Dr. Sened is a
Professor of Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis,
and former chair of the Political Science Department at Washington
University. His main interests are comparative theory of institutions,
game theory and mathematical modeling. Dr. Sened teaches Undergraduate
and Graduate level courses in the Political Science Department.
In this second in a series of
three posts, we review the vision of Dr. Rolf Wuestenhagen, the Good Energies Chair for Management of Renewable Energies at the
Business School of The University of St. Gallen in Switzerland. We apologize for posting this a little later
than earlier expected/promised. Besides being visionary and insightful, we highlight
how different this approach and attitudes more generally towards clean energy
in Europe compare to those we are more commonly exposed to here in the U.S. In
the previous post we discussed the origin of these differences and the policy
consequences they entail. In this post
we want to talk more of the essence of the argument and what it means.
Discussions
in the U.S. on the expansion of the clean energy sector are wrought with
skepticism. There is the general
skepticism regarding the viability of the whole enterprise and specific
skepticism regarding almost any aspect or detail involved. Whenever the conversation begins, discussants
will raise the issue of storage, or price, or intermittency, reliability and
what not. In the process no one ever
mentions the cost of the recent oil spillage in the Gulf of Mexico south of Louisiana,
estimated at everywhere between 50 – 100 Billion dollars or the Fukushima
disaster that has topped 100 Billion and in both cases we are still
counting. The loses related to some mishaps
in the clean energy sector, so widely advertised, are hardly pocket change next
to these figures and most of the skepticism regarding some of the technical
challenges facing the clean energy sector have either been already solved or are
on their way to be solved.
It
is in this context that Dr. Wuestenhagen’s vision seems much more
in tune of scientific state of the art and with simple common sense. The simple truth is that we cannot continue
to rely on fossil fuels as our main source of energy for very long. Climate change, pollution related disease and
associated health care costs, not to speak of the real cost of fossil fuel
energy - if we calculate it after striping it from the wide range of significant
subsidies it enjoys. Calculated that way
the cost of fossil fuel is, for the long
run, prohibitive by any account. Yet we keep our head buried in the sand as if
this problem is going to solve itself.
Well it isn’t and anyone who knows anything about this knows it
perfectly well.
Dr. Wuestenhagen,
offers a remarkably simple concept: Let
us move from 20:80 to 80:20. These
numbers refer to the ratio between clean energy or renewable energy and
nonrenewable fossil fuel energy now, as compared to the world envisioned by Dr.
Wuestenhagen.
It
should be highlighted that Nuclear Power is a category in between -- while not
renewable it has been considered for many years to be clean, because everyone
chose to turn their heads the other way not taking into account the Chernobyl
and Fukushima type disasters and the issue of what to do with the nuclear waste
emanating from Nuclear Power reactors.
In Europe, as we showed in our most recent post, Nuclear power is as
dirty as they get. Again, what they see
from there, we may not be able to see from here.
So
how do ‘European minded’ experts like Dr. Wuestenhagen, think
we can ever move from mostly (80%) relying on fossil fuels and nuclear power to
80% reliance on clean and renewable energy sources? First thing first, drop the skepticism and
try to see clear through the misleading or simply inaccurate information. Then, the key is in implementation. One of the huge advantages of the use of
Nuclear and Fossil fuel energy sources is how simple it is. It may not be cheap and it may not be safe
and it certainly is dangerous for the future of the planet, but it is
simple. You use the vastly inefficient
infrastructures, you have you find oil wherever you do and natural gas wherever
you do or you build nuclear reactors wherever you may and you pump the energy
into the system. End of story.
Clean
energy requires a lot more. It is, by
its nature, decentralized, produced in relatively small quantities with a huge
geographical spread. So one must build
local and regional smart grids to cultivate and crop the energy from wherever
it comes and distribute it to wherever it is needed in a much smarter way. From whence the concept of smart grids that
is so critical to the implementation of clean energy infrastructure. One must
find new ways and build new infrastructures to distribute electricity to
electric cars instead of the existing oil distribution network of gas stations. Again, cheaper, cleaner but somewhat more
complicated.
And
the list goes on and on. The world of
renewable and clean energy is a complex one.
It requires new modes of thinking and resource management, very
different infrastructures and management models.
But
whatever happened with the value in innovation?
Why is it all of a sudden the right thing to stick with what we have
rather than look forward for change? Why
should we stick by fossil fuels that have proved themselves to be dirty,
polluting risky and expensive. The
future is in clean energy, we all understand it so why are we not embracing the
change for the better faster?
The
short answer to that is probably ‘short sightedness.’ The long answer is what this blog is all
about. In the meantime we recommend the
annual report of the Good Energies Chair for Management of
Renewable Energies at the Business School of The University of St. Gallen in
Switzerland at the link below so as to get a taste of the ‘things that you see
from there and may not see from here.’
http://www.iwoe.unisg.ch/IWOE+News/2013/20130312_Taetigkeitsbericht.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment