1
00:00:16,050 --> 00:00:20,100
Hello and welcome to the 2014 Simoni Lecture.

2
00:00:20,730 --> 00:00:27,960
Many thanks again to the Playhouse for hosting us and to the Amador Foundation, who make the finances of this possible.

3
00:00:28,230 --> 00:00:33,720
My name is Marcus DeSoto, and I'm the professor for the public understanding of science here in Oxford.

4
00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:36,870
And as the professor for the public understanding of science,

5
00:00:36,870 --> 00:00:42,389
people tend to think that I know everything about science and can tell you about it, but I find I don't.

6
00:00:42,390 --> 00:00:48,180
And I was asked to take part in an energy debate at the Hay Festival a couple of years ago,

7
00:00:48,180 --> 00:00:54,120
and I needed something to help me to to mock up on what is quite a complex debate.

8
00:00:54,120 --> 00:01:01,589
And somebody recommended this wonderful book called Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air by tonight's speaker.

9
00:01:01,590 --> 00:01:07,920
And I fell in love with it immediately because the opening part is called numbers, not Adjectives.

10
00:01:08,160 --> 00:01:15,389
So a book for me as a mathematician, but certainly this helps me very much to to negotiate my way through what is a very complex issue.

11
00:01:15,390 --> 00:01:23,640
So I thought what a great person to come and bring to Oxford to help us all to understand climate change and sustainable energy.

12
00:01:23,910 --> 00:01:27,030
So I'd like to give a big Oxford welcome to David Mackay,

13
00:01:27,030 --> 00:01:31,890
who's going to be talking on why climate change action is difficult and how we can make a difference.

14
00:01:32,070 --> 00:01:37,080
David is Professor Regis, professor at the Department of Engineering in Cambridge and more interestingly,

15
00:01:37,080 --> 00:01:42,060
was also former chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

16
00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:56,330
So, David, thank you very much. Thank you very much.

17
00:01:56,840 --> 00:02:00,860
Thank you. Thank you all for coming. I'm a physicist and an engineer.

18
00:02:00,860 --> 00:02:05,899
And most physicists, physicists and engineers love back of envelope calculations.

19
00:02:05,900 --> 00:02:14,870
And I'd like to start my talk just by showing you a little pre talk, a back of envelope calculation to illustrate the sort of thing I like to do.

20
00:02:15,620 --> 00:02:19,609
I was having a conversation with some bods from Shell and we were discussing

21
00:02:19,610 --> 00:02:24,440
transport policies and the idea that Europe has of switching us over to biofuels.

22
00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:32,210
And one of us said, Hmm, if we grew the biofuels for the cars on the verge of the road, how wide would the verge need to be?

23
00:02:32,630 --> 00:02:39,170
So this is a lovely example of a back of envelope calculation, just to get a sense of scale of what we're imagining we might do.

24
00:02:39,290 --> 00:02:42,290
So you make up some numbers and you work out an answer, so let's make up numbers.

25
00:02:42,560 --> 00:02:45,920
So we said, let's have the cars go at 60 miles per hour.

26
00:02:46,430 --> 00:02:52,040
Let's assume they do 30 miles per gallon, which is the average of new European cars today.

27
00:02:52,580 --> 00:02:57,920
Let's look up on the Internet what the productivity of European biofuel plantations is.

28
00:02:57,940 --> 00:03:01,370
That's 1200 litres of biofuel per hectare per year.

29
00:03:01,970 --> 00:03:05,480
And finally, we need a spacing between the cars and then we've got all the numbers.

30
00:03:05,480 --> 00:03:06,500
We need to get an answer.

31
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:13,130
You do not need to specify how long the road is because the longer the road is, the more cars there are and the longer the biofuel plantation is.

32
00:03:13,600 --> 00:03:20,929
All right, so what do you do when you take the first number and you divide by the other four and take care with unit and you'll get an answer,

33
00:03:20,930 --> 00:03:27,230
which is a length and it's eight kilometres. So given these assumptions, that's how wide the verge needs to be.

34
00:03:27,650 --> 00:03:33,050
And I love the sort of back of envelope calculation because even though the numbers are made up, it's enough to make you say,

35
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:39,680
Hmm, hmm, maybe it's not as easy as just saying, Oh, yes, we'll get ourselves off oil by switching to biofuels.

36
00:03:39,740 --> 00:03:45,410
Maybe we need to think about some other options, or maybe we need to really hammer on some of these numbers and say, Well,

37
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:51,790
yes, we can switch to biofuels, but they better be next generation biofuels, which have to be so much better per unit area.

38
00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:56,300
We need to think carefully whether we can do that or can we make the vehicles far more energy efficient,

39
00:03:57,150 --> 00:04:00,560
maybe transform our assumptions about people going around in cars all the time.

40
00:04:01,460 --> 00:04:08,060
Okay. So and for those of you who want to go away with a homework problem, I don't know if you still like homework.

41
00:04:08,330 --> 00:04:10,940
You could ask yourself another question. What if you switched to electric cars?

42
00:04:10,940 --> 00:04:16,520
Then how many windmills would you need every you know, what would the spacing between the windmills be?

43
00:04:16,640 --> 00:04:20,570
How many windmills per mile would your road need?

44
00:04:20,750 --> 00:04:29,719
So that's a homework problem. And I wrote a book full of back of envelope calculations to try and help people understand in a very clear,

45
00:04:29,720 --> 00:04:33,860
transparent, straightforward way how to compare energy options with each other.

46
00:04:33,980 --> 00:04:38,900
Energy options on the supply side for getting off fossil fuels and demand side.

47
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:42,319
What does your lifestyle require and where do you want that energy to come from?

48
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:43,820
All in exactly the same units.

49
00:04:44,090 --> 00:04:49,910
So I wrote this book is Free Online and you can buy it from my publisher in the foyer if you want to make him happy, please do.

50
00:04:51,530 --> 00:04:58,879
And because I gave it away free online, it's generated a lot of goodwill and volunteers have translated into lots of other languages.

51
00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:06,890
So if you speak Chinese or Japanese or Slovak or French or Hungarian, there's also translations available in those languages.

52
00:05:08,570 --> 00:05:16,430
And I wrote this book because everyone was getting emotional about energy options and I was a bit distressed by the things I heard on the radio.

53
00:05:16,430 --> 00:05:20,959
People were saying things that didn't add up. I'm not I don't have anything against emotions.

54
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:24,710
Emotions are really important. They drive things along, but we need facts as well.

55
00:05:24,710 --> 00:05:28,490
So I wrote this book and ended up becoming a senior civil servant,

56
00:05:28,700 --> 00:05:32,870
which wasn't the original plan, but it was a lot of fun and I could tell you more about that.

57
00:05:34,580 --> 00:05:37,640
So tonight's talk is going to have three bits.

58
00:05:38,030 --> 00:05:41,059
I'm going to talk about climate science. I'm going to talk about energy arithmetic.

59
00:05:41,060 --> 00:05:49,740
And then I'll talk about innovation and. By the end, I will have told you about six or eight reasons why things are difficult.

60
00:05:49,740 --> 00:05:55,890
But I won't depress you too much. I hope I'll also keep some upbeat messages in there about where you can do it.

61
00:05:57,420 --> 00:06:02,730
So first, some bad news. Let me tell you a little bit of climate science, which you may not have heard.

62
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:10,830
This, I think, is one of the most important figures from the IPCC's fifth assessment report, which came out over the last 12 months.

63
00:06:11,100 --> 00:06:20,700
It's a figure which shows how big climate change is going to be summarised by one number, which is the global average surface temperature increase.

64
00:06:20,730 --> 00:06:25,230
Of course, that's not the only thing the climate change is about, but it's a useful summary variable.

65
00:06:25,550 --> 00:06:30,690
So this is how big is climate change up here? We've actually lost a little bit of text off the left hand side.

66
00:06:30,690 --> 00:06:36,150
If the technicians could possibly do 2050 and get us an extra ten pixels,

67
00:06:36,750 --> 00:06:42,660
then that would be nice because it says temperature anomaly relative to 1861 on the left hand side.

68
00:06:44,190 --> 00:06:50,770
Okay. And it shows how big climate change is as a function of not the emissions rate,

69
00:06:50,860 --> 00:06:58,150
but as a function of cumulative emissions of the total amount of carbon that humanity has emitted since the Industrial Revolution.

70
00:06:58,390 --> 00:07:04,040
The top little left graph is what people often show. It's the emissions rate which has been going up and up and up.

71
00:07:04,060 --> 00:07:08,590
Black line and then in the future could carry on up. Red line worse than business as usual.

72
00:07:08,830 --> 00:07:15,520
Or it could sort of stay constant. Yellow line or blue line, it could come down or a dark blue line.

73
00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:20,410
It could really come down. So there's lots of possible futures and humanity has a choice what we do with ourselves.

74
00:07:20,830 --> 00:07:24,880
So for those four possible futures, what's going to happen? How big is climate change?

75
00:07:25,690 --> 00:07:30,460
Well, the unfortunate answer is that it's proportional to cumulative emissions.

76
00:07:30,520 --> 00:07:37,660
That's what all these lines show. And what that means is if you want to halt climate change in terms of global average temperature rise,

77
00:07:37,810 --> 00:07:41,740
not going up any more, then you've got to limit cumulative emissions.

78
00:07:42,130 --> 00:07:46,030
And that means the emissions rate has to drop to zero. Right.

79
00:07:46,630 --> 00:07:55,270
And that's disappointing because I think a lot of people imagine that climate change action means reducing emissions 20% reduction by 2020,

80
00:07:55,720 --> 00:07:59,320
80% by 2050, or maybe 50% for some countries.

81
00:07:59,590 --> 00:08:06,910
So reduce by 50%. And it would be lovely if that worked, but it doesn't according to these climate models that this is all based on.

82
00:08:07,240 --> 00:08:13,360
If you reduce your emissions by 50%, which is the light blue line, then your curative emissions are still going to go up and up and up.

83
00:08:13,360 --> 00:08:19,060
You will have slowed the rate of climate change, but climate will still be changing under the light blue scenario.

84
00:08:19,180 --> 00:08:27,010
The only way to get emissions to stop is to do something like the dark blue line where emissions actually reach zero or even go negative.

85
00:08:27,790 --> 00:08:31,869
Okay, so that's science. Fact number one, it's based on the literature.

