The November issue of Scientific American carries an article titled "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" where the authors, scientists from Stanford and California university, detail a plan to shift the world completely from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The cost runs to $100 trillion and the time frame is 20 years.
Would such a move really be sustainable?
The article tells us that currently the world is consuming about 12.5 trillion watts of all forms of energy at peak consumption. In 20 years, the demand will be up 16.8 trillion watts given growth in population and living standards.
The replacement plan calls for 3.8 million 5-megawatt wind turbines, 490,000 tidal generators, 720,000 0.74 megawatt wave converters, 1.7 billion .003 megawatt rooftop photovoltaic systems, 5,300 geothermal plants, 900 1.3-megawatt hydroelectric plants, and to top it off 49,000 concentrated solar 300-megawatt power plants and 40,000 commercial photovoltaic power plants.
A totally new infrastructure has to be put in place for the manufacture of these equipment as well as for transferring energy from the place of generation to where required. Even if airplanes powered by fuel cells as also road transport become technically and commercially feasible, there will be need to build all these new vehicles.
Will there be enough of specialized materials - particularly exotic ones such as neodymium, tellurium, indium and lithium that would be necessary for the magnets of wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and high capacity vehicle batteries? What alternative ways are there to make the components? Won’t we need to wait for technology to progress? Is recycling enough to meet all the demand?
With hydro (including tides, waves, and flowing rivers) and geothermal providing a base, wind and solar would provide the bulk of the load. This calls for a specialized grid to move the power. Yes, the Obama administration is awarding $3.4 billion in grants to modernize the national electric grid. How many in the developing world can afford to?
A smart grid to transfer power over long distances will involve miles of lines. Take for instance, the world’s largest renewable energy project, Desertec. The project now has a core group of backers and a signed agreement between 12 companies wanting to move forward with the $555 billion renewable energy belt. The DESERTEC Foundation vision is to install 100 GW of solar power throughout Northern Africa, with the goal of supplying 15% of Europe’s energy demand with clean renewable power.
Is such a total transformation from fossils to renewables possible? In such a short time?
How will governments finance the change? Even to raise $2 trillion in the US would mean increasing tax to more than 50 percent of current numbers. What about the rest of the world?
Would it be better to go for smaller local projects with local materials? In the ‘long run’ (pun intended!) what is better? A massive global project, or small local units? A total transformation or a gradual change?
Join the discussion, let us make it lively!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Any transformation is possible IF we believe in the need and urgency. Like what my favourite thinker Paul Hawken say.
Paul Hawken rightly puts it as a ‘monumental effort’ to bring carbon to 350 ppm. We’d need one new olympic sized pool of bioalgae fuel production every second for 25 years, for example. But, it can be done! Citing how the Ford plant switched from building cars to building tanks in no time flat when WWII broke out, he points to the power of a concerted effort.
If, for example, we took all the energy used to create newspapers in the world and used it instead to create solar panels, we could get it all done in 11 days. There will be issues plenty but it can be done.
How important do we believe the change is. That is important.
One of the most interesting points in the Scientific American article is that, although their scenario would require 3.8 million large wind turbines (a seemingly enormous number), the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year!
Yes, its certainly doable. It is largely a matter of political will. Reduce the number of cars that are made and increase the number of wind turbines, in much the same way that, when the USA entered the second world war, President Roosevelt told the car makers to stop making cars and start making tanks instead. Despite initial pessimism, they greatly exceeded their targets.
Post a Comment