Energy Issues 02
Adapted from theGlobalization101.org Issue Brief
Nuclear Power
Since the 1950s, nuclear energy has been an important part of the world’s fuel mix. In 2005, nuclear energy satisfied 16 percent of global electricity needs. In 2006, there were 442 nuclear plants in operation worldwide with only 27 under construction. Some of the countries that rely most heavily on nuclear power for electricity generation include France (almost 80 percent), Belgium (56 percent), Ukraine (49 percent), Korea (45 percent), Germany (31 percent), Japan (29 percent), and Russia (16 percent) . Nuclear power generates 20 percent of the United States’ electricity and represents 70 percent of its non-carbon power supply.
The development of the civilian nuclear power industry in the United States was fostered by the policies of the Eisenhower administration. President Dwight D. Eisenhower first articulated the idea of “Atoms for Peace” in a speech in 1953. Congress was quick to act. In 1957, it passed the Price-Anderson Act, which capped the liability of private operators for reactor accidents at $560 million. This was an important first step in providing the insurance required to make the risks undertaken when building a nuclear power plant acceptable to the private sector. Shortly thereafter, Eisenhower spearheaded the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization charged with promoting cooperation, safety, security, and technology in the global nuclear industry. In the 1970s, the newly created Department of Energy (DOE) took an active role in supporting nuclear power in the United States while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was founded to regulate the adolescent industry.
A series of high profile accidents lessened the world’s interest in nuclear expansion and were a sobering reminder of the risks to public health posed by nuclear power generation. In 1979, a reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania experienced a partial meltdown that unfolded over five days. Although no one was killed as a direct result of the accident, the debate about the safety of nuclear technology was rekindled. Then, in 1986, in Chernobyl, Ukraine (then still a part of the Soviet Union), a full nuclear disaster occurred, unleashing a wave of radiation across Russia and Europe. The accident killed 31 people and caused lingering health effects for thousands more. Since the 1980s, although reactors continue to be built aggressively in a few countries (France and Japan), the world’s enthusiasm for nuclear power generation has diminished. The United States has not commissioned a new nuclear plant since 1973.
Resurgence of Interest
The last several years, however, have seen a resurgence of interest in nuclear energy largely because of the steady rise of energy prices since 2002. President George W. Bush has led the way with a series of new nuclear initiatives overseen by the Department of Energy. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 adopted by the U.S. Congress established new tax credits and loan guarantees for reactor construction, offered insurance against regulatory delays, and renewed the Price-Anderson Act by increasing liability coverage to $10.9 billion. Twenty-seven reactors are currently under consideration for construction in the United States alone (8).
At the same time, there has been an increase in interest in nuclear energy among developing countries. Many governments view peaceful nuclear power generation as a right to which all nations are entitled and a vital component of their development strategies. India, with a population expected to eventually overtake that of China, has been one of the champions of this position. It is seeking to build an additional 25 to 28 reactors by 2020. Iran has, in its own way, also adopted a version of the entitlement argument, though many remain skeptical about its true intentions. Consequently, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1696 (2006) by a vote of 14-1 (Qatar dissenting) requiring that Iran suspend uranium enrichment activities by the end of August 2006, but Iran has yet to comply with this mandate . The danger that nuclear technology and materials can be used to produce weapons now dominates the debate over the use of nuclear energy in developing countries.
Obstacles to Expansion
There are three primary obstacles to the development of the nuclear industry: cost, risk, and waste. A single reactor can cost between $2 billion and $6 billion (in 1997 dollars) to construct. As many power plant construction companies have learned, it is difficult to achieve any economies of scale that might boost profits (11).
A Boiling Water Reactor
But once the initial capital investment has been made, the costs of operating a reactor are relatively stable. This is mostly because, in contrast to coal- and gas-based power plants, the price of fuel for nuclear plants is only a minor component of a reactor’s operating expenses. Costs rise again when old reactors, containing large amounts of radioactive material, must be decommissioned and dismantled over the course of decades.
In addition, although there have been no major accidents since Chernobyl, a steady stream of minor problems has kept the dangers of nuclear power firmly in the public’s mind. Current forecasts predict that one severe accident will occur every 100 years in a network of nuclear plants such as that possessed by the United States, and there is much debate about whether this level of risk is acceptable.
