More with less

Is a low-carbon necessarily a low-energy future?

Given the intermittency issue of solar and wind, and the huge investments needed for storage and long distance transmission, low-carbon path requires a high rate of growth in that expensive sector, and therefore high rates of investment. Governments would have to jump-start the transition with big subsidies—a tough order!

Global coal production will max out in the next few years and start to decline. And then there is China which now burns almost half the world’s total and is starting to import enormous quantities, driving up prices worldwide. Costs of production of natural gas and per-well depletion rates also are high.

Of course, even if one were to continue on the high carbon track, things are bound to grind to a halt soon. Enormous amounts of coal, oil, gas, and other fossil fuels still remain underground, but each new increment will cost significantly more to extract (in terms of both money and energy). Most of what is left is lower quality, expensive-to-produce, less accessible resources.

After a certain point, even if gross energy production is still climbing, the amount of energy actually useful to society starts to decline anyway. From then on, it is impossible to increase the amount of useful energy available. Whatever the path, we have less energy to use.

As more energy observers concur, energy conservation must be brought from the background to centrestage. This covers not only efficient use of energy which releases more energy for other uses, it should also look at discouraging extravagance. For many of our daily requirements, this means a re-look at new (or old) ways to do things.

Surprisingly, in releasing so much energy from our menu, we could find ourselves living healthier lives than before.

A low energy future is the sane choice. Agree?