Guest User

Owen Paterson speech

a guest
Oct 15th, 2014
1,042
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. EMBARGOED UNTIL 15 OCTOBER 2014 8PM
  2.  
  3. “Keeping the Lights On”
  4.  
  5. Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP
  6.  
  7. Global Warming Policy Foundation
  8.  
  9. Annual Lecture
  10.  
  11. 15 October 2014
  12.  
  13. Check against delivery
  14.  
  15. I would like to thank Lord Lawson and the Global Warming
  16.  
  17. Policy Foundation for inviting me to deliver the annual lecture -
  18.  
  19. an important event in the calendar.
  20.  
  21. As a member of the Cabinet for four years I supported Coalition
  22.  
  23. energy policy. However I have become increasingly aware from
  24.  
  25. my own constituency and from widespread travel around the
  26.  
  27. UK of intense public dissatisfaction with heavily subsidized
  28.  
  29. renewable technologies in particular onshore wind.
  30.  
  31. I have used the last three months since leaving the Cabinet to
  32.  
  33. learn more about the consequences of this policy. And what I
  34.  
  35. have unearthed is alarming.
  36.  
  37. Our current policy will cost £1,300bn up to 2050.1
  38.  
  39. It fails to meet the very emissions targets it is designed to meet.
  40.  
  41. And it fails to provide the UK’s energy requirements.
  42.  
  43. I will argue that current energy policy is a slave to flawed
  44.  
  45. climate action. It neither reduces emissions sufficiently nor
  46.  
  47. provides the energy we need as a country.
  48.  
  49. I call for a robust, common sense energy policy that would
  50.  
  51. encourage the market to choose affordable technologies to
  52.  
  53. reduce emissions, and give four examples:
  54.  
  55. o promotion of indigenous shale gas
  56.  
  57. o large scale localised Combined Heat and Power
  58.  
  59. (CHP)
  60.  
  61. o small modular nuclear reactors
  62.  
  63. o rational demand management
  64.  
  65. The vital importance of affordable energy
  66.  
  67. But first, let us consider what is at stake. We now live in an
  68.  
  69. almost totally computer-dependent world. Without secure
  70.  
  71. power the whole of our modern civilisation collapses: banking,
  72.  
  73. air traffic control, smart phones, refrigerated food, life-saving
  74.  
  75. surgery, entertainment, education, industry and transport.
  76.  
  77. We are lucky to live in a country where energy has been
  78.  
  79. affordable and reliable.
  80.  
  81. Yet we cannot take this for granted.
  82.  
  83. While most public discussion is driven by the immediacy of
  84.  
  85. the looming 2020 EU renewables target; policy is actually
  86.  
  87. dominated by the EU’s long-term 2050 target.2
  88.  
  89. The 2050 target is for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
  90.  
  91. by 80 percent relative to 1990 levels.
  92.  
  93. The target has been outlined by the European Commission.3
  94.  
  95. it is only the UK that has made it legally binding through the
  96.  
  97. Climate Change Act - a piece of legislation that I and virtually
  98.  
  99. every other MP voted for.
  100.  
  101. The 2050 target of cutting emissions by 80 percent, requires the
  102.  
  103. almost complete decarbonisation of the electricity supply in 36
  104.  
  105. years.4
  106.  
  107. In the short and medium term, costs to consumers will rise
  108.  
  109. dramatically, and the lights would eventually go out. Not
  110.  
  111. because of a temporary shortfall, but because of structural
  112.  
  113. failures, from which we will find it extremely difficult and
  114.  
  115. expensive to recover.
  116.  
  117. We must act now.
  118.  
  119. The purpose of my address today is to set out how.
  120.  
  121. The 2050 Target – what it means in practice
  122.  
  123. By 2050, the aim is to produce virtually all of our electricity
  124.  
  125. with "zero carbon" emissions.
  126.  
  127. Yet at the moment over 60 percent of our electricity is produced
  128.  
  129. by carbon-based fossil fuel – mainly gas and coal.5
  130.  
  131. emissions of this "carbon" portion have to be removed almost
  132.  
  133. completely.
  134.  
  135. Yet cutting carbon out of electricity production isn’t enough.
  136.  
  137. Heating, transport and industry also use carbon based fuels.
  138.  
  139. In fact, to hit the 80 percent reduction target, we will have to
  140.  
  141. abolish natural gas in most of our homes. No more cooking or
  142.  
  143. central heating using gas. Our homes must become all-electric.6
  144.  
  145. Much of the fuel used for transport will have to be abolished
  146.  
  147. too. 65 percent of private cars will have to be electric.7
  148.  
  149. This is a point that is little understood. The 2050 target commits
  150.  
  151. us to a huge expansion of electricity generation capacity,
  152.  
  153. requiring vast investment.
  154.  
  155. The EU’s suggested route to meet this target – and how it
  156.  
  157. doesn’t work
  158.  
  159. So where does such a supply of zero-carbon electricity come
  160.  
  161. from? The European Commission offers several possibilities,
  162.  
  163. but its particular enthusiasm is for renewable energy, under what
  164.  
  165. it calls its "High RES" (Renewable Energy Sources) scenario.8
  166.  
  167. In this scenario, most of the electricity comes from wind power.9
  168.  
  169. This is regrettably entirely unrealistic.
  170.  
  171. The investment costs of generation alone are prohibitive. They
  172.  
  173. are admitted by the EU to be staggering. The High RES scenario
  174.  
  175. alone would require a cumulative investment, between the years
  176.  
  177. 2011 and 2050, of €3.2 trillion.10
  178.  
  179. Even if you could find such sums from investors, they will
  180.  
  181. require a return and a large premium to de-risk a very hazardous
  182.  
  183. investment. The margins will be astonishing. As Peter Atherton
  184.  
  185. of Liberum argues, the public will not readily accept profits that
  186.  
  187. large for the energy companies.
  188.  
  189. But if investment is tricky, we only need to consider the scale of
  190.  
  191. construction.
  192.  
  193. Wind capacity in the EU 27 must rise from 83 GW in 2010
  194.  
  195. to 984 GW in 2050.1
  196.  
  197. turbines across Europe, to nearly 500,000 wind turbines. This
  198.  