Finally, there is the issue of nuclear waste, probably the greatest hurdle to the expansion of nuclear power generation. Spent fuel units, while no longer capable of sustaining nuclear reactions, nonetheless continue to emit high levels of radiation for many years. They are cooled in underwater pools and then typically stored at sites at or near the reactor where they have been used .
All three of these factors—cost, safety, waste—explain why the nuclear industry is so unique, requiring complex and wide-ranging partnerships between public institutions and private enterprises. The costs and risks to public safety are so enormous that governments must take an active role in supporting, regulating and monitoring the nuclear industry.
Nuclear Nonproliferation
On a broader level, the implications of nuclear technology for global security make nuclear policy an increasingly central concern for all nations in the era of globalization. Globalization has dramatically increased flows of goods and people, making it more difficult for governments to control their borders. These developments, joined with the existence of large stocks of poorly secured nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union and the emergence of rogue nuclear powers such as Pakistan and North Korea, has greatly increased the risk of nuclear terrorism faced by all countries. Nonproliferation represents the intersection of nuclear technology and geopolitics. Once the awesome power of nuclear technology was fully understood, it immediately became apparent that its applications needed to be carefully regulated and controlled. From the early days of the nuclear age to the late 1960s, only five countries possessed the scientific knowledge and technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons: the United States, the Soviet Union, China, the United Kingdom, and France.
Realizing that the proliferation of materials and know-how represented a lethal danger to all nations, the U.S. and Soviet Union led the way in developing a set of principles for the protection of humanity that were enshrined in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty, effective as of 1970, has three primary components: nonproliferation, disarmament, and the right of peaceful use of nuclear technology (1). In total, 188 nations have signed on to the NPT, including the five original nuclear powers. Three nations refused to join, however: India, Pakistan (both known to possess nuclear-weapons technology by 1974 and 1987 respectively), and Israel (which has not conducted public tests but has been suspected of possessing weapons since around 1967).
Possession of Nuclear Weapons and Disarmament
The treaty acknowledged that only the five existing nuclear powers, also known as “nuclear weapons states” (NWS), were permitted possession of nuclear weapons. It was agreed that nuclear states would not to transfer weapons technology to non-nuclear states, while the non-nuclear states in turn promised not to seek access to such technology. In addition, NWS were not to attack non-nuclear countries unless provoked by a nuclear attack or an attack carried out with the support of a NWS.
The treaty expressed a general consensus that not only the use but even the threatened use of nuclear force was morally objectionable. It called for the five NWS to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, a process known as disarmament. With the advent of the Cold War in 1945, the United States and Soviet Union had engaged in an arms race to increase and perfect their nuclear arsenals. Soon, each possessed tens of thousands of warheads, far more than would be necessary even if a major conflict were to erupt. A delicate balance emerged thanks to the new strategy of deterrence: the certainty of mutually assured destruction (MAD) if either nation were to employ nuclear force encouraged both to avoid exercising this option.
The complete history of the disarmament movement is beyond the scope of this brief, but two landmark treaties deserve some attention. The first is the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963. It prohibited the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater and in outer space. While the partial ban was widely considered a success, no further action was taken to advance the disarmament agenda until 1996, when the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty forbidding all forms of open nuclear testing came into effect. Notably, the United States has signed but not ratified this treaty. In 2002, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush agreed to limit their stockpiles of nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2010, but many details about how this arrangement will be implemented remain unclear .
Nuclear Energy and Development
It is widely acknowledged that traditional energy sources will be inadequate to meet the development needs of many poorer countries whose populations are large and growing larger. The number of cars, appliances, and power plants that would be required to support two billion people as they move into modern lifestyles in an industrialized society would be devastating to the environment. Many developing countries realize this and have sought to exercise the right specified in the third pillar of the NPT to develop civilian nuclear power industries.
Established nuclear powers have attempted to walk a fine line by facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear energy for development while at the same time staying true to the principles of nonproliferation. The nuclear states understand that the increased use of nuclear and renewable energies will be crucial to the growth of many countries in the coming years.
Renewable Energy Sources
The quest for energy independence, economic growth, and environmental sustainability increasingly suggests the importance of renewable energy sources. Renewable energy is gained by tapping into “existing flows of energy” and “natural processes” in ways that generate more usable energy than is expended in the production process.
Most “renewables” harness the sun’s energy in some fashion, either directly (solar power) or indirectly by:
• Burning plants that lived by photosynthesis (biomass); • Capturing the air currents that are created when the sun heats parts of the atmosphere differently (wind power); or • Channeling flows of water that are created through the sun-driven cycle of evaporation, condensation, and rain (hydropower) . The Water Cycle
Two other notable forms of renewable energy are tidal power, derived from the gravitational effects of the moon on the earth’s oceans, and geothermal power, derived from heat produced in the earth’s core. Not all renewable energy sources are necessarily good for the environment. Biomass, for example, emits harmful greenhouse gases when burned. Similarly, hydroelectric dams and wind turbines can significantly disrupt local ecosystems. But most renewables of the type described in this issue brief offer significant environmental advantages over traditional fossil fuels.
A Global Snapshot
The natural materials and processes upon which renewable and alternative power sources draw have existed for countless years. But sophisticated technology is required to exploit them for commercial purposes. Investment in energy research and development was spurred by the oil crises of the 1970s and accelerated sharply during that decade.
Since 1980, the amount of renewable energy consumed by the world has increased by almost 1000 percent, having started from a very low base. In 2004, renewables accounted for 13.1 percent of the world’s total primary energy supply, with biomass and hydropower topping the list. In that same year, around 18 percent of global electricity needs were satisfied by renewable sources. This ranked third behind coal (40 percent) and natural gas (about 20 percent). From 1971 to 2003, global supplies of renewable energy sources including solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy grew an impressive 8.2 percent. Within this group, wind power was the clear leader with a near 50 percent increase in supply, followed by 28 percent for solar power, 8 percent for geothermal power and 0.3 percent for tidal power.
Perhaps surprisingly, developing nations produce and consume far more renewable energy than industrialized or transitioning ones. This is due in part to massive levels of investment by China and India but also in part to the heavy use of biofuels, such as wood, by poorer countries. Among individual countries, those with the largest capacity of renewable fuel supply (excluding large hydropower dams) are China, Germany, the United States, Spain and India. Among regions, the fastest growing group of countries in terms of renewable energy usage has been Europe, where governments have been aggressive in actively supporting the expansion of renewable energy industries.
Investment in the development of renewable energy sources has steadily increased since the 1970s, reaching $38 billion in 2005. Germany and China are the top investors, with $7 billion each in 2005, followed by the United States, Japan, Spain and India (6). Investment by the United States, while substantial, was largely stagnant from 1987 to 2003. The resurgence of oil prices has helped renewable and alternative energies regain their former prominence on the American political map. Still, the share of total energy consumption constituted by renewable and alternative sources is lower for the United States than might be expected. In 2004, this share was only 6 percent. Adoption of renewable energy in the United States has been more sluggish than expected, particularly for alternative transportation fuels.
Biofuels come from recently living organisms. They can be manufactured from animals or their byproducts (e.g. manure), but are usually made from plant matter. The highest profile biofuel in discussions about both globalization and the environment is ethanol.
Ethanol is another name for ethyl alcohol, a chemical compound produced from a wide variety of feedstocks including corn, sugar, and cellulosic materials such as switchgrass, straw, and plant waste. To produce ethanol, enzymes are first added to the feedstock to isolate the valuable sugars. This mixture is then combined with yeast, which causes the sugars to ferment and create a substance containing alcohol. This substance is distilled to raise the alcohol content to the 85-95 percent range. Finally, a cocktail of chemicals is blended with the ethanol to make it undrinkable. Ethanol is by no means a recent discovery. It has a long history dating back to the “dawn of the automobile age, [when] Henry Ford predicted that ‘ethyl alcohol is the fuel of the future’” (2). Rarely used on its own, ethanol typically serves as a fuel additive to gasoline. Combining ethanol with traditional fuels optimizes engine performance and enables fuel to burn cleaner, thus decreasing emissions of carbon monoxide and ozone.
