DOCSLIB.ORG

Building New Nuclear: the Challenges Ahead

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Building New Nuclear: the Challenges Ahead House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee Building New Nuclear: the challenges ahead Sixth Report of Session 2012–13 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published Tuesday 26 February 2013 Published on 4 March 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Energy and Climate Change Committee The Energy and Climate Change Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and associated public bodies. Current membership Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) (Chair) Dan Byles MP (Conservative, North Warwickshire) Barry Gardiner MP (Labour, Brent North) Ian Lavery MP (Labour, Wansbeck) Dr Phillip Lee MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP (Conservative, Hitchin & Harpenden) Albert Owen MP (Labour, Ynys Môn) Christopher Pincher MP (Conservative, Tamworth) John Robertson MP (Labour, Glasgow North West) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Gemma Doyle MP (Labour/Co-operative, West Dunbartonshire) Tom Greatrex MP (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) Laura Sandys MP (Conservative, South Thanet) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/ecc. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and written evidence from witnesses are available in a printed volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Sarah Hartwell-Naguib (Clerk), Liz Bolton (Second Clerk), Jenny Bird (Senior Committee Specialist), Tom Leveridge (Committee Specialist), Luanne Middleton (Inquiry Manager), Shane Pathmanathan (Senior Committee Assistant), Jonathan Olivier Wright (Committee Assistant), Joe Strawson (Committee Support Assistant), and Nick Davies (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2569; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] List of additional written evidence (published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/ecc) 1 Brian Catt Ev w1 2 David Thorpe Ev w7 3 James Lawton Ev w8 4 Martin Blaiklock Ev w11 5 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Ev w16 6 Gwyn Evans BSc Ceng Ev w20 7 Horizon Nuclear Power Ev w21 8 The Institute of Physics Ev w23 9 Nuclear Industry Association Ev w24 10 Nuclear Issues Ev w28 11 Peter Mellor Ev w28 12 University Of Greenwich Ev w30 13 The Royal Academy of Engineering Ev w35 14 Sir Donald Miller Ev w36 15 SSE Ev w37 16 Tim Deere-Jones Ev w39 17 Weinberg Foundation Ev w83 18 World Wildlife Fund UK Ev w86 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [28-02-2013 15:39] Job: 023038 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/023038/023038_w018_023038_w016_JB_NUC 15 - WWF Scotland.xml Energy and Climate Change Committee: Evidence Ev w1 Written evidence Written evidence submitted by Brian Catt (NUC 32) Thanks for a generally very direct and sometimes probing session on New Nuclear today. It seems energy policy is getting a more rational focus now the inevitable physical undeliverabilities and avoidable expense of subsidising the wrong modalities by law are manifesting themselves. There were specific points made today that lacked either some essential logic or a proper wrap up, which I address summarily by numbers below. Before that: I write to highlight that important assertions crucial to this debate and energy policy as currently practised, that are presented as fact or a legal imperative we must follow by witnesses, in this and other select committees on energy policy, are either simply unsupportable in fact, based on old data, or misrepresent the scientific principles or the data in a partial way for gain, rather than present the objective truth for the greater public prosperity. Energy use ifs 1:1 proportional to GDP and hence everything the country does. Our future prosperity depends on generating more, cheap, electricity, not less expensive. Only a nuclear approach can deliver this at whatever level we require long term to be a truly substantive alternative to fossil energy, without generator subsidies. Current policy is increasingly, avoidably, and very expensively, placing the UK’s economic future in jeopardy, in absolute and competitive terms. This discussion deserves the ruthless application of objective science and economics replaces EC ideology, enacted as undeliverable policy for lobbyist profit. Call that what you like, it can only ever cost the UK to eventually fail on the physics. Our nation’s future prosperity must exclude the politics, aside from the rate at which we spend on the best solution, and we should certainly stop marching our energy future and disposable incomes off a cliff on the orders of unelected foreign legislators and their lobbyists, based on a set of self- evidently false assertions, anyone can disprove with AS physics, DUKES data and a scientific calculator. Such a vital committee should all be able to do this for themselves. None of these directives can deliver the core objectives of energy policy in the UK. On the evidence they are predictably and expensively failing in Germany as physics meets ideology—there is only ever one winner in this contest. Bio fuels do the opposite—double the cost and more CO2 than coal even, etc. We have the technology to get it right, in