China

China often gets a bad rap.

In the process of holding together a country of over one billion individuals the rights of those individuals sometimes play second fiddle 'for the greater good'.

There's also less consultation by the state. If it believes something is a good idea then there's a good chance of it happening (and quickly).

Whilst on a visit there a city was in the process of banning small motorcycles from roads in a bid to cut pollution. There was no debate, people were expected to give up their motorcycles and the state would give them a new electric motorcycle. Whole communities are also told when and where they will be moved to make way for large dam projects.

Some argue China needs to attach more importance to the rights of the individual, then again some states find themselves under fire for championing the rights of the individuals to the other extreme (at the expense of wider society).

One positive outcome of the speed with which China can turn policy into action is their record on renewable energy. At one stage China was building one coal fired power station per week. China clearly sees a sustainable future needs to be built on something other than fossil fuels, and the evidence is - in this regard - that China's actions speak louder than the fine words used by many western governments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7535839.stm

China is of course due to overtake the US as the worlds largest polluter. This could change in future if China stays the renewable course.

There's nothing more that makes western governments happier with themselves than to criticise the conduct of other countries. Communication is a two way street, and if China stays the renewable course then it is entirely right that China give the rest of the world a kick up the renewable backside. If China can raise their game they so can (and should) the rest of the world.

China could be setting an uncomfortable precedent in terms of its pace of change. Perhaps the west might be a touch more apprehensive about its criticism in future.

Give Renewables a Chance

The 'spiralling cost' of energy seems to be a very popular way to describe the fluctuations in the price of oil these days. As news pundits try to dramatise the issue for maximum effect, the world is whipped into a frenzy and advocates of nuclear power are rubbing their hands with glea.

For the price of oil, as well as concerns over the environment, do their corner no harm at all it seems. Governments are (in the West) talking up the prospect of nuclear power as some sort of win-win fix to the world's present 'energy crisis'.

Don't you just wish they'd hold up a minute? Whilst it's good news that the world gets used to paying more for its energy (for all sorts of reasons), the recent increases in the price of oil are not sustainable. Higher costs will at some point dampen demand, which will see prices fall.

Setting aside all debate about the rights and wrongs of nuclear power, lets hope that this frenzy does not give way to any sudden leaps in terms of policy. The world is waking up to the need to find alternative sources of energy, but let it make a reasoned choice and give plenty of time for alternatives to bubble to the surface.

We're an ingeneous lot and it would be a shame to reach for the first alternative to hand / the shortest path (i.e. the atom). Subsidies for nuclear power could quickly kill off the search for better alternatives. For example such as more efficient solar technologies like that developed by MIT (link below) which could yield massively more energy compared to conventional solar panels:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solarcells-0710.html

Just why are so many taking a very rose-tinted view of nuclear power these days? Surely there's no truth in conspiracy theories that suggest the richer countries want nuclear power to win through because of the leverage it offers them in terms of controlling access to it by other less well off countries (on grounds of security for example).

Hydrogen

The increase in the price of oil is a boost to those involved in alternatives. Hydrogen is one of a number of avenues being explored. The fact it releases nothing more than water when burnt probably gives it an edge, in terms of public perception at least, over alternatives.

It faces many challenges however. At present most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, though it can be produced (at greater cost) using electrolysis, biomass, or genetically engineered algae. Storage is also a problem. Despite containing more chemical energy by weight than any other substance, by volume it is five times less powerful than natural gas.

Despite these problems major car manufacturers are showing an interest in hydrogen.

BMW have a prototype vehicle. Despite storing liquid hydrogen at -253C in a 170 litre pressurised tank it delivers a range of only 124 miles. Needless to say this would also raise the bar in terms of the technology required to refuel vehicles such as this.

Honda have gone one step further and begun the first commercial production of a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cells. These use hydrogen to generate electricity and Honda claim a three fold improvement in efficiency over petrol engines.

Whether these vehicles are positioned to give their makers a genuine competitive advantage (anticipating a move towards mainstream adoption of this fuel), or to enhance their green credentials, is not clear. US actress Jamie Lee Curtis will, however, be among the first to take delivery of one of Honda’s vehicles.


Without taking anything away from Honda or BMW who have put up their money where others have only good intentions, the use of hydrogen as a fuel would be nothing new. Despite the well known application of hydrogen within the airship industry, a lesser known fact is that in the 1950s it was used as a 50% component of town gas in Britain.

The Cost of Living

We have become so adept at extracting fossil fuels from the ground they are the cheapest and most convenient way to produce energy that we know of. Yet at the rate we are using them up, all that trapped energy millions of years in the making will be consumed within in a couple of centuries.

We're also finding our addiction to fossil fuels is the cause of changes to the earth's environment which has implications for us and every other living thing on the planet. If we try to give them up now we may escape the worst of what is predicted to happen to us over the coming decades.

It's not easy though. We are on the whole a lazy bunch and don't do 'global co-operation' very well. One thing everyone understands however is money, how much things cost, and this is often used by governments to change our habits. The cost of energy if increased substantially would lead to a change in our behaviour, we would:

• Demand more efficient machines
• Make better use of the energy we have available (i.e. we would waste less)
• Cut out trivial applications altogether (bye bye patio heaters)

Higher energy costs will also improve the case for renewable energy sources to the point where they compete on grounds of cost. This should translate into greater R&D spend which in turn should lead to better performance. The earth receives more than enough energy every day in terms of energy from the Sun. We just happen to be especially bad at harvesting it.

It's unlikely that sufficiently high energy prices can be levied by any single government. Governments are tied too closely to the populations that elect them to sustain significantly higher energy prices. The pressure to remain competitive keeps this in check.

There are however at least two other routes to higher energy prices which include; the natural depletion of fossil fuels due to use, and international co-operation which will ensure a level playing field between countries. One of these will win through. Given the speed with which countries act in concert in these matters (or lack of it) versus growth of economies such as China and India, it could well be a disparity between demand and supply that forces humanity's hand in this matter. I.e. our supply of fossil fuels run short of demand.

We shouldn't really care too much how the end is achieved, but it would be nice to know that reason and co-operation could triumph over some of our more negative traits.