Guest Speaker: Stein Tonnesson
Stein D. Tønnesson has been the director of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo since 2001. An historian by training, he currently leads the institute’s Eastern Mediterranean project while pursuing several small scale projects on terrorism, regional stability in the Middle East and energy security ... Profile
Discussion - April 2009
What mechanisms should we put in place to ensure energy security for everyone?
25 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Director
AMSET Centre Ltd
said: On 31/03/2009
By ‘everyone’ I mean everyone throughout the world, spread across nearly 200 countries and in many more communities and social strata. So the ‘mechanisms’ have to be universal. My choice is:
1.The efficient use and generation of energy is fundamental. This means improving technology, having strict standards, using clear labels etc and above all encouraging appropriate life-styles. Therefore, films are as important as physics, television soaps as important as technology. Success follows a careful combination of legislation, education and example. Energy security for everyone depends on everyone using less energy.
2.Energy in the environment flows past everyone wherever they are. Therefore harnessing renewable energy is vital. The ‘big three’ are solar, wind and biomass; everyone has access to at least 2 of these. Access to the other renewables depends on location and circumstance, but can be most beneficial if available. Other technologies such as nuclear and carbon-capture are likely to be a distraction
3.National and State good practice passes to other countries by trade, media and experience. Therefore, despite the challenge being global, best practice by individual countries is vital. These countries need not be large; indeed small countries may give good examples easier than large. Consider Denmark for wind power and combined heat and power, the Maldives for local carbon neutrality, traditional tribal life for sustainability.
4.In short, success will come from a combination of top-down legislation and bottom-up example.
Director General
CLECAT
said: On 31/03/2009
This is a challenging subject that attracts both my interest as citizen and as professional.
As a citizen (i.e. this is not a view that can be ascribed to CLECAT) I can only observe that the parameters of energy sourcing and distribution in the EU are probably touching their own business limits. Behemoth energy plants with enormous distances of distribution with enormous dispersion and little advantage for the consumer: this is a paradigm that has had its day. Just an example: the tariff mechanism in Italy levels out the supply to a median that is normally unrewarding for the citizen and does not incentivise innovation and savings. There is much advantage in producing electricity in small and dispersed energy “factories” (roofs, parking lots, small hydroelectric plants, waves, windmills, etc) all over the continent. This paradigm is already progressing on its own despite some evident obstacles. If fostered by the community and the institutions, it could provide a sizeable part of the energy that we need. At the same time energy saving is an important chapter. Many of our recent buildings (1940’s till 1990’s) are not built to avoid dispersion (old buildings have big walls and sometime double windows), but they do not need to be destroyed. Coating them with insulation would bring us back a lot of energy that is now wasted in the air. In addition we could make them look prettier, if colours and coating materials are carefully selected. This is also a very good investment that can provide many jobs in a period when job losses are hitting our economy,
As a transport and logistics professional I can also see that some paradigms need a change of mind set. We have a congested infrastructure where petroleum fuelled vehicles vie for their share. Recent studies (and the Commission) tell us that congestion is worth 1% of our GDP. I personally think it is probably more than that and much can be said about how one calculates external costs, when speaking of congestion.
The Commission recently published a report on the future of transport, where we read that road transport has improved its energy efficiency by 20%, mainly as a result of technological developments: this is good, but still road transport emissions are too big. Petroleum is not only the main source of energy in road transport but also a very dramatic driver for transport demand, imbalance in trade and the main contributor to these emissions. In addition oil will be less and less available and we badly need it for other uses: polymers and other products. We simply cannot continue burning it at the same pace we have done in the past, we must save it for the future. It is easy then to understand that the sooner transport petroleum dependency gets lower, the better our economy will be with considerable environmental advantages.
In order to address the problem, the EU could actively pursue innovation in the following areas:
Short to medium term:
o Need of an intelligent approach to biofuels, even if this should not be considered as the optimal solution
o Promote public transport in passengers and consolidation of freight, together with appropriate savings strategies
o Electricity is not so innovative, since it is already present in reality in many vehicles (train, trolleybuses), but its penetration can be further enhanced
o Abandon old fashioned prejudice against systems that allow considerable savings, such as the EMS .
In a medium to long term:
o Electricity (especially produced by renewable sources) is seen as THE solution, but there are several technological problems to be resolved, not least a way to stabilise the grid (millions of batteries all over the union ready to be used?)
o Electricity must be produced CO2 free, otherwise it cannot be considered a green energy
o Much work has to be done to achieve a different paradigm in the distribution of energy (be it electric, fuel or gas) by giving incentives to abandon the status quo. This is a sector that has not shown any substantial innovation at least for the last three decades.
Gradually converting car propulsion to electricity by means of a forward looking continental business plan would amount to proportionate savings in transport demand, even abating the EU energy deficiency and the overall emissions, while at the same time bringing additional benefits for our commercial trade balance. Furthermore the existing distribution channels could be gradually upgraded to a more diversified energy offer without great business or employment downsides. This is certainly an area where much work should be done in future, if we want to really change our footprint for the better.
Executive Director
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS)
said: On 31/03/2009
When Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty leading up to WWI, shifted the British Navy from coal to oil he said: “Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety and variety alone.” In this early axiom of energy security Churchill meant variety of suppliers. Today, when it is clear that most suppliers of oil and gas are unstable and often unreliable, it is time to expand the Churchillian definition to variety of fuels. In the electricity sector such variety already exists. Our grid can accommodate electricity from multiple sources from coal and natural gas to nuclear and renewable power. European countries anxious about their dependence on Russian gas can increase the role of nuclear power, invest in renewables and even reconsider their approach toward coal.
But when it comes to the transportation sector, oil is the only game in town. More than 95 percent of the global transportation energy, the energy that fuels our cars, trucks, planes and ships, is petroleum-based. This gives oil exporters inordinate power on the world stage, creating serious energy security challenges. To achieve energy security we must break oil’s monopoly in the transportation sector. This can only be achieved through a change in our vehicle platforms to allow competition and fuel choice. Eighty percent of the cars sold in Brazil last year were flexible fuel vehicles which can run on any combination of gasoline and alcohol (ethanol and methanol). This ability to accommodate non-petroleum fuels provided Brazil with resiliency no other country has. When oil prices soared in summer 2008 more ethanol was sold in Brazil than gasoline. It costs an extra $100 dollars per new car to enable such fuel flexibility. All it takes is a different material in the fuel line since alcohol is more corrosive than gasoline. Plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) which allow drivers to travel the first 30-60 km of their daily driving on electricity (very little electricity is generated today from oil) after which the car taps into its liquid fuel tank are also part of the solution. A PHEV owner would be able to choose between pluging-in his/her car and driving on electricity from a variety of sources or not doing so, driving on petroleum fuels instead. If this PHEV is also a flex-fuel vehicle, consumer fuel choice would be expanded to include alcohols as well. If every new car sold around the world is a flex fuel vehicle and, as battery technology improves, more cars can also run on electricity, the oil monopoly would be broken and the dependence on oil exporting countries would diminish, turning oil from a strategic commodity second to none to just another commodity.
Deputy Administrator
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
said: On 31/03/2009
In most consuming countries, the traditional focus of energy security concerns has related to oil supply, although concerns about the security of natural gas supplies have recently risen to great prominence in Europe. There is a standard litany of ideas for enhancing energy security, including increased transparency in energy market data, encouraging greater fuel flexibility in end-use applications, maintaining and expanding strategic energy reserves, and diversifying energy supply sources. Some of these, like data transparency, are relatively low-cost measures, while others may engender significant costs.
Another important consideration is the interaction between energy security concerns and the objectives related to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. There can be synergies between energy security and greenhouse gas emissions limitation. For example, improvements in the energy efficiency of vehicles and other equipment fueled by oil or natural gas serve both objectives at the same time. However, there can also be conflicts between these two objectives. Coal-to-liquids without carbon capture and sequestration would advance energy security in countries with abundant coal reserves, but have adverse implications for greenhouse gas emissions.
Sometimes, the balance between synergies and conflicts is less clear – for example, the use of biofuels both displaces oil consumption and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but the alternative use of biomass as a substitute for coal used for electric power generation would result in a larger reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, a requirement to sequester or avoid carbon dioxide emissions in electricity generation would adversely impact the economic viability of generation using coal, generally considered a secure fuel, but would also provide a source of carbon dioxide that could be applied to enhance oil production from aging oil fields located in net importing countries that are considered to be much more secure than other oil sources.
The sorting out of these synergies and conflicts will ultimately depend on the relative importance placed on energy security and greenhouse gas reduction objectives. In this regard, there is often a considerable gulf between the stated and revealed preferences of policymakers. Also, like beauty, perceptions of fairness regarding actions to promote energy security and/or greenhouse gas reduction objectives vary with the eye of the beholder. Oil-importing and oil-exporting countries see these matters differently, as do developed and developing countries. Even among industrialized countries, there is a natural divergence of perspectives between countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States, that expect continued strong population growth through mid-century, and others, including many European nations and Japan, that anticipate stagnant or declining populations.
In Washington, D.C., where I live and work, it is foten said that “where you stand is where you sit.” The Energy Information Administration, my employer, is the independent statistical and analytical agency within the United States Department of Energy. The EIA does not promote, formulate, or take positions on policy issues, and our views should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or the Administration. That caveat certainly applies to this response.
In sum, beyond some relatively easy and non-controversial measures, the choice of mechanisms for energy security will ultimately depend on the priority placed on the issue and the willingness and ability of policymakers to alter the status quo.
Professor Emeritus
The University of Chicago
said: On 01/04/2009
Let’s divide the answer into at least two parts: First, what’s crucial, and second, what’s important? At least partial answers to the first are reliable and resilient supplies of energy for subsistence, and access to that energy as needed. To the second, we can answer that we need sustainable energy sources that can provide energy at prices that the population can afford, and to achieve sustainability, we need to use energy as efficiently as technology and life style permit.
The first question has very different answers for different parts of the world. For the United States, we need to reconstruct our electric power distribution system. That’s necessary to achieve reliability and resilience even just with the electric power supply system we have now, and of course if we are going to be able to move to using wind and solar energy to generate significant amounts of electricity, we need to make big changes to the technology underlying the distribution system, including, obviously, a whole new scale of energy storage. For third-world countries to pass crucial thresholds for subsistence, reliable energy and communications networks are necessary but not sufficient; sources of energy supply that are locally sustainable and provide enough energy to allow the populations to achieve healthy living standards must be developed and deployed. (I’ll point out the cause-effect relation established by the economist Gale Johnson, that populations stop growing and stabilize as a result of economic well-being.)
The second question has received more attention than the first. Yes, we need to continue to develop all the sustainable energy sources and evaluate each as we go. We don’t yet know whether continuing to use carbon-based fuels is really sustainable because we don’t yet know whether carbon capture and sequestration is feasible, much less economically viable. (My own favorite means of sequestration: grow lots more oysters, capturing the carbon dioxide in the shells!) We don’t yet know whether we can develop a safe and secure way to recycle nuclear fuel. But both of these are examples in which the potential advantages of finding technologically and economically viable solutions would be enormous, clearly justifying a great deal of effort to solve the challenging problems they present. Can we develop batteries that are twice or more as efficient as those we have now, that have capacity to store large amounts of electric energy and the capability to deliver that energy at high rates?
Another area, very closely related to the battery issue, that has not received nearly as much attention as it should is the question of how much energy do we waste in providing energy to the ultimate consumer? How much goes into waste when we transport coal or oil, or send electricity through transmission lines? How much do we waste when we convert oil to gasoline? And of course that’s just the first part of that inquiry; the next part is asking how we can reduce those wastes. We can use well-established thermodynamics to determine the minimum energy expediture to carry out any chosen process, but we have to use ingenuity to figure out how to come close to the natural limit. Until perhaps the 1960’s, we had some but not very strong motivation to figure out how to make those processes more energy-efficient. Now our motivation may even be strong enough to act.
Core Researcher
Tyndall Centre and University of Sussex
said: On 01/04/2009
Before we can answer this question, it is important to understand what we usually mean by energy security. There are different dimensions of energy security people tends to refer to in different occasions, and that is usually why people end up with different solutions and approaches to this.
Energy security could be in the physical dimension, which is the limited availability, like the running out of oil or lack of fossil energy reserve in certain area. With great advances we are achieving in renewable energy technologies, these limits on fossil fuels are becoming less important in the future but they might still have significant impact on energy supply in the short term.
Energy security could be in the economic context, which is the affordability of convenient and reliable energy access. In the UK, this so called “energy poverty” issue is high in government’s agenda yet has not been effectively addressed. In a wider economic context, this also refers to the infrastructural inadequacy where people in remote or deprived areas are not connected by electricity grid, for both economic and social reasons. To address this problem, which in its nature is to provide a public good to the poor and to fulfil a legitimate human development goal, government, rather than the market, has to lead the way to integrate this into its social and economic development framework and fund it by public budget. But the government has to form close partnership with the private sector to make the investment at the scale it requires and deliver the service.
Energy security also refers to its environmental, or more specifically climate implications from its use. There is no real energy security if it would cost the environment we, and our future generations, live within. Fossil fuels, as well as biofuels, have to be used in a way that their environmental impacts are minimised to an acceptable level that would not jeopardise the sound function of geophysical system that all lives depend upon to, and future development of human civilisation. This is not an easy task to address given the disparity in development stages, endowments and priorities that we are divided into. No single mechanism could be able to solve this complicated problem, but all the mechanisms that are being designated to solve this problem should have to be constructed in a way that understand and appreciate the differences that we, the current generation, inherited and further developed, and minimise the environmental impacts of energy use while reducing, rather than enlarging, these gaps.
Energy security, in its own history, closely links to geo-politics. Natural resources are not evenly distributed, nor are fossil fuels. Even the renewable energy technologies might be able to harness energy at much wider availability across the world, they can still run into bottlenecks fro various reasons. Same as natural resources, market will be the more efficient way to allocate energy to where it is needed at the least costs. But for market to perform properly, aside from transparent and effective supervisions, there are still hurdles to overcome. It requires energy supplied from diverse and competitive sources rather than monopoly or oligopoly that can dominate market; it requires removal of direct energy subsidies that distort market; it requires minimising unnecessary governmental intervention and collusion; it requires externality to be reflected, or even better, fully included in the energy price; it requires energy demand to be quickly and accurately felt through the market, and it requires, most difficult to achieve, free trade of energy products without being constrained by political agendas, especially when people’s basic living standards are base upon it.
So, mechanisms that can ensure energy security for everyone must address the four dimensions above. They have to be forward looking, socially equal, environmentally sustainable and market oriented.
Ingénieur agronome
Independant
said: On 01/04/2009
Les pays développés produit le gaz à effet de serre vue l’evolution industrielle en utilisant le carbone, le petrole et le gaz naturel (80% des émissions de gaz à effet de serre proviennent de la manière dont l’énergie est produite, et surtout consommée selon le Ministère Français des Affaires Etrangères). Le développement durable par ce fait devient incontournable pour ressoudre le dilème social et économique, la conservation et la protection des ressources naturelles. Par exemple, une forêt naturelle conservée et protegée constitue une source de carbone.
Alors qu’on parle de la crise alimantaire au niveau mondial surtout dans les pays en développement, la recherche industrielle lance un nouveau produit « biocarburant » a partir des ressources végetales. Les terres sont occupées de plus en plus pour la production de biocarburant qui rapporte plus que la production alimentaire. Au délà de toutes ces considérations, les hommes doivent être conscient du danger que représente la dimunition de surface de terre reservée à la culture alimentaire par rapport à la production de biocarburant. En detruisant la forêt Amazonienne pour la culture de biocarburant, l’environnement se voit menancé et l’avenir devient de plus en plus incertain.
D’un coté, le biocarburant représente un avantage sur le plan de la pollution atmospherique, dans la mesure ou il y a dimunition de gaz à effet de serre. De l’autre coté, produire le biocarburant c’est se faire rare le produit alimentaire par consequent augnementé le prix de la nourriture. Aussi, la rareté des alimants profitera aux producteurs des pays développé qui sont subventionnés au detruiment de leurs collegues des pays en développement.
La politique mondiale doit controlée l’utilisation des forêts à travers la planete pour minumiser le risque de changement climatique. L’utilisation des terres pour la production de biocarburant doit être équitable pour permettre l’équilibre écologique. Les producteurs ne doivent pas ababdomné la production alimentaire vers la production de biocarburant. Les terres doivent être utilisées d’une manière égale, c’est-à-dire pour une superficie de 1000 hectares par exemple, l’utilisation doit être de 500 hectares pour la production alimentaire et 500 pour la production de biocarburant.
Selon l’Agence Internationale de l’Energie (AIE), la demande globale d’énergie primaire doit augmenter de plus de 55% d’ici 2030. Cela constitue un défi pour la population de la planete. Par consequent, nous suggerons : Une prise de conscience de la part des producteurs et consommateurs en matière énergetique, un carractère limité des ressources fossiles et végétales et une recherche d’indépendance énergetique en tenant compte du risque environnemental.
Professor
University of Manchester
said: On 01/04/2009
Keeping the lights stay on and the homes warm would be considerably easier if the world was more predictable. Unfortunately it is not and we have to develop strategies to cope with uncertainty. The most effective strategy is probably diversification. This means not only developing a variety of sources of primary energy (renewables, nuclear, gas, coal) but also making sure that our infrastructure has the flexibility needed to cope with short, medium and long term changes. Among many other things, this involves building an electricity transmission network that can move electrical energy around Europe to facilitate the exploitation of renewable energy sources. Consumers can also contribute to this diversification by becoming more flexible in their use of electrical energy. However, mechanisms such as smart metering must be put in place before this can have a significant effect.
PhD Researcher
Cambridge University
said: On 01/04/2009
Energy security is a product without a market, which leads to inefficient allocation.
Not everyone has the same security needs, but at the present everyone must pay for the same security level.
The one-size-fits-all approach is a relict from the past in the context of liberalized markets.
Theoretically almost any security level can be achieved, but high security levels also increase the cost of the system.
Utilities have no interest in building plants that are only needed a few times per year. In order to provide security of supply in competitive markets, financial incentives such as capacity markets or high prices in periods of scarcity are needed.
Another solution would be the introduction of standards by the regulator. But since neither the effect on energy prices resulting nor the financial benefit to the customers is known at the time of decision, it is difficult to decide about optimal trade-offs between them.
As information about customer needs is with the customers and the knowledge about generation cost and security implications with utilities, the most efficient solution would be to allow individual contracts between those parties to determine cost-optimal security levels.
Executive Director
World Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE)
said: On 01/04/2009
The concept of energy security is neither unified nor a constant. To some, energy security means critical infrastructure protection – the objective of hardening the network of wires, pipes and facilities from attack by enemies foreign or domestic. These enemies are not necessarily human, as squirrels and trees cause more power outages than terrorists. Another prong of the concept surrounds supply security. In western Europe this means assurance that natural gas will flow uninterrupted, all the way to the end of the pipe. In the U.S. supply security means the ability to withstand a major disruption of imported oil supplies.
The concept of energy security for everyone is, regretfully, unrealistic with current technology. One man’s energy security is another’s energy insecurity in this ever flattening interdependent world. That said, greater deployment of decentralized energy systems has the potential to address all aspects of the energy security equation described above. A portfolio of decentralized generation assets is less risky than reliance a single central station facility. Generating power on-site eliminates the need for costly, inefficient and vulnerable wires.
Greater reliance on local resources for fuel eliminates the need for imported fuels and conserves scarce capital for use within the country. Small scale local projects are also the best means to eliminate the energy poverty that afflicts 2 billion people around the globe, and light their homes so they can study and learn, refrigerate their medicines to cure the sick, and cook their meals indoors free of sickening smoke and fumes.
Senior Expert on Infrastructure and Energy, Head of Unit
Regional Cooperation Council
said: On 01/04/2009
Primarily mechanisms that would promote energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy sources but also natural gas as a bridging fuel to a zero carbon economy.
