,
15 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
A couple of brief reflections on day 1 of #energyireland 2019 conference. For reference, the programme is here: energyireland.ie/programme-2019/
While @RichardbrutonTD was trenchant in his continuing opposition to the Climate Emergency Measures Bill, he did acknowledge two things explicitly (that I have not heard him say before):
1. Exploration for additional fossil fuel resources will indeed have to cease at SOME point. He just thinks now is "premature" in the IE case.
2. He recognises that, given the large excess of already proven fossil fuel reserves over what can be prudently burned, then any additional discoveries risk further exacerbating that "carbon bubble". His preferred solution would be multilateral agreement to cease exploration.
Of course, if the #ParisAgreement is our best (or least worst) current model for multilateral climate action, then the logic of this is for NDCs to start including voluntary, bottom up, commitments to cease further fossil fuel exploration...
Perhaps @RichardbrutonTD will now consider Ireland taking such a lead? (Given the tiny role of FF extraction in our economy, it should be much easier for us to start this than for others: so if we can't stomach it, negligible chance of Russia, Iran, KSA, USA, etc. etc.??)
Chair of the CCAC, Prof John Fitzgerald SEEMED to say that: 1. Current EU and IE mitigation targets are indeed inadequate to meet the #ParisAgreement goals; BUT 2. Current EU and IE mitigation targets are nonetheless still "prudent". (I dearly hope I misheard/misunderstood him!)
The final session on the "Future Role of Gas" was constructive and provocative...
Angus Paxton, Pöyry Management Consulting, initially suggested that the "only credible" route to large scale, low-carbon, hydrogen was steam methane reforming (SMR) of natural gas, combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS), but ...
rightly highlighted the very significant doubts/uncertainties around "upstream" emissions that would still arise in such a process, especially of CH4...
and in the subsequent Q&A both he and Denis O'Sullivan (@GasNetIrl) agreed that CMR+CCS also suffers two other key disadvantages: not helping (at all) with IE energy security, and creating a requirement for indefinitely large, permanent, CO2 storage (we have v limited capacity).
I suggested that the alternative of large scale H2 production by electrolysis from wind power (onshore and off) is at least as "credible", while entirely avoiding CO2 storage issue, and greatly enhancing IE energy security.
Therefore ... any purported "cost-effectiveness" defence of SMR+CCS over electrolysis should transparently cost these (very major) factors in. (Real risk of strategic technology policy blunder here for IE IMHO.)
Looking forward to more critical and insightful discussion tomorrow...
@threadreaderapp unroll
