Glaring truth

Eliminating subsidies for coal, gas and oil could save as much as Germany's annual greenhouse gas emissions each year by 2015, according to Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA). While the G20 pledged in 2009 to phase out such fossil fuel subsidies in the "medium term", the hundreds of billions that governments spend each year rose in 2010.

Energy is significantly underpriced in many parts of the world, leading to wasteful consumption, price volatility and fuel smuggling. It's also undermining the competitiveness of renewables, Birol told The Guardian.

According to IEA research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.

A phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists.

That brings us back to our old question: who will bell the cat? Which government will brave it, to lose votes?

Riding merry on fossil fuels

Global fossil fuel consumption subsidies rose in 2010 despite a pledge by G-20 nations to take steps to reduce them in coming years, according to a new analysis.

The International Energy Agency estimated that subsidies that artificially lower fuel prices reached $409 billion in 2010, an increase of almost $110 billion above 2009 levels.

The changes “closely tracked the sharp rise in international fuel prices,” according to the IEA.

The IEA’s top economist told reporters in Paris that subsidies could reach $660 billion in 2020 absent better reforms, according to Reuters.

The Paris-based IEA and the OECD released a joint analysis that follows the G-20’s 2009 pledge to phase-out subsidies that encourage waste, hinder energy security, and impede development of renewables and climate change initiatives.

Make your choice

As the debate over conventional and renewable energy picks up, in the wake of the Japan disaster it makes sense to look at safe options. People tend to forget the deaths associated with coal mining, as also that fly ash produced by a coal-burning power plant “carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.” (Scientific American)

Not to forget spills, the latest one in north Atlantic spells sure death to 20,000 penguins!

Solar and wind also have their share of accidents, too. Silane (a key chemical for solar cells) explosions have killed 10 over the last 20 years, according to Scientific American, and others have noted that solar manufacturers pollute streams and natural waterways in China. Solar installers have also been killed or injured falling off roofs. Approximately 46 people in all have been killed as the result of the wind industry over the last few decades. Twenty-three died during construction. Only four members of the public, including one woman who parachuted into a turbine, have died.

The key difference here is that it is more difficult to set off cataclysmic chain reactions in the realm of renewables. A simple way to figure this is to ask people where they would prefer to live: near a solar farm, a coal plant, nuclear reactor or a wind farm?

As to costs, and speed of setting up plants too, renewables are ahead. Yes, the cost factor may seem prohibitive but this is simply due to the highly subsidised fossil fuel energy. Cost of oil is on the rise and so will be the case as coal begins to peak. Which will be before the middle of this century. Not to say that we shut down all our coal power plants, but start thinking of going slow on them and picking up on the renewables.

So, what are we waiting for?

Your vote please!

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!

Running out of coal?

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of Washington have come to the conclusion that the world's coal supply has been vastly overestimated. The researchers believe that coal production could start dwindling as early as 2025.

The researchers have found that minable coal reserves have been overestimated by at least four times what is actually minable.

David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology analyzed the coal production patterns of five regions around the world -- eastern Pennsylvania, France, Germany's Ruhr Valley, the United Kingdom and Japan -- each of which was producing at less than a tenth of its peak levels.

The bell curve of production obtained when applied to coal data from around the world shows that the IPCC’s estimate for extractable coal at 3400 billion tons is far above the latest calculation at 666 billion tons.

Overestimation of reserves, as also a clubbing of resources and reserves, is said to be the reason for this over-estimation.

The other consequence of this overestimation of coal is overestimation of emissions. The committee's projections call for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to approach 500 parts per million by 2050, if emissions continue on their current trend. But Rutledge's work suggest that even if humans burn all the coal and oil we can get our hands on, we won't be able to push CO2 past 450 ppm.

Will a two degree rise affect climate drastically? Some say no, while others point to climate sensitivity. But both sides agree to an impending energy scarcity from fossil fuels.

India, China and the US are relying on coal reserves to a large extent when planning growth. Will this study make any difference in the way the governments review the energy mix?

Coal thoughts

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has some very interesting posts on his blog, very imaginatively called Dot Earth. From semi-philosophical thoughts on the interconnectedness of the human race, to the very earth-bound coal shopping that took the Indian coal minister to the US, the blog is worth adding to your daily read.

It’s not surprising that India, despite big domestic coal reserves, is shopping in the United States for new coal sources to feed its climb toward electrification, industrialization, and prosperity. The giant boilers at the planned fleets of “Ultra Mega” power plants will need millions of tons a year.

It also has interesting comments posted. As always it does become a tussle between lobbies, like the development vs environment ones, or the nuclear vs solar ones.

But one mention he makes in the blog talks of an NRI’s anguish over coal based thermal plants in his home town along the Konkan coast. This is an issue we have decided to take up for our debate as it is very relevant. Not a day passes without some news of opposition to power plants. Why? In this case, for instance, while his concerns about acid rain, and emissions, as also the damage to the habitat are serious, these can be contested. We invite your comments.

Send us facts to back what you say. There is no fun in having a slang match between those who believe poverty can only be eradicated through more thermal plants, or those who think family planning is the answer to India’s energy challenge.

Yes, the vast millions have to be empowered with basic energy, is there only one way to do it? For one, distributed generation based on locally available renewable resources can be harnessed. This has been done in a couple of places and needs to be scaled up. There will be problems but research and efforts can overcome these. If you have heard of any sustained case studies, do let us know.

Upholding the sanctity of a place like Western Ghats is not about aesthetics but a more deeper environment issue of biodiversity and the need to retain our fast shrinking forests. Most of our rivers originate in these forests. The ghats also play a crucial role in bringing rain to the plateau.

Are there other routes to empower the 40 percent with no access to electricity? We have some amount of coal reserves though there are contradicting claims to how long they will last. Many of the operators in generation have hardly ten days of stock on hand.

Coal is termed ‘dirty’ because of the greenhouse gases it emits on combustion. Yet, it is one of the fuels we still have, but also depleting. Do you think we should continue with fossil fuels simply because there is no other 'easy' alternative?

Let us have your thoughts.