State of the World 2004: Making Better Energy Choices

Related Links

• State of the World 2004
• Online Feature: Consumption
• Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century
• The International Conference for Renewable Energies

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Janet Sawin: Senior Researcher

July 23, 2004 - 2:00pm EDT

Demand for energy is accelerating worldwide. In richer regions of the planet, people are buying bigger homes, and more and larger cars and appliances such as TVs, computers and refrigerators. In the developing world, where the consumer class is growing rapidly, millions of people are benefiting from increased access to these products. At the same time, about one-third of the world's people still lack access to basic energy services like lighting, refrigeration, or hospital equipment.

As global demand for energy increases, so do the associated impacts on human health, the environment, and even international security. What's needed to put the world on a more sustainable path? How does renewable energy factor into the equation?

In addition to her work in State of the World, which focuses on global energy use trends, Worldwatch researcher Janet Sawin recently authored a report titled, Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century. This report looks at the recent advances in renewable energy ñ especially solar and wind power ñ and the government policies needed to propel renewables into the mainstream. In early June, she attended the International Conference for Renewable Energies in Bonn, Germany. This gathering of more than 3,000 government ministers, technology experts, business executives, and non-governmental leaders from over 150 nations aimed to chart a path for actively transitioning the world to a sustainable global energy system in a timely manner.

Submit your questions now about global energy consumption or Janet's recent research into renewable energy policies and her trip to Bonn.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to Worldwatch Live. Today's guest is Worldwatch Research Associate, Janet Sawin. Welcome, Janet!

Janet Sawin: Hello everyone. I look forward to taking your questions today.

Tacoma, WA: More of a statement than a question. It appals me that our government is giving tax breaks to companies that lease SUV's and larger vehicles, that in, my opinion we shouldn't even be producing. Secondly, given the fact that on an average the food we eat travels over 1,000 miles to reach our tables, shouldn't we shop at outdoor markets and ask our grocers to stock locally grown produce? If we reduced our consumption of beef and other meat products, we could save water and use the grain to feed people rather than cows?

Janet Sawin: Great points, Barry. And you have every reason to be appalled. The primary reason for the high gas prices we face today is rising global consumption. Last year saw the sharpest annual increase in oil consumption in many years ñ while China accounted for a large part of this increase, oil use has been rising in the United States over the past several years as well. As a result, we are becoming increasingly dependent on imported fuels, which is making our nation less secure. The popularity of gas-guzzling SUVs plays a major role in this trend, and the federal government encourages the increase in SUVs with tax credits of up to $100,000 for business-related purchases (a loop-hole in a law that was intended to help farmers) ñ compare this to the $2,000 per vehicle tax credit for hybrid-electric cars. I agree that, in light of concerns about our energy supply, security, environment and health associated with our transport fuel consumption, this does not make sense. We should be doing whatever we can to encourage the purchase of more efficient vehicles, to increase the efficiency of all of our vehicles, and to encourage the use of alternatives to private cars (such as public transport, bicycles, walking, etc), rather than subsidizing the purchase and use of such fuel-inefficient vehicles.

Your points regarding food are correct as well. The more we can do to purchase foods grown locally, and to eat foods that are less energy- and water-intensive to produce and prepare, the better. According to the June issue of National Geographic magazine, raising one champion steer (1,250 pounds) requires the equivalent of 283 gallons of oil (including everything from fertilizers for the corn to diesel to run farm machinery). While I havenít seen other figures specific to meat, you might be interested in these statistics: David Pimentel of Cornel University estimates that the U.S. devotes about 17% of its fossil fuel consumption to the production and consumption of food, with about 6% for crop and livestock production, 6% for processing and packaging, and 5% for distribution and cooking.

Lahore , Pakistan: infact i want to know about lastest technology regarding Energy or power which keep our world batter,We expect good living stander but on the other without any harm. Which are low price and usefull for developing countries.

Janet Sawin: Great question. There are up to 2 billion people in the developing world who lack access to electricity and other modern energy services, such as piped gas, so this issue is of critical importance. In fact, particularly for those in remote areas and/or off the electric grid, renewables such as solar photovoltaics (PVs) are generally the cheapest option for getting power. Wind energy in good sites is already cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity. India now ranks 5th in the world for wind capacity, and has begun manufacturing and exporting turbines. Brazil fuels a large share of its cars with ethanol, which is now cheaper per unit of energy there than is gasoline.

