No coal is the goal

That Energy UK has decided to advocate for a shift from coal to green energy is news that could be celebrated by a student in the environmental sciences. Energy suppliers finally coming to terms with the destructive nature of their business and moving toward a break with fossil fuels? I should be keeping myself warm this Sunday by dancing around the house, a-whooping and a-hollering.

However, if you know me, or have been following this blog, then you may have observed that I can occasionally be given to some degree of cynicism. My gut instinct is to write off this sudden volte-face as little more than a ploy, a marketing stunt, a coldly calculated act of subterfuge. COP21 seemed to signal a change in climate change policy momentum. The world is supposed to be marching together toward a low-carbon future, and the energy industry can't be seen to be digging in its heels. For the sake of a greener image, coal — those ugly, dirty, heavily polluting bricks of fossilised vegetation — has to be forsaken. Fortunately, it makes for a handy sacrifice: the table below highlights its continual and rapid decline in importance as a source of energy, and in any case the government is minded to kill coal power altogether.

Coal has been supplanted by other fuel sources, primarily oil.
Total Energy Production in the UK, from a DECC press release.

A highly sceptical reader might therefore view this news not as some noble change of heart, but rather a simple acknowledgement of the inevitable — one that just happens to produce positive publicity.

As I said, that would be by instinctive reaction. However it's not always a good idea to blog directly from the gut; it can be valuable to take the time to ruminate on an issue. The article above states that Energy UK are championing a shift that's not just away from coal but also toward low carbon, so I wondered if this seemingly green attitude is borne out by the 125-page report which accompanied the announcement. Pathways to 2030 is a comprehensive document summarising the current attitudes and expectations of the British electricity sector, and it would be worth a read for those of you on courses with more of a focus on climate or energy policy.

If you have an anti-industry stance, then some the report's contents will not be unexpected. The first chapter makes the argument that the government should take more responsibility for conveying to the public the 'inevitable' increases in energy bills due to decarbonisation plans, reinforcing the narrative that tackling environmental concerns will hit people in the pocket. Personally I find this attitude rather disappointing, coming from an enormously profit-making industry — although I should admit here being among the 68% of the population who support their renationalisation. It's also unsuprising that the report takes aim at regulatory bodies OFGEM and DECC, for contributing to an "industry code process [that] has stifled innovation and is too bureaucratic for today’s needs". Given that I have little knowledge of the intricacies of governance structure, I'm unsure what to make of their suggestion for the creation of a new body: a 'systems architect', divorced from high level policy decisions, which is able to co-ordinate an energy sector framework integrated over multiple levels (see link in caption below). Is this a sensible push for more streamlined management, or an expression of the desire of companies for greater independence from regulatory interference?

Energy UK call for a reorganisation of the current energy system architecture, shown above, to increase flexibility and efficiency. (graphic from Institution of Engineering and Technology briefing paper)

There were, however, some points that came as a pleasant surprise. For example, I've only recently learned about how electricity providers struggle to cope with sudden spikes in demand, such as a million kettles coming on at half-time in the World Cup final. The Energy UK's proposal that this expensive volatility could be smoothed by greater interconnection of the power grid with Europe seems like a sound one. Similarly, they profess support for decentralised energy technologies, such as photovoltaics and battery storage. What I'm hoping this translates to is a commitment to increase investment in solar power and other renewables, despite their apparent abandonment by the UK government. This, combined with assertions such as "the power sector would (and should) continue to do most of the “heavy lifting” on decarbonisation", would indeed strike me as a clear positive step on behalf of the energy sector toward decarbonisation.

Though I need to spend more time gaining the expertise to properly digest this Pathways document, I am deciding to set my position on this news in the meanwhile to measured optimism.