Due to limited global resources (energy, food, water…), steadily rising global population and huge energy demand increase especially in emerging economies (China and India) it would be precious to act in the direction of raising the global awareness on need to control birth rate as well as on need that the most developed countries support developing countries to improve their energy security.
Professor
National Defense University/ Georgetown
said: On 01/04/2009
In many ways this question is far too broad to even be properly answerable. The answers will often be determined by what country, area, or even city or village that is being discussed. However, I will give a try at this. Energy security for everyone is impossible, a pie in the sky, and, sadly, a likely unattainable goal for most of humanity for any time in the near to medium terms if we continue along the same paths we have taken in the past. Take, for example, the energy security of most people in Sub-Saharan Africa. Only about 17% of the people have access to electricity. Most get their energy from biomass in ways that deforest and denude their lands. Sometimes the result is desertification and massive increases in poverty and human insecurity. The lives of the common people, who are mostly dreadfully poor and living in very uncertain circumstances, are hardly touched by the large amounts of oil and gas produced in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most of it is exported to richer markets. The internal use of oil and gas in many Sub-Saharan countries has have either stayed about the same, or increased slightly, for years even though the populations have grown. There have been some projects, although willy-nilly, to bring renewable energy to the people in Africa. There have also been some infrastructure projects like the West African Pipeline. However, most people live, literally, in the dark without light, and cook with dirty fuels that cause the 3rd largest sources of premature death in Sub-Saharan Africa. Many of the health problems of the region could be managed better with more effective and reliable energy systems. The water could be cleaner and healthier, for example. The number of children who die due to totally preventable water-borne diseases in Africa could fill up 10 American football stadiums – each year. With the right water-energy-medical system connections many of the water-borne diseases of Africa could be almost entirely cured. By simply setting up solar-powered clinics in the more remote locations, and even in some of the miserable slums (such as Kibera in Nairobi, Kenya) many lives could be saved. Given that the slum dwellers in many cities are not given energy or water connections because their governments see them as illegal squatters, then something more than just building infrastructure is needed.
We could send 100s of thousands of solar, wind, micro-hydro, and other renewable technology and other energy technology facilities and networks to many parts of the world. However, not many would be helped by them beyond the short run, or even in the short run, unless the right governmental capacities directed toward economic development are built up to make these technologies more effectively connected with the people. Rules of law, especially in contract law, need to be developed. The right incentives also need to be built into economic and social systems in order to have people use energy efficiently and wisely.
On a more global scale, the biggest source of energy security for just about any people in any country on the planet is using the resources that they have, and that they trade for, more efficiently and productively. The massive amount of waste in producing electricity with natural gas, coal and oil is a worldwide problem. Normally more than 85 percent of all of the fuel that goes into a conventional fossil-fueled electrical power plant is lost in heat at the plant, in transmission, distribution, and in the similarly ineffective end-use devices that many rely on in their day-to-day lives, such as the toaster (which mostly produces heat away from the toast, and the conventional light bulb, which is great at producing heat, but not good at producing light. (In the US some 25% of our energy goes to producing light, but most of that energy is wasted actually in producing heat.) Our ways of transporting ourselves and much of our goods is also quite energy inefficient. For example, the typical American’s car uses up about 85-90% of the gasoline that goes into it in just moving the car, not the people or cargo in it. A lot of gasoline goes into acceleration after breaking the car even though there are technologies out there to send the heat from breaking back into motors as energy.
Some mechanisms that may help us along the way to managing our energy security better include pricing the energy properly by including all social, environmental, war, health and other costs in the total price of a liter of petrol for example. In the US the price of what we call gasoline should be much higher than it is to include all of these other costs, in order to get to a more sustainable use of gasoline in the medium term. These increases in prices would prompt people to buy lighter and more energy efficient cars, trucks, and other equipment. It may also change driving behavior patterns, which are some of the biggest sources of the misuse of gasoline. Taxing wasted energy might just push people and companies to look harder at how they could use energy better? (In the long run, in about 30-40 years, the internal combustion, gasoline-fired automobile will likely be a thing of the past. We need to look at policies and changes to make this transition less disruptive than it might otherwise be.) For many countries one of the greatest sources of energy insecurity is the percentage of oil they need to import to run their transport systems. In the US and the EU for examples, all but a very tiny percentage of autos and trucks run on refined all products. One of the real keys to a better energy future is cracking the code to what the future transport energy systems will be.
Huge energy prizes could be established worldwide to spur inventors, corporations, academics and others to get moving on new ideas. There could also be much stronger tax breaks for transport and other companies to use their energy more efficiently and effectively. Economic incentives work. They need to be built in to the overall invention-innovation-diffusion systems for energy technologies. That will take a lot of careful thought. However, this should not devolve into a bunch of government bureaucrats trying to pick winners.
Some other aspects of the entire energy-economy-society connections that need to be considered are: the development of proper energy investment and invention networks, the better development of energy-related insurance exchanges (such as for carbon sequestration), the development of a maintenance and security cultures (especially in some developing countries), the development of private ownership protection in order to protect investments and to spur more investment, the development of national energy purpose, and the better development of a long term views in the public of where we are all going when it comes to energy systems and economic and social development. The development of international energy technology and knowledge sharing, especially with the poorer countries, and international energy pooling could go a long way.
Other things to consider when trying to set up mechanisms for an area or a country is the importance of geology, geography, climate, solar density, winds, and more to help define the energy security of a country or area. If a country or area has low winds or not much sunlight, then wind power and solar power are not the best options. If a place has a lot of geothermal hot springs and has close access to underground hot rocks then geothermal may be the way to go. If a place has lots of oil, gas, and coal they are lucky for now. But those are depletable resources, and will eventually peak at some time in the near or far future. For many African countries that is not too far in the future. The US and many others have already peaked in oil. Some believe peak oil is here, or is in the near future. If either of these is the case, then we need to move fast to a different energy future for all. In all cases there are not silver bullets to help manage energy security better in the future. Energy security needs to be considered in a portfolio approach, with many energy sources and technologies being thoughtfully brought into the mix. Energy security should also be considered as a problem involving systems within systems. Just focusing on the energy side is not enough. One also needs to consider how energy systems are connected with economic, political, cultural, and other systems.
Most people worldwide do not have the slightest clue of the actual numbers, trends, costs, benefits and technologies that belong to energy systems. They are also hardly aware of the risks involved in continuing with the same technologies, fuels and infrastructures over coming decades. We don’t need just smart grids. We need smart citizens of the world who know what is needed to be done on energy security, and who have enough basic knowledge of what energy security means to put pressures on their leaders to make the necessary changes.
