Everything News Jobs Opportunities Events Products/Services
more
 
About
Go to Home
Sign Up Sign in

The Low Carbon Economy Ltd

23 Jul 2010 10:07:05

Green Party claims emphasis on CCS is 'misguided'



Green Party claims emphasis on CCS is 'misguided'
The emphasis that the UK is currently placing on carbon capture and storage (CCS) is "misguided", the Green Party has claimed.

A spokesperson for the party, which won its first seat in parliament this year, said that CCS is the "wrong technology" for the country, but added that the Greens agreed with the government's focus on offshore wind, marine energy, smart grids and meters, and electric vehicles.

He suggested that that the CCS industry, which is expected to be worth £2.4 billion a year to the UK by 2030, will not create the same number of jobs as other sectors would.

The spokesperson outlined that in 2009 the Department for Energy and Climate Change said the CCS industry would create 50,000 employment opportunities by the year 2030.

"But if we generated the same proportion of our electricity from wind farms as Denmark does, and at the rate of growth Denmark has achieved, we'd create about 200,000 jobs by 2020," he added.

The comments came after the Committee on Climate Change advised that funding for a range of low carbon technologies, which once developed will help the UK reach its target of an 80 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050, should be protected.ADNFCR-1235-ID-19904721-ADNFCR


Discussion Thread  

23 Jul 2010

Oh wretched press release rehashers, the benefits of CCS must be worth more than 2.4 million quid a year by 2030. That's not even a decent house!!


ecotube wrote:

23 Jul 2010

Surely the £2.4 Million is a misprint? CCS plants cost £2bn each?


SimHull wrote:

23 Jul 2010

It is about time that someone other than Us has stated this. Look at the various blogs within EurActiv and the letters and you will se that the only beneficiaries in this Carbon Capture and Storage is Big Business and not the Public who after all are the Tax Payers and the Bank-Rollers of Governments who pay for this! The hype over the jobs issue in your own reading confirms that the job creation issue is faulted. There are many more other areas where jobs will be created that will greatly outweigh this and some you have highlighted in the dry renewable energies.

The Green Party has highlighted some of the measures here but all of this is somewhat askance whilst we continue to subsidise Big Business in their aims. The more we subsidise big business here the less likely that we will succeed.

You raise the issue again of converting us (all?) to Electrically-Driven personnel vehicles. Will this be practical within 30 years? We are and we remain very skeptical! Just take for example the developments associated with the fundamental battery in a car van lorry or a PSV (Public Service Vehicle) or the likes. Nothing much has changed in 100 years! We may have moved away from Lead and Sulphuric Acid but in reality it is still much of a much ness! Yes we appreciate that it is nothing like the Li-Fe (Lithium-Iron) and the K-Cu/Sn (Potassium-Copper and Tin) configurations currently being developed but none-the-less there is a history of doubt still around.

The developments in Electrical Energy seem equally at variance with reality. Moving to an Electricity economy seems to be as questionable now as it was when first developed. It may be desirous but we do not have the infrastructure to succeed and then as always the question arises ''from whence will we obtain this low-cost electricity?'' We had the chance 10 years ago to connect the UK to the surplus (and relatively inexpensive source) of Icelandic Hydro-electric power by connecting to the North Cape and Ireland, but we took no heed of this. Had we done so we may (and some say we would) not have needed to build any new Nuclear Power stations in the UK for the balance of the remaining electricity could have been sourced from the truly (Dry) Renewables such as Wind, Oceans, Tidal, Photo-Voltaic and others which we are hearing of today. Is it too late to tap in to Iceland's immense electrical energy: who knows? If it is not then it could be in train before any commitment on Nuclear Power need be made.

Returning to Electrically-Driven cars the failing seems to be the need for a competitive reach of say 650 km (400+ miles) on a single charge which can be topped up within the same time frame (20 to 30 minutes) as is common-place with refilling with traditional liquid fuels. Unless this stumbling block is resolved then the notion heralded by Edison Kettering and Ford will not be upheld. The Public likes its independence and to be able to drive around in the freedom of a ''door to door'' transport - to which it is now accustomed. In this therefore the moves by those developing alternative liquid fuels for transport will be with us until beyond 2030.

