The amount of electricity generated by onshore wind fell last year after the lowest average wind speeds this century, according to new Government statistics.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
12:39PM BST 01 Jul 2011
The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said the amount of electricity generated by renewables rose slightly to 7.4 per cent in 2010.
However it is still well short of the EU legally binding target that requires 15 per cent of all energy, including transport and heat to be from renewables by 2020. This would mean about 30 per cent of electricity would need to be from renewables.
Onshore wind as a percentage was 1.9 per cent of all electricity in 2010, down from 2.0 per cent in 2009. This represents a six per cent fall in the amount of energy generated from onshore wind compared to last year.
A DECC spokesman blamed the weather but insisted the UK is on track to meet targets, in large part thanks to a massive increase in the amount of energy generated by offshore wind.
“Even against a backdrop of the lowest average wind speeds this century in 2010 and the lowest rainfall since 2003, overall consumption of renewable energy in 2010 has risen significantly on the previous year,” he said.
But Dr John Constable, Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a UK charity publishing data on the energy sector, said wind farms are failing to generate enough energy, despite £5bn of subsidies since 2002.
"REF's calculations suggest that the annual subsidies will rise to around £6bn a year in 2020, with the programme costing a total of £100bn by 2030. These are heavy burdens, and threaten to exhaust consumer patience,” he added.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Proof that the Government is tilting at windmills
The policy on which our national energy strategy is now centred is a ludicrously expensive, self-defeating joke, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
7:00PM BST 02 Jul 2011
In the week when it was reported that 20 per cent of the EU's fast-soaring, trillion-euro budget may soon be spent on "fighting climate change", it was timely that Britain's energy companies should have met with the Department of Energy and Climate Change to raise one of the best-hidden secrets of our Government's obsession with wind power.
Centrica and other energy companies last week told DECC that, if Britain is to spend £100 billion on building thousands of wind turbines, it will require the building of 17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops and the windmills produce even less power than usual.
We will thus be landed in the ludicrous position of having to spend an additional £10 billion on those 17 dedicated power stations, which will be kept running on "spinning reserve", 24 hours a day, just to make up for the fundamental problem of wind turbines. This is that their power continually fluctuates anywhere between full capacity to zero (where it often stood last winter, when national electricity demand was at a peak). So unless back-up power is instantly available to match any shortfall, the lights will go out.
Two things make this even more absurd. One, as the energy companies pointed out to DECC, is that it will be amazingly costly and wildly uneconomical, since the dedicated power plants will often have to run at a low rate of efficiency, burning gas but not producing electricity. This will add billions more to our fuel bills for no practical purpose. The other absurdity, as recent detailed studies have confirmed, is that gas-fired power stations running on "spinning reserve" chuck out much more CO2 than when they are running at full efficiency – thus negating any savings in CO2 emissions supposedly achieved by the windmills themselves.
Is there no longer anyone around at DECC who is familiar with these very basic practical points? The policy on which our national energy strategy is now centred is a ludicrously expensive, self-defeating joke, which will achieve no benefits whatever – even if you are among the diminishing number of people who still believe that man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change.
Unfortunately, among those still in the grip of these fantasies are David Cameron, Chris Huhne and the EU, who between them are now responsible for Britain's energy policy. I'm afraid we are in the hands of very dangerous children, upon whose deranged wishful thinking a large part of our country's future depends.
By Christopher Booker
7:00PM BST 02 Jul 2011
In the week when it was reported that 20 per cent of the EU's fast-soaring, trillion-euro budget may soon be spent on "fighting climate change", it was timely that Britain's energy companies should have met with the Department of Energy and Climate Change to raise one of the best-hidden secrets of our Government's obsession with wind power.
Centrica and other energy companies last week told DECC that, if Britain is to spend £100 billion on building thousands of wind turbines, it will require the building of 17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops and the windmills produce even less power than usual.
We will thus be landed in the ludicrous position of having to spend an additional £10 billion on those 17 dedicated power stations, which will be kept running on "spinning reserve", 24 hours a day, just to make up for the fundamental problem of wind turbines. This is that their power continually fluctuates anywhere between full capacity to zero (where it often stood last winter, when national electricity demand was at a peak). So unless back-up power is instantly available to match any shortfall, the lights will go out.
Two things make this even more absurd. One, as the energy companies pointed out to DECC, is that it will be amazingly costly and wildly uneconomical, since the dedicated power plants will often have to run at a low rate of efficiency, burning gas but not producing electricity. This will add billions more to our fuel bills for no practical purpose. The other absurdity, as recent detailed studies have confirmed, is that gas-fired power stations running on "spinning reserve" chuck out much more CO2 than when they are running at full efficiency – thus negating any savings in CO2 emissions supposedly achieved by the windmills themselves.
Is there no longer anyone around at DECC who is familiar with these very basic practical points? The policy on which our national energy strategy is now centred is a ludicrously expensive, self-defeating joke, which will achieve no benefits whatever – even if you are among the diminishing number of people who still believe that man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change.
Unfortunately, among those still in the grip of these fantasies are David Cameron, Chris Huhne and the EU, who between them are now responsible for Britain's energy policy. I'm afraid we are in the hands of very dangerous children, upon whose deranged wishful thinking a large part of our country's future depends.
Coalition scraps national network of charging points for electric cars
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Saturday, 2 July 2011
The coalition Government's green credentials were called into question yesterday after it scrapped plans for a nationwide network of recharging points for electric cars.
The Department for Transport, which had planned to have 9,000 recharging points by 2013, has decided that the programme is not viable. The scheme offers matching funds to local businesses and public sector partners who install the points.
At present there are about 700 points. The 8,600 electric vehicles expected to be sold by the end of this year would require some 4,700 points.
In a new strategy document, the department said: "Most recharging is likely to take place at home and at work, so an extensive public recharging infrastructure would be under-utilised and uneconomic."
It wants most recharging to take place at night, after the peak in electricity demand, supported by workplace charging for commuters and vehicle fleets, and a limited amount of public infrastructure. John Woodcock, Labour's transport spokesman, accused the Government of smuggling out the U-turn on Thursday under cover of the strikes by teachers, lecturers and civil servants. He said Parliament had not been told.
"The Conservative-led Government is desperate to hide the fact it is failing to live up to its boast to be the greenest government ever," he said.
Mr Woodcock pointed out that the Coalition Agreement signed last year pledged to "mandate a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles". He added: "The lack of fanfare for the electric cars announcement, and the fact it was published when the news agenda was dominated by the public sector strikes suggests that ministers were attempting to bury bad news."
Mr Woodcock said: "People will be highly suspicious about the way ministers have slipped out this broken promise to help drivers switch to electric vehicles."
The Labour frontbencher has submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out how the decision on the handling of the announcement was taken.
Ministers denied Labour's claim as "ridiculous", producing a press release they issued on Thursday about the change of strategy.
Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, said: "The ability to re-charge is a key part of the jigsaw in supporting the growth of the electric vehicle market. It is crucial, therefore, that we make the process as simple as possible.
"Public chargepoints are part of the answer but putting a chargepoint on every corner is not the right approach.
"It is most convenient for drivers and best for the energy system for the majority of charging to happen at home. "
The Committee on Climate Change has said that the UK needs to have 1.7 million electric vehicles by the year 2020 to be on course to hit ambitious carbon-reduction targets.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
The coalition Government's green credentials were called into question yesterday after it scrapped plans for a nationwide network of recharging points for electric cars.
The Department for Transport, which had planned to have 9,000 recharging points by 2013, has decided that the programme is not viable. The scheme offers matching funds to local businesses and public sector partners who install the points.
At present there are about 700 points. The 8,600 electric vehicles expected to be sold by the end of this year would require some 4,700 points.
In a new strategy document, the department said: "Most recharging is likely to take place at home and at work, so an extensive public recharging infrastructure would be under-utilised and uneconomic."
It wants most recharging to take place at night, after the peak in electricity demand, supported by workplace charging for commuters and vehicle fleets, and a limited amount of public infrastructure. John Woodcock, Labour's transport spokesman, accused the Government of smuggling out the U-turn on Thursday under cover of the strikes by teachers, lecturers and civil servants. He said Parliament had not been told.
"The Conservative-led Government is desperate to hide the fact it is failing to live up to its boast to be the greenest government ever," he said.
Mr Woodcock pointed out that the Coalition Agreement signed last year pledged to "mandate a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles". He added: "The lack of fanfare for the electric cars announcement, and the fact it was published when the news agenda was dominated by the public sector strikes suggests that ministers were attempting to bury bad news."
Mr Woodcock said: "People will be highly suspicious about the way ministers have slipped out this broken promise to help drivers switch to electric vehicles."
The Labour frontbencher has submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out how the decision on the handling of the announcement was taken.
Ministers denied Labour's claim as "ridiculous", producing a press release they issued on Thursday about the change of strategy.
Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, said: "The ability to re-charge is a key part of the jigsaw in supporting the growth of the electric vehicle market. It is crucial, therefore, that we make the process as simple as possible.
"Public chargepoints are part of the answer but putting a chargepoint on every corner is not the right approach.
"It is most convenient for drivers and best for the energy system for the majority of charging to happen at home. "
The Committee on Climate Change has said that the UK needs to have 1.7 million electric vehicles by the year 2020 to be on course to hit ambitious carbon-reduction targets.
Poland’s Not-So-Green Presidency
By Alessandro Torello
Reuters
Tonight at midnight, Poland takes the helm of the European Union for the first time.
An awkward proposal to increase the European Union’s budget by a minimum 5% for 2014-20 will place Poland in the uncomfortable position of finding agreement among EU governments and the European Parliament, and risks making it it a difficult six months. But there may some strains also over Poland’s environmental credentials.
At a meeting of environment ministers last week, Poland refused to sign off to a set of conclusions that it thought were suggesting that the EU could be moving to a more ambitious target in cutting CO2 emissions by 2020 beyond the current 20%.
There was so little controversy over the final document that the Hungarian minister who chaired the meeting –his country holds the presidency until Poland takes over tonight– was already declaring it approved, when Poland finally got his attention and spoke out against it.
Many countries wouldn’t be happy to face more ambitious targets as it would mean spending more money at a time of financial constraints, but Poland is more nervous than others because 95% of its electricity production comes from burning coal, which has a high rate of CO2 emissions.
Even though the momentum for climate-change policies has slowed since the fiasco of the United-Nations sponsored Copenhagen conference, the debate has never faded, especially in the EU, where a dedicated commissioner –Connie Hedegaard– keeps it alive and running.
Poland’s chairmanship of climate talks within the EU will likely mean that many issues will be frozen until next year, when Denmark takes over.
This may also have a more global consequence because in December South Africa will host another UN-sponsored global climate conference, at which Poland will lead the EU delegation.
Expectations for the Durban meeting are not, it must be said, particularly high, but the EU still has the ambition of being an inspiring force behind the international negotiations for a deal to cut CO2 emissions, and having a skeptical lead negotiator may not help.
So, where will the Poles focus their climate and energy efforts during the six months?
Shale gas is a good bet. Poland is seeking to develop this technology that’s changing the global natural gas market since the U.S. brought it to an industrial scale. Poland is considered one of the countries with the most significant resources in Europe, even though research is just starting.
Shale gas –whose environmental consequences are questioned by many– would have a big impact economically and politically for Poland, helping reduce the country’s dependence on gas imports from Russia. This dependence gives Moscow strong political leverage, Brussels a lingering concern of possible disruptions in case of a dispute, and Warsaw a big gas bill.
Gas also emits much less CO2 when it’s burned to produce electricity, so it would help the country reduce its impact on climate change, in line with European goals.
