The Power Solution for Beyond the Next Decade

As we move towards the electrification of most aspects of our lives, advanced countries are striving to meet this demand. However, the reality is that few people consider the source of the electricity required. Also, there are hidden costs that need to be discussed. In practice, we need a transition solution. Which one is it, and do you think it can be done in a cost-effective and sustainable manner?
Hand with Energy Transition Model

The Energy Debate

Looking out of my hotel room window in Hong Kong, like much of Asia and the rest of the world, where people live in close proximity, I can see the balance between the cost of pollution and the convenience of continuing to rely on fossil fuels. I've spent most of my life in Australia and other countries where emissions from vehicles, shipping, and coal-fired power plants are less obvious.

This represents one end of the energy debate. At the opposite end is the argument that it is not possible or safe for the world to transition to 100% renewable energy in just a few decades. The infrastructure that most countries operate on has been built up over at least 50 years. The decision to move toward completely abandoning fossil fuels will require years of implementation.

However, it is clear that we must begin the transition if we hope to move away from fossil fuels. The logical transition fuel is natural gas, and I believe nuclear power can also play a vital role, with surplus and off-peak power used to produce hydrogen for transportation.

Today, we live in buildings that require both heating and cooling, lifts, lighting, and cooking. We use computer networks, microwaves, fridges, dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, and dehumidifiers to make our urban lives function.

Many people no longer receive printed newspapers but instead read them online. We travel by car, bus, and electrified trains. All 8 billion people on earth aspire to this way of life. However, there are not enough locations near people to provide renewable energy using existing technology.

We cannot simply walk away from history

Fossil fuels have enabled large-scale industry and development in the modern city. The idea of renewables does not mean that the transition will be without considerable cost. It is said that this energy allowed modern cities to grow by a factor of ten (10) in just a few short decades. While some homes and factories may be able to utilize solar energy, it is not a feasible option for supporting great cities, many of which do not have dependable solar resources. Take, for instance, Beijing, London, Los Angeles, and Singapore.

A hard cold start

In most Western countries, the political decision has been made that we need to transition away from fossil fuels. This is evident from the composition of our governments and the rise of green parties globally. The debate is no longer whether we should make the transition or not, but rather how we can make it happen.

While there still exists much uncertainty and debate, it is clear that many of the expected technologies are not yet ready or proven. I have previously advocated for a solar-based green hydrogen industry, as well as the evaluation of both small and large modern nuclear power options.

With regards to nuclear power, it is fair to say that building a nuclear power station will cost billions and take approximately 20 years from decision to commission. Unfortunately, this timeline is not feasible. It is worth noting that a recent example in the United Kingdom saw a large nuclear power station run significantly over budget and take much longer to complete than planned.

As we move towards the electrification of most aspects of our lives, advanced countries are striving to meet this demand. However, the reality is that few people consider the source of the electricity required. In practice, we need a transition solution.

The Global Experience – we need a transmission solution.

As we scan the world, we can see that wind, water, and hydro are within reach and are seen as major contributors to moving towards a greener economy. In countries with large areas of sparsely populated land, such as the northern part of Australia and MENA, there is an opportunity to farm for hydrogen. The northern part of Australia has excellent sunshine for solar energy, and sufficient water can be found to convert into hydrogen, which can then be converted into ammonia for transportation purposes. Similarly, the Middle East has a huge opportunity to develop a different fuel industry.

Despite the recent fall in the price of lithium, we can expect that the battery industry will continue to improve its technology and play a major role in developing local and home storage capacity for solar and wind power. Unfortunately, urban areas consume the vast majority of power during peak hours, which tend to be built around the early morning and evening when wind and solar-generated electricity is not abundant. To harvest it when we need it, it needs to be stored. While supporting hydro may sound attractive, it's important to also understand that we are pushing water uphill, which takes more energy to push it up than it releases as it runs downhill.

The ongoing question remains - can it be done in a cost-effective and sustainable manner?

The need for mountains of copper

Green energy projects often cannot be located near centers of population or existing transmission lines associated with fossil fuel power generating units. In short, most countries need to build or extend the transmission grids to incorporate renewable energy.

In many countries, this raises supplementary issues about the location and extraction of the minerals necessary for building the renewable energy systems we need. The area needed for mining is relatively small compared to that required to allow for the transmission lines to be built, supported, and kept free from potential fire dangers. In most cases, it is simply impractical to place major high voltage power lines underground. The development of these new power transmission corridors will result in the sterilization of large amounts of land, reducing our ability to feed ourselves. This is a hidden cost that many refuse to discuss.

