BLUE ICE and CLIMATE CHANGE REACH PEMBROKESHIRE !!
 
On the 31st October, 2008,  the 'Blue Ice' climate change modelling computer was unveiled at the Technium Centre, Pembroke. The computer is  the result of  a partnership between Swansea University and IBM and will be used to improve climate change prediction. A hoped for by-product is to develop a knowledge based economy for the County by  the synergy between academia and the private sector.
 
At the launch there were speeches and presentations from the EU,  hydrocarbon companies  (Chevron, RWE n Power), renewable technology manufacturers (Wavedragon ,Quiet Revolution and INFINERGY) , a remediation engineer, and Prof T Murray who described glacier melting as a contribution to sea level rise.
 
For those attending in the hope of being convinced that Government and the hydro carbon based energy producers are taking  urgent and effective steps to reduce C02 emissions the event was disappointing.
 
The EU input, from a member of the UK delegation to the Committee of Regions , described  the inevitably complex and slow process of reaching decisions amongst 27 Member States. That is not to say the EU Directives are insignificant in 'driving forward' national action.  However one case study, from Germany, did show that local action and initiative does not have to await European or national policy.    
 
The overidding messages were that; a diversity of energy sources is critical, energy should be generated as close as possible to where it will be used, local authorities should be involved in supporting grid access for renewables but that neither Government nor the consumer should pay, and that the UK has to have a Renewable Energy Action Plan in place by 2010.
 
The speaker seemed to be suggesting  that 'big business' is being pandered to at present. 
 
The 2 speakers that followed, from 'big business', Chevron and RWE, seemed to be well versed at responding to such implicit assertions.  
 
 
The Operations Manager, Chervron, Pembroke,  started from the assumption that there will be a 55% increase in energy demand by 2030, world- wide, as developing countries aspire to a 'developed'  life style. He concluded that  hydro carbons are indispensable. However he also clarified that the 'age of easy oil was over', a reference to difficult-to-extract locations and global geo-politics. As a result Chevron are investing $2.5bn during  2008-9 in renewable technology developments (bio, hydrogen, geothermal and solar).
 
The unequivocal point was made that "We are in business to support our shareholders". The need for oil price stability (i.e. secure profit margins) as a basis for investment was also made clear as current infrastructure is at capacity (oil tankers, oil pipe-lines etc).  In other words Chevron , as with other multinationals, need a secure and 'supportive' economic and political environment if they are to 'deliver the goods'.
 
Some in the audience were concerned that this speaker seemed unaware of  the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change. 
 
 
RWE: gave a detailed 'run down' on all the policy and legal pressures  facing hydrocarbon companies, e.g., environmental targets for 2020, but added that other factors were pressing , e.g  a 30% reduction in generating capacity by 2020 , the increasing cost of energy, and difficulties of accessing capital investment. He pointed out "we need to use all the technology we can get , and need the support of politicians and the public", adding a concern that the hardest target to achieve, 20% improvement in energy efficiency, was the hardest target for EU Member States to agree on. Another target from the EU is the CHP Directive to provide 18% of energy generation by Combined Heat and Power  by 2010. RWE did not explain why this technology was not being adopted for the 2000MW RWE power station to be built in Pembroke next year (2009 start date) !!.
 
As with Chevron,  RWE called for 'support mechanisms' from Government and pointed out that planning controls were the biggest barrier to achieving the targets within the Climate Change Bill . In fact the speaker argued that all policies and legislation added to a complex world and influenced investment decisions and therefore coherent policies are needed which are consistent with what is 'technically achievable'.
 
Finally RWE echoed Chevron  by saying "Industry and Shareholders can't bear it  all (i.e. the cost)", calling for more financial  support from the EU.
 
For this observer, this was a classic case of 'big business' bargaining for the funds and freedom to act in order to deliver 'public policy' objectives.   
 
The hydro carbon industry was followed by a number of presentations from owners and managers of the emerging renewable energy sector, wind and wave , only, currently active in Pembrokeshire, either building and  installing wind turbines ( Quiet Revolution and INFINERGY) or testing the  wave turbine technology off St Anne's Head (Wavedragon).  
 
