Greenpeace launches public campaign on real solution to climate change
Tuesday 20th June 2006: Today Greenpeace launches a public information campaign to promote a new approach to tackling climate change and energy security that would dramatically cut energy waste in power stations, slash CO2 emissions and close the looming 'energy gap'.
The campaign kicks off with a series of advertisements in national newspapers that explain to the public how the 2/3 of energy wasted by UK power stations can be used to dramatically improve efficiency. The adverts debunk common myths about how big a role nuclear power could play in providing Britain's future energy needs or tackling climate change.
Greenpeace Executive Director, Stephen Tindale, explained, "The government and the nuclear industry haves been playing on the public's very real worries about climate change to try and bounce them into reluctantly backing nuclear power despite the problems of cost, nuclear waste, threat of terrorist attack and accidents".
He continued, "Our current centralised energy system wastes two thirds of the energy generated in its power stations. In fact the amount of heat thrown away, in for example cooling towers, is equivalent to all the heating and hot water needs in the UK's buildings. Decentralising our energy system allows that 'waste' heat to be used. This better alternative can slash energy wastage, radically cut CO2 and ensure we get maximum energy from our fuel, giving us improved energy security. Globally, decentralised energy systems are already providing more energy than nuclear power stations".
Key facts the campaign will explain include:
- The current system of centralised energy generation in big, remote power stations is hugely inefficient. Large coal, gas and nuclear power stations generate electricity, which is then transmitted on a grid to where it is needed, often many hundreds of miles away. Separately we burn gas for heat and hot water. In this system two thirds of the energy generated is wasted as heat, for example as steam up a cooling tower. In fact, the heat loss is so large, that it is equivalent to all the heating and hot water needs in the Uk's buildings [1].
- By contrast, in a decentralised energy system, electricity is generated close to where it is needed, so that the heat, which would otherwise be wasted, can be used in the surrounding homes, offices and factories. These local energy generators are called Combined Heat and Power stations, and are up to 95% efficient, more than double the efficiency of centralised power stations [2].
- Efficiently capturing almost all available energy from the fuel in this way, whether it is coal, gas, or greener fuels, would considerably lower CO2 emissions. In fact, according to energy experts, CO2 emissions could be up to 30% lower if the UK opts for decentralised energy as opposed to building new nuclear power stations [3].
- By cutting out the waste, a decentralised energy model would effectively close the energy gap, helping to meet both our electricity and heating needs while reducing the use of gas overall.
- Decentralised energy is already delivering results in other countries. The entire city of Rotterdam, for example, runs on decentralised energy, as does over 50% of Denmark, and across Europe major cities such as Malmo, Copenhagen and Helsinki have all adopted decentralised energy on a large scale. The Mayor of London has already started working towards creating a decentralised energy network for London.
Facts about nuclear power that Blair isn't telling us:
- Nuclear power is not a realistic 'solution' to climate change. Currently, nuclear power provides 20% of our electricity, but only 3.6% of the UK's total energy use. So even if the proposed new generation of 10 nuclear power stations went ahead they would only cut our CO2 emissions by 4% [4]. Any CO2 savings made here would be wiped out by the predicted expansion of airports alone.
- Energy security and gas supplies: Nuclear power, which is only used to generate electricity, won't significantly reduce our reliance on overseas gas. In fact only a third of the UK's gas is actually used to generate electricity in power stations. The majority of gas is used to generate heat for industrial processes, to warm our homes and to provide hot water [5]. In contrast using Combined Heat and Power stations in a decentralised energy system uses fuels, such as gas, more efficiently to generate both electricity and heating at the same time, greatly reducing the amount of gas that is needed overall.
- The nuclear industry claim that new stations will be economic, but no one really knows how much it's all going to cost. What we do know is that the bill for cleaning up the deadly nuclear waste generated so far is estimated to be £90 billion [6].
For more information, or supporting photos and video contact Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.
Calculated from Energy Flow Chart, DTI, 2001 with assistance of Paul Woods, PB Power.
- On the essentials of combined heat and power (CHP) in the Netherlands, Kees Den Blanken, Director, Cogen Nederland, April 2006.
- According to the WADE economic model (which has been used by UK Government in an assessment of China) when applied to the UK, a decentralised scenario delivered predicted CO2 emissions 17% lower than a centralised nuclear scenario when both assumed the same demand growth. Under an alternative decentralised scenario where renewable technologies and energy efficiency were also pursued more aggressively the CO2 cuts were 30% less than the centralised nuclear scenario. Decentralisation is widely seen as the optimum system to stimulate renewable energy and energy efficiency development. See Decentralising UK Energy: Cleaner, Cheaper, More Secure Energy for the 21st Century, Greenpeace, 2006, www.greenpeace.org.uk/wade.
- Sustainable Development Commission position paper - the role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy, SDC, March 2006; also correspondence with DTI.
- DTI - Energy Trends and Quarterly Energy Prices (Q3 2005), see http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18558.pdf?pubpdfdload=05%2F79E1
- Reported at - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1789671,00.html