The New Challenge

If we believe that gas can only be an interim solution and that the amount and location of renewable energy in most parts of the world is finite, then we need to find a long-term solution. The one we know and have had for 80 years is nuclear. It is a high-cost solution and can be located where there is stable ground since most fossil energy conversion installations were built on such ground. They are connected to the grid. If we accept that it will take 20 years to build the facility, then we could have a fleet of them in operation commencing in 2044.

Courage will be required by our political leaders to accept that they really have no choice, and their procrastination is just deferring the inevitable and requiring us to burn even more fossil fuels in the interim.

Real leadership needs courage

Real leadership requires courage to deal with difficult problems. It is rarely seen among our politicians as they worry about the next electoral outcome, which is generally somewhere between two and five years away.

The issue is that they do not have a game plan and despite having commissions and boards, they do not want to deal with the hard questions. Given that there is no right answer, you are not going to get political support. The right answer needs to be explained, and amazingly, the middle electorate is quite sensible and understands that they need to maintain their living standards as well as those of the rest of the world.

Our living standards are given, which tells us we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels in ever-increasing amounts, and we need to traverse the trend.

Given our population is growing, we cannot sacrifice productive food areas. We need to use existing resources such as power grids as much as possible.

There is no Holy Grail, but rather, we will need to have an energy mix, and like the doorknob, a long-term transition to nuclear will be necessary. It will not be cheap, but it will be necessary.

It is important that our leaders treat this with the same gusto they took to going to the G20 and making commitments. Yes, we need to clean up the planet, and politics tells us we cannot reduce the amount of energy available to our community.

Do any of our readers have a better-considered opinion? If so, I would like to know. I do not understand how else we can achieve the necessary outcome, on the basis that we maintain our standard of living, including reducing pollution levels.

By Paul Raftery, CEO of Projects RH. We are happy to receive questions of comments at paulraftery@projectsrh.com

....................
Source: Kenny, C.; “Powering Into Modern World”, The Weekend Australian, 16-17 March, 2024.

6 thoughts on “The Power Solution for Beyond the Next Decade

  1. Paul Raftery says:

    Jorge Eduardo, I agree one of the major issues is a lack of even medium term policy let alone long-term policy with respect to energy. We do know that the world is demanding more power each year and we as a community want to see less fossil fuel burned so we need a demand for renewables. We should avoid anything be built being dependent on grants from government as these can easily disappear. Paul

  2. JORGE EDUARDO GOMEZ VILLEGAS says:

    The cientific knowledge Is out there, Is available, the big problem Is the lack of intention at the government side

  3. Thomas Alden Skidmore says:

    I think there is incredible economic potential in “Green Energy”, if we can release ourselves from the shackles of the traditional, and very profitable, paradigm of fossil fuels. Many of us have lived through the resistance towards technology, just as, 120 years ago, a popular cartoon called electricity “The Unrestrained Demon”.

    I hope we rise beyond human nature and embrace the future of energy as the next economic boom, such as the smartphone and the light bulb. More so, I hope we, as a species, do not go extinct because we couldn’t see sufficient profit margin to save ourselves.

    1. Paul Raftery says:

      For the team at Projects RH we are for an informed debate and an orderly transfer. The reality is we need more and more energy and it needs to come from diverse sources. I was recently working in Hong Kong and was amaised at the smog – it was local and man made. It is not something we commonly see in Australia. I suspect people will care for their children and force the change. Looking at developments in North America and Europe change has begun with the EU already imposing tariffs on thing no made in the same energy regime as theirs. Dollars will cause the change

  4. Christopher Hudson says:

    The biggest problem we have is finding a political leader willing to acknowledge the scientific facts to support energy decisions for our long term future rather than making popularist short term decisions so as to enhance their re-election.

    1. Paul Raftery says:

      Chris, thanks for avoiding talking about specific political parties. In the opportunities we see this applies across political systems leaders and their critics. The politifcal class seem only to want the support views which lead to their preferred outscome. We also need to we wary of the interlectuals who have overstated what they believe to be fact. Scientists either have employers, promotions, grants… to worry about and therefor are not objective. We just need to look at the different medical advice during Covid-19. What your saying has merit but what alternatives would you recommend remembering Projects RH is apolitical.

Comments are closed.