Absolute Zero- cutting all carbon

UK FIRES, a £5m government-backed project bringing together academics from six universities in conjunction with businesses across the supply-chain, have written a report, ‘Absolute Zero’, looking to an ‘absolute zero’ emission 100% all-electric non fossil 2050 UK future.  It assumes that renewables ramp up rapidly and a bit of nuclear stays with us, but CCS does not happen in time, so that there will still be a gap- and the ‘absolute zero’ idea seems to imply that this can’t be filled with carbon offsets or illusions to ‘net zero carbon’ balances.  

The gap is actually one between the electricity supplied and the total energy needed, but that’s arguably a bit misleading. Evidently keen to get away from inefficient and dirty fossil fuel combustion, the study insist that everything has to be done with electricity, with that ‘delivering all the transport, heat and goods we use in the UK’, which it says ‘would require 3x more electricity than we use today.’  No doubt- and it says it can’t be done: so we need big cuts in energy use: ‘If we expand renewables as fast as we can, we could deliver about 60% of this requirement with zero emissions in 2050. Therefore, in 2050 we must plan to use 40% less energy than we use today.’ Hence the need for big cuts – including for flying and shipping. Meat eating too. Tough stuff. Is it right?

Well first off, it’s not clear why a 3 times renewables expansion cannot not be done by 2050. CAT’s ‘Zero Carbon Britain’ did that and beyond, with more favouable assumptions about renewable growth. Secondly, what happens if we don’t try to do it all via electricity? In the FIRE study, biomass is seen as a no go area (due to land-use conflicts), solar heat doesn’t even get a mention. But what about solar heat inputs and biogas-fired CHP linked to district heating networks and community heat stores? And biogas for some heavy vehicles – using waste-derived biomethane?

What seems to be underlying the FIRE analysis is a conviction that new technologies, out side what exists now, are unlikely to be viable. It says ‘We can’t wait for breakthrough technologies to deliver net-zero emissions by 2050’. That may be true of CCS and BECCS, as it claims: ‘Plans for “Bio-energy CCS” or “BECCS” claim to be carbon negative - burning biomass and storing carbon permanently underground - are entirely implausible, due to the shortage of biomass, and should not be considered seriously. Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) …requires significant additional electrical input, which clearly will not be available before 2050.’ It may may also be wise not to expect too much by 2050 from new nuclear, beyond what Hinkley may supply.  However, given that some of them are well developed and used, why does it ignore non-electric renewables- especially given that green heat and green hear supply and storage is often easier that electricity generation and storage?

It is a bit more sanguine about hydrogen and P2G electrolysis and even CCU for synfuel production longer term, although overall it feels very technologically cautious. Thus it notes that, while sadly it wont help that much, planting new trees is a good sequestration option since it ‘does not require any technological innovation’. A bit of caution may nevertheless be no bad thing. We are now planning detailed large carbon-free programmes and it is wise to be careful about some of the implications- for example, the FIRE report is good on materials scarcity issues, as well as concrete and steel production and so on. It looks to innovation across the sectors to achieve emission savings, and exploit recycling and reuse opportunities. Improved material and energy use efficiency are clearly seen as central issues.

A big debate needed

The report, led from Cambridge University, but with strong inputs from Oxford, Bath, Imperial, Nottingham and Strathclyde, is written in an open access way for the general reader, and the team clearly wants to have a wide dialogue.  It invites comments on its various views- which include some on future lifestyles. It says ‘the activities we most enjoy, according to the UK’s comprehensive time-use survey, are sports, social-life, eating, hobbies, games, computing, reading, tv, music, radio, volunteering (and sleeping!)’ And it says that ‘we can all do more of these without any impact on emissions.’ Well maybe not all of these are zero carbon- ICT is a big and growing energy user and carbon dioxide generator, similar to aircraft in the case of streaming downloads and server use.

However, in most areas, the report is far from complacent and it is not afraid to speak out. It notes that in the UK ‘individuals continue to use nearly as much energy as they did 30 years ago, suggesting that existing strategies to motivate individuals to use less energy are not generating the scale of impact required.’ It adds ‘there is a misalignment between the scale of actions recommended by government (e.g. energy conservation) and those most commonly performed by individuals (e.g. recycling). Actions which can have a big effect, such as better insulation in houses and not flying, are being ignored in favour of small, high profile actions, such as not using plastic straws’.

As well as specific policy issues like that, and the wider technology issues, there is certainly a lot to discuss- and decide on. More or less all now agree we need urgent action. The FIRE study looks to a Government Absolute Zero Executive and associated Delivery Authority, modelled on the body that organised the UK Olympics. Maybe, although, successful though that may have been, the energy transition may actually be something much more substantial and certainly longer term.

The FIRE study is evidently willing to put radical steps on the agenda (‘There are no options for zero-emissions flight in the time available for action, so the industry faces a rapid contraction’), if only to get attention! So maybe other radical, but more positive, ideas can also be entertained, like green heat nets and hydrogen grids. It doesn’t all have to be done by electricity and delivered by wires. There is also room for radical social innovation – local energy co-ops and the like. However, quite apart from technical quibbles, not everyone will be happy with the overall conclusions of this report.  It does lay out what some may see as grim views on what we need to do- and stop doing! But then it is evidently meant to be something of a wake up call- and it may work for more than just the already ‘woke’!