Boris might be on to a windy winner
Can Britain be to wind power what the Saudis are to oil, asks Mario Du Preez
AFEW weeks ago, Prime Minister Boris Johnson delivered a speech at the virtual UN Roundtable on Climate Action during which he punted a green economic recovery as the deep penetrating salve for the financial devastation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. He also implored other nations to follow suit. Johnson’s speech made him sound a bit like an oracular, environmental high priest. Could it be that the poll numbers indicating Sir Keir Starmer’s rising popularity, the government’s woefully inadequate coronavirus strategy, the waning of the levelling-up agenda, or the internal threat of Rishi Sunak’s ascension, have forced Boris to search for an alternative, electorally palatable, environmentally sound, safety valve? Maybe so, but who cares at this terminal stage of the climate fight?
According to Johnson’s green industrial revolution: the UK could become “the Saudi Arabia of wind power” by increasing capacity from 10 to 40 gigawatts by 2030; the UK should, ideally, lead the world in terms of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology development and deployment; the UK will place a “big bet on hydrogen” for trucks, trains, and heavy vehicles; the UK will retrofit homes to improve energy-efficiency; the UK will fast forward the phasing out of ICE and hybrid vehicles; the UK will hasten the take-up of electric vehicles; and the UK will even develop more nuclear energy. No doubt some detractors will look for similarities between Johnson’s green proposal, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement’s Green New Deal, and if found, accuse him of being unoriginal or even a plagiarist – but once again, at this late stage in the climate battle, these accusations carry little weight.
But although we are desperate for quick, inexpensive, long-lasting climate change mitigation solutions, we cannot allow ourselves to be fooled by fast sells. While I like the PM’s pledge of producing enough offshore wind electricity to power every UK home within ten years, and the attending investment and job creating benefits of manufacturing new wind turbines in the UK, we should bear in mind that, from the average household’s perspective, this intervention leaves the biggest source of carbon emissions unaddressed. Some 80% of energy consumed is in heating a home. Thus, the abundant, clean, renewable magic of wind power needs an addendum – the en masse replacement of gas boilers with electric heat pumps.
What worries me about Boris’s evangelical enthusiasm for CCS is that the scientific and financial bottom lines could be ‘juiced’ for several years, which creates a false impression of success and the justification for more taxpayer-funded assistance. The current reality is that the development of CCS, for large-scale deployment, is truly many years off, and what’s worse, it would partly underpin the continuance of the fossil fuel industry. Maybe the money for CCS research and development should be employed elsewhere, for example into tidal power, or it should rather be directed at developing humongous energy storage devices (the Duke of Cambridge’s Earthshot prize may come in handy here). The latter option will enhance the credibility of wind power as it would overcome the baseload problem – this occurs because the production of wind power is intermittent.
Nuclear waste, decommissioning costs (cue the estimated £121bn for Cumbria’s Sellafield site), and threats to coastal nuclear plants due to climate change-induced storms and rising sea levels (see Fukushima in Japan) make me queasy. Nuclear waste is currently stored in above ground facilities (80% is stored at Sellafield) but the government is considering ‘geological disposal’ (something akin to a deep mine with a small, aboveground footprint). Sounds benign, eh? Apparently, it is hoped that communities in the UK will show an interest in hosting these geological disposal facilities, in what is euphemistically called ‘volunteerism’.
In a previous op-ed, I expressed my reservations about the hydrogen alternative and, thus, won’t repeat them here, suffice to say that hydrogen’s expansion will probably obscenely enrich the oil majors, allowing them to rig the system ever more in their favour, whilst annihilating nascent green renewable energy start-ups. Thus, instead of letting fossil fuel companies diversify into hydrogen production whilst still supplying oil and gas, the government should perhaps force these dirty fuel behemoths to replicate the carbon cycle, that is, remove one tonne of CO2 for every tonne of CO2 created.
I have my reservations about Boris’s plan. But a policy of gentle ‘nudging’ to change individual behaviour, is a long-term strategy and that humanity needs climate change solutions now. Hopefully, Boris’s plan will not simply reify profit-making endeavours, but will positively impact the climate fight, biodiversity, and us.
Mario Du Preez is an environmental writer based in Exeter
Tomorrow: We’re clawing back losses from coronavirus, quicker than we thought, says Ian Handford