86
00:08:31,870 --> 00:08:35,740
It's your own local Myles Allen and co-authors who did some of this work.

87
00:08:35,920 --> 00:08:41,200
This is a picture from Miles Allen's original nature paper showing the massive uncertainty.

88
00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:43,790
I forgot to talk to you about the pink sausage.

89
00:08:43,820 --> 00:08:49,300
So this big pink sausage here shows the uncertainty about what this climate overall climate sensitivity is.

90
00:08:49,810 --> 00:08:53,379
So climate science is uncertain. We don't know what the slope of this line is.

91
00:08:53,380 --> 00:08:59,250
It's somewhere in the pink sausage, and that's shown visually in this Maslin paper.

92
00:08:59,300 --> 00:09:03,130
If you change from one climate model to another climate model, you get a different sensitivity.

93
00:09:03,580 --> 00:09:10,840
But they all have a straight line. So they're all telling you that if you want to cap climate change, you do need the emissions rate to drop to zero.

94
00:09:12,100 --> 00:09:16,210
Okay. So that's sort of bad news and.

95
00:09:19,700 --> 00:09:27,590
And here's what it could look like. Summarised by the IPCC in the Summary Synthesis Report that came out a couple of weeks ago.

96
00:09:28,700 --> 00:09:36,770
So you've got your emissions rate and that can lead to if you follow the worse than business as usual red line.

97
00:09:36,950 --> 00:09:41,150
Then we're up to possibly a warming in something like four and a half degrees by the end of the century.

98
00:09:41,420 --> 00:09:45,500
Or if you take the radical climate change action, which is the dark blue line,

99
00:09:45,680 --> 00:09:49,940
then you can stabilise things at who knows what, but something about two degrees ish.

100
00:09:52,600 --> 00:09:56,589
So some people say two degrees. That doesn't sound too bad.

101
00:09:56,590 --> 00:10:02,079
And it's important to try and get an understanding of the impacts of two degrees and

102
00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:06,580
one way of visualising what a two degree global average temperature rise means.

103
00:10:06,850 --> 00:10:10,540
Obviously, the difference between day and night on a typical day in England is far more than two degrees.

104
00:10:10,540 --> 00:10:14,410
But actually this two degrees is a much more important two degrees.

105
00:10:14,650 --> 00:10:19,540
Here's a graph of what the global average temperature has been doing for the last 20,000 years.

106
00:10:19,750 --> 00:10:25,180
And you can see 20,000 years ago, it was about three degrees colder globally.

107
00:10:25,450 --> 00:10:28,450
And what did that planet look like? Well, it was quite a different planet.

108
00:10:28,990 --> 00:10:34,540
For example, the sea level of the whole world was 100 metres lower than it is today.

109
00:10:34,900 --> 00:10:42,490
Why? Well, because the Northern Europe and North America had two miles of ice sitting on top of it.

110
00:10:42,850 --> 00:10:50,980
So that was the last ice age. So a temperature change of three and a half degrees or so is the difference between an ice age and today.

111
00:10:51,190 --> 00:10:55,150
And if you say, oh, yeah, let's have another two degrees warming, who cares? Then you're taking yourself off.

112
00:10:55,360 --> 00:10:57,700
Well, if you say three and a half or four and a half, I don't care.

113
00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:04,600
Then you're actually saying I'm happy to visit a planet that says different in the other direction from today as the Ice Ages.

114
00:11:06,010 --> 00:11:09,190
That's a photograph of the Earth 20,000 years ago on the right there.

115
00:11:12,450 --> 00:11:21,480
Let me visualise it another way for you. Does anyone remember the summer of 2003 in Europe where you hear in Europe in 2003 and you remember it.

116
00:11:22,320 --> 00:11:26,470
So climate change isn't going to be uniform over the globe.

117
00:11:26,490 --> 00:11:30,690
The projections are extremely uncertain for any one country,

118
00:11:30,870 --> 00:11:37,590
but the global pattern is that the Poles who will warm the North Pole will warm far more than the rest of the globe,

119
00:11:37,830 --> 00:11:47,760
and the land will warm more than the oceans. And so we could ask the question, what's this going to imply for Northern Europe in 2003?

120
00:11:47,790 --> 00:11:51,050
We had a heatwave and a lot of people died in the droughts and so forth.

121
00:11:51,060 --> 00:11:55,470
So it may have been a memorable experience for you 11 years ago.

122
00:11:56,220 --> 00:12:01,020
And you can ask the question, under these climate models, if we believe the climate models are right,

123
00:12:01,290 --> 00:12:04,980
then what sort of frequency will this sort of event have in the future?

124
00:12:05,340 --> 00:12:09,300
This was the hottest summer in Northern Europe ever recorded.

125
00:12:09,420 --> 00:12:15,660
So it was at least one in a 100 year type of event, a very rare event under the old climate.

126
00:12:16,050 --> 00:12:20,340
So under the read trajectory for global emissions and the dark blue trajectory,

127
00:12:20,340 --> 00:12:25,710
what's the difference between the future frequency of summers like the 2003?

128
00:12:25,980 --> 00:12:34,500
Well, here are some graphs coming out of the Hadley Centre's model of what summer temperatures might do in lots of simulations of the planet.

129
00:12:35,690 --> 00:12:40,140
Focusing attention on northern Europe. So here's the area on the map. And this is under the blue.

130
00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:43,940
The dark blue trajectory, temperatures are forecast to carry on increasing.

131
00:12:44,330 --> 00:12:50,540
I'll just pop the mask on 23 for you there and then I'll slide it across so you can see where that sits in 2050,

132
00:12:50,540 --> 00:12:54,140
which is in the lifetime of many of us here in this room.

133
00:12:54,380 --> 00:12:58,040
In 2050, this model is predicting that even on the dark blue trajectory,

134
00:12:58,310 --> 00:13:04,370
half of all summers will be significantly hotter than the hottest summer ever in northern Europe.

135
00:13:04,760 --> 00:13:13,370
So maybe that makes you sit up a little bit and have a bit of a feel for what that world in 2050 might be like, let alone 2100,

136
00:13:13,580 --> 00:13:21,650
let alone under the red scenario, where if we do the above business as usual red emissions trajectory globally, then look where the mouse is.

137
00:13:22,070 --> 00:13:27,470
99% of all summers are going to be hotter than the record breaking hottest summer ever.

138
00:13:28,100 --> 00:13:35,780
By 2050 and by 2100, all summers will be substantially hotter than that at that level.

139
00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:43,900
So that's what four and a half degrees looks like for Europe according to this climate model.

140
00:13:43,910 --> 00:13:50,690
And we don't yet know the climate sensitivity. We don't know if this model's right, but it may be so that's climate science.

141
00:13:52,250 --> 00:13:57,380
And so to summarise what I've told you so far, why is climate change action difficult?

142
00:13:57,560 --> 00:14:02,780
We're not just talking about emissions being reduced a little bit. 5%, 10% have a little trading scheme and sorted out.

143
00:14:02,990 --> 00:14:06,620
No, not a 10% reduction. Zero is where we're going.

144
00:14:06,620 --> 00:14:11,390
We need 100% reduction in emissions to have actually solve the climate change problem.

145
00:14:11,780 --> 00:14:16,970
Moreover, if you take the central point, the central slope within that sausage,

146
00:14:17,210 --> 00:14:20,840
then you've only got a trillion tonnes of carbon to go and we've already emitted

147
00:14:20,840 --> 00:14:25,220
about half a trillion tonnes thanks to land use change and fossil fuels and cement.

148
00:14:26,060 --> 00:14:33,110
And so half the budget's gone for the so-called two degree outcome, which a lot of attention has has focussed on.

149
00:14:33,110 --> 00:14:37,129
So keeping temperatures below two degrees, roughly half the budget is gone.

150
00:14:37,130 --> 00:14:43,280
So it was actually not very long and you need to do a sudden handbrake turn between emissions steadily rising and

151
00:14:43,280 --> 00:14:50,329
getting them to come down again if you're interested in having a decent chance of achieving the two degree objective,

152
00:14:50,330 --> 00:14:53,770
but I put a little asterisk on there. Batteries not included, some conditions apply.

153
00:14:53,810 --> 00:14:58,550
We don't know the climate sensitivity. So whenever anyone says, are we on track for two degrees?

154
00:14:59,150 --> 00:15:06,230
Yeah, bear in mind we don't know the climate sensitivity. So even if someone told you a budget and said this is a two degree budget,

155
00:15:06,440 --> 00:15:10,459
the one thing you can be sure of is that budget won't get to global warming to be two degrees.

156
00:15:10,460 --> 00:15:18,620
It'll either be bigger or smaller and we don't actually know yet which. Okay, so we get emotional and we need some numbers too.

157
00:15:18,890 --> 00:15:23,150
I'm emotional about climate change, but I'm here to try and help with the numbers.

158
00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:26,090
So let's talk about energy arithmetic and.

159
00:15:27,220 --> 00:15:33,190
I'd like to give you a rough guide to sustainable energy, where I'll start off by doing everything per person.

160
00:15:33,190 --> 00:15:36,700
So to avoid answers involving millions, billions and trillions,

161
00:15:37,060 --> 00:15:41,920
which I think most people don't have a feel for at all, they all sound about the same, just big.

162
00:15:42,880 --> 00:15:47,710
They are actually different, but people don't understand that. So let's not use those numbers.

163
00:15:47,860 --> 00:15:53,920
Let's do everything per person and let's choose unit so we don't ever get things coming out in millions or billions or trillions.

164
00:15:54,430 --> 00:15:57,399
And let's do deliberately inaccurate calculations,

165
00:15:57,400 --> 00:16:01,150
do everything to one significant figure because then it's easier to remember things and compare them.

166
00:16:01,660 --> 00:16:07,030
You don't want too many numbers having to be memorised. Our measure energy and kilowatt hours.

167
00:16:07,030 --> 00:16:10,600
That's what your electricity metre reads energy in.

168
00:16:10,900 --> 00:16:17,200
And if you have a gas bill and actually look at it, it probably converts your gas usage from cubic feet into kilowatt hours as well.

169
00:16:17,210 --> 00:16:24,370
So it's a standard unit that households can actually find out if they look at their bills and their metre readings.

170
00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:29,920
And I'll measure power, which is how fast we use energy in kilowatt hours per day.

171
00:16:30,790 --> 00:16:34,840
The physicists and engineers in the audience may now split because they would say,

172
00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:40,270
Oh, why don't you just use a smaller unit like the Watt or the kilowatt? And there's two reasons for this.

173
00:16:40,390 --> 00:16:50,860
First, if I tell a typical person, Look, the average British person has a power consumption of 5000 watts.

174
00:16:52,040 --> 00:16:55,820
They'll probably say, is that what's per month or is it what's per year?

175
00:16:55,850 --> 00:16:59,960
Because they don't know what to what is they don't know what has got the per unit time already built into it.

176
00:17:00,590 --> 00:17:05,329
So people don't know what a what is. But if you say kilowatt hours per day, it's very clearly a rate of using something.

177
00:17:05,330 --> 00:17:10,790
So people understand it better. That's the first reason. And the second reason is the numbers come out in ones and twos and tens.

178
00:17:11,000 --> 00:17:15,020
If you use kilowatt hours per day. So that's another reason I like, what, kilowatt hours per day?

179
00:17:15,200 --> 00:17:21,530
What the too small kilowatts are too big. So here's some everyday things that people do that come in small numbers of kilowatt hours.

180
00:17:21,830 --> 00:17:27,410
If you take a standard 40 watt light bulb and use it for 24 hours, you have used one kilowatt hour of electricity.

181
00:17:27,860 --> 00:17:32,780
If you eat food, the chemical energy in the food you eat amounts to about three kilowatt hours per day.

182
00:17:33,320 --> 00:17:36,710
If you take one hot bath, that's five kilowatt hours of heat energy.

183
00:17:37,250 --> 00:17:40,610
If you take a litre of petrol and set fire to it, you just pay ten kilowatt hours.

184
00:17:40,940 --> 00:17:46,129
And if you have a Coke habit and you drink Coke and it comes away, the embodied energy,

185
00:17:46,130 --> 00:17:53,600
the energy required to make the aluminium cans that delivered the coke to you is about two thirds of a kilowatt hour per candle.

186
00:17:54,740 --> 00:18:00,860
So that's some everyday choices. Here's a few more. If you've got a car and if you drive at 100 kilometres a day, I'm not saying everyone does this,

187
00:18:00,860 --> 00:18:06,710
but if you do that, then if it's an average European car, you're using 80 kilowatt hours per day.

188
00:18:07,460 --> 00:18:12,710
If you have a house, British or North American are about the same.

189
00:18:12,980 --> 00:18:16,970
You might be using about 80 kilowatt hours per day to run everything in the house,

190
00:18:17,540 --> 00:18:21,790
and maybe an extra three kilowatt hours of energy is required to operate the cat in the front garden.

191
00:18:21,800 --> 00:18:29,830
That. If you fly, you use a [INAUDIBLE] of a lot of energy on the day when you fly, which is incomprehensibly large.

192
00:18:29,980 --> 00:18:33,190
But to make it comparable, we can say, Well, how often do you fly per year?

193
00:18:33,220 --> 00:18:38,410
Let's, for example, say you do London, Los Angeles and back once a year.

194
00:18:39,130 --> 00:18:44,380
Then take that huge amount of energy, spread it over the year, and you find it's 26 kilowatt hours per day.

195
00:18:46,200 --> 00:18:53,489
For one person. And fourthly, here is something black, which gets quite a lot of attention.

196
00:18:53,490 --> 00:18:55,590
And this is one of the things that drove me to write a book.

197
00:18:56,100 --> 00:19:02,879
For example, the mayor of London said, if all Londoners unplug their mobile phone chargers when they're not in use,

198
00:19:02,880 --> 00:19:07,550
we can save 31,000 tonnes of CO2 and £7 million per year.

199
00:19:07,560 --> 00:19:14,310
Clearly, thousands, millions. It's enormous. It's very important. It's on the list of seven things you can do for a DIY planet repairs.

200
00:19:14,690 --> 00:19:18,090
Okay. Does this belong in the top seven things we encourage Londoners to do?

201
00:19:18,360 --> 00:19:21,360
Well, if you're willing to do arithmetic, you can say what the population of London.

202
00:19:21,370 --> 00:19:26,910
7 million. So 7 million per year divided by 7 million people is £1 a year saving.

203
00:19:27,150 --> 00:19:30,270
Okay, that's not zero, but it may be not.

204
00:19:30,450 --> 00:19:33,930
Does it get into the top, top seven? Let's think of it another way.

205
00:19:34,800 --> 00:19:38,490
Is the phone charger a planet destroying thing as evil as Darth Vader?

206
00:19:39,000 --> 00:19:41,580
Let's check. Let's compare it with a car.

207
00:19:42,330 --> 00:19:48,809
And if you work out the energy saved by the feat of energy conservation, of actually unplugging the mobile phone charger for a whole day,

208
00:19:48,810 --> 00:19:51,630
instead of leaving it plugged in without a phone attached to it,

209
00:19:51,810 --> 00:19:56,460
the energy you have saved is exactly equal to the energy used by driving an average car for one second.

210
00:19:56,520 --> 00:20:00,930
Both of those are equal to 0.01 kilowatt hours.

211
00:20:01,320 --> 00:20:03,240
Okay, I'm not saying don't switch it off.

212
00:20:04,140 --> 00:20:11,250
Switching off vampires at home does help, but be aware how small it is compared with other things that might also be in your lifestyle.

213
00:20:11,490 --> 00:20:16,920
So just to visualise it here in red blobs are how big those last four things are.

214
00:20:17,160 --> 00:20:26,040
Car, house, flying phone charger. So probably the phone charger doesn't deserve to be on that top seven list of things you can do to do your bit.

215
00:20:26,580 --> 00:20:31,740
The total footprint of the average UK person if you just average over every one.

216
00:20:32,950 --> 00:20:37,540
All forms of energy consumption comes to about 125 kilowatt hours per day per person,

217
00:20:37,540 --> 00:20:42,040
which you can visualise as 125 light bulbs worth of energy consumption.

218
00:20:42,670 --> 00:20:46,899
And you can split that if you want a quick cartoon. If you don't have a quick conversation about what are we going to do?

219
00:20:46,900 --> 00:20:50,440
Well, it's transport, heating, electricity. Roughly a third each.

220
00:20:51,430 --> 00:20:54,969
And that's how much energy is going into making electricity.

221
00:20:54,970 --> 00:20:58,630
The actual efficiency of the electricity making is about 40% or so.

222
00:20:58,810 --> 00:21:04,150
So the actual amount of electricity we use is about 17 kilowatt hours per day per person.

223
00:21:04,750 --> 00:21:09,520
Electricity gets a lot of attention, but actually it's only about one third or one fifth of the problem.

224
00:21:09,520 --> 00:21:12,910
And the other two thirds definitely needs attention, too.

225
00:21:13,300 --> 00:21:17,590
And today we get 90% of this energy still from fossil fuels.

226
00:21:17,680 --> 00:21:21,940
And if we're interested in climate change action and if we're interested in security of supply,

227
00:21:22,750 --> 00:21:26,980
then we need to be getting off that 90% fossil fuel dependence.

228
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:31,460
Okay. And there's one more thing we need to include in our rough guide.

229
00:21:31,480 --> 00:21:35,350
We need to think about land areas, because as my opening example, with The Verge,

230
00:21:35,350 --> 00:21:41,170
with the biofuels growing on it illustrated, some renewables have land area implications.

231
00:21:41,380 --> 00:21:44,590
So we need to talk about population densities and those vary.

232
00:21:44,950 --> 00:21:48,420
The UK is 250 people per square kilometre.

233
00:21:48,550 --> 00:21:55,570
If you want to say per person what area we've got, it's 4000 square metres per person, which is half of a premiership football field per person.

234
00:21:56,590 --> 00:22:02,980
And I'm going to talk about power per unit area, how much we consume per area and how much we can generate per area.

235
00:22:03,700 --> 00:22:09,670
And that I will measure in Watts per square metre. So now we're ready to continue with our rough guide.

236
00:22:09,850 --> 00:22:13,000
I'm going to show you a map of the world now in this map of the world.

237
00:22:13,210 --> 00:22:16,870
The vertical axis is the energy consumption per person of a region.

238
00:22:17,230 --> 00:22:25,150
The horizontal axis is the population density of the region, and the size of each blob is the land area of the country that I'm showing.

239
00:22:25,690 --> 00:22:32,070
And the axes are both logarithmic. So as you go from grey line to grey line to grey line, you're going up by a factor of ten.

240
00:22:32,140 --> 00:22:36,370
And population density. So there's a huge diversity of population densities of countries around the world.

241
00:22:36,610 --> 00:22:41,050
And vertically, again, this grey line for that grey line is another factor of ten.

242
00:22:41,350 --> 00:22:46,899
So what you can see is there are some countries with very low population densities and huge per capita consumptions like Iceland,

243
00:22:46,900 --> 00:22:51,190
Canada, Australia consuming 200 or 300 light bulbs per person.

244
00:22:52,330 --> 00:22:58,780
Bahrain top right has a population density that's 300 times bigger and consumes about the same per person.

245
00:22:59,620 --> 00:23:04,810
Bottom right. Bangladesh has the same astonishing population density as Bahrain 1000 people per square kilometre,

246
00:23:05,080 --> 00:23:08,770
but it's consuming 100 times less energy per person. Bottom left.

247
00:23:09,280 --> 00:23:15,370
There's no one. But there used to be countries down there, I'm sure, because another message of this diagram is progress.

248
00:23:15,370 --> 00:23:24,730
I'm going to add some little lines here. These little blue lines behind Sudan, Brazil, Algeria, China, India, Bangladesh, Portugal, Libya, Australia.

249
00:23:25,060 --> 00:23:28,380
They're showing 15 years of progress from 1990 to 2005.

250
00:23:28,390 --> 00:23:31,270
What happened to population density? What happened to per capita energy consumption?

251
00:23:31,450 --> 00:23:41,290
And you can see lots of countries are going up and to the right off to join perhaps us and Germany and Japan,

252
00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:49,990
who are three fairly atypical countries with slightly above average population densities and slightly above average per capita consumptions,

253
00:23:50,230 --> 00:23:53,500
though not as high as that of United States and Australia.

254
00:23:54,310 --> 00:23:59,980
So maybe the UK is quite an interesting case study because it's staying fairly

255
00:23:59,980 --> 00:24:04,420
steady in a location on this diagram that other countries might be coming to an.

256
00:24:04,450 --> 00:24:10,840
Anyway, we've got to sort ourselves out. We need to have a plan for the UK and Germany I hope could have a plan and Japan needs one too.

257
00:24:11,380 --> 00:24:17,770
So I'm going to now focus in on these countries and I'm going to start talking about power per area.

258
00:24:17,830 --> 00:24:26,830
How does this work? If you take the population density of a region and if you multiply it by the energy consumption per person of that region,

259
00:24:26,830 --> 00:24:32,920
the product of those two numbers is the power consumption per unit area of the country that you're talking about.

260
00:24:34,050 --> 00:24:36,180
And because I've got logarithmic scales here,

261
00:24:36,180 --> 00:24:42,060
it turns out that lines of equal power consumption per unit area are these pink lines with slope minus one.

262
00:24:43,080 --> 00:24:52,140
So for example, the power consumption of Saudi Arabia is about 0.1 watts per square metre and so is Mexico's.

263
00:24:52,290 --> 00:24:55,770
And in 1990, so was China's. And in 1990 so was India's.

264
00:24:56,070 --> 00:25:00,660
And in 1992 it was Bangladeshis. They all were consuming 0.1 watts per square metre.

265
00:25:00,840 --> 00:25:08,490
So that's an interesting figure sort of baseline. And actually 80% of the world's population lives in countries that are above that level.

266
00:25:08,700 --> 00:25:14,100
So 0.1 watts per square metre. Most people, most countries are using more power than that.

267
00:25:14,310 --> 00:25:20,040
And we are up at 1.25 watts per square metre of power consumption.

268
00:25:20,760 --> 00:25:26,669
Why do I bang on about power consumption per unit area? Well, because renewables, many of them require some land area.

269
00:25:26,670 --> 00:25:36,060
And it's interesting to compare numbers like 0.1 and 1.25 watts per square metre with the power generation that you can get from renewables.

270
00:25:36,630 --> 00:25:42,510
So let's now shrink this diagram a little bit and then add some green lines to show what renewables can do for you.

271
00:25:42,930 --> 00:25:48,570
So energy crops does lots of energy crops and it depends if you fertilise them, it depends how much water you've got and so forth.

272
00:25:48,780 --> 00:25:52,860
And if you do genetic engineering and crop modification and so forth, maybe this can be improved.

273
00:25:53,040 --> 00:25:57,300
But as a very rough figure, half of what four square metre is what you get from energy crops.

274
00:25:57,630 --> 00:26:02,970
All right. And if you're good at arithmetic, you'll know that that's smaller than 1.25 watts per square metre.

275
00:26:03,090 --> 00:26:09,389
So what they're saying, if you wanted literally to power the whole UK on energy crops alone,

276
00:26:09,390 --> 00:26:16,170
at today's level of energy consumption, you need two and a half UCS to grow the energy crops on and then you could power the UK.

277
00:26:16,620 --> 00:26:28,209
All right. Next win 2.5 watts per square metre and I don't want to lose time, but I do have plenty of data backing up that number.

278
00:26:28,210 --> 00:26:33,820
So it's two and a half watts per square metre. What does that mean? Well, that's twice as big as 1.25 watts per square metre.

279
00:26:34,030 --> 00:26:40,330
So if you literally wanted to get absolutely all of today's energy consumption from wind alone on average,

280
00:26:40,450 --> 00:26:43,450
then you need wind farms with half the area of the UK.

281
00:26:44,450 --> 00:26:48,370
All right. Sunshine.

282
00:26:49,000 --> 00:26:56,530
The raw power of sunshine is way up here. It's a thousand watts per square metre if you are at the equator at midday.

283
00:26:56,830 --> 00:27:00,580
So people often emphasise that and say how enormous the sun is and you only need so

284
00:27:00,580 --> 00:27:03,760
many minutes of sunshine to do something rather than it sounds very impressive.

285
00:27:03,970 --> 00:27:07,750
But let's be careful with a little bit of reality that you can't.

286
00:27:08,290 --> 00:27:11,170
So we're not all at the equator and it's not midday all of the time.

287
00:27:11,620 --> 00:27:16,210
And we need to include the efficiency with which sunshine can be turned into useful forms.

288
00:27:16,660 --> 00:27:18,820
So coming back down here.

289
00:27:20,320 --> 00:27:28,480
The raw sunshine at the equator is about 250 watts per square metre, four times smaller because it's midday about a quarter of the time.

290
00:27:30,300 --> 00:27:33,520
In the UK. We're not at the equator, we're further north and it's cloudy.

291
00:27:33,540 --> 00:27:38,940
The average power of sunshine in the UK, day and night year round is 110 watts per square metre.

292
00:27:39,180 --> 00:27:45,870
So that's what we start with. And now you include a realistic efficiency of how much of that power per unit land area you can actually get out.

293
00:27:46,560 --> 00:27:49,410
Taking into account the efficiency of the solar panel or whatever it is,

294
00:27:49,530 --> 00:27:56,100
and also how close together you can put your solar panels, which determines the sort of filling factor of your landscape.

295
00:27:56,850 --> 00:28:00,660
So if you go and use your roof, you will get about 20 watts per square metre.

296
00:28:00,810 --> 00:28:07,260
So this is real data from a roof in Cambridge. Is 20 watts per square metre of roof area.

297
00:28:07,830 --> 00:28:16,350
Grand when you. One thing to bear in mind, which I'll come back to later on, is that the average output isn't the same as the actual output.

298
00:28:16,350 --> 00:28:22,050
It varies a lot throughout the year. You get about nine times as much in the summer as you do in the winter.

299
00:28:22,110 --> 00:28:27,270
So that's important to bear in mind if you are trying to make a plan that will add up every day of the year.

300
00:28:28,770 --> 00:28:35,999
Anyway, 20 watts per square metre. Now if you want to adopt the traditional Bavarian farming method, you'll also leap off the roof,

301
00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:38,549
onto the countryside and cover the countryside with solar panels.

302
00:28:38,550 --> 00:28:47,040
This is a barrier and this is the various solar park, according to its press release, delivers about five watts per square metre of land area.

303
00:28:47,220 --> 00:28:50,430
That's less than 20 watts per square metre because there are gaps between the panels to let

304
00:28:50,430 --> 00:28:54,750
the maintenance people get get in and to make sure that the panels don't shade each other.

305
00:28:54,870 --> 00:29:01,200
They want to tip them up to point nicely at the midday sun and they don't want to say shading each other because that would be a waste of money.

306
00:29:02,040 --> 00:29:06,450
Here's another solar park in Vermont for which real data is available free on the Internet.

307
00:29:06,600 --> 00:29:14,490
Lovely company. And so you can work out the power per area of this extremely modern solar park with panels that actually track the sun.

308
00:29:14,670 --> 00:29:22,050
And the answer is 3.8 watts per square metre. That's in Vermont and has lots of data for lots more solar farms.

309
00:29:22,320 --> 00:29:32,700
And the rough summary is for solar panels in cloudy countries like the UK and Germany, shown in Magenta and Cambridge,

310
00:29:32,700 --> 00:29:37,500
blue bottom left, you get about five watts per square metre of land area from your solar parks.

311
00:29:38,950 --> 00:29:44,680
There's a Japanese park or two in red which are giving about ten watts, the square metre and in sunny countries this axis.

312
00:29:44,890 --> 00:29:46,960
Here is how sunny the location is.

313
00:29:47,290 --> 00:29:56,019
You go to Italy and Spain and then America in pink, yellow, and you're up at ten watts per square metre for quite a lot of these these farms.

314
00:29:56,020 --> 00:29:59,860
So ten watts per square metre for sunny countries, five watts per square metre for dark countries,

315
00:30:00,190 --> 00:30:06,009
the very best you can do is these little pluses which are roof mounted systems, which, as I said before, can deliver 20 watts per square metre.

316
00:30:06,010 --> 00:30:09,910
That's one in Hawaii, which is wonderful. Okay.

317
00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:16,310
So what does that mean? Go back to this diagram. You get five watts per square metre from solar parks.

318
00:30:16,430 --> 00:30:21,470
So if you wanted to match today's total primary energy consumption with the output of solar parks,

319
00:30:21,650 --> 00:30:28,910
you need a quarter of the land area of the U.K. if you want to be solar parks in the U.K. And bear in mind that fluctuations,

320
00:30:28,910 --> 00:30:35,030
as you mentioned, and some people say, oh, he must be wrong, he must be anti renewables.

321
00:30:35,030 --> 00:30:39,560
I'm not anti renewables at all. I love them. I love renewables. I also love arithmetic and I love truth.

322
00:30:39,800 --> 00:30:45,760
And so I've got data to back up everything I'm saying, and I want us to have a plan that adds up.

323
00:30:45,770 --> 00:30:49,760
So if anyone can give me better data, just send it to me and I'll add it to the diagrams.

324
00:30:51,270 --> 00:30:55,500
What else can we do? If we really love renewables, we can love them in other people's countries as well.

325
00:30:55,890 --> 00:31:03,750
So we could ask people in Algeria or Kazakhstan to have concentrating solar power stations which might look like this beauty in California or Nevada.

326
00:31:04,350 --> 00:31:09,000
I don't know what its power per area is because like many companies, it's secretive about its performance.

327
00:31:09,180 --> 00:31:15,720
But this company with lovely Stirling engines delivers 14 watts per square metre of land area with its concentrating solar power.

328
00:31:16,230 --> 00:31:24,059
This fantastic facility in Spain, largely paid for by Germans I think generates solar power at night as well as in the day by

329
00:31:24,060 --> 00:31:28,310
the fantastic trick of making molten salt and putting it in this huge tank during the day.

330
00:31:28,320 --> 00:31:31,740
And then you can carry on generating at night using the molten salt as the heat source.

331
00:31:32,070 --> 00:31:35,190
And it's got a power per area of ten watts per square metre.

332
00:31:35,790 --> 00:31:39,220
This one in Spain delivers five watts per square metre of land area.

333
00:31:40,140 --> 00:31:47,610
And so being really charitable, I'll say 20 watts per square metre for concentrating solar power because the literature says they could deliver that,

334
00:31:47,610 --> 00:31:50,710
even though none of the examples I just told you got to 20, right.