fact do it best, without any subsidies. So let’s do nuclear (and gas) well, and not self harm our energy supply on an undeliverable energy fantasy like Germany and Denmark, especially when Island UK has no “Get Out of Jail Expensively” Euro Grid card, and shouldn’t need one. Most EC countries have no “energy security” and are utterly interdependent. Apart from France on 80% nuclear and 20% hydro, of course. While energy policy is under review I strongly suggest the committee call the DECC’s Chief Scientific Advisor Prof David MacKay to give evidence on the particular areas of intensity, adequacy, controllability and sustainability which he has written on extensively (iv), and ask him about the capabilities of the “alternative” modalities the law current law massively subsidises to deliver these objectives, in particular whether preferred “alternatives” are the best way to deliver our future electrical energy needs of adequate, affordable, controllable, sustainable, secure or even zero carbon generation at the levels that we will require in future, and what part nuclear should play in this long term. Based on a study of MacKay’s work, and that of many other independent experts, including Prof Colin McInnes (v) and his useful references Ausubel (i) , Marchetti(ii) and Smil (iii), it is clear and simple to demonstrate that none of our policy objectives can be met by prescribed alternatives in full, and should not be met in part by them when they are avoidably expensive, inadequate for the job and obsolete without fossil backup—which also denies the claims of energy security made for them. I can demonstrate, as can Prof MacKay, that subsidy preferred alternatives aren’t adequate, affordable, controllable, sustainable, secure or even zero carbon. Not alternative to fossil at the level required, in fact, and cannot be for the reasons of intensity and variability alone. The energy source is renewable, yes, but not the generation which is massively expensive through weakness of its source and fossil dependent through both variability and inadequacy in any realistic deployment. In reality, and uniquely, only nuclear technology can deliver all these objectives after fossil. We can even make nuclear power by far the most sustainable and renewable modality by using transmutation to create new fuel and minimise high level waste, we are now nuclear alchemists. I suggest the most important technology of the late 21st and 22nd Century will be nuclear processing, using both fission and fusion fast neutron sources as we approach sustainable fusion power—ignition. We can go there, or back to the Third World. And it can all be much easier than it appeared in committee to make the next set of nuclear choices well, if our elected representatives take good INDEPENDENT advice, ask the right questions with advice from cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [28-02-2013 15:39] Job: 023038 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/023038/023038_w018_023038_w016_JB_NUC 15 - WWF Scotland.xml Ev w2 Energy and Climate Change Committee: Evidence independent experts, and lead this process with generators, rather than being led by generators and lobbyist law enacted as EC directives and political dogma. General Observation on The Realities of Electrical Generation in a Developed Economy with Nuclear Emphasis: Over a century we developed the most efficient electricity generation and distribution system by maximising the use of controllable intense energy sources, consolidated at the core of a grid distribution system to match variable demand across the grid in real time. This has proven to be the most cost effective way to operate an electricity system on a national scale. Nuclear can simply carry that forward, using the existing infrastructure and its more intense energy source when fossil has gone. Gas can fill gaps while reducing carbon emissions, CCGT is very compact, intense, clean, 60% thermally efficient and can be built inside major coal fired facilities, as with Didcot A and B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Wesley and the Religious Societies
    JOHN WESLEY AND THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES JOHN WESLEY AND THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES BY JOHN S. SIMON, D.D. AUTHOR OF * A SUMMARY OF METHODIST LAW AND DISCIPLINE,' * THE REVIVAL OF RELIGION IN ENGLAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY,' ETC. LONDON THE EPWORTH PRESS J. ALFRED SHARP First edition, 1921 PREFACE Canon Overton, in his Life in the English Church, 1660- ' 1714, says that there is no doubt that John Wesley intended his Societies to be an exact repetition of what was done by Beveridge, Horneck, and Smythies sixty-two years before.' ' He continues : How it was that the Methodist Societies took a different course is a very interesting, and, to a church- man, a very sad question.' In this book I have given descrip- tions of the first Rehgious Societies, and have shown their development under the influence of Dr. Woodward and John Wesley. From those descriptions my readers wiU be able to judge the accuracy of Canon Overton's statement concern- ing John Wesley's intentions. There can be no doubt, how- ' ' ever, that the relationship between the Religious Societies ' ' and the United Societies of the People called Methodists was so close that the latter cannot be understood without an intimate knowledge of the former. In writing this book, I have kept the Methodist Church in view. My eyes have been fixed on John Wesley and the England in which his greatest work was done. We can never understand the revival of religion which glorified the eighteenth century until we see Wesley as he wls, and get rid of the false impressions created by writers who have had an imperfect acquaintance with him and his evangelistic work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of the Green Investment Bank: Costs and Benefits, Rationale and Value for Money