That may not help much for 2020, though: Shale gas production might still be a decade away even then.
Reuters
Tonight at midnight, Poland takes the helm of the European Union for the first time.
An awkward proposal to increase the European Union’s budget by a minimum 5% for 2014-20 will place Poland in the uncomfortable position of finding agreement among EU governments and the European Parliament, and risks making it it a difficult six months. But there may some strains also over Poland’s environmental credentials.
At a meeting of environment ministers last week, Poland refused to sign off to a set of conclusions that it thought were suggesting that the EU could be moving to a more ambitious target in cutting CO2 emissions by 2020 beyond the current 20%.
There was so little controversy over the final document that the Hungarian minister who chaired the meeting –his country holds the presidency until Poland takes over tonight– was already declaring it approved, when Poland finally got his attention and spoke out against it.
Many countries wouldn’t be happy to face more ambitious targets as it would mean spending more money at a time of financial constraints, but Poland is more nervous than others because 95% of its electricity production comes from burning coal, which has a high rate of CO2 emissions.
Even though the momentum for climate-change policies has slowed since the fiasco of the United-Nations sponsored Copenhagen conference, the debate has never faded, especially in the EU, where a dedicated commissioner –Connie Hedegaard– keeps it alive and running.
Poland’s chairmanship of climate talks within the EU will likely mean that many issues will be frozen until next year, when Denmark takes over.
This may also have a more global consequence because in December South Africa will host another UN-sponsored global climate conference, at which Poland will lead the EU delegation.
Expectations for the Durban meeting are not, it must be said, particularly high, but the EU still has the ambition of being an inspiring force behind the international negotiations for a deal to cut CO2 emissions, and having a skeptical lead negotiator may not help.
So, where will the Poles focus their climate and energy efforts during the six months?
Shale gas is a good bet. Poland is seeking to develop this technology that’s changing the global natural gas market since the U.S. brought it to an industrial scale. Poland is considered one of the countries with the most significant resources in Europe, even though research is just starting.
Shale gas –whose environmental consequences are questioned by many– would have a big impact economically and politically for Poland, helping reduce the country’s dependence on gas imports from Russia. This dependence gives Moscow strong political leverage, Brussels a lingering concern of possible disruptions in case of a dispute, and Warsaw a big gas bill.
Gas also emits much less CO2 when it’s burned to produce electricity, so it would help the country reduce its impact on climate change, in line with European goals.
That may not help much for 2020, though: Shale gas production might still be a decade away even then.
Energy: the new thirty years' war
We are heading for a global succeed-or-perish contest among the energy big hitters – but who will be the winners and losers?
Michael Klare for TomDispatch, part of the Guardian Comment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 June 2011 19.00 BST
A 30-year war for energy pre-eminence? You wouldn't wish it even on a desperate planet. But that's where we're headed, and there's no turning back.
From 1618 to 1648, Europe was engulfed in a series of intensely brutal conflicts known collectively as the Thirty Years' War. It was, in part, a struggle between an imperial system of governance and the emerging nation state. Indeed, many historians believe that the modern international system of nation states was crystallised in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which finally ended the fighting.
Think of us today as embarking on a new Thirty Years' War. It may not result in as much bloodshed as that of the 1600s, though bloodshed there will be, but it will prove no less momentous for the future of the planet. Over the coming decades, we will be embroiled at a global level in a succeed-or-perish contest among the major forms of energy, the corporations which supply them and the countries that run on them. The question will be: which will dominate the world's energy supply in the second half of the 21st century? The winners will determine how – and how badly – we live, work, and play in those not-so-distant decades, and will profit enormously as a result. The losers will be cast aside and dismembered.
Why 30 years? Because that's how long it will take for experimental energy systems like hydrogen power, cellulosic ethanol, wave power, algae fuel, and advanced nuclear reactors to make it from the laboratory to fullscale industrial development. Some of these systems (as well, undoubtedly, as others not yet on our radar screens) will survive the winnowing process. Some will not. And there is little way to predict how it will go at this stage in the game. At the same time the use of existing fuels like oil and coal, which spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is likely to plummet, thanks both to diminished supplies and rising concerns over the growing dangers of carbon emissions.
This will be a war because the future profitability, or even survival, of many of the world's most powerful and wealthy corporations will be at risk, and because every nation has a potentially life-or-death stake in the contest. For giant oil companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell, an eventual shift away from petroleum will have massive economic consequences. They will be forced to adopt new economic models and attempt to corner new markets, based on the production of alternative energy products, or risk collapse or absorption by more powerful competitors. In these same decades new companies will arise, some undoubtedly coming to rival the oil giants in wealth and importance.
The fate of nations, too, will be at stake as they place their bets on competing technologies, cling to their existing energy patterns, or compete for global energy sources, markets, and reserves. Because the acquisition of adequate supplies of energy is as basic a matter of national security as can be imagined, struggles over vital resources – oil and natural gas now, perhaps lithium or nickel (for electric-powered vehicles) in the future – will trigger armed violence.
When these three decades are over, as with the Treaty of Westphalia, the planet is likely to have in place the foundations of a new system for organising itself – this time around energy needs. In the meantime, the struggle for energy resources is guaranteed to grow ever more intense for a simple reason: there is no way the existing energy system can satisfy the world's future requirements. It must be replaced or supplemented in a major way by a renewable alternative system or, forget Westphalia, the planet will be subject to environmental disaster of a sort hard to imagine today.
The existing energy lineup
To appreciate the nature of our predicament, begin with a quick look at the world's existing energy portfolio. According to BP, the world consumed 13.2bn tons of oil-equivalent from all sources in 2010: 33.6% from oil, 29.6% from coal, 23.8% from natural gas, 6.5% from hydroelectricity, 5.2% from nuclear energy, and a mere 1.3% from all renewable forms of energy. Together, fossil fuels – oil, coal, and gas – supplied 10.4bn tons, or 87% of the total.
Even attempting to preserve this level of energy output in 30 years' time, using the same proportion of fuels, would be a near-hopeless feat. Achieving a 40% increase in energy output, as most analysts believe will be needed to satisfy the existing requirements of older industrial powers and rising demand in China and other rapidly developing nations, is simply impossible.
Two barriers stand in the way of preserving the existing energy profile: eventual oil scarcity and global climate change. Most energy analysts expect conventional oil output – that is, liquid oil derived from fields on land and in shallow coastal waters – to reach a production peak in the next few years and then begin an irreversible decline. Some additional fuel will be provided in the form of "unconventional" oil – that is, liquids derived from the costly, hazardous, and ecologically unsafe extraction processes involved in producing tar sands, shale oil, and deep offshore oil – but this will only postpone the contraction in petroleum availability, not avert it. By 2041, oil will be far less abundant than it is today, and so incapable of meeting anywhere near 33.6% of the world's (much-expanded) energy needs.
Meanwhile, the accelerating pace of climate change will produce ever more damage – intense storm activity, rising sea levels, prolonged droughts, lethal heat waves, massive forest fires, and so on – finally forcing reluctant politicians to take remedial action. This will undoubtedly include an imposition of curbs on the release via fossil fuels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, whether in the form of carbon taxes, cap-and-trade plans, emissions limits, or other restrictive systems as yet not imagined. By 2041 these increasingly restrictive curbs will help ensure that fossil fuels will not be supplying anywhere near 87% of world energy.
The leading contenders
If oil and coal are destined to fall from their position as the world's paramount source of energy, what will replace them? Here are some of the leading contenders.
Natural gas: Many energy experts and political leaders view natural gas as a "transitional" fossil fuel because it releases less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than oil and coal. In addition, global supplies of natural gas are far greater than previously believed, thanks to new technologies – notably horizontal drilling and the controversial procedure of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") – that allow for the exploitation of shale gas reserves once considered inaccessible. For insstance, in 2011, the US Department of Energy (DoE) predicted that, by 2035, gas would far outpace coal as a source of American energy, though oil would still outpace them both. Some now speak of a "natural gas revolution" that will see it overtake oil as the world's number one fuel, at least for a time. But fracking poses a threat to the safety of drinking water and so may arouse widespread opposition, while the economics of shale gas may, in the end, prove less attractive than currently assumed. In fact, many experts now believe that the prospects for shale gas have been oversold, and that stepped-up investment will result in ever-diminishing returns.
Nuclear power: Prior to the 11 March earthquake/tsunami disaster and a series of core meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex in Japan, many analysts were speaking of a nuclear "renaissance" which would see the construction of hundreds of new nuclear reactors over the next few decades. Although some of these plants in China and elsewhere are likely to be built, plans for others – in Italy and Switzerland, for instance – already appear to have been scrapped. Despite repeated assurances that US reactors are completely safe, evidence is regularly emerging of safety risks at many of these facilities. Given rising public concern over the risk of catastrophic accident, it is unlikely that nuclear power will be one of the big winners in 2041.
However, nuclear enthusiasts (including President Obama) are championing the manufacture of small "modular" reactors that, according to their boosters, could be built for far less than current ones and would produce significantly lower levels of radioactive waste. Although the technology for, and safety of, such "assembly-line" reactors has yet to be demonstrated, advocates claim that they would provide an attractive alternative to both large conventional reactors with their piles of nuclear waste and coal-fired power plants that emit so much carbon dioxide.
Wind and solar: Make no mistake, the world will rely on wind and solar power for a greater proportion of its energy 30 years from now. According to the International Energy Agency, those energy sources will go from approximately 1% of total world energy consumption in 2008 to a projected 4% in 2035. But given the crisis at hand and the hopes that exist for wind and solar, this would prove small potatoes indeed. For these two alternative energy sources to claim a significantly larger share of the energy pie, as so many climate-change activists desire, real breakthroughs will be necessary, including major improvements in the design of wind turbines and solar collectors, improved energy storage (so that power collected during sunny or windy periods can be better used at night or in calm weather), and a far more efficient and expansive electrical grid (so that energy from areas favored by sun and wind can be effectively distributed elsewhere). China, Germany, and Spain have been making the sorts of investments in wind and solar energy that might give them an advantage in the new Thirty Years' War – but only if the technological breakthroughs actually come.
Biofuels and algae: Many experts see a promising future for biofuels, especially as "first generation" ethanol, based largely on the fermentation of corn and sugar cane, is replaced by second- and third-generation fuels derived from plant cellulose ("cellulosic ethanol") and bio-engineered algae. Aside from the fact that the fermentation process requires heat (and so consumes energy even while releasing it), many policymakers object to the use of food crops to supply raw materials for a motor fuel at a time of rising food prices. However, several promising technologies to produce ethanol by chemical means from the cellulose in non-food crops are now being tested, and one or more of these techniques may well survive the transition to full-scale commercial production. At the same time, a number of companies, including ExxonMobil, are exploring the development of new breeds of algae that reproduce swiftly and can be converted into biofuels. (The US Department of Defense is also investing in some of these experimental methods with an eye toward transforming the American military, a great fossil-fuel guzzler, into a far "greener" outfit.) Again, however, it is too early to know which (if any) biofuel endeavors will pan out.
Hydrogen: A decade ago, many experts were talking about hydrogen's immense promise as a source of energy. Hydrogen is abundant in many natural substances (including water and natural gas) and produces no carbon emissions when consumed. However, it does not exist by itself in the natural world and so must be extracted from other substances – a process that requires significant amounts of energy in its own right, and so is not, as yet, particularly efficient. Methods for transporting, storing, and consuming hydrogen on a large scale have also proved harder to develop than once imagined. Considerable research is being devoted to each of these problems, and breakthroughs certainly could occur in the decades to come. At present, however, it appears unlikely that hydrogen will prove a major source of energy in 2041.
X the unknown: Many other sources of energy are being tested by scientists and engineers at universities and corporate laboratories worldwide. Some are even being evaluated on a larger scale in pilot projects of various sorts. Among the most promising of these are geothermal energy, wave energy, and tidal energy. Each taps into immense natural forces and so, if the necessary breakthroughs were to occur, would have the advantage of being infinitely exploitable, with little risk of producing greenhouse gases. However, with the exception of geothermal, the necessary technologies are still at an early stage of development. How long it may take to harvest them is anybody's guess. Geothermal energy does show considerable promise, but has run into problems, given the need to tap it by drilling deep into the earth, in some cases triggering small earthquakes.
From time to time, I hear of even less familiar prospects for energy production that possess at least some hint of promise. At present, none appears likely to play a significant role in 2041, but no one should underestimate humanity's technological and innovative powers. As with all history, surprise can play a major role in energy history, too.
Energy efficiency: Given the lack of an obvious winner among competing transitional or alternative energy sources, one crucial approach to energy consumption in 2041 will surely be efficiency at levels unimaginable today: the ability to achieve maximum economic output for minimum energy input. The lead players three decades from now may be the countries and corporations that have mastered the art of producing the most with the least. Innovations in transportation, building and product design, heating and cooling, and production techniques will all play a role in creating an energy-efficient world.
When the war is over
Thirty years from now, for better or worse, the world will be a far different place: hotter, stormier, and with less land (given the loss of shoreline and low-lying areas to rising sea levels). Strict limitations on carbon emissions will certainly be universally enforced and the consumption of fossil fuels, except under controlled circumstances, actively discouraged. Oil will still be available to those who can afford it, but will no longer be the world's paramount fuel. New powers, corporate and otherwise, in new combinations will have risen with a new energy universe. No one can know, of course, what our version of the Treaty of Westphalia will look like or who will be the winners and losers on this planet. In the intervening 30 years, however, that much violence and suffering will have ensued goes without question. Nor can anyone say today which of the contending forms of energy will prove dominant in 2041 and beyond.
Were I to wager a guess, I might place my bet on energy systems that were decentralised, easy to make and install, and required relatively modest levels of up-front investment. For an analogy, think of the laptop computer of 2011 versus the giant mainframes of the 1960s and 1970s. The closer that an energy supplier gets to the laptop model (or so I suspect), the more success will follow.
From this perspective giant nuclear reactors and coal-fired plants are, in the long run, less likely to thrive, except in places like China where authoritarian governments still call the shots. Far more promising, once the necessary breakthroughs come, will be renewable sources of energy and advanced biofuels that can be produced on a smaller scale with less up-front investment, and so possibly incorporated into daily life even at a community or neighborhood level.
Whichever countries move most swiftly to embrace these or similar energy possibilities will be the likeliest to emerge in 2041 with vibrant economies – and given the state of the planet, if luck holds, just in the nick of time.
Michael Klare for TomDispatch, part of the Guardian Comment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 June 2011 19.00 BST
A 30-year war for energy pre-eminence? You wouldn't wish it even on a desperate planet. But that's where we're headed, and there's no turning back.
From 1618 to 1648, Europe was engulfed in a series of intensely brutal conflicts known collectively as the Thirty Years' War. It was, in part, a struggle between an imperial system of governance and the emerging nation state. Indeed, many historians believe that the modern international system of nation states was crystallised in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which finally ended the fighting.
Think of us today as embarking on a new Thirty Years' War. It may not result in as much bloodshed as that of the 1600s, though bloodshed there will be, but it will prove no less momentous for the future of the planet. Over the coming decades, we will be embroiled at a global level in a succeed-or-perish contest among the major forms of energy, the corporations which supply them and the countries that run on them. The question will be: which will dominate the world's energy supply in the second half of the 21st century? The winners will determine how – and how badly – we live, work, and play in those not-so-distant decades, and will profit enormously as a result. The losers will be cast aside and dismembered.
Why 30 years? Because that's how long it will take for experimental energy systems like hydrogen power, cellulosic ethanol, wave power, algae fuel, and advanced nuclear reactors to make it from the laboratory to fullscale industrial development. Some of these systems (as well, undoubtedly, as others not yet on our radar screens) will survive the winnowing process. Some will not. And there is little way to predict how it will go at this stage in the game. At the same time the use of existing fuels like oil and coal, which spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is likely to plummet, thanks both to diminished supplies and rising concerns over the growing dangers of carbon emissions.
This will be a war because the future profitability, or even survival, of many of the world's most powerful and wealthy corporations will be at risk, and because every nation has a potentially life-or-death stake in the contest. For giant oil companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell, an eventual shift away from petroleum will have massive economic consequences. They will be forced to adopt new economic models and attempt to corner new markets, based on the production of alternative energy products, or risk collapse or absorption by more powerful competitors. In these same decades new companies will arise, some undoubtedly coming to rival the oil giants in wealth and importance.
The fate of nations, too, will be at stake as they place their bets on competing technologies, cling to their existing energy patterns, or compete for global energy sources, markets, and reserves. Because the acquisition of adequate supplies of energy is as basic a matter of national security as can be imagined, struggles over vital resources – oil and natural gas now, perhaps lithium or nickel (for electric-powered vehicles) in the future – will trigger armed violence.
When these three decades are over, as with the Treaty of Westphalia, the planet is likely to have in place the foundations of a new system for organising itself – this time around energy needs. In the meantime, the struggle for energy resources is guaranteed to grow ever more intense for a simple reason: there is no way the existing energy system can satisfy the world's future requirements. It must be replaced or supplemented in a major way by a renewable alternative system or, forget Westphalia, the planet will be subject to environmental disaster of a sort hard to imagine today.