In addition to the energy they provide, renewables offer a host of other benefits to local people, including jobs and the potential for economic development, significantly lower health impacts, they are modular and can be installed rapidly, and they rely on local energy resources rather than imported fuels.

Currently, renewables such as solar PVs often appear more expensive for a few reasons: 1) there are government subsidies for conventional fuels such as diesel and kerosene, 2) the external costs (e.g., significant health costs, particularly for women and children) are not incorporated into the price of energy, and 3) while most renewable ìfuelsî (sun, wind, etc.) are free, renewable energy technologies have high upfront costs. Government policies can help to reduce these barriers to renewables.

Clearly, energy subsidies for the very poorest people cannot be eliminated, but governments can begin to shift subsidies to renewable energy. Education is also important to help people understand the benefits and potential of renewables. And financing assistance is critical ñ at least one study that Iíve seen determined that the availability of reasonable third-party financing (such as long-term, low-interest loans; loans with payment tied to income stream, etc.) could dramatically increase the use of PV systems in the developing world by making them more affordable (up to 50% of prospective purchasers could afford them with financing, compared to only 2-5% without).

Lawrence, Kansas: In Kansas, several of us are working for wind-to-hydrogen production, and promoting small scale wind clusters with onsite hydrogen conversion. However, it's not an easy goal right now with solar tax credits reduced or eliminated. I understand that wind power is the fastest growing new source of energy in Europe right now. Aproximately what percentage of Europe's wind generated electricity is currently being converted onsite (or elsewhere) to hydrogen fuel? Have you read Amory Lovins' RMI article debunking the top 25 myths that are irrationaly serving as impediments and false roadblocks to a hydrogen economy? Thanks For Your Good Work, Rich Wenzel 1123 Oregon, Lawrence, Kansas 66044

Janet Sawin: Wind and solar power are actually the fastest growing energy sources in the world today, and wind energy represents a large share of the new electric capacity installed in Europe (particularly Germany) over the past few years. From 2001 to 2003 alone, wind went from meeting 3% of Gerrmanyís total electricity demand to more than 6%. The German government aims for wind power to meet 25% of the nationís electricity needs by 2025. This dramatic growth ñ and the accompanying reduction in costs and increase in jobs ñ is being propelled by strong, consistent policies to create a market for renewable energy.

Yes, Iíve seen Amory Lovinsí piece (itís at http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid985.php for anyone whoís interested) and itís worth a read. Regarding the production of hydrogen with wind power in Europe, I know that this is being done in some places, but still on a very small scale. Here are links to two projects:

An island off the coast of Norway ñ http://www.hydro.com/en/our_business/oil_energy/new_energy/hydrogen/winds_change.html

The Hydrogen and Renewables Integration Project in Leicestershire, UK ñ
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/crest/News/HARI.htm

Dresden, Germany: Wind power has become one of the large arguments in the discussion about renewable energy sources. While not refering to the benefits or economic aspects a disadvantage is interesting to me. What about the impact on local, regional and more global climate; especially when talking about "wind parks"? I have never heard or read companies or scientists talking about. But obviously energy is taken out of natural cycle in a non negligible amount. This must have an impact. Wind is weak after were it was strong before. Thank you for your interest.

Janet Sawin: Thanks for your question. The short answer is that even very large amounts of wind capacity would have an overwhelmingly positive net impact on the climate (and other benefits as well).

An article on this issue written by David Keith was submitted to the journal Science last year and never published, as I understand, but it seems to have gotten around nonetheless. As far as I can tell, the argument that wind power could negatively affect the climate is being perpetuated by those who oppose this technology for other reasons (including industries working to maintain the status quo), and is more myth than fact.

According to Dr. Joseph Romm (Ex. Dir. of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions), ìEven implausible amounts of wind power would have a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature. The average magnitude of large-scale climatic change due to even relatively large amounts of wind is probably much less than 1 part in 20 of the reduction in climate change achievable by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels. Although it is exceedingly difficult to model smaller-scale climate impacts (both of wind power and of global climate change), the regional impact of large wind farms is likely to be, at most, similar to and, more likely, smaller than the impact from the change in wind flows that would result from global climate change itself.î

Keep in mind also that we are surrounded by objectsóbuildings, trees, mountains, cars, etc.óthat affect the windís flow. Thinking of it this way, a large wind farm probably has less of an impact on the winds and local climate than a large town. Also, turbines are spaced such that energy losses in the wind caused by the first turbine are recovered when wind reaches the next in line, so it would make sense that any slow down in winds caused by even a very large wind park would not extend much beyond the edge of that area.

Whitstable. Kent. UK: A lot is said about the future of PV solar panels as a renewable energy source. However I have also heard that the amount of embodied energy taken to make and transport them is greater than the amount of energy they will produce in their lifetime. I've also heard that without fossil fuels, it is difficult to manufacture them. I've heard that wind turbines are a bit better on these counts, but not much. Is any of this true?

Janet Sawin: It's not true that PV panels or wind turbines require more energy to produce than they actually generate, yet this is one of the primary concerns that has been expressed with regard to PVs in particular. In fact, the energy ìpay-backî period for PVs ñ the length of time that cells must operate to produce as much energy as was used to manufacture them ñ is 4-6 years for todayís modules in rooftop systems. The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory has documented that PV panels in sunny locations typically pay back their energy in 2-3 years. Note that the expected lifetime of PV systems is 30 years, so they will continue to generate electricity long after they have paid off their energy ìdebt.î And the payback period will decline as the energy efficiency of production increases and as the technology becomes more efficient.

Today's wind turbines take 3-4 months to generate the amount of energy required to produce them.

Regarding energy needs for manufacture, there are some plants that use PV energy for the production of PVs. (For example, see http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/documents/seb/seb8.html)

Portsmouth, NH: Dear Janet, Energy generation cost estimates have shown that renewable energy, esp. wind power, can be price competitive with fossil fuel derived electricity in the U.S. Yet the U.S.'s move to renewables has been excruciating slow and seeming only to gain notice when oil prices rise. As far as I know, [federal] government support for renewables in the U.S. has not been strong and primarily consists of research funding. What do you see as being a potential catalyst to boost U.S. renewable use in the next 5-10 years? I have a difficult time imagining heavy-handed government support to increase our renewable use as was the case in Denmark and other smaller countries which now have well established renewable energy production. Thank you for your response. Sincerely, Suresh A. Sethi

Janet Sawin: Itís true that federal support for renewables in the U.S. has been weak and most funding has been for research and development (R&D). Even that has fluctuated greatly over the years. While R&D funding is important, those countries (and some U.S. states) that have experienced the greatest growth in renewable energy markets and associated benefits have had strong, consistent policies to promote markets for renewable energy. This is what creates the economies of scale and learning needed to drive down costs, and to draw private investment into technology R&D. U.S. policies to promote renewables have been limited and inconsistent. Perhaps the most significant federal subsidy over the past decade or so has been the Production Tax Credit for wind. It has been allowed to expire several times before being extended, which has created boom and bust in the U.S. market. This makes it difficult for a strong wind industry to develop. Fortunately, in recent years a number of states have started enacting strong and more consistent renewable energy laws.

Over the coming years, I think one of the main catalysts for the expansion of renewable energy in the U.S. will be rising concerns about global climate change. This is already the case in many other countries. Falling costs due to market expansion around the world will also help drive a renewables expansion in the U.S. Still, government policies will be required to increase awareness of the potential and benefits of renewable energy, eliminate barriers such as unfair charges for grid connection and use, address high upfront costs, and to level the playing field. Policies donít have to be ìheavy-handedî to have a major impact. For example, rebates for PVs in California (funded through a small per kilowatt hour charge on electricity consumers) have helped to reduce PV system costs 50% since 1998, have dramatically increased grid-connected capacity, and have increased the number of in-state manufacturing, distribution and installation companies (and associated jobs). As a result, California is now the 3rd largest PV market in the world, after Japan and Germany.

Wigan, UK: Given that market forces and commercial priorities dominate energy decisions at the international and national level, how can public policy at the regional and local level best contribute to the transition to sustainable modes of energy production and consumption?

