ENERGY FOR ALL
“Energy is the biggest business in the world; there just isn’t any other
industry that begins to compare.”[1]
—Lee Raymond, Chairman, ExxonMobil
Current Problem
* 3 billion people live in societies that are without access to enough energy
to meet their needs
* 30 to 40% of total global energy use is wasted, polluting the environment
Preferred State/ What the World Wants
Abundant, clean, safe, and affordable energy supplies for 100% of humanity—
Context
When I wrote my first book about the global energy situation in 1975 the idea
of a hydrogen economy powered by renewable energy sources seemed a thing of
science fiction.[2] Today, the situation is radically different. Hydrogen,
the cleanest fuel in the world, is getting serious attention and multi-billion
dollar investment as a fuel for vehicles, fuel cells, heating, and for its
potential to act as a energy carrier for remotely situated renewable energy
sources.[3],[4] In 2003 there were already seven liquid hydrogen-refueling
stations in Japan for their rapidly growing fleet of fuel cell vehicles.[5]
Global wind power was a $7 billion industry in 2001 and growing at a rate
in excess of 30% per year.[6] By 2008, there was over 94,000 megawatts of
wind power in the world.[7] The market for large wind turbines is expected
to be $16 billion per year by 2007.[8] From “science fiction” to economic
reality— this is an amazing difference brought about at incredible speed.
“Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial
societies and a perquisite for the economic development of the others.”[9]
Energy consumption doubled between 1950 and 1964. It doubled again between
1964 and 1980.[10] Since the energy “crisis” of the 1970s, energy use has
risen, but much less quickly as efficiency gains made each barrel of oil,
ton of coal and kilowatt of electricity perform more and more work per unit
of energy. Efficiency replaced supply as the source of new energy, or stated
another way— the cost of energy shifted our focus from supply to the demand
side of energy.
Even given these huge increases in energy supply and efficiency improvements,
over 2 billion people still have no access to electricity in the developing
world,[11] and billions more do not have the energy supplies needed to meet
the basic human needs of their societies outlined in the previous chapters
of this book.
As the UN points out, “The current energy system is not sufficiency reliable
or affordable to support widespread economic growth. The productivity of
one-third of the world’s people is compromised by lack of access to commercial
energy, and perhaps another third suffer economic hardship and insecurity
due to unreliable energy supplies.”[12] Energy, its supply and use play pivotal
roles in the economic growth needed for eradicating poverty as well as in
the generation (or alleviation) of global pollution. For example, on the macro
scale, over 6.8 billion tons of carbon is added to the world’s atmosphere
from the burning of fossil fuels every year.[13] On the micro scale, half
the world’s population is exposed to indoor air pollution from the burning
of solid fuels for cooking and heating. This is not a trivial problem. An
estimated 2 million premature deaths are caused each year in India alone from
this form of indoor air pollution— more than who die from malaria and nearly
as many as who die from AIDS each year.[14]
Changing energy sources or the technology for utilizing energy at either or
both scales will have profound impacts on the health of the environment and/or
individuals, as well as global and local economics.
Given the energy shortages that sap the abilities of developing regions to
meet their needs, and the inefficiencies that sap the health of global and
local ecosystems (as well as those of human beings and their economies), there
is a need for a series of radical global energy initiatives.
Energy for All Strategy 1: Increasing Energy Efficiency
Currently, inefficient uses of energy waste two to three times as much energy
as they provide in useful work.[15] Current energy-use efficiency could be
doubled—without a loss in productivity or standard of living— and at affordable
prices. New energy-use technologies have proven to be much more efficient
than traditional ones in reducing energy requirements to perform common tasks.
In Japan, where near-total dependence on foreign oil prompted significant
efficiency improvements, oil consumption decreased since the oil shocks of
the 1970s, even though Japan’s economy has since doubled in size.[16] In
2003, Japan’s energy consumption per million dollars of GNP is about 80% of
what it was in 1970.[17] If the U.S were to match Japan (or Sweden) in efficient
use of energy it would save $200 billion per year and make its industry more
competitive at the same time.[18]
Industrial uses of energy are a fertile ground for energy efficiency improvements.
