the climate brief Accurate Reporting of Climate Science

The UK should go ahead with fracking for shale gas in order to reduce emissions from the energy sector, according to  media reports on a study by leading climate change experts. But it turns out not to be that simple. While the new report argues that the country could cut emissions by burning natural gas instead of coal, it warns significant amounts of UK shale gas may not commercially available until the late 2020s - and emissions will only come down with carbon capture technology.

The report from the  Grantham Institute at LSE primarily analyses what a new 'dash for gas' could mean for UK energy prices and emissions. It asks whether a significant expansion of gas power could bring down greenhouse gas emissions and energy prices, and if exploiting UK shale gas specifically could increase the country's energy security.

Using gas to reduce emissions?

Over the next few decades the UK energy system will undergo a "significant transformation", the report says. Old power plant will close down, the electrification of heat and transport will drive up electricity demand, and more renewables will come onto the system.

Read more

Outgoing chief executive of energy regulator Ofgem Alistair Buchanan has  made several front pages today, arguing in a  speech that the UK energy system faces 'near crisis' over the next few years over a crunch in energy supply - and that gas generation could meet sixty to seventy per cent of Britain's electricity needs by 2020.

Given that at the moment  around 40 per cent of our electricity comes from gas, that's a startling increase. But while Ofgem believes the proportion of our electricity generated by gas could go up, the amount of gas we consume is projected to stay about the same. And we'll only end up this dependent on gas if the government fails to meet green targets.

Energy crunch

The UK faces a decline in its ability to produce electricity as coal power stations close due to  European legislation.

Ofgem's  report on the security of Britain's gas supplies, published last November, outlines two scenarios for what might happen to the country's energy system. In the 'Gone Green' scenario, the government meets its targets for expansion of renewable power and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Gas use falls.

Read more

Credit: Christine

Consumers could save money on their electricity bills by putting "a wash on when it's windy", according to a story on the front page of today's Telegraph. In a new trial, 1000 households will get alerts through text messages or their smart meters 24 hours in advance to let them know when electricity will be cheapest. But the results from the trial won't be available until next year so until then it can only be guessed how much money customers could save. 

Presumably in an attempt to give readers some idea, the Telegraph quotes the Energy Savings Trust estimating "that customers can save £250 on their energy bill by using appliances differently". But this use of the figure is confusing in two ways - it has little to do with the trial the headline talks about, and the EST figure actually refers to savings from making home improvements, and not using appliances differently. 

The trial

The  Telegraph begins by outlining a trial programme run by EDF, UK Power Networks and Imperial College London, testing a new way for customers to make the most of the UK's renewable electricity. Customers will be told when electricity will be cheapest, and can choose to use their electrical appliances at that time, in theory saving money.

Electricity is cheapest when demand is low and renewable sources - such as wind - are providing a large amount of power to the grid. 

The Department of Energy and Climate Change's latest  figures show that just under 10 per cent of the UK's electricity came from renewable sources in 2011, and about 45 per cent of this was from wind. These figures are expected to increase as  more wind turbines get built this year.

Read more

In the final episode of the BBC's Africa documentary, broadcast last week, veteran nature presenter Sir David Attenborough said that "some parts of the continent have become 3.5 degrees Celsius hotter in the past 20 years".

This prompted a fair bit of discussion, and rightly so - the BBC has since called the statement "disputable" and removed it from repeats of the programme. But if the BBC got it wrong, what could it have said? Here we look through the scientific literature to find some material the BBC could have used instead.

The issue came to light with a flurry of inquisitive Twitter users expressing surprise at the 3.5 degree claim shortly after  the programme aired last Wednesday. The Guardian's  Leo Hickmantook a closer look with a blog post headlined 'BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough's Africa' - and the story was widely picked up in other papers. The  Times, the Telegraph and the  Daily Mail all covered the story yesterday - the latter calling the episode "an embarrassing climbdown over climate change claims".

The BBC swiftly removed the offending phrase from Sunday's repeat, with the admission that Attenborough's words "should have been more carefully scripted". All that remains in the programme as broadcast is a rather vague statement that "Africa's climate is certainly changing".

First hurdle

Looking for temperature trends across Africa is not like looking for trends in the UK or elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Temperature measurements are only  quite patchyacross the continent, and where measurements do exist they don't extend very far back in time.

With temperature data only available for relatively short periods of time, it's harder to spot long term changes - or trends. And gaps in the geographical coverage make it hard to see how widespread any detected trends are.

Read more

Bits of a report on the amount of shale gas lying under the UK keep leaking out, and the estimate seems to grow each time. On Saturday, the  Times suggested the number will be 200 times larger than the BGS's previous estimate - giving the UK enough shale gas to heat every home for the next 1500 years.  

A big estimate  

The leaked numbers apparently come from a survey of the amount of shale gas under the UK by the British Geological Survey (BGS), which the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) commissioned last year.