  199. would require a vast acreage of wind turbines that would wall-
  200. to-wall carpet Northern Ireland, Wales, Belgium, Holland and
  201.  
  202. Portugal combined.
  203.  
  204. There, at the heart of the Commission's "high RES"
  205.  
  206. decarbonisation policy, is the fatal flaw. At any practical level,
  207.  
  208. it cannot be achieved. It simply will not happen. Yet, as far
  209.  
  210. as EU policy goes, it is the most promising option, on which
  211.  
  212. considerable development resource has been expended.
  213.  
  214. UK’s plans to meet the targets are no better
  215.  
  216. See Summary Energy Balance Indicators (B), page 73 of 2050 Roadmap, Impact Assessment: http://
  217.  
  218. ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/sec_2011_1565_part2.pdf
  219.  
  220. It means an increase from 42,000 wind
  221.  
  222. Knowing this to be unrealistic, no other country in the European
  223.  
  224. Union apart from the UK has made the 2050 target legally
  225.  
  226. binding.
  227.  
  228. So having signed up to it, how does the UK hope to deliver
  229.  
  230. all this carbon neutral electricity? The target is, in theory,
  231.  
  232. technology-neutral. The Coalition Government acknowledges
  233.  
  234. shortcomings in wind by making only “significant use” of the
  235.  
  236. UK’s wind resources while taking into account ecological and
  237.  
  238. social sensitivities of wind.11
  239.  
  240. But if wind doesn’t make up the bulk of zero-carbon electricity
  241.  
  242. supply, then that would mean building new nuclear at the rate
  243.  
  244. of 1.2GW a year for the next 36 years. Put simply, that’s a new
  245.  
  246. Hinkley Point every three years.
  247.  
  248. In addition UK policy requires building Carbon Capture and
  249.  
  250. Storage (CCS) plants which take CO2 emissions from gas and
  251.  
  252. coal and buries them in the ground. But these are fuelled by
  253.  
  254. gas or coal at the rate of 1.5GW a year. While nascent, this
  255.  
  256. technology is known to cut efficiency by a third and treble
  257.  
  258. capital cost.
  259.  
  260. So the British nuclear-led option is no more realistic than
  261.  
  262. the Commission "high RES" scenario or any other of the
  263.  
  264. decarbonisation options. There is simply no plausible scenario
  265.  
  266. by which the British government can conceivably meet its 80
  267.  
  268. percent emission cut by 2050.
  269.  
  270. And yet, despite this doomed policy, we provide subsidies for
  271.  
  272. renewables of around £3 billion a year - and rising fast.12
  273.  
  274. a significant cost burden on our citizens.
  275.  
  276. In fact it amazes me that our last three energy secretaries, Ed
  277.  
  278. Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, have merrily presided
  279.  
  280. over the single most regressive policy we have seen in this
  281.  
  282. country since the Sheriff of Nottingham: the coerced increase of
  283.  
  284. electricity bills for people on low incomes to pay huge subsidies
  285.  
  286. to wealthy landowners and rich investors.
  287.  
  288. Furthermore the cost is rising, not falling. DECC wrongly
  289.  
  290. assumed that the price of gas would only rise. Four years ago
  291.  
  292. the Energy Secretary confidently argued that renewables would
  293.  
  294. be cheaper than gas by 2020. But this was based on a DECC
  295.  
  296. forecast that gas prices would double.
  297.  
  298. Instead gas prices have fallen. DECC has revised downwards
  299.  
  300. its forecasts of 2020 gas prices to roughly what they were in
  301.  
  302. 2011 - just 60p a therm.13
  303.  
  304. with gas. But the drop in gas prices raises the costs of renewable
  305.  
  306. subsidies, already ‘capped’ at £7.6 billion in 2020, by 20
  307.  
  308. percent. This is unaffordable.
  309.  
  310. Climate science
  311.  
  312. Before I go on to outline an alternative, let me say a few words
  313.  
  314. about climate science and the urgency of emissions reduction.
  315.  
  316. I readily accept the main points of the greenhouse theory. Other
  317.  
  318. things being equal, carbon dioxide emissions will produce some
  319.  
  320. warming. The question always has been: how much? On that
  321.  
  322. there is considerable uncertainty.
  323.  
  324. For, I also accept the unambiguous failure of the atmosphere to
  325.  
  326. warm anything like as fast as predicted by the vast majority of
  327.  
  328. climate models over the past 35 years, when measured by both
  329.  
  330. satellites and surface thermometers. And indeed the failure of
  331.  
  332. the atmosphere to warm at all over the past 18 years - according
  333.  
  334. to some sources. Many policymakers have still to catch up with
  335.  
  336. the facts.
  337.  
  338. I also note that the forecast effects of climate change have been
  339.  
  340. consistently and widely exaggerated thus far.
  341.  
  342. Wind power just isn’t competitive
  343.  
  344. The stopping of the Gulf Stream, the worsening of hurricanes,
  345.  
  346. the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, the increase of malaria, the claim
  347.  
  348. by UNEP that we would see 50m climate refugees before now –
  349.  
  350. these were all predictions that proved wrong.
  351.  
  352. For example the Aldabra Banded Snail which one of the Royal
  353.  
  354. Society’s journals pronounced extinct in 2007 has recently
  355.  
  356. reappeared, yet the editors are still refusing to retract the
  357.  
  358. original paper.14
  359.  
  360. It is exactly this sort of episode that risks inflicting real harm on
  361.  
  362. the reputation and academic integrity of the science.
  363.  
  364. Despite all this, I remain open-minded to the possibility that
  365.  
  366. climate change may one day turn dangerous. So, it would be
  367.  
  368. good to cut emissions, as long as we do not cause great suffering
  369.  
  370. now for those on low incomes, or damage today’s environment.
  371.  
  372. The inadequacies of renewable energy to meet demand
  373.  
  374. Let me briefly go through all the renewable energy options
  375.  
  376. and set out why they cannot supply the zero-carbon electricity
  377.  
  378. needed to keep the lights on in 2050.
  379.  
  380. Onshore wind is already at maximum capacity as far as
  381.  
  382. available subsidy is concerned. Ed Davey recently confirmed,
  383.  
  384. if current approval trends in the planning system continue, the
  385.  
  386. UK is likely to have 15.25 GW of onshore wind by 2020. This is
  387.  
  388. higher than the upper limit of 13 GW intended by DECC.
  389.  
  390. This confirms what the Renewable Energy Foundation has been
  391.  
  392. pointing out for some time – that DECC is struggling to control
  393.  
  394. this subsidy drunk industry. Planning approval for renewables
  395.  
  396. overall, including onshore wind, needs to come to a halt or
  397.  
  398. massively over-run the subsidy limits set by the Treasury’s Levy
  399.  
  400. Control Framework.
  401.  
  402. However, this paltry supply of onshore wind, nowhere near
  403.  
  404. enough to hit the 2050 target, has devastated landscapes,
  405.  
  406. blighted views, divided communities, killed eagles, carpeted the
  407.  
  408. countryside and the very wilderness that the “green blob” claims
  409.  
  410. to love, with new access tracks cut deep into peat, boosted
  411.  
  412. production of carbon-intensive cement, and driven up fuel
  413.  
  414. poverty, while richly rewarding landowners.
  415.  
  416. Offshore wind is proving a failure. Its gigantic costs, requiring
  417.  
  418. more than double the subsidy of onshore wind, are failing
  419.  
  420. to come down as expected, operators are demanding higher
  421.  
  422. prices, and its reliability is disappointing, so projects are being
  423.  
  424. cancelled as too risky in spite of the huge subsidies intended to
  425.  
  426. make them attractive. There is a reason we are the world leader
  427.  
  428. in this technology – no other country is quite so foolish as to
  429.  
  430. plough so much public money into it.
  431.  
  432. Hydro is maxed out. There is no opportunity to increase its
  433.  
  434. contribution in this country significantly; the public does
  435.  
  436. not want any more flooded valleys. Small-scale in-stream
  437.  
  438. hydro might work for niche applications - isolated Highland
  439.  
  440. communities for example - but the plausible potential for extra
  441.  
  442. hydro is an irrelevance for the heavy lifting needed to support
  443.  
  444. UK demand for zero-carbon electricity.
  445.  
  446. Tidal and wave power despite interesting small-scale
  447.  
  448. experiments is still too expensive and impractical. Neither the
  449.  
  450. astronomical prices on offer from the government, nor huge
  451.  
  452. research and development subsidies have lured any commercial
  453.  
  454. investors to step into the water. Even if the engineering
  455.  
  456. problems could be overcome, tidal and wave power, like wind,
  457.  
  458. will not always be there when you need it.
  459.  
  460. Solar power may one day be a real contributor to global energy
  461.  
  462. in low latitudes and at high altitudes, and in certain niches. But
  463.  
  464. it is a non-starter as a significant supplier to the UK grid today
  465.  
  466. and will remain so for as long as our skies are cloudy and our
  467.  
  468. winter nights long. Delivering only 10 percent of capacity, it’s
  469.  
  470. an expensive red herring for this country and today’s solar farms
  471.  
  472. are a futile eye-sore, and a waste of land that could be better
  473.  
  474. used for other activities.
  475.  
  476. Biomass is not zero carbon. It generates more CO2 per unit
  477.  
  478. of energy even than coal. Even DECC admits that importing
  479.  
  480. wood pellets from North America to turn into hugely expensive
  481.  
  482. electricity here makes no sense if only because a good
  483.  
  484. proportion of those pellets are coming from whole trees.
  485.  
  486. The fact that trees can regrow is of little relevance: they take
  487.  
  488. decades to replace the carbon released in their combustion, and
  489.  
  490. then they are supposed to be cut down again. If you want to fix
  491.  
  492. carbon by planting trees, then plant trees! Don’t cut them down
  493.  
  494. as well. We are spending ten times as much to cut down North
  495.  
  496. American forests as we are to stop the cutting down of tropical
  497.  
  498. forests.
  499.  
  500. Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of the renewable heat
  501.  
  502. incentive (RHI) funds are going to biomass. That is to say, we
  503.  
  504. are paying people to stop using gas and burn wood instead.
  505.  
  506. Wood produces twice as much carbon dioxide than gas.
  507.  
  508. Waste to energy is the one renewable technology we should
  509.  
  510. be investing more in. It is a missed opportunity. We don’t do
  511.  
  512. enough anaerobic digestion of sewage; we should be using AD
  513.  
  514. plants to convert into energy more of the annual 15 million
  515.  
  516. tonnes of food waste. But this can only ever provide a small part
  517.  
  518. of the power we need.
  519.  
  520. So these technologies do not provide enough power. But they
  521.  
  522. also don’t cut the emissions. And if you’ll bear with me I want
  523.  
  524. to explain why.
  525.  
  526. Emissions reduction in practice
  527.  
  528. We know that Britain’s dash for wind, though immensely costly,
  529.  
  530. regressive and damaging to the environment, has had very little
  531.  
  532. impact on emissions.
  533.  
  534. DECC assumes that every MWh of wind replaces a MWh of
  535.  
  536. conventionally generated power.
  537.  
  538. But we know and they know that this is probably wrong at
  539.  
  540. present, and is all but certain to be wrong in the future, when
  541.  
  542. wind capacities are planned to be much higher.
  543.  
  544. According to an Irish study, because wind cannot always supply
  545.  
  546. electricity when it is needed, backup from gas and coal power
  547.  
  548. plants are required.15
  549.  
  550. added to that of the backup energy generators the impact on the
  551.  
  552. environment is actually greater.
  553.  
  554. System costs incurred by the grid in managing the electricity
  555.  
  556. system, especially given the remoteness of many wind farms,
  557.  
  558. make it worse still.
  559.  
  560. When the carbon footprint of wind is
  561.  
  562. And a wind-dominated system affects the investment decisions
  563.  
  564. other generators make.
  565.  
  566. So the huge investment we have made in wind power, with all
  567.  
  568. the horrendous impacts on our most precious landscapes, have
  569.  
  570. not saved much in the way of carbon dioxide emissions so far.
  571.  
  572. What savings, if any, have been bought at the most astonishing
  573.  
  574. cost per tonne?
  575.  
  576. Four possibilities – achieving emissions targets, supplying
  577.  
  578. energy
  579.  
  580. So what is achievable? If we are to get out of the straight jacket
  581.  
  582. of current policy, what can be done? I want to explore four
  583.  
  584. technologies which, combined, would both reduce emissions
  585.  
  586. and keep the supply of power on.
  587.  
  588. The shale gas opportunity
  589.  
  590. In contrast to Britain’s dash for wind, America’s dash for shale
  591.  
  592. gas has had a huge impact on emissions.
  593.  
  594. Thanks largely to the displacement of coal-fired generation by
  595.  
  596. cheap gas, US emissions in power generation are down to the
  597.  
  598. level they were in the 1990s and in per capita terms to levels last
  599.  
  600. seen in the 1960s. Gas has on average half the emissions of coal.
  601.  
  602. It has cut US gas prices to one-third of European prices,
  603.  
  604. which means that we risk losing many jobs in chemical and
  605.  
  606. manufacturing industries to our transatlantic competitors. We
  607.  
  608. are sitting on one of the richest shale deposits in the world. Just
  609.  
  610. 10 percent of the Bowland shale gas resource alone could supply
  611.  
  612. all our gas needs for decades and transform the North West
  613.  
  614. economy.16
  615.  
  616. The environmental impact of shale would be far less than wind.
  617.  
  618. For the same output of energy, a wind farm requires many more
  619.  
  620. truck movements, takes up hundreds of times as much land
  621.  
  622. and kills far more birds and bats. Above all, shale gas does not
  623.  
  624. require regressive subsidy. In fact, it would bring energy prices
  625.  
  626. Not only does shale gas have half the emissions of coal; it could
  627.  
  628. increase energy security. Currently 40 percent of the coal we
  629.  
  630. burn in this country comes from Russia.17
  631.  
  632. Lancashire shale gas than Putin’s coal.
  633.  
  634. So the first leg of my suggested policy would be an acceleration
  635.  
  636. of shale gas exploitation. As Environment Secretary I did
  637.  
  638. everything I could to speed up approval of shale gas permits
  639.  
  640. having set up a one-stop-shop aiming to issue a standard permit
  641.  
  642. within two weeks. But I was up against the very powerful
  643.  
  644. “green blob” whose sole aim was to stop it.
  645.  
  646. Combined Heat and Power
  647.  
  648. But there is another advantage of bringing abundant gas on
  649.  
  650. stream. We could build small, local power stations, close to
  651.  
  652. where people live and work. This would allow us to use not just
  653.  
  654. the electricity generated by the power station, but its heat also.
  655.  
  656. Combined heat and power, or CHP, cuts emissions, cuts costs
  657.  
  658. and creates jobs.
  659.  
  660. The generous EU estimate of the current efficiency in
  661.  
  662. conventional power stations is about 50 percent. The best of the
  663.  
  664. CHP plants deliver 92 percent efficiencies.18
  665.  
  666. Yet despite these attributes CHP is treated as the Cinderella to
  667.  
  668. the European Commission’s favoured Hi Renewable Energy
  669.  
  670. Strategy.
  671.  
  672. Renewables – especially wind – have been showered with
  673.  
  674. lucrative guarantees, in the form of doubled or trebled electricity
  675.  
  676. prices – thereby absorbing available investment capital.
  677.  
  678. Whereas the Commission attributes CHP’s failure to
  679.  
  680. the "limited" efficiency and effectiveness of its CHP Directive.19
  681.  
  682. Far better to burn
  683.  
  684. I am a realist. CHP does have high capital cost and limited
  685.  
  686. returns with payback periods longer than normally considered
  687.  
  688. viable. Given the commercial risks, dividends from energy
  689.  
  690. efficiency alone have not been sufficient to drive a large-scale
  691.  
  692. CHP programme.
  693.  
  694. But the Coalition Government recognise this too in seeking to
  695.  
  696. promote energy efficiency in the NHS.
  697.  
  698. Its buildings consume over £410 million worth of energy and
  699.  
  700. produce 3.7 million tonnes of CO2 every year. Energy use
  701.  
  702. contributes 22 percent of the total carbon footprint and, in its
  703.  
  704. own terms, the NHS says that this offers many opportunities
  705.  
  706. for saving and efficiency, allowing these savings to be directly
  707.  
  708. reinvested into further reductions in carbon emissions and
  709.  
  710. improved patient care.20
  711.  
  712. In 2013, therefore, it decided to kick-
  713. start its energy saving programme with a £50 million fund,
  714.  
  715. aiming to deliver savings of £13.7 million a year.21
  716.  
  717. comprised a substantial part of this spending.22
  718.  
  719. To kick-start a broader national programme, providing state aid
  720.  
  721. or financial incentives would be appropriate, especially as the
  722.  
  723. effect would be more cost-effective than similar amounts spent
  724.  
  725. on renewables.
  726.  
  727. In the United States, the value of CHP is beginning to be
  728.  
  729. recognised as the most efficient way of capitalising on the shale
  730.  
  731. gas bonanza. One state – Massachusetts – has delivered large
  732.  
  733. electricity savings in recent years through CHP.23
  734.  
  735. in the United States is currently 83.3GW compared with about
  736.  
  737. 9GW here.24
  738.  
  739. Actually, between 2005 and 2010, the production of both
  740.  
  741. electricity and heat from CHP installations in the UK fell, a
  742.  
  743. dreadful indictment of the last Labour government’s energy
  744.  
  745. policy. The installed capacity of wind increased by over 500
  746.  
  747. percent, despite a massively inferior cost-benefit ratio.25
  748.  
  749. But I do want to highlight how revolutionary CHP technology
  750.  
  751. can be in affording the localisation of the electricity supply
  752.  
  753. system. Transmission losses, can account for 5-7 percent of
  754.  
  755. national electricity production. A 20 percent reduction in
  756.  
  757. transmission loss would be the equivalent of saving the output
  758.  
  759. of another large nuclear installation.26
  760.  
  761. deliver efficiency ratings of up to 90 percent: the system heat is
  762.  
  763. produced where it can be used.
  764.  