Replacing all the electric motors currently powering industrial processes
(responsible for three-fourths of industry’s electricity use) with state of
the art efficient motors and motor system improvements would double efficiency
(cut electricity use in half). The savings on this efficiency investment
would pay for itself in about 6 months.[19] Using highly efficient co- and
tri-generation units to meet a firm’s electricity, heat and cooling needs
wherever this is feasible would reduce the U.S. total CO2 emissions by 23%.
Selling the surplus heat generated by these units to others could save 11%
of the total U.S. energy use.[20] Phasing out the inefficient coal and oil
power plants that generate much of the world’s electric power (wasting 66%
of their energy content in the process) with co- and tri-generation units
that are more than twice as efficient will save even more energy—and cut down
on the release of carbon to the atmosphere.
Replacing all large household energy using appliances with their state of
the art most efficient counterparts would likewise save about half the energy
in use by the household sector of the economy. Replacing half of the household
and apartment building oil and gas fueled furnaces in the developed world
with small- or micro-scale cogeneration units[21] would produce more electricity
than all the fossil and nuclear power plants in operation, making their phase
out even more compelling.
Visionary local utilities could take the lead in many of these efficiency
moves. They could do everything from buying up obsolete, inefficient, and
often dangerous appliances and replace them with their most efficient energy
saving versions. Given the energy savings and the resulting avoided costs
of having to build additional generating capacity, the old appliances are,
as energy analyst and wit Amory Lovins puts it, “worth more dead than alive.”[22]
This tactic could be extended to replacing inefficient furnaces in their customer’s
homes and buildings with small-scale cogeneration units as a way of phasing
out their own inefficient mega-power plants, reducing carbon emissions, and
adding to their bottom line. Such a move would cut fuel costs that formerly
went into centralized large-scale electric power plants. If utilities funded
the purchase of these efficient home-based small-scale co-generation units,
they could get the electricity for “free” if their customers agreed to continue
to buy the fuel that went into heating their homes. Once the co-generation
unit was paid for from the averted costs of electricity, the utility could
begin paying the homeowner for the electricity at wholesale rates and reselling
it at retail. Depending on efficiency and fuel costs, the homeowner might
be able to then heat their house for “free” given the revenue stream from
the sale of electricity to the utility.
Investing an average of $30 billion per year for ten years in improving energy
efficiency—through such programs as weatherization for buildings, heavier
use of insulation and other residential and commercial energy saving devices,
state of the art energy efficient appliances and lighting, as well as energy
efficient industrial processes, and increased automobile fleet mileage to
50 miles per gallon—would cut in half the total energy needs of the world
while not decreasing the performance or benefits technology has brought. [23]
Fuel economy in 2002 of the U.S. car and light truck fleet was 20 miles per
gallon on highways.[24] Given that vehicles are commercially available that
get over 65 miles per gallon it does not take rocket science to conclude that
there are enormous energy, dollar and environmental savings that would accrue
to a move to a more efficient fleet of motor vehicles in the U.S. For example,
in 2002 the U.S. had about 128 million cars. These vehicles traveled 2.3
trillion miles in that year and consumed 125.6 billion gallons of fuel[25]—
an average of 18.3 miles per gallon. Raising fuel efficiency to the standards
of other countries (30 mpg) would save the U.S. almost 50 billion gallons
of gasoline and $75 billion (with gasoline at $1.50 per gallon). Each car
would save $570. Raising fuel efficiency to the already-on-the-market standard
of 60 mpg would save each car $1,020 in gas costs and the U.S. economy $130
billion per year (more than the amount spent on imported oil). In addition,
carbon emissions would be cut 70% from 302 million tons per year to 92 million
tons (enough for the U.S. to meet the Kyoto protocol).
Energy-efficiency programs have reduced energy costs by about twice the amount
invested in energy efficiency, indicating a sizable savings for energy users.[26]
An investment of $30 billion per year would result in more than enough energy
savings to pay for these investments. In addition, the production and installation
of energy-saving devices on a global scale will provide employment and valuable
skills for large numbers of people.
Energy for All Strategy 2: Sustainable Energy Systems
The second component of the providing Energy for All strategies entails
a significant development effort to provide a viable, safe, secure and affordable
alternative to current fossil sources of energy—which are exhaustible, increasingly
expensive, from often politically volatile and unstable sources, pose health
risks to people living near production and processing facilities, and are
mostly carbon-rich and hence accelerate global warming. The Sustainable
Energy Systems strategy has seven components:
1. Sustainable Energy Assessment
One of the more important components of the overall strategy is the accurate
assessment and mapping of the world’s renewable energy sources. The UNEP,
along with some “green energy” research centers around the world, have begun
the process of identifying the most viable wind and solar power sites in the
developing world. The Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment
is aimed at determining the most promising wind and solar sites in 14 countries.[27]
In this part of the Sustainable Energy Systems strategy, this effort,
funded in 2003 at less than $10 million per year will be expanded by more
than an order of magnitude so that all the developing countries in the world
get all their renewable energy sources (not just wind and solar, but geothermal,
small-scale hydro, biomass, wave and tidal sources) assessed and mapped. In
2003, only three countries in Africa are included in the limited assessment.
The new program will include all 45+ countries in Africa.
The purpose of these comprehensive assessments will be to eliminate the uncertainty
about size and intensity of each renewable energy site. Such information will
provide potential investors with the knowledge that will enable them, with
great accuracy, to determine locations where they can get a good and fair
return on their investments. Once countries and investors know where the
best renewable energy sites are they can make the investments needed to harness
these energy sources and sites. For example, the Philippines, when it received
an energy assessment that indicated the enormous wind energy potential of
its nation, changed its energy strategy to include a greater reliance on wind
power. With accurate information the risk for public or private investment
is reduced to such an extent that large pools of foreign investment can be
brought to bear on meeting the energy needs of the developing world. Such
investments can be made quickly— which is another benefit of this program:
the amount of time needed to implement a given project will be shortened by
at least 12 months with these renewable energy assessments.
The cost of the Sustainable Energy Assessment program is $150 million
per year for ten years.
2. Subsidy Eradication
Another component of the Sustainable Energy Systems strategy is the
progressive reduction and elimination of all subsidies to oil, coal, gas and
nuclear energy. Globally, an estimated $250 to $300 billion per year subsidy
distorts the market and makes these fuels less expensive than the renewable
energy and efficiency gains alternatives.[28] Internalizing just the air
pollution costs of burning gasoline in our cars ($300 billion per year) would
result in gas prices $2.00 higher than they are now.[29] Covering all the
costs of U.S. car culture except global warming would result in gas costing
around $8.00 per gallon.[30] Yet another example of our propensity for subsidies,
this one with serious geopolitical as well as taxpayer and consumer significance,
is the $30 billion to $60 billion per year the U.S. spends on securing Persian
Gulf oil[31] (this figure is pre-Iraq war; the figure is much higher now).
The U.S. pays approximately $21.4 billion for the oil it buys from this region.[32]
Adding in the cost of the “hidden” military expenditure subsidy would at least
double the cost of oil from this region.
A full cost accounting that includes environmental and health costs, nuclear
waste clean up and storage, security costs, and lessened employment, would
result in the costs of energy from renewable sources being substantially lower
than that from fossil and nuclear sources.[33] For example, coalmine dust
kills 2,000 miners each year. The Federal black lung disease benefits program
has cost the U.S. taxpayer $35 billion since 1973. [34] This subsidy has
made electricity generated from coal-fueled power plants appear to cost less
than its actual cost to society. Adding in other costs of coal, such as acid
deposition, smog, visibility degradation, global warming, increased incidence
of asthma, and respiratory and cardiovascular disease make the true, unsubsidized
cost of coal even higher.[35] As The Economist notes, “Removing all subsidies
to fossil fuels would encourage consumers both to conserve energy and to switch
to other fuels, something that would cause greenhouse gases to fall 4 to 18%.”[36]
Even with modest levels of incentives and funding, renewable energy sources
such as solar and wind power plants have exhibited substantial economic benefits.[37]
The fastest growing energy source in the world is wind power, which expanded
worldwide from 2,000 megawatts in 1990 to nearly 4,800 in 1995 to 39,000 megawatts
in 2003. [38] ,[39]
The cost of the Subsidy Eradication program is $2 billion per year
for ten years.
3. Hydrogen Jump Start
Another component of the Sustainable Energy Systems strategy is an emphasis
on hydrogen as both a carrier medium for remotely located renewable energy
sources and as a fuel source for fuel cells, vehicles and industrial processes.