The existing energy lineup
To appreciate the nature of our predicament, begin with a quick look at the world's existing energy portfolio. According to BP, the world consumed 13.2bn tons of oil-equivalent from all sources in 2010: 33.6% from oil, 29.6% from coal, 23.8% from natural gas, 6.5% from hydroelectricity, 5.2% from nuclear energy, and a mere 1.3% from all renewable forms of energy. Together, fossil fuels – oil, coal, and gas – supplied 10.4bn tons, or 87% of the total.
Even attempting to preserve this level of energy output in 30 years' time, using the same proportion of fuels, would be a near-hopeless feat. Achieving a 40% increase in energy output, as most analysts believe will be needed to satisfy the existing requirements of older industrial powers and rising demand in China and other rapidly developing nations, is simply impossible.
Two barriers stand in the way of preserving the existing energy profile: eventual oil scarcity and global climate change. Most energy analysts expect conventional oil output – that is, liquid oil derived from fields on land and in shallow coastal waters – to reach a production peak in the next few years and then begin an irreversible decline. Some additional fuel will be provided in the form of "unconventional" oil – that is, liquids derived from the costly, hazardous, and ecologically unsafe extraction processes involved in producing tar sands, shale oil, and deep offshore oil – but this will only postpone the contraction in petroleum availability, not avert it. By 2041, oil will be far less abundant than it is today, and so incapable of meeting anywhere near 33.6% of the world's (much-expanded) energy needs.
Meanwhile, the accelerating pace of climate change will produce ever more damage – intense storm activity, rising sea levels, prolonged droughts, lethal heat waves, massive forest fires, and so on – finally forcing reluctant politicians to take remedial action. This will undoubtedly include an imposition of curbs on the release via fossil fuels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, whether in the form of carbon taxes, cap-and-trade plans, emissions limits, or other restrictive systems as yet not imagined. By 2041 these increasingly restrictive curbs will help ensure that fossil fuels will not be supplying anywhere near 87% of world energy.
The leading contenders
If oil and coal are destined to fall from their position as the world's paramount source of energy, what will replace them? Here are some of the leading contenders.
Natural gas: Many energy experts and political leaders view natural gas as a "transitional" fossil fuel because it releases less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than oil and coal. In addition, global supplies of natural gas are far greater than previously believed, thanks to new technologies – notably horizontal drilling and the controversial procedure of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") – that allow for the exploitation of shale gas reserves once considered inaccessible. For insstance, in 2011, the US Department of Energy (DoE) predicted that, by 2035, gas would far outpace coal as a source of American energy, though oil would still outpace them both. Some now speak of a "natural gas revolution" that will see it overtake oil as the world's number one fuel, at least for a time. But fracking poses a threat to the safety of drinking water and so may arouse widespread opposition, while the economics of shale gas may, in the end, prove less attractive than currently assumed. In fact, many experts now believe that the prospects for shale gas have been oversold, and that stepped-up investment will result in ever-diminishing returns.
Nuclear power: Prior to the 11 March earthquake/tsunami disaster and a series of core meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex in Japan, many analysts were speaking of a nuclear "renaissance" which would see the construction of hundreds of new nuclear reactors over the next few decades. Although some of these plants in China and elsewhere are likely to be built, plans for others – in Italy and Switzerland, for instance – already appear to have been scrapped. Despite repeated assurances that US reactors are completely safe, evidence is regularly emerging of safety risks at many of these facilities. Given rising public concern over the risk of catastrophic accident, it is unlikely that nuclear power will be one of the big winners in 2041.
However, nuclear enthusiasts (including President Obama) are championing the manufacture of small "modular" reactors that, according to their boosters, could be built for far less than current ones and would produce significantly lower levels of radioactive waste. Although the technology for, and safety of, such "assembly-line" reactors has yet to be demonstrated, advocates claim that they would provide an attractive alternative to both large conventional reactors with their piles of nuclear waste and coal-fired power plants that emit so much carbon dioxide.
Wind and solar: Make no mistake, the world will rely on wind and solar power for a greater proportion of its energy 30 years from now. According to the International Energy Agency, those energy sources will go from approximately 1% of total world energy consumption in 2008 to a projected 4% in 2035. But given the crisis at hand and the hopes that exist for wind and solar, this would prove small potatoes indeed. For these two alternative energy sources to claim a significantly larger share of the energy pie, as so many climate-change activists desire, real breakthroughs will be necessary, including major improvements in the design of wind turbines and solar collectors, improved energy storage (so that power collected during sunny or windy periods can be better used at night or in calm weather), and a far more efficient and expansive electrical grid (so that energy from areas favored by sun and wind can be effectively distributed elsewhere). China, Germany, and Spain have been making the sorts of investments in wind and solar energy that might give them an advantage in the new Thirty Years' War – but only if the technological breakthroughs actually come.
Biofuels and algae: Many experts see a promising future for biofuels, especially as "first generation" ethanol, based largely on the fermentation of corn and sugar cane, is replaced by second- and third-generation fuels derived from plant cellulose ("cellulosic ethanol") and bio-engineered algae. Aside from the fact that the fermentation process requires heat (and so consumes energy even while releasing it), many policymakers object to the use of food crops to supply raw materials for a motor fuel at a time of rising food prices. However, several promising technologies to produce ethanol by chemical means from the cellulose in non-food crops are now being tested, and one or more of these techniques may well survive the transition to full-scale commercial production. At the same time, a number of companies, including ExxonMobil, are exploring the development of new breeds of algae that reproduce swiftly and can be converted into biofuels. (The US Department of Defense is also investing in some of these experimental methods with an eye toward transforming the American military, a great fossil-fuel guzzler, into a far "greener" outfit.) Again, however, it is too early to know which (if any) biofuel endeavors will pan out.
Hydrogen: A decade ago, many experts were talking about hydrogen's immense promise as a source of energy. Hydrogen is abundant in many natural substances (including water and natural gas) and produces no carbon emissions when consumed. However, it does not exist by itself in the natural world and so must be extracted from other substances – a process that requires significant amounts of energy in its own right, and so is not, as yet, particularly efficient. Methods for transporting, storing, and consuming hydrogen on a large scale have also proved harder to develop than once imagined. Considerable research is being devoted to each of these problems, and breakthroughs certainly could occur in the decades to come. At present, however, it appears unlikely that hydrogen will prove a major source of energy in 2041.