Janet Sawin: There are many things that can be done at the regional and local level. State and local governments can enact their own policies to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, including subsidies for their purchase and use, and building codes. For example, Barcelona, Spain (and now several other Spanish cities) requires new and renovated buildings to include solar water heaters. The Western Governors Association in the U.S., under the leadership of Governors Schwarzenegger and Richardson, recently set significant renewable energy targets for the region. Local, state or regional governments can also encourage ìsmart growthî, invest in public transportation, and develop pedestrian areas in inner cities. They can establish public education and awareness programs that encourage people to conserve energy, purchase more-efficient technologies and "green" power. And governments, universities, etc. can consider their own purchasing decisions ñ by purchasing green power, installing solar panels on government buildings, and increasing their energy efficiency they can operate more sustainably.

NEW DELHI ( INDIA): Dear Madam, Despite all the Rhetoric and the so called "intense desire" to urgently shift to a more "Sustainable Energy Future"-There is little ACTION on the ground. What measures should, in your opinion, be made mandatory, so that We definetly move "with enough speed" towards realising the Pious Goal of "Mainstreaming". Thanks and with Regards, (Dr.M.Govinda Raj)

Janet Sawin: I believe that the recent Intergovernment Conference on Renewable Energies (Renewables 2004) in Bonn, Germany will be a good start toward this end. In Bonn last month, governments of 154 countries formally agreed that renewable energy should play a major role in meeting world energy needs during this century, and more than 200 specific actions and commitments were made to increase the use of renewable energy worldwide. (For more information on the conference, see www.renewables2004.de).

In order to achieve these targets and move beyond them to truly mainstream renewable energy, governments must commit to advancing renewables. The efforts of businesses and individuals (purchasing ìgreen powerî, for example) are important, but it is political will and effective government policy that play the most important role. There are a number of measures that are essential for advancing renewables.

Just to mention a few: governments must provide renewables with fair access to the market (quota systems, such a Renewable Portfolio Standards, and pricing systems like the German ìfeed-inî law have worked to create markets for renewable energy); financial incentives (rebates, low-interest loans, tax credits) are important for encouraging investment by reducing investor risk and compensating for high upfront costs; building codes and standards can require the use of more efficient materials (so not as much energy is needed to light, heat and cool them), they can require that renewables be incorporated into building designs or at least that new buildings be made "solar-ready" (with wiring and other hardward to make later installation easier and cheaper); and education and information dissemination are essential for apprising potential investors and customers about the benefits and potential of renewable energy. In addition, governments must eliminate subsidies for conventional energy (which globally amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year), incorporate all costs into the price of energy, and shift their purchases from conventional to renewable energies to level the playing field. Last but not least, as mentioned above, we must improve the efficiency with which we use energy so that renewables can more easily and rapidly become a larger share of our energy supply.

Ontario, Canada: Q.#1 In the latest WW paper # 169, you indicate the potential for renewables is many times greater than the total current use(p 16). Some other energy anlaysts, eg Odum and Odum in "A Prosperous Way Down", suggest that renewables could not meet more than 2/3 of current demand. Also, in your table on p 16, the potential for geothermal is enormous. Is this on the basis of what is actually accessible with current technology? Q # 2. I certainly support the need for a transition to renewables, but dont you think we need to also reduce our total demand. More energy availability will only contribute to more material throughput in economic activitiy, which is a serious threat to ecosystem health. Dont we also have to reduce this throughput to a sustainable level? thanks JSB

Janet Sawin: Q # 1: I have not done the analysis behind these renewable resource statistics, but have cited in my report information from a range of reliable sources. I assume that the geothermal potential includes all geothermal technologies, including geothermal heat pumps ñ not just high-temperature sites ñ which would account for the high number. I have not seen the Odum and Odum analysis, but will look for it. Perhaps they have made different assumptions regarding where and how renewable technologies would be placed, and how that energy would be distributed, etc., for the potential truly is staggering (more than 7,500 exajoules/year according to some sources, compared with global energy use totaling about 422 exajoules/year in 2000).

Theoretically, we could get all of the energy we need from renewable sources, many times over. In the United States, for example, our total electricity needs could be met with wind power from just three states ñ Kansas, South Dakota and North Dakota (according to Pacific Northwest Laboratories wind resource studies), or with solar energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada (U.S. Department of Energy estimate, using parabolic trough technology). Whether or not we want to do this is another issue as, for example, there would be challenges and costs associated with transmitting the power to other parts of the country. But I site these examples just to give a sense of the scale of potential from these resources.