To jump-start the hydrogen economy governments will provide tax incentives
to industries with large fleets to make the transition to hydrogen-powered
vehicles. Hydrogen use by government vehicles will also stimulate the market
and provide the incentives for investment in this “ultimate” fuel source.
The cost of the Hydrogen Jump Start program is $3 billion per year
for ten years.
4. Global Energy Extension Service
Another component of the overall strategy will be the Global Energy Extension
Service. Modeled after the hugely successful Agricultural Extension Service
in the U.S., this program will work with regions, towns, communities and small
industries in developing parts of the world to increase their energy supply,
efficiency, reliability, affordability and sustainability. One of its areas
of focus will be the development of renewable energy sourced village-owned
micro-power generators to meet a village’s electricity needs, replacing the
need for large centralized electric grids. If the grid ever makes it to the
village, the village could sell surplus electricity to the city as a means
of increasing its revenue.
Another focus will be on small-scale energy production from petroleum sources.
There are thousands of small pockets of oil throughout the world that are
too small to warrant investment by the world’s large oil companies but nevertheless
could provide a valuable addition to a local economy. Instead of producing
hundreds of thousands of barrels per day, these micro production facilities
would produce 10 to 500 barrels per day.
The cost of the Global Energy Extension Service program is $2 billion
per year for ten years.
5. Sustainable Energy Research and Development
The Global Energy Extension Service will foster the use of the most
advanced renewable energy technology and work closely with the Global
Food and Agriculture Extension Service. Part of the Energy Extension
Service will include a research component that networks the leading research
and development sustainable energy laboratories of the world with each other
and the needs and people of the developing world. The model for this is already
in existence: the Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development, started
by UNEP, is made up of ten centers in ten developing and developed countries
that promote research and the transfer of clean energy technology. This program
will also be expanded by an order of magnitude so that it reaches all developing
countries and their energy needs.
The cost of the Sustainable Energy Research and Development program
is $4 billion per year for ten years.
6. Sustainable Energy Microfinance
Another component of the Global Energy Extension Service will be
a micro-finance service that will help bring clean, affordable, and sustainable
energy to the poor in developing regions for use in home cooking and lightening,
school lightening, running health services, and increasing production to create
jobs.
Many of the developing world’s poorest communities rely on traditional forms
of energy (wood fuels, dung and crop wastes) that are often expensive, inefficient,
and damaging to human and environmental health. Nearly 30% of the total energy
used in the poorest countries in the world is from these traditional fuel
sources.[40] The cost of pollution from this has been estimated at $150 to
$750 billion per year.[41]
The cost of the Sustainable Energy Microfinance program is $3 billion
per year for ten years.
7. Sustainable Energy Frontier Projects:
The following projects are examples of exploratory efforts that could be undertaken
by various government and non-governmental agencies as a means for developing
new options for humanity.
A. Greening Coastal Deserts
There are over 25,000 miles of coastal desert in the world.[42] Often these
lands are fertile and not far from large concentrations of people. Greening
these deserts through water efficient irrigation with fresh water extracted
from the ocean through locally abundant solar, wind and wave powered desalination
units would not only produce additional food (potentially 10% to 50% of the
world’s total supply), but such a greening would help the global economy through
the creation of additional jobs, and help the climate and global warming through
the sequestration of additional carbon from the atmosphere.
The vast solar, wind and wave resources of these regions could be harnessed
to not only produce fresh water. Once enough water was produced these same
devices could be used to produce hydrogen for the global economy.
B. Hydrogen from Remote Sources
In addition to obtaining hydrogen from sustainable energy sources located
in coastal desert regions, other remote sites around the planet could be valuable
producers of hydrogen. For example, the wind energy potential of Antarctica
is enough to power the entire planet. Along with the record for low temperatures,
Antarctica also holds the record for high winds. The part of Antarctica facing
Australia frequently has winds over 100 miles per hour. Mawson’s Base at
Commonwealth Bay experiences winds above gale force (28 mpg/44kph) more than
340 days a year.[43]
Huge energy reserves in the form of wind can also be harnessed is less remote
and hostile sites by using the most recent wind turbines that operate at lower
speeds and allow winds at greater heights to be tapped. The sparsely populated
Great Plains of North America (particularly North Dakota, Kansas and Texas),
northwest China, eastern Siberia, the Patagonian region of Argentina, and
offshore many countries has the potential to provide the entire world not
just with our electricity needs but all our energy needs.[44] Harnessing
a fraction of this potential for the production of hydrogen could make a significant
contribution to meeting global energy needs from clean, non-depleting sources.
The cost of the Sustainable Energy Frontier Projects program is $850
million per year for ten years.
With a vibrant renewable energy industry, new growth industries will replace
an older industry whose fluctuating fuel costs have led to periods of severe
unemployment, recession and instability in many areas. Switching over to
renewable energy sources as rapidly as prudent and practical economics allows
would endow the world energy regime with increased economic, political and
environmental security.
An investment of $15 billion per year for ten years dedicated to phasing in
and development of renewable energy sources and a hydrogen economy would enable
humanity to embark on a path toward a sustainable system of fulfilling the
world’s energy needs. These resources would be spent on assessing and mapping
sustainable energy sources, eliminating subsidies to fossil and nuclear energy
sources, setting up a global energy extension service, a global sustainable
energy research and development coordinating agency, and a sustainable energy
micro-finance system. Phasing out economic subsidies to oil, gas, coal and
nuclear industries, while phasing in temporary incentives to renewable energy
sources and hydrogen to break the stranglehold of the entrenched energy system
status quo—would level the economic playing field for all energy sources.
Government use of renewable energy for its military, postal and administrative
functions would create the infrastructure and mass market needed for mass
production and economic competitiveness in today's economy. National tax incentives,
similar to that which in California resulted in over 4,000 megawatts of installed
wind power in less than six years, would also accelerate the switch to renewable
energy in the developed world.
Costs/Benefits—Energy for All
The Increasing Energy Efficiency component of the Energy for
All strategy would cost $30 billion per year for ten years. By increasing
the energy efficiency of the world’s buildings, transportation systems, motors,
furnaces and other users of energy, society can reduce its dependence upon
fossil fuels, along with their contribution of global warming gases and their
unstable prices, and nuclear energy, with its radioactive waste, soaring costs,
and security, environmental and social risks. Other benefits include a new
industry with large employment potential greatly in excess of the existing
energy system— investments in renewable energy lead to about ten times the
number of jobs than comparable investments in fossil energy,[45] —more available
energy supplies for future growth and at easily scalable quantities, and more
energy at affordable prices for developing regions of the world.
The $30 billion per year for ten years needed to dramatically increase the
efficiency of the world’s energy system by almost 100% is about 3.8% of what
the U.S. spends on energy each year[46], 3.3% of the world’s total annual
military expenditures, 12% of the world’s illegal drug trade, or less than
15% of the subsidies received by U.S. corporations each year from the government.[47]
It would also be 4% to 20% of the human and environmental costs of just the
use of inefficient traditional fuels sources in the poorest regions of the
world.[48]
The supply side Sustainable Energy Systems of the Energy for
All strategy would cost $15 billion per year for ten years. This total
investment is only 13% of current subsidies to electricity prices in the developing
world[49] or about 1.6% of the world’s total annual military expenditures.
It is also about the same as what Exxon-Mobil made in profits in 2000.[50]
Benefits include a cleaner environment, less carbon emissions into the atmosphere,
more stable energy supplies in price and in potential for political disruption,
and more availability of energy in energy-needing parts of the world.
The entire $45 billion Energy for All strategy could be funded by
0.005% of what the United Nations Environmental Programme forecasts will be
invested in new power projects over the next 20 years,[51] or the redirection
of a small part of the current subsidies to the world’s energy system. Another
suitable and viable source that also has ancillary benefits would be a tax
on the carbon content of fuel. A carbon tax of 2.25% on global energy revenues
would generate more than enough to cover the Energy for All strategies[52].
Such a tax would help make sure the cost of fossil fuels reflected the costs
they imposed on human health and the environment.[53] The tax would have
the added benefits of reducing the release of carbon into the atmosphere and
being a powerful incentive for the transition to a more efficient and secure
energy system.