In the United States, the use of ethanol blends is promoted in two ways. First, renewable fuel standards, drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and enacted into law by Congress, mandate that all gasoline contain a renewable component. These were first introduced in amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1990 to address concerns about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on air quality and have been updated in successive energy policy legislation. The latest standards mandate a heavy component of ethanol. Second, the federal government provides tax incentives for ethanol production. The benefits of federal supports accrue mostly to a few massive agribusinesses such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), which by itself commands 24 percent of the American ethanol market. From this perspective, “Tax incentives for ethanol production equate to ‘corporate welfare’ for a few large producers” Yet several factors make ethanol’s continued expansion problematic.
Net Energy/Environmental Gains
The most frequently cited reason for developing the ethanol industry is that it decreases fossil fuel consumption by substituting for some gasoline usage and is thus a more environmentally-friendly fuel. But this argument glosses over the fact that ethanol must itself be manufactured. The ethanol production process, like many other forms of manufacturing, must be powered by natural gas or electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. Consequently, some experts believe there are few overall net energy gains from ethanol usage, meaning the benefits for the environment are often minimal. Ethanol may help decrease petroleum dependence, but it will not decrease energy consumption or contribute much to a nation’s overall energy independence (11). The problem of net negative gains provides ammunition to those who question the motivations underlying huge ethanol subsidies.
The type of feedstock used to produce ethanol largely determines how big the net energy gains will be. Corn yields the lowest gains but continues to be the favored feedstock in the United States because of the size and political power of the American corn industry. Cane sugar, which is usually grown in more tropical climates, is a much more efficient feedstock. According to some estimates, “For each unit of energy expended to turn cane into ethanol, 8.3 times as much energy is created, compared with a maximum of 1.3 times for corn.” In addition, increasingly sophisticated Brazilian producers have found ways to process sugar without the use of fossil fuels, adding to ethanol’s positive environmental contribution . The net energy gains from cellulosic ethanol are less well understood. But cellulose-based feedstocks have the unique benefit of not requiring much energy to grow. In contrast to corn and sugar cane, agricultural byproducts like switchgrass need not be farmed using energy-intensive methods and can be harvested under naturally-occurring conditions. Switchgrass, for example, grows faster, uses less fertilizer, can grow on land unfit for other agricultural purposes, and also double as a source of animal feed .
Global Trade in Ethanol
Because the net energy gains from corn-based ethanol are so small, many have called for the United States to ease trade barriers against sugar-based ethanol imported from Brazil. Currently, the United States levies a 2.5 percent tariff and 54 cent per gallon duty on ethanol imports from Brazil. Brazilian ethanol is highly competitive because it can be produced 30 percent more cheaply than the American corn-based variety while yielding nearly eight times as much energy. America’s ethanol producers are hampered by their dependence on corn and are still inexperienced relative to their Brazilian counterparts. As a result, the U.S. government has chosen to intervene with tariffs and taxes to safeguard the development of its domestic industry. This protectionist position is bolstered by the fear among American policymakers of relying too heavily on imports from Brazil, “The United States and other industrialized countries are reluctant to trade their longstanding dependence on oil for a new dependence on [imports of] renewable fuels”.
The United States would need to produce and consume a lot of ethanol if it really wants to change its energy mix. Some experts believe that production would have to rise from current levels of 4.6 billion gallons a year to 50 billion gallons a year, to replace oil imports from the Persian Gulf . Globally, some estimates hold that “powering all the world’s vehicles with biofuels would mean doubling the amount of land devoted to farming”. Even approaching these targets with existing technological expertise would require a radical shift in thinking and practices for the agriculture sectors of many nations. Under such a scenario, farming would increasingly be viewed as a source of energy production as much as a source of food, thus putting those two priorities in competition with one another. According to Dan Basse, president of the economic forecasting firm AgResources, “By the middle of 2007, there will be a food fight between the livestock industry and this biofuels or ethanol industry…As the corn price [in the United States] reaches up above $3 a bushel, the livestock industry will be forced to raise prices or reduce their herds. At that point the U.S. consumer will start to see rising food prices or food inflation” (19).
Also hindering the expansion of ethanol use is its high transportation cost. Ethanol corrodes the pipelines used to carry it and is therefore often diluted by water when traveling long distances. While it can be hauled by trucks, trains, or barges, cost dictates that it is mostly refined and consumed close to the main feedstock suppliers. In the United States, for example, 80 percent of ethanol production occurs in only five states in the Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Indiana). This geographical reality is an “obstacle to the use of ethanol on the East and West Coasts,” where energy consumption is highest. Until transportation methods are improved or cellulosic feedstocks that are widely distributed can be exploited, ethanol use will likely remain local and limited.
