It is easy to argue that energy is the binding constraint that faces all of humanity, not just the developing economies. Of course, given the projected increase in demand and the decline in the supply of fossil fuel energy, the price of energy will continue to move up–with predictable adverse effects on the growth prospects of the emerging economies.
The current global burn rate is 12.8 TW (terawatts = 10**12 watts) which is projected to grow to something between 28 and 35 TW by 2050. That figure is from the description of a course in MIT called “Renewable Energy: Capturing the Sun” (Hat tip: JP)
Sunlight is by far the most abundant global carbon-neutral energy resource. Solar has the significant advantages of wide distribution, it is the most environmentally sound energy source, and solar has the potential to meet the large scale energy needs of the future. More solar energy strikes the surface of the earth in one hour than is provided by all of the fossil energy consumed globally in a year. Sunlight may be used to power the planet by its conversion into electricity and chemical fuel. But there is a problem. A response to the “grand challenge” of using the sun as the future’s energy source faces a daunting challenge – large expanses of fundamental science and technology await discovery for sunlight-based energy systems to be enabled and a robust energy policy must be developed that permits new solar technologies to be implemented in a competitive energy market.
The course description goes on to note that significant investment in R&D is required for solar energy to compete with other forms.
The solar opportunity represents a high payoff direction with significant reward but there is no escape that the development of this energy source faces tremendous challenges and substantial breakthroughs are needed. Any viable solar energy conversion must result in a 6 fold decrease in the cost-to-efficiency ratio for the production of electricity and a 10-20 fold decrease stored fuels and must be stable and robust for a 20-30 year period. To reduce the cost of installed solar energy conversion systems from $0.25 – 0.40/kW hr to $0.02 – 0.10/kW hr, a cost level that would make them economically very attractive in today’s energy market, will require truly revolutionary technologies that do not exist at the present time. With the current science and technology landscape for solar so wide open, and no obvious “silver bullet” solution to the problem on the horizon, a comprehensive understanding of the solar energy problem and the science that underpins its solution will be the focus of this course.
I believe that someone someday soon enough would do the R&D needed. Why not India? If not India, once again it will find itself going around begging for the technology — as it is doing in the case of nuclear power.
Talking of nuclear power, I am not at all convinced that it is a long-term solution for India’s energy needs. My guide into this issue is Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. Read his non-technical summary article titled “Forget Nuclear” (Hat tip: Amit) in which he compares “the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors.”
He argues that nuclear is uncompetitive in terms of costs and CO2 displacement, is of questionable reliability, and require high subsidies to off-set high financial risks. But even given the subsidies, he notes that investors are not interested in nuclear.
. . . the private capital market isn’t investing in new nuclear plants, and without financing, capitalist utilities aren’t buying. The few purchases, nearly all in Asia, are all made by central planners with a draw on the public purse. In the United States, even government subsidies approaching or exceeding new nuclear power’s total cost have failed to entice Wall Street.
I think India needs to rethink its energy policy and figure out where nuclear fits into the larger scheme of things. The India-US nuclear deal is not a done deal yet — and that may be a good thing. Here’s Amory Lovins’ conclusion:
So why do otherwise well-informed people still consider nuclear power a key element of a sound climate strategy? Not because that belief can withstand analytic scrutiny. Rather, it seems, because of a superficially attractive story, an immensely powerful and effective lobby, a new generation who forgot or never knew why nuclear power failed previously (almost nothing has changed), sympathetic leaders of nearly all main governments, deeply rooted habits and rules that favor giant power plants over distributed solutions and enlarged supply over efficient use, the market winners’ absence from many official databases (which often count only big plants owned by utilities), and lazy reporting by an unduly credulous press.
Isn’t it time we forgot about nuclear power? Informed capitalists have. Politicians and pundits should too. After more than half a century of devoted effort and a half-trillion dollars of public subsidies, nuclear power still can’t make its way in the market. If we accept that unequivocal verdict, we can at last get on with the best buys first: proven and ample ways to save more carbon per dollar, faster, more surely, more securely, and with wider consensus. As often before, the biggest key to a sound climate and security strategy is to take market economics seriously.
As far as I am concerned, the answer to the question–solar or nuclear–is a no-brainer. It has to be solar. Otherwise India is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.