Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

EU hits energy reduction target six years early

Europe has met a landmark goal of slashing its energy consumption six years ahead of time, cutting greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the switching off about 400 power stations.

In 2014, the EU’s 28 member countries consumed 72m tonnes of oil equivalent less than had been projected for 2020, according to a report by the EU’s science arm, the Joint Research Centre (JRC). The figure matches Finland’s annual energy use.

Environmental campaigners described the achievement as “remarkable”. and “incredible” but the European commission was restrained.

“Final energy consumption is currently below the 2020 target,” a spokeswoman for the commission said. “The EU-28 are are also on a good pathway to achieving the primary energy consumption target for 2020 if current efforts are maintained.”

Major energy savings were reported across all sectors in the study, with EU legislation driving efficiency gains in electrical products, industry installations, fuel economy and the housing sector.

Energy use in residential buildings fell by 9.5% between 2000 and 2014, second only to the industrial sector, where there was an energy drop of 17.6% over the same period.

Good news, but as always there has to be 'a turd in the punchbowl', and as usual, it's the UK ........

But energy analysts were concerned that the UK government – seen as dragging its feet on energy efficiency measures – could move in the opposite direction once no longer bound by EU legislation.

Ingrid Holmes, the director of the E3G thinktank in London, said: “Brexit creates enormous uncertainty over how the UK will continue to provide affordable and secure energy to its people. Energy efficiency works – and it’s time the government committed to at least match the ambition of energy saving actions taken by the rest of Europe.”

Several EU directives maligned by Eurosceptics and industry groups played a key role in reaching the non-binding efficiency target of reducing final energy use 20% by 2020 compared with projected use that year, according to the report. These included laws on energy efficiency, eco-design, buildings performance and fuel economy.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Good news, but as always there has to be 'a turd in the punchbowl', and as usual, it's the UK ........

But energy analysts were concerned that the UK government – seen as dragging its feet on energy efficiency measures – could move in the opposite direction once no longer bound by EU legislation.

Ingrid Holmes, the director of the E3G thinktank in London, said: “Brexit creates enormous uncertainty over how the UK will continue to provide affordable and secure energy to its people. Energy efficiency works – and it’s time the government committed to at least match the ambition of energy saving actions taken by the rest of Europe.”

Several EU directives maligned by Eurosceptics and industry groups played a key role in reaching the non-binding efficiency target of reducing final energy use 20% by 2020 compared with projected use that year, according to the report. These included laws on energy efficiency, eco-design, buildings performance and fuel economy.

Mart.

Hi

That's odd, there doesn't seem to be any evidence in the report or accompanying datasets ( https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency ) to support such a conclusion - particularly the assessment by country ( https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2a_EE%20progress%20report%20-%20CSWD%20part%201.pdf ), specifically analysis rebased to area or population .... seems that there's nothing polluting the punchbowl after-all, just someone with a vested interest's head ....

Simply looks like both the article author and/or "Ingrid Holmes, the director of the E3G thinktank in London..." either hasn't got a clue, or it's simply another case of sulking aloud over 'Brexit'. The thought of democracy having an effect on E3G funding and influence as a lobby group (claim ... "We leverage outcomes on climate, economics ....") is obviously a little uncomfortable somewhere.... oddly enough being funded by both those they lobby on behalf of and those they lobby ... what a strange world the so called 'think-tanks' live in ..

Boohoo Ingrid, either dry those tears and learn to live with democratic reality or embark on a different career path, but whichever is the chosen path, please lay off the unsubstantiated spin as it does more eco-harm than good - and what's more ... you're not particularly good at it either !!

HTH
Z

michaels

Interesting news from Renault (for us EV heads):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37287129

Renault, the French car maker, may stop offering diesel engines in most of its cars sold in Europe.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

That's odd, there doesn't seem to be any evidence in the report or accompanying datasets ( https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency ) to support such a conclusion - particularly the assessment by country ( https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2a_EE%20progress%20report%20-%20CSWD%20part%201.pdf ), specifically analysis rebased to area or population .... seems that there's nothing polluting the punchbowl after-all, just someone with a vested interest's head ....

HTH
Z

Hiya Z. Since the last election the UK government has cut support for on-shore wind and PV. Its announced that neither will be included in future CfD auctions.

They cut the programme to de-carbonize homes, a year before completion.

They are promoting fracking, whereas most of Europe is against it.

They campaigned (unsuccessfully) against the rules to ban the use of most polluting coal stocks (ours!).

They've campaigned (successfully) against the rules on air quality.

Going further back they tried to support Canadian oil from tar sands, when most of Europe wanted to restrict/ban it.

The worry, and I certainly share it, is that the UK keeps trying to do less. So this isn't about the democracy of Brexit, but the environmental policy freedoms it may give to our current government.

UN chief scientist slams British government's cuts to renewable energy

Britain loses top energy rating after green policy U-turns

UK is going into reverse on clean energy, says former Environment Agency head

[Edit - Apologies if I sound like some ranting extreme green (I haven't quite reached that point yet), but the sheer volume of attempts, policies, suggestions etc from this government has really shocked me, especially when you consider the time frame, and the general direction most countries are trying to move in. M.]

Mart.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

They cut the programme to de-carbonize homes, a year before completion.

