In This Climate Of Fear The Energy Giants Must Not Win
Keith Farnish | 13.07.2006 20:30 | Ecology | Technology
We live in times of fear : fear of terrorism, fear of energy shortages, fear of climate change. Which do you fear most?
The governments of the USA and UK would have you believe that terrorism is the thing to fear above all else : the Eastern Hoards collaborating in their cells to bring down the Evil West. Hot on its heels comes the mystical phrase “energy security” : an all encompassing term meaning essentially anything that gets in the way of continual power to feed our irrepressible need. Climate change is important too, or so the powers would have us believe, but in the end, like all things in politics, it’s the things that are out of the ordinary person’s control – terrorism and security – that really drive policy.
The governments of the USA and UK would have you believe that terrorism is the thing to fear above all else : the Eastern Hoards collaborating in their cells to bring down the Evil West. Hot on its heels comes the mystical phrase “energy security” : an all encompassing term meaning essentially anything that gets in the way of continual power to feed our irrepressible need. Climate change is important too, or so the powers would have us believe, but in the end, like all things in politics, it’s the things that are out of the ordinary person’s control – terrorism and security – that really drive policy.
As far as energy goes, decisions made by governments across the world are skewed heavily towards energy security, with climate-based decisions forced into the existing framework of what is perceived as reliable and economically expedient. This is demonstrated by the US Government’s insatiable desire to leave oil and coal as the United State’s primary energy source, the Australian Government’s similar coal-based energy policies, and the UK Government’s drive for increased nuclear power.
Put simply, the energy argument has been won by the energy giants. So we see the following assumptions made by the energy giants, alongside a rather more objective viewpoint:
* Energy Security being defined, for electricity generation, as using “safe” and “reliable” fossil fuels and nuclear fission…
Energy security depends on reliable sources of raw materials, protection of the generating plant and the transmission grid and, increasingly, self-sufficiency as global politics becomes more unstable. Is this really sustainable in a world of Peak Oil, accelerating demand for uranium, and energy protectionism?
* Large scale generation and transmission investment being the default choice, installed and operated by the large household names : the Shells, AMECs, KBRs and Centricas of this world…
The existing large generators and engineering companies are always vulnerable to buy-outs; the rabid and fickle desire for profit; and the twin “evils” of environmental law and human rights – despite constant, overtly cynical, campaigning against such basic measures.
* Renewables, where they are being developed, being led, and increasingly cornered by, the same fossil fuel and engineering giants under their own terms…
If the energy giants decide that there is no money in renewables then they will drop them at a stroke. Investment only exists while there is profit - the big players in the energy industry are not philanthropists.
* Climate change being treated as an afterthought to energy security, and shoehorned into the existing centralised model of generation and distribution…
Climate change is an energy security issue of the most serious kind. Climate change will increasingly lead to ice storms and heat waves that destroy transmission lines, mudslides that tear pipelines apart, and hurricanes that close down entire oil fields. Furthermore, the centralised model favoured by the energy giants, even for renewables, is inefficient and more vulnerable to damage by both weather and terrorism.
* The assumption, both dangerous and extremely profitable, that energy demand will continue to rise, even in the most mature economies…
If demand continues to rise at the current rate, there will be no energy security, and the changing climate will make the miracles of the technological age obsolete. This is a fundamental weakness of the political system : no-one wants to tell their voters or their funders how to behave. No politician will demand real change – even though, when you look at it with objective eyes, there is no choice but to change.
Given this stark reality, we need to carefully prioritise the actions which the entire global politico-economic system has to take – not based on the continuing demands of the energy giants, but the twin, and realistic problems of both energy security and climate change.
First, we need to reduce our consumption of energy. This is so fundamental that it should not even need saying : but it does need saying because our entire economic system is geared towards continual growth. How dare I suggest that something has to be reduced! As a unilateral political move this is surely suicide, but as a global cultural wave in which we all recognise the finite state of our existing energy sources and the fragility of the thin, delicate layer of Earth we call the biosphere, it is just common sense.
Second, we must develop a new model of energy efficiency. All energy consuming goods must be designed with energy efficiency as much in mind as their functional suitability. This may seem excessive, but the consequences of doing this will be to completely change the way we look at technology – a force for good rather than a force for environmental pillage.
And while we are designing our technology, we must consider how the power gets there in the first place. The decentralisation of all forms of consumption - domestic, industrial, transport, transmission, generation – if properly thought out, almost always saves energy, so this must become a reality. While this takes place, the existing centralised infrastructure must be made as efficient as possible, with stringent laws and penalties for operators who fail to conform.
Third, governments and communities at all levels must invest heavily in all forms of environmentally and socially sustainable energy, using a Dual Test of Energy Sustainability. For energy to be classed as sustainable it must be audited for its impact on both the natural environment and human welfare; from the initial raw materials (which makes fossil fuels and nuclear immediately unpalatable), to the form of generation (dioxins and sulphur are not permitted); from the means of transmission (ruling out politically sensitive pipelines), to its eventual consumption (resulting in control of the most heavily emitting, and wasteful, industries and transportation).
