Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

When looking at energy sources, fossil fuel is a good place to start – over 80% of the world’s energy production is from fossil fuel, coal, oil and natural gas. All in all, a conversion chart to normalize primary energy volume would have BTU’s, which economists love, expressed in quadrillions, along with “million ton oil equivalents” or MTOEs, then billion cubic meter quantities of natural gas, followed by gigawatt-years of electric power, million ton quantities of coal, and anchored by million barrel quantities of oil.

It’s interesting to note that one quadrillion BTU’s, or British Thermal Units (one BTU is the theoretical amount of energy necessary to heat one pound of water by one degree farenheit) is equivalent to about 25 million tons of oil, 28 billion cubic meters of natural gas, 33 gigawatt-years of electricity (a gigawatt-year, which we prefer as a unit of electrical measure, is equivalent to 8.7 billion kilowatt-hours), 60 million tons of coal (although that is on the low end of the scale, high-quality coal can deliver a quad btu with as little as 40 million tons), and 180 million barrels of oil.

Keeping a chart like this around would probably do no harm when considering options towards a transition to a world where nobody gets to use oil, gas or coal… Is the United States importing 12 million barrels of oil per day? What percentage of total energy consumption does that represent? With this chart, these calculations are easy. For example, the USA consumes just over 100 quad btus per year; if US oil imports hit 12 million barrels per day (4,380 mm bbls/yr), and since roughly 180 million barrels equals a quad btu, then US oil imports should represent 25% of all US energy consumption.

For electrical calculations the conversion efficiency is an obvious question – if you put a billion cubic meters of natural gas into powering an electric generating plant, how much energy in the form of electricity comes out the other end? In the case of a modern natural gas power plant, about 60% is recovered. In all cases conversion efficiency between the amount of energy locked into the raw fuel and the amount of energy the end-user consumes is an important factor. With modern cogeneration equipment, natural gas pumped into commercial buildings can be 90% efficient.

With this chart, however, you can begin to calculate most any macroeconomic energy trade-off. Should Californian’s build a liquid natural gas terminal off their central coast? Sounds good to me – a heckava lot more energy can be imported from the abundant natural gas in the world than from biofuel feedstock, which requires rainforest destruction in order to be grown in significant quantities.

References:

www.sc-2.psc.edu/news/USEnergy.ppt

www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html

www.bp.com/worldenergy

www.eia.doe.gov

www.uwsp.edu/CNR/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm

Following this brief commentary is a “letter for publication” entitled “CLEAN, SAFE SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY” received from www.mng.org.uk/gh/ and if you can find out what M, N, and G mean you are more observant than I. In this “letter for publication” we are provided a list of alternative energy technologies that may power the planet without combustion – photovoltaic and solar concentrator 35%, wave and tidal 31%, combined heat and power and reduced wastage 26%, and wind 26%. The perspicacious reader will note this is overkill, by 18%.

This smorgasbord of alternative energy compares to our current worldwide energy production as follows: oil 34.3%, coal 25.1%, gas 20.9%, “combustible renewables” (mostly wood) 10.6%, nuclear 6.5%, and hydro-electric power 2.2%. None of the alternatives make this list, which totals 99% of all energy produced in the world. And today, 80% of the remaining one percent is geothermal. All of the proposed alternatives, today, only produce two-tenths of one percent of all energy production on earth.

So in the letter to follow, we have a prescription for how we will take what is currently two-tenths of one percent of our worldwide energy production, and provide 200% of our worldwide energy production. If we adhere to this non-nuclear, non-hydroelectric, non-fossil fuel prescription, a 1,000x increase in alternative energy production is what we will need to accomplish, since our planet’s growing, industrializing human population will need 2x more energy even if huge efficiencies are gained.

And to build all these wind and tide emplacements, 1,000 times what we have now, how much concrete and steel would we need? Wouldn’t it be much easier and less disruptive to the environment if we simply ran diesel fuel refined from heavy oil through solid oxide fuel cells? Or what if we continued to burn fuel, but in a totally clean manner – only emitting CO2, and instead used all that concrete and steel for housing and freeways, and maybe even aqueducts and desalination plants and pumping stations to grow trees?

Implicit in this alternative energy prescription is that we must stop all burning. Civilization must stop all burning, because burning gives off CO2. But fully 90% of all energy produced by humanity requires burning, and in the short term it is impossible to eliminate burning without shutting down civilization – so we must find other ways to maintain a stable global climate. Clean burning is feasible, but eliminating all burning is not feasible without shutting down existing economies, let alone permitting economic growth. It can’t be done in the time we’ve got.

Remember that worldwide burning of fossil fuels is nothing in the grand scheme of earthly CO2 emissions – less than 3%. The rest is from nature. And today we spew far more CO2 into the air each year through rapaciously burning away – to make room for biofuel – the paltry 40% of our tropical forests that still remain. And this burning can be stopped. Global warming and climate change can be successfully addressed through massive tropical reforesting where biofuel plantations stand or are planned. What if that were all it would take? And what if nothing else would work anyway?

To their credit, the bmg.orgsters did not include biofuel on their agenda, and to their credit, they are trying to put forward an alternative. But even if our rainforests are replanted, do we really want wind generator towers and blades surveiling every landscape, menacing flying creatures? And do we really want seabeds and reefs and tidepools everywhere to sport massive underwater propeller-driven electric turbines? Aren’t the people proposing these alternatives the same folks who don’t like hydroelectric power? When all we have to do to supply energy between today and when we reach the fusion fueled, electrochemical energy economy of the future is tear up a few thousand square miles of oil sands? Sure, solar power is good, but clean fossil fuel is a realistic goal, not no fossil fuel.

LETTER FOR PUBLICATION

Dear Editor,
CLEAN, SAFE SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY
Contrary to what is suggested in the new Energy White Paper, there are more than enough clean, safe sources of electricity to meet our needs and there is absolutely no need for nuclear power and all its many headaches (see www.mng.org.uk/gh/no_nukes.htm).

There are now several reports showing in detail how the UK can meet its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions from electricity generation, and phase out nuclear power. These can be downloaded from www.mng.org.uk/gh/scenarios.htm .

It is simply not true that “the lights will go out” without nuclear power. The British Wind Energy Association say that “the UK’s offshore resource is equivalent to three times the UK’s annual electricity consumption.”. But rather than rely on one single source of renewable electricity, there are good reasons to develop a variety of sources as described in the analysis and spreadsheet at www.mng.org.uk/gh/energy.htm .

In summary, UK electricity needs may be met quite comfortably, and soon, from the following renewable, carbon-free sources:
Percentage of total UK demand

Wind power (large scale) 20 (or more)
Wave power 20
Tidal currents 3
Tidal lagoons 8
Photovoltaics 20 (or more)
Micro wind power 6
Combined heat and power 16
Concentrating solar power 15
Reduced wastage 10 (or more)
Total 118

Apart from these sources, there is energy from biomass and there are plans to import geothermal electricity from Iceland (see www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1782183.ece).

There is no “energy gap”, only a gap in the political will needed to bring these renewable sources of energy on stream.

Sincerely,
Dr Gerry Wolff
Gerry@mng.org.uk, +44 (0)1248 712962, www.mng.org.uk/gh/
18 Penlon, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5LR, UK.

Sacramento is the capital of California, a state that is world-renowned for its concern for the environment. As such, the Sacramento region is attracting businesses and investors from around the world, eager to capitalize on Sacramento’s enthusiastic embrace of green industry. But sometimes green is brown.

At the Port of Sacramento, a start-up company based in Long Beach has already gotten its first go-ahead from the governing board of the Port of Sacramento to build a biodiesel plant, that, according to the Sacramento Bee, “will make 60 million gallons a year of the alternative fuel.” Can you smell the rainforests burning?

Situated on 14 acres of land in the middle of this deep water port, this refinery will receive cargos of biofuel feedstock from all over the world. But let’s put this into perspective – Californian’s consume 700 million barrels of petroleum each year, which equates to 29.4 billion gallons of fuel. So this new biodiesel refinery, ten times larger than anything built in California to-date, at best will offset two-tenths of one percent of California’s demand for petroleum. But where will all of this biodiesel feedstock come from?

The best source yet known for biodiesel oil is from oil palms, which yield about 10,000 barrels of oil per square mile per year. This equates to 420,000 gallons of oil, which means that providing feedstock to this plant will require the destruction of 150 square miles of rainforest – and that’s best case.

In terms of land required to grow biofuel, the calculations for biodiesel and bioethanol are roughly equivalent. That is, the best-case feedstock for bioethanol is sugar cane, and yields are approximately 10,000 barrels per square mile per year, the same as for oil palms and biodiesel. These sorts of yields are only available in the tropics – in North America, using corn, the yields per square mile are only about half as good. So if you rely on biofuels to offset 100% of California’s petroleum consumption, instead of two-tenths of one percent, you will have to destroy 75,000 square miles of rainforest. That’s just for California.

To supply the entire world with biofuel instead of petroleum, best case, you would have to destroy 2.9 million square miles of tropical rainforest – which is, coincidentally, about all we’ve got left of these rainforest’s original 8.0 million square miles.

Biodiesel and bioethanol make sense if they are derived from municipal waste streams (feedlots, landfills, etc.), or if the crops are grown in arid regions (very low yields) to combat desertification, or if they are produced in factory reactors. Read “Biofuel Certification” for more about this, and read “Reforest the Tropics” for more information on the role tropical deforestation has on climate change.

Before Sacramento deserves its reputation as the green capital of the world, they will have to quit endorsing every proposal that feels green but is actually brown.

At last there is a bit of a chorus developing to call attention to the biofueled destruction of tropical rainforests at a time when rainforest restoration might actually curb global warming better and faster than drastically curtailing use of fossil fuel.

The Global Canopy Programme (GCP), to quote their own website, is “a global alliance linking studies of forest canopies worldwide into a collaborative programme of research, education and conservation addressing biodiversity, climate change and poverty alleviation.”

Whatever the IPCC may say about CO2 as a first order anthropogenic climate forcing mechanism, the GCP may say that tropical deforestation is bigger first order forcing than CO2. And if they do, we most emphatically agree. We need to reforest the tropics right now. Industry should burn clean, worry about their CO2 later.

How we discovered the Global Canopy Programme was through a reference to their recently released study in a report posted May 14, 2007 in The Independent by Daniel Howden, entitled “Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming.” In the GCP study, the authors claim “The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth’s equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.”

Here’s another nugget: “Scientists say one days’ deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York. Reducing those catastrophic emissions can be achieved most quickly and most cheaply by halting the destruction in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and elsewhere.”

This is the backdrop against which hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested, worldwide, to build ethanol distilleries, and diesel refineries, to process the crops that will grow where tropical rainforests once stood. It’s that simple. And it could be that if we don’t stop it, right now, it will be the collapse of the tropical forests that provided our climate its catastrophic tipping point, not your incandescent light, or my compost heap.

The Rainforest Action Network is waking up, as this story in The Independent was referenced by one of their bloggers, Branden, on May 16th, in a post entitled “Deforestation the leading cause of global warming.” We couldn’t agree more. Tropical rainforests have already shrunk from over 8.0 million square miles to less than 3.0 million.

In this post, Branden writes: “The landmark Stern Report last year, and the influential McKinsey Report in January agreed that forests offer the ‘single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions’,” and, “the leading rainforest scientists are now calling for the immediate inclusion of standing forests in internationally regulated carbon markets that could provide cash incentives to halt this disastrous process.”

There are two things that further stand out, not mentioned in the Independent article nor by the RAN blogger – that today’s unprecedented rainforest destruction is almost entirely for the purposes of biofuel plantations, and that to reforest the planet we need produce more energy, more water, more massive civil engineering projects, not fewer. Energy creates water and wealth – the wealth we need to finance tropical rainforest restoration.

Our war on industrial CO2 emissions may prevent us from being able to afford the incentives tropical nations require to stop cutting their forests. CO2 credits should enable fossil fuel providers to increase clean production. CO2 from clean burning fossil fuel is far less disruptive to our climate right now compared with tropical deforestation and the permanent removal of perennial forest.

How much of the old China will remain?

China’s energy shortage in recent years has resulted in extensive efforts to obtain additional energy supplies….

Beijing has called for domestic production to be increased as alternative and renewable energy resources are now being strongly considered. This desire for energy security has also become an impetus in China’s foreign policy, with state-owned oil majors encouraged to secure production rights at oil fields throughout the world. Conservation, however, seemed to be the key word for China’s strategy for energy security in 2006. The government set compulsory targets for the first time in history, requiring the entire country to reduce energy intensity by 20 percent in unit GDP production by 2010. Yet, the target, announced in March 2006 as a part of the 11th Five Year Economic Program, may be a long shot for a country with an overheating economy.

In a recent study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, entitled “China’s Energy Economic Situation and Policy Trends” (Woguo nengyuan jingji xingshi yu zhengce zouxiang), the authors acknowledged that little has changed in the wasteful consumption of energy in Chinese industries [1]. While China’s economy grew by 10.9 percent in the first half of 2006, coal and electricity consumption jumped by 12.8 percent and 12 percent, respectively. The energy consumption in producing every 10,000 yuan GDP did not decrease, but in fact increased by nearly 1 percent during the same period. This means that the 20 percent energy intensity reduction plan for 2006-10 already failed to achieve its target in its first year. Rather than meeting the annual energy efficiency goal of 4 percent as it had planned to do so last year, China must now reduce energy intensity by 5.4 percent per year in the next four years in order to meet the overall national energy conservation target for 2010.

KEY VARIABLES: MOST POPULOUS/WEALTHIEST NATIONS

China & India convert energy into wealth (BTUs per $1.00 of GNP) at only about 25% the efficiency of the USA or European Community

Structurally speaking, high-energy consuming industries are still leading the way in China’s economic development. Large-scale investments have gone into nationwide energy development projects, many of which are low-tech, high-waste ventures. Yet, they are still profitable in a country with a voracious appetite for energy. While additional energy industries are moving into other industrial sectors, profit margins continued to grow in the 2000-2005 period with the profits from the energy industry accounting for over 30 percent of the total profits in China’s industries [2]. At the same time, most of the investments are still focused on traditional energy sectors rather than on conservation technologies or “green technologies” that can conserve energy. For instance, China continues to rely upon coal for nearly 70 percent of its energy needs, consuming 22.5 percent more coal than other advanced countries [3].

CHINA ENERGY PRODUCTION BY FUEL TYPE, 1980-2015

This projection from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that China’s energy consumption could nearly double in the next twenty years, and virtually all of this new energy will come from coal.

China also set a supposedly compulsory goal to reduce industrial pollutants by 2 percent in the same five-year plan. Yet, the record in the first half of 2006 showed an increase of 3-4 percent, making it impossible for China’s industries to reach the target for the year [4]. This increase in pollutants was largely due to the rapid rate of unregulated economic growth; from January to September last year, Chinese industries grew by 17.2 percent, while heavy industries increased by 18.2 percent [5].

In the past year, the central government attempted to curb pollution and encourage energy conservation by implementing a number of top-down measures:

March 2006 – Accompanying the announcement of energy intensity targets, the National People’s Congress began to draft the Energy Conservation Law.

April 2006 – Multiple government agencies launched a conservation campaign in 1,000 enterprises belonging to major high-energy consuming industrial sectors.

May 2006 – Beijing announced an ambitious plan to conserve and better utilize energy in nearly 1,000 categories.

June 2006 – Relevant government agencies set the unit GDP energy consumption standards for all provinces.

July 2006 – The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) held a national energy conservation conference, signing energy target responsibility agreements with local governments.

August 2006 – The State Council issued a new directive for strengthening energy conservation.

October 2006 – China Coal Industry Association held a conservation conference.

November 2006 – NDRC distributed provincial quotas for energy conservation targets in the 11th Five Year Program.

Such extensive administrative regulations and guidance have produced notable achievements. Shandong Province, for example, has implemented 100 large conservation projects. Hebei Province, ranking second nationwide in heavy industrial energy consumption, has added “energy conservation” as a category in its cadre performance evaluation. Ningbao, a major industrial city in the eastern part of China, has reported the reduction of energy intensity in all of its industries by over 10 percent in 2006 [6].

These are nonetheless isolated achievements. For most of the country, conservation remains a low priority. Many of the administrative announcements and measures are lost in the convoluted bureaucracy. Even for those local governments wanting to do more, concrete directions from the central government are unclear. Moreover, the market still favors traditional (and unclean) sources of energy, such as coal, and for many, achieving high GDP numbers through large-scale investments in energy, construction and other heavy industrial sectors remains the priority.

China’s first major civil engineering project…

China’s domestic efforts in conservation have also extended into the foreign energy policy area. For years, Beijing has called on its major energy and resource companies to engage in a “go-out” strategy. Chinese firms have traveled around the world searching for oil and gas fields, securing exploration rights and purchasing multi-year contracted supplies. Under this plan, Africa has quickly become a major provider, supplying nearly a third of China’s imports last year (AFP, June 20, 2006). Large Chinese oil majors have negotiated $70 billion in energy exploration deals with Iran, purchased large assets in Kazakhstan and sealed multi-billion dollar, multi-year natural gas supply commitments from Australia.

Recently, though, there are some indications that the Chinese are looking beyond their borders in acquiring and developing conservation technologies and strategies. At a World Bank workshop with China’s State Council last June (at which this author was a part of the World Bank expert team), the consensus after two days of closed-door discussions was that China could not sustain itself if it continued to consume energy at the same rates as advanced industrialized countries. Neither the Chinese environment nor the world ecosystem is capable of supporting massive large-scale waste or pollution related to energy consumption. The workshop called for China to pursue innovative technologies, develop alternative and renewable energy sources and ultimately use “technology leapfrogging” to solve China’s future energy requirements. For that purpose, the Chinese government is eager to examine, evaluate and import advanced technologies from abroad.

Sino-Japanese relations offer an example of China’s changing priorities in international energy cooperation. Until last fall, Sino-Japanese relations were in a deep chill due to former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s insistence on visiting the Yasukuni Shrine. At the time, Beijing and Tokyo were also engaged in a bitter dispute over the potential oil and gas deposits in the East China Sea. Yet, when the NDRC organized an energy conservation and environment forum in Kyoto in May 2006, it attracted 900 participants, far exceeding initial expectations. Even Shinzo Abe, then Chief Cabinet Secretary and a contender to replace Koizumi, attended the conference. When Abe became the new Prime Minister in September, he made improving Japan’s relations with China a top priority and proactively propositioned to the Chinese leaders that both countries establish a “reciprocal relationship based on mutual strategic interests.” When asked to elaborate on his comments, Abe explained that the core of such a reciprocal relationship would consist of cooperation on environmental concerns and energy conservation, a message that rang sweetly in Beijing’s ears (Asahi Shimbun, October 9, 2006). While Beijing remains concerned with Abe’s nationalist tendencies on a range of defense-related issues, it is willing to engage Tokyo on projects of “mutual strategic interests.”

WHAT IF THE CHINESE HAD AN AMERICAN LIFESTYLE?

In the late ’90′s Americans used, on average, 12 times as much energy and 4 times as much water per person, compared to the Chinese during the same period.

China has also exhibited its willingness to work in multilateral settings as demonstrated by the recent second annual East Asia Summit. On January 15, the ten ASEAN countries as well as China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand gathered in the Philippines to sign an energy security pact. The 16-nation group called for decreasing the dependency on oil; reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; promotion of bio fuels, hydropower or nuclear power; and enhanced cooperation among the participating parties for energy conservation and efficiency [7]. Although the meeting did not produce any hard targets in terms of emission reductions, it was nevertheless a good start for a region containing half of the world’s population and many major energy-consuming powers.

It will be a welcoming sign if China makes the decisive shift in its global quest for energy security from focusing on traditional energy supplies to seeking alternative and renewable energy sources as well as new technologies from other countries. This would enable China to greatly improve its domestic efforts in conservation and environment protection. In that regard, the United States, other advanced industrialized countries and the international community may play positive roles in encouraging China’s move in the direction of becoming a greener energy consumer.

Notes:

1. Available online at: http://www.cass.net.cn/file/2007011785915.html.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Available online at: http://www.zgxxb.com.cn/news.asp?id=6078

5. Ibid.

6. Available online at: http://www.sdpc.gov.cn/mtbd/t20070118_112022.htm

7. Available online at: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=143&art_id=qw1168851060307B225.

About the Author:
Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology – with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.

If you ever drive up to Echo Summit in California’s majestic Sierra Nevada range, or up any extended steep grade, for that matter, sooner or later you are going to see one of those hybrids limping along in the slow lane. It is common knowledge that hybrids get better mileage in the city than on the freeway, and their poor performance on extended inclines is part of the same problem.

With a standard hybrid, if the power requirements of the vehicle exceed what the gasoline engine can offer, the electric motors provide assistance. When a standard hybrid goes up a hill, or into a headwind, or pulls a load, or drives at the speed limit, the electric motors are helping to turn the wheels, and the on-board batteries are draining. Eventually, the batteries run out of charge, and the vehicle limps along until the duty cycle changes.

This is why the “two-mode hybrid” is a significant development. While the two-mode design will not eliminate this inherent problem with standard hybrids, it minimizes it. The way this is done is through using slightly smaller electric motors, and a highly advanced mechanical transmission that is more efficient in transferring onboard power to traction on the road. For more on the two-mode technology, there is a pretty good write-up in Wikipedia. As they state: “This system amplifies the output of the electric motors similarly to the way in which a conventional transmission amplifies the torque of an internal combustion engine. It also transfers more of the engine’s torque to the wheels, making the transmission more efficient even without the electric motors in use.”

Today General Motors announced the largest hybrid bus order in history, receiving an order from King County, Washington for 500 busses. These busses will use the two-mode hybrid technology, meaning their 30% better mileage (compared to conventional busses) will apply on the freeway as well as in heavy stop-and-go traffic. Currently there are 700 hybrid busses operating in the United States, still a small percentage of the estimated 800,000 busses currently in operation in the U.S.

Since standard busses get about 3.8 MPG, and hybrid busses get about 5 MPG, and since the average commercial or municipal bus travels 250 miles per day, converting the entire bus fleet in the U.S. to hybrid drive would save roughly 320,000 barrels of oil per day. Since the U.S. imports about 12 million barrels of oil per day, this single step could reduce U.S. oil imports by nearly 3.0 percent. Not all that much, but imagine if the 250 million automobiles in the USA had their fuel efficiency improved by 30%. (ref. US Bureau of Transportation Statistics) And needless to say, these hybrid busses are also considerably cleaner than conventional busses.

