the key environmental portfolios within the coalition government. Policies in this sector have caused significant disagreements between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the past, most notably on nuclear energy which the liberals have consistently resisted. The new appointments reflect the apparent desire amongst both parties to govern in a constructive coalition.

This has been demonstrated by Cameron’s allocation of the weighty Energy and Climate Change brief to the Liberal Democrats’ former environment spokesman Chris Huhne. Huhne’s background in City makes him a practical choice given the big financial commitments a programme of low carbon energy expansion could demand. A new accord over the financial aspects of energy policy, such as the introduction of a low carbon infrastructure bank and green home loans, as well as agreements on the smart meters roll-out and marine energy will keep Huhne and his new department busy over the coming months. Huhne’s biography is available on the DECC website here.

At DEFRA Caroline Spelman has landed Hilary Benn’s former job as Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary. With a long farming background and published research on biofuels, Spelman starts the role on a firm footing, given she also took the brief in opposition. Spelman has said she will ‘work across government and beyond to respond to the challenges of increasing food production, adapting to climate change, protecting our natural environment and ensuring we live sustainably.’ See her biography on the DEFRA website here.

Another Conservative, Phillip Hammond MP, will take the transport brief, following his most recent portfolio in opposition as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The prominent Liberal Democrat Vince Cable has been appointed Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, whilst the Conservative David Willetts will look after Universities and Science within DBIS, after shadowing the Universities and Skills minister in opposition. Further junior ministerial appointments are expected to be confirmed in the next few days as the Prime Minister fleshes out these departments with politicians from both parties.

A member of the Policy Team yesterday attended a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee to discuss the vexed question of coal-fired energy generation and ‘Carbon Capture & Storage’ (CCS).

The Conservative Shadow Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, gave a very interesting presentation summarising his views and the priorities of any future Conservative Government. He stated that the market can no longer genuinely deliver a satisfactory energy system by itself, and that the Government needs to get more involved and establish a national energy policy. He then proceeded to argue that diversity of supply was essential to ensure energy security, and that therefore the UK needs to keep burning coal, and thus needs to introduce CCS.

Mr. Hendry recognised that this would require significant Government leadership and funding, for whilst the price of one large coal plant is approximately ₤700 million, including CCS would add a further ₤1 billion to the cost. Clusters of CCS-utilising power plants should therefore be created to attain as many economies of scale as possible, with one prime cluster candidate being in the South-East, on the Thames estuary.

To ensure that carbon reduction did occur, the Shadow Minister stated he was very interested in adopting an emissions performance standard along the lines of California, where any new power plant cannot be built unless its projected carbon emissions are under a certain set level. He also said he was considering the introduction of a minimum carbon price, in the form of a carbon tax, which could remedy the volatility and uncertain outlook of the current EU carbon price.

He was followed by Andy Read, the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Project Manager at Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, who argued that CCS would definitely work, and that it is rather a question of economics, regulation and political uncertainty which will dictate how soon and where it is implemented. E.ON UK, the owners of Kingsnorth, are strongly pushing the creation of a CCS cluster in the South-East, with the carbon to be transported via under-sea pipeline to an old oil and gas field in the North Sea. The Q & A session did pick out one interesting point however, in that E.ON are committed to post-combustion removal of carbon technology, whilst many, including numerous chemical engineers in the audience, felt that pre-combustion carbon removal will be the real technology of the future. Charles Hendry stated that he recognised it was still unclear which exact technology will be most effective, but argued that the Government therefore had to support demonstration projects to ascertain which technologies would provide the best answer.

A member of the Policy Team today attended a very interesting set of talks by David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), and Jonathan Brearley, Director of the Office of Climate Change.

Dr. Kennedy spoke first, highlighting the Committee’s work on the UK’s Carbon Budgets. There are actually two budgets- an ‘Interim Budget’, to be applied before there is a global deal, which calls for a 34% cut in emission below 1990 levels by 2020, and the ‘Intended Budget’, which will be applied once a global deal is achieved and calls for 42% cuts by 2020.

Of particular interest was his views on how the Committee believes all these ambitious targets can actually be achieved. Their research suggests that the power generation sector offers the biggest potential emission cuts (50 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxode by 2020), followed by residential buildings (32 Mt), transport (30Mt), non-residential buildings and industry (17 Mt) and agriculture (11Mt). This adds up to a total of 140 Mt i.e. enough to meet the Interim budget cuts of 34%.

He also argued that the energy policymakers’ nightmare- the ‘rebound effect’- had been taken into account in these projections. This effect is one of the most serious uncertainties and potential flaws in energy efficiency policy; it describes how both the public and industry are prone to spend any money saved by improved energy efficiency on other things, thereby increasing consumption and boosting the carbon emissions of other sectors. Whilst this effect has been clearly observed before, its scale is very hard to predict- an illustration of the enormous complexity involved in climate change mitigation policy.

Jonathan Brearley meanwhile spoke about the difficulties of getting the public to improve household energy efficiency, reminding the audience that despite the fact that policymakers have been trying to encourage this for over thirty years, people simply aren’t making the household investments required. He suggested three barriers to change- i) a lack of information, ii) the hassle of having insulation etc. work done, and iii) the upfront costs of investment/capital constraints. Hassle was identified as a particularly major problem, with Jonathan noting that Government would have to provide some major incentives to encourage change in this area.

All in all, an optimistic meeting with talks from two obviously very thoughtful men. The difficulty of communicating this policy complexity and thoughtfulness was clear however- David Kennedy attracted all sorts of negative attention last week, including being pilloried on Have I Got News For You, for his comment that he was giving up doner kebabs as part of an effort to rebalance his diet and reduce the carbon footprint of his food intake.