Getting the world all the energy it needs, and getting that energy in sustainable
and affordable ways, has enormous impacts on nearly all aspects of our global
and local societies— including that of making us “richer.” Adding up the benefits
that accrue from meeting the world’s energy needs in the ways described here
include such things as increased efficiency, lower energy costs, more assured
and plentiful energy supplies, less political instability, increased global
and local productivity, less indoor and outdoor pollution, fewer deaths from
pollution— saving the lives of just half the 2 million lives ended prematurely
each year because of indoor air pollution generates $1 trillion per year in
benefits to global society;[54] saving the lives of the 500,000 people who
die each year from the air pollution caused from burning fossil fuels[55]
would add another $500 billion. UNEP estimates that the economic burden of
the pollution caused by our current energy system is between 0.5% and 2.5%
of world GNP,[56] some $250 billion to $1.25 trillion. In our quest for billionairehood,
these gains have profound impacts, but they don’t necessarily put a billion
dollars into our individual pockets, unless we start to measure the monetary
value of clean air, strip mine-free landscapes, and political instability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The global energy business is a $1.7 to $2 trillion/year business. (The
Economist, February 10, 2001, p. 6 Energy Survey)
[2] Energy, Earth and Everyone, (Straight Arrow Press, 1975; Second and updated
edition, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1980) Energy, Earth and Everyone was the
first book to examine, evaluate and map all the world’s sources of energy,
including all the renewable energy sources. It showed how a renewable energy
powered hydrogen economy could provide three times the amount of energy needed
to meet all of global society’s needs with then-current technology. Today’s
more advanced renewable energy technology could do even more.
[3] European Commission’s “Hydrogen Vision” is a $2 billion hydrogen fuel
promotion strategy. The U.S. has a $1.2 billion plan. (Reported in The Economist,
February 25, 2003, p. 73, “These fuelish things”).
[4] As further testimony to the growing viability of hydrogen, it is now the
focus of critical review in mainstream scientific publications, e.g. David
W. Keith, Alexander E. Farrell, “Rethinking Hydrogen Cars” (Science, July
18, 2003, p. 315).
[5] Japan for Sustainability Digest 28 July- August 5, First Liquid Hydrogen
Refueling Station Opens in Tokyo http://www.japanfs.org/db/database.cgi?cmd=dp&num=356&UserNum=&Pass=&AdminPass=&dp=data_e.html
[6] Vital Signs 2002 (Worldwatch Institute, W. W. Norton Company 2002 p. 42).
[7] Vital Signs 2008 (Worldwatch Institute, W. W. Norton Company 2008).
[8] Vital Signs 2003 (Worldwatch Institute, W. W. Norton Company 2003 p. 38).
[9] John P. Holdren, “Meeting the Energy Challenge” (Science, February 9,
2001, p. 945).
[10] For energy consumption figures for 1950 and 1964: UN, World Energy Supplies
1950-74. Series J, No. 19 (New York: UN, 1976), p. 11. For 1987 figure: UN,
1987 Energy Statistics Yearbook, (New York: UN, 1989, p. 3).
[11] Energy Survey “A brighter future?” (The Economist, February 10, 2001,
p.11).
[12] World Energy Assessment 2000, (UN, World Energy Council, 2001)
[13] Earth Policy Institute, http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2004.htm
[14] Energy Survey “A brighter future?” (The Economist, February 10, 2001,
p.22) and, WHO, World Health Report: Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life
(WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2002), which has a lower figure of 1.6 million
premature deaths per year.
[15] Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism, (New York,
Little, Brown and Company, 1999).
[16] 1979 oil consumption: 237 million MT [UN, 1981 Energy Statistics Yearbook,
(New York: UN, 1983), p.309]; 1987 oil consumption: 156 million MT (UN, 1987
Energy, p. 156); GNP growth rate (1965-1988): 4.3% The World Bank, 1990,
p. 179.; Also see: D. E. Sanger, “Japan’s Oil Safety Net: Will It Hold?,”
New York Times, 9 August 1990, p. D18.
[17] World Resources Institute, EarthTrends Energy and Resources—Japan, (Washington
DC WRI, 2003). http://earthtrends.wri.org
[18] Norman Myers, “Consumption: Challenge to Sustainable Development…” (Science,
April 4, 1997, p. 54).
[19] Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, Paul Hawken, Natural Capitalism, (New York,
Little, Brown and Company, 1999 p. 246).