    The economics of the Green Investment Bank: costs and benefits, rationale and value for money Report prepared for The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills Final report October 2011 The economics of the Green Investment Bank: cost and benefits, rationale and value for money 2 Acknowledgements This report was commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Vivid Economics would like to thank BIS staff for their practical support in the review of outputs throughout this project. We would like to thank McKinsey and Deloitte for their valuable assistance in delivering this project from start to finish. In addition, we would like to thank the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the Carbon Trust and Sustainable Development Capital LLP (SDCL), for their valuable support and advice at various stages of the research. We are grateful to the many individuals in the financial sector and the energy, waste, water, transport and environmental industries for sharing their insights with us. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and not those of BIS or any other party, and the authors take responsibility for any errors or omissions. An appropriate citation for this report is: Vivid Economics in association with McKinsey & Co, The economics of the Green Investment Bank: costs and benefits, rationale and value for money, report prepared for The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, October 2011 The economics of the Green Investment Bank: cost and benefits, rationale and value for money 3 Executive Summary The UK Government is committed to achieving the transition to a green economy and delivering long-term sustainable growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour's Zero-Based Review
    Labour’s Zero-Based Review Interim Report Number 15: Department for Energy and Climate Change Labour’s Zero-Based Review Interim Report No.15 DEPARTMENT FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE FOREWORD The leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, and the Shadow ChanCellor, Ed Balls, have made Clear that departmental budgets will be cut not only in 2015-16, but each year until we have achieved our promise to balanCe the books. Across every part of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), we need to take a tighter approach to finanCial management of taxpayers’ money, and reform the framework within which the energy market operates so that it is fair for bill payers. Under the Tory’s failing plan, energy bills have risen, and energy Companies have failed to pass on falling wholesale Costs. Record numbers of families with children Cannot afford to heat their homes. Investors face unCertainty and indeCision about the future of our energy system. And the mismanagement of taxpayers’ money, such as through the Government’s poor-value Green Deal Home Improvement Fund, and the NuClear Decommissioning Authority’s budget, have seen tens of millions of pounds wasted. Britain needs a government that will stand up to the energy Companies to deliver fairer prices and a better deal for bill payers. A government that is serious about tackling the sCandal of fuel poverty and cold homes. And a government that is putting in place the vital reforms neCessary for investment in the low Carbon future of our energy system, and to deliver value for money for the taxpayer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Performance of the Department of Energy & Climate Change 2012-13
    DEPARTMENTAL OVERVIEW The performance of the Department of Energy & Climate Change 2012-13 NOVEMBER 2013 Our vision is to help the nation spend wisely. Our public audit perspective helps Parliament hold government to account and improve public services. The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Amyas Morse, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO, which employs some 860 staff. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice help government improve public services, and our work led to audited savings of almost £1.2 billion in 2012. Contents Introduction Aim and scope of this briefing 4 Part One About the Department 5 Part Two Recent NAO work on the Department 24 Appendix One The Department’s sponsored bodies at 1 April 2013 29 Appendix Two Results of the Civil Service People Survey 2012 30 Appendix Three Publications by the NAO on the Department since April 2011 32 Appendix Four Cross-government reports of relevance to the Department since April 2011 34 Links to external websites were valid at the time of publication of this report. The National Audit Office is not responsible for the future validity of the links.