The Times reports BGS's estimate for the amount of shale gas under the UK  "is understood to have increased dramatically" from  5.3 trillion feet to somewhere between 1,300 trillion and 1,700 trillion cubic feet. To provide a bit of context, the  biggest gas fieldin the world is 1,235 trillion cubic feet. 

All in all, if the estimate were true, this would a pretty dramatic figure. 

Read more

Credit: Alexander G

Fossil fuels are on the way out as renewables play an increasingly significant role in electricity generation in Australia, the world's second largest coal exporter. At least that's the key message from market analysts  Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Is this really the end for Australian coal?

It says electricity generated from new wind farms is now cheaper than from new fossil fuel plant, leading the Sydney Morning Herald to declare that coal  "could soon be extinct". This would be something of a shock in a country that in 2011 generated almost 70 per cent of its electricity from coal.

But a group that advocates the decarbonisation of Australia's economy through more nuclear power disagrees with Bloomberg. Decarbonisation SA says giving the whole of Australia's electricity generation a renewables makeover doesn't make economic sense.

Renewables cheaper than fossil fuels

Crucially, Bloomberg is talking about new renewables capacity, not electricity from existing plant. The analysis says electricity from new wind farms is cheaper than from new coal or gas plant. 

This is not just because renewables are cheap - it's because it's currently expensive to build new coal and gas plant in Australia. Bloomberg says it's now hard to raise money to build coal plant because investors are concerned about the damage giving to high emissions projects will do to their reputations. 

Read more

How should we stop global warming?  We should work less, announced the Daily Mail this week, reporting on a paper produced by a "liberal thinktank" in the States.

We immediately turned off our computers and went to the pub. When we returned to the office some time later, we cast a quick eye over the text - and the optimistic-sounding claim that Americans could prevent a temperature rise of up to 1.3 degrees by working "0.5 per cent less each year". Sounds great, but could it really be true?

Work like a European

The Mail's report is based on a  paper by the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. Citing  studies showing that lower working hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions, the paper undertakes a number of calculations to explore what that might mean in practice.

Using emissions scenarios created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a baseline, author David Rosnick compares two different possible futures - one where the world "converges on the work habits of those in the United States" and one where everyone kicks back a bit more and works like a European. A paper published by the same author  in 2006 argued that shorter working hours in Europe mean that Europeans consume less energy, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Read more

The inside page of this week's  Sunday Telegraph argues consumers might have to pay £120 billion for new offshore windfarms, based on the assumption that the cost of offshore wind are not going to fall while the windfarms are built. Meanwhile, the government hopes to reduce the cost of the technology by nearly a third by 2020. So what's going to happen?

Telegraph says Round Three will cost £120 billion 

The Telegraph says subsidies amounting to £120 billion will go to pay for "nine giant wind farms" to be constructed in the seas around Britain - and that consumers will foot the bill.  It quotes the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) - an organisation known for its opposition to windfarms - which originally calculated the figure. 

In 2010 the Crown Estate, which  manages the UK seabed,  leased nine offshore sites to companies to build wind turbines, under a scheme called Round 3. REF calculates new wind farms being constructed under the programme will receive about £6 billion in subsidies every year for 20 years. 

Read more

The government is due to launch its flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal, on Monday. At a press conference yesterday, climate change minister Greg Barker insisted that the programme will make energy efficiency measures the next big thing in home improvement. But others seem less than enthusiastic. We cast an appraising eye over the government's big green baby. 

The Green Deal is basically a loan scheme. It will allow householders to take out a loan from the government to fund measures to improve the energy efficiency of their home - these could include double glazing, an upgraded boiler, or cavity wall insulation. The works will be delivered by registered suppliers and the householder pays the loan off through a surcharge on their energy bill.

There appear to be some teething problems the media has picked up on in recent weeks, and here we take a look at them.

Read more

How much would the average family save in energy bills if the government instituted a nationwide programme to insulate the UK's draughty homes? The front page of the Times claims today that the average household could knock £310 a year off its energy spend. A closer look indicates that it's getting the numbers confused.

The Times is reporting on a letter written by an "unprecedented" alliance of more than a hundred energy companies, charities and businesses to David Cameron about the need for the government to do more to tackle fuel poverty. The group, brought together under the campaign umbrella of Energy Revolution, are calling for the government to institute a nationwide programme to fit the UK's homes with insulation and prevent consumers having to pay for energy that is then wasted.

A saving of £310?

According to the Times article, the group argues that "stagnating wages and soaring bills" could mean as many as 9 million homes could be affected by fuel poverty - that is when a household has to spend more than ten per cent or more of its income on fuel to heat the home - by 2016. The only way to tackle the problem properly is to embark on a nationwide programme to fit insulation to the UK's draft homes - a move, the Times says that "would save the average families £310 a year on energy bills".

Read more