Showing papers by "Steve Sorrell published in 2010"
••
TL;DR: The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) as mentioned in this paper conducted an independent, thorough and systematic review of the evidence, with the aim of establishing the current state of knowledge, identifying key uncertainties and improving consensus.
342 citations
26 Oct 2010
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors estimate the extent of the Rebound Effect under a range of assumptions concerning consumer purchasing decisions, with varying prices, incomes, and savings levels, and provide guidance on the conditions under which Rebound and Backfire can be minimised.
Abstract: Households are expected to play a pivotal role in reducing the UKs carbon emissions, and the Government is targeting specific household actions as part of its plan to meet the legally binding targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. However, by focusing on discrete actions, the Government fails to take account the Rebound Effect a phenomenon whereby carbon reductions estimated by simple engineering calculations are frequently not realised in practice. For example, installation of loft insulation will most certainly increase the thermal efficiency of homes. But this will free up money that otherwise would be spent by householders on energy bills: this money may then be spent on heating houses to higher temperatures, buying extra furniture, or, say, flying on vacations. Alternatively it may be put into household savings. All of these options give rise to carbon emissions, thus the total carbon saved may be less than predicted. Indeed, in some instances, emissions may even increase this being known as Backfire. In this paper we estimate the extent of the Rebound Effect under a range of assumptions concerning consumer purchasing decisions, with varying prices, incomes, and savings levels. The paper concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of our findings and provides guidance on the conditions under which Rebound and Backfire can be minimised.
309 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare and evaluate fourteen contemporary forecasts of global supply of conventional oil and provide some observations on their relative plausibility, and examine the impact of rates of discovery, reserves growth and depletion on the forecast date of peak and show how forecasts that delay this peak until beyond 2030 rest on assumptions that are at best optimistic and at worst implausible.
117 citations
••
TL;DR: A growing number of commentators are forecasting a near-term peak and subsequent terminal decline in the global production of conventional oil as a result of the physical depletion of the resource as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: A growing number of commentators are forecasting a near-term peak and subsequent terminal decline in the global production of conventional oil as a result of the physical depletion of the resource. These forecasts frequently rely on the estimates of the ultimately recoverable resources (URR) of different regions, obtained through the use of curve-fitting to historical trends in discovery or production. Curve-fitting was originally pioneered by M. King Hubbert in the context of an earlier debate about the future of the US oil production. However, despite their widespread use, curve-fitting techniques remain the subject of considerable controversy. This article classifies and explains these techniques and identifies both their relative suitability in different circumstances and the level of confidence that may be placed in their results. This article discusses the interpretation and importance of the URR estimates, indicates the relationship between curve fitting and other methods of estimating the URR and classifies the techniques into three groups. It then investigates each group in turn, indicating their historical origins, contemporary application and major strengths and weaknesses. The article then uses illustrative data from a number of oil-producing regions to assess whether these techniques produce consistent results as well as highlight some of the statistical issues raised and suggesting how they may be addressed. The article concludes that the applicability of curve-fitting techniques is more limited than adherents claim and that the confidence bounds on the results are wider than usually assumed.
45 citations
01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors point out that by focusing on discrete actions, the Government risks failing to take account of the Rebound Effect, a phenomenon whereby carbon reductions calculated by simple engineering calculations are frequently not realised in practice.
Abstract: Households are expected to play a pivotal role in reducing the UK’s carbon emissions, and the Government is targeting specific household actions to help meet
its targets. However, by focusing on discrete actions, the Government risks failing to take account of the Rebound Effect – a phenomenon whereby carbon reductions
estimated by simple engineering calculations are frequently not realised in practice.
For example, replacing short car journeys by walking or cycling reduces consumption of personal transportation fuels. But this frees up money that may be spent on, for example, purchasing extra clothes or flying on vacation. Alternatively it may be put into savings. These options all give rise to carbon emissions, thus the total carbon saved may be less than predicted. Indeed, in some instances, emissions may even increase – this being known as ‘Backfire’. We estimate that the rebound effect for a set of three abatement actions is 34%. In the best case studied this may be reduced to 12%, but in extreme cases backfire may occur. Our study points to two key strategies to minimise rebound: to encourage households to shift patterns of consumption to lower GHG intensive categories; and to encourage households to invest in low carbon investments.
16 citations