X the unknown: Many other sources of energy are being tested by scientists and engineers at universities and corporate laboratories worldwide. Some are even being evaluated on a larger scale in pilot projects of various sorts. Among the most promising of these are geothermal energy, wave energy, and tidal energy. Each taps into immense natural forces and so, if the necessary breakthroughs were to occur, would have the advantage of being infinitely exploitable, with little risk of producing greenhouse gases. However, with the exception of geothermal, the necessary technologies are still at an early stage of development. How long it may take to harvest them is anybody's guess. Geothermal energy does show considerable promise, but has run into problems, given the need to tap it by drilling deep into the earth, in some cases triggering small earthquakes.
From time to time, I hear of even less familiar prospects for energy production that possess at least some hint of promise. At present, none appears likely to play a significant role in 2041, but no one should underestimate humanity's technological and innovative powers. As with all history, surprise can play a major role in energy history, too.
Energy efficiency: Given the lack of an obvious winner among competing transitional or alternative energy sources, one crucial approach to energy consumption in 2041 will surely be efficiency at levels unimaginable today: the ability to achieve maximum economic output for minimum energy input. The lead players three decades from now may be the countries and corporations that have mastered the art of producing the most with the least. Innovations in transportation, building and product design, heating and cooling, and production techniques will all play a role in creating an energy-efficient world.
When the war is over
Thirty years from now, for better or worse, the world will be a far different place: hotter, stormier, and with less land (given the loss of shoreline and low-lying areas to rising sea levels). Strict limitations on carbon emissions will certainly be universally enforced and the consumption of fossil fuels, except under controlled circumstances, actively discouraged. Oil will still be available to those who can afford it, but will no longer be the world's paramount fuel. New powers, corporate and otherwise, in new combinations will have risen with a new energy universe. No one can know, of course, what our version of the Treaty of Westphalia will look like or who will be the winners and losers on this planet. In the intervening 30 years, however, that much violence and suffering will have ensued goes without question. Nor can anyone say today which of the contending forms of energy will prove dominant in 2041 and beyond.
Were I to wager a guess, I might place my bet on energy systems that were decentralised, easy to make and install, and required relatively modest levels of up-front investment. For an analogy, think of the laptop computer of 2011 versus the giant mainframes of the 1960s and 1970s. The closer that an energy supplier gets to the laptop model (or so I suspect), the more success will follow.
From this perspective giant nuclear reactors and coal-fired plants are, in the long run, less likely to thrive, except in places like China where authoritarian governments still call the shots. Far more promising, once the necessary breakthroughs come, will be renewable sources of energy and advanced biofuels that can be produced on a smaller scale with less up-front investment, and so possibly incorporated into daily life even at a community or neighborhood level.
Whichever countries move most swiftly to embrace these or similar energy possibilities will be the likeliest to emerge in 2041 with vibrant economies – and given the state of the planet, if luck holds, just in the nick of time.
Biofuels land grab in Kenya's Tana Delta fuels talk of war
Villagers vow to resist as wildlife vanishes and they are driven from their land to make way for water-thirsty crops
Tracy McVeigh in the Tana Delta, Kenya
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 2 July 2011 19.02 BST
Gamba Manyatta village is empty now, weeds already roping around the few skeletal hut frames still standing. The people who were evicted took as much of their building materials as they could carry to start again and the land where their homes stood is now ploughed up.
Mohamed Abdi, 13, points out where his hut used to be. His was the last of the 427 families to leave. "They told us we would be burned out if we didn't go," he said. "They drove machinery round and round the village all day and all night to drive people out. No one understood why, as the village had been there for more than 25 years."
The eviction of the villagers to make way for a sugar cane plantation is part of a wider land grab going on in Kenya's Tana Delta that is not only pushing people off plots they have farmed for generations, stealing their water resources and raising tribal tensions that many fear will escalate into war, but also destroying a unique wetland habitat that is home to hundreds of rare and spectacular birds.
The irony is that most of the land is being taken for allegedly environmental reasons – to allow private companies to grow water-thirsty sugar cane and jatropha for the biofuels so much in demand in the west, where green legislation, designed to ease carbon dioxide emissions, is requiring they are mixed with petrol and diesel.
The delta, one of Kenya's last wildernesses and one of the most important bird habitats in Africa, is the flood plain of the Tana river, which flows 1,014km from Mount Kenya to the Indian Ocean.
Global warming and reduced rainfall has already hit the delta hard. "No proper research has been done into what wildlife is here, and now the habitat is disappearing there is no evidence of what we are losing," said Francis Kagema, of Nature Kenya, a conservation group supported by the RSPB in the UK.
Standing on the bank of a small lake that clearly was once much larger, he points out more than a dozen species of birds within view from his binoculars. "You don't need to be a scientist to see the situation here is critical and the land grab is terrible. This is supposed to be the wet season. The elephants have already gone, the hippos are going, birds are less and less."
The delta's people are trying to fight their own government over the huge blocks of land being turned over to companies including the Canadian company, Bedford Biofuels, which was this year granted a licence by the Kenyan environmental regulator for a 10,000-hectare jatropha "pilot" project. A UK-based firm, G4 Industries Ltd, has been awarded a licence for 28,000 hectares.
At the site where the former villagers from Gamba Manyatta were told to relocate, elder Bule Gedi Darso, 57, shows the foul-smelling stream that they have to draw their water from. "This is not a good place. Children have died, we have typhoid and malaria now. We were healthy before and our children went to school. This river is the drainage and pesticides from all the big farms. The proper river has been diverted to irrigate them and now we just get their poison. When we were evicted they showed us the maps, and we saw many more villages who don't yet know they are to be evicted too. Where will they all go?"
