Why energy transitions are the key to environmental progress
Inbox
| x | |||||
|
11:29 AM (7 hours ago)
 | |||||
At the United Nations climate talks in Paris last fall, US President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasised the need to find climate solutions that advance, rather than undermine, India’s development prospects.
But
the reality of what both nations are doing on climate change does not
live up to the rhetoric. The overwhelming focus of US-Indian government
climate efforts is on expanding renewables and increasing energy
efficiency. Both have merit, but should be third order, not top,
priorities.
The
main climate and development focus of all governments should be on
accelerating the pace of energy transitions, from wood and dung to
fossil fuels and from fossil fuels to nuclear power. To understand why
this is, it is important to put energy and environmental progress in
their developmental context.
Almost
all nations develop following the same pattern. Small farmers become
more productive and move from the country to the city to work in
factories and offices. Women become newly empowered. Children gain
formal education. And couples choose to have fewer children.
As
fewer farmers must produce more food for more people, they invest in
tractors, fertilizer and other ways to increase productivity.
Over
time, all of this urbanisation and industrialisation delivers large
environmental benefits. Using liquid petroleum gas, instead of wood for
cooking, almost completely eliminates toxic smoke and can save hours a
day.
As
we move from wood fuel to fossil fuel, our forests can return and
become habitat for wildlife. Recently, India was able to protect her
Himalayan forests by subsidising the substitution of liquid petroleum
gas (LPG) for wood fuel.
Factories
and cities create more air pollution at first, but over time become
cleaner and greener. Rising societal wealth allows for pollution
controls such as catalytic converters and smokestack scrubbers. And dust
is reduced by paving roads, improving mining and land use practices and
tree-planting.
In
the US and Europe, conventional pollutants have been in decline since
the early 1970s, and carbon emissions for the last 10 years. Rich
nations can afford to move from coal to much cleaner natural gas, which
generates a tiny fraction of the pollutants of coal, and half the carbon
emissions.
In
the US and Europe, major oil and gas discoveries were key to shifting
from coal to natural gas and reducing pollution. North Sea natural gas
in deep waters reduced Europe’s reliance on coal starting in the 1980s.
In the U.S., it was natural gas from shale, a rock formation one mile
underground, starting around 2007.
China
and India both have significant reserves of natural gas and oil in
shale, but lack the workforce, drilling rigs and pipeline
infrastructure. Those things will develop over time, the question is at
what pace.
Because
solar and wind cannot generate power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,
their value to developing nations that need cheap reliable power for
their factories and cities is highly limited.
Solar
and wind are limited for similar reasons in rich nations as well. As
solar and wind become a larger amount of the electrical grid, their
value declines, as Germany is discovering. That’s because solar and wind
create power when it’s not needed and don’t create power when it is
most needed from 5 pm to 9 pm.
The
great emphasis put on an energy source that cannot support
industrialisation and urbanisation is not a coincidence.
Environmentalists in India and the West have since the 1960s promoted
the Romantic idea that low-energy consumption, rural subsistence living,
and renewable energy are best for people and the environment. The last
50 years shows how wrong this idea is.
Economic
growth remains tightly coupled with energy consumption. A recent
analysis of 76 countries found that Indians and Chinese earning $50,000
per year consumes the same amount of energy as Americans and Europeans
did when earning that same amount.
Where
European, US and Indian governments put great emphasis on off-grid
solar in rural villages, historically most people gain access to LPG and
electricity by moving to cities.
Solar
and wind are promoted as energy sources with little negative
environmental impact but both have large impacts measured on per unit
energy basis. Both require 100 times more land as fossil and nuclear
plants. And wind and solar require five times more concrete and steel,
respectively, than coal, nuclear and natural gas plants, according to
the US Department of Energy.
Given
the limits to solar and wind in both rich and poor countries,
significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require a faster
transition to nuclear energy, first fission and then fusion. Where the
transition from wood to coal began 500 years ago, the transition from
fossil to nuclear energy began just 50 years ago.
India
is a special case in that while most countries complete, or almost
complete, the transition from biomass (wood and dung) to fossil fuels,
India aims to make both energy transitions happen at the same time.
Rich
countries have the strongest scientific and technical workforces
capable of building and operating nuclear power plants, but ideological
opponents of the technology have successfully spread fear of nuclear
energy since the 1960s.
Polls
show Indians support nuclear energy but the Indian nuclear energy
programme is only now recovering after having been isolated from the
global community over recusal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As
such, the most important work by Modi and Obama on climate was removing
hurdles to greater US-India collaboration on nuclear energy. India
could soon start constructing power plants with US and European
companies and hopefully one day soon the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans.
The
same should be done on natural gas. The US can help India to better
access its natural gas reserves, and the Indian government can take
advantage of low cost natural gas due to the global oversupply, and
potentially start importing large quantities of natural gas from Iran.
Nations
around the world, including the US and Europe, show that the transition
from wood to fossil fuels takes decades. To the extent there is energy
leap-frogging it will mostly be from wood to natural gas and nuclear,
not to solar and wind. Renewables should play a role but should not
distract nations from the main event of accelerating energy transitions
for environmental progresss.
Michael Shellenberger is President of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy NGO based in California.
Rachel
Pritzker is President of Pritizker Innovation Fund, a philanthropic
foundation supporting technological innovation for human development and
environmental progress.
————
Michael Shellenberger :: Founder and President, Environmental Progress :: Tel 510-984-0076 :: 415-309-4200 :: EnvironmentalProgress.org :: shellenberger.org
————
Michael Shellenberger :: Founder and President, Environmental Progress :: Tel 510-984-0076 :: 415-309-4200 :: EnvironmentalProgress.org :: shellenberger.org
| ||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment