Accelerating the transition to sustainable energy systems

Abstract

The slow pace of transition to sustainable energy systems is the result of several factors running in parallel. The starting points are very low. Even 30% per annum increases in rated capacity (for wind energy or solar PV, for example) take many years to make a big impact at the global level. Policy initiatives are for the most part ineffectual in relation to the urgency and scale of what is required, and often fail to address the fundamental causes of this slow progress. This reflects a “top-down” approach—often accompanied by unrealistic targets and simultaneously undermined by a lack of consistency across policies, which reflect a “utopian social engineering mentality”, made worse because: “The Planner's response to failure of previous interventions (is) to do more intensive and comprehensive interventions” as William Easterly has put it. In short, there is little or no accountability. This approach has failed to harness the sympathy, imagination, self-interest, or sound options of energy users—although it may attract developers, including those not hitherto noted for renewable energy projects or environmental concern. Targets are usually too short term and clearly unrealistic, especially where fossil fuel use is rising very rapidly, and renewable energy use expands modestly. Government subsidies for traditional energy forms continue. Insufficient attention is paid to what individuals might achieve in energy efficiency and renewable energy terms if permitted to have, or retain (in industrialized countries, where the burden of taxation is often inhibiting), the wherewithal to make the necessary investments. Subsidy systems often promote renewable energy schemes that are misdirected and buoyed up by grossly exaggerated claims. One or two mature renewable energy technologies are pushed nationally with insufficient regard for their costs, contribution to electricity generation, transportation fuels’ needs, or carbon emission avoidance. Investors are rewarded excessively under some national schemes for mature technologies that should not require support, and that frequently do not make the contribution to renewable energy output or carbon emission avoidance they claim. Costs to business and domestic electricity consumers, through the subsidy payments they make, are much greater under some schemes than what other carbon abatement measures would cost. Higher-cost, less mature renewable energy technologies that have large potential for meeting global energy needs are not getting the support they warrant. This is of grave concern given the minimum 30–50 year lead times required to make a large global contribution. Without departing from the sense of urgency required to address the pressing needs for sustainable energy systems, it is imperative that the involvement of people at the grassroots level is harnessed and sound commercial and technical criteria are applied.