The most important “mechanism” to help bring better energy security to a country, region, or the world is proper leadership. Without proper leadership we will continue to muddle through in the darkness of energy ignorance, make silly policy choices like developing corn ethanol in America, and continue to be in energy wars until we finally understand the true cost of them. Without proper leadership we could also be missing what options we have on energy, such as the solar tower out of Australia, true smart girds, the DESERTEC program, fusion energy, tidal and wave power, street energy, thorium-based nuclear plants, light-weighting of cars via carbon fibers through companies like FIBREFORGE, and finding massive energy supplies in simply changing the way we build houses, run factories, transport goods, generate electricity, cook, heat, cool and communicate. Good leadership could also help the development of energy technologies we don’t even know about yet.
The real keys are leadership, education, incentives, and looking at things in a systematic, rather than the usual ad hoc, lazily expedient manners.
** All opinions expressed are those of the author alone and do not represent those of the National Defense University, the US Government or any other organization he may be associated with.
EU Representative
The Nature Conservancy
said: On 01/04/2009
The energy issue illustrates how much foreign policy has changed in the 21st century. In the quest for oil, money and power, there seems to be no more room for such noble ideals as international law and the finely chiselled body of international diplomacy. The battle for remaining resources is being fought very hard. Securing energy is hard-core realpolitik for each individual country. Alliances are forged, not with partners to whom nations are sympathetic, but rather with those they need.
The European Union is the largest economic power in the world, but does not as yet pursue a common energy policy. Without such a common energy policy, there can be no effective European foreign policy, since the EU would be prone to blackmail in this central issue of economic survival. Since Europe will be dependent on the energy exports of its neighbours to the south and east for the foreseeable future, the common energy policy of the Union cannot restrict itself to the EU, but must include the bordering countries of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The relationship between the EU and Russia is decisive. Just as Russia connects the double continent of Eurasia geographically, so energy transport and commerce bind them economically and, increasingly, politically as well. Other key countries are the Ukraine, Turkey and the states of the southern Caucasus. These serve as political bridges and transit countries for energy imports into the EU. That is why these countries must be brought closer to the EU both politically and economically.
Europe’s energy policy must also develop viable alternatives to the growing dependency on energy imports from its neighbouring regions. This includes improving energy efficiency within the European economy and extending its leadership role in the promotion of renewable energy.
In the search for the last oil and gas reserves on the planet, the environment has come under great pressure, as has democracy. The Arctic, the oceans and the virgin tropical and northern forests are all threatened by the exploitation of fossil fuels. For the transport of oil and gas, new routes are being forged through mountains, ice and forests. Toxic waste and accidents threaten indigenous plant and animal life and rob farming and hunting communities of the mainstay of their economies. The local people are not usually consulted when the ministry of energy arrives from their capital city and the foreign multinational oil company begins investing in their territory.
When the era of fossil fuels actually draws to a close – perhaps sooner than anyone anticipates – just what will come after? Not every drop of oil or every cubic meter of natural gas or coal can be reaped. Natural challenges and political crises will make production very difficult and the remaining fossil fuels will become very expensive. The poorest of the poor will suffer the most from this. They simply will not be able to pay for their oil or gas bills. That is why the energy industry is urgently searching for alternatives. There are two diametrically opposing strategies: the increased use of atomic energy, eventually to be complemented by futuristic fusion technology; and a comprehensive climate protection policy with a focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy. In times of international terrorism, there are heightened concerns about nuclear proliferation. For the sake of the environment and our security, the future should belong to renewable energy.
However, the move away from oil calls for a corresponding shift in the focus of individual energy corporations and in the macroeconomic decisions made by individual states about their energy mix. Ultimately, this shift can only be achieved through economic cooperation, through international energy diplomacy.
Humanity stands at a threshold: will its shared energy future be peaceful, or will it be threatened by resource wars? There are still many voids to fill in any framework of international agreements and institutions regulating the area of international energy policy.
The key questions that we should ask ourselves are:
What form would a global energy policy take if it were based, not upon who wields the greatest power, but upon the rule of law? How can rapidly depleting resources be managed to the advantage of all, and therefore conflicts averted? How can we avoid irreparable damage to the last areas of untouched natural beauty, all in the name of accessing valuable resources? And, finally, how do we arrive at an international energy policy which not only provides safe, economical energy, but also addresses the all-important issue of climate change?
Professor
Geneva Environment Institute
said: On 01/04/2009
For part of the world’s population, energy supply security is practically inexistent because of precarious infrastructures. For others, it is jeopardized by a strong dependence on fossil fuels. The implications on peace, the environment and human development are considerable. In fact, fossil energy strongly contributes to environmental deterioration and is at the origin of geo-political tensions. Furthermore, a relatively poor energy supply can hold back human development.
In order to reduce dependence on fossil energy, and improve energy infrastructures in developing countries, I propose a tax on energy consumption and on fossil energy. Tax revenues should be used to develop renewable energies, promote conservation and retrofit obsolete plants. The energy consumption tax should be collected in countries with levels of energy consumption higher than the world average. The monies could be used to create infrastructures in countries with lower levels of consumption. 2000 Watts is used as an estimate of the world’s average consumption. Other indicators can also be devised.
The development of renewable energy, promotion of energy conservation and building of infrastructures, represent sources of dynamism and innovation for the economy. They lead to new activities and job creation. They do however lead to job losses in the fossil energy sector. As far as possible, this labor should be reoriented towards new energy technologies. Our focus is on the medium and long term. One should anticipate a transitional period of several decades before the abandonment of fossil energy and seek to minimize gaps between developed and developing countries wherever possible. Given the inertia of the energy sector, action should be immediate.
Energy tax revenues should be managed by an international agency. One should recognise the risks associated with such a ‘business’. However, there are probably not a lot of alternatives. Mistakes of the past should not be repeated in the adoption of interventionist technology policies and the subsidisation of technologies that fail to deliver. Nonetheless, since the nineties, significant progresses have been made in the definition of market mechanisms and regulatory principles, allowing the take off and diffusion of renewable energy, as well as energy conservation. The same applies to infrastructure development. Therefore, tax revenues can be effectively managed. It remains to be seen if the financial crisis has made politicians more inclined to levy taxes on energy.
Research Fellow
University of Cambridge
said: On 02/04/2009
The current financial recession warns people over consumption in the West can largely damage the stability of financial systems. However the risk of lack of energy supply and the induced ecological crisis by fossil fuels consumption, for example climate change, would be much greater than financial crisis; and developing countries would be likely to suffer the most. One of the main driving forces can be also over consumption.
The speed of economic globalization and integration has accelerated over the last two decades to an extent where the supply chains of most products have been fragmented all over the world. However, the big picture remains that OECD countries are the main consumers of world produce, a range of low-income developing countries are becoming the main providers of energy, raw natural resources and the energy/resource intensive products at the cost of a wide range of impacts on their environment. China has become the largest global manufacturing hub connecting the resources providers in Africa and South America and end consumers in OCED countries.
On the other hand, the consumption in many new emerging countries, i.e. Chinese domestic consumption has been growing rapidly over past 30 years. China’s per capita income has grown dramatically however with significant regional disparities. Populations in many more developed areas are westernizing their lifestyles. Many poor regions are playing a role of energy/resources providers to rich regions for consumptions or producing for exports. Some of China’s fossil fuel is being used to meet its own needs; some is being used to support the consumption elsewhere; and certainly much fossil fuel in Middle East and African countries are used by supporting Chinese productions. Hence, in an increasingly interconnected world, no nation acting alone can solve the issue of energy security and the induced ecological crisis.
In 2007, more than one-third of Chinese fossil fuel consumption was for export production, which 60% was purchased by OECD consumers. In particular, the imports of EU from China increased six folds between 1995 and 2007 from € 34 billion to € 242 billion; 17% of total EU imports now originate from China, which makes China the largest exporter to the EU. If we breakdown the imports in terms of commodity categories, China’s exports to EU are energy and material intensive. For example, metallic products, information, communication and technological (ICT) products, machinery and transport equipment goods account for 65% of EU imports from China.
Current understanding of energy security potentially relies to a large extent on production, and technological innovations and retrofitting for energy-intensive users. In addition attention needs to be paid to lifestyle changes and consumption patterns, not only in western countries, but also in the most populous countries like China and India. If every urban Chinese consumes as much as an American does, China’s requirement on fossil fuel would be 5 times greater than current level. If everyone in the world consumers as much as an American does, then we would need 5 planets’ resources to fulfill. Therefore those newly industrialized countries including China are in the unique position to explore a new path to flight poverty as well as leapfrog from the wasteful production and consumption model of the West to make significant contributions on global energy security.
Policy Officer
EUREC Agency
said: On 03/04/2009
Decentralising our energy generation capacity and making it less dependent on fuel transported over long distances will make our supply more secure. But transforming today’s energy supply system – which is dominated by a relatively small number of large power plants – into one with a much larger number of much smaller plants, will require action on several levels.
First, investing in small-scale production capacity must be made an attractive proposition for the small-scale consumer. Subsidising the cost of such technology with a payment for every unit of energy it produces is a model that successfully launched the market for photovoltaic panels in Europe. Another regulatory measure was put forward by the European Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee on 31 March: oblige all new buildings to be “net zero energy” within 10 years, meaning that they will need to have low energy demand (for example, by being well-insulated) and that any energy they do take in from, say, the electricity grid, they make up for by re-injecting an equivalent amount from small-scale generation equipment installed on-site, like photovoltaic panels.
Secondly, technology is needed to manage the flows of small amounts of electricity to and from a huge number of producer-consumers spread across the grid. This technology is usually collectively referred to as “smart grid technology” and includes meters that can respond to the real-time price of electricity on electricity exchanges, the information and communications technology that relays this information to them, and chips in white goods such as fridge-freezers that enable them to consume more or less power depending on what the smart meter is telling them. Incentives to roll out this technology are needed from public authorities.
Thirdly, to accommodate electricity production from renewable energy sources (which often cost nothing and don’t need to be imported into Europe), a willingness is needed to invest more in electricity grid infrastructure. This will enable electricity to be moved from areas where it is being generated in abundance to areas where demand is running ahead of supply.
Lecturer
University of Leeds
said: On 06/04/2009
The predominant meaning of ‘energy security’ is security of supply. Here energy security is deemed synonymous with, for example, issues of pipeline politics or how to protect assets in the Middle East. This older meaning of energy security is, understandably, what most people think of when confronted with the term.
‘Energy security’ is now broadened further to include the idea of ‘keeping the lights on’ through green sources of supply, such as wind and wave power. The difference with the first approach is that the latter dovetails with the idea of a long-term, sustainable societal security, one that is compatible with climate change objectives.
In both these approaches ‘energy security’ gives rise to the question of the mechanism. Pipeline politics, for example, has its own version of security studies, how to protect the physical infrastructure etc. through geopolitics. In green approaches, the issue is also one of physical infrastructure, but it is more about the reliability of the technology.
There is a third, less obvious but still important meaning of energy security. Security, generally, is also about perception – do people feel secure? If people feel insecure then genuine insecurity can result. Fears about the impact of climate change are growing. Protestors are taking to the streets to express their concerns. These issues have long dogged the nuclear industry but a same type of politics is now coalescing around the use of hydrocarbon fuels. The question of the mechanism also arises here: what can be done to make people feel secure, not about the security of supply, but about the effects and consequences of, possibly, even abundant supply, a problem of what George Bataille once called ‘the accursed share’.
International relations, more generally, has recognized these problems. Growing out of the ‘risk society’, the Aarhus Convention on environmental participation is one approach that recognizes that ‘sustainable’ technologies have somehow to be grounded in widespread public acceptance. No doubt, Aarhus is limited, and somewhat bureaucratic, but the general idea that energy security has to address, at some point, the perceptions of security surrounding energy supplies is a valid one. The Aarhus mechanism is about disseminating accurate environmental information, allowing for participation and reassurance, the sense that it is important that societies support the direction and efforts of government and companies.
Security of supply, whether from old or new technologies, will remain the biggest issue. But solutions to the problem of supply will need both to make societies more energy secure and feel energy secure, a process which has to be beyond merely massaging public opinion.
Project Manager
EastWest Institute
said: On 08/04/2009
Despite the financial crisis, energy security remains a headline issue in the major world capitals and one of the central dividing lines between energy-exporting, energy-importing countries and transit countries. On the national and local levels energy poverty contributes to the creation of new division lines. Markets do not always deliver at an affordable price to all – back at home there are energy ‘haves’ and energy ‘haves nots’. Energy security must apply to all parties – to supplier, consumer and transit countries, to private companies and energy consumers, and to those concerned about the effects of energy consumption on the global environment.
Energy security is unthinkable without trust. Therefore, there is a need in rebuilding confidence in a set of global rules and cooperative approaches that reconcile competing stakeholder interests, especially on fair access to energy supplies and energy infrastructure, both on a national and global level.
That might be achieved through:
Creation of a truly international energy organization, taking into account the vital interests of the key stakeholders (private sector, governments and civil society). Its mandate and scope of action should be broader than that of the current IEA and it must provide binding rules for access and supply, and better regimes for emergency response.
Introduction of a ’safety network’ on a local and national level – energy welfare should involve domestic policies for poorer communities and international assistance packages for poorer countries.