335
00:31:50,940 --> 00:31:58,100
I think ten is probably more realistic. But anyway, that's bigger than the numbers we've just been talking about.

336
00:31:58,110 --> 00:32:05,579
Good, but there's not that much bigger. So even if you said, yeah, let's get our power from Libya with constructing solar power stations,

337
00:32:05,580 --> 00:32:12,420
you're still talking about a really substantial land area in Libya, comparable to, you know, 10% of the size of our country.

338
00:32:12,420 --> 00:32:16,410
If you wanted to completely power the UK from from Libya.

339
00:32:17,100 --> 00:32:20,219
So much as I love them all renewables are diffused.

340
00:32:20,220 --> 00:32:26,549
They have a small power per unit area. And here's a list of some of the powers I've mentioned and some more which I could hop

341
00:32:26,550 --> 00:32:30,120
to in the questions if you if you want to hear about tidal power and things like that.

342
00:32:31,380 --> 00:32:40,500
Okay. So if you want your plan to focus on renewables in the future, you have to be anticipating large renewable facilities.

343
00:32:40,620 --> 00:32:47,530
And not everyone loves large renewable facilities. And you could include other options in your portfolio.

344
00:32:47,590 --> 00:32:52,469
You could say, let's discuss nuclear power. And Pandora's Promise was shown earlier today here,

345
00:32:52,470 --> 00:32:57,570
which is a film advocating including nuclear in the mix in order to take successful climate change action.

346
00:32:57,840 --> 00:33:01,050
And you might be interested to know what is the power per area of nuclear?

347
00:33:01,170 --> 00:33:02,459
Well, here's a simple calculation.

348
00:33:02,460 --> 00:33:09,060
You grab an Ordnance Survey map, you find a blue kilometre square, a sizewell, and in that there is a sizewell B, which is a gigawatt.

349
00:33:09,120 --> 00:33:15,299
So it's a thousand watts per square metre. And I can give you a more detailed calculation, including the mine and and the waste or if you want.

350
00:33:15,300 --> 00:33:20,220
But that's a ballpark figure. You can do higher power per area than a thousand watts per square metre.

351
00:33:20,550 --> 00:33:24,450
With nuclear in terms of heat generating sites themselves.

352
00:33:25,760 --> 00:33:30,310
And how does that compare with wind? Well, it's a factor of 400 bigger than the proper area of wind.

353
00:33:30,320 --> 00:33:33,450
So wind farms may be found intrusive by some people.

354
00:33:33,470 --> 00:33:40,400
Some people don't like them because of the intrusiveness. Nuclear power is 400 times less intrusive in the landscape in terms of land area occupied.

355
00:33:40,880 --> 00:33:45,170
But of course, power per area is not the only metric that people care about.

356
00:33:45,290 --> 00:33:50,060
And nuclear has popularity problems for other reasons than it's power per unit area.

357
00:33:50,990 --> 00:33:57,050
And we need to take into account all those views and hopefully achieve consensus as a society and make a plan that adds up.

358
00:33:57,620 --> 00:34:02,590
And I want to remind you that, yes, nuclear has popularity problems, but so do renewables.

359
00:34:02,600 --> 00:34:07,420
Here's a photograph of a consultation exercise in full swing and the little town of Penicuik, just south of Edinburgh.

360
00:34:07,460 --> 00:34:10,730
And you can see the children of Penicuik celebrating the burning of the effigy of the windmill.

361
00:34:11,000 --> 00:34:14,330
Because if there's one thing the British public are good at, it's saying no.

362
00:34:15,860 --> 00:34:19,340
So we need a plan that adds up. All of these options are unpopular.

363
00:34:19,370 --> 00:34:23,810
And the way I like to think about this is in terms of levers which can give you stuff.

364
00:34:24,170 --> 00:34:30,110
And the more you push on a lever, the more you get. And maybe the more people are unhappy about the intrusiveness or whatever the

365
00:34:30,110 --> 00:34:33,860
risk and so forth or the cost or whatever it is associated with that lever.

366
00:34:34,370 --> 00:34:38,179
So you've got all these different green levers which are sources of supply, and if someone says, No,

367
00:34:38,180 --> 00:34:45,080
I don't like that lever, then well, you just need to push even harder on the other levers because it's got to add up.

368
00:34:45,670 --> 00:34:51,830
Right. So I'm not at all recommending a mix. I just want us to choose a mix that adds up using the basic laws of arithmetic.

369
00:34:52,070 --> 00:35:00,080
So I've mentioned three big levers here are renewables, wind, bioenergy, other people's renewables, nuclear, and there's lots of other levers as well.

370
00:35:00,410 --> 00:35:04,070
Clean coal with carbon capture and storage, clean gas with carbon capture storage.

371
00:35:04,190 --> 00:35:06,080
I could talk about that. I think it's important too.

372
00:35:07,250 --> 00:35:14,390
But there's other levers as well because there's no written law that says the UK public must consume 125 kilowatt hours per day per person.

373
00:35:14,630 --> 00:35:19,880
Maybe we could consume less thanks to technology, or maybe we could consume less thanks to lifestyle change.

374
00:35:19,880 --> 00:35:25,820
And all of these options I think should be on the table as well. And society could agree to lifestyle change or not.

375
00:35:25,970 --> 00:35:30,680
And you just need to know, well, that's another lever. If you say no lifestyle change, then you have to push harder on the other levers.

376
00:35:30,920 --> 00:35:36,200
They're all options. So here are some red levers which are on the red demand side.

377
00:35:36,470 --> 00:35:42,470
And I'm just going to rattle through an optimistic view of things you can do on the red side to sort out transport,

378
00:35:42,470 --> 00:35:46,520
heating and some of forms of domestic energy consumption.

379
00:35:46,790 --> 00:35:50,480
So first, transport, which is a third of the problem. Here's what the laws of physics say.

380
00:35:50,490 --> 00:35:56,450
Yes, we can reduce our energy consumption for transport. We do not have to roll around in tanks and individual tanks.

381
00:35:57,030 --> 00:36:01,880
The laws of physics say if your vehicles have small frontal areas, more weight per person,

382
00:36:02,090 --> 00:36:05,930
and if they go slowly and go steadily and convert energy efficiently between different forms,

383
00:36:06,050 --> 00:36:13,340
then you'll use less energy because you'll be reducing air resistance, rolling resistance and braking losses, which is where the energy is going.

384
00:36:14,690 --> 00:36:17,180
Converting energy efficiently between different forms is important.

385
00:36:17,510 --> 00:36:22,040
Not everyone knows that the efficiency of the little power station that you're driving around in a standard car,

386
00:36:22,040 --> 00:36:25,190
that petrol power station is about 25%.

387
00:36:25,430 --> 00:36:31,430
So turning chemical energy in the fuel into the wheels and that's not a fantastic efficiency.

388
00:36:31,610 --> 00:36:38,390
So that's one. One thing to take advantage of. So how much improvement can we get over the tank with one person sitting in it?

389
00:36:39,080 --> 00:36:42,649
Here's the tank. And it uses 80 kilowatt hours per 100 person kilometres.

390
00:36:42,650 --> 00:36:48,560
That's a fairly standard car's energy consumption, assuming it's got one person in it, as it usually does.

391
00:36:49,550 --> 00:36:54,500
And some people say, Oh, yes, engineers are wonderful. We can have vehicles that use 100 times less energy.

392
00:36:54,500 --> 00:36:57,560
No problem. And is that true? Well, let's look at some numbers.

393
00:36:57,800 --> 00:37:04,490
Yes. Almost 80 times less energy per 100,000 kilometres is used by this bicycle with three people on board.

394
00:37:04,670 --> 00:37:11,580
It runs on biofuel. Interestingly, extra Weet-Bix in the morning and the person in the tank might say, no, no, no, come off it.

395
00:37:11,600 --> 00:37:19,100
That's a lifestyle change. I don't want to operate that lifestyle change lever, even though that technology switch would reduce energy consumption.

396
00:37:19,250 --> 00:37:22,490
So what other options are there in the landscape of transport?

397
00:37:22,820 --> 00:37:28,460
Well, here's a few. You can say, Oh, you want to have an individual car, do you?

398
00:37:28,490 --> 00:37:30,050
Well, how about you drive the eco car?

399
00:37:30,170 --> 00:37:36,110
Sorry, we still lost the Pixel's on the left, it says 1.3 kilowatt hours per 100 person kilometres almost as good as the bicycle.

400
00:37:36,410 --> 00:37:42,980
It's shorter than traffic cone. It comfortably accommodates one teenager and you drive it at 15 miles per hour to get that performance.

401
00:37:43,370 --> 00:37:48,540
And the lady in the tank over here might say, No, no, I want to go fast.

402
00:37:48,560 --> 00:37:52,400
So you say, all right, go faster, train. And that's almost as good as a bicycle.

403
00:37:52,400 --> 00:37:59,270
If it's a well loaded train, 3 to 6 kilowatt hours per 100 person kilometres and the person in the tank might say,

404
00:37:59,270 --> 00:38:05,780
no, no, I can't travel with all those horrible people. Well, can we compromise, keep the lifestyle, but somehow make things more energy efficient?

405
00:38:05,990 --> 00:38:08,750
Well, yes. One option is electric vehicles.

406
00:38:08,930 --> 00:38:15,920
Here's an electric motorbike, a car and another car, all using significantly less energy per 100 kilometres measured at the socket.

407
00:38:16,610 --> 00:38:19,250
So now you're starting to worry, well, where does it come from? Out of that socket.

408
00:38:19,490 --> 00:38:26,240
If it's coming from a coal power station that's only 25% efficient, then actually we haven't really won at all if we switch to the gee whiz.

409
00:38:26,720 --> 00:38:31,490
But if we have a plan to do something about the electricity system at the same time as electrifying transport,

410
00:38:31,610 --> 00:38:36,260
then we can make a plan that adds up and does decarbonise and does save energy as well.

411
00:38:37,660 --> 00:38:41,320
Okay. So that's your transport levers? There's lots of them.

412
00:38:42,400 --> 00:38:48,690
Heating and insulation. That's where maybe, I don't know, quarter or so of our energy is going in the UK.

413
00:38:49,780 --> 00:38:57,370
Here's a crappy house in Cambridge. It's mine with the Ferrari out front and the laws of physics apply to all buildings.

