Guest Speaker:
Profile
Discussion - July 2010
By how much should we expect renewable energy to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years?
36 Comments from our contributors
36 Comments from our contributors
Leave a Reply
Registered users must log in to post a comment. New users can register with Comment:Visions, and begin to leave comments once approved.
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Director
Centre of Environmental Research in Minerals, Metals, and Materials - University of British Columbia
said: On 01/07/2010
There are four “pure” alternative (or renewable) energy sources that I will discuss: solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. Hydroelectricity is the major source of renewable energy today, but its growth rate is hampered by the number of rivers left to be possibly dammed in the future. Run-of-river hydro projects will make a minor contribution, but these are not base load and so are limited to niche markets.
Solar and wind are unlikely to contribute substantially to the World’s energy requirements in the near term unless significant subsidies are put in place by governments. Both alternatives have low capacity factors at about 10% and 20% respectively and so can only be used for peak load situations. By way of example, the United Kingdom recently announced its intention to pay wind producers to shut down when the energy is not needed since the grid can be destabilized. This is not necessarily “in sync” with when the wind blows or the sun shines and so, capacity factors of these sources suffer further.
Predicting how and when the world can (or will) get off fossil fuels is fraught with considerable uncertainty. Since the World is beginning to run-out of conventional oil sources (Hubbert’s Peak ), in order to meet current energy needs, extreme oil exploration and development is now necessary – these include heavy oil, such as oil sands mining, and deep-drilling for oil and gas, such as in the Gulf of Mexico. It is clear that the recent tragedy in the Gulf will increase the pressures to curtail off-shore exploration in Alaska and along the west coast of North America as well as in other regions.
Shale gas is beginning to play a role in meeting North American energy demand with significant finds in Texas, Louisiana, the north-east United States, and north-east British Columbia. A recent M.I.T. study estimates that natural gas will increase its contribution to U.S. energy demand from the current 20% to as much as 40% by 2040. The problem is that shale gas must be hydro-fractured from its associated rock leading to possible earth-quake initiation issues. As well, the gas is relatively impure with about 50% CO2 content requiring expensive carbon-sequestration techniques. Price pressures appear to be upward in the long-term for both oil and gas.
Coal is used widely around the world, especially in Asia and the U.S. as well as parts of Europe, to generate electricity. Current coal reserves at current demand is well-over 100 years, but this could change as new technologies such as in-situ extraction and more-widespread use of combined-cycle generating plants becomes the norm. Coal prices have been climbing as well as oil and gas mainly because of the high demand from Asia.
All these price trends help promote alternative energies and reduce the need for government subsidies.
Biomass can also play a role, but the jury is still out on whether CO2 emissions from biomass should be counted or not as GHG-emissions. The question revolves around the relative rates of CO2 or methane production by either burning or by natural degradation respectively. On the other hand, if a new tree is planted for each one harvested for energy, then biomass can contribute positively. Growing biomass for fuel (such as the “ethanol from corn” route) is not particularly energy efficient and puts pressure on using such products for energy instead of for food leading to decreased food production at increased prices.
Geothermal energy is an alternative that appears to be ignored in many parts of the world. Growth trends in high-temperature resource use that can be turned into electricity have been ~3% per year over the past 20 years, but the impact is still low at less than 1% of world electricity production. Most exploited resources lie along the tectonic plates, particularly surrounding the Pacific Ocean, so geothermal is often considered geographically bounded. However, two areas of change will be power generation from lower-temperature reserves (<120°C) using binary cycle plants and Enhanced Geothermal Energy Systems that require deeper drilling, hydro-fracturing, or use of borrowed fluids to bring the heat to surface. Some experts tout liquid CO2 as a possible candidate to replace water and steam as the geothermal fluid, and so, to contribute to carbon-sequestration possibilities, but this is rather optimistic, and unlikely to be significant. Should EGS technologies continue to trend towards depths of 5 km, then we will be able to extend geothermal power to other parts of the world and it will play a larger role.
Low-temperature geothermal energy should not be dismissed in importance. Use of heat pump technologies can significantly assist in heating our homes and buildings in cold climates such as Canada, Scandinavia, and Siberia. The heat can be gained from relatively shallow depths (~3-4 m), so it is readily available with payback periods for many applications of less than 6 years. Furthermore, these systems are robust and can contribute to both heating and cooling demand with system lifetimes of 25 years or more.
Two additional uncertainties in regard to the demise of fossil fuels relate to the electrification of our transportation systems and the return of widespread use of nuclear energy. France is one of the few countries in the world to have "hung their hat" for the past quarter century on nuclear with 80% of its production coming from this source. The French even export electricity produced from this source to neighbours who claim to be "nuclear-free". Ironically, a country such as Australia which is one of the largest producers of uranium in the World still refuses to use nuclear energy as a source. The dangers of nuclear waste disposal and the issues of proliferation from plutonium by-production are major disincentives for promoting nuclear fission, while nuclear fusion still appears to be “well-over-the-horizon”. Until these issues are resolved, the nuclear industry will continue to limp along contributing in some parts of the world, but banned in others. The growth rate in nuclear around the world was sustained by incrementally enhancing the capacity factor of nuclear plants from about 60% in the 1970s to over 90% today. As such, this method of improvement has reached its limit and new plants must be built to maintain the role of this source.
The electric car looms as a major technological driver pushing us off the use of petroleum for vehicles. Energy storage issues still remain but Li-polymer batteries and ultra-capacities are now approaching the capability of commercial vehicle ranges of 250-300 km at current highway speed limits. At the moment we could charge every vehicle (after conversion to all-electric) in North America using off-peak generating capacities. The so-called Smart Grid can assist in making this happen, but considerable investment in infrastructure is required.
Can Europe derive 20% of its electricity from alternate energies by 2030? Currently at 8.5%, such an increase is possible, but it will require considerable investment in technologies that have high risk – either nuclear and/or geothermal. Solar and wind and biomass can contribute but they are too expensive and inefficient from a capacity viewpoint to play major roles except in certain niche markets.
The greatest impact on our energy mix exists on the demand side. By increasing the efficiency by which we use energy, growth in demand can be slowed in First World countries without impacting on our lifestyle. Better insulation, heat recuperation systems, better ventilation designs, and wide use of electric vehicles will all contribute to higher use-efficiencies as well as switching to more efficient energy types (electricity instead of combustion). It must be remembered however, that as the developing countries continue striving to reach our high standard of living, their demand for energy will increase at exorbitant rates – so, do not expect to see much change in world growth rates. This presents opportunities for the developed world to assist in putting into place the “best” options in the Third World and to insure their mix of energy use is more appropriate for the times, i.e., less dependence on fossil fuels, higher demand efficiencies, increased use of electricity over combustion.
Director Sales & Marketing
Petrotec AG
said: On 01/07/2010
„Given the current under-utilization of European bio-fuels production capacity, and assuming technological breakthroughs leading to “2nd generation” renewable fuels, we can achieve 20% renewable fuels in the next 20 years”.
Member
CIRCLE Team
said: On 01/07/2010
The replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy resources (RER) in the next two decades depends on many factors, some of them difficult to predict at present. The coincidence of the recent economic crisis with the need to reach the target 20-20-20 set by EU can in principle be achieved, provided that important political decisions are taken in the global scale, such as the recent U.S.-China Renewable Energy Partnership, announced by the Presidents, Obama and Hu in November 2009.
Renewable energy resources are unfortunately not commonly constant with time and they depend on meteorological and other prevailing natural conditions. However, there are hundreds of places on earth which can provide important RER in solar and wind power, geothermal energy, tides etc. I have always quoted the need to create what I call “the new emirates” of RER. The “new emirates” need to be identified in a global forum and through a restructure of the grids of the regional and global energy supply lines. In this respect I quote the discussion of June 2010 from which it appears that this restructuring would be absolutely necessary if globally we set the target 20-20-20. Taking an example in a small country like Greece, which has important RER in both solar and wind power, particularly in the summer time over the Aegean Sea, one can see the complexity that the present power distribution grid is introducing. In the case of the Aegean Sea, the constancy of the wind direction exceeds 80% and the wind power approximately equals the energy density provided by the sun in the summertime.
Today, the situation for RER in the Aegean islands of Greece is disappointing because it is not producing geothermal energy, is getting only a fraction of the available solar energy, and the power grid connecting the islands between them and with the mainland of Greece is absolutely insufficient or not existent. Therefore, although the solar and wind power in this small part of the world is on the order of several GW, it can not at present be considered as a prospect emirate because of the lack of a proper management system and of course smart grids. If successfully organized, not only in Greece but also elsewhere renewables can replace fossil fuels by between 20 or even 30% in the next 20 years or so.
Assistant Professor
Purdue University
said: On 01/07/2010
For electricity, it is expected as technology advances wind energy could become a significant resource for renewable electricity generation. It is possible to have up to 20% electricity from wind without destabilizing the power grid. Photovoltaics could also be significant if the manufacturing and installation costs can be cut down. But so far PV could only achieve grid parity in a few locations where electricity price is very high. It should be noted that solar thermal technologies, which are cheap to implement, could greatly reduce the consumption of natural gas by meeting heating needs of residential and commercial buildings.
For transportation fuel, biomass is currently the only renewable source of supply. However, converting biomass to liquid fuel is not energy efficient. The USDA/DOE’s 2005 “Billion Ton Vision” report suggests that annually there could be 1.3 billion dry ton of biomass available in U.S., which could meet 30% of transportation fuel demand. This estimation is technically optimistic, though. Since land use change and aggressive agricultural practices may have issues such as soil erosion and eutrophication, the sustainable supply of biomass could be much smaller. A 10%-20% replacement might be more realistic. Besides, it may make more sense to utilize biomass for diesel and jet fuel production, as well as for chemical manufacturing. For light duty vehicles/passenger cars, it is expected plug-in hybrid and electric cars might be a better approach than biofuel.
Overall, it might be a good estimate that renewables will contribute 15%-20% of total energy supply over the next 20 years, if we can maintain energy consumption at current level. This could be much more challenging for developing countries and clearly international collaboration is critical.
Environmental Scientist
Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre of Unilever
said: On 01/07/2010
The shift from a fossil based economy to a renewable based economy is probably going to be a slow but unstoppable process. According to the Directive 2009/28/EC by 2020 the European Union (EU) will be consuming 20% of its energy from renewable sources. This is a quite ambitious target taking into account that in 2005 only 6.5% of the primary energy used in the EU came from renewables. However, production from renewables is increasing fast. In Spain, the contribution from wind energy to the country’s total primary energy consumption almost doubled from 2004 to 2008, and that from biofuels doubled in this same period. Many renewable production technologies are already technically feasible and economically competitive when compared to traditional energy sources, and competitiveness will further improve if we succeed in reflecting the real costs of energy supply in energy prizes. These days the coast of Florida shows us how high the costs of a fossil-based economy are.
On the other hand, the question is not only how much can renewables grow, but how much our energy demand is allowed to rise. The Earth’s resources are finite, and yet we behave as if we can keep growing indefinitely. The answer to a sustainable energy supply lies not only on how to substitute fossil fuels, but also on how to stabilize our energy consumption.
Policy Fellow
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware
said: On 01/07/2010
Currently, renewable energy sources cover only a small fraction of global energy supply. However, the role of renewable energy technologies is rapidly increasing. Photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind generation technologies are the fastest growing energy supply sources. A conjunction of several social, economic and environmental factors makes these and other evolving renewable technologies attractive options for wider deployment. Depletion of easily accessible and low-cost conventional fossil fuel resources, greenhouse gas emission reduction policies, the security of energy supplies from Middle East and other conflict-prone regions of the world, are all contributing in rising costs for fossil fuels. The costs of renewable energy technologies, on other hand, are decreasing. In the next 20 years or even earlier, the experience gained from research, development and deployment of these technologies and increasing economies of scale are likely to drive the cost of renewables to the break-even point, at which time they will be able to compete with fossil fuels without government support (some of the renewables, e.g. on-shore wind, solar thermal, already have reached this point). Before renewable technologies reach cost competitiveness, government policy support for them is likely to continue. Today, more than half states in the U.S. are mandated by state legislation to provide a share of electricity supply from renewable energy sources through renewable energy standards (RPS). Most of these states require at least 20% of electricity to come from renewables by 2020. The European Union has its own renewable target of 20% for 2020. Similarly, China – under its Medium and Long-Term Development Plan – has a 15% target for renewable generation by 2020. Increasing penetration of renewables in the energy supply mix provides a number of technical challenges as well as opportunities. One of the major technical challenges faced by renewables is their intermittent nature. However, a number of technical solutions already exists today (pump storage, thermal storage, batteries etc.). In the next 20 years, cost of the energy storage is likely to drop significantly, allowing an even larger deployment of renewables. The prospect for renewables looks bright, yet it is important to acknowledge that simply increasing the renewable energy supply will not solve a myriad of environmental, socioeconomic and energy security problems. Increases in the renewable energy supply need to be combined with energy efficiency measures, which provide the cheapest resource for decreasing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. If the current trend in renewable deployment continues, we can expect that renewables will provide at least 30% of global energy supply by 2030.
Director of Energy
Research Innovation and Education Development
said: On 01/07/2010
My Opinion
Any prediction or claim relating to how much fossil fuels will be replaced in the next twenty years, in a single country let alone globally, is a counterproductive exercise. The reality is that we are a carbon based society and the question should really be; “how do we manage the transition from extracted fossil fuel dependency to alternative sources of energy without harming the economic prosperity of any individual, company or country”.
In a debate that contains so many complex problems it is counterproductive to focus on simplistic solutions or arguments that elicit fears about impending climate doom. The debate should really focus on the problems of achieving sustainability through effective legislation as well as public and private policy management aimed at achieving economically responsible and realistic outcomes. Simplistic measures such as imposing taxes on companies and individuals are simply not an option here. Imposing punitive penalties have a role, but are only effective when they are enforced rigorously at public cost. The question of dealing with climate change is therefore not a debate about reducing carbon emissions and pollution, but it is a debate about how we manage the transition to a society that assumes responsibility for the cost of its activities.
This requires, in my view, a radical shift in the way governments, individuals and business, both large and small, interact and behave towards one another. It is clear that we have the technology to reduce the total carbon footprint of each individual on this planet whilst maintaining and even increasing living standards in the both the industrialized and as well as the less industrialized countries of the world. At the core of this achievement are appropriate legislative measures that set minimum energy efficiency targets at community level. This demands that governments at local and state levels take the responsibility for appropriate planning that covers all aspects of public and private energy consumption as well as water and waste management. It requires that governments around the world put a workable plan in place that manages the transition from large scale power generation to small scale community co-operative energy generation at micro-grid level. It further, demands that governments around the world frame rational EPA legislation and define uniform energy and pollution control regulatory codes as well as energy efficiency standards.
There are several European Countries who are demonstrating that a carefully crafted and appropriate government legislative and regulatory framework is actually the best way to manage this very large logistical problem of climate change. What is probably important to note here is, that countries such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway for example, are also demonstrating something that other politicians in other countries are not. That is, a cohesive and collective political will that aims to manage change for the benefit of the entire society in a fair and equitable manner. This harsh evaluation may appear uncompromising if we look at the problems of the rapidly emerging economies in Asia and South America. However, is the current mantra of these political leaders to “develop or perish at any cost in the next 30 years” not repeating the problems of the European industrial revolution that we are now beginning to address at great cost in the west? I wonder what the cost will be to India and China when these countries finally work out that small energy efficient community based micro-grids are actually cheaper to run and more economical and environmentally friendly?
Senior Project Manager
Objective Corporation
said: On 01/07/2010
Over the next 20 years I’d say 10-20% globally. It’s hard to say because energy demand is increasing rapidly so we’ll probably see MORE use of fossil fuels, and renewables absorbing some of the extra demand, rather than a direct switch from one to the other.
Director
Technical Services at Winegate
said: On 01/07/2010
Petroleum took over over 100 yrs to displace coal (1859-1965) as the primary global energy source. Currently, renewables (solar, wind, hydro & biomass) only make up 5% of the global energy mix according to the 2009 EIA and BP annual energy reports with the remaining 95% coming from conventional fuels (oil, gas, coal & nuclear).
Following the current trajectory (and coinciding with targets set by many Europeans nations), renewables should be at a 30% share by 2030.
Managing Director
Education Cluster of TECOM Investment
said: On 01/07/2010
Although we have witnessed a slight decline in the world energy demand last year as a result of the global economic downturn, it is anticipated that the world market energy consumption is projected to increase by 40% in the next 20 years with the majority of demand coming from Asian countries followed by Middle Eastern countries. Fossil fuel will remain playing a major role in supplying the world’s energy demand, accounting more than 70% of the worlds energy demand with coal and natural gas accounting to have a larger share in the energy mix. Nuclear energy, which is currently contributing to 15% of world’s energy demand, will also experience a significant growth on the medium-long term outlook.
Renewable energy with all of its sources namely solar, wind, wave, tidal, ocean, geothermal, biomass and hydro will experience the highest growth rate within the next 20 years, with estimated contribution reaching 10% of the total world’s energy consumption in 2030 from its current contribution of approximately 3%. However, a higher contribution % could be achieved if more efficient methods and technologies are adopted to generate and store energy at a low and attractive rate. Technologies that could be considered will touch upon areas of hydrogen energy production from conventional and non-conventional energy resources and its conversion into electric power through fuel cells. Moreover, nontechnology and biotechnology could also play a key role in the future to produce energy at an affordable price.
Association Manager
European Geothermal Energy Council
said: On 01/07/2010
The Geothermal Contribution
Introduction
There is no geographical restriction for the exploitation of geothermal energy, the resource is present anywhere on Earth, day and night, throughout the year, and can be exploited both for heating and cooling needs (directly or with geothermal heat pumps ) and for electricity production (“classic” geothermal power plants as well as Enhanced Geothermal Systems). However, some regions benefit from more favourable conditions, which has allowed an earlier development of geothermal resources in such regions.
Geothermal energy as a heat resource is available all the time. Converted into electric power, it is therefore particularly adapted to provide a base load to the grid; many geothermal power plants have a track record of operating more than 8,000 hours per year, which represents more than 90% availability. Geothermal energy also is an ideal answer to the different energy needs of a local community: electricity, heating and cooling, domestic hot water, and thermal energy storage.
Status Today
In the EU today, the total installed capacity for geothermal power is ca. 1000 MWe, which is expected to generate almost 8 TWh in 2010. At present, new electricity projects representing a total of 400 MWe are ongoing in the EU (EGS and low temperature power plants). In total, electrical plant construction and well drilling costs about 4-7 million € per MWe of electrical capacity, while the energy cost is 0.04-0.20 € per kWh. In terms of sectoral growth, geothermal heating and cooling, unlike other renewable energy sectors, appears to be on the right track for reaching the 2010 White Paper objectives. Between 1995 and 2009, the annual number of newly installed geothermal heat pumps increased by a factor of five. Residential geothermal heat pumps with a capacity of 10 kW are routinely installed for around 1,000-3,000 € per kW. District heating systems may benefit from economies of scale if demand is geographically dense, as it is in cities. The capital cost of a geothermal district heating system is estimated at somewhat over 1 million Euros per MW. Finally, geothermal energy is highly scalable: a large geothermal plant can heat and power entire cities, while a smaller power plant can supply a rural village.
Outlook Tomorrow
Geothermal energy can substantially contribute to heating and electricity production, with ca. 20% of the total EU consumption, or 70 Mtoe for electricity and ca. 30 % of the total EU consumption, or 150 Mtoe for heating and cooling. The availability of the resource all day and night, throughout the year provides a base load anywhere.
By 2020: Strengthening the European geothermal industry by developing hydrothermal resources in Europe and expanding the EGS concept, as well as by increasing the market penetration of geothermal heat pumps and ensuring a wider spread of geothermal district heating and cooling systems.
By 2030: Towards a competitive source of energy by bringing down EGS plant cost, starting the implementation of massive construction programs, and transferring EGS technology outside Europe. Geothermal heat pumps and direct uses will be firmly established and further developed, notably in view of agricultural applications (e.g. heating greenhouses), new applications for pre-heating in industrial processes (high temperature) and new district heating systems for dense urban areas.
By 2050: Powering Europe and the world from geothermal with EGS developed everywhere at a competitive cost, replacing conventional base-load power plants (coal, nuclear, fuel, etc.) and geothermal heating and cooling systems being available and economic for both individual buildings and urban areas.
Fig. 1 : Geothermal contribution for 2050 – electricity and heating & cooling
Geothermal Electricity – EU-27 2010 2020 2030 2050
Hydrothermal conventional (MWe) 990 1,500 7,000 10,000
Enhanced Geothermal Systems (MWe) 10 4,500 15,000 90,000
Total Installed Capacity (MWe) 1,000 5,000 20,000 100,000
Yearly Electricity Production (TWh) 8 50 234 780
Heating & Cooling – EU-27 (Mtoe) 2010 2020 2030 2050
Geothermal Heat Pumps 2.3 6 12 70
Geothermal Direct uses 1.8 2.5 6 20
Heating from CH&P 0.2 2 12 60
Total Heat and Cold Production 4.3 10.5 30 150
Technology specific Recommendations
• Draw the attention of politicians, general public and the industry so as to give geothermal energy (mainly EGS) the high profile it deserves
• Develop heating & cooling networks integrating geothermal heat pumps and geothermal storage (UTES) (to become a standard in urban planning)
• Remove regulatory barriers on licensing procedures, ownership and grid access
• Educate and train a qualified labour force
• Develop geothermal solutions for retrofitting existing infrastructure & develop products and methodologies for cost-effective building energy-related refurbishment
• Launch wide underground exploration programs to allow for optimum allocation between different potential uses (oil&gas, mining, nuclear waste and CCS)
• Establish government incentives (feed-in tariffs, green certificates) and a European risk mitigation scheme for geothermal projects
• Adopt measures on environmental impact and (in EGS) seismicity monitoring
Chief Technology Officer
Merica International
said: On 01/07/2010
The answer to that question depends on many factors, but will be strongly influenced by public policy. Based on policies currently in place, I would expect fossil fuel replacement to be no more than about 10% by 2030. While that may seem like a modest number, the key point is on replacement. Because many so-called renewables are heavily reliant on fossil fuels for their manufacture, one could see significant penetration of renewables without seeing major replacement of fossil fuels. This is exactly the case over the past decade, where renewables have grown rapidly, but fossil fuel usage remains high. This situation will only change if public policies encourage those renewable technologies which minimize reliance on fossil fuels.
Member
CRES
said: On 01/07/2010
Geothermal power plants are fed by geo-fluids of temperature in the range between 80 and 180ºC. They can be fully automated, in order to be monitored and operated by remote control through a telephone connection. They are able to handle both base and peak loads, as well as load fluctuations down to less than 20% of installed capacity.
At present, in EU geothermal power is generated only in few favourable areas, where water producing geologic formations of high temperature are found at depths down to 2-4 km. Installed capacity in EU is in the order of 1 GW, almost all of which is located in the province of Tuscany in Italy. Global installed capacity amounts at 10 GWe, which is expected to double within the next 7 years.
Present commercial technology for geothermal power generation needs the existence of both water and high temperature. The hot water is conveyed to the surface through deep wells, in order to feed a power plant for electricity generation. A new trend is to utilise existing oil wells by installing a 200 kWe geothermal binary power machines by the wellhead.
However, the European project in Soultz near Strasbourg at the French-German border, proved that geothermal power plants can be developed in any location, even in formations which in their natural state can not yield water. The technology used is to engineer a geothermal reservoir by fracturing deep rocks of high temperature and fill it in with water, which will serve as the heat carrier fluid. The resulting system is called an Enhanced Geothermal System, or EGS. An EGS plant, therefore, requires only the presence of high temperature, which is available everywhere if deep enough wells are drilled.
In countries with favourable feed-in tariffs, the EGS technology is now replicated in several new projects of 5 MWe capacity, many of which are located at the boundaries of already exploited geothermal resources. In addition, further research and technology development is under way in order to improve the economics and standardize EGS plants, a technology expected to be mature within the next 5-10 years. An objective of around 10 GWe of installed geothermal power in Europe by 2030 seems feasible with a long term target to exceed 100 GWe by 2050.
Honorary Research Fellow
Imperial College London
said: On 01/07/2010
Renewable energy sources (RE) are very diverse. The stage of development of RE varies considerably and thus to give a reasonable answer we need to address its different components.
Take, for example, wind power which has advanced very quickly in the past decade (i.e. 48GW in 2004 to 158GW in 2009), spread out in 70 countries and could, potentially, supply 20% of the world energy. As the technology advances, particularly off-shore, implementation will speed up if current subsidies remain in place.
Biomass energy resources, the most important RE, have two major end-uses:
i) Traditional, the main use in many developing countries e.g. in some African countries over 80% of the energy comes from traditional biomass
ii) Modern applications, subdivided into: a) solid and b) liquid.
Biomass energy currently supplies 50 to 54EJ (10 to 11%) of the approx. 500EJ of global energy. These are very conservative figures, 14-15% would be more realistic as many official estimates under-report traditional uses. In 2007 biomass contributed to c.6.4EJ to power generation and 2.6EJ as transport fuels. The economically viable biomass energy supply has been estimated by various authors to range between 50EJ to 250EJ in 5050.
Currently biofuels replace about 3-4% of transport fuels. Within the next 20 years, if comprehensive policies are put in place and the agricultural sector improves significantly, biofuels could replace between 5 – 15%.
Solar energy (PV and thermal) has also considerable potential and is expanding rapidly, but still continues to be expensive. However, technology is advancing fast and costs are coming down and could be surprises in the next decade.
Overall, it is difficult to indicate how much RE will replace fossil fuels within 20 years because there remain too many uncertainties. Being conservative, RE could replace 20-25% of the world energy demand, although with high geographical variations. More optimistic projections put it from 25 to 35%, and even higher.
Founder
Zero Carbon House Project
said: On 01/07/2010
Recent events in the Gulf of Mexico have shown the disastrous results associated with deep water drilling for oil. Oil has been located in the Arctic , and the Antarctic ; where similar disasters could occur ; which would be even more damaging to the fragile Eco systems of the planet.
My personal view is that there has not been the political will to find a solution to the energy problems mankind faces in developing alternatives to fossil fuels for energy and transportation. Oil and natural gas are becoming a scarce resource and alternatives must be found not just to replace fossil fuels alone but to avert wars over these resources. We have all seen what is happening in the Arctic with the annexing of continental shelfs by one or two super powers. In the United Kingdom several large onshore and offshore wind farms are being proposed, and in some cases are being constructed. A few individuals are orchestrating opposition to these projects, and these are the very people who will shout the loudest when the power runs out. Energy is a political hot potato with rising energy costs bringing even more people into fuel poverty as it is the poor who spend more of their disposable income on energy due in part to their housing not being energy efficient. The question “ By how much should we expect renewables to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years “ is two sided. What we all have to do is to look at how much energy we consume, and reduce our energy demands, otherwise renewables will supply energy without the fundamental need to reduce energy consumption..
Central governments the banking institutions and energy companies could play a much more significant role in the effectiveness of renewable technologies over the next 20 years. Tax breaks could be given by governments to enable the capital purchase of renewable technologies, using the consumption expenditure to repay the capital outlay to the banks, interest free. If this were to take place with the larger renewable schemes, this would lead to in my opinion a much greater reduction in the reliance of fossil fuels, by as much as 60%.
The next issue is transportation, and a more effective means of fuelling vehicles has to be found. Hydrogen has been advocated as the fuel of the future. A lot of people are not aware of the fact that it requires more energy to produce than you get out as a fuel. The people who advocate hydrogen claim that it only gives off water vapour. Have they thought of what might happen when you get huge clouds of water vapour over cities; and what it will do for global dimming?
Environmental Writer
About.com
said: On 02/07/2010
This is a simple question with a complex answer.
First of all, despite the way this topic was introduced, climate change isn’t the only reason we need to develop alternatives to fossil fuels that are renewable, sustainable and clean rather than finite and polluting. Estimates vary, of course, but the best projections I’ve seen indicate that the global supply of oil will plateau around 2020 and disappear by 2050.
As supplies diminish, finding and extracting the remaining resources—many of them in remote or hostile environments—will become increasingly expensive and the price of petroleum-based products and fuels will escalate. That, in turn, will drive up the cost of transportation and any goods that are hauled or delivered by gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles. Coal and natural gas—the other two fossil fuels—are more plentiful than oil and will last longer, but that complicates the search for alternatives by reducing the sense of urgency to develop replacements.
And there are many other complicating factors:
Population growth – The current global population of 6.8 billion will grow to more than 9 billion by 2050. As the population increases, so will the demand for energy—and much of that demand will be met by new coal-fired power plants.
Short-term thinking – It is easier and less expensive in the short run for most nations to increase energy capacity and expand their vehicle fleets by building more coal-fired power plants and more cars and trucks that run on oil-based fuels rather than investing in clean energy and the infrastructure to support it.
Unrealistic expectations – The general assumption seems to be that we should be aiming to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, but without any change in our current lifestyles or ways of doing business. The move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy will be an economic and cultural shift on a par with the Industrial Revolution. The ripple effect will be enormous. Pretending otherwise hinders our ability to make the changes necessary for a relatively smooth transition to this new era.
Lack of a strategic agenda and political will – There is no general agreement around the world about the best mix of energy resources or how to meet the coming crisis, and there is certainly not enough political will, either globally or nationally in most places, to get the job done.
Ironically, most of the technology we need to accomplish a major shift toward clean, renewable energy already exists. We don’t have to invent it, we just have to use it.
Electric vehicles are improving rapidly and could easily replace most internal-combustion engines within just a few years. Besides lessening our dependence on oil, such a move would reduce air pollution, improve water quality (5 percent to 30 percent of water pollution is caused by deposits from air pollution), and improve human health. The savings in health, transportation and anti-pollution costs would help offset the switch to electric vehicles.
Moving to renewable energy isn’t just about building wind farms and acres of solar towers. It also means finding ways to use less energy from traditional sources while increasing our renewable energy capacity. If cities used sewer heat recovery, solar hot water, and ground source heat pumps, for example, they could reduce their need for electricity and natural gas (by as much as 30 percent according to some studies) while providing the same level of service for less money.
So, to answer the question, I think we have a reasonably good chance to see most developed nations meeting 40 percent or more of their fuel and power needs with renewable energy within the next 20 years. In the developing world, that number is likely to be much lower, because those nations are inclined to seek the cheapest way to generate the most power in the least time, and right now that mindset is leading them toward coal-fired power plants.
But we should not lose sight of this difficult truth: It’s not that we can’t make the switch to renewable energy in time to avoid a global crisis; it’s that we probably won’t.
Head of Unit for Renewable Energy
European Commission (EACI)
said: On 02/07/2010
“Where there is a will, there is a way” is the classic response from a parent to a child who is crying “I can’t do it”!
Last year, the willingness of EU leaders to replace fossil fuels with 20% of renewable energy sources in the EU’s final energy consumption by 2020 was demonstrated when they signed up to their national targets in the new Renewable Energy Directive (2009).
Similarly, the will of local and regional leaders has been shown by the large numbers of signatories to the Covenant of Mayors (more than 1800), who have committed their local communities to exceeding the 20% targets for CO2 reduction, energy efficiency and renewable energy by 2020.
So, in the light of this high-level political will, which way should we go ? How exactly should we get there ? Could we actually exceed the famous 20% renewables target?
Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and increasing the acceptance of renewable energy across Europe is no easy task. Amongst more than 30 EU and neighbouring countries, it is not surprising that several different ways are being followed – there is strength in diversity.
And it is precisely by sharing knowhow and resources that each local community and individual actor can reduce their risks and achieve a greater overall security of energy supply. A common purpose, good coordination and the right framework are needed by those who are willing to take the risk and kick off new projects and initiatives.
This is the spirit of the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) programme, which is using its limited budget of ~100M€ per year to trigger and facilitate major steps towards achieving our 2020 targets.
Did you know that the Intelligent Energy Europe programme supports more than 500 projects, engaging more than 3000 organisations from 30 countries, including energy companies, utilities, regulators, technology manufacturers, public authorities, and energy users, as well as academics and researchers?
The IEE programme also supports many well known sustainable energy initiatives and information services, including ManagEnergy, Covenant of Mayors, EU Sustainable Energy Week, and the BUILD-UP and ELTIS web portals. Together the web sites of these initiatives attract tens of thousands of visitors per month.
Here are two examples of renewable energy projects supported by Intelligent Energy Europe:
- “RE-SHAPING” is analysing the effectiveness of national support schemes for renewable energy and helping to guide policy makers so that they put in place schemes which are as efficient as possible in using public money and/or the money of energy users
- “BIG>EAST” is promoting the use of biogas in Eastern Europe, by transferring knowhow and experience from Austria, Germany and Denmark.
So, what lessons can be learned from these and other IEE renewable energy projects?
Firstly, there is a broad consensus amongst different teams which have been working with different tools (computer models) and different methodologies to analyse the energy needs and the available energy sources in the EU. Together, they have shown that there are more than enough renewable energy resources in the EU to deliver the 20% renewables goal.
Secondly, whilst it is important for policy makers to stimulate the generation of renewable electricity, IEE projects have also highlighted the importance of heating and cooling, which can be supplied by solar, geothermal, and bio-energy as well as by heat pumps.
Thirdly, IEE project teams have identified some important barriers to the growth of renewable electricity and heating markets, including lack of good quality information, and very confusing and costly permitting procedures. They are now working to remove these barriers.
IEE projects have shown that near zero energy buildings with combinations of good insulation, draught proofing, and efficiently controlled solar and bio heating are affordable in most European countries. Why then are so many buildings still using gas, oil, coal or electricity for heating ?
One answer is that fossil fuel suppliers have learned over many years how to make it easy for consumers to use their products. The good news is that IEE projects, which are monitoring progress in the renewable energy markets, are now reporting that renewable energy businesses are learning fast, and their systems can already be considered as “mainstream”.
National administrations were required under the renewable energy Directive to deliver their national renewable energy action plans by the end of last month (June 2010), to put in place support schemes, and to remove administrative barriers in the market. IEE project teams have shown that these steps are vital to permit renewables businesses to grow, to create more green jobs, and to build investor confidence.
If you would like to know more about the results of IEE projects, please visit the IEE web site http://ec.europa.eu/intelligentenergy, and search the projects database. Follow the links to individual project web sites, download a report and get a glimpse of what some intelligent Europeans are doing to help us reach our ambitious renewable energy targets. I hope you will be inspired and help us to build a more intelligent energy future.
Assistant Administrator, Environmental Practice Specialty
American Society of Safety Engineers
said: On 05/07/2010
In response to the question, “By how much should we expect renewables to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years?” I would expect that renewable energies (wind, wave, geothermal-hydroelectric, solar) will continue to progress and increase in the power production percentage as their technologies become more mature and as renewables contribute a greater part to the power grids. In remote areas renewables may be even more attractive than traditional power sources as they are more self sustaining and require lower feeder costs. However, renewables do not produce enough kilowatts for heavy industry, to power entire large cities, and for industrial and petrochemical operations. For that, hydroelectric and atomic/nuclear fission are the only power sources available. Increased use of atomics is likely, and with the development of prototype reactors such as General Atomics reactor to convert spent radioactive fuel into electricity, it may become a game changer, as smaller atomic powerplants that are simpler and much safer can be brought online. Additional research on fusion power is the ultimate answer to clean and pollution free power. Harnessing fusion power generators will produce very cheap electric power throughout the earth with little environmental impact. Other alternative technologies are also potentially available, such as solar capture in space, and transmission to earth distribution stations via laser or microwave, and are technologically feasible in the near future. In the next 20 years however, fossil fuels will continue to be king. Unless governments mandate a draconian “carbon cap/carbon tax” to make them so expensive they will not be used, carbon fuels will be continue to be the fuel of choice in the near future. However, any imposed measures to impose a carbon tax may cause disruptions, so I think that is unlikely, and if a carbon tax is not applied equally in all countries, it will cause trade and economic distortions.
Assistant Engineer
World Energy Council
said: On 07/07/2010
Understanding that science and technology would help us to determine the technical frontiers of renewable energy potential (technically available energy to use), there are different layers of replacement of fossil fuels. The first one is obviously the physical replacement (% of actual usage). But another layer is the cultural replacement, which is more important because the physical replacement depends on the cultural replacement. The cultural replacement might be measured addressing % of people who know it is better to use renewable energy. Renewable energy usage is not a magical solution for everything, so it is important to understand the limits and potential, and then why, where and how the change should be done, and what the benefit/cost rate is in each case. With these concepts known, we should spread the concepts. If this happens, the replacement could easily reach 40% in 20 years and probably more during the next 20 years. If we try to physically replace sources first, only with huge publicity investments or only market policy pressure, we could hardly reach 10 to 15% replacement in 20 years, but with little hope to increase that value during the next 20 years. As a summary, it is all related to the volume of conviction of people, not to the volume of investment, neither to the lack or availability of sources.
Manager / CIP Malta National Contact Point
Malta Investment Management Ltd.
said: On 07/07/2010
Answering such a question is very difficult, as any other attempt to make future predictions on issues influenced by huge numbers of variables. I feel that it is more important that we identify and assess as many as possible from these variables and then plan ahead for their management. There are numerous barriers to the replacement of fossil fuels by renewables and the technical ones don’t seem to be the most difficult ones. Indeed, new technologies are appearing and evolving at an exponential rate but their market uptake does not seem to follow the same trend. Thus, I feel that most important to overcome are the socio-cultural barriers. Changing behaviours at grass-root level is the only effective way to ensure energy sustainability. However, this is a long-term pursuit that requires consistent and cohesive public policies supported by well thought-out legislative and regulatory systems. Example and guidance has to be set in a top-down approach and thorough planning must be followed by systematic implementation.
My main belief is that we need to recognize that our societies are more and more inter-related and that the global-village approach to energy sustainability can change only if each and every of us adopts an energy-conscious behaviour on a daily basis.
Honorary Vice Chairman
World Energy Council
said: On 07/07/2010
The answer is only by a limited amount. True, we need to encourage the production and development of new renewable resources (wind, solar, biofuels). Any new clean additions to our global energy balance are most welcome. However, simultaneously we have to be balanced, realistic besides being enthusiastic. The new renewables suffer from inherent weaknesses – they are disbursed, intermittent with low efficiency, difficult to dispatch, cannot be stored and untradeable – correspondingly they are expensive. They need feed-in tariffs to make them competitive and carbon taxation to ensure their sustainability. But energy is not cheap and feed-in tariffs will make it more expensive, even unaffordable, to most developing countries. Adoption of carbon taxation, without international consensus, will lead to inflation and trade distortions that are not acceptable in our age of globalization.
Simultaneously, fossil fuels (including unconventional forms) are abundant, highly concentrated, relatively cheap and tradable. They suffer from environmental considerations with need to be dealt with mainly through technology (mitigation and efficiency) and adaptation. Correspondingly fossil fuels will continue to dominate the global energy scene for decades to come. They will be supplemented (and not significantly replaced) by renewables.
Most growth (economical and demographic) is taking place in developing countries which are anxious to continue to have access to affordable energy to maintain their needed growth. Some of the poorer nations are gradually moving from traditional biomass to commercial fuels.
The inertia of the energy system is huge. The energy scene, after twenty years, will be decided by decisions that are taken today. After two decades, and for many decades beyond that, energy will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels, of different forms conventional and unconventional, supplemented by small but growing additions of new renewables.
What we need to focus on is not renewables replacing fossils, but energy efficiency. A lot of energy is being wasted, through subsidies leading to over use, lack of knowledge and under dissemination of efficient technologies. Encouragement of renewables is only a modest part of the solution. Energy efficiency is the win-win solution.
Co-Director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research (CAIR)
Cardiff University
said: On 08/07/2010
In terms of fuels that we can use in existing internal combustion engines, biofuels are the most logical option. These are already mainstream in Brazil, while in the EU they are mostly mixed with conventional fossil fuels under the EU’s biofuels Directive. Currently the proportion is 5.75%. With second generation biofuels these will no longer compete with food and there is potential for growth. Many modern engines will take up to 20% biofuel without modification.
However, with a change to electric powertrain there is more scope for renewable as any renewable used in electricity generation, such as wind, hydro and solar, will translate directly into vehicle power. The number of electric vehicles in use whether they be hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or full battery-electric will increase significantly over the next 20 years with even major players such as Peugeot and Renault-Nissan serious about entering this market; up to the generating industry to follow with renewable energy.
President and co-Founder
GreenFire Energy
said: On 08/07/2010
It is unlikely that renewables will replace more than a small percentage of fossil fuels, say 10% to 20%, over the next 20 years. There are several reasons for this:
Fossil-fuels-to-power, which I will simply term as “coal,” is a mature industry with a mostly depreciated fleet of plants and a cost structure that predates accounting for environmental costs. That makes coal a very low cost fuel, one difficult to displace, particularly in developing countries.
Wind and solar are both intermittent renewables. Even assuming they ever become cost competitive with coal, extremely low cost energy storage would be required to allow them to replace it. Such energy storage is unlikely to be commercialized at large scale by 2030.
The potential for a significant increase in hydropower is limited in developed countries because there are few remaining sites for large dams. Additionally, as the world becomes increasingly water stressed, evaporative losses from dams are making the economics of hydropower increasingly poor.
Conventional water-based geothermal energy is geographically limited due to its requirement for a combination of relatively shallow heat sources, highly permeable formations and abundant water. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) may increase the scale of the industry, but are unlikely to be profitable by 2030, according to GeothermEx.
Given that the current set of renewables is not cost competitive with coal, sustained political will would be required to effect replacement of coal with renewables. The interplay between changes in political leadership and economic cycles has ensured that no nation has had a sustained policy of replacement of coal with renewables even for as long as a decade. In the US, for example, the high point of renewables may have occurred at 9% of all power generated in 1983 as a result of initiatives by the Carter Administration. Since then, the share of renewables has dropped to about 4%. In Spain, approximately 30% of all power is currently generated by renewables. But, given the high levelized cost of renewables, this figure is likely to decrease significantly as the government reduces subsidies as an austerity measure.
Essentially, what the world needs in order to replace coal with renewables by 2030 is renewables that generate baseload power at a cost significantly lower than that of coal and that are highly scalable. At that point, the replacement of coal with renewables will be dictated by economics, not political will. Unfortunately, none of the major forms of renewable energy currently available can do this. This has two consequences:
Coal is likely to remain the dominant technology for power generation for the foreseeable future.
To the degree that society decides to reduce carbon emissions, it will be forced to rely primarily on carbon capture and sequestration at existing coal-fired power plants combined with efficiency measures.
Coordinator
Triad Electric Vehicles Association
said: On 12/07/2010
By how much should we expect renewables to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years?
THE FUTURE IS RENEWABLE, THAT IS WHERE THE ENERGY IS.
NEWS ADVISORY: Renewable Energy Rises to 10.5% of U.S. Energy Production & Electricity (US EIA 2009)
At what point do you become interested?
10%, 12.5%, 25%, 50%, 100%
The United States is 3 doubling times from 100% RE – 25%, 50%, 100%
doubling time = 72/ annual %
20 years/3 doubling periods= 6.66 years per doubling time
72/6.66 years doubling time= 10.8% annual increase average for the next 20 years
US could reach 25% – 2017, 50% -2024, 100% – 2030
Technically this has been possible for some time. Powerful interest have delayed, are delaying and will continue delaying this by all means available. Their economic livelihood is derived from the control of concentrated power. But due to depletion, the paradigm is changing.
Many forms of RE have doubled in a year, > 72% annual growth
Many individuals have been totally on RE for several decades and recently we have more becoming net energy producers. 2008 evidenced a retreat in energy consumption. Efficiency could decimate demand. This could easily increase the speed of the worlds return to sustainable energy.
Renewable Power dominates new electric generation sales worldwide. Wind percentage of total generation continues to grow. American electric transport could use American electrons, which match well with RE.
Efficiency reduces demand. Fossil fuels cannot meet future energy needs- and the markets show it. Renewable Energy can meet future energy needs and in a modular distributed way- and the markets show it. Renewable Energy now routinely outpaces growth predictions. By 2030 we will be in the third wave of RE (Efficiency, Wind, Solar?).
————————————————————————————————————————
Global Energy Potential
Renewables Forever terawatthours/YEAR
Direct Solar Radiation 350,000,000 5000x
Wind 200,000 2.9x
Ocean Thermal 100,000 1.5x
Biofuel 50,000 71%
Hydroelectric 30,000 42%
Geothermal 10,000 14%
Tidal/Wave 5,000 7%
World energy consumption = 70,000 terawatt hours/year
Energy Stored in the Earth
(Use it once and it’s gone) terawatthours TOTAL 152 yr
Coal 6,000,000 85 yr
Natural Gas (US Peak 2004) 1,500,000 21 yr
Uranium 235 (US Peak 2008) 1,500,000 21 yr
Petroleum (US Peak 1970, World Peak 2010) 1,000,000 14 yr
Tar Sands 800,000 11 yr
adapted from
Plugging Transportation into the Sun
Stephen Heckeroth
ECD Ovonics
steve@renewables.com
———————————————————————————————————————-
remember the mantra
Clean Coal 0 CO2 SEQUESTRATION PLANTS OPERATIONAL
Safe Nuclear ? ? SUPPLY AND DISPOSAL, AGEING PLANTS
Cheap Renewables FUEL IS FREE, CONVERSION DEVICES DROPPING IN PRICE
———————————————————————————————————————-
SUN DAY Campaign: Renewables Rise in Output While Nukes Drop
RENEWABLE SOURCES NOW PROVIDE 10.7 PERCENT OF U.S. ENERGY PRODUCTION & 10.5 PERCENT OF NET GRID-CONNECTED ELECTRICAL GENERATION.
RENEWABLES’ GROWTH RATE CONTINUES, AS NUCLEAR OUTPUT DROPS FOR 3d CONSECUTIVE YEAR
Washington DC — According to the most recent issue of the “Monthly Energy Review” by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable energy sources (i.e., biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, wind) provided 10.66% of domestic U.S. energy production during the twelve months of 2009 – the latest time-frame for which data has been published. And according to EIA’s latest “Electric Power Monthly,” renewable energy sources provided 10.46% of net U.S. electrical generation for the same time period.
This continues the steady growth trend for renewable energy. .
The U.S. Energy Information Administration released the “Monthly Energy Review” on March 31, 2010. It can be found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html. The relevant tables from which the data above are extrapolated are Tables 1.1 and 1.2. EIA released its most recent “Electric Power Monthly” on March 15, 2010; see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html. The most relevant charts are Tables ES1.A, ES1.B, and 1.1.
————————————————————————————————
Climate Change expert
University of Latvia
said: On 12/07/2010
I would like to comment questions behind the topic of the discussion from the point of view of representative of particular small country. Some of my conclusions might look different from the global perspective, but, as I have to decide reading once more what I have written, lot of them could be generalized.
1. Latvia is a small country with a small economy, and it’s not so important in this case to compare with other countries, but with major companies working in the sector of energy, – including supply of primary resources, technologies and energy for final consumption. For example, it appears to be the case that annual profit (2009) of the major natural gas supplier (GAZPROM, Russia) to Latvia is two times the overall state budget of my country. It leads to the first idea or proposition, that political power is proportional to economic power, – and what will be in favor of economic interests of energy sector giants, it will be on the agenda of energy policies of small countries.
2. Latvia is rich of renewable energy sources (RES):
- 56% of the territory is covered by forests;
- Cascade of three large (all is relative) hydro power plants (HPPs) on the Daugava river is providing from 30% up to 70% (depends on precipitation, run-off, etc., 45% on average) of electricity for internal consumption;
- There are about 150 small HPP, more then 30 co-generation plants, some generation capacities, utilizing wind energy and landfill gas, all together comprising so-called “sector of independent producers”, at the moment providing about 4 – 6% of total amount of electricity;
- About 30% of total amount of primary energy resources consumed in Latvia comprise biomass (mainly wood), roughly another 30% – oil and oil products, and the third portion of the same size (30%) – natural gas.
- Adding up hydro power, biomass and all other smaller varieties of RES in the balance sheet, we obtain the result – approx.35% of total energy production is from RES, which is two times more the EU target for the year 2020.
3. Having excellent results of achieving EU goal for RES utilization, recent investments and proposed development plans of energy sector in Latvia indicate tendency of strong support for investments targeted to utilize fossil fuels. Examples are reconstruction (increasing generation capacity) of Riga thermo-electric plant (TEP) “TEC-2”, using natural gas as a fuel, proposed project of TEP in Liepaja, designed to use mainly coal (“hard fuel”, as defined in the project announcements). As the result of these “improvements”, share of RES in energy balance of Latvia in the latest years started to decrease.
Comparing policy development perspective outlined in national policy planning document “RES Programme for 2006-2013” with the most recent actual steps made by our country (i.e. several subsequent Cabinets) it’s evident, that something (or somebody) hampers to implement what is set in strategy documents. We can rise a question – what (and who) is so powerful to oblige politicians in reality to implement decisions which are in contradiction with EU policy goals and official position of the country?
4. In general, widespread assumption is that economic (market) rules determine development processes. Therefore, if it will become more profitable to invest in development of RES than in conventional (fossil) energy sources, then more rapid development of RES utilization is guaranteed. Profitability depends on several factors, like investment and operation costs of generating energy, utilizing one or another technology. Of course, investments in energy sector are with a long life cycle, and therefore quick replacement from this point of view could not be expected. Such type of arguments could be analyzed (making qualitative estimates and conclusions or creating quantitative dynamic models) and can lead to some final conclusions… I’m not going to make such attempt. This would work if non-distorted market with fair competition exists, etc.
But (!), as we saw in some previous examples, this is not the case of development based on (perfect, competitive) market rules. If market rules are distorted or – in another words – there exist market failures, some corrective policies have to be implemented. As we know (or can find out) corrective measures (policy instruments, like subsidies, taxes, market quotas, transferable rights etc.) can be introduced. It’s another story about external (social) costs and benefits to internalize. At the moment, main question is about monopoly. And in our case monopoly is not the “ruler” in the market of one particular country, often it’s regional monopoly.
Let me make the last (most fundamental) proposition – answering the question “By how much should we expect renewable energy to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years” – it depends on what will be the interests of large energy companies; will such replacement substantially impact economic interests of recent large scale (fossil fuel based) energy projects e.g. Nord-Stream, Nabucco etc.
Chair and consultant
Climate Change Solutions Ltd
said: On 12/07/2010
I have to say that at one level I am very pessimistic. There are a number of reasons for this. Seven that spring immediately to mind are:
1 In 1980 I was working with a firm of consulting engineers on a water treatment project. My colleague was also working on a design for a renewable energy project in Scotland. I don’t remember if it was tide or wave power but it has taken nearly 30 years to make limited progress. At this rate, what are the prospects for these technologies in the next 20 years?
2 Wind power is more developed but there is increasing opposition to siting turbines on shore. Off-shore the costs increase making a dodgy economic case even worse.
3 I got involved in discussions about a tidal barrage on the Severn estuary in the late 1970s. The environmental objections and construction costs then stopped further development. I would expect both of these to increase in any consideration of a new proposal. Governments don’t like making decisions in such difficult circumstances.
4 Renewable energies are more expensive to the customers than those derived from fossil fuels. It requires more than altruism to buy renewable energy from a supplier or invest in your own plant.
5 Current renewable projects are dependent on subsidy which could come under threat in the current economic situation – likely to extend for several years.
6 The current infrastructure in the developed countries is tied to fossil fuels. Power generation and distribution, liquid fuels for transport, etc. have been built and improved over about 100 years. It will take a lot of confidence in the technology, its reliability and the economics to rapidly change tack.
7 Biofuels will compete with food production for an expanding population, take land from environmental resources and seem to require large inputs of energy anyway for production, refining and distribution.
There is scope to be optimistic:
1 If you count nuclear as a renewable energy it probably offers the best hope in terms of scale and viability.
2 The cost of fossil fuels has not increased significantly enough in recent years to force a change but that may change in the next decade.
3 The US may be coming to its senses in terms of energy use and sourcing. The current debacle in the Gulf of Mexico may help to focus minds and the US could help lead the change but there are entrenched vested interests opposing.
4 China is probably positioning itself to “clean up” in the supply of the technology. It has a large home market, an energy crisis of its own and the determination that comes with an undemocratic government.
5 Developing countries have by-passed fixed line telephony in rural areas, moving rapidly to adopt mobile phones. They will probably do the same trick with renewable energy for home and business as they do not have the historic dependency on fossil fuels of developed countries. Urban areas and transport are more problematic.
6 Renewable technologies already exist and are well tried but progress has been slow and costs too high but these can change. If you consider what has happened to the examples of mobile phones, cameras and mp3 players in the last decade, technical complexity has increased, quality has gone up and relative costs have come down. If we can achieve this for, what are in the grand scheme of things, pretty unnecessary developments perhaps we should ask Nokia, Sony and Apple to get involved. People queue overnight to buy the latest overpriced gadget but shun energy efficiency or renewables. If this enthusiasm could be tapped and somehow harnessed into the pursuit of a sustainable lifestyle change could become rapid.
So in answer to the question my fear is not a lot! Nuclear currently provides about 20% of the electricity used in the UK but unless we get our collective fingers out and either rebuild like for like or find an acceptable alternative on the same scale we may actually go backwards. I don’t believe wind power is sufficiently reliable but wave or tidal could be one of the solutions for an island. However, it may require the lights to go out before serious consideration is given to getting anywhere near exceeding 20%.
Director of Climate and Energy Program
Worldwatch Institute
said: On 13/07/2010
In 2007, renewable energy already provided 18% of the world’s total final energy supply, greatly exceeding earlier predictions. While global GDP increased by 156% between 1990 and 2007, energy demand “only” rose by 39%. A recent Worldwatch study has outlined a new, technologically and economically viable 2030 global low-carbon scenario. It demonstrates that energy demand can be reduced by another one third compared to the business-as-usual scenario produced by the International Energy Agency which is used by many as the “reference scenario”. In our scenario 50% – half! – of the remaining energy demand in 2030 can be provided by renewables decreasing energy-related CO2 emissions by 52%. Natural gas will play a major role in covering the other 48%. Natural gas is widely available and produces less greenhouse gas emissions and less local air and water pollution than coal and gas. It also does not create the security, economic, and health burdens of nuclear energy. What is more, natural gas can serve as an important ally of renewables. Since gas power plants can be switched on and off relatively easily, we can make sure that the maximum amount of renewables are used despite their fluctuations on a given day. Environmentally such a major transition of the global energy system is a necessity if want to avoid catastrophic climate disruptions. Technologically and economically, our scenario is feasible. What is still lacking, is the political will to make it reality.
Ministry of the Environment
Spatial and Environmental Agency
said: On 14/07/2010
It is difficult to expect or predict anything over a time span of 20 years. In 1986 a fax machine was virtually a new innovative communication tool in Denmark and although still in use – to some extent as a back up security or for legal reasons, it has already for years been a bit like a museum item, due to development in e. mailing and other forms of digital communication.
The question of the development in use of renewable energy forms versus fossil fuels is linked to and determent by a series of other themes, like energy prices, availability of resources, national security, environmental concerns, society attitudes, just to mention some.
In my mind the question is closely linked to the theme of climate change and the degree to which world leaders, politicians in general and society at large take research results, experienced climatic changes and actual measurable physical changes seriously.
Depends on politics
The COP 15 conference in Copenhagen, in spite of a very serious preparation involving a great number of dedicated people in Denmark and around the world, will not go down into history as a successful meeting – to put it mildly. Even in spite of the seriousness of the agenda. There is no need to dwell on this matter as much has already been analysed and written and hopefully a lesson has been leaned – worldwide.
So the development of renewable energy forms depends to a large degree on political understanding, will and financial support. Unfortunately it seems that too many politicians act like an ostrich, believing that the problem might evaporate into the thin air if just ignored.
To my mind this is however not reality and much criticism will be written in future history books if attitudes are not changed.
Understandably enough most proactive activity is to be seen in countries, which are most vulnerable in relation to especial flooding. Although in some countries actions seem to a large extend to be in the category of ”damage-control” rather than taking actions at a much more basic level. Take as an example dike building along riverbanks rather than re-establishing the meandering of the rivers and thereby slowing the speed of the river and even better, to allow for controlled flooding of fields, instead of risking the flooding of villages, towns and cities.
