It is clear that we must shift from carbon energy – coal, oil and gas – to renewable energies: solar, wind, hydro, wave, geothermal. Yet even those who agree with this truth like to argue about which energy is best; some champion solar, some wind, etc. That misses the point. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. So the goal is to create vast networks – electricity grids – that make the best of all the renewable energies.
The global consulting firm PwC – not an environmental NGO – has offered “a vision of Europe, in combination with countries in North Africa, developing an integrated power grid with 100% of electricity generation coming from renewable sources by 2050.”
Its roadmap of how to get there is based on “an evolutionary development mainly of the economical, legal and regulatory framework and does not require fundamental technological breakthroughs.”
While this “supergrid” would depend to a great extent on solar power from North Africa, it would use renewable energy from everywhere: “Wind generation in the windy North Sea region, concentrating solar power (CSP) with storage in the sunny south, biomass and wind in the Baltic Sea region and Eastern Europe, and hydro in the mountainous regions of Scandinavia and the Alps.” (Greenpeace has done its own, strikingly similar report calling for such a grid, and there are plans for others in other parts of the world.)
Most of the technical components for 100% renewable electricity are available in principle today. The economic costs to society of restructuring the energy system in this way would be small – at most, a few percentage points of gross domestic product over the coming decades. So why haven’t countries done it already?
The 2050 vision requires simultaneous and coordinated progress on many fronts – including finance, technology, research and development, improved supply chains and increased grid capability. Above all, policy-makers will need to rewrite existing legislation to change the rules and incentives guiding participants in the energy market.
But what about bridging the gap between where we are now and that 2050 all-renewable vision? Two technologies, both controversial, could help. Nuclear power is a proven low-carbon energy source, but safety concerns were reignited by the cooling-system failures at Fukushima after the 2011 earthquake in Japan. The costs of decommissioning plants will be huge. The environmental movement is divided on whether nuclear should be a stepping-stone toward a renewable future. However, the last thirty years have shown that coal-fired power is the world’s biggest killer. The coal industry believes carbon can be “captured” from power station smokestacks and stored indefinitely – but at great cost and using lots of water.
Natural gas is replacing coal to generate electricity in many countries. For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 45% less CO2 than coal. Increased demand for gas has led to higher prices, and attention has turned to shale gas. This too is controversial, with some studies suggesting the extraction and use of shale gas may pollute groundwater, and result in the release of more greenhouse gases than conventional natural gas. Do the negatives outweigh the positives?
Share your thoughts on the switch to renewables, and how we should be looking to bridge the energy gap:
www.hardrainproject.com/feedback
