Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

Climate change report slips up on technicalities

Post Thumbnail

If you’ve read the report by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) entitled “Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming” then I hope you’re both as impressed with it as I am, but also horrified.

I’m fortunate to have met CCC chief executive Chris Stark a few times when he was with the Scottish Government. He knows what he’s talking about and is a thinker.

In my book that counts for a lot when it comes to people working at his level and with his degree of influence within government circles.

That said, I don’t agree with everything in the report and I most certainly don’t support a lot of what’s in the accompanying technical report.

Regardless of that, it clearly and forcibly makes the case for immediate and comprehensive action to deal with climate change as fast as we can.

It is, however, more than a little concerning that this report wasn’t accompanied by even an outline industrial strategy.

While the technical report, in particular, talks extensively about various technologies, what it doesn’t tell us is how we’re going to develop them, who will do it and
who will pay for it.

I’m sure the CCC will say that’s not their job but for the sake of “completeness” I disagree.

Consequently, I just can’t resist the feeling that once again we’ll be left on the fringes of what is – just like oil and gas was – a massive economic and industrial opportunity that we’ll largely let pass us by.

In fact, we already are. Look at wind.

But that apart, it’s very important we also don’t assume that UK behaviour should act as a guide for all our assumptions as to how we will combat climate change, especially when it comes to deploying technology.

It’s actually much better to look at Europe to see where they’re going rather than trying to pretend we can somehow develop some policies of our own. A classic example is

The CCC technical report makes a great play about the need to have increasing numbers of electric vehicles, by which, one has to assume, they mean battery powered.

Yet, a government MP at a recent Westminster debate made the very strong point that to maintain the same level of throughput as conventional vehicles a
motorway service station would have to replace its 20 petrol or diesel pumps with 120 so-called Superchargers that would consume up to 14.5 megawatts, or, the equivalent of 32,000 homes.

That’s unlikely to happen, which is why in other countries such as Germany and Denmark, they’ve decided to roll out hydrogen refuelling stations so that they can increase the use of fuel-cellpowered vehicles.

In Denmark there are already nine in operation with a further two being planned for the near future.

Germany has 70 in operation with another 28 in progress.

In contrast, the UK has only 11 stations in operation, two of which
are in Scotland. Only another two are currently planned.

The situation in the UK inevitably leads to the quip, if you
buy a hydrogen fuel cell car in the UK where are you going to refuel

It’s a valid question, but we should really be asking why we’re being forced to accept a technology – batteries – that’s effectively
second class.

It’s like the broadband story. Other countries such as South Korea roared ahead of us and we’re still playing catch up.

Major automotive companies such as Audi understand the
issue. It said recently that it needed to develop fuel-cell vehicles because outside of the almost cultist group of battery electric vehicle fans, the general public wouldn’t accept
slow charge times.

They’re right.

The next generation of vehicles needs to be as convenient to use as the current one.

A motoring journalist recently took 17 hours and five recharge stops to drive from London to the All-Energy Show in Glasgow in his electric vehicle.That’s intolerable.

But it’s not just in transport that we need to be careful about which solutions we adopt.

The CCC technical report refers to heat pumps, hybrid heat pumps (using electricity and hydrogen) as well as pure hydrogen for heat to replace both gas and oil in existing

Heat pumps are electric and currently much more complex and expensive to install than conventional central heating boilers.

Hydrogen-fuelled boilers will cost about the same amount as a conventional gas boiler.

Hydrogen can also be used for cooking if you prefer gas to electric.

New houses should be built to “passivhaus” standards: perfectly insulated and 100% airtight.

The aim is to have effectively no heat source except in extreme

There’s lots to do but being overly prescriptive at this stage of the game is not helpful.

The main CCC report is fine but I’d argue the technical report needs to be treated as interesting but neither a plan nor a manual on how to fix the climate change emergency.


Dick Winchester is a member ofthe Scottish Government’s Energy Advisory Board.

Recommended for you

More from Energy Voice

Latest Posts