414
00:38:57,370 --> 00:39:02,920
And they say that the heat loss of a building is the likeness of the building multiplied by the temperature difference between the inside and outside.

415
00:39:03,130 --> 00:39:09,730
The power required to make up for that heat loss is the heat loss divided by the efficiency of your heat creation system?

416
00:39:09,850 --> 00:39:14,290
Standard heat creation systems in houses are called gas boilers. You put in gas and you get heat out.

417
00:39:14,530 --> 00:39:20,110
But the efficiency of about 90% or so and maybe they sometimes claim 95%.

418
00:39:21,010 --> 00:39:27,220
And that sounds great, but it's actually lousy because this requires understanding of physical, physical chemistry.

419
00:39:28,060 --> 00:39:35,350
What you're doing is turning very high quality energy in the form of chemical energy into heat at 20 centigrade, which is what you want in your house.

420
00:39:35,350 --> 00:39:39,960
And that energy has much less value and it could have been created much more efficiently.

421
00:39:39,970 --> 00:39:43,900
It's actually terribly efficient to do that only with efficiency and efficiency of 90%.

422
00:39:44,410 --> 00:39:48,129
So what can we do? We can do better than 90% heat creation in green.

423
00:39:48,130 --> 00:39:53,260
We can reduce the weakness of the building and we can reduce the temperature difference between the inside and the outside in red.

424
00:39:53,470 --> 00:39:59,080
With an amazing technology called a thermostat. You grasp it, you rotate it to the left, and your energy consumption will go down.

425
00:39:59,170 --> 00:40:05,780
I've tried it. It works. Some people call it a lifestyle change, but I really urge you to try it and see what happens.

426
00:40:05,800 --> 00:40:09,610
You might be surprised how much you can save without actually feeling it was

427
00:40:09,610 --> 00:40:14,740
much of a lifestyle change and you might get to wear a cuddly sweaters as well.

428
00:40:15,940 --> 00:40:18,220
Right. So here's the leanness reduction options.

429
00:40:18,580 --> 00:40:25,209
The first two things you could do is get the fluff man and put fluff in the walls and extra fluff in the roof.

430
00:40:25,210 --> 00:40:28,450
And that might give you a 25% saving or so. Also,

431
00:40:28,810 --> 00:40:34,000
we've got an extra front door to reduce the heat loss out of the front of the house so you can

432
00:40:34,000 --> 00:40:41,210
get 25% by these sort of changes if you want more than 25% from for a crappy British building.

433
00:40:41,500 --> 00:40:47,860
Then you need to look at either interior or exterior wall insulation, maybe 12 or 20 centimetres of rock wall.

434
00:40:47,860 --> 00:40:53,740
On the outside is the sort of number you're looking at to bring the building up closer to Swedish building standards.

435
00:40:53,950 --> 00:41:02,409
Here's a block of flats in London getting the exterior insulation treatment and finally the efficiency of the heating system.

436
00:41:02,410 --> 00:41:06,190
I mentioned that you can do better than 95%. Here's one way to do that.

437
00:41:06,190 --> 00:41:12,309
It's called a heat pump. It uses a little bit of electricity to move heat from the garden into your house.

438
00:41:12,310 --> 00:41:18,880
A bit like a fridge moves heat from the inside of the fridge into that place where the spiders live, behind the fridge where it's warm.

439
00:41:19,540 --> 00:41:24,670
Okay, so this is the back to front refrigerator and it's got an efficiency of roughly 300 or 400%.

440
00:41:25,540 --> 00:41:34,330
So you put in one unit of electricity and you end up with three units of heat or four units of heat being delivered to your house.

441
00:41:35,050 --> 00:41:40,120
So and heat pumps come in lots of flavours. Air source, heat pumps, water source, heat pumps, ground source, heat pumps.

442
00:41:40,960 --> 00:41:47,200
So that was some heating levers. And now I want to talk about another sort of lifestyle lever which are called Read Your Metres.

443
00:41:47,200 --> 00:41:53,620
And when I was writing this book about energy, a friend asked me How much energy do you use at home?

444
00:41:54,250 --> 00:41:58,270
And I was actually quite embarrassed because I was writing a book about energy and I didn't know.

445
00:41:58,540 --> 00:42:03,669
So that started me reading my metres and every week I read my metres and I started doing

446
00:42:03,670 --> 00:42:08,139
experiments to see what effect I could have on my energy consumption and it blew my mind.

447
00:42:08,140 --> 00:42:11,560
I actually more than halved my gas consumption as these graphs show.

448
00:42:11,860 --> 00:42:20,770
So in the old days I was using 40 kilowatt hours per day as a bachelor alone at home, and then the green light.

449
00:42:20,780 --> 00:42:26,470
In 2007 I used 13 kilowatt hours per day on average because I tinkered with the thermostat and I was astonished.

450
00:42:27,040 --> 00:42:32,680
The body is not an engineering system. It doesn't have a set point. You don't need the temperature to be 19 all the time when you're home.

451
00:42:33,010 --> 00:42:39,100
Actually, sometimes you might want 21, but a lot of the time you can get by on a much lower temperature.

452
00:42:39,100 --> 00:42:42,940
And it just depends what you've been doing, how long you've been doing it for.

453
00:42:43,180 --> 00:42:47,980
So now our thermostat is a much lower temperature, like 15 or 16 or sometimes 13.

454
00:42:48,370 --> 00:42:53,109
And the house rule is if anyone's cold, turn it up and you can turn it up to whatever you want,

455
00:42:53,110 --> 00:42:58,569
but then it gets reset back down to 13 or 15 or 16 and that gives this huge energy saving.

456
00:42:58,570 --> 00:43:05,260
So I really encourage you read your metres, do experiments, you'll be amazed how much saving and this is not my number one recommendation.

457
00:43:05,260 --> 00:43:10,510
If you want what we can do, everyone can do this. You can read your metres and do experiments.

458
00:43:11,320 --> 00:43:12,850
You can do the same with your electricity.

459
00:43:13,030 --> 00:43:20,589
I read the metre every few hours and then do the experiment of switching off all the vampires, not just the phone charger, which is ridiculous,

460
00:43:20,590 --> 00:43:28,090
but also the cable modem, the computer peripherals, the DVD player that was on all the time, the stereo that was on all the time.

461
00:43:28,270 --> 00:43:32,440
And I found the cumulative savings from switching off all those vampires was about 45 watts,

462
00:43:32,650 --> 00:43:37,660
one kilowatt hour per day, £45 per year, which I can spend on an extra holiday in Lanzarote.

463
00:43:38,650 --> 00:43:46,270
So read your metres. It's fantastic. So there are some levers, green ones, red ones and we need to have a plan that adds up.

464
00:43:46,270 --> 00:43:50,440
We need to have a conversation about these levers, which of them we like. Are we happy with the lifestyle change?

465
00:43:50,440 --> 00:43:57,819
If no, fine, then take it off the table. You just have to push harder on the other levers and if you don't want to switch to electric vehicles,

466
00:43:57,820 --> 00:44:01,030
then figure out how to how to make things add up and so forth.

467
00:44:02,020 --> 00:44:05,169
Bear in mind the land area message that I had earlier.

468
00:44:05,170 --> 00:44:07,060
When you're having these conversations with each other,

469
00:44:07,570 --> 00:44:16,780
here's a map of the UK visualising to scale the land area and key area required to get 16 kilowatt hours per day per person from wind.

470
00:44:16,780 --> 00:44:20,380
On average, every one of these grey squares here is 100 square.

471
00:44:20,490 --> 00:44:25,170
Millimetres of wind farm in Scotland and in the sea and so forth.

472
00:44:25,800 --> 00:44:28,740
Nuclear power doesn't require much land area,

473
00:44:28,740 --> 00:44:36,090
but to get 16 kilowatt hours per day per person would be a four fold increase in nuclear over today's levels of nuclear.

474
00:44:36,450 --> 00:44:44,489
At 2012 levels, the biomass to deliver 16 kilowatt hours per day per person is not just the one Wales with shown in England,

475
00:44:44,490 --> 00:44:47,670
but another three Wales is worth in other countries.

476
00:44:48,720 --> 00:44:54,330
And solar in deserts requires a smaller area shown by these eight hexagons over the channel,

477
00:44:54,330 --> 00:45:01,440
somewhere with power lines all the way across Spain and France, perhaps in order to bring the power from the Sahara to Surrey.

478
00:45:02,980 --> 00:45:06,580
Each of those six things gives you a set, a separate contribution.

479
00:45:06,580 --> 00:45:09,790
If you are if you were to do all four of those, for example, you get 64.

480
00:45:09,970 --> 00:45:12,940
Today's primary energy consumption is 125.

481
00:45:13,690 --> 00:45:21,220
So maybe you can push hard on the lifestyle levers and the demand levers to get things down and then choose some mix of these or other technologies.

482
00:45:22,210 --> 00:45:27,370
And your plan that you make when you're having that conversation needs to add up, not just on average throughout the year.

483
00:45:27,370 --> 00:45:35,319
I was saying your average is there. It needs to add up every second because supply and demand must be matched

484
00:45:35,320 --> 00:45:39,130
somehow or you've got to have some form of energy store to make things add up.

485
00:45:39,430 --> 00:45:43,690
So every month, every day and every hour is all got to add up. And this is an important issue.

486
00:45:43,690 --> 00:45:45,790
I think I'll skip over the details of this.

487
00:45:46,000 --> 00:45:51,610
These are graphs showing electricity demand fluctuations, gas demand fluctuations on exactly the same scale,

488
00:45:51,640 --> 00:45:54,820
much bigger fluctuations throughout the year in gas consumption.

489
00:45:55,330 --> 00:46:00,190
Then you get an electricity consumption because and that's temperature driven, the purple line that is showing temperature.

490
00:46:00,430 --> 00:46:04,180
So you can see swings of 60 gigawatts if you only put it in power stations.

491
00:46:04,180 --> 00:46:09,370
So 40 or 60 gigawatt swings in the winter in terms of heat consumption.

492
00:46:10,720 --> 00:46:13,660
And meanwhile, temperature demand.

493
00:46:14,890 --> 00:46:20,680
Meanwhile, transport demand is very steady at 100 gigawatts or 40 kilowatt hours per day per person throughout the year.