Wind has been harnessed to produce energy for hundreds of years. The use of windmills to catch air currents and translate that force into mechanical energy dates back to medieval Europe, and perhaps beyond. Today wind power is the fastest growing energy source in the world and “one of the most mature technologies for generating energy from renewable sources” .
This expansion is largely the result of technological innovations that have reduced the costs of constructing wind turbines by 80 percent since the 1980s. Global wind energy capacity has tripled since 2000, with most of the gains coming in European countries where wind power is subsidized by the government. The top five global producers of wind energy in 2005 were Germany, Spain, the United States, India and Denmark. These days, wind power is predominantly used to produce electricity using turbines. Most of these turbines are oriented on a horizontal axis and are shaped like the propeller on an airplane.
But an increasing number are built around a vertical axis and look like an “egg-beater”. Employing vertical-axis turbines raises the capacity of wind harvesting from 25-40 percent to 43-45 percent. While this might not initially seem like a significant increase, it makes wind power much more economical and allows turbines to harvest more high-speed winds. This is important because “each doubling of wind speed results in an eightfold increase in available energy”. Wind power generation facilities are generally land-based, though the number of offshore facilities has been rising in recent years, especially in Europe. Locating wind turbines offshore is more expensive, but it also allows for the construction of larger facilities and increases their capacity to generate power. The fact that many of the best land locations are already occupied has further spurred the development of offshore sites.
Cost and Efficiency Management
Despite its benefits, expanding wind power also has costs. Some argue the industrial materials and processes needed to build wind farms require so much conventional energy that the net energy gains yielded by wind power are too small to be significant. Others argue that production costs for a turbine are recovered within six months of the start of operations. There is also the problem of intermittency and storage. Wind energy is only as reliable as the wind itself. Because of this and because it often experiences a more variable demand than traditional coal- or gas- based power plants due to its more localized distribution, wind farms require sophisticated methods of managing and storing energy. This can often decrease the efficiency and raise the cost of wind power. It is likely that better ways of managing these energy flows will be discovered as the technology continues to mature.
Wind power is an excellent example of how renewable energy technologies that are generally environmentally-friendly can also create new environmental problems of their own. The benefits of clean energy production must be carefully weighed against the environmental impact and effects on local quality of life. According to Stephen Tindale, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, “It’s a major psychological and cultural challenge for the environmental and conservation movement…What we need to combat climate change is a complete transformation of our energy system, and that requires a lot of new stuff to be built and installed, some of it in places that are relatively untouched.” In other words: “The biggest hurdle is creating a landscape for development”. This is both the challenge and the opportunity presented by many forms of renewable energy.
Hydrogen Power and Fuel Cells
The potential of hydrogen as an alternative fuel source has been trumpeted for many years, but the technology has still not caught up with the dreams. Hydrogen is a naturally-occurring element that is found in abundance in many common chemicals, such as water. But hydrogen is difficult to obtain on its own. It must first be isolated using various processes. This is frequently done by passing an electrical current through water using a technique known as “reverse electrolysis” or by applying steam to natural gas using a process known as “reforming”. The main benefits of hydrogen energy are that, when used as a fuel, it greatly simplifies the process of combustion and gives off completely clean emissions.
The great hope for hydrogen is that it could eventually supplant gasoline as a means of powering automobiles. In order to do so, hydrogen-based fuel would need to be stored in a fuel cell that would be incorporated into the car’s engine design. A fuel cell is similar to a normal battery with the exception that its capacity for energy storage can be replenished by external fuels rather being limited to a set amount of internal fuel. Fuel cell technology is not, however, very well advanced. This has prevented the development of hydrogen as an energy source.
U.S. President George W. Bush has made the creation of a “hydrogen economy” a centerpiece of his energy policy for the future. Through the Hydrogen Initiative and FreedomCAR program, several billion dollars have been devoted to researching production of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies during the next decade, spurring the growth of a new industry. Despite this enthusiastic support and substantial commitments from top car manufacturers, it is not expected that production of commercial hydrogen cars will be possible until at least 2011-2015. Some experimental hydrogen cars have been built and road- tested, but none could be practically manufactured on a mass scale at the current time.
Concerns about Hydrogen Power
There are three major concerns about the current emphasis on hydrogen as a potential replacement fuel capable of meeting the world’s transportation needs. First are cost and technological uncertainty. Not only do critics claim that hydrogen will not be a short-term “silver bullet” solution for reducing global dependence on fossil fuels, they also argue that real implementation of hydrogen technologies could be as many as 30-50 years away.
The internal combustion energy is a highly efficient mechanism that has been gradually improved over the course of a century, and it will be difficult to displace as a source of motor power. In addition, “the internal combustion engine is not a fixed target: the conventional cars of 2020 will be far cleaner, more efficient and therefore much harder to dislodge than today’s new cars”. If this is the case, then much of the funding currently being devoted to research in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies might be better spent in other areas, “Some energy experts say the current drive to develop fuel cells depletes the [U.S.] federal budget for bringing to market other non-polluting, renewable energy sources that are on the verge of becoming commercially viable”.
The second major concern about hydrogen power, familiar to us from our discussion of biofuels, involves net energy gains. As was the case with ethanol, significant amounts of energy must be expended to transform hydrogen in a state in which it is consumable as fuel. More often than not, the energy powering the fuel fabrication process is derived from traditional fossil fuels, resulting in small or even negative net energy gains. In other words, “If the hydrogen is made from processes involving carbon-based fuels all that has happened is that the emissions of globally-warming carbon dioxide have moved from a car’s exhaust pipe to a power station chimney” (6).
Finally, and perhaps most important on a practical level, is the problem of delivery infrastructure. Assuming that engineers eventually learn how to design new engines that take advantage of fuel cells, a completely revamped network for distributing hydrogen would be necessary in order for it to gain wide acceptance as a fuel for vehicles. Existing pipelines could not be used because hydrogen is highly corrosive. Special modes of transmission and new fueling stations would have to be built at tremendous cost to both suppliers and consumers.
Currently, there are only about 100 hydrogen fueling stations in operation worldwide. Most of them service special urban buses in Europe that have been equipped to run on hydrogen. The United States can boast of only 27 hydrogen fueling stations as of 2005, the majority of them in California. In fact, California has led the way with an ambitious program for development of a delivery infrastructure, labeled the “hydrogen highway” by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The goal is to build 200 fueling stations along the length of the state by 2010. Because of California’s significance to the global automobile industry, the achievement of this goal would provide a major boost to the hydrogen power industry, not just in the United States but around the world. Hydrogen has the potential to be the fuel of a new global economy. In the meantime, it provides a warning about overselling what alternative fuels can accomplish.
Along with wind power, solar power has experienced a boom since 2002: existing global capacity more than doubled in the past four years. In general, the problems with solar power are less pronounced than those with biofuels, wind power, and hydrogen power. Energy from the sun’s rays can be manipulated in many ways in order to perform a variety of functions. The most common means of capturing solar energy is the photovoltaic (PV) cell. These cells are made of silicon semiconductors that absorb sunlight and channel it, thus exciting the electrons contained in the chips to rapid motion and generating electricity.
The two main issues hampering the development of solar energy are efficiency and storage technology. For all of solar energy’s benefits, current methods of capturing sunlight are only between 12 percent and 18 percent efficient. New materials for making more efficient semiconductors are under development, but it remains unclear when or whether they will become commercially available. Detractors point out that, “At present levels of efficiency, it would take about 10,000 square miles of solar panels—an area bigger than Vermont—to satisfy all of the United States’ electricity needs. … [But] all those panels could fit on less than a quarter of the roof and pavement space in cities and suburbs”. In order to ensure that space and cost considerations are not prohibitive, further technological advancements will be required.
Partially because of this poor efficiency, partially because of the unpredictability of weather conditions (clouds, storms, etc.), and partially because of the absence of sunlight at night, storage is a particularly important element of solar energy production. Battery technology must also continue to improve if solar power is to achieve broader penetration in the global energy mix. One of the unique benefits of solar energy that somewhat counterbalances the drawbacks detailed above is its scalability. Solar panels can be installed on a house-by-house basis and do not require the same level of capital investment as some other renewable technologies such as wind power.
This is undoubtedly an expensive proposition for any homeowner, but solar panels hold great potential for communities that are remotely located and widely dispersed, including many in the developing world. According to Solar Energy International, “Providing power for villages in developing countries is a fast-growing market for photovoltaics. The United Nations estimates that more than 2 million villages worldwide are without electric power for water supply, refrigeration, lighting and other basic needs, and the cost of extending the utility grids is prohibitive, $23,000 to $46,000 per kilometer in 1988”. The advancement of solar energy has potentially revolutionary implications for the developing world as much as the developed one.
Hydropower and Tidal Power
Human control over flows of water accounts for two very different types of renewable energy. The first, hydropower, is already a major component of the global energy mix and supplied about 16.5 percent of the world’s electricity needs in 2004. The other, tidal power, currently represents a negligible portion of the world’s overall fuel share and less than 1 percent of the growth in renewables from 1971 to 2003. Though each is very different, both will play an important role in the future of energy.
Hydropower
Hydropower is considered the “granddaddy of green energy” because of its long and distinguished history. Hydropower’s most common incarnation is the dam, which places an artificial obstruction in a flowing waterway to create the pressure that turns a turbine. The first dam designed to produce electricity was built in Cragside, England in 1878. The United States soon followed suit, eventually experiencing a boom in dam construction in the 1930s and 1940s that produced the famous Hoover and Grand Coulee dams. In recent years, Brazil, Canada, and China have embarked on massive hydroelectric power projects, culminating in China’s Three Gorges Dam, slated for completion in 2009. The Three Gorges Dam will be the largest dam in the world, about five times the size of the Hoover Dam.
It has been the subject of fierce protests by those who feared the ecological and cultural damage it might wreak on an area of great historical and archeological significance to the Chinese people. Many also objected to the fact that more than one million people in the surrounding environs have been displaced and many more adversely affected by flooding further up the Yangtze River directly caused by the changing water flows. At the same time, it was acknowledged that the dam will be a necessary part of any strategy for powering China’s rapid economic development. Currently, China depends overwhelmingly on electricity produced by coal. While hydroelectric power will continue to be an important engine for growth, especially for large emerging economies like Brazil, China, and India, it will not be immune from controversy because of the complex impact of dams on local communities and the environment.
Tidal Power
Tidal power, while very modest in penetration at the moment, has great potential for the future: “Tugged by lunar gravity and stirred by wind and currents, the oceans’ tides and waves offer vast reserves of untapped power, promising more oomph than wind and greater dependability than solar power.” While relatively undeveloped now, “Offshore wave and tidal power are where wind was 20 years ago, [and] they’ll come of age faster”.
Tidal power can be generated in two ways. The first, a method known as “ebb generation,” uses a sluice gate to fill a basin when the tide is at its high mark. When the tide begins to ebb, a difference is created between the water levels inside and outside the basin. As water is released from the sluice, the flow is used to spin turbines and generate electricity. A second method, known as tidal or wave farming, anchors turbines in the seabed and exploits underwater tidal currents. This method salvages a whole class of sites that were previously off-limits for electricity generation: “To draw energy from the ocean, [turbines] often need to be rooted on sea floors relatively close to shore, or mounted on rocks on the shore – places that have not traditionally been used for energy generation”. Adding to the benefits of tidal power are the inherent advantages that water power has over other forms of renewable energy, including its density: “Since water is heavier than air, marine systems pack a bigger punch than wind power”.
Although there are currently few tidal projects in operation around the world the number is increasing. The first wave farm is being planned off the coast of Portugal, while experts say that Great Britain could eventually satisfy up to 20 percent of its energy portfolio from tidal-based sources. Even the United States is starting to take notice, investigating the potential of some unlikely sites such as New York City’s East River to house tidal power facilities. As with most forms of renewable energy, tidal power has its downsides and detractors. Usually, criticisms focus on the damage to aquatic ecosystems that tidal barrages and wave farms threaten. The entrepreneurs backing tidal projects, such as the proposed East River facility, pledge that they will invest millions to address these concerns. Exactly how the tidal power industry will develop is anyone’s guess, but all can agree that its potential is enormous.