All the renewable presentations referred to refining and developing their technology, and the need for political support and goverment incentives to 'pump prime' the industry in order to achieve environmental targets.
 
WAVEDRAGON made the point that wave-energy technology is  global industry and that countries are competing to carve out a global business ( Portugal are particularly strong) . All 3 companies are supported by EU countries;  WAVEDRAGON is based in Denmark (working with Universities to develop the technology). Quiet Revolution has recently received a  £6m investment from a German energy company, and INFINenergy is a Dutch company. 
 
Clearly the high profile of continental European countries begs the question about the interventionist and supportive role being  adopted by the  UK Government and Welsh Assembly with regard to renewable technology manufacture.
 
A concern common to all the energy companies was the need to upgrade the national grid. However, when one participant  asked if the grid might be managed better if it were under Government control none of the speakers felt inclined to answer. 
 
The last 2 presentation of the event were contrasting yet related, namely the impact of the exploitation of the earth's resources.
 
Oceanesu is a company with expertise in remediation, particularly the treatment of  'produced water' ( water that is extracted with oil). A case study of Sudan emphasised 'produced water' as the single biggest supply of water in the area, with 500,000 tons per day being treated through massive reed beds. This by-product of oil extraction, clean water,  plus the development of bio-polymers, bio-medicines and bio-building material has the potential to provide the basis for a sustainable economy for the Sudanese. 
 
The contract between the petrol companies and the Sudanese Government was not mentioned therefore it was difficult to judge the total benefit  to local people of oil exploration and extraction in this war torn and poverty ridden country,
 
Finally, Prof Murray of Swansea University , provided a dramatic account of the rate of melting of glaciers on Greenland, double the speed in 2008 of that recorded for the IPCC in 2007!. The prospect of a complete loss of the 3000m thick ice sheet in 1000 years is a possibility. Currently glaciers are moving towards the sea at a rate of 30 metres per day ! As Prof Murray commented, there is no way of stopping the process as the snowfall in Greenland is only 1metre a year so the loss cannot be compensated  for. 
 
Some of these new facts on melt-water rates and glacier movement have yet to be included in Climate Change models. Something  which 'Blue Ice' will carry out.
 
Professor Murray also reminded us that global warming is a fact and cannot be reversed. Consequently sea level rise will have impacts ranging from flooding the City of London to displacing  tens , if not hundreds, of millions of people across the world Asia.    
 
 
 
Observations:
 
1) There appears to be a complete contradiction between the actions of hydrocarbon companies to assist developing nations to meet their development aspirations by supplying them with oil and gas and the adverse impact of these actions in term of increasing global warming through an increase in C02 emissions.
 
2) The experience of the 'credit crunch' is fresh in our minds and particularly the failure of the financial markets to 'deliver'  promises. Similarly, there must be concerns about the ability of the 'market mechanism' to be sufficiently responsive and responsible  to facilitate the restructuring and diversification of the energy generation industry, and grid network, to avoid the levels of global warming, social injustice and geo-political tensions  that are currently feared.
 
3) The $2.5bn being invested by Chevron in renewable technology compares with the  $60bn over 10 years that the company is investing in the Alberta oil sands "generating possible profits of tens of billions of dollars a year" (Guardian, 30/10/2007). Oil extraction from oil sands demands the burning of vast amounts of natural gas (1 barrel of gas for 2 barrels of crude oil), with some estimates that the Alberta oil sands will be Canada's biggest contributor to global warming.
 
4) None of the presenters expressed any concerns that the current road infrastructure in Pembrokeshire was inhibiting business development and activity. In fact, on the contrary,  one presenter applauded the local services, the  skilled work force and the good infrastructure to get wind turbines into Pembrokeshire by road. 
 
5) Recent research by the internationally renowned Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, at Manchester University, says that if we are to have a 50:50 chance of avoiding dangerous climate change (ie, no more than  2C above pre-industrial levels) we need to; see global emissions peak and decline by 2015, keep 70-80% of carbon currently locked in forests remaining, cut the carbon intensity of food products by 50%, and reduce emissions through energy use by around 6-10% per annum.   
   
 
 
Report by Charlie Mason.