494
00:46:20,690 --> 00:46:23,799
So that's a steady form of demand. And then bottom left,

495
00:46:23,800 --> 00:46:31,540
this grey wiggly graph is visualising what our wind up it would look like if we had the same amount of wind in the UK that Germany has got.

496
00:46:31,570 --> 00:46:35,740
They've got 35 gigawatts. This is the graph for three gigawatts of wind.

497
00:46:35,920 --> 00:46:39,010
We've currently got about ten. So if we had three times as much wind,

498
00:46:39,190 --> 00:46:45,310
the output of that wind would be wobbling up and down on a scale similar to the current daily wobbles in electricity demand.

499
00:46:45,970 --> 00:46:50,320
Okay, so matching supply second by second hour by hour is an issue.

500
00:46:50,590 --> 00:46:58,420
Very important. People who say, Oh, I just want solar power. I need to think very carefully about the fluctuations in demand and supply.

501
00:46:58,900 --> 00:47:05,590
So I think you can see where I'm driving. Why is climate change action difficult point three and four?

502
00:47:05,740 --> 00:47:11,350
Well, I feel that people are unaware of the scale of change required and the scale of stuff that needs to be built to

503
00:47:11,350 --> 00:47:17,470
make a plan that adds up and that makes it harder to change climate change action because people are deluded.

504
00:47:17,710 --> 00:47:23,980
They've been misled by myths about things like roof mounted mini turbines as being a significant contributor.

505
00:47:23,980 --> 00:47:26,049
The roof mounted really too many.

506
00:47:26,050 --> 00:47:33,430
Seven might be enough to power your mobile phone charger is the rough, rough scale of it, so that makes it difficult.

507
00:47:33,670 --> 00:47:38,650
So we need a way of engaging people in a numerate, fact based conversation.

508
00:47:38,920 --> 00:47:45,610
And when I worked at DECC, one of the things I was involved in was making and publicising the 2050 calculator,

509
00:47:45,730 --> 00:47:51,400
which I would love to engage you with, but we don't have many minutes left, so I'll just show you.

510
00:47:51,520 --> 00:47:55,179
Here is the web frontend. It's a tool with demand side levers.

511
00:47:55,180 --> 00:47:56,830
These are the red levers I talked about earlier.

512
00:47:56,980 --> 00:48:02,530
And so you can now change to more public transport and you can have you can turn your thermostats down if you want.

513
00:48:02,530 --> 00:48:08,440
Here's the thermostats lever and it's all got little one page guys that explain very transparently what each of the levers is doing.

514
00:48:08,590 --> 00:48:09,819
And here's your supply side lever.

515
00:48:09,820 --> 00:48:16,390
So you can have a couple of wales's of bioenergy if you want, and you can import another whales of bioenergy from someone else's country.

516
00:48:16,660 --> 00:48:24,490
And you can see the effect that all these choices are having on your emissions and on other things that you might care about, including costs as well.

517
00:48:25,180 --> 00:48:29,350
So this is a tool for having grown up conversations and it's been used by government,

518
00:48:29,350 --> 00:48:33,219
for government to have a grown up description of what it intends to do.

519
00:48:33,220 --> 00:48:34,870
The carbon plan, published in 2011,

520
00:48:34,870 --> 00:48:40,120
used this tool to describe the government's plans for how it will meet its legal obligations under the Climate Act.

521
00:48:40,720 --> 00:48:46,630
Here's the costs enumerated by the calculator. It shows how much your system costs are broken down into different categories,

522
00:48:47,650 --> 00:48:53,470
so you can maybe do a bit of myth busting about how expensive particular things are or are not,

523
00:48:54,070 --> 00:48:57,670
and all of the costs have bars on them as well, which you can switch on if you want.

524
00:48:58,120 --> 00:49:01,630
These calculators have been made for other countries as well.

525
00:49:02,020 --> 00:49:06,370
China, India, Japan, South Korea, all have 2050 calculators as well.

526
00:49:06,490 --> 00:49:13,000
And I think they're having an influence on policymaking and hopefully on the public conversation in the countries that are democracies.

527
00:49:13,180 --> 00:49:16,480
So I'd love to play the game with you of making an Oxford pathway.

528
00:49:17,110 --> 00:49:25,270
No time tonight, but if you want to go play with the calculator, calculator is free online and at this website, Tony, you are looking for 2050.

529
00:49:25,630 --> 00:49:29,950
I've got a blog post and a comments area and you can all have a conversation with each other if you want.

530
00:49:29,950 --> 00:49:35,319
And I'll be back in March for the Oxford Literary Festival and then we'll do the we'll complete the crowdsourcing,

531
00:49:35,320 --> 00:49:39,010
we'll have the conversation in the room. We'll look at what everyone has said on this website as well.

532
00:49:39,010 --> 00:49:46,059
If any of you go there and we'll come up with the Oxford pathway, okay, let's see what Oxford wants to do to make a plan that adds up completely.

533
00:49:46,060 --> 00:49:51,700
Technology neutral. You can choose whatever mix of lifestyle, nukes, wind, biofuel and anything you want.

534
00:49:51,820 --> 00:49:53,770
And we'll we'll see what you actually want.

535
00:49:54,310 --> 00:50:01,990
And here's my prediction of what you will find when you when you choose that pathway, you will find, as we found in government, that any path.

536
00:50:02,150 --> 00:50:09,320
That reaches the target involves the very large scale deployment of technologies, which today are still quite expensive or bit risky and uncertain.

537
00:50:11,060 --> 00:50:14,870
And quite a few of those technologies have costs that come upfront,

538
00:50:15,140 --> 00:50:20,450
like you build a wind farm and you pay for it today and it has very low operating costs or you insulate a

539
00:50:20,450 --> 00:50:25,130
building really well per day and that cost you a load to get the Polish builders to do the work for you.

540
00:50:26,690 --> 00:50:30,050
And then it saves you tons of energy for the rest of your life.

541
00:50:30,320 --> 00:50:37,540
But there is a big upfront cost, and that's a difficulty because people don't want to switch to a more expensive system.

542
00:50:37,540 --> 00:50:41,960
And Bills is a very sensitive political topic at the moment, with Miliband and Cameron saying things.

543
00:50:43,460 --> 00:50:50,990
And it's difficult if it actually costs in the first five years and then saves you energy thereafter, because five years is how long politics lasts.

544
00:50:52,010 --> 00:50:56,270
So that's difficult. So how can we fix that problem?

545
00:50:56,480 --> 00:51:00,830
Well. In red. My suggestion is innovation.

546
00:51:00,920 --> 00:51:07,160
Maybe the most important thing to be doing right now is if you're an engineer or a scientist, go and innovate.

547
00:51:07,520 --> 00:51:12,559
And if you're not an engineer or a scientist. Lobby parliament to put more money into innovation support.

548
00:51:12,560 --> 00:51:16,190
Because all of these low carbon technologies which you need for planning that adds up,

549
00:51:16,490 --> 00:51:20,960
can credibly have their costs reduced, and there may be breakthroughs possible.

550
00:51:21,110 --> 00:51:28,099
And then so here's what I want for Christmas. I'd love it to be possible to retrofit a crappy old building in England up to Swedish

551
00:51:28,100 --> 00:51:31,549
building standards with amazing insulation that's far thinner than the rock wall,

552
00:51:31,550 --> 00:51:35,900
which was 12 or 20 centimetres thick. It would be nice for it to be cheap to install.

553
00:51:36,230 --> 00:51:41,110
We'd like electric vehicles that cost less than today's vehicles. They should have cheaper lighter batteries.

554
00:51:41,140 --> 00:51:46,640
Maybe we need progress on Supercapacitors. Lightweighting of vehicles in general would help a lot as well.

555
00:51:47,570 --> 00:51:53,959
And flywheels maybe to help store energy temporarily in cars we need smart metres and smart controls that

556
00:51:53,960 --> 00:52:00,110
help people do the sort of thing I deeply did with my own eyeballs reading metres and changing lifestyle.

557
00:52:01,070 --> 00:52:04,430
We need it to happen without people even being conscious of it.

558
00:52:04,790 --> 00:52:06,379
We need heat pumps that work well.

559
00:52:06,380 --> 00:52:11,540
If we're going to have a pathway that switches us over to heat pumps that better work roughly as well as I was saying,

560
00:52:11,540 --> 00:52:15,440
like the super hero has pumping from Japan with cute eyes and gloves and a cape.

561
00:52:16,760 --> 00:52:21,079
We need the cost of wind to come down. Offshore wind seems to be politically acceptable,

562
00:52:21,080 --> 00:52:27,320
even with a narrative in government about saying how we've got to do everything with good value for money and growth is really important.

563
00:52:27,980 --> 00:52:33,200
Many people say, Oh, but offshore wind is fine, even though it costs triple what today's electricity costs.

564
00:52:33,560 --> 00:52:39,890
It would be great to get the cost of offshore wind down since it's not a politically unpopular technology with a lot of people.

565
00:52:41,120 --> 00:52:44,449
And so innovation support, it is happening.

566
00:52:44,450 --> 00:52:49,549
This is a product of Mitsubishi that's based on an Edinburgh inventor's design.

567
00:52:49,550 --> 00:52:54,410
Stephen Salter and his community invented digital hydraulics and that's at the heart of this,

568
00:52:54,410 --> 00:53:01,370
which makes the wind turbine much more powerful and much cheaper than a standard turbine with a gearbox.

569
00:53:01,760 --> 00:53:06,890
Another radical thing to do with a wind turbine is to ask, well, where is the power really coming from in a wind turbine?

570
00:53:07,190 --> 00:53:08,570
And where is all the expense?

571
00:53:08,930 --> 00:53:17,000
And the answer is that most of the expense is in the mass of all the concrete and steel, especially in the tower and maybe the gearbox.

572
00:53:17,660 --> 00:53:20,940
But most of the power is being generated by the tip of the blade as it goes around.

573
00:53:20,960 --> 00:53:24,800
That's where almost all of the power is coming from. The tip is the key thing.

574
00:53:25,010 --> 00:53:29,420
So here's an invention. Let's just keep the tip of the wind turbine and get rid of everything else.

575
00:53:30,140 --> 00:53:35,240
And you do that by putting the tip of the wind turbine on a piece of string to hold it in place.

576
00:53:35,540 --> 00:53:37,069
And you're out of control system.