I should clarify that one, the programme was about 8 years into a 9 year rollout, and the construction industry had gotten behind it.

The government decision was made to prevent the cost of new builds going even higher, though the running cost reductions would have been greater over time.

However, it's only fair to point out that the completion of the earlier uplifts has resulted in a far higher energy rating for the average new build in the UK.

So this move was more one of failing to achieve more, rather than going backwards.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

.... Apologies if I sound like some ranting extreme green (I haven't quite reached that point yet), but the sheer volume of attempts, policies, suggestions etc from this government has really shocked me, especially when you consider the time frame, and the general direction most countries are trying to move in. ...

Hi

Yes, but that's not the issue. Effectively the referenced article included conclusions supposedly linked to a set of reports which the reports themselves not only don't support, but tend to convey the contrary ....

Whatever position the UK has or hasn't adopted within the period of study the report represents, the result is that "In 2014, the EU’s 28 member countries consumed 72m tonnes of oil equivalent less than had been projected for 2020, according to a report by the EU’s science arm, the Joint Research Centre (JRC)" and as a result "Environmental campaigners described the achievement as “remarkable”. and “incredible”". The report itself provides evidence that the UK has contributed significantly to the overall reduction, particularly when taking the relative size of economic activity, geography or population into account, therefore no contrary conclusion can be drawn.

Events over the past decade have shone a bright light onto the accuracy & effectiveness of the much exalted economist's crystal balls, but yet more vested interest 'experts' continue to spin out unsubstantiated claims and the gullible media simply peddle it out to the public as if it was fact set in stone ...

We're doing well, actually better and sooner than planned/expected ... could we be doing more?, yes ... is there evidence in the report or anywhere else to support a position that leaving the EU would significantly hinder the UK's future achievements relative to the EU as a whole?, absolutely not - it's simply too early for anyone to even hazard anything more than a totally uninformed guess ...

HTH
Z

warrenb

michaels wrote: »

Interesting news from Renault (for us EV heads):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37287129

Toyota have already stopped production of diesel engines to concentrate on hybrids. They now use BMW units, and are looking also to phase out diesel models.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Yes, but that's not the issue. Effectively the referenced article included conclusions supposedly linked to a set of reports which the reports themselves not only don't support, but tend to convey the contrary ....

Fair enough, I see where you are coming from. I'm just used to seeing the UK fight against EU progress on the environment.

zeupater wrote: »

We're doing well, actually better and sooner than planned/expected ... could we be doing more?, yes ... is there evidence in the report or anywhere else to support a position that leaving the EU would significantly hinder the UK's future achievements relative to the EU as a whole?, absolutely not - it's simply too early for anyone to even hazard anything more than a totally uninformed guess ...

HTH
Z

That's where I'm coming from. We were doing quite well, but have started to slide. Also we keep trying to water down EU moves for more rapid improvement.

If we are trying to do less whilst within (and often blocked from doing so) the EU, then what will happen when we decide for ourselves.

Given the quick list (which isn't comprehensive) I posted earlier, I really fear that we will try to get away with as little as possible. I feel that is an informed guess, but accept, it's a guess.

I hope I'm wrong.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Fair enough, I see where you are coming from. I'm just used to seeing the UK fight against EU progress on the environment.




That's where I'm coming from. We were doing quite well, but have started to slide. Also we keep trying to water down EU moves for more rapid improvement.

If we are trying to do less whilst within (and often blocked from doing so) the EU, then what will happen when we decide for ourselves.

Given the quick list (which isn't comprehensive) I posted earlier, I really fear that we will try to get away with as little as possible. I feel that is an informed guess, but accept, it's a guess.

I hope I'm wrong.

Mart.

Hi

The problem described is almost certainly one of the EU's making through their almost total reliance on vested interest group lobbying to form the backbone of policymaking ....

One policy which reflects itself heavily in EU consumer pockets can possibly be absorbed without too much pain, however, looking at the type, number, depth and cost of many of the measures which have been adopted in parallel there's no wonder why both the effectiveness and value of many are being questioned not only in the UK, but all over Europe ... just look at the changes to generating capacity mix in Germany and elsewhere as one example and compare the relative capital costs and their knock on consumer/industrial impact against eco-driven alternatives elsewhere such as Hinckley-C and Olkiluoto-3 .... there's no problem with re-evaluating the effectiveness or value-for-money of taxpayer supported schemes, especially if there are serious question-marks raised beforehand. In a nutshell, when contemplating any form of financial support for ecology related projects, the prime concerns of the decision-makers need to be linked to ecology, the consumer and the taxpayer - not the corporate world and their vast hoards of 'think-tank' badged lobbyists ... this is exactly why democratic responsibility & accountability is needed in order to rein-in the corporate-focus of those already aboard the EU gravy-train, as well as those currently clutching a ticket tightly and waiting their turn to get onboard ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Hiya Z. I can't tell if you are positive or not about the direction the UK may move in.

Clearly I'm pessimistic, but do you see more promise? I'm concerned at the removal of support for PV and on-shore wind, and the failure to move forward on tidal (particularly the Swansea scheme as a test case almost). But knowing that new off-shore wind is currently supplying about 5% of our leccy, and should increase to 10% by 2020 is promising.

Mart.