Energy review debate
Whenever we hit a hard winter or a tornado in Britain, climate change hits the headlines. Energy requirements are set to massively grow in the next half-century. So now that most people understand that global warming is likely caused by human activity, why don't we do more to stop it?
The problem is, tough decisions aren't popular. Political parties know the danger of trying to impose policies that impinge on our lifestyles. The rising cost of petrol may be a good disincentive from using a car where there are cheaper alternatives, but we have witnessed the havoc taxing it can create. Likewise, taxing aviation fuel would put an end to the effective subsidisation of airline companies above other forms of transport.
Environmental pressure groups often lay the blame on politicians for not taking a tougher line. However, what really needs to be done is to build a national (or in an ideal situation, international) consensus, involving and educating as many people along the way. Too often, quick sound byte schemes are touted as the solution to all our energy and environmental concerns. Advocates of renewable sources sometimes cast aside costly solar to promote wind. This is mainly driven by the viability of wind power due to cheaper set up costs, but neglects to mention it's a fairly limited source.
From a scientific point of view, solar and fusion both look like they may have leading roles in the future. There is no guarantee of when we can make widespread use of either requiring a long-term investment. This is not easily achieved, as governments are weary of scientists claiming technologies will be ready `in fifty years' only to claim the same a decade later. The private sector is even less ready to plunge in, with predicted returns likely to be small and not worth the fiscal risk.
The nuclear fission lobby has, in recent years, capitalised on climate change by rebranding as the carbon-free choice. Neither advocates nor opponents have engaged in a mature debate about the fission. Anti-nuclear groups conjure up images of Chernobyl while supporters avoid answering questions over costs and radioactive waste. If we do consider the nuclear option, then we must have a mature, sensible debate and weigh up the risks and costs involved.
Other technologies such as `clean coal technologies' provide interesting possible uses for fossil fuels and biomass. However, there is a danger of oversimplifying these with some selling `carbon-free coal' when the technologies such as carbon-capture are still in their infancy.
It is up to scientists and engineers to engage in the debate over the future of our energy policy. We need to encourage a more open discussion and consider all options to satisfy and reduce our future energy needs. We must put aside vested interests trying to promote their own technology and combat ignorance about all the alternative power sources. Only through education and debate can we step up the fight against climate change.
