Browse
Engage
Research
LONDON, United Kingdom — Energy firms the world over are increasingly aware of the threat posed to their business by global warming, but few are actively preparing for the likely impact of rising temperatures and increasingly extreme weather.
That is the conclusion of a new report (PDF) from risk management consultancy Acclimatise, which assessed more than 200 responses from energy firms to the Carbon Disclosure Project and found that while more than 90 percent of respondents have some form of climate change strategy, just 6 percent have fully integrated adaptation measures into their long-term planning and governance.
The report revealed that awareness of the need to adapt to the likely impacts of climate change is increasingly widespread with about half of firms having measures in place to manage climate risks, but it warned that "adaptation actions are generally isolated and rarely form part of climate risk management strategies."
Energy utilities face considerable risks from climate change, ranging from the increased likelihood of power outages as a result of extreme weather events, to the impact of water shortages on nuclear and fossil fuel based power plants.
There are also growing signs that they could face increased legislative risks with the UK Climate Change Act giving the government the power to demand that energy firms report on their climate change risks and the Environment Agency signaling recently that nuclear power plants built near the coast could be forced to bolster their sea defenses to combat rising sea levels.
Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Acclimatise chief executive John Firth said that energy firms failure to draw up detailed climate adaptation plans were understandable.
"The main focus from both the government and the science community has been on the need to reduce emissions," he said. "Many businesses have focused on that and lost sight of the fact that the climate is changing and will continue to change."
However, he warned that those businesses that failed to properly assess their climate change risks could face considerable disruption over the coming decades.
"You really have to look at every aspect of the businesses from raw materials, through to the supply chain, yours assets and your customers," he said. "You need to ask what will happen under different climate conditions and how your assets will change."
Graham Butler, utilities sector lead for IBM Global Business Services in the U.K. and Ireland, which commissioned the report, said that those firms that do put in place adaptation strategies now are likely to enjoy a competitive edge over their rivals.
"Risk management and adaptation planning are crucial to business success as climate change is directly affecting the generation, transmission and consumption of electricity," he said. "The smart electricity company of the future needs to have a fully integrated approach to building resilience."
This article originally appeared at BusinessGreen.com.
Image CC licensed by Flickr user pfala.
Wind and solar are great, but....
Wind and solar farms have limitations that don't get widely discussed as much as they possibly should, especially since they are in vogue. (As well they should be - cleaner methods of power generations are in order and it's high time that the technology be developed.) The hitch in wind and solar is that for one, they require a certain range of conditions in order to function. Wind turbines require a wind speed between a few mph and 20 mph, so they won't be working overtime during a windstorm, and solar...speaks for itself. For two, in order for wind or solar to be able to meet raw demand, wind and solar farms require enormous expanses of land in order for construction. For instance, one American wind turbine farm in Florida required over 40,000 acres - whereas a nuclear plant capable of the same amount of electricity could be situated comfortably on between 1 to 10% of that space, in fact 4,000 acres could comfortably house 2 to 3 nuclear plants fairly easily.
The other renewable sources are hydroelectric and geothermal. Geothermal is likely the superior option, as it doesn't impact environments and aquatic ecosystems nearly to the degree that a dam does, and tidal hydroelectric generators will wreak havoc with coastlines - essentially, if there was a worldwide boom in tidal stations you could effectively kiss coral reefs and everything that goes with them goodbye, and they are in enough trouble as it is. Unfortunately, geothermal power stations aren't being actively pursued nearly to the degree that wind and solar power are.
Clearly, the most viable option of power generation is nuclear, far and away. Despite the issues presented with waste disposal and the prohibitive start up costs, nuclear reactors have a habit of paying for themselves, and since Gen 3 plus reactors have begun operation already, with Gen 4 set to debut soon, another Chernobyl isn't likely to happen again, provided reactors and sites are ran the way that they need to be in order to preserve safety. Interestingly enough, a nuclear plant in Arizona was rigged to use treated sewage water, in lieu of funneling river water to the site. (Palo Verde.)
Some sort of hybrid system should be put in place. Having all energy, even a majority for that matter, from renewable sources isn't going to be a likelihood, given the sheer demand for power, but some sort of parity around 25% renewable/75% non-renewable might be achievable. That said, the most clean energy of non-renewable energy plants is nuclear, as much as it doesn't sit well with a lot of people, it's the truth.