Ettore Majorana Foundation and Center for Scientific Culture

Pontificia Academia ScientiarumSession on Planetary Emergencies, Rome, December 2006

Energy Crisis

or Environment Crisis?Richard Wilson

Harvard University

1972 Boston APS meetingTalks on:

CoalOil supply

Nuclear risksNuclear Future

SolarGlobal climate change

1977, 1978,1979, 1981?Amman and Wilson

School on Energetics in Erice

All emphasized the coming of Nuclear Energy

One of our books emphasized efficient use

Plenty of Coal: probably for 1000 years

AustraliaChinaIndia

RussiaUSA

Even now, enough oil at present rates for 100 years can `easily

handle 30% increase over 2006 rates

(OPAEC reports, BP, Middle East Economic Suvey etc)

But distribution forces political issues

The issue is not the availability of

resouces but the willingness to use them.

The Crisis is EnvironmentalCoal burning: particulates, mercury

Carbon burning: CO2 concentrations,

global warming potentialNuclear: Bombs,Bad press

IN TE R N A TIO N A L EN E R G Y A G E N C Y A G E N C E IN TE R N A TIO N A LE D E L ’EN E R G IE

G lobal C O 2 Em issions

Source: E nergy Inform ation A dm inistration (W IA ) International E nergy O utlook 2004(IE O 2004).

Global Economic Growth

Annual Growth %1977 – 2001 2001 – 2025

Industrialized Countries (ICs) 3.0% 2.4 % Developing Countries (DCs) 4.8 % 4.6 % China 8.2 % 6.1 % India 4.9 % 5.2 %East Europe / FSU - 2.9 % 4.1 %World 3.3 % 3.0 %

Source: WEO (2002), IEO (2004).

In 1970s environmentalists talkedabout conservation of

energy;

Physicists had proved it 150 years before.

The only controversy was how to pronounce the name of the

Scotsman, Joule

Scientists have had one major success! Environmentalists now say Energy Efficiency.

Electricity generation efficiency (1st law): 1908 8%

1970 33%-40%2000 up to 60%

End use efficiency improving:But please!

Turn down the thermostat!

1

E need a rate ten times greater.US managed that in 1970s and

France in 1980s.Why not everyone else?

That is a question of public acceptance

Problem for environmental movement:Which do you like least?

Nuclear Power?or Global Climate Change?

If 1970 nuclear momentum continued:USA 80% electricity - nuclear

Plus nuclear process heat or hydrogen generation

over 5 X effect of Kyoto!Founder of GREENPEACE says nuclear.

Fuels for transportion:Ethanol/methanolno big change in infrastructure

from coal/oil/corn/cellulose

ONLY CELLULOSE REDUCES CO2

in USA subsidy for Archer Daniels Midland!

hydrogenfrom fossil fuels/nuclear

BATAVIA ILLINOISThe Windmill city

More windmills made than any other city (before 1970)

Now no windmillsonly FERMILAB

Erice meetings constantly urge a return to nuclear power.

The list of initiatives listed in 2006 Stern report - proposals or tokenism

Germany and now UK 20% renewable electricity:

wind 50% more expensive than coal or nuclear

But:German experience

( Birkhofer at Erice in 2005)Wind about 50% more expensive

that coalUS subsidy 2 cents per kwh

Carbon sequestrationCesare Marchetti talked about it in 1979 Near Gibralter and off South Sea Islands deep

and shallow oceans mix

we all laughedTOO SOON!

In oil wells (secondary recovery)In deep oceans

In mineral depositsunder Venice to raise the city!

Therefore we recommend that governments and international agencies treat all non carbon energy technologies on a par with each other with access to similar subsidies and benefits of removal of financial market barriers so that improved versions of all these technologies can rapidly be utilized for achieving stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions while meeting energy demand.

There is talk of a gas tax.Or carbon tax

It should be a general taxwith no exceptions.

Scientists have to inform the economists:

Apply control, or tax when carbon leaves the ground and enters the

surface pool.

Only a “few” placesoil wells, mines, ports etc.

We must NOT forget the long term: 100 years +

Erice in 2004 Prof. Abul Barkat of University of Dhaka

showed that:rural electrification reduces the gap

between rich and poorElectrification 50%+ complete in

Bangladesh2006 Nobel Peace Prize

Professor Yunus of Grameen Bank Add Science

Then their work for poor people, will be enhanced

A DIGRESSION

I have been working in Bangladesh with a fine surgeon

Dr Quasi Quamruzzaman (Zaman)

on the right in the following photograph

35 Years ago the Pakistani Army went on a rampage in East Pakistan:

Zaman picked up a gun - he was a terroristHe began to win - he was a Freedom Fighter

He won - he was a statesman

34 years later there was an earthquake in NW Pakistan so within a week:

Zaman with a dozen nurses and physicians set up a field hospital with his former enemy

Zaman never changed - the world changed

INDIA

• Over 700 million people in villages do not use commercial energy. About 80% of their energy consumption comes from non-commercial energy ; mainly biomass resources

• Only 43.5% of rural households use electricity; energy service is unreliable and a poor quality

• Majority of villages that remain to be electrified are remote; extension of centralised grid would be uneconomical

(Source : Government of India)

Therefore, we recommend that multinational and national agencies develop the capability of efficiently funding micro projects. This might be done through

private intermediaries such as the Grameen Bank. Long-term loans should be on a par with loans for large-scale

projects but with practices and conditions appropriate for very small-scale investments. 

Further, it is recommended that an element of subsidy support initially be linked to such investments. This

support could take the form of low return equity or an interest subsidy that is part of the financial package. In this, national or international equity support should be

forthcoming to match any community or other local investment.