577
00:53:37,070 --> 00:53:43,490
So instead of using brute force, concrete and steel to make the tip go round and round in circles, you say, let's have a control system,

578
00:53:43,490 --> 00:53:48,380
which means have a little aeroplane with wing flaps and a control system that flies it round and round and round in circles.

579
00:53:48,740 --> 00:53:55,230
And you put a wind turbine on the aeroplane to take the power of that tip of this virtual window.

580
00:53:55,250 --> 00:53:59,600
This is 56 at the photos of the plane going round successfully in circles.

581
00:53:59,600 --> 00:54:02,719
Makani Power is the Bay Area Company doing this.

582
00:54:02,720 --> 00:54:05,750
There's a couple of companies in Britain trying to develop kite power as well.

583
00:54:06,320 --> 00:54:09,700
So that's with innovation, support, biomass.

584
00:54:09,710 --> 00:54:16,610
I came out with a sort of bad news story about biofuels at the beginning, but I do think that they have an important role.

585
00:54:16,610 --> 00:54:24,620
It's quite hard to make a pathway that adds up without some liquid fuels for some forms of transport and maybe some fuels for industry as well.

586
00:54:24,860 --> 00:54:31,759
And maybe those will need to be bioenergy. So we better have some breakthroughs in sustainable bioenergy nuclear power.

587
00:54:31,760 --> 00:54:36,319
It would be great to have nuclear power that perceived to be more proliferation resistant,

588
00:54:36,320 --> 00:54:41,299
safer and lower waste than today's technologies and carbon capture storage.

589
00:54:41,300 --> 00:54:48,260
I popped over earlier. Again, breakthroughs could happen in this technology and if we could get the costs of carbon capture and storage way down,

590
00:54:48,260 --> 00:54:53,870
that could really help with the global negotiations to make the plant add up at all times.

591
00:54:53,870 --> 00:54:54,709
Second by second,

592
00:54:54,710 --> 00:55:01,520
we need breakthroughs in storage because at the moment storage is far too expensive for it to be credible to use lots of solar for most countries,

593
00:55:01,700 --> 00:55:05,510
unless the solar as well correlated with your demand already like air conditioning.

594
00:55:05,780 --> 00:55:12,319
So we need breakthroughs in energy storage and his three companies that my innovation team at DECC was involved in in

595
00:55:12,320 --> 00:55:20,030
promoting one making heat stores that can reversibly turn electricity into heat and back using an amazing heat pump.

596
00:55:20,210 --> 00:55:24,190
As I said in Tropic Top Middle, they're storing energy as hydrogen.

597
00:55:24,200 --> 00:55:30,860
You take electricity, you electrolyser water and you make hydrogen more efficiently and with lower cost than standard electrolysers.

598
00:55:31,100 --> 00:55:39,980
And on the right side of his in Edinburgh, a company that's taking electricity using a heat pump to make heat and storage in a stratified heat store,

599
00:55:41,210 --> 00:55:47,090
using clever chemicals so as to deliver heat to the house in a way that's much more responsive than the original heat pump.

600
00:55:47,090 --> 00:55:51,080
And you can run the heat pump whenever the electricity is cheap. So that's a lovely idea.

601
00:55:51,860 --> 00:55:57,730
Here's another breakthrough I'd like for Christmas. If we're serious about getting anywhere close to two degrees, we are.

602
00:55:57,750 --> 00:56:01,380
Going to need to suck CO2 out of the air with a giant vacuum cleaner.

603
00:56:01,860 --> 00:56:05,600
And so we need innovation support for developing vacuum cleaners.

604
00:56:05,610 --> 00:56:10,590
This is someone's visualisation of him looking like cheese graters alongside a motorway.

605
00:56:11,070 --> 00:56:14,430
We need them so we can suck. Millions and millions and millions of tonnes.

606
00:56:14,430 --> 00:56:20,459
Actually, billions of tonnes is the sort of scale we're talking about out of the air to bury in the ground.

607
00:56:20,460 --> 00:56:25,860
And that is in many people's pathways. It's an option in your 2050 calculator over here called Geo Sequestration.

608
00:56:26,070 --> 00:56:27,480
It's a form of geoengineering.

609
00:56:27,780 --> 00:56:35,849
And interestingly, if you look at the Friends of the Earth's pathway, you'll find that they've got the geoengineering lever turned up to level four,

610
00:56:35,850 --> 00:56:40,020
which means they're bearing 110 million tonnes per year of CO2 in the ground.

611
00:56:40,020 --> 00:56:44,700
That's what a famous green group is advocating, having used our calculator.

612
00:56:44,850 --> 00:56:51,120
So geoengineering a very large scale. And here's some other things I want for Christmas as backup plans.

613
00:56:51,390 --> 00:56:53,490
I think it's very important to keep working on hydrogen,

614
00:56:53,490 --> 00:56:58,320
even though in my book I said some critical things about hydrogen, I do still want to back the hydrogen horse, actually.

615
00:56:58,620 --> 00:57:01,769
And ammonia is a possible way of carrying hydrogen around.

616
00:57:01,770 --> 00:57:04,860
That isn't quite as tricky to deal with as hydrogen.

617
00:57:05,010 --> 00:57:10,860
So maybe using ammonia as a as a fuel that doesn't involve carbon might be a good idea.

618
00:57:11,130 --> 00:57:17,130
And maybe we should be synthesising fuels from thin air, grabbing CO2 and turning it into a fuel.

619
00:57:17,310 --> 00:57:24,900
And maybe if we're really trying to avoid global warming going above two degrees, we should be looking at other forms of geoengineering as well.

620
00:57:25,230 --> 00:57:32,490
So that's the sort of innovation I'd encourage. Also solar power and deep geothermal for other countries, though not especially for the UK.

621
00:57:33,650 --> 00:57:37,310
So what do we need to make a plan that adds up what we need for success?

622
00:57:37,430 --> 00:57:43,030
We can do it. This is what we need. We need the public and politicians to support a new approach.

623
00:57:43,040 --> 00:57:45,860
Let's actually talk about facts and realistic options.

624
00:57:47,120 --> 00:57:55,100
We need to base that on a realistic but ambitious energy model for each country that describes what definitely could be done and what could be done.

625
00:57:55,280 --> 00:57:58,790
Thanks to innovation, support and really strong changes in policy.

626
00:57:59,990 --> 00:58:03,410
We need innovation support to drive down the costs of the low carbon technologies.

627
00:58:03,410 --> 00:58:06,049
And we're going to need lots of well-trained engineers to go ahead and do the

628
00:58:06,050 --> 00:58:12,230
inventing and implementation and deployment of all this stuff that we need to build.

629
00:58:13,520 --> 00:58:19,910
I haven't quite completed all the pieces of bad news. Let me give you point seven and eight, just so that I haven't misled you.

630
00:58:22,450 --> 00:58:27,130
Why is it still going to be difficult? Even if we get the costs of those technologies down quite a bit?

631
00:58:27,280 --> 00:58:33,930
Well, if they're still a little bit more expensive than fossil fuels, then we still have an international and inter-generational common problem.

632
00:58:33,940 --> 00:58:39,370
It's a tragedy of the commons. My ten tonnes per year of pollution doesn't really hurt me very much at all.

633
00:58:39,370 --> 00:58:43,900
It just hurts everyone, all 9 billion people equally a little bit.

634
00:58:44,050 --> 00:58:50,460
And so people don't feel the impact of their pollution is the tragedy of the commons and commons problems are difficult to solve, but not impossible.

635
00:58:50,470 --> 00:58:58,300
You need to have some sort of binding agreement between people and to get agreement to a binding agreement that actually works and does something.

636
00:58:58,390 --> 00:59:00,130
It needs to be perceived to be fair.

637
00:59:00,670 --> 00:59:06,520
And I think that's a big difficulty at the moment, is difficult to get climate change action because people are negotiating in the wrong sort of way.

638
00:59:06,520 --> 00:59:11,469
So it's not clear what's fair. And this is now emphatically not government policy.

639
00:59:11,470 --> 00:59:16,570
I don't work for government anymore, so I'm allowed to say because I think these international agreements ought to be

640
00:59:16,570 --> 00:59:19,180
negotiating something different from what they're negotiating at the moment.

641
00:59:19,360 --> 00:59:24,080
Namely, I think they ought to be talking about what price carbon should have in future decades.

642
00:59:24,400 --> 00:59:29,559
Everyone agrees in economics there should be a carbon price, but lots of economists say, Oh yeah, so let's use cap and trade.

643
00:59:29,560 --> 00:59:31,000
That's wonderful, cap and trade, lovely.

644
00:59:31,660 --> 00:59:38,260
But I don't think that's a good way to negotiate because if you're negotiating a cap for yourself and a cap and other countries are choosing that cap,

645
00:59:38,410 --> 00:59:42,730
you've got an incentive to cheat a bit and give yourself more of the cap than you really ought to.

646
00:59:42,940 --> 00:59:46,720
Whereas if you negotiate on price and if you know that the price will apply to other countries,

647
00:59:46,960 --> 00:59:51,880
you've got an incentive to name a high price because you know it will apply by agreement to those other countries.

648
00:59:52,150 --> 00:59:56,500
So that's what I mean by a carbon price mechanism will give a predictable price and you

649
00:59:56,500 --> 01:00:00,729
need to factor in compensation for poorer people to make them want to support it as well.

650
01:00:00,730 --> 01:00:06,130
So you have a proportional compensation to poor countries, emphatically not caps and not cap and trade.

651
01:00:06,520 --> 01:00:09,849
So I think problems seven and eight are solvable,

652
01:00:09,850 --> 01:00:15,729
but it's very difficult and I think there needs to be a change in the approach to the negotiations to deliver that.

653
01:00:15,730 --> 01:00:20,950
If we want to read more about that, I recommend a paper by Crampton on Soft called How to Fix the Inefficiency of Global Cap and Trade,

654
01:00:20,950 --> 01:00:26,140
which gives the game theory argument for why prices are a better thing to negotiate on than caps.

655
01:00:26,500 --> 01:00:30,040
Okay, so that was the sort of game theory geeky ending.

656
01:00:30,220 --> 01:00:36,810
That's my last slide. That's what we need to do. It's not easy, but it is possible.

657
01:00:36,900 --> 01:00:39,570
And if we get on with it, it may actually be fun. Thank you very much for listening.