The two-mode hybrid innovation, pioneered by General Motors in partnership with Daimler and Chrysler, is finding its way into General Motors lines of pickups and SUVs in 2008. What would you prefer to be driving, when you want to tow a boat up to Lake Tahoe (elevation 6,600 feet)? These vehicles are also planned to have a plug-in option, and that combined with the two-mode technology definitely means the next iteration of hybrids are here.

We have just posted a feature story by Avilash Roul entitled “India’s Solar Power” on our home page, where the reader will find an in-depth survey of the current state of solar power in India and the efforts of India’s government to develop solar power.

In our introduction to that story, we point out the dauntingly small base from which non-hydro, non-nuclear, non-combustible renewables have to climb. In the world in 2006, for example, according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel accounts for 80.3% of the world’s energy production – oil (34.3%), coal (25.1%), and gas (20.9%). Add to this “combustible renewables,” mostly wood (10.6%), and you have 90.9% of the world’s energy coming from combustion. Add to that nuclear power (6.5%), and hydro-electric power (2.2%), and you have accounted for 99.5% of the world’s energy. Of the remaining one-half of one percent, 80% of that is, surprisingly, geothermal power, with the final 20%, one tenth of one percent, roughly split between solar and wind power.

How does the world’s energy mix compare to India’s energy mix? It is surprising how difficult it is to find this information – but from the U.S. Energy Information Administration we located 2001 statistics for India: Coal (50.9%), oil (34.4%), gas (6.5%) – bringing fossil fuel up to 91.8% of all energy produced. Add to that India’s hydro-electric power (6.3%), and nuclear power (1.7%), and you have accounted for 99.8% of India’s energy. In 2001, India’s geothermal, wind and solar power, all together only amounted to two-tenths of one percent. Conspicuously missing is a percentage for “combustible renewables” probably because the EIA considers those to be off-market, off-grid activities. Clearly these figures could be more comprehensive, and have changed in the past few years, so if anyone can point us to a reputable, up-to-date source for this data, please let us know…

No matter what the latest figures may be, however, there are two things that are clear: (1) If a country like India, with over 1.0 billion citizens, is going to continue to experience economic growth at a percentage rate in the high single-digits, their energy production will need to increase, even if efficiencies are gained. (2) CO2 emissions in the world will not be significantly reduced if economies such as India’s and China’s, and others, continue to grow as they have been to-date.

Energy from combustion provides the overwhelming percentage of all energy production, and that will take at least a few decades to change. Subjecting the CO2 produced from energy combustion to sequestration may sound good, but will cost too much and is completely unproven – there could be awful side effects to trying to process all this CO2. Better for now to clean out the dangerous particulates and pollutants out of fossil fuels, something that is affordable, and look to other ways to address climate change – possibly by taking another look at land use which is grossly under-emphasized in popular climate models. From this perspective, for example, biofuel could well be the worst thing that has ever happened to the earth’s climate – as literally millions of square kilometers are wiped out to grow it – and aquifers are drained away to water these crops. Perhaps instead of trying, above all else, to stop burning fossil fuel, we would be better off putting rainforests back where biofuel plantations stand. Read “Biofuel or Biohazard” for commentary and links on this important topic – something environmentalists are just beginning to grasp.

Against these realities, the greatest source for optimism could be the rapid progress that solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies have made. They are truly on the verge of competing with conventional energy. Given the primary raw material required to produce photovoltaics is electricity, which they themselves produce, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the photovoltaic sector will grow faster than the wildest dreams of their proponants. But they have a long, long road to travel before they truly begin to replace fossil fuel.

This industrial-scale solar water heating array supplies 120,000 litres per day at Godavari Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. in Andhra Pradesh

The world’s largest solar steam cooking system at Tirupathi in Andhra Pradesh

Human civilization has been witnessing a gradual shift towards cleaner fuels-from wood to coal, from coal to oil, from oil to natural gas; renewables are the present demand…

With the fluctuating high cost of petroleum, minimizing dependence on importing conventional energy resources, stewardship to protect the Planet and providing affordable energy to all, countries including India have stepped up their energy path for harnessing indigenous renewable resources. To tap the infinite energy and transform as well as transmit it to each household, the Indian government has accelerated promotion of the use of universally available Solar Energy.

India due to its geo-physical location receives solar energy equivalent to nearly 5,000 trillion kWh/year, which is far more than the total energy consumption of the country today. But India produces a very negligible amount of solar energy – a mere 0.2 percent compared to other energy resources. Power generation from solar thermal energy is still in the experimental stages in India. Up till now, India’s energy base has been more on conventional energy like coal and oil. However, India has now attained 7th place worldwide in Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Cell production and 9th place in Solar Thermal Systems. Grid-interactive renewable power installed capacity as on 31.10.2006 aggregated 9,013 MW corresponding to around 7 percent of the total power installed capacity which equates to over 2 percent of total electricity.

Worldwide photovoltaic installations increased by 1,460 MW in 2005, up from 1,086 MW installed during the previous year. That was a 67 percent increase over the 750 MW produced in 2003. In 2002 the world solar market increased 40 percent. Solar Energy demand has grown at about 25 percent per annum over the past 15 years. In 1985, worldwide annual solar installation demand was only 21 MW. According to the IEA’s factsheet, “Renewables in Global Energy Supply,” the solar energy sector has grown by 32 per annum since 1971. Worldwide, grid-connected solar PV continued to be the fastest growing power generation technology, with a 55 percent increase in cumulative installed capacity to 3.1 GW, up from 2.0 GW in 2004, as per “Renewable Global Status Update Report 2006″ (http://www.ren21.net). Similarly, India witnessed an acceleration of solar hot water installations in 2005. Global production of solar PV increased from 1,150 MW in 2004 to over 1,700 MW in 2005. Japan was the leader in cell production (830 MW), followed by Europe (470 MW), China (200 MW), and the US (150 MW).

In the sun during the day, providing lighting at night, a photovoltaic/battery lantern illuminates the home

India: Status of Solar Energy:

The solar PV program was begun in the mid 70′s in India. While the world has progressed substantially in production of basic silicon mono-crystalline photovoltaic cells, India has fallen short to achieve the worldwide momentum. In early 2000, nine Indian companies were manufacturing solar cells. During 1997-98 it was estimated that about 8.2 MW capacity solar cells were produced in the country. The total installed manufacturing capacity was estimated to be 19 MW per year. The major players in Solar PV are Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) (http://www.bhel.com/bhel/home.php); Central Electrtonics Ltd., and Rajasthan Electricals & Instruments Ltd., as well as by several companies in the private sector. The latest, 100 million dollars investment from Tata BP Solar in India is the pointer towards the booming solar market in India. Of late, the market is growing for SPV applications based products with the active encouragement of the government.

The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (www.mnes.nic.in), earlier known as the Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources – have initiated innovative schemes to accelerate utilisation and exploitation of the solar energy. Number of incentives like subsidy, soft loan, 80 percent accelerated depreciation, confessional duty on import of raw materials and certain products, excise duty exemption on certain devices/systems etc. are being provided for the production and use of solar energy systems. The Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) – http://mnes.nic.in/annualreport/2004_2005_English/ch12_pg1.htm – a Public Limited Company established in 1987- provides revolving fund to financing and leasing companies offering affordable credit for the purchase of PV systems. As a result, the Renewable Energy Sector is increasingly assuming a greater role in providing grid power to the Nation as its total capacities reached about 9,013 MW. This apart, the Electricity Act 2003, National Electricity Policy 2005 and National Tariff Policy 2006 provide a common framework for the regulation of renewable power in all States/UTs through quotas, preferential tariffs, and guidelines for pricing ‘non-firm’ power.

However, in the Draft New and Renewable Energy Policy Statement 2005, which is yet be approved, the federal government is very cautious about the status of renewable energy in the future. It says, “despite the fact that the biomass-solar- hydrogen economy is some decades away, it should not make industry and the scientific & technical community of the country unduly complacent into believing that necessary steps for expected changes can wait.”

Present Scenario of Solar Power:

The MNES has been implementing installation of solar PV water pumping systems for irrigation and drinking water applications through subsidy since 1993-94. Typically, a 1,800 Wp PV array capacity solar PV water pumping system, which cost about Rs. 3.65 lakh, is being used for irrigation purposes. The Ministry is providing a subsidy of Rs.30 per watt of PV array capacity used, subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000 per system. The majority of the pumps fitted with a 200 watt to 3,000 watt motor are powered with 1,800 Wp PV array which can deliver about 140,000 liters of water/day from a total head of 10 meters. By 30th September, 2006, a total of 7,068 solar PV water pumping systems have been installed.

A total of 32 grid interactive solar PV power plants have been installed in the country with financial assistance from the Federal Government. These plants, with aggregate capacity of 2.1 MW, are estimated to generate about 2.52 million units of electricity in a year. In 1995, an aggregate area of 4 lakh square meters of solar collectors were installed in the country for thermal applications such as water heating, drying cooking etc. The thermal energy generated from these devices was assessed at over 250 million kwh per year. In addition, solar PV systems with an aggregate capacity of 12 MW were installed for applications such as lighting, water pumping, communications, etc. These systems are capable of generating 18 million kwh of electricity per year. In 2003 alone, India added 2.5 MW of solar PVs. For rural electrification as well as employment and income generation, about 16,530 solar photovoltaic lighting systems were installed during 2004-05. Over 150,000 square meters of collector area has been installed in the country for solar water heating in domestic, industrial and commercial sectors making the cumulative installed collector area over one million square meters. State-wise details of cumulative achievements under various non-conventional energy programmes, as on 31.03.2006 are shown in the table below:

MINISTRY OF NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY FUNDED PHOTOVOLTAIC OUTPUT BY STATE

Government-funded solar energy in India only accounted for approximately 6.4 megawatt-years of power as of 2005

Similarly, India’s Integrated Rural Energy Program using renewable energy had served 300 districts and 2,200 villages by early 2006. More than 250 remote villages in seven states were electrified under the program during 2005, with additional projects under implementation in over 800 villages and 700 hamlets in 13 states and federal territories (see table below). Rural applications of solar PV had increased to 340,000 home lighting systems, 540,000 solar lanterns, and 600,000 solar cookers in use.

INDIA’S INTEGRATED RURAL ENERGY PROGRAM REMOTE VILLAGES SELECTED FOR SOLAR ELECTRIFICATION

By 2006 over 2,400 off-grid villages in India had received solar thermal and photovoltaic systems

Future Plans:

An Expert Committee constituted by the Planning Commission has prepared an Integrated Energy Policy that aims at achieving integrated development and deployment of different energy supply sources, including new & renewable energy. The grid-interactive renewable power installed capacity is expected to reach 10,000 MW as on corresponding to a share of over 2 per cent in the electricity-mix, by 31.3.2007. Further capacity addition of 14,000 MW is envisaged during the 11th Plan (2007-12) leading to a then share of around 5 per cent in the electricity-mix but mostly through hydro-power. A 10 million square meter solar collector area capable of conserving electricity equivalent to that generated from a 500 MW power plant is expected to be set up by 2022. India has recently proposed to augment cooking, lighting, and motive power with renewable in 600,000 villages by 2032, starting with 10,000 remote off-grid villages by 2012.

External Support:

A four-year $7.6 million effort was launched in April 2003 to help accelerate the market for financing solar home systems in southern India. The project is a partnership between UNEP Energy Branch, UNEP Risoe Centre (URC), (http://uneprisoe.org/) two of India’s major banking groups – Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank, and their sponsored Grameen Banks. As per the existing policy, Foreign Direct Investment up to 100 percent is permitted in non-conventional energy sector through the automatic route. The FDI received in non-conventional energy sector from January 2003 to September 2006 is estimated at around Rs.35 crore. The Multilateral Development Banks like World Bank and Asian Development Bank are also helping India to achieve its potential on renewable resources. But, the funding from MDBs on solar energy enhancement is negligible compare to other clean energy support in India.

A 200 litre per day solar water heating system installed in Karnataka by IREDA

Challenges and Constraints:

Solar energy is facing three fundamental challenges of cost, its manufacturing procedure as well as its waste products that have any impact on the environment and the land acquisition for erecting solar PVs.

The hunt for better, cheaper solar cells is due in India. Solar PV now cost one tenth of what they did in early 1980s. Despite the fact that the price of solar photovoltaic technology has been coming down over the years it still remains economically unviable for power generation purposes. During 1999, the cost of solar cells being manufactured in the country was estimated to be in the range of Rs. 1.35 to 1.50 lakhs per kW. The average cost of solar PV modules was around Rs. 2 lakhs per kW. At present the initial cost of both types of solar energy systems is higher compared to the cost of conventional energy systems and also the other non-conventional energy systems. However, the estimated unit cost of generation of electricity from solar photovoltaic and solar thermal route is in the range of Rs. 12 -20 per kWh and Rs. 10 – 15 per kWh respectively in India. With present level of technology, solar electricity produced through the photovoltaic conversion route is 4-5 times costlier than the electricity obtained from conventional fossil fuels.

There are number of R & D projects are going on solar PV Program in India. The Solar Energy Centre (http://mnes.nic.in/solarenergy1.htm) has been established by Government of India as a part of MNES to undertake activities related to design, development, testing, standardization, consultancy, training and information dissemination in the field of Solar Energy. Recently, development of polycrystalline silicon thin film solar cells and small area solar cells concluded at the Indian Association for Cultivation of Science at Jadavpur University. The National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi is working on development of materials and process to make dye sensitized nano-crystalline TiO2 thin films. The Centre for Materials for Electronics, Pune has been working on development of phosphorous paste for diffusion of impurities in solar cells. Under a joint R&D project of MNES and Department of Science & Technology (DST), the Indian Association for Cultivation of Science (IACS), Kolkata continued to work on optimization of process for fabrication of large area double junction amorphous silicon modules.

However, considering the fact that solar energy systems do not require any fuel, the running costs are lower. Therefore, the cost of some of the solar energy systems such as solar water heaters, solar cookers and solar lanterns can be lower than that of conventional energy products when calculated over the life of the systems. The other advantages of solar energy systems are modular nature, long-life, reliability, no recurring requirement of fuel, low maintenance and so on.

In the very near future, breakthroughs in nanotechnologies promise significant increase in solar cell efficiencies from current 15% values to over 50% levels. These would in turn reduce the cost of solar energy production. However, capital costs have substantially declined over the past two decades, with solar PV costs declining by a factor of two. PV is projected to continue its current rapid cost reductions for the next decades to compete with fossil fuel. However, the realisation of cost reductions is naturally closely linked to market development, government policies, and support for research and development.

Environmental Costs:

In India, of late there has been a debate regarding whether hydro-power and solar power are green or renewable? Since solar power systems generate no air pollution during operation, the primary environmental, health, and safety issues involve how they are manufactured, installed, and ultimately disposed of. Also, an important question is how much fossil energy input is required for solar systems compared to the fossil energy consumed by comparable conventional energy systems. Another concern area is installing solar cells on the land area. The large amount of land required for utility-scale solar power plants – approximately one square kilometer for every 20-60 megawatts (MW) generated – poses an additional problem in India. Instead, solar energy in particular requires unique, massive applications in the agricultural sector, where farmers need electricity exclusively in the daytime. This could be the primary demand driver for solar energy in India.

Conclusion:

Even though energy from renewable energy sources is growing rapidly, with markets such as solar cells, wind and biodiesel experiencing annual double digit growth, the overall share is only expected to increase marginally over the coming decades as the demand for energy also grows rapidly, particularly in many developing countries. In India, the scientific focus is deliberately moving towards transforming coal into clean energy as well as harnessing hydropower. The recent surge in nuclear energy is also diverting focus from the solar energy enhancement. In all probability, the Indian government will support off-grid solar energy production through a decentralized manner. In spite of this, India needs to focus research on solar energy and cheaper photovoltaics to provide affordable energy to all.

Additional State Info on Solar Energy:

Andhra Pradesh

The Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) (http://www.self.org/) founded the Solar Electric Light Company (SELCO) Photovoltaic Electrification Pvt. Ltd. The SELCO was established in 1995 to market, install, and service Solar Home Systems (SHS) in south India. The SELCO has achieved international recognition as the first company to concentrate on marketing and servicing SHS in the rural Indian market. The Company uses TATA-BP solar modules and deep-cycle batteries purchased on the Indian market, while manufacturing its own lights and charge controllers. Currently, its primary products are 22 and 35 watt SHS, and it will be introducing a 50 Wp system to customers shortly.

The Ministry had sanctioned a project to Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Hyderabad for installation of 50 solar dryers to individual users in rural areas with a view to promote the technology and show its potential in income generation and leading to development of entrepreneurship. The dryers were developed by Society for Energy, Environment and Development (SEED), Hyderabad.

West Bengal

Since 1995, with the help of the US Department of Energy (http://www.eren.doe.gov/international.html) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (http://www.nrel.gov/), the Ramakrishna Mission, a non-governmental organization in West Bengal (http://www.sriramakrishna.org/) has installed more than 500 PV domestic lighting system and has established ‘Aditya’ – a solar shop in the mission campus in Narendrapur, which sells PV systems up to nearly 10 in each day. The systems are manufactured in India and the US. The technical staff of the Mission has expected to establish six more Aditya solar shops and more than 2000 additional domestic lighting system and seven-community systems in the West Bengal. Through 2005, 73 Aditya Solar Shops were established in India.

About the Author: Avilash Roul has been writing, advocating, researching, and creating knowledge on Environment and Development in various English Daily media since 2000. He has worked with Down To Earth (fortnightly magazine published in New Delhi, India) for the last three years. He has also contributed a Sunday column in New India Express on the environment and development. Right now Mr. Roul is working as an Assistant Coordinator for the Bank Information Center (www.bicusa.org), an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization that advocates for the protection of rights, participation, transparency, and public accountability in the governance and operations of the World Bank, regional development banks, and the International Monetary Fund.

We have discovered the weblog “Climate Science” authored by Dr. Roger A. Pielke, someone whose positions on global warming and climate change very closely mirror our own. Dr. Pielke, a climatologist currently with the University of Colorado at Ft. Collins, is organizing a conference this August in Boulder, Colorado, on “Land Cover / Land Use Change” and its impact on climate.

Here are two recent posts from Dr. Pielke’s weblog that we find illuminating:

Another Unbalanced News Report on a research paper on predicted heat waves – May 14, 2007

After pointing out in detail the problems with the research paper, Pielke writes “These are remarkably serious shortcomings of the model study, yet the news media chose to headline the predictions from it as news without these caveats, and the authors did not correct the media’s misstatement of what their paper actually said (in fact they reinforced them!).

Equally disturbing (or it should be to anyone who values scientific credibility) is that a peer reviewed journal elected to publish this paper in this form in which untested predictions for decades into the future were presented, yet the global and regional model could not even skillfully simulate recent climate. The publication of such clearly scientifically flawed research conclusions raises questions on whether the journal (in this case the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate) is engaging in advocacy rather than being a balanced arbitrator of peer reviewed papers. Publishing predictions which are not tested, is not science.”

Has the IPCC Produced a Hydra? – May 7, 2007

This post correctly points out that the focus on reducing CO2 emissions is at the expense of addressing other environmental challenges, and indeed could cause them to deteriorate. Pielke writes: “The narrow focus of the IPCC on CO2 as the dominant environmental threat and the use of multi-decadal global climate model predictions for policymakers, is, therefore, an inappropriately too narrow perspective. Indeed, the unintended consequences of the narrowly focused IPCC reports, and the naive acceptance of the reports by many policymakers, has unleashed a mulitifaceted risk to society and the environment.”

Regarding the emphasis on biofuels as some sort of panacea, Pielke quotes, among others, Mayer Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at Policy Studies Institute, who states: “There is an inherent and acutely serious problem within the report. On the one hand, it leaves us in no doubt to how vital conservation of the planet´s ecosystems and carbon sinks are to averting the worst predictions made in the previous sections of the report. On the other, it proposes the large scale use of the biosphere to satisfy demand in the transport and energy sectors.”

Keep your eye on the work of responsible climatologists like Dr. Pielke, who instead of jumping onto the anti-CO2 bandwagon, are examining all potential causes of climate change, as well as the catastrophic consequences of creating a global market for biofuel – supposedly because it will help reduce atmospheric CO2.

The entry in Wikipedia for Dr. Pielke includes the following “Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces.” Here are some of his positions, according to his profile on Wikipedia:

(1) Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.

(2) In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.

(3) Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.

(4) Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.

Today the BBC ran a story entitled “UN Warns on Hazards of Biofuels” where they conclude “Current research concludes that using biomass for combined heat and power (CHP), rather than for transport fuels or other uses, is the best option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade – and also one of the cheapest.”

The report also correctly points out that “demand for biofuels has accelerated the clearing of primary forest for palm plantations, particularly in southeast Asia.”

There’s more: The report notes water is a concern, stating “The expanding world population and the on-going switch towards consumption of meat and dairy produce as incomes rise are already putting pressure on freshwater supplies, which increased growing of biofuel crops could exacerbate.”

These problems with biofuels, which we have explored in-depth in several posts, including “Ethanol & Water,” “Deforestation & Global Warming,” and literally dozens of others (ref. post categories Biofuel and Global Warming), can be boiled down to the following position: Global warming alarm, primarily manifested as a war against industrial CO2 emissions, has had one major impact so far, which is to launch devastating new rounds of tropical deforestation, which is exacerbating global drought, extreme weather, water scarcity, wildlife destruction, and, you guessed it, global warming.

There is a need for biofuel certification, and the ugly inconvenient truth is if you came up with a comprehensive set of criteria for biofuel certification, there may not be any environmentally justifiable reason to grow biofuel, other than in certain low yield applications in arid regions to stablize soil, and within contained, factory environments. Here are some of the criteria biofuel needs to meet:

(1) Biofuel cannot displace food crops.

(2) Biofuel cannot displace rainforest.

(3) Biofuel cannot displace critical wildlife habitat.

(4) Production of biofuel must be decisively energy positive.

(5) Biofuel must not exacerbate water scarcity, either in the growing or the refining process.

(6) Biofuel plantations cannot exploit local labor, or exclude local ownership.

(7) Biofuel use should be encouraged in the most efficient applications, such as combined heat and power, and not automatically be directed into the automotive sector.

(8) Biofuel produced using cellulosic extraction must not prevent valuable organic matter from returning to the soil.

Any other criteria? When viewed against these criteria, the potential for an environmentally correct biofuel industry becomes far more problematic than is generally acknowledged.

Whatever happened to “Save the Rainforests?”