|
from 20 nov 2005 blue vol IV, #28 |
|
|
Part Two 
by Naresh George Giangrande
Larry Elliot in The Guardian of Monday 24th October, makes it very clear in his article entitled, The Answer is not Blowing in the Wind, that we face a reality check. He writes, "There are no soft options. After the last three-day week (In 1974 when British Industry was forced to work a three day week due to lack of energy as a result of the miners strike) we took the bounty from the North Sea and blew it. After three fat decades, a reality check looms". He further argues that we have three options for our electricity generation. The first is a reliance on wind and gas. The second is nuclear power, and the third is reaching a contraction and convergence protocol for energy use. Relying on wind and gas will mean we are reliant on the fast depleting remains of our North Sea bounty, and then gas from Norway , and then when that runs out, Siberia . Add to this peak oil, and natural gas depletion and we are on a very slippery slope, and face at best energy security issues, and at worst a failure of our economic model. This, however, assumes the 'business as usual' approach with large scale industrial solutions, ie large wind farms, both on and off shore. Although I think some large scale inputs will be currently required, due to our profligate use of energy, small scale localised generation schemes using a variety of renewables would be the long term answer. We are hooked on industrial solutions. Renewable energy doesn't lend itself to this sort of use. By nature it's more diffuse, and locally available in many forms in most places. We don't yet know how best to marry renewable energy to our high energy culture. In my opinion something has to change. Small scale local generation schemes from a wide variety of sources will enable a rapid deployment, rapid innovation, and individual and community based responsibility for their energy. We are an ingenious species, and regulatory and business climate friendly to this sort of approach would harness far more ingenuity per pound spent than large schemes which by their nature are capital intensive, and slowly evolving. The reliance on local energy generation is untried and untested, we would be moving into the unknown. However the alternative, nuclear power is very much a known and dangerous route to take. It would make us no more secure. We would be relying on mining our uranium from abroad and the problems of waste and decommissioning, are gone into in Nuclear Alien below. I am not sure that a renewable energy option would require contraction and convergence [GCI]. I think it is necessary from a climate change point of view, but from an energy point of view I am so sure. Any country that undertook to rely on renewable energy would fairly quickly create a competitive advantage that would make them more competitive, and hence other economies would have to follow suit to compete. Just straight forward good old economics would do the trick. However I know of no research into this proposition, although a few of us are starting a Totnes Economic Re-localisation scheme that will begin to test this hypothesis. An interesting view from a Swiss MP, arrived this morning in reply to Larry Elliot's article, which proposes European wide wind generation schemes as a way forward.
"Dear Mister Elliot, "The ROC system does not bring the financial background for offshore nor onshore producers; some producers get overpaid, but too many projects get not realized for a too high risk. The contribution of wind energy in UK is minimal, compared to nations like Spain , Germany , Denmark or Portugal . I have the impression that in the UK there is an hidden agenda between the head of government and the nuclear lobby to do all to prevent a fair competition in energy markets or a change toward clean energy like wind. This is especially remarkable because the UK has the best wind resource in Europe, so much more better than Germany or Austria , where many more turbines are built even now than in the UK . "The problems of intermittency of wind power are easily solvable. A small number of hydro pump storage (overall efficiency 80%) like in Switzerland could bring a cushion of extra wind power for a couple of weeks with low wind; additionally you need some HVDC lines to Norway to use the hydro storage there. These system modification prevent you from a fall back on fossil fuels for most cases with low wind. Then the UK should introduce the far cheaper price-guarantee-system that is in force in Germany and 16 other European nations. This system creates customized benefits for any energy technologies - wind, geothermal, photovoltaics or biomass generation as well. The ROC-system, thought to be cheap, turns out to be the most expensive and non-innovative system in renewable energy, due to high risk premiums of investors due to uncertainty of long term price levels. "It would be time now to consider better ways for renewables, and to strengthen the grid. All these measures are much less expensive and more energy-secure than new nuclear power. And the UK could export offshore wind power to the European mainland soon. A strong population, willing to buy cheap and clean energy like formerly the North Sea oil, is waiting for green British wind energy exports. And in Switzerland some big electricity companies would know how to store this power in hydro gadgets and would like to enter trade with you" .- Dr. Rudolf Rechsteiner, Guardian reader in Basel Switzerland We stand at a cross road, and every delay to the introduction of sustainable policies at all levels, (and we are facing the most urgent decisions on energy right now), will make it harder for us to adopt reliable solutions and safe energy options further down the line. A nuclear drag anchor would be sorry legacy to pass onto future generations. However, it is difficult to see the political will to adopt the only feasible solution; Co2 reduction and what ever combination of local and trans-national renewable energy solutions becomes most workable. Forget about saving the earth, Gaia has a long life ahead of her- and behind her. Whatever combination of pollution and toxic waste we create will be completely irrelevant in 30 million years time- a mere day in Gaia's lifespan. It's us human beings that we are actually concerned with, and more specifically our current way of life. Whether our political, economic, and social systems will evolve fast enough to enable a transition to a sustainable way of life is the unanswered question. Or will an unwillingness to change, political stalemates, and financially powerful vested interests delay action until disaster strikes? At what point will the emerging collision course with earth limits become undeniable? Don't bet on it taking nearly as long as you might think.
|
|||
| BLUE is looking for short fiction, extracts of novels, poetry, lyrics, polemics, opinions, eyewitness accounts, reportage, features, information and arts in any form relating to eco cultural- social- spiritual issues, events and activites (creative and political). Send to Newsdesk. |