Depends on information
Knowledge and information is crucial, but often blurred by several agendas which benefit individual society groupings rather than contributing to solving the common challenge, like leaving a sustainable world to our children. I call it the “artichoke – syndrome” – you need to peal of a lot of leaves before coming to the heart itself.
The Danish government’s climate adaptation strategy expect each individual, business and public authority to take action ad hoc and in due time, whereas the government itself gather information, supports research projects and disseminates knowledge via a central homepage.
Mitigation though is seen solemnly as part of the energy policy, although cross-sector coordinated spatial planning may as well contribute to mitigation and consequently a reduction in the use of fossil fuel, e.g. via how we build our cities, our buildings, our infrastructure and how we manage nature, e.g. re-establishing lakes which may serve the purposes of being both nature restoration and being sinks for heavy precipitation and maybe even be connected to “blue” structures in towns and cities, giving cooling and recreational experiences.
Windmills, solar panels and solar cells among others are essential to cutting down on fossil fuels, but so are also various forms of cutting down on the use of energy, no matter from where it comes and surely the way in which we construct our physical structures may contribute a lot to reducing the use of fossil fuels or energy in general.
Depends on marked
As various societies developed and increase their wealth, like e.g. China and India the more demand will be for energy – e.g. fossil fuel and marked prices may continue to rise. This may have effect on at least two different trends. One trend being the need for finding more and more fossil fuel in order to fulfil the demands and for keeping the price at an affordable level, which in itself will contribute to the other trend being the need for finding new and more efficient and affordable forms for renewable energy forms. Presently as an example, in Denmark solar cells on basis of plastic are being developed and tested and prices are expected to be much cheaper than present solar cells systems.
Depends on people
It seems to me that there is a discrepancy between politicians and their electorates. Although many act in the same ignorant way as many politicians, it seems to me that when it comes to alternative energy more people are ready to do something themselves, e.g. better insulation of their houses, alternative systems for heating or cooling houses and water, various forms for saving water and so forth. People is increasingly becoming more and more aware of how to contribute to changes and increasing marked prices on fossil fuel will contribute to develop this trend further.
Often opinion polls tell that environmental concern is a top issue for people in general and some politicians may turn “green” over night, however all sorts of agendas may weigh stronger when it comes to real politics.
So a successful development of renewable energy forms relay on society attitudes, which should be reflected in the way of voting at national elections.
Depends on crisis
Unfortunately you often need a “wake-up-call” in order to change the attitudes of society and politicians. The flooding in central Europe this spring is to my mind not only a result of heavy precipitation – maybe an early warning of climate change – but also evidence of the need to change spatial planning and development. The latest and most sadly example is the BP catastrophe in the Mexican golf, which still is causing tremendous damage to the environment and the society. And in spite of this authorities and businesses are examining the prospective of drilling for oil in Greenland – inland or at sea – in one of the most vulnerable marine nature areas of the world. A song form the 70thies asks: “when will they learn?”
How much can we expect renewable to replace fossil fuels???
Well my guess may be as good as any! And frankly I can not give it as so many politics and business agendas are counter productive.
We need a change in attitude and behaviour, political dedication and financial supported actions plans.
I have tried just shortly to give some indications or ideas of the puzzle I see and I can only hope. Maybe “the answer is blowing in the wind”.
Founder/CEO
Dolphin Blue
said: On 14/07/2010
Maybe the question we should be asking is, “How much pain and discomfort do we want to accept, and are we willing to perpetrate on our children if we don’t replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, geothermal, and other forms of renewables within the next five to ten years?”
According to the Post Carbon Institute and after reading Michael C. Ruppert’s Confronting Collapse I’m not certain we have twenty years to transition to renewables. Once the world economy begins growing again, we’re apt to extinguish all available stocks of fossil fuels and possibly even destroy the planet and many species in our foolish attempt to suck every last drop of oil from our planet. Unfortunately, it takes huge amounts of oil to continue development of and to manufacture the renewables infrastructure. Our food system is so highly dependent on oil, we’re likely to starve ourselves to death before we finally wake up. It appears to me we’ve painted ourselves into a corner.
Regional Manager, Africa
World Energy Council
said: On 15/07/2010
The question is quite open and thus requires a clear and comprehensive response.
Renewable energy sources (RE) including hydro and all forms of biomass already constitute a substantial part of the global energy mix, with a share of nearly 13%, according to IEA (10% for Biomass, 2% for Hydro and 1% for other RE). Over the next 20 years, even if the share of hydropower is projected to remain quite constant at around 2% (there is still huge technical hydropower potential to be developed in some world regions: Africa (93%), LAC (66%), etc.), we can expect that the contribution of all forms of RE could significantly increase to reach at least 20% by 2030.
And if we consider renewables-based electricity generation, their contribution to the global electricity production is around 18% (16% for hydropower) and is expected to increase, reaching at least 23% by 2030.
However, if we consider the so-called new renewable sources (NRE) (i.e. no hydro and no traditional biomass renewables), their contribution to the global primary energy demand would remain small or quite modest over the period 2010 – 2030. Nevertheless, the dynamics of their development are very promising in the electricity sector. Wind power is becoming competitive in wholesale electricity markets (although still subsidized) and will probably increase substantially its share in the global electricity production by 2030 (5% – 10%). Solar PV is expected to reach grid parity in a number of countries, whilst concentrated solar power (CSP) will significantly increase its share because offering dispatchable and flexible electricity generation to utilities, grid operators, industries, and suitable for decentralized generation as well.
As we need the NRE for numerous reasons, the challenge is to encourage their development and deployment in a sustainable way, as indispensable complement to fossil fuels and nuclear (rather than replacing them) to meet the rapidly growing energy demand with cleaner and environmentally friendly energy sources, as well as to help extending the duration of finite fossil fuels reserves.
To that end, all ways and means should be developed in a concerted and coordinate effort to boost their development and deployment (policies, regulations, incentives, technologies, financing, development of capabilities, etc.), and of particular importance, high government engagement & commitment, private sector involvement and strong cooperation& collaboration nationally, regionally and globally would be key.
There is no doubt, for a number of reasons (technology advances, manufacturing improvements, costs reduction, markets development, etc.) the role of NRE will ineluctably grow in importance, in developing countries where the bulk of the incremental world primary energy demand will take place), and also in the developed countries where mitigating GHG emissions is a general concern, and in both for energy security objectives.
Although, it is very difficult to predict a global RE target even in a nearer term, a case by case or regional analysis would be more relevant and more instructive, and targets would be easier to set and implement, because directives, policies & regulations, proper incentives, commitments, etc., could be tailored in a more coherent manner to national and regional circumstances, and the feasibility and costs of the related RE projects and programmes would be easier to monitor. In addition, as we have experienced these past years, it would be difficult to reach an agreement for a global RE target as well as for climate change for a number of reasons (complexity of negotiations, different approaches on the optimum energy mix, nature of local energy markets, difficulty for energy & climate policies definition and implementation, different stages of development among countries and regions, etc.).
Associate Partner, Head of Renewable Energies
Roedl&Partner, Nürnberg, Germany
said: On 15/07/2010
First of all it should be distinguished between electric energy and primary energy replacement by fossil fuels. Electric energy is directly converted with technologies like windpower or photovoltaic for which a strong development was undergoing due to the subsidies for technology (e.g. the Renewable Energy Act in Germany) which lead to a substantial contribution to the power supply of particular countries. The burden of these higher costs in any tax financed or feed-in system will have to be borne by tax payers and industries that naturally have a strong interest in lower energy prices. Thus the main question will be: when will the costs of “fossil” energy production reach a level (due to fossil prices or “emission” tax) so that renewable energy technologies (RET) can compete without subsidies?
Partially these costs levels can be achieved by project sites with perfect conditions, but the majority requires a subsidy. Therefore – concerning the power market, the question will be: how much of the subsidy will we invest (and refinance by tax) and how fast will the fossil fuel prices increase to enable competition of RET.
Another aspect is the direct replacement of fossil fuels for heating. Biomass and geothermal energy can already substitute fossil fuels on a competitive price level. In Germany, the market of biomethane (fed into gas distribution grids) is presently exploding and leading to B10 products (fossil gas with a 10% biomethane share). These products not yet attract many consumers although Germans are well known for their environmental conscience.
Furthermore deep geothermal projects – if the hydrogeological reservoir exists – are already competitive, if the geothermal doublet can be established. The high risks still slow down the fast development, but national risk pooling systems should enable further development for this RET.
Answering the question by how much we should expect to replace fossil fuels is therefore very difficult as it strongly depends on the above mentioned aspects as well as the development of technology and “emission tax” in each system. Due to the “30% for 2020” objective – the target for 2030 should be clearly higher. Furthermore, if the heat market concentrates on biomass, geothermal (deep & heat pump systems) and biomethane the overall share could be surely triple the current figure of 13 %. According to the current study of the German Federal Environment Agency it should even be possible to generate 100 % energy out of renewable energies until 2050 (published 07.07.2010). This would only be possible if the right political framework is set up now and with an efficiency increase in key technologies like PV and binary systems (Organic Rankine Cycle or Kalina).
Energy Consultant and International Project Manager
Practical Action Consulting (PAC)
said: On 16/07/2010
On the global scale although renewable energy has the potential to significantly replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years it will ultimately depend on how competitive it is which is a complicated issue. On a more local scale renewable energy has the potential to be able to significantly impact, and improve, the lives of poor people in developing countries. Micro-hydro, solar, wind, and biofuels and sustainably managed biomass equipment can all allow poor communities to sustainably manage their own resources and take a more active role in their own development. These communities often have very restricted energy access which severely limits their ability to escape from the poverty trap, but by utilising renewables they can not only by-pass any reliance on imported expensive fossil fuels but can sustainable harvest their local resources to improve their lives through improved health, education, communications and business opportunities.
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 17/07/2010
The answer should be as much as possible. However, it will be easier to deploy RE in some areas than others with the UK suited to wind and tide sources while southern Europe is better suited to solar collection.
A key issue for much of Europe is how to break dependence on gas for space heating which forms a significant proportion of domestic energy consumption. A combination of slow turnover of housing stock, long central heating system life-cycles sunk investment in infrastructure and limited viable alternatives means consumers will continue to demand gas which is currently sourced from fossil stocks. Replacing fossil gas with renewable supplies will be a long-term challenge. Air source heating may be viable for those with suitable homes but urban dwellers will probably need to be served by community gas generation projects.
So, I think with concerted effort, we could achieve 50% in 20 years but we need to aim for much more.
Senior Climate Change Adviser Group CO2
Shell International Petroleum Company
said: On 19/07/2010
It is useful to reflect on a specific national example when considering this issue. The USA provides an interesting case study. In his recent speech to the nation on energy issues, President Obama referred to the huge level of resource that the United States was able to muster as it turned its industrial capacity to the production of military equipment during World War II. Specifically he said “The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II.”
One of the best examples of this transformation and a symbol of US wartime industrial output was the production of “Liberty Ships”. These were cargo ships built for the dangerous trans-Atlantic run when U-Boats were an ever-present hazard. During the period 1941 to 1945 eighteen American shipyards built 2,751 vessels, easily the largest number of ships produced to a single design. The ships were constructed in sections, built in assembly line style, that were then welded together. This in itself was a new technique requiring new skills. Early on the ships took the best part of a year to build, but the average eventually dropped to 42 days (with a much heralded record of 4 days and 15½ hours for the Robert E. Peary).
In 1943, three new Liberty ships were being completed every day. Production of Liberty ships saw both step gains in productivity and step gains in capacity as new shipyards opened. In 1941 production was at about 100-150 ships per annum (but real production didn’t start until the second part of the year), 300-400 per annum in 1942 and 1100 per annum in 1943 and beyond (until production pretty much ended in 1945). In less than three years Liberty ship capacity in the USA increased by nearly a factor of ten.
A modern day clean-energy comparison might be the production of wind turbines. In response to a variety of tax policies and renewable portfolio standards US installed wind capacity is some 40 GW, growing at a rate of over 10 GW per annum, more than triple the rate seen just five years ago. Manufacturing capacity is growing rapidly as well due to both foreign and domestic investment. The number of manufacturers assembling nacelles in the U.S. increased from one in 2004 (GE) to five in 2008. There are at least 11 blade manufacturers and 16 tower manufacturers with plants open or planned in the United States [Source: American Wind Energy Association]. Although nacelles, towers, blades and other components are not all made by the same manufacturers or even in the same country, on balance US manufacturing capacity has increased several fold, but not yet at the rate of Liberty ships.
Given current US aspirations for clean energy deployment and therefore the potential for some 150-200 GW of installed wind capacity by 2020, further opportunity exists. A step change on the scale of Liberty ship capacity could see the USA not only meeting its own demand for turbines, but also becoming an exporter of equipment. If a Liberty ship could be equated to, say, 10 MW of installed wind capacity (2 large turbines over 100 metres high vs. 4,000 tons of steel in a 135 metre length Liberty ship), then maximum wartime capacity of Liberty ships might be similar to manufacturing 2500+ turbines per annum, enough to reach the installed capacity demand through to 2020. Of course the USA manufactured much more than just Liberty ships during the war, so arguably even more industrial capacity could be directed to clean energy projects.
The war provided a powerful central policy driver for Liberty ship development and deployment. Today, US energy policy is, by comparison, fragmented and uncertain so the full potential of the economy to deliver is probably not being realized. A single economy wide approach, such as putting a price on carbon [e.g. via a cap-and-trade construction] could provide the necessary drive and certainty to allow a further rapid scale-up of US capacity to deliver change.
President and CEO
Canadian GeoExchange Coalition
said: On 19/07/2010
Answering the question “by how much should we expect renewable energy to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years” is almost impossible. First, because specialists in both the energy and the environment sectors do not even agree on what the basic definitions of renewable energies are. In many cases, for example, large hydroelectric projects are not considered renewable. Yet, they produce clean electricity at very low prices. Some would also argue that geothermal heat pumps should not be considered renewable if the electricity used to run the pumps is produced with fossil fuels. Second, as a global society, we need to stop looking at the energy sector in silos, mainly the supply and demand sides. The premise of the question is also somewhat twisted since it implies how much supply from renewable energy will replace fossil fuels. The problem is that supply is intimately linked to demand – my apologies for this obvious statement – but also to the types of demand.
By definition, those who look at the energy sector from the supply side are mainly focusing on supply issues. For example, in the case of wind, they look at ways to maximize the addition of wind power to the grid with minimal impact on the overall electricity grid stability. Same goes with electricity from solar. All we care about, under this paradigm, is to add more electricity, generated by solar panels, on the same grids. And the same is true for ethanol and bio fuels additives in gasoline. Nothing is wrong under this model. It just replicates the business practices we are used to.
However, we tend to lose sight of the fact that many renewable forms of energy are often intimately linked to the economic activities of an end-user. This is mostly true for small wind and solar to feed-in the electricity grids. Methane from land fields to natural gas lines or geothermal heat pumps are other examples. In many sectors of the economy, energy supply and demand issues are also intimately linked at the end-use. In buildings, we can move excess heat produced by one building (an ice rink for example) to another building (a library or a school). The same logic applies to manufacturing activities or the food transformation industries.
More renewable energy implies that end users will not just be end users anymore…but they are. I have worked for many years in the energy efficiency sector and frankly, I often question the rationality of human beings. If after 40 years of efforts to make energy customers adopt energy efficiency measures we are still asking them to replace their inefficient light bulbs, I don’t see how we can make them efficient and reliable energy suppliers. Driving a hybrid car at 140 km/h rather than a normal car at 110 km/h does not make much difference in the global energy saving equation.
Another important question is who’s going to absorb the risks of adding more renewable supply. For the purpose of this text, we can focus on two types of risks: supply disruption and financial. Let’s look at them independently. Take the case of a paper mill operating close to a populated area. This mill can easily provide excess heat from its activities – could also be through co-generation or combined heat and power units – to neighbours in order to heat their buildings. Or take the case of an integrated energy system within a community which is designed according to a fixed set of buildings, all independent in their functions but inter-dependant on the energy side.
In both models, the primary function of the paper mill or the building owner is not to supply heat to their neighbours but to focus on their bottom line. What if a building catches on fire in the second case and burns to the ground? What if the paper mill closes and moves to some other location? In both cases, important energy supply disruptions can and will occur.
This brings financial risk into the equation. Who will pay for the new – and often incremental rather than alternative – set of renewable energy infrastructures? Will the end-user pay for them? Will the private sector see an opportunity and step in? Some will argue that every risk – financial or supply related – will be covered by appropriate contracting strategies. Fair enough, but who will absorb the risk premium and at what price? What if things go wrong and the vision does not work? Will governments end up picking the tab?
End-users are much more unstable than traditional energy suppliers. They come and go according to their own paradigm – not energy supply. They also have their own business cycles that may not be in perfect sync with the energy system needs. Unfortunately, the higher penetration of many renewable energy technologies depends too closely on end-user behaviour.
There is also an underlying but important issue. We simply do not have the workforce to tackle the current vision of integrated energy systems. We do have mature technologies but immature industries. I don’t know how much renewable energy will replace fossil fuel in 20 years. My guess is that all current forms of energy will still be largely available and most likely at reasonable prices. The energy mix will directly depend on our ability to optimize, jointly, both the supply and demand sides. But maybe we are also trying to fix something that is not totally broken. We may well end-up with a much more dysfunctional energy system if this is not done right.
Managing Director
Encraft, Warwickshire, UK
said: On 19/07/2010
The rules of the game must change fundamentally within the next decade, with a strong focus on demand management technologies and shifts in patterns of consumption to more re-use and recycling. This will make it much easier to replace fossil fuels with renewables, because it will reduce all the absolute targets, and for this reason I would expect 60% or more of our total energy demand to be met by non-fossil sources within 20 years, although I don’t expect the path to be smooth or painless.
Some countries and cities are already close to or past this target: Norway is over 60% powered by renewable energy (including transport) because of its vast hydroelectric resources, and Copenhagen sources almost 19% of its energy from renewables, so we know this scale of ambition is achievable. France is at 50% non-fossil fuel, including nuclear, and the UK is one of the worst laggards at less than 10% non-fossil fuel – the US and China are both already closer to 20%.
However, we’ve just completed a study for the city of Birmingham, in the UK, which shows that even if we managed to extract 100% of the locally available renewable resources with existing technologies, we could only supply 15-20% of the city’s current energy demand. To go further, Birmingham would have to impose local environmental disbenefits (such as large nuclear plants or substantial wind farms) on distant communities who gain no immediate benefits.
The message from this analysis is that if we are to make real progress we cannot just replace one energy source with another and hope to continue business as usual. We also need to change the way we deliver services, like transport, the way we make things, the way we design our cities and communities, and even the way some of our societies work. This kind of transition will be harder for some countries and cultures than others, because of their respective histories. Birmingham may be an extreme case, because like the surrounding towns, it was built almost entirely on its proximity to abundant fossil fuels (coal).
It is possible that in the UK in particular, we live in interesting energy times!