Time for change

Gerald Doucet, Secretary General of the World Energy Council, talks to Next Generation Power & Energy about tackling the issue of climate change.

Climate change and how to reverse global warming is destined to dominate scientific and political debate for many years to come. Unsurprisingly, the recent G8 summit dialogue on tackling the problem through the reduction of emissions and choosing cleaner and greener energy sources was one of the most keenly observed areas of discussion. The upshot of the talks is that the biggest polluters, including the US, have agreed to ‘consider’ reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2050. Whilst it is a step in the right direction, experts suggest that realistically the figure needs to be closer to 80-90 percent over the next few decades. A big ask, but one that appears necessary given current thinking on the climate change issue.

The good news is that, finally, there seems to be a global consensus amongst governments that climate change actually exists, could well be a threat to humanity and that doing nothing now may lead to irreparable damage later. “These days governments do understand there is a need to take action and are certainly more aware,” says Gerald Doucet, Secretary General of the World Energy Council. “In general, governments have been implementing policies and programs which will support the investments needed for clean technology. However, based on our current research, there are no truly effective climate change policies in the OECD countries. Efforts have been made, but most of the positive impacts on greenhouse gas emission have come from economic policy (such as market reforms) and efficiency goals that have been set. There is therefore room for a great deal of improvement.”

Slow starts
Although certain governments such as the UK and Germany have taken the lead in the fight, others, particularly the US, have dragged their heels, questioning the impact. President Bush famously shrugged off the link between carbon emissions and global warming, although has since acknowledged that mankind is playing a big part in the rise of global temperatures. “The US, particularly at the official level, has not been interested in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol or even entering discussions for a new protocol to cover the period beyond 2012,” says Doucet. “However, the United States has spent far and away the most on R&D. It’s Department of Energy has many programs looking at clean technologies, so although they don’t sign these agreements, the US has been putting its money where its mouth isn’t.”

Cynics question whether these measure are really being taken with purely environmental interests at heart, or whether the real motivation is protecting the economy and ensuring that the US is self-sufficient and not dependant on others for its energy needs. Either way, the fact that the US has finally admitted it needs to concentrate efforts on cleaner energy can only be a good thing. Indeed, there are signs that America is willing to take the global lead in climate change efforts: President Bush has called for a “new global framework” on climate change that requires the 14 worst polluting countries to come together, once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, to “establish mid-term national targets and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs”.

Alternative options
When it comes to predicting which of the renewables has the most potential to make a difference, Doucet forecasts that hydropower holds great potential – particularly in places like Africa (Inga river project), Vietnam (Meikong River) and also in China. The only reservation is the environmental impact of such projects, although long-term achievements are likely to offset these. “These large hydro projects lead environmentalists to be very concerned because they think there is a net loss in environmental terms. However, getting on and building these hydro projects is certainly beneficial to the total energy mix as is the promotion of biomass gasification and the use of waste to produce gas, diesel fuel or heat for electricity.

Whilst acknowledging the tremendous strides made in the development of other types of renewable energy technologies, Doucet believes there is still some way to go before they can be considered a viable long-term replacement for traditional fossil fuels. “The other renewables have started from a very small base and while they have grown, they will not constitute a big part of the primary electricity mix in the next few decades,” he explains. “Up to 2050 they will definitely be more important, but they will not be able to offset the use of fossil fuels in electricity or transport and will not make the kind of impact in the energy mix that the renaissance of nuclear power, for instance, can.”

He cites wind energy as an example. “The problem with wind is that it does not always blow and therefore there is a need for back up – which affects the efficiency of the existing electricity system.” Despite the potential these and other sources might harbor, it is unlikely that petroleum based fuels will be replaced anytime soon. “I think it is wishful thinking that this will happen, but you have to differentiate the sectors in which there really is no replacement,” explains Doucet. “70 percent of the oil used in the world is used in the transportation sector to the extent that sustainable bio fuels can be developed or other types of alternative fuels. They will become important, but only in terms of taking up a share of the rapid increase in the demand for mobility services in developing countries. Oil will still be a very big player in aviation, passenger travel and other vehicles well into the 21st Century.”

Nuclear energy
As Doucet points out, nuclear power is another option, but one that is often viewed with some skepticism from those favoring green alternatives. Although it grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s, its popularity waned in the 1990s amid fears over safety. Critics of the technology cite the threat of terrorism and radioactive waste as reasons enough not to encourage it. However, many leading environmentalists now wholeheartedly support its use. These include leading environmentalist James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia theory, who believes that “civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear – the one safe, available, energy source – now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet”.

Doucet envisions nuclear could play an even bigger role in the future. “I think there will be a nuclear renaissance and it will play a really big role, not just in addressing the CO2 targets being discussed in Brussels and elsewhere, but a big role in meeting the growing electricity demand that we face,” he says. “I see nuclear power actually growing in importance some time after 2020, with a lot of nuclear projects coming on-stream. It takes a long time for us to build these things, but an important development is that the technology being used will be much safer. Third and fourth generation technology is very far removed from the terrible accidents of the 1980s. This is technology that is virtually human-proof. Human error is almost eliminated and waste is handled and produced in a very limited way.”

New technologies are and will continue to have a huge impact on pushing renewable energy forward. Last year President Bush announced that the best way to break America’s “addiction” to oil was through the use of enhanced technology, with the transportation sector – one of the worst offenders in terms of high-pollution – presenting particular opportunities for improvement. “There is tremendous promise – both from the type of cars that get manufactured and the standards that are set for them, and the alternatives to oil in terms of biofuel,” predicts Doucet.

“In the electricity generation sector, the gasification of coal and the combined cycle use of coal and capturing the coal and CO2 is probably the biggest single opportunity we have. Of course with renewables there is the continuing work on ocean and tidal power and the eventual arrival of a true hydrogen economy where the carrier of the energy services is hydrogen. We have a system where a number of clean fuel sources produce the hydrogen. This is clearly a 2050 issue, not a 2020 issue. We don’t see some of these technologies biting in and having an effect much before 2040 or 2050.”

A combination of new technology, policy and public support and common sense when it comes to encouraging a ‘greener’ way of life will contribute greatly to encouraging a more sustainable power generating culture. Hopefully with greater and continued support from the Bush administration the US can reverse its oil and gas guzzling reputation and becomes a global leader in environmentally friendly practices.