    [Show full text]
  • Tyndall Centre Briefing Note 40
    Review of the Fourth Carbon Budget - Call for Evidence www.theccc.org.uk/call-for-evidence Question and Response form When responding please provide answers that are as specific and evidence-based as possible, providing data and references to the extent possible. Please limit your response to a maximum of 400 words per question. Questions for consideration: A. Climate Science and International Circumstances The Committee’s advice assumes a climate objective to limit central estimates of temperature rise to as close to 2C as possible, with a very low chance of exceeding 4C by 2100 (henceforth referred to as “the climate objective”). This is broadly similar to the UNFCCC climate objective, and that of the EU. In order to achieve this objective, global emissions would have to peak in the next few years, before decreasing to roughly half of recent levels by 2050 and falling further thereafter. The UNFCCC is working toward a global deal consistent with such reductions, to be agreed by 2015. Earlier attempts (e.g. at Copenhagen in 2009, before the fourth budget was recommended or legislated) have failed to achieve a comprehensive global deal to limit emissions. It is difficult to imagine a global deal which allows developed countries to have emissions per capita in 2050 which are significantly above a sustainable global average, implying the need for emissions reductions in the UK of at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. The EU has not yet agreed a package beyond 2020, but the European Commission is consulting on a range of issues relating to development of climate and energy targets for 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire
    94i2 . 7401 F81p v.3 1267473 GENEALOGY COLLECTION 3 1833 00727 0389 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center http://www.archive.org/details/pedigreesofcount03fost PEDIGREES YORKSHIRE FAMILIES. PEDIGREES THE COUNTY FAMILIES YORKSHIRE COMPILED BY JOSEPH FOSTER AND AUTHENTICATED BY THE MEMBERS, OF EACH FAMILY VOL. fL—NORTH AND EAST RIDING LONDON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED FOR THE COMPILER BY W. WILFRED HEAD, PLOUGH COURT, FETTER LANE, E.G. LIST OF PEDIGREES.—VOL. II. t all type refer to fa Hies introduced into the Pedigrees, i e Pedigree in which the for will be found on refer • to the Boynton Pedigr ALLAN, of Blackwell Hall, and Barton. CHAPMAN, of Whitby Strand. A ppleyard — Boynton Charlton— Belasyse. Atkinson— Tuke, of Thorner. CHAYTOR, of Croft Hall. De Audley—Cayley. CHOLMELEY, of Brandsby Hall, Cholmley, of Boynton. Barker— Mason. Whitby, and Howsham. Barnard—Gee. Cholmley—Strickland-Constable, of Flamborough. Bayley—Sotheron Cholmondeley— Cholmley. Beauchamp— Cayley. CLAPHAM, of Clapham, Beamsley, &c. Eeaumont—Scott. De Clare—Cayley. BECK.WITH, of Clint, Aikton, Stillingfleet, Poppleton, Clifford, see Constable, of Constable-Burton. Aldborough, Thurcroft, &c. Coldwell— Pease, of Hutton. BELASYSE, of Belasvse, Henknowle, Newborough, Worlaby. Colvile, see Mauleverer. and Long Marton. Consett— Preston, of Askham. Bellasis, of Long Marton, see Belasyse. CLIFFORD-CONSTABLE, of Constable-Burton, &c. Le Belward—Cholmeley. CONSTABLE, of Catfoss. Beresford —Peirse, of Bedale, &c. CONSTABLE, of Flamborough, &c. BEST, of Elmswell, and Middleton Quernhow. Constable—Cholmley, Strickland. Best—Norcliffe, Coore, of Scruton, see Gale. Beste— Best. Copsie—Favell, Scott. BETHELL, of Rise. Cromwell—Worsley. Bingham—Belasyse.