[20] ibid. p. 247
[21] These small scale cogeneration units could be powered by a small internal
combustion engine coupled with heat exchangers, all encased in a sound proof
box. Fiat produced such a unit in the 1980s that ran on a variety of fuels,
including gasoline, kerosene, methane, natural gas and hydrogen. Other small-scale
cogeneration units in the works include fuel cells.
[22] Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, Paul Hawken, Natural Capitalism, (New York,
Little, Brown and Company, 1999, p. 251).
[23] Brown et al., 1988, pp. 182-83.
[24] Martin I. Hoffert, et al., “Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate
Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet,” (Science, November 1, 2002, p.
982).
[25] Vital Signs 2003 (Worldwatch Institute 2003, p. 56).
[26] Sanger, p. D18.
[27] UNEP. http//:swera.unep.net
[28] Wind Force 12, (Greenpeace and European Wind Energy Association, p. 12,
2002) http://www.choose-positive-energy.org/html/content/news_prscntr.htm
[29] Norman Myers, “Consumption: Challenge to Sustainable Development…” (Science,
April 4, 1997, p. 54).
[30] Ibid.
[31] D. Losman, Economic Security: A National Security Folly? (Cato Institute
Policy Analysis No. 409, Washington DC 2001).
[32] Monthly Energy Review, (U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington
DC, February, 2002). In Peter Raven, “Science, Sustainability, and the Human
Prospect” (Science, August 9, 2002).
[33] Gabel, Energy Earth and Everyone, p. 102-103.
[34] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2001); http://www.cdc.gov./niosh/mngfs.html
[35] Mark Z. Jacobson, Gilbert M. Masters, “Exploiting Wind Versus Coal” (Science,
August 24, 2001, p. 1438)
[36] “Climate Tempestuous” (The Economist, July 26, 1996, p. 68).
[37] The rapid, and profitable, installation of over 1000 megawatts of wind
energy systems in California is a recent example. It is estimated that $30,000
worth of electricity can be produced on each hectare (2.47 acres) devoted
to wind farming. (Brown, et al., 1988, p. 177).
[38] L. Brown, “Wind power set to become world’s leading energy source” (Earth
Policy Institute, June 25, 2003, http://wwwearth-policy.org/Updates/Updates24.htm).
[39] Lester Brown, “Europe Leading World Into Age Of Wind Energy” (Earth Policy
Institute, April 8, 2004, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update37.htm).
[40] UNDP, Human Development Report 2003 (New York, UNDP, 2003, p. 303).
[41] UN Foundation, UNEP, Open for Business: Entrepreneurs, Clean Energy and
Sustainable Development, (New York, UN Foundation, UNEP, 2002.)
[42] Hellman, Feeding the World of the Future
[43] Medard Gabel, Energy, Earth and Everyone, (Anchor Press, New York, 1980,
p.127).
[44] Lester Brown, Wind Power Set To Become World's Leading Energy Source
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update24.htm
[45] Daniel Kammen, “The Renewable Energy Job Engine,” in SolarAccess.com
News (http://www.solaraccess.com/news/story?storyid=6513&p=1 )
[46] U.S. commercial energy expenditures: $790 billion per year.
[47] U.S. corporate subsidies: $200 billion; (The Economist, May 28, 1994,
p. 24).
[48] $150 to $750 billion; UN Foundation, UNEP, Open for Business: Entrepreneurs,
Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, (New York, UN Foundation, UNEP,
2002.
[49] “Climate Tempestuous” (The Economist, July 26, 1996, p. 68).
[50] Fortune 500, (New York, Fortune Magazine)
[51] UNEP, “Natural Selection: Evolving Choices for Renewable Energy Technology
and Policy,” (UNEP, March, 2001).
[52] Global energy expenditures are $1.5 to $2.0 trillion; Energy Survey “A
brighter future?” (The Economist, February 10, 2001, p. 6).
[53] Energy Survey “A brighter future?” (The Economist, February 10, 2001,
p.6).
[54] Assuming each life is worth $1 million; assuming each life to be worth
$100,000 provides the world economy with $100 billion.
[55] UNEP, “Natural Selection: Evolving Choices for Renewable Energy Technology
and Policy,” (UNEP, March, 2001).
[56] Ibid.
Back to Price of Peace