Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them We have run out of time for dawdling, run out of time for the myth of energy diversity. We are now at or close to peak oil. And IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri explains how dire the climate situation is:
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."
As I've noted, to avoid climate catastrophe, to avoid 1000 ppm atmospheric concentrations of CO2, we don't need energy diversity, we need some 11 stabilization wedges deployed from 2015 to 2040.
That means World-War-II-scale energy action using every plausible low-carbon technology that is commercial today or will be within a very few years. Instead of diversity, we need mutli-hundred-gigawatt scale efforts focused on energy efficiency (including recycled energy), windpower, solar photovoltaics, solar baseload (what some people call concentrated solar thermal power), highly fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid gas-electric vehicles and probably bioenergy.
Yes, there are other strategies that deserve a hard look, like nuclear, enhanced geothermal systems, and coal with carbon capture and storage. But efficiency, wind, PV, solar baseload, plug ins, and (probably) bioenergy are going to be the giga-winners.
We should deploy efficiency aggressively enough to stop the increase in demand in developed countries and to dramatically slow the growth in demand in developing countries. We can deploy almost unlimited amount of windpower as we make the transition to plug-ins. And the great thing about solar baseload is that the U.S., South America, China, and India have an enormous resource base. Also, North Africa could deliver large amounts of solar baseload to Europe.
Indeed, the country that may be the biggest obstacle to the clean energy transition is likely to be Russia.
Russia does not have a good solar resource. But they do have a lot of coal and oil-- and they very much want to stake a claim to the rich oil resources in the Arctic. Moreover, they may (mistakenly) think global warming is good for them. Since it will create a navigable Arctic and open up "currently inaccessible energy resources" no less an authority than The Economist has written, "warming is likely to make Russia richer rather than poorer." Sad -- but quite untrue.
Perhaps the most important climatic tipping point is in Russia -- the Siberian tundra. If that defrosts, then avoiding the equivalent of 1000 ppm atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will be all but impossible. After all the tundra contains more carbon than the atmosphere does, and much of it would likely be released as methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Indeed, we have some evidence that may have already started.
Russia does have a staggering amount of wind potential, but it tends to be in the sparsely populated areas. Russia will need to be convinced that some combination of nuclear, wind, and natural gas can provide all the power it needs -- but the even harder task will be convincing them not to use all that oil and coal they have.
Indeed, the great challenge for the world in the next three decades is not so much aggressively deploying low carbon technology -- although that would not be easy it would certainly be straightforward both technologically and economically. The great challenge for the world is political -- convincing countries (and states) to leave a lot of the cheap fossil fuel resources they have, especially coal, in the ground, and to agree to import low-carbon electricity from other countries (or states). That will require a level of maturity the human race has not yet evidenced.
Comments
Just a thought about the pervasive WWII analogy:
Most people who are dealing with solving the AGW problem weren't alive to remember WWII. Maybe a different context would be better (e.g. comparison to Backstreet Boys Mania in the late 90s).
Posted by: Ben | July 24, 2008 10:59 AM
Why do you want to forget about energy diversity? In your own post you mention multiple energy sources? I realize you're trying to make a point about political will ... fair enough ... but to say 'forget about' the technological/engineering challenges we need to face is, in my opinion, reckless.
Posted by: BrianR | July 24, 2008 11:05 AM
Ok, this thread is appropriate for another nudge...
"The great challenge for the world is political -- convincing countries (and states) to leave a lot of the cheap fossil fuel resources they have, especially coal, in the ground, and to agree to import low-carbon electricity from other countries (or states)."
Which will all be completely irrelevent when population doubles from 6,700,000,000 to 13,000,000,000 in 50-60 years. There will be a few other problems taking precedence.
"That will require a level of maturity the human race has not yet evidenced."
Dinosaurs > ~160,000,000 years. Humans > ~180,000 years.
You're expecting some sort of fundamental change within the next 50 or so years? We'll need another 100 million years before we can claim an semblance of maturity or forward thinking. Unfortunately, sustainability ain't in our genes.
Posted by: Dlux | July 24, 2008 11:58 AM
Brian, I think "energy diversity" is being seized on as a catchphrase for more coal, and more drilling.
How, can we have political will to do something when politicians (and media) avoid talking about the problem? And when they do talk, it is simply to use the issue to vilify the other side in the culture war.
Posted by: bigTom | July 24, 2008 12:54 PM
In terms of political will, what's most bizarre is why there isn't mass political enthusiasm for energy efficiency measures, which slash carbon pollution and energy bills at the same time. I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that does precisely that for manufacturers -- turning their waste heat into clean power and steam. EPA and DoE estimates suggest we could cut greenhouse emissions 20% by doing this at industrial facilities. At the same time, we'd lower the burden of high energy costs. Why isn't that a political no-brainer?
The answer, of course, is the power of utilities, as well as the inertia of regulations that protect them. But when a policy benefits everyone in the world besides those who run utilities, you'd think it would begin to approach political viability.
Posted by: miggs | July 24, 2008 4:39 PM
Utilities are firmly in favor of energy efficiency measures; what with regulation on what they can charge, and the cost of upgrading their networks, keeping energy consumption low enough that the utilities don't need to upgrade (or build new power plants) saves the utility a lot of money. It's energy consumers who are reluctant.
Posted by: Anthony | July 24, 2008 8:42 PM
bigTom says: "Brian, I think "energy diversity" is being seized on as a catchphrase for more coal, and more drilling."
Maybe some are opportunistically using/misusing that phrase, but that doesn't change the fact that its a reality. Anyone who thinks a single energy source (and thus no energy diversity) is in our near future (next 50 yrs) is out to lunch. What is it?
If some are using the concept of multiple and diversified energy sources disingenuously, they should be called out on it. Fine. But, it doesn't mean it's not a real challenge.
Posted by: Brian | July 24, 2008 11:49 PM
Hey, we've got a large percentage of the population who think global warming is just a scam,... and some powerful politicians who are willing to ride that wave. And look what apathy and ignorance (stupidity?) have done for us in the last two presidential elections! And then there's the normal greedy reaction of getting what we can for ourself, especially if the government is paying.
AND, I might add, we're also starting in hole, with record-breaking budget deficits, two on-going wars, absolutely no goodwill left anywhere, and other assorted tragedies. What resources are left for this kind of project?
I think we're screwed. I KNOW there's not the slightest chance of a "World-War-II-scale energy action" anytime soon - not until things get a lot worse (if then). Sorry, but my optimism has been beaten out of me over the past seven and a half years. Now, I'm firmly convinced that most people are too dumb to poor water out of a boot.
Posted by: WCG | July 25, 2008 8:54 AM