Experts from the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex Business School have been reacting to the news throughout the day and analysing the positives and negatives of the proposals. Steven Sorrell, Professor of Energy Policy, said: “This is a really important statement. It is a clear signal of the priority given to tackling climate change, and a significant step on the road to COP 26. “The ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030 is game changing – one of the most ambitious targets in the developed world. “The proposals demonstrate the opportunities opened up by innovation over the last few years. To be effective and politically feasible, policy must link industrial, economic and environmental objectives. These proposals seek to do that.” Andrew Stirling, Professor of Science & Technology Policy, said: “However many points the Prime Minister may want to include in his plan, there remain some intense challenges if the Government wishes to be seen as serious either on UK energy needs or net-zero strategies. “If the Government is serious about the net zero imperative and the crucial importance of a robust UK energy strategy, then it cannot simply ‘do everything’. Diversity is an essential quality. But a rich plurality of renewable and efficiency options means this can be achieved without any single option having an automatic place. To spend money on slower or more costly options will divert support from those that are more effective. The plan needs to be clear about this. “With no white paper in more than twelve years of extraordinary change in global energy markets, it would make sense for the Government to first publish its analysis, before committing to its actions. To do otherwise looks like an effort to undermine scrutiny – reflecting a fear in Government that its actions are out of kilter with the realities.” Dr Marie Claire Brisbois, Lecturer in Energy Policy, said: “Support for hydrogen will be very useful for sectors that require high energy density such as industrial processes or long distance transport. “However, the support for hydrogen home heating is not a good use of public funds. Direct electricity use, most likely in the form of heat pumps, is far more energy efficient and cost effective for home heating than hydrogen. “While hydrogen for home heating will help replace vanishing revenue streams for incumbent gas companies, it will be much more costly than it needs to be for those paying household bills. It’s quite easy to see the results of industry lobbying in this announcement – but it isn’t matched by sound fiscal or thermodynamic arguments.” David Ockwell, Professor of Geography and member of the Sussex Energy Group, said: “Whilst the ambition is welcome, there is a risk that this ten-point plan fixates on technical fixes, whilst completely ignoring the significant socio-cultural and political dimensions/hurdles of such transformative goals. “Decades of research in innovation studies and the social sciences more broadly suggest such one-dimensional techno-fixation rarely succeeds in achieving deep socio-technical transformations on anything like the scale of these ten points. “We need 4D (4 dimensional) policy, not 1D, techno-fix policy. 4D policy addresses the socio-cultural, political, technical and economic dimensions of transformative socio-technical change. It requires engaging with and building locally embedded networks/coalitions of actors that work towards understanding and overcoming these barriers which are deeply social and political in nature. This would nurture the broader, 4D ecosystems within which transformative changes are achieved in practice.”
Sussex Energy Group 25th Nov 2020 read more »