Managing Partner
CO2logic
said: On 08/04/2009
Historically, governments have subsidized energy production to ensure a stable and secure energy supply. Now that society has become aware of the climate change problem we can ask if subsidies for fossil fuel technologies still make sense. In order to be effective, energy policy should be considered alongside climate policy. Otherwise we have the paradox where governments support fossil fuel investments (oil and gas prospection, pipelines, power stations, etc.) and at the same time tax or cap carbon emissions resulting from these activities. The combination of these two contradictory policies –give with one hand, take away with the other- would inevitably lead to a status quo that is neither satisfactory for our energy security, nor for our climate. Therefore we argue that we should first lower the existing subsidies for the fossil fuel technologies and then reallocate these funds to ensure energy security for everyone, i.e. our generation and the generations to come.
An interesting way to provide a sustainable level of energy security is to promote renewable energy technologies, avoid the lock-ins that exist in our energy investment decisions and better understand and control the energy demand. Moving to this point requires imposing a higher price on fossil fuels, supporting alternative energies, lowering fossil fuel subsidies and last but not least managing the energy demand in a more effective way. We now need to secure strong legislative and subsidy frameworks to support the alternative energy industries and avoid energy wastes which are costly both for our wallet and the planet.
Since decisions to invest in major energy infrastructure are sensitive to changing trends in carbon and energy prices, we believe that setting long term binding emission and renewable energy targets can provide the right signal. In this regard, carbon markets, tradable green certificates or feed-in tariffs are among the best mechanisms to ultimately ensure a long term energy supply.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 14/04/2009
The pursuit of “energy security” has brought us to the brink. It is directly responsible for numerous wars, big and small; for unprecedented environmental degradation; for global financial imbalances and meltdowns; for growing income disparities; and for ubiquitous unsustainable development.
It is energy insecurity that we should seek.
The uncertainty incumbent in phenomena such “peak oil”, or in the preponderance of hydrocarbon fuels in failed states fosters innovation. The more insecure we get, the more we invest in the recycling of energy-rich products; the more substitutes we find for energy-intensive foods; the more we conserve energy; the more we switch to alternatives energy; the more we encourage international collaboration; and the more we optimize energy outputs per unit of fuel input.
A world in which energy (of whatever source) will be abundant and predictably available would suffer from entropy, both physical and mental. The vast majority of human efforts revolve around the need to deploy our meager resources wisely. Energy also serves as a geopolitical “organizing principle” and disciplinary rod. Countries which waste energy (and the money it takes to buy it), pollute, and conflict with energy suppliers end up facing diverse crises, both domestic and foreign. Profligacy is punished precisely because energy in insecure. Energy scarcity and precariousness thus serves a global regulatory mechanism.
But the obsession with “energy security” is only one example of the almost religious belief in “scarcity”.
It is only a mild overstatement to say that the science of economics, such as it is, revolves around the Malthusian concept of scarcity. Our infinite wants, the finiteness of our resources and the bad job we too often make of allocating them efficiently and optimally – lead to mismatches between supply and demand. We are forever forced to choose between opportunities, between alternative uses of resources, painfully mindful of their costs.
This is how the perennial textbook “Economics” (seventeenth edition), authored by Nobel prizewinner Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, defines the dismal science:
“Economics is the study of how societies use scarce resources to produce valuable commodities and distribute them among different people.”
The classical concept of scarcity – unlimited wants vs. limited resources – is lacking. Anticipating much-feared scarcity encourages hoarding which engenders the very evil it was meant to fend off. Ideas and knowledge – inputs as important as land and water – are not subject to scarcity, as work done by Nobel laureate Robert Solow and, more importantly, by Paul Romer, an economist from the University of California at Berkeley, clearly demonstrates. Additionally, it is useful to distinguish natural from synthetic resources.
The scarcity of most natural resources (a type of “external scarcity”) is only theoretical at present. Granted, many resources are unevenly distributed and badly managed. But this is man-made (“internal”) scarcity and can be undone by Man. It is truer to assume, for practical purposes, that most natural resources – when not egregiously abused and when freely priced – are infinite rather than scarce. The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins discovered that primitive peoples he has studied had no concept of “scarcity” – only of “satiety”. He called them the first “affluent societies”.
This is because, fortunately, the number of people on Earth is finite – and manageable – while most resources can either be replenished or substituted. Alarmist claims to the contrary by environmentalists have been convincingly debunked by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”.
Equally, it is true that manufactured goods, agricultural produce, money, and services are scarce. The number of industrialists, service providers, or farmers is limited – as is their life span. The quantities of raw materials, machinery and plant are constrained. Contrary to classic economic teaching, human wants are limited – only so many people exist at any given time and not all them desire everything all the time. But, even so, the demand for man-made goods and services far exceeds the supply.
Scarcity is the attribute of a “closed” economic universe. But it can be alleviated either by increasing the supply of goods and services (and human beings) – or by improving the efficiency of the allocation of economic resources. Technology and innovation are supposed to achieve the former – rational governance, free trade, and free markets the latter.
The telegraph, the telephone, electricity, the train, the car, the agricultural revolution, information technology and, now, biotechnology have all increased our resources, seemingly ex nihilo. This multiplication of wherewithal falsified all apocalyptic Malthusian scenarios hitherto. Operations research, mathematical modeling, transparent decision making, free trade, and professional management – help better allocate these increased resources to yield optimal results.
Markets are supposed to regulate scarcity by storing information about our wants and needs. Markets harmonize supply and demand. They do so through the price mechanism. Money is, thus, a unit of information and a conveyor or conduit of the price signal – as well as a store of value and a means of exchange.
Markets and scarcity are intimately related. The former would be rendered irrelevant and unnecessary in the absence of the latter. Assets increase in value in line with their scarcity – i.e., in line with either increasing demand or decreasing supply. When scarcity decreases – i.e., when demand drops or supply surges – asset prices collapse. When a resource is thought to be infinitely abundant (e.g., air) – its price is zero.
Senior Research Fellow
CIEP
said: On 16/04/2009
Three facts are missing in the present energy security debate:
1) Though much airplay is given to renewables, in fact the energy security debate is about fossil fuels.
2) Energy security has two mirror images: security of supply for fossil fuel importing countries, and security of demand for fossil fuel exporting countries.
3) What is lacking for an ordered energy transition to a low-carbon future is a political cooperation between importers and exporters that regulates fossil fuel production and price levels of fossils between certain margins – towards and after the peak, and for the benefit of importers as well as exporters.
Research Advisor
NATO Defence College
said: On 16/04/2009
The prominence of energy security – or rather insecurity – on the political agenda emphasises the need for complex and multifaceted responses to be implemented by a range of international actors. States of course play an important role in energy security discussions, as do energy companies and international organisations. The EU and IEA have the most prominent roles, but other organisations, such as NATO also have roles that complement these actors.
A NATO contribution could involve additional information sharing, training programmes and of course, partner out-reach, not least because the Alliance’s membership is broader than that of the EU including as it does the USA, Canada, Norway and Turkey, and it has partnership relations with key energy producer and transit states.