Finally, and probably most controversially, we must break the link between energy and profit. The re-nationalisation of generation would do this at a stroke as there would no longer be a profit motive in generating electricity. In fact due to the conflicting demands of the increasing cost of generation, the basic social need for power and the climate imperative, the emphasis will immediately switch to reducing consumption and increasing energy efficiency in all aspects of life.
In this case nuclear would price itself out of the market due to decommissioning costs and the “magic bullet” of carbon sequestration would similarly be set aside in favour of long term and more direct measures of use reduction. Without profit gain there is no need to sell lots of electricity, and hence the energy giants have no interest in generating energy. We will have dragged energy, that fundamental human need, away from the giants, and into the hands of the people. And as a bonus, we may also have saved the planet from annihilation.
Put simply, the energy argument has been won by the energy giants. So we see the following assumptions made by the energy giants, alongside a rather more objective viewpoint:
* Energy Security being defined, for electricity generation, as using “safe” and “reliable” fossil fuels and nuclear fission…
Energy security depends on reliable sources of raw materials, protection of the generating plant and the transmission grid and, increasingly, self-sufficiency as global politics becomes more unstable. Is this really sustainable in a world of Peak Oil, accelerating demand for uranium, and energy protectionism?
* Large scale generation and transmission investment being the default choice, installed and operated by the large household names : the Shells, AMECs, KBRs and Centricas of this world…
The existing large generators and engineering companies are always vulnerable to buy-outs; the rabid and fickle desire for profit; and the twin “evils” of environmental law and human rights – despite constant, overtly cynical, campaigning against such basic measures.
* Renewables, where they are being developed, being led, and increasingly cornered by, the same fossil fuel and engineering giants under their own terms…
If the energy giants decide that there is no money in renewables then they will drop them at a stroke. Investment only exists while there is profit - the big players in the energy industry are not philanthropists.
* Climate change being treated as an afterthought to energy security, and shoehorned into the existing centralised model of generation and distribution…
Climate change is an energy security issue of the most serious kind. Climate change will increasingly lead to ice storms and heat waves that destroy transmission lines, mudslides that tear pipelines apart, and hurricanes that close down entire oil fields. Furthermore, the centralised model favoured by the energy giants, even for renewables, is inefficient and more vulnerable to damage by both weather and terrorism.
* The assumption, both dangerous and extremely profitable, that energy demand will continue to rise, even in the most mature economies…
If demand continues to rise at the current rate, there will be no energy security, and the changing climate will make the miracles of the technological age obsolete. This is a fundamental weakness of the political system : no-one wants to tell their voters or their funders how to behave. No politician will demand real change – even though, when you look at it with objective eyes, there is no choice but to change.
Given this stark reality, we need to carefully prioritise the actions which the entire global politico-economic system has to take – not based on the continuing demands of the energy giants, but the twin, and realistic problems of both energy security and climate change.
First, we need to reduce our consumption of energy. This is so fundamental that it should not even need saying : but it does need saying because our entire economic system is geared towards continual growth. How dare I suggest that something has to be reduced! As a unilateral political move this is surely suicide, but as a global cultural wave in which we all recognise the finite state of our existing energy sources and the fragility of the thin, delicate layer of Earth we call the biosphere, it is just common sense.
Second, we must develop a new model of energy efficiency. All energy consuming goods must be designed with energy efficiency as much in mind as their functional suitability. This may seem excessive, but the consequences of doing this will be to completely change the way we look at technology – a force for good rather than a force for environmental pillage.
And while we are designing our technology, we must consider how the power gets there in the first place. The decentralisation of all forms of consumption - domestic, industrial, transport, transmission, generation – if properly thought out, almost always saves energy, so this must become a reality. While this takes place, the existing centralised infrastructure must be made as efficient as possible, with stringent laws and penalties for operators who fail to conform.
Third, governments and communities at all levels must invest heavily in all forms of environmentally and socially sustainable energy, using a Dual Test of Energy Sustainability. For energy to be classed as sustainable it must be audited for its impact on both the natural environment and human welfare; from the initial raw materials (which makes fossil fuels and nuclear immediately unpalatable), to the form of generation (dioxins and sulphur are not permitted); from the means of transmission (ruling out politically sensitive pipelines), to its eventual consumption (resulting in control of the most heavily emitting, and wasteful, industries and transportation).
Finally, and probably most controversially, we must break the link between energy and profit. The re-nationalisation of generation would do this at a stroke as there would no longer be a profit motive in generating electricity. In fact due to the conflicting demands of the increasing cost of generation, the basic social need for power and the climate imperative, the emphasis will immediately switch to reducing consumption and increasing energy efficiency in all aspects of life.
In this case nuclear would price itself out of the market due to decommissioning costs and the “magic bullet” of carbon sequestration would similarly be set aside in favour of long term and more direct measures of use reduction. Without profit gain there is no need to sell lots of electricity, and hence the energy giants have no interest in generating energy. We will have dragged energy, that fundamental human need, away from the giants, and into the hands of the people. And as a bonus, we may also have saved the planet from annihilation.
Keith Farnish
Homepage:
http://www.theearthblog.org