|
The
world economy is being battered by sharply higher energy
prices. While a few energy-exporting countries in the Middle
East and elsewhere reap huge profits, the rest of the world
is suffering as the price of oil has topped 110 dollars per
barrel [it went up to 117 dollars last week] and that of
coal has doubled.
Without
plentiful and low-cost energy, every aspect of the global
economy is threatened. For example, food prices are
increasing alongside soaring oil prices, partly because of
increased production costs, but also because farmland in the
United States and elsewhere is being converted from food
production to bio-fuel production.
No
quick fix exists for oil prices. Higher prices reflect basic
conditions of supply and demand. The world economy -
especially China, India, and elsewhere in Asia - has been
growing rapidly, leading to a steep increase in global
demand for energy, notably for electricity and transport.
Yet global supplies of oil, natural gas, and coal cannot
easily keep up, even with new discoveries. And, in many
places, oil supplies are declining as old oilfields are
depleted.
Coal is
in somewhat larger supply, and can be turned into liquid
fuels for transport. Yet coal is an inadequate substitute,
partly because of limited supplies, and partly because coal
emits large amounts of carbon-dioxide per unit of energy,
and therefore is a dangerous source of man-made climate
change.
For
developing countries to continue to enjoy rapid economic
growth, and for rich countries to avoid a slump, it will be
necessary to develop new energy technologies. Three
objectives should be targeted: low-cost alternatives to
fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency, and reduction of
carbon-dioxide emissions.
The
most promising technology in the long term is solar power.
The total solar radiation hitting the planet is about 1,000
times the world’s commercial energy use. This means that
even a small part of the earth’s land surface, notably in
desert regions which receive massive solar radiation, can
supply large amounts of the electricity for much of the rest
of the world.
For
example, solar power plants in America’s Mohave Desert could
supply more than half of the country’s electricity needs.
Solar power plants in Northern Africa could supply power to
Western Europe. And solar power plants in the Sahel of
Africa, just south of the vast Sahara, could supply power to
much of West, East, and Central Africa.
Perhaps
the single most promising development in terms of energy
efficiency is “plug-in hybrid technology” for automobiles,
which may be able to triple the fuel efficiency of new
automobiles within the next decade. The idea is that
automobiles would run mainly on batteries recharged each
night on the electricity grid, with a gasoline-hybrid engine
as a backup to the battery. General Motors might have an
early version by 2010.
The
most important technology for the safe environmental use of
coal is the capture and geological storage of carbon-dioxide
from coal-fired power plants. Such “carbon capture and
sequestration,” or CCS, is urgently needed in the major
coal-consuming countries, especially China, India,
Australia, and the US. The key CCS technologies have already
been developed; it is time to move from engineering
blueprints to real demonstration power plants.
For all
of these promising technologies, governments should be
investing in the science and high costs of early-stage
testing. Without at least partial public financing, the
uptake of these new technologies will be slow and uneven.
Indeed, most major technologies that we now take for granted
- airplanes, computers, the Internet, and new medicines, to
name but a few - received crucial public financing in the
early stages of development and deployment.
It is
shocking, and worrisome, that public financing remains
slight, because these technologies’ success could translate
into literally trillions of dollars of economic output. For
example, according to the most recent data from the
International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2006 the US government
invested a meager three billion dollars per year in energy
research and development.
In
inflation-adjusted dollars, this represented a decline of
roughly 40pc since the early 1980s, and now equals what the
US spends on its military in just 1.5 days.
The
situation is even more discouraging when we look at the
particulars. US government funding for renewable energy
technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, and
bio-energy) totaled a meager 239 million dollars, or just
three hours of defense spending. Spending on carbon capture
and sequestration was just 67 million dollars, while
spending for energy efficiency of all types (buildings,
transport, and industry) was 352 million dollars.
Of
course, developing new energy technologies is not America’s
responsibility alone. Global cooperation on energy
technologies is needed, both to increase supplies and to
ensure that energy use is environmentally safe, especially
to head off man-made climate change from the use of fossil
fuels.
This
would not only be good economics, but also good politics,
since it could unite the world in our common interest,
rather than dividing the world in a bitter struggle over
diminishing oil, gas, and coal reserves.
|