More practically, the alliance can contribute military capacity to the problem of energy security. This is particularly relevant given concerns about terrorist attacks on strategic choke points and other major installations and the problem posed by piracy to shipping: NATO can offer coordinated naval assets and maritime surveillance facilities that contribute to the activities of other organisations.
As the discussion tends towards diversification of transit route and, indeed, energy type, a potential role for NATO becomes more conceivable: a wider range of transit routes may well include routes through less stable areas. Moreover, increasing LNG in the energy mix means an increase in shipping.
Therefore, NATO, while it is not a lead organisation in working towards energy security, has an important contribution to make. A mechanism through which the Alliance’s assets can be usefully coordinated with those of other organisations such as the EU would be an important step.
Professor and Head of the Chemistry Department.
Virginia Tech
said: On 20/04/2009
The answer to the above question is as complex as our planet. Human nature tends to have us wanting quick, simple answers that align with our favorite flavor of energy. But, there are no quick answers and no simple solutions. Our pathway must be carefully mapped and planned:
1. Energy-saving policies must be implemented and enforced. We need all of the time we can provide to develop all possible sources of energy to feed an energy-hungry world. That means that we must have our current petroleum fuels last as long as possible.
2. Significant Investments in alternate energy sources must be made with all due haste. We are going to need developments in wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro to even begin to phase out our dependence on petroleum.
3. Fossil fuels, especially coal, need to be preserved as chemical feedstocks. Pathways from coal to synthesis gas and then to chemicals are well-known, but need to be improved and refined.
This picture is painted with the broadest of brush strokes with each point worthy of a lengthy, complex analysis but it gives the flavor of the roadmap ahead of us. However, a cautionary note: All of the above were happening in the late 1970’s in response to an OPEC oil embargo limiting the amount of petroleum reaching world markets. The cries for independence from petroleum were as loud as any we are hearing now. Yet, as soon as the embargo was lifted, all of the research activities directed toward alternate fuels and chemical sources pretty much stopped completely. We cannot afford to let that happen this time.
Communications Chair
United Soybean Board
said: On 23/04/2009
One part of the answer to the complex question of how to gain global energy security is soy biodiesel. And the mechanism for the continued growth of the soy biodiesel industry around the world is the same as the one that has gotten it to this point in the United States: soybean farmers who continue working with advancements in technology to ensure an abundant supply of this high-quality, renewable biofuel.
Some 15 years ago, U.S. soybean farmers had the foresight to invest in the preliminary research of soybean-oil-based biodiesel. U.S. soybean farmers have been growing the U.S. biodiesel industry right along with their crop ever since. With funding for research and promotion, testing and technology, U.S. soybean farmers have helped increase biodiesel production from 500,000 gallons in 1999 to nearly 700 million gallons last year and earn soy biodiesel a place in the renewable energy debate.
Soybean farmers continue to respond to demand for soy, a versatile crop that can meet the world’s needs for food, feed and fuel. Biodiesel uses only about 3 percent of the U.S. soybean harvest and only the oil portion from a soybean. The majority of the soybean, about 80 percent, is processed into soybean meal, which consists mainly of protein for use in animal feed and human food.
According to the 2009 Prospective Plantings report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, soybean farmers intend to plant 76 million acres this spring, which would be a record. This is among the reasons experts are citing as they predict a calming of the wild food price fluctuations that struck the world last summer. According to the 2009 U.S. Baseline Briefing Book from the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri, food price inflation, which hit a record 5.5 percent in 2008, will return to more historic levels in 2009, falling to about 2.7 percent this year. The FAPRI report goes on to estimate that only 20 percent of the cost of food is due to farm production. Other costs throughout the food marketing chain are responsible for the remaining 80 percent.
The performance benefits of biodiesel demonstrate that this renewable fuel can most assuredly be a part of the world’s energy mix in the future. Soy biodiesel is one of the most tested renewable fuels on the market. In millions of on- and off-road and marine miles, biodiesel shows fuel consumption, horsepower, torque and haulage rates similar to conventional diesel fuel. Furthermore, soybean oil has proved to be the preferred biodiesel feedstock due to the improved lubricity, cold-flow properties and other diesel engine benefits of soy biodiesel compared with other biodiesel feedstocks.
In addition, soybean farmers spent millions in testing soy biodiesel in the new lower-emission diesel engines now required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The results of the testing show that biodiesel blends perform at least as well as petroleum diesel in reducing particulate matter and NOx emissions. And a new testing method that is capable of demonstrating lifecycle reductions in CO2 is now available. With this method, vehicle fleet managers will be able to demonstrate their CO2 reductions, which could eventually lead to carbon credit trading.
Support is lining up behind biodiesel. For example, two Missouri scientists have launched a petition titled “Scientists for Biodiesel,” which, among other things, declares biodiesel’s ability to reduce dependence on petroleum, address climate change and boost domestic economies. More than 70 scientists have already signed up in agreement.
Executive Director
IEA
said: On 28/04/2009
International collaboration, investment and diversification of our energy supplies are essential to ensure energy security for all.
Even if the 28 IEA member countries were to succeed in lowering their oil imports in the coming years, increasing import dependency in other major consuming regions – notably China and India – would still mean that an oil supply disruption anywhere in the world could result in severe knock-on effects for all countries. But we must also now consider energy security in terms of gas, not just oil. The Russia-Ukraine gas crisis of earlier this year has made that very clear. Yet energy security goes beyond overcoming physical supply disruptions.
Additionally, we need to maintain our focus on investment for a lower carbon future, by being more efficient with the energy that we use, by embracing hydrogen technologies, renewables, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power and other technologies. Often, not enough emphasis is placed on the benefits of energy efficiency. The IEA has undertaken analysis that shows that IEA member countries are using 59% less energy today than they would have been had it not been for energy efficiency measures. This is a remarkable reduction – and one we must replicate beyond the IEA.
Unfortunately, recent global events may be overshadowing concerns about energy security. The current economic downturn may be providing some relief from the extraordinarily high oil prices that we saw in 2008. But while we may be seeing weaker demand and lower prices now, the medium to longer-term picture clearly indicates significant energy demand growth. Moreover, many oil fields are mature, which means that significant investment is needed to enhance the recovery of oil and to tap oil in new, or as yet undiscovered, fields. The current crisis threatens to derail these important oil investments needed for the future. This in turn could see us facing a supply crunch in the mid-term when the global economy picks up, thereby threatening energy security.
To enhance energy security, the IEA is urging all countries to invest in both oil supply side investments and alternative energies. For many months now, the IEA has been calling for a ‘clean energy new deal’. Economic stimulus packages provide an excellent opportunity to ensure more sustainable growth in the energy sector – both through upfront measures with impacts in the near term, and longer-term investment decisions. Already, IEA member countries have earmarked USD 128 billion toward energy efficiency measures. This is strong indication that governments understand that energy security will not occur on its own, governments have a key role to play.