Sir, I agree with Sir Keith Bright (letter, August 23) that oil instability justifies greater efforts to develop substitute fuels. But this should be part of a two-pronged attack, the other prong being to make existing fuel sources go further.
As a country, benefiting until now from substantial indigenous energy, we have been profligate in its use. The Government estimates that the economic potential for energy saving amounts to more than 30 per cent. So a massive effort to realise this saving is called for.
Regrettably the effort is still not there, in spite of the objectives in the Energy White Paper of February 2003. In April of this year, the objective for saving in the domestic market, where there is an above average potential, was actually reduced. In the electricity sector, where waste heat represents a substantial energy loss, not enough is being done to stimulate the development of combined heat and power, which enables the waste heat to be used. And in transport, more needs to be done to promote hybrid vehicles, which can make petrol go much further.
Let us hope that oil instability, which is also affecting gas, will lead to greater effort, not only to find substitutes, but also to make much better use of existing sources.
Yours faithfully,
DEREK EZRA,
House of Lords.
August 23.
Advertisement
From Mr David Slinger
Sir, If Sir Keith Bright wants to use biofuels he will first need to transport himself to a foreign country. Our specialism in the UK is talking about such issues, not doing anything decisive about them.
Earlier this month I received through my MP the following statistics provided by David Jamieson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Transport:
Advertisement
We are suggesting an indicative target for 2005 of 12 million litres (of biofuels) a month. As a percentage of overall road fuel sales this amounts to a fairly modest 0.3 per cent. However, given the UK’s low starting point, this would represent a six-fold increase over today’s sales levels.
Given the instability of oil prices and the prospect of dire environmental consequences of global warming, such a level of commitment to a promising technology is more than a little disappointing.
In such matters of enormous long-term consequence, is the Government going to remain dominated by unenlightened Treasury resistance to such initiatives? Yours faithfully,
D. SLINGER,
1 Wetherleigh Drive,
Highnam, Gloucester GL2 8LW.
August 23.
Advertisement
From Mr Elfed H. Evans
Sir, I am afraid that Sir Keith Bright is far too optimistic regarding the use of rapeseed oil as an alternative to mineral oil. Its calorific value is significantly lower on account of its highly unsaturated nature and the presence of two useless oxygen atoms per molecule.
Furthermore, every tonne requires a large amount of energy to produce the final product. Energy is required to cultivate the land and harvest the crop. More energy is necessary to extract, refine and methylate the oil.
I presume that the University of Newcastle has done an energy balance as part of its feasibility study. It would be helpful to see its calculations so that we can more accurately assess the potential value of rapeseed oil as a fuel.
Advertisement
Yours faithfully,
ELFED H. EVANS,
Agorlys, Licswm, Flintshire CH8 8LT.
August 23.