    [Show full text]
  • Tales of the Vale: Stories from a Forgotten Landscape
    Tales of the Vale: Stories from A Forgotten Landscape The view from St Arilda’s, Cowhill A collection of history research and oral histories from the Lower Severn Vale Levels (Photo © James Flynn 2014) Tales of the Vale Landscape 5 Map key Onwards towards Gloucestershire – Contents Shepperdine and Hill Tales of the Vale Landscape 4 Around Oldbury-on-Severn – Kington, Cowill, Oldbury Introduction 3 and Thornbury Discover A Forgotten Tales of the Vale: Landscape through our Tales of the Vale Landscape 3 walks and interpretation From the Severn Bridge to Littleton-upon-Severn – points Aust, Olveston and Littleton-upon-Severn 1. North-West Bristol – Avonmouth, Shirehampton and Lawrence Weston 6 Tales of the Vale Landscape 2 2. From Bristol to the Severn Bridge – From Bristol to the Severn Bridge – Easter Compton, Almondsbury, Severn Beach, Pilning, Redwick and Northwick 40 Easter Compton, Almondsbury, Severn Beach, Pilning, Redwick Walk start point and Northwick 3. From the Severn Bridge to Littleton-upon-Severn – Aust, Olveston and Littleton-upon-Severn 68 Interpretation Tales of the Vale Landscape 1 4. Around Oldbury-on-Severn – Kington, Cowill, Oldbury and Thornbury 80 North-West Bristol – Avonmouth, Shirehampton Toposcope and Lawrence Weston 5. Onwards towards Gloucestershire – Shepperdine and Hill 104 Contributors 116 (© South Gloucestershire Council, 2017. All rights reserved. © Crown copyright and database rights 2017 Ordnance Survey 100023410. Introduction to the CD 122 Contains Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2017. Tales of the Vale was edited by Virginia Contains National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. Bainbridge and Julia Letts with additional Acknowledgements 124 editing by the AFL team © WWT Consulting) Introduction Introducing Tales of the Vale Big skies: a sense of light and vast open space with two colossal bridges spanning the silt-laden, extraordinary River Severn.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C
    Global warming of 1.5°C An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty Summary for Policymakers Edited by Valérie Masson-Delmotte Panmao Zhai Co-Chair Working Group I Co-Chair Working Group I Hans-Otto Pörtner Debra Roberts Co-Chair Working Group II Co-Chair Working Group II Jim Skea Priyadarshi R. Shukla Co-Chair Working Group III Co-Chair Working Group III Anna Pirani Wilfran Moufouma-Okia Clotilde Péan Head of WGI TSU Head of Science Head of Operations Roz Pidcock Sarah Connors J. B. Robin Matthews Head of Communication Science Officer Science Officer Yang Chen Xiao Zhou Melissa I. Gomis Science Officer Science Assistant Graphics Officer Elisabeth Lonnoy Tom Maycock Melinda Tignor Tim Waterfield Project Assistant Science Editor Head of WGII TSU IT Officer Working Group I Technical Support Unit Front cover layout: Nigel Hawtin Front cover artwork: Time to Choose by Alisa Singer - www.environmentalgraphiti.org - © Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The artwork was inspired by a graphic from the SPM (Figure SPM.1). © 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Revised on January 2019 by the IPCC, Switzerland. Electronic copies of this Summary for Policymakers are available from the IPCC website www.ipcc.ch ISBN 978-92-9169-151-7 Introduction Chapter 2 ChapterSummary 1 for Policymakers 6 Summary for Policymakers Summary for Policymakers SPM SPM Summary SPM for Policymakers Drafting Authors: Myles R.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and Democratic Representation Can Select Committees Influence a Company’S Environmental, Social and Governance Credentials?
    Climate Change and Democratic Representation Can Select Committees influence a company’s environmental, social and governance credentials? Stanley Kwong 2 Executive Summary The House of Commons Select Committees (Committees) are a group of MPs from different political parties tasked with examining policy issues, holding the government and companies to account, and making proposals for new laws. An area where Committee assertiveness is particularly evident is in relation to topics concerning sustainability. This is in part driven by large scale environmental disasters that warranted Committee investigation. For example, inquiries concerning BP’s oil rig catastrophe (by the Energy and Climate Change Committee) and Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal (by the Environmental Audit Committee) drew widespread public and media interest. Public awareness on climate change issues has further elevated Committee work in this area, with a particular emphasis on scrutinising companies that hold poor sustainability practices that affect wider society. From an economic perspective this is typical of a negative externality, with Professor Stern (2008) calling global warming ‘the greatest market failure of all time’. However, the climate crisis may be more pronounced than a solely economic failure. In particular, it may also highlight fundamental deficiencies and systemic failures in the governance of liberal democracies. In this context, the emergence of mechanisms of deliberative democracy, such as the Climate Assembly UK, have grown in popularity as formats that aim to cultivate citizen representation and participation. Nevertheless, the public continue to look to elected representatives for action, particularly on the gap that remains on private sector company oversight. This is where the Committees’ distinctive investigative approach can be a key component in driving forward the climate dialogue, by adding a unique layer of public and investigative pressure on companies.
