The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

9,856 Members

Post

Global Warming Needs Global Technology

Image

Solar powered traffic light, demonstrated at Maker Faire Africa in Lagos, 2012

Information and Technology Innovation Foundation (ITIF) analyst Clifton Yin reported that a key theme of ITIF’s recent Energy Innovation 2013 conference was “it’s global warming, not just ‘American’ warming.” Yin goes on:

“To fight climate change, policymakers need more than existing methods at their disposal and they must target clean technology innovations globally, according to experts,” is how E&E News summarized (subscription article) the event, with the emphasis on “globally.” It is thus unsurprising that economist Noah Smith wrote a thoughtful blog post that reaches the same conclusion.

Yin agrees in particular with Smith that

We will only save the planet if China (and other developing countries) stop burning so much coal. Any policy action we take to avert global warming will be ineffective unless it accomplishes this task.

Yin further notes that “Similar reasoning applies to India– where as many as 300 million people, or 25% of the population, do not yet have regular access to electricity – as well as the rest of the developing world seeking to rise from energy poverty.”

However Yin parts company with Smith when it comes to proposing what should be done:

“As I see it,” Smith concludes, “there is only one thing we can do: develop renewable technologies that are substantially cheaper than coal, and give these technologies to the developing countries.”

That’s where Yin sees Smith veering off “the beaten path”:

…innovating better clean technologies is clearly necessary, but giving them away is not. Natural technology diffusion through the global market should be sufficient to achieve widespread adoption, especially if clean technologies become genuinely cost and performance competitive without having to rely on subsidies – clean tech will sell itself.

There is merit to the arguments of both Yin and Smith. They are right that most existing alternative energy options cost too much, and breakthroughs are needed to create technologies that can compete commercially without subsidies.

Yet both Yin and Smith seem to be missing a couple of key points.

First, global warming is not the only global problem associated with the production and use of energy. Energy entails a multiplex of economic, social, environmental, and strategic impacts which are shared by many nations and which often spread across national borders. Some affect entire global systems in ways other than those associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, some of those other problems may provide more tangible and immediate motivation for energy technology innovation than uncertain speculations about the future impact of greenhouse gases seem to.

Next, this excerpt from Smith (not included by Yin) makes it clearer who Smith means as “we”:

Thus, the rich world should focus its efforts and money on developing renewable energy cheaper than coal. This mainly means solar; it also means better energy storage and transmission technologies. We should give these technologies away to China and other countries for free; the economic hit we take from doing so will help ease developing-country resentment over the fact that the U.S., Europe, Japan and others got rich by burning fossil fuels in the past.

There is something to be said for Smith’s idea of giving clean technology to developing countries. (Whether/how China and India or Brazil should be considered ‘developing’ is another matter.) First, ‘giving’ need not be an outright grant, but could be done in terms of generous licensing, leasing, etc. arrangements. These can be adjusted according to the recipient country’s economic, environmental, and social circumstances.

Donor countries themselves would reap some benefits from the aid approach. First, the economic efficiency of energy use in countries like China and India—in terms of BTUs/dollar of income—is several times lower than in the U.S. or Japan. So just raising the energy efficiency in those emerging economies up to the existing normal level in the leading developed economies would tend to lower energy prices and enhance energy security for all.

Second, the pollution from dirtier facilities in the developing countries tends to spread beyond their borders. Satellite images show the plume of soot and toxic wastes from Chinese smokestacks, etc. drifting across the Pacific to affect North America. And to the extent greenhouse gases are a concern, it is global.

Nevertheless, decades of experience with development aid show that the donation approach has significant liabilities. Donations undermine local markets, entrepreneurs, and business development. And donated technologies from wealthy countries often are not ‘appropriate’ to the specific circumstances of developing countries: They wind up being either useless or counterproductive.

That last flaw is extremely important, and it applies to the approach suggested by ITIF as well.

An ITIF report portrays Green Mercantilism—referring to unfair practices, of China in particular—as a “threat to the clean energy economy.” In addition to the usual legal and political counterattacks, that report’s authors call for a global agreement to protect free trade in green technology and to commit national contributions to R&D. But history indicates that forging such global compacts is fiendishly difficult. The Doha Round of international trade negotiations has been dragging on for over a decade without resolution. (That is not to be confused with the arguably more futile 17th COP conference on global warming in Doha last year.)

Despite its preference for trade over aid, one senses that ITIF’s conception of innovation does not differ very much from Smith’s: Advanced energy technology created primarily in rich countries (preferably the U.S.) would be sold rather than donated to developing countries. But to achieve rapid, global diffusion of breakthrough innovations, such technological chauvinism may not be an adequate improvement over the mercantilism ITIF criticizes.

Instead, the alternative, “Plan B” approach recommended in my recent book emphasizes open innovation and collaborative international development of clean technologies. This strategy recognizes that for clean technologies to be both widely and rapidly adopted, they need to be developed, produced, and deployed in the particular environments where they are to be used.

An instructive example: The menu of new McDonald’s restaurants in India is all vegetarian; existing McDonald’s in India serve no beef or pork. Two Indian entrepreneurs have been crucial to McDonald’s ability to develop products suitable to the Indian environment. 

Also, despite its corruption-hobbled economy, Indian industry has been a leader in creating technology that fits the needs and wallets of poor people—including Tata’s $2,000 automobile and the world’s cheapest tablet computer.

A recent interview by “disruptive innovation” guru Clayton Christensen suggests why that kind of innovation, attuned to the poor/developing world, is unlikely to occur in the U.S. and other rich countries: The institutions that groups like ITIF, Brookings Institution, et al expect to lead an invigorated innovation charge—elite universities and venture capitalists, along with their models of supposed success like Apple Computers or Tesla Motors—are themselves obsolescent and ripe for disruptive overthrow. One reason, in Christensen’s view, is their “always wanting to go upmarket.”

For more on Plan B and fixing the technical fix for global innovation, see:
http://www.energyinnovation.perelman.net

image: Innovative Energy via Wikimedia Commons

Content Discussion

Wilmot McCutchen's picture
Wilmot McCutchen on February 15, 2013

China and India need more power generation to meet expanding demand, and unless cold fusion or some radical breakthrough is found they will have to rely on coal-fired boilers. Wind and solar are bit players and will remain so for the foreseeable future, notwithstanding the naive or fraudulent claims of wind boosters.  See http://debarel.com/blog1/2013/02/08/50/

Given that reality, someone needs to discover scalable and inexpensive post-combustion CO2 capture and disposal technology.  Research has been mainly directed at incremental improvements to "proven" CCS in natural gas processing in the hope that it can be extrapolated to the much bigger volume of coal plants. But this is a vain hope. Chemical CO2 capture would double water consumption of coal plants, and underground storage ("sequestration") is a profoundly non-feasible option, in the opinion of prominent petroleum engineering professors.  See http://twodoctors.org/manual/economides.pdf  

Lewis Perelman's picture
Lewis Perelman on August 10, 2013

Sorry I had not noticed this comment sooner. But it somewhat misses the point, which is that creating innovations of all kinds — possibly to include CCS — needs to engage active participation of developing as well as developed countries.

Moreover, a key point was that breakthrough innovations are indeed needed to make renewable energy sources like wind or solar truly cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels or other conventional energy sources.

In the meantime, coal need not be the only option for developing countries like China and India. The fracking and horizontal drilling, etc., techniques that have made shale gas and oil increasingly abundant in the US could be applied in those countries as well. Substituting natural gas for coal in power generation is happening in the US and some other countries and potentially could in China and India too.

China has potential shale gas reserves even larger than those of the US albeit they are in more difficult geological formations. China is moving ahead in developing shale gas. India seems a bit more uncertain, with concerns about water supply (a problem in China too):

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/shale-gas-policy-a-game-changer-or-spoiler/article4924493.ece

But new technology for waterless fracking has been demonstrated that could make shale gas development more feasible in India, China, and elsewhere:

http://www.powermag.com/on-the-verge-of-waterless-fracking/

While a breakthrough in CCS could be a game-changer for some purposes, breakthroughs in renewable energy generation, efficiency, and/or storage also would be, and in some cases seem more attainable.

Wilmot McCutchen's picture
Wilmot McCutchen on August 10, 2013

Thanks for responding to my comment.  My intention was to call attention to problems that energy experts tend to ignore, such as water consumption and pollution.  Fracking and injection wells for frack flowback and other high salinity pollution (like reject brine from desalination) may be ruining the groundwater that agriculture depends on.  There are no big empty caverns down there; the wastewater has to be squeezed into rock, and there is no assurance it won’t migrate over time into the freshwater.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-fracking-wastewater-wells-poisoning-ground-beneath-our-feeth&page=10

Coal and nuclear power plants already waste a lot of fresh water into the atmosphere, and CCS would double an already unsustainable water consumption.  India and China are already short of water due to the waste at thermal power plants.

The contribution of non-hydro renewables is tiny (<3%) even with subsidies and mandates, and for good reasons they will always be midgets in meeting power demand.  So let’s stop pretending that they will grow to be giants, and spend on what might be scalable to the size of the challenge.     

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

We are always happy to have new members join us in that mission. If you have the knowledge to share, it is easy to post on Energy Central. Once your post is approved, it will be published on our website (with more than 100,000 users/month) and may also be published in one of our newsletters (which have between 10,000 and 60,000 circulation).

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »