The big question that everyone wants answered: What comes after oil? There is immense pressure on giant economies from China, who invested a massive US$51.1bn in renewables last year, to pick up pace on their own investments and R&D. The possibility of implementing a global carbon tax, as well as the general urgency for positive climate change, has pushed governments and energy corporations to diversify their energy sources.
The debate however, is flawed. There is no argument that renewables surely produce less carbon emissions than natural gas, but basic economics of scale will ensure that natural gas will take over as the top energy resource over the next two to three decades. Even with government subsidies and incentives, it would take huge technological breakthrough to overcome the cost-effectiveness of using gas.
Despite being cited countless times as a positive example, China is very much an outlying case for two strong reasons: Firstly, as an ascending world power, China would want to develop energy self-reliance. Given its resources and manpower it has the potential to do so, and once achieved, will allow the superpower to throw its weight around the region. Secondly, by leading in terms of renewable energy infrastructure manufacturing and investment, it provides jobs for its population, pulling millions of Chinese people out of poverty and eventually monopolizing the sector.
For most other countries however, there are insurmountable barriers to direct investment into renewables. Politicians from developing countries have but one goal, and that is to ensure that energy production matches the growth of their economies. When compared to the cost of coal, gas is more competitive than oil and will be a better choice, especially since it fills the nation's coffers and provide bandwidth to provide other basic needs such as education and clean water. In addition, many developed countries such as Singapore have little resources to seriously utilize any form of renewable energy.
Renewables may eventually reach the necessary cost-efficiency to compete at a level with fossil fuels, but as market forces will have it, the day will not come anytime soon. The defense strategy of most countries presently includes a diversification of energy sources, and security requires decoupling from intermittent, unpredictable sources such as wind and sunlight, or niche resources such as biofuels. Besides investing in nuclear plants, hoarding fossil fuels is still the only way to provide such security.
With regards to this particular debate however, both sides will probably pick sure-to-win stances that are not direct opposites, with the defending side insisting on the economies of scale behind gas and the challenger side insisting that renewables produce less carbon emissions than gas. It is in such a flawed debate that should lead one to question the importance of the politico-geographical context and the military defense strategy behind energy diversification.
No comments:
Post a Comment