  765. For instance, Leeds Teaching Hospital and the University of
  766.  
  767. Leeds together have financed their own dedicated power station,
  768.  
  769. comprising CHP units and an electricity generation capacity of
  770.  
  771. 15MW.27
  772.  
  773. With this model, it is easy to imagine office buildings,
  774.  
  775. supermarkets and other installations operating CHP units of
  776.  
  777. 1.5MW or less.
  778.  
  779. In fact, results from Massachusetts shows that 40 percent of
  780.  
  781. total energy supply could be CHP. Freiburg in Germany is
  782.  
  783. already producing 50% of its energy from CHP up from 3% in
  784.  
  785. This is why CHP can
  786.  
  787. Implemented nationally, this revolutionary programme of
  788.  
  789. localised electricity production would massively increase the
  790.  
  791. resilience of the system, considerably improve energy efficiency
  792.  
  793. overall, and ease pressure on the distribution system. In total, we
  794.  
  795. would save the equivalent of 9 Hinkley C’s.
  796.  
  797. Small modular nuclear
  798.  
  799. The third technology is an innovative approach with small
  800.  
  801. nuclear reactors integrated with CHP.
  802.  
  803. Our policy has consistently favoured huge nuclear and coal
  804.  
  805. plants, remote from their customers. Given that 40 percent or
  806.  
  807. more of the total energy production from a nuclear plant is
  808.  
  809. waste heat, such plants are ostensibly ideal for CHP, but there is
  810.  
  811. no economic way of using the waste heat.
  812.  
  813. I think there is a further massive obstacle to achieving 40 GW
  814.  
  815. capacity from large nuclear plants; there are simply not enough
  816.  
  817. suitable sites and not enough time to build them.
  818.  
  819. Small nuclear plants have been running successfully in the UK
  820.  
  821. for the last thirty years. Nine have been working on and off
  822.  
  823. without incident and the technology is proven.
  824.  
  825. Factory built units at the rate of one a month could add to the
  826.  
  827. capacity at a rate of 1.8 GW per year according to recent select
  828.  
  829. committee evidence from Rolls-Royce. 28
  830.  
  831. Small factory built nuclear plants, could be located closer, say
  832.  
  833. within 20 to 40 miles, to users and provide a CHP function.29
  834.  
  835. Installed near urban areas, they can deliver electricity and
  836.  
  837. power district heating schemes or, in industrial areas, provide a
  838.  
  839. combination of electricity and process heat.30
  840.  
  841. I welcome the Government’s feasibility study into this
  842.  
  843. technology. What is holding up full commercial exploitation is
  844.  
  845. the cost of regulatory approval, which is little different from a
  846.  
  847. large-scale reactor.
  848.  
  849. I also note that the US Department of Energy has commissioned
  850.  
  851. the installation of three different modular reactors at its
  852.  
  853. Savannah River test facility, with a view to undertaking generic
  854.  
  855. or "fleet" licensing.31
  856.  
  857. We should learn from them as a key
  858.  
  859. priority.
  860.  
  861. Demand management
  862.  
  863. The fourth leg of my proposal is demand management. The
  864.  
  865. government is tentatively investigating smart meters and using
  866.  
  867. our electric cars as a form of energy storage for the grid as a
  868.  
  869. whole.32
  870.  
  871. people might wake to find that their electric cars have been
  872.  
  873. automatically drained of juice to keep their electric central
  874.  
  875. heating on. This is crazy stuff!
  876.  
  877. It is both impractical and yet not nearly bold enough. Dynamic
  878.  
  879. demand would be a better policy for demand management that
  880.  
  881. would also be cheaper.
  882.  
  883. It requires the fitting of certain domestic appliances, such as
  884.  
  885. refrigerators, with low-cost sensors coupled to automated
  886.  
  887. controls. These measure the frequency of the current supplied
  888.  
  889. and switch off their appliances when the system load
  890.  
  891. temporarily exceeds supply, causing the current frequency to
  892.  
  893. drop.33
  894.  
  895. That is to say, in the future, on cold, windless nights,
  896.  
  897. Since appliances such as refrigerators do not run continuously,
  898.  
  899. switching them off for short periods of 20 to 30 minutes is
  900.  
  901. unlikely to be noticed and will have no harmful effects on the
  902.  
  903. contents. Yet the cumulative effect on the generating system of
  904.  
  905. millions of refrigerators simultaneously switching themselves
  906.  
  907. off is dramatic – as much as 1.2GW, the equivalent of a large
  908.  
  909. nuclear plant.34
  910.  
  911. In addition, we can imagine a future in which supermarkets’
  912.  
  913. chillers switch off, and hospitals’ emergency generators switch
  914.  
  915. on, when demand is high, thus shaving the peaks off demand.
  916.  
  917. We have started this and we need to do much more.
  918.  
  919. For this reason, I think the Short Term Operational Reserve
  920.  
  921. (STOR), a somewhat notorious scheme whereby costly diesel
  922.  
  923. generators are kept on stand-by in case the wind drops, is
  924.  
  925. not as foolish as it sounds. It would be even more useful in a
  926.  
  927. system without wind power. At the moment it has to cope with
  928.  
  929. unpredictable variation in supply as well as demand.
  930.  
  931. With as much as a 25GW variation during a day and with a
  932.  
  933. winter peak load approaching 60GW, significant capacity has to
  934.  
  935. be built and maintained purely to meet short-duration peaks in
  936.  
  937. demand. The use and extension of STOR and like facilities can
  938.  
  939. make a significant contribution to reducing the need for peak
  940.  
  941. generation plants.
  942.  
  943. According to one aggregator, removing 5-15 percent of peak
  944.  
  945. demand is realistic, as part of the new capacity market.35
  946.  
  947. could be worth up to 9GW, effectively the output of seven
  948.  
  949. major nuclear plants, or their equivalent which would otherwise
  950.  
  951. have to be built. As it stands Ofgem has already estimated that
  952.  
  953. demand management could save the UK £800 million annually
  954.  
  955. on transmission costs and £226 million on peak generation
  956.  
  957. capacity.36
  958.  
  959. Four pillars of energy policy
  960.  
  961. And there you have it. Four possible common sense policies:
  962.  
  963. shale gas, combined heat and power, small modular nuclear
  964.  
  965. reactors and demand management. That would reduce emissions
  966.  
  967. rapidly, without risking power cuts, and would be affordable.
  968.  
  969. In the longer term, there are other possibilities. Thorium as a
  970.  
  971. nuclear fuel, sub-critical, molten-salt reactors, geothermal plants
  972.  
  973. connected to CHP systems, fuel made in deserts using solar
  974.  
  975. power, perhaps even fusion one day – all these are possible in
  976.  
  977. the second half of the century.
  978.  
  979. But in the short term, we have to be realistic and admit that
  980.  
  981. solar, wind and wave are not going to make a significant
  982.  
  983. contribution while biomass does not help at all.
  984.  
  985. What I have wanted to demonstrate to you this evening, is that it
  986.  
  987. is possible to reduce emissions, while providing power.
  988.  
  989. But what is stopping this program? Simply, the 2050 legally
  990.  
  991. binding targets enshrined in the Climate Change Act.
  992.  
  993. The 80 percent decarbonisation strategy, cannot be achieved: it
  994.  
  995. is an all-or-nothing strategy which does not leave any openings
  996.  
  997. for alternatives.
  998.  
  999. It requires very specific technology, such as supposedly "zero
  1000.  
  1001. carbon" windfarms, and electric vehicles. Even interim solutions
  1002.  
  1003. can never be "zero carbon", so these too must be replaced well
  1004.  
  1005. before 2050.
  1006.  
  1007. In guzzling up available subsidies and capital investment "zero
  1008.  
  1009. carbon" technology blocks the development of more modest but
  1010.  
  1011. feasible and affordable low carbon options.
  1012.  
  1013. Thus, in pursuing the current decarbonisation route, we end up
  1014.  
  1015. with the worst of all possible worlds. When there is a shortfall
  1016.  
  1017. in electricity production, emergency measures will have to
  1018.  
  1019. be taken - what in Whitehall is known as “distressed policy
  1020.  
  1021. correction”. Bluntly, building gas or even coal in a screaming
  1022.  
  1023. hurry. The UK ends up worse off than if it adopted less
  1024.  
  1025. ambitious but achievable targets. Reining in unrealistic green
  1026.  
  1027. ambitions allows us to become more "green" than the Greens.
  1028.  
  1029. We are the only country to have legally bound ourselves to the
  1030.  
  1031. 2050 targets – and certainly the only one to bind ourselves to a
  1032.  
  1033. doomed policy.
  1034.  
  1035. In the absence of a legally binding international agreement,
  1036.  
  1037. which looks unlikely given disagreement within EU member
  1038.  
  1039. states and the position of the BRIC countries, the Climate
  1040.  
  1041. Change Act should be effectively suspended and eventually
  1042.  
  1043. repealed. Clause 2 of the Climate Change Act 2008 enables
  1044.  
  1045. the Secretary of State by order to amend, subject to affirmative
  1046.  
  1047. resolution procedure, the 2050 target which could have the
  1048.  
  1049. immediate effect of suspending it.
  1050.  
  1051. Then, energy efficiency becomes a realistic and viable option.
  1052.  
  1053. Investment in energy efficiency, including the Government’s
  1054.  
  1055. very welcome initiatives on insulation, offers considerable
  1056.  
  1057. advantages over wind energy. It does not raise overall electricity
  1058.  
  1059. costs, and may even cut them because the investment costs are
  1060.  
  1061. matched by the financial savings delivered.37
  1062.  
  1063. The moral case for abandoning the 2050 targets
  1064.  
  1065. We have to remember too that the people who suffer most from
  1066.  
  1067. a lack of decent energy are the poor.
  1068.  
  1069. I have already mentioned that we are redistributing from those
  1070.  
  1071. with low incomes to wealthy landowners through generous
  1072.  
  1073. subsidies collected in high energy bills.
  1074.  
  1075. The sight of rich western film stars effectively telling Africa’s
  1076.  
  1077. poor that they should not have fossil fuels, but should continue
  1078.  
  1079. to die at the rate of millions each year from the smoke of wood
  1080.  
  1081. fires in their homes, frankly disgusts me. The WHO estimates
  1082.  
  1083. that 4.3 million lose their lives every year through indoor air
  1084.  
  1085. pollution.38
  1086.  
  1087. The sight of western governments subsidizing the growing of
  1088.  
  1089. biofuels in the mistaken belief that this cuts emissions, and in
  1090.  
  1091. the full knowledge that it drives up food prices, encourages
  1092.  
  1093. deforestation and tips people into hunger, leaves me amazed.
  1094.  
  1095. The lack of affordable and reliable electricity, transport and
  1096.  
  1097. shelter to help protect the poor from cyclones, droughts and
  1098.  
  1099. diseases, is a far greater threat to them than the small risk that
  1100.  
  1101. those weather systems might one day turn a bit more dangerous.
  1102.  
  1103. Growth is the solution, not the problem
  1104.  
  1105. Among most of those who marched against climate change
  1106.  
  1107. last month, together with many religious leaders, far too many
  1108.  
  1109. academics and a great many young people, the myth has taken
  1110.  
  1111. hold that growth and prosperity are the problem, and that the
  1112.  
  1113. only way to save the planet is to turn our backs on progress.
  1114.  
  1115. They could not be more wrong. The latest Intergovernmental
  1116.  
  1117. Panel on Climate Change assessment report states that the
  1118.  
  1119. scenario with the most growth is the one with the least warming.
  1120.  
  1121. The scenario with the most warming is one with very slow
  1122.  
  1123. economic growth.
  1124.  
  1125. Why?
  1126.  
  1127. Because growth means invention and innovation and it is new
  1128.  
  1129. ideas, new technology that generates solutions to our problems.
  1130.  
  1131. The IPCC’s RCP2.6 scenario projects that per capita GDP
  1132.  
  1133. will be 16 times as high as today by the end of the century,
  1134.  
  1135. while emissions will have stabilized and temperature will have
  1136.  
  1137. stopped rising well before hitting dangerous levels.39
  1138.  
  1139. The history of the last century shows that dramatic technical
  1140.  
  1141. breakthroughs are possible where incentives are intelligently
  1142.  
  1143. aligned - but it’s impossible to know in advance where these
  1144.  
  1145. will come from. Who predicted thirty years ago that the biggest
  1146.  
  1147. breakthrough would come from horizontal drilling?
  1148.  
  1149. We have some of the finest scientists and universities in the
  1150.  
  1151. world. A fraction of the money spent on renewables subsidies
  1152.  
  1153. should go towards research and development and specific, well
  1154.  
  1155. defined goals with prizes for scientists and companies.
  1156.  
  1157. Energy efficiency will develop very rapidly if encouraged to do
  1158.  
  1159. so, cutting emissions.
  1160.  
  1161. A common sense policy climate for climate policy
  1162.  
  1163. The fundamental problem with our electricity policy over the
  1164.  
  1165. last two decades has been that successive governments have
  1166.  
  1167. attempted to pick winners.
  1168.  
  1169. Pet technologies introduce price distortions that destroy
  1170.  
  1171. investment in the rest of the market, with disastrous
  1172.  
  1173. consequences.
  1174.  
  1175. Even Nigel would admit that the liberalisations he introduced
  1176.  
  1177. to transform the electricity industry in the consumer interest
  1178.  
  1179. were frustrated. Sadly, the policies of the last decade or so, have
  1180.  
  1181. undone many of his reforms.
  1182.  
  1183. But like him, I would reliberalise the markets and allow the
  1184.  
  1185. hidden hand to reach out for technologies that can in practice
  1186.  
  1187. reduce emissions.
  1188.  
  1189. Conclusion
  1190.  
  1191. To summarise, we must challenge the current groupthink and
  1192.  
  1193. be prepared to stand up to the bullies in the environmental
  1194.  
  1195. movement and their subsidy-hungry allies.
  1196.  
  1197. Paradoxically, I am saying that we may achieve almost as
  1198.  
  1199. much in the way of emissions reduction, perhaps even more if
  1200.  
  1201. innovation goes well, using these four technologies or others,
  1202.  
  1203. and do so much more cheaply, but only if we drop the 2050
  1204.  
  1205. target, which is currently being used to drive subsidies towards
  1206.  
  1207. impractical and expensive technologies.
  1208.  
  1209. This is a really positive, optimistic vision that would allow
  1210.  
  1211. us to reinvigorate the freedom of the science and business
  1212.  
  1213. communities to explore new technologies. I am absolutely
  1214.  
  1215. confident that by doing this we can reduce our emissions and
  1216.  
  1217. keep the lights on.
  1218.  
  1219. Endnotes
  1220.  
  1221. There is no agreed figure on the total costs of the policy, nor indeed any agreement as to what
  1222.  
  1223. exactly the policy should comprise. Nevertheless, these sources offer credible estimates: http:/
  1224.  
  1225. /www.businessgreen.com/digital_assets/4177/Powerful_Targets.pdf, and https://www.gov.uk/
  1226.  
  1227. government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48072/2290-pathways-to-2050-key-
  1228. results.pdf
  1229.  
  1230. However, the European Commission estimates that the additional investment to achieve
  1231.  
  1232. decarbonisation (over and above that which would be spent anyway) could run to €304bn a year,
  1233.  
  1234. between 2011-2050, for the whole of the EU. This equates to UK expenditure of £1.3tn, see: http:/
  1235.  
  1236. /eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011SC0288&from=EN. The
  1237.  
  1238. International Energy Agency estimates global costs at $44bn. Apportioned on the basis of contribution
  1239.  
  1240. to global GDP, this also equates to £1.3tn for the UK, see: http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/
  1241.  
  1242. pressreleases/2014/may/name,51005,en.html
  1243.  
  1244. The target was “endorsed” by the European Council in Brussels on 29/30 October 2009, as outlined in
  1245.  
  1246. the Presidency Conclusions. As such, it is a political commitment, but not legally binding on member
  1247.  
  1248. states. See: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/110889.pdf
  1249.  
  1250. European Commission, A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in
  1251.  
  1252. 2050, Brussels, 8 March 2011, COM(2011) 112 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?
  1253.  
  1254. uri=cellar:5db26ecc-ba4e-4de2-ae08-dba649109d18.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDF
  1255.  
  1256. See: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/sec_2011_1565_part2.pdf, and http://
  1257.  
  1258. www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-wAssets/docs/e/de/publikationen/Final_Report_EU-Long-term-scenarios-
  1259.  
  1260. 2050_FINAL.pdf
  1261.  
  1262. 5 http://www.ref.org.uk/fuel/tablebyyearshare.php?valdate=2012 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
  1263.  
  1264. business-24823641
  1265.  
  1266. The need to close down the domestic gas distribution network is not specifically set out in
  1267.  
  1268. Commission or UK documents, but is largely accepted as a natural consequence of decarbonisation.
  1269.  
  1270. See: www.energynetworks.org/modx/assets/files/gas/futures/Delta-ee_ENA Final Report OCT.pdf.pdf
  1271.  
  1272. Homes will either have to go “all electric”, or rely on heat networks or heat pumps. Different scenarios
  1273.  
  1274. offer different mixes.
  1275.  
  1276. 7 European Commission, Energy Roadmap 2050, Brussels, 15 December 2011,
  1277.  
  1278. COM(2011) 885 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
  1279.  
  1280. uri=CELEX:52011DC0885&from=EN
  1281.  
  1282. Commission Staff Working Paper, Energy Roadmap 2050 Impact Assessment, http://ec.europa.eu/
  1283.  
  1284. energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/sec_2011_1565_part2.pdf
  1285.  
  1286. European Commission, Energy Roadmap 2050, op cit.
  1287.  
  1288. 10 See Fig. 25 in the Energy Roadmap 2050, Impact Assessment, op cit.
  1289.  
  1290. The UK scenario is detailed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
  1291.  
  1292. attachment_data/file/42562/216-2050-pathways-analysis-report.pdf
  1293.  
  1294. For a broad-ranging review of energy subsidies, see House of Commons Environmental Audit
  1295.  
  1296. Committee, Energy subsidies, Ninth Report of Session 2013–14, 27 November 2013. http://
  1297.  
  1298. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/61/61.pdf
  1299.  
  1300. 13 The Daily Telegraph, Expensive green energy a 'bad gamble' as ministers slash gas price forecasts,
  1301.  
  1302. 3 October 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/11137332/Expensive-green-energy-a-bad-
  1303. gamble-as-ministers-slash-gas-price-forecasts.html
  1304.  
  1305. 14 National Geographic, 13 September 2014, “Extinct” Snail Found Alive—But for How Long?,
  1306.  
  1307. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/13/snails-extinct-rediscovered-animals-science-
  1308. seychelles-climate-change/
  1309.  
  1310. The Energy Collective, 1 July 2012, Wind Energy CO2 Emissions Reductions are Overstated, http://
  1311.  
  1312. theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated
  1313.  
  1314. The British Geological Survey estimates there may be 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas present
  1315.  
  1316. in the north of England. Drilling companies have previously estimated that they may be able to extract
  1317.  
  1318. around 10% of this gas - equivalent to around 130 trillion cubic feet. With UK consumption at 3tcf per
  1319.  
  1320. year, that equates to about 40 years supply. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23069499
  1321.  
  1322. As steam coal – the total (2012) was 44%, see: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
  1323.  
  1324. uploads/attachment_data/file/170721/et_article_coal_in_2012.pdf
  1325.  
  1326. 18 http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/4.Efficiencyofheatandelectricityproductiontechnologies.pdf
  1327.  
  1328. 19 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004L0008&from=EN
  1329.  
  1330. 20 http://www.ruh.nhs.uk/about/annual_report/documents/social_responsibility_report_2009-10.pdf
  1331.  
  1332. 21https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-nhs-efficiency-schemes-set-to-save-137-million-per-year-
  1333. on-hospital-energy-bills
  1334.  
  1335. 22https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260921/
  1336.  
  1337. list_of_successful_schemes_final_for_publication.pdf
  1338.  
  1339. 23http://web.mit.edu/cron/project/EESP-Cambridge/Articles/Program%20design/
  1340.  
  1341. ACEEE%20-%20January%202013%20-%20Frontiers%20of%20Program%20Design%20copy.pdf
  1342.  
  1343. 24 http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_chptech_full.pdf
  1344.  
  1345. 25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom
  1346.  
  1347. 26 European Commission, Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential, Brussels, 19
  1348.  
  1349. October 2006, COM(2006)545 final
  1350.  
  1351. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0545&from=EN
  1352.  
  1353. 27 http://www.cogenco.com/uk-energy/ressources/documents/1/44529,Leeds-Tchng-Hosp-NHS-trt-
  1354. Uni-of-le.pdf
  1355.  
  1356. Also commenting was David Clarke, chief executive at the Energy Technologies Institute. He said:
  1357.  
  1358. “Fundamentally, we see the small module opportunity driven by economics in terms of the
  1359.  
  1360. potential for low-cost energy and reduced need for cooling water compared with big
  1361.  
  1362. nuclear plants, meaning that you open up more opportunities for sites on which you can
  1363.  
  1364. build these units, and then there is potential for siting them closer to centres of population
  1365.  
  1366. so that you can use the waste heat off-site”. http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/
  1367.  
  1368. committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/energy-and-climate-change-committee/small-nuclear-
  1369. power/oral/10962.pdf
  1370.  
  1371. Icelandic experience is useful here: The Nesjavellir geothermal CHP plant in Iceland services almost
  1372.  
  1373. the whole of Reykjavik and sends hot at water over 27km. In initial tests, its overall flow rate was
  1374.  
  1375. around 560 litres per second. Water took seven hours to run the length of the pipe and only cooled
  1376.  
  1377. by 2oC. See: http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull17-4/art2.pdf The Akranes and Borgarnes district
  1378.  
  1379. heating service provides the towns of Akranes (6600 inhabitants) and Borgarnes (1950 inhabitants)
  1380.  
  1381. with geothermal water, as well as some farmhouses, along a 63 km long pipeline. See: http://
  1382.  
  1383. www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/3418.pdf
  1384.  
  1385. Using that as a guide, the SMRs can be 20-40 miles from the districts they serve.
  1386.  
  1387. 30 http://www.gen4energy.com/
  1388.  
  1389. 31http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/43216/hyperion-build-small-modular-reactor-savannah-
  1390.  
  1391. 32 Euractiv, 29 April 2013, Electric vehicles sell power to the US grid, http://www.euractiv.com/
  1392.  
  1393. transport/electric-vehicles-sell-electrici-news-519414, and
  1394.  
  1395. Autoweek, 28 April 2013, http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/make-money-your-electric-vehicle
  1396.  
  1397. 33 http://www.cired.net/publications/cired2013/pdfs/CIRED2013_0507_final.pdf, and https://
  1398.  
  1399. pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/7103876/dynamicDemand_as_on_IEEE_site_1_.pdf
  1400.  
  1401. 34 The Guardian, How 'smart fridges' could slash UK CO2 emissions and help renewables, 28 April
  1402.  
  1403. 2009, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/27/carbon-emissions-smart-fridges-
  1404. environmentally-friendly-appliances
  1405.  
  1406. 35 http://www.kiwipowered.com/pr28.html
  1407.  
  1408. 36 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/57026/dsr-150710.pdf
  1409.  
  1410. 37 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/doc/2011_directive/
  1411.  
  1412. sec_2011_0779_impact_assessment.pdf
  1413.  
  1414. After analysing the risk factors and taking into account revisions in methodology, WHO estimates
  1415.  
  1416. indoor air pollution was linked to 4.3 million deaths in 2012 in households cooking over coal, wood
  1417.  
  1418. and biomass stoves. The new estimate is explained by better information about pollution exposures
  1419.  
  1420. among the estimated 2.9 billion people living in homes using wood, coal or dung as their primary
  1421.  
  1422. cooking fuel, as well as evidence about air pollution's role in the development of cardiovascular and
  1423.  
  1424. respiratory diseases, and cancers.
  1425.  
  1426. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/
  1427.  
  1428. 39 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
RAW Paste Data