Without better alternatives to fossil based power, dangers like migration, war and conflict are very real
More and more green energy technology is coming online. But is it happening fast enough to challenge global warming, and what else needs to be done? Giles Crosse finds out.
It’s no mystery that without more sustainable forms of energy, the chances of maintaining modern standards of living, and building better lives in developing countries is slim.
Indeed without better alternatives to fossil based power, dangers like migration, war and conflict are very real.
All of this makes developing new technologies quickly a key concern for the global community. But there are obstacles. Governments historically aligned with multinational petroleum corporations must raise their game.
And incentivisation programmes to deliver the step change required often need more teeth, as many appear to meet the needs of politicians’ manifestos, but fail to actually generate real change with the urgency necessary.
Making the switch
However, some agencies are reporting better news. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on July 1 that it’s beginning to see signs of an energy revolution, though it’s also pressing for tougher actions.
“For several years, the IEA has been calling for an energy revolution to tackle climate change and enhance energy security and economic development. For the first time, we see early indications that such a revolution is under way,” said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of IEA, describing findings in Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) 2010, IEA’s latest data.
IEA reckons ‘global investment in renewable electricity generation, led by wind and solar, reached an all-time high of USD 112 billion in 2008 and remained broadly stable in 2009 despite the economic downturn. Many major car companies are adding hybrid and all-electric vehicles to their fleets.
‘Expanded production of such vehicles combined with the purchase incentives available in many countries, could put more than 5 million such vehicles on the road in the next 10 years.’
Encouragingly, it also says OECD countries are building the rate of their energy efficiency improvement to nearly two per cent a year, while elsewhere ‘funding for low-carbon energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) has increased by one-third between 2005 and 2008.’
In spite of this, the rate of improvements is still too low to offset global temperature rise. “What we need is rapid, large-scale deployment of a portfolio of low-carbon technologies; we need a massive decarbonisation of the energy system, breaking the historical link between CO2 emissions and economic output, and leading to a new age of electrification,” said Mr. Tanaka.
He also mentioned that 1.5 billion people still lack access to electricity, which should add urgency to the equation.
The figures are concerning. The ETP 2010 Baseline scenario shows that without new policies, fossil fuels will still provide most of our needs, with ‘energy-related CO2 emissions almost doubling to 57 Gigatonnes (Gt) by 2050.
‘In contrast, the ETP2010 BLUE Map scenario charts a least-cost path for halving global energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels), consistent with a long-term temperature rise of two to three degrees C.
‘Under this scenario, the global demand for oil, for gas and for coal in 2050 would all be lower than today, with world oil demand alone being 27 per cent less than in 2007. For instance, oil demand in the United States and OECD Europe would drop by more than 60 per cent and 50 per cent respectively; in China oil demand would only increase to half the level seen in the Baseline scenario.
‘Also, in the BLUE Map scenario, global oil demand would plateau around 2030-2035. This would mean less pressure on prices and reduced import dependency for many countries.’
But even under this scenario, fossil fuels still account for 46 per cent of primary energy demand in 2050. So whilst it’s a positive dream, there are still challenging volumes of work to be done, and time remains short.
IEA reckons a mix of renewables; nuclear power and carbon capture and storage are the most pressing needs. It seems more than 30 new nuclear power stations and 35 coal-fired plants fitted with CCS would be needed on average every year to 2050, which might be frightening to those opposed to the nuclear option.
It seems reasonable to ponder whether such a programme might well cause some form of radiation release, through accidents in transport or operations. A calmer global political environment would ease tensions over such a rollout.
But do we really have any choice?
The bottom line
Such changes to our power systems won’t come cheap. IEA estimates the cost of achieving the “50 per cent by 2050” goal of the BLUE Map scenario will be USD 46 trillion more than the Baseline scenario over the period to 2050.
But delivering these new, currently expensive technologies can also be aligned with social and environmental benefits. Neptune Renewable Energy has just shipped its Neptune Proteus tidal stream demonstrator to Humberside in the UK, where it will be put into action in a series of trials.
The company plans to install the tidal power generator for an initial three month evaluation period. Its design means it has potential to produce 30 per cent more electricity compared to traditional hydro designs.
And alongside these benefits, new apprenticeships, engineering and manufacturing skills are being developed directly from the green economy.
Of course, the need to get more similar schemes into action quickly is still pressing.
“If this new government is going to change that, they’ve got to match the ambitions of other countries, who are leaving us behind,” says Greenpeace Energy Campaigner Vicky Wyatt, responding to the UK’s recently released Climate Change Committee report.
“For instance, China has invested billions in cutting edge electric vehicles, while the UK government is still wavering on an investment of £260 million for green cars.
“The government has also got to kick out the dirtiest power stations, and they’ve already promised an emissions performance standard. This has got to be right at the heart of new energy legislation, otherwise we could see the door open to climate wrecking power plants like the one proposed at Kingsnorth.”
It’s a good point. In the rush to get the solutions out there, it’s important to make sure the science isn’t fixed to favour options that aren’t really going to help out in the long run.
Maybe better development strategies, that value low carbon more effectively could help. Virgilio Viana is the former Secretary for Environment and Sustainable Development in Brazil’s Amazonas State.
He recently wrote the report ‘Sustainable Development in Practice – lessons learned from Amazonas,’ for the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). In it, he argues that value chains can guide more sustainable alternatives.
‘Change the ‘natural resource liquidation’ paradigm of development by making forests worth more standing than cut; create political support for sustainability and the environment by focusing on jobs, income, votes and other mainstream incentives,’ argues the report.
Applying a similar paradigm to green energy, to power generating technologies that give rather than take, could provide an insight into the future.
‘Place environmental and sustainability concerns at the centre of policy design and implementation – expanding environment institutions to become catalysts of sustainable development,’ suggests the document.
There definitely is potential to meet global power needs and to meet such a sustainable agenda. But it will need faster political change and more political will. Often short terms of office or underhand links with less sustainable business make this tough to achieve. If we’re going to get anywhere, this really needs to change.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!
Read more articles with reference to Sustainable Energy and Technology or sign up to our newsletter for twice monthly news.
Resources:
China’s Green Revolution – Prioritising technologies to improve energy and environmental sustainability
American Energy Innovation | SEPTEMBER 2009 - Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy
Launching an energy revolution in a time of economic crisis
EREC / Greenpeace report - Energy [r]evolution A SUSTAINABLE WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK
new zealand energy revolution