Q #2: I agree completely that we need to increase the efficiency with which we produce and use energy, and to increase conservation, the world over. And we need to find ways to stem the continuing increase in energy use in the industrial world. Producing and using energy, no matter how we choose to do so, has negative impacts on the worldís ecosystems. Renewables just have far less of an impact than conventional technologies do ñ on our environment, health, security, etc. And the more energy we consume, the harder it will be for renewables to achieve a higher share of energy production. Further, if global energy demand continues to rise unabated, it will be a great challenge to meet our rising energy needs even with a rapid and dramatic shift to more efficient technologies and the heavy use of renewable energy.

Bhubaneswar, Orissa.: The state of Orissa in Eastern India, is rich in coal deposits and quite a few thermal power plants exist with some more on the anvil. How do you suggest we should go about popularising environment-friendly energy like solar and wind? And how should we re-model our buildings to use less of energy that emit ghg?

Janet Sawin: These a two excellent, and very different questions. The first is a great challenge. China, the US and Australia face similar challenges as they, too, are rich in coal and have strong industries wishing to maintain the status quo. But itís critical for all of us to recognize that the external costs of coal are high. A European study that looked at the external environmental and health costs of various electricity sources for 15 EU countries determined that these costs for coal range from 2.3 to 16.9 cents per kilowatt hour (on top of generating costs). Wind energy in good sites is already cost-competitive with coal and other conventional energy sources, without incorporating external costs; other renewables also look far more competitive when external costs are considered.

Educating people about the benefits and potential of renewables is also important. Benefits include: they pose significantly lower environmental, health and social costs; they are less vulnerable to terrorist attack; they avoid the price volatility and risks associated with fuel price fluctuations; they provide jobs and economic development (particularly in rural and depressed regions); they can be installed rapidly and in dispersed locations, delaying investment in expensive new plants or power lines; and all countries have renewable energy resources ñ even those that consider themselves ìenergy poorî, such as many poor countries in Africa. As more and more people learn about these benefits, and the fact that they are already meeting energy needs in industrial and developing countries alike, renewables will become more popular and more in demand.

The main push must come from governments through policies that create markets for renewable energy (such as those mentioned above). However, people at the grass roots level can play a major role in helping to shift countries away from coal ñ for example, due to public pressure, the Philippine province of Negros now aims to get 100% of its energy from renewables rather than coal; and just two years ago, thousands of villagers in Thailand forced the government to abandon plans for two large new coal-fired plants.

Regarding your second question, there are a number of things that we can do to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with our buildings. First, we can build them from recycled or more ìenvironmentally friendlyî materials that donít require as much energy to produce. By some estimates, people can live in the average home in the U.S. for 10 years before the energy they use in their home it exceeds the amount that went into its components and construction. So our choices about building materials can have a significant impact. Second, we can make our buildings (and appliances, etc.) more efficient so that we donít need as much energy to operate our buildings and the things in them. By using better windows, improved insulation, passive solar heating and lighting, and even planting trees and greenery around (or even on!) our buildings, we can reduce our energy needs. Third, we can buy ìgreenî power and/or install solar panels (for water heating and electricity generation) so that the energy we use in our buildings does not pollute.

Sydney, Australia: Does the world have enough renewable energy resources to generate enough renewable Hydrogen to operate all of our present transport vehicles including the millions of cars?

Janet Sawin: This is a great question. The resources are enormous. The challenge will be capturing enough of that energy and converting it to hydrogen, and then transporting it to where it is needed.

More research is needed on a number of issues, and we have a long way to go before a hydrogen infrastructure is in place. In the meantime, we need to ramp up the use of renewables (for electricity, transport, heating and cooling, etc.) to make our entire system cleaner and to further drive down the costs; this will help ensure that we can produce cost-competitive renewable-hydrogen when the "hydrogen age" does arrive.

Clearly, it will become more and more of a challenge to meet our energy needs ñ with whatever sources of fuel ñ as the number and size of vehicles rise around the world, and as fuel requirements continue to increase as a result. The transport sector is the worldís fastest growing sector with regard to energy use, driven primarily by the rise of the private car. For the short-term, we should focus on increasing the fuel-efficiency of our vehicles, expanding the use of less-polluting and renewable fuels (such as biodiesel), and investing in alternative forms of transport.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Janet!

Janet Sawin: You're welcome. Thanks to everyone who participated. There were a lot of great questions today, and I wish I had time to get to all of them!