We must also be aware that the Public is becoming somewhat angry with the notion that it is being hood-winked with these green alternatives to fuels and energies when they see little or no direct (personal) benefit particularly financially! What is needed is the reaffirmation from Governments and the EU (European Union) that the POS (Point-of-Sale) price for these fuels translates correctly and the benefits are in fact passed onwards to the consumer! The evidence so far is that we do not think that they are!

Consider the current blending issues across the EU. Whilst we have a 5.75% blending ratio of Ethanol in petrol/gasoline the disparity on the POS price of fuel is almost unnoticeable. Say (for example) we have raw petrol/gasoline selling at say €1-40 (average across Europe) per litre and Fuel grade Ethanol at (say) €00-65 per litre then at the POS this would be €1-357 - a modest if not marginal effect. However change the ratio to the 85% Ethanol blended with 15% petrol/gasoline - a mixture we hear about in Sweden and which is promised also across Europe - then a litre of Fuel at the POS will be €0-7625 per litre! Frankly we cannot ignore this and those Companies that are steadfastly promoting the production of Ethanol fuel from Non-Food Crops such as those in Finland Sweden UK Holland and Malta etc. should be justly supported and the Tax Payers should see the benefits.

The authors to your article should also be aware that We the Public would like to see more emphasis given to support those Companies, the Fledgling and Visionary Smaller Companies (we read about today in other Environmental Press arenas) which are developing on for example:- (i) Sea Turbines, (ii) Flexible and the Thin Film and Paint-on Photo-Voltaic Cells, (iii) The Macro-Algae Biomass developments (used to absorb and capture Carbon Dioxide (CO2)) from Power Stations and the likes (as developed in Israel) to manufacture Biofuels like ethanol/propanol/butanol and JP4/JP8 substitutes and the many others. All we hear of is the massive subsidies being given to Big Business at the detriment to those who are actually doing the ground-work. If we really need to get to grips with these issues then we must help these companies in a big way rather than to scatter large amounts of money into the few Big Businesses and congratulating ourselves at the same time.

The Green Party is right here and we need more responses here as well.


27 Jul 2010

Forgive me for being cynical but I don't think the Green Party and other similar environmental or extreme left wing groups would like to see mass motoring continue, even if it were more eco-friendly. I do share the view that electrification of personal transport, whilst it is more efficient, does have its issues with range and will only provide the sort of transport that the Greens etc want to discourage - i.e. short urban commutes, which do actually clog up streets. So, in the regard, I do agree. However, personal transport comes into its own for long and less infrequent journeys; trips to see distant family & friends, holidays which normally includes at least two passengers and luggage. I have a trusty old 1997 Audi A6 2.5TDi and I can get 900 miles on a tank of Diesel - more than adequate for a return trip from the North East to Brighton to see friends with bags, food, airbed and bedding (not really ideal for an equivalent train journey). Scrapping such an old car in favour of an electric version (if there would be the opportunity vis a vis a scrappage incentive) would be a huge waste of a old but sound and relatively efficient car in my case, because, clearly there are merits in not destroying something that works perfectly well. I enjoy a good roadtrip, but ask me to commute thorugh heavy traffic every day, i'd rather walk or take the bus and I think that's the position we need to start from when looking at personal mobility. In this respect, small electric cars are not the answer for the many, who I think would far prefer cars to run on liquid fuels produced from sustainable sources and recycling CO2 into hydrocarbons which can then allow for people to travel a good range when the need is there. Hydrocarbons, seems quite a dirty word bit it doesn't have to be if it comes from sustainable sources. Somehow I think the Greens and similar groups and organisations will beg to differ as this does not fit with their ideology.




Discussion Thread  

 


The Low Carbon Economy Ltd Community



Related Items From Everyone


  1. Reporting for estate and building energy management Unlock the potential of your energy data with...

  2. We are a professional team specialized in energy saving, blast mitigating and automotive window...

  3. Energy harvesting market is in the nascent yet sophisticated technologies based on deep-rooted...

    28 Apr 2015
  4. When considering the wide range of energy efficiency technologies that can be adopted in the...

    14 Jul 2011
  5. It would be "negligent and irresponsible" to ignore the growing carbon emissions from...

    18 Nov 2008



Go To Home

Resource Links

We're social: View Available Feeds Find out more! Leave us your feedback

RSS



We appreciate all feedback. Please leave as much or as little as you like about any aspect of this website.

If your message requires a response, please leave your email address.