    [Show full text]
  • MCA Climate Action Plan
    13 51 6 Al Sb C Aluminium Solar cells Antimony Carbon 27 29 79 Co Cu Au Cobalt Copper Gold Batteries 26 3 25 Fe Li Mn Hydrogen Iron Lithium Manganese 12 28 41 Mg Ni Nb Magnesium CCUS Nickel Niobium 50 92 30 Sn U Zn Tin Uranium Zinc EV & hybrids Nuclear Mineral Wind Rare earth energy sands energy elements Copyright © 2020 Minerals Council of Australia CLIMATE ACTION PLAN PREAMBLE minerals.org.au Supporting ongoing climate action by Australia’s minerals industry The MCA and all of its Sustained climate action across all nations is 4. Accelerated development of the This 2020-2023 plan furthers the minerals well as taking a lead on commodity stewardship required to reduce the risks of human-induced minerals required for a low emissions sector’s public commitment to addressing looking at global procurement practices, circular members are taking serious climate change and to support world-wide future including aluminium, copper, nickel, climate change on an ongoing basis consistent economy, and traceability of commodities action on climate change decarbonisation as we transform to a lower zinc, iron, uranium, base metals, lithium, with the MCA’s climate statement. It outlines a through their lifecycle. emissions future. minerals sands, and rare earths series of actions focused on three key themes: and are committed to the Practical and cost-effective options are already Our sector improves the lives of millions of 5. Global and domestic partnerships 1. Support developing technology pathways to being developed and put into action across the Paris Agreement and its goal people in Australia and overseas through the with governments, regulators, customers, achieve significant reductions in Australia’s minerals value chain.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Energy & Climate Change Short Guide
    A Short Guide to the Department of Energy & Climate Change July 2015 Overview Decarbonisation Ensuring security Affordability Legacy issues of supply | About this guide This Short Guide summarises what the | Contact details Department of Energy & Climate Change does, how much it costs, recent and planned changes and what to look out for across its main business areas and services. If you would like to know more about the NAO’s work on the DECC, please contact: Michael Kell Director, DECC VfM and environmental sustainability [email protected] 020 7798 7675 If you are interested in the NAO’s work and support The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General for Parliament more widely, please contact: (C&AG), Sir Amyas Morse KCB, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO, which employs some 810 people. The C&AG Adrian Jenner certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other Director of Parliamentary Relations public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report [email protected] to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our 020 7798 7461 studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice For full iPad interactivity, please view this PDF help government improve public services, and our work led to Interactive in iBooks or GoodReader audited savings of £1.15 billion in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026 Page 1 Cambridge City Council Climate Change Strategy
    Cambridge City Council | Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026 page 1 Cambridge City Council Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026 Cambridge City Council | Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026 page 2 Contents Executive Summary page 3 Introduction page 8 OBJECTIVE 1 Reducing carbon emissions from City Council buildings, land, vehicles and services page 22 OBJECTIVE 2 Reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions from homes and buildings in Cambridge page 31 OBJECTIVE 3 Reducing carbon emissions from transport in Cambridge page 38 OBJECTIVE 4 Reducing consumption of resources, reducing waste, and increasing recycling in Cambridge page 42 OBJECTIVE 5 Promoting sustainable food page 47 OBJECTIVE 6 Supporting Council services, residents and businesses to adapt to the impacts of climate change page 50 Glossary page 55 APPENDIX A Potential future reductions in City Council carbon emissions page 58 APPENDIX B Doughnut Economics model page 59 Cambridge City Council | Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026 page 3 Executive Summary There is clear scientific evidence that our Leading local action on climate is changing as a direct result of human activity, and the impacts of climate change climate change are already being felt across the world. If the The Council is keen to play a community current rate of global heating continues, the leadership role on climate change issues effects for humanity and biodiversity will be including through taking action to reduce our catastrophic, and the window for taking action own emissions, which is where we have the to limit these effects is reducing rapidly. greatest degree of control and impact. Over The whole world will need to change what the past 6 years (from 2014/15 – 2019/20), it produces and consumes, and how, and emissions from our corporate buildings, fleet Cambridge City Council is conscious of the and business travel reduced by 28.9%.
    [Show full text]