|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
 |
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 06, 05 12:03 pm Post subject: |
 
|
Oh. O-oh. Uh-oh...
The summary is available for download here.
Its an economic policy thingie, and somewhat divorced from reality.
Its focus is on *energy* *savings*. While excluding transport and "energy services". From the viewpoint of national government.
Thus renewables don't get much of a look-in - not about energy *saving*.
The whole approach is somewhat detatched - an accountant's view, not a manager's.
It begins by taking energy consumption per unit of Gross Domestic Product as a yardstick for national comparison.
On this score the UK is mid-league for the EU and the EU is a world leader.
Big pat on the back for energy savings.
But hold on.
Luxembourg is 50% worse than the EU average (and the UK), the USA is twice as bad and China is 10x worse than the EU average.
The report doesn't mention it, but I think this economic energy intensity figure mainly indicates what sort of industry you are in. Not how *efficient* you are.
China is heavily involved with heavy industries - and low value products. Steel, glass and the like.
I believe Luxembourg has a lot of hydro power and uses it in a small (but large for the size of the country) steel industry.
The report notes with approval the reduction in energy use by the UK's energy intensive industries. And fails to note the structural cause - the closing of so much UK heavy manufacturing industry.
I think the bean counters have counted the wrong beans.
Nowadays almost 1/4 of this country's energy consumption goes on domestic space and water heating. The report seems to think that the main possible improvement is to further tighten Building Regs. And IMHO rather strangely, better energy labelling of 'consumer electronics' items (which generally use little energy). And remember that energy used by such appliances reduces the demand for energy for direct heating...
Consultants ("Future Energy Solutions") produced a report (not yet published) on novel 'demand side' carbon reduction technologies and their potential economic benefit to the UK.
A glance at Figure 5 indicates that Organic LED development is likely to get substantial government support, while micro generation (and that's CHP only) and solar thermal should expect much less, with heat recovery ('ventillation') getting less still.
IMHO, Figure 5 should take a prominent place among examples of 'powerpoint bullshit' graphing as it does, so much that is totally unexplained, and so much that is inappropriate (the subjective *rankings* by the consultants, based on intangible criteria).
All in all, not a very reassuring read. |
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
sean
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42219
Location: North Devon
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
View Latest Posts