Energy secretary Chris Huhne has launched a detailed consultation on six possible energy strategies – dubbed “Pathways” – that the UK may take in the coming few decades.
2050 Pathways Analysis’ analytical approach creates several scenarios and potential outcomes using a tool dubbed the ‘2050 Pathways Calculator’, which looks at various energy supply and demand trajectories. From the perspective of buildings, the key assessments in the model are for lighting and appliances and heating and cooling.
But the Analysis is vague on costs, stating that “providing a comprehensive estimate of the costs of decarbonisation out to 2050 is very challenging.” It notes that “a recent Ofgem study – Project Discovery (2009) – suggested that around £200bn of investment in the UK’s energy infrastructure is necessary over the coming decade to 2020.”
More generically, it argues that: “Many low carbon technologies are less mature technologically than fossil fuel technologies, such that higher levels of R&D spending will be required to make them more competitive. This means that the relative costs for the low carbon technology pathways would likely be higher if these costs were included.”
The pathways report stresses that it is not presenting an “optimal route” to a sustainable energy future, merely a range of different options.
Launching a suite of reports on 27 July, Mr Huhne told Parliament: “The 2050 calculator provides the most comprehensive, long-term analysis ever undertaken by Government... It will guide the decisions we make during this Parliament about the energy system we want in 40 years’ time.”
The report says that demand trajectories have been developed “to be consistent with two key input assumptions: 0.5% per year growth in population, based on the central scenario of the Office of National Statistics; and 2.5% growth in the UK GDP to reflect HM Treasury’s assumption for long term growth.”
In determining the trajectories, several factors are considered:
• Levels of behavioural and lifestyle change
• Levels of technological improvement and change
• Different technological or fuel choices
• Structural change in the economy.
The report makes clear its approach uses a model that is based on physical limits rather than cost optimisation. Nevertheless, it recognises that cost is “one critical dimension” when making future energy choices, as well as public acceptability, land use impacts, wider environmental impacts, practical deliverability, technological risk, international dependency, business investment behaviour, and fiscal, competitive, socioeconomic and welfare impacts.
On timeframe sensitivity for different energy user groups, the report points out that “a major consideration is what individuals, neighbourhoods and communities can do to tackle climate change and energy needs by themselves if the right incentives are in place and bureaucracy removed.”