It is a question worrying another village. Didewaride was once surrounded by wetland, only accessible by boat. Now it is stranded amid miles of brown earth with occasional pools of water. Omar Bocha Kofonde, an elder, says: "The hippos have gone, the fish, the birds, and the soil is salty. The goats and cattle have no grazing. The rivers used to flush out the sea water, now the sea is coming up on to our land because there is no river. Everything is in danger. People thought they owned the land, we have been here for hundreds of years. Now we will fight; we are ready to die, for what else is there?"
It is the same view coming from villagers all around the delta, Christian and Muslim, farmers and herdsmen from the Pokomo, Orma, Luo and other tribes. The village of Ozi has just discovered that two huge plots of its land were sold at auction in April – they do not know who sold it or who bought it.
"This land ownership is giving us a headache. We know there are people who have sold our land when it isn't theirs to sell. They are criminals and we will fight them, with guns and with sticks," said Ali Saidi Kichei of Ozi village, which last month sent a delegation to the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, to demand a meeting with the Kenyan minister for lands. "We lived in paradise, in peace," he said. "Now what? No water, only salty water, land thieves and water thieves, and children with empty stomachs."
Kagema says Nature Kenya is trying to support villagers to go to court. "These people have lived here for hundreds of years, but suddenly someone writes up a piece of paper and they are squatters on their own land. The delta is of international importance, yet they control the water and drain the wetlands and portions are parcelled off to private investors like the biofuel companies. Homes and lands are given away from under them. Nobody cares because nothing happens immediately, but it is coming. Tana Delta is in chaos. When everyone picks up their share with their bits of paperwork … it will be war. The day is coming."
Tracy McVeigh in the Tana Delta, Kenya
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 2 July 2011 19.02 BST
Gamba Manyatta village is empty now, weeds already roping around the few skeletal hut frames still standing. The people who were evicted took as much of their building materials as they could carry to start again and the land where their homes stood is now ploughed up.
Mohamed Abdi, 13, points out where his hut used to be. His was the last of the 427 families to leave. "They told us we would be burned out if we didn't go," he said. "They drove machinery round and round the village all day and all night to drive people out. No one understood why, as the village had been there for more than 25 years."
The eviction of the villagers to make way for a sugar cane plantation is part of a wider land grab going on in Kenya's Tana Delta that is not only pushing people off plots they have farmed for generations, stealing their water resources and raising tribal tensions that many fear will escalate into war, but also destroying a unique wetland habitat that is home to hundreds of rare and spectacular birds.
The irony is that most of the land is being taken for allegedly environmental reasons – to allow private companies to grow water-thirsty sugar cane and jatropha for the biofuels so much in demand in the west, where green legislation, designed to ease carbon dioxide emissions, is requiring they are mixed with petrol and diesel.
The delta, one of Kenya's last wildernesses and one of the most important bird habitats in Africa, is the flood plain of the Tana river, which flows 1,014km from Mount Kenya to the Indian Ocean.
Global warming and reduced rainfall has already hit the delta hard. "No proper research has been done into what wildlife is here, and now the habitat is disappearing there is no evidence of what we are losing," said Francis Kagema, of Nature Kenya, a conservation group supported by the RSPB in the UK.
Standing on the bank of a small lake that clearly was once much larger, he points out more than a dozen species of birds within view from his binoculars. "You don't need to be a scientist to see the situation here is critical and the land grab is terrible. This is supposed to be the wet season. The elephants have already gone, the hippos are going, birds are less and less."
The delta's people are trying to fight their own government over the huge blocks of land being turned over to companies including the Canadian company, Bedford Biofuels, which was this year granted a licence by the Kenyan environmental regulator for a 10,000-hectare jatropha "pilot" project. A UK-based firm, G4 Industries Ltd, has been awarded a licence for 28,000 hectares.
At the site where the former villagers from Gamba Manyatta were told to relocate, elder Bule Gedi Darso, 57, shows the foul-smelling stream that they have to draw their water from. "This is not a good place. Children have died, we have typhoid and malaria now. We were healthy before and our children went to school. This river is the drainage and pesticides from all the big farms. The proper river has been diverted to irrigate them and now we just get their poison. When we were evicted they showed us the maps, and we saw many more villages who don't yet know they are to be evicted too. Where will they all go?"
It is a question worrying another village. Didewaride was once surrounded by wetland, only accessible by boat. Now it is stranded amid miles of brown earth with occasional pools of water. Omar Bocha Kofonde, an elder, says: "The hippos have gone, the fish, the birds, and the soil is salty. The goats and cattle have no grazing. The rivers used to flush out the sea water, now the sea is coming up on to our land because there is no river. Everything is in danger. People thought they owned the land, we have been here for hundreds of years. Now we will fight; we are ready to die, for what else is there?"
It is the same view coming from villagers all around the delta, Christian and Muslim, farmers and herdsmen from the Pokomo, Orma, Luo and other tribes. The village of Ozi has just discovered that two huge plots of its land were sold at auction in April – they do not know who sold it or who bought it.
"This land ownership is giving us a headache. We know there are people who have sold our land when it isn't theirs to sell. They are criminals and we will fight them, with guns and with sticks," said Ali Saidi Kichei of Ozi village, which last month sent a delegation to the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, to demand a meeting with the Kenyan minister for lands. "We lived in paradise, in peace," he said. "Now what? No water, only salty water, land thieves and water thieves, and children with empty stomachs."
Kagema says Nature Kenya is trying to support villagers to go to court. "These people have lived here for hundreds of years, but suddenly someone writes up a piece of paper and they are squatters on their own land. The delta is of international importance, yet they control the water and drain the wetlands and portions are parcelled off to private investors like the biofuel companies. Homes and lands are given away from under them. Nobody cares because nothing happens immediately, but it is coming. Tana Delta is in chaos. When everyone picks up their share with their bits of paperwork … it will be war. The day is coming."