Bringing Power to the World’s Poor

(12/22/2008) - One of the biggest long-term challenges in the battle to prevent global warming will be convincing China, India, and every other developing nation not to follow in our footsteps by developing a coal powered and gasoline fueled economy.  It is a problem that doesn't get sufficient attention from global warming activists in the United States, who try to tailor their solutions to the United States without considering global implications.

In a 2007 talk at the World Affairs Council of Northern California, Steven Chu (Obama’s nominee for Energy Secretary) outlined some of the problems the world faces.  Chu said that somewhere between two to three billion people don’t have access to “modern energy...meaning that they cook with dung or sticks.”  He also estimated that 1.6 to 1.7 billion people don’t have access to electricity. 

This will change as countries like China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Botswana, and many more increase the standard of living within their borders.  Demand for electricity is rising around the world and most of it is fulfilled with power produced in coal-fired plants.  Chu says that the good and the bad news is that there’s plenty of coal left to feed rising demand.

China and India have the third and fourth largest coal reserves in the world, respectively.  At 2006 rates of extraction, China has enough coal to last 48 more years.  India has enough for 206.  If developing countries cannot supply their own needs, there are plenty of countries to turn to for importable coal.  Russia has the world’s second highest reserves and enough coal for 500 years at current production levels.  Combined, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have about 7% of world reserves, but are presently producing very little coal.  These numbers assume that further reserves are not found and that use remains steady. (If you’re wondering who has the largest coal reserve, its the United States, with a 234 year supply). 

So the question is not whether there is enough fossil fuels to bring electricity to the world’s poor, at least over the next 50-100 years (the relevent time when it comes to global warming).  The question is, what type of energy are they going to use?  Will they follow in the footsteps of the United States and Europe, and expell unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases in the process?  Lets take a look at the magnitude of the issue:

According to the International Energy Agency, India used about 478,000 GWh of electricity in 2005, or 434 kWh per capital.  About 68% of that was produced from coal.  China used 1.99 million GWh, or 1,532 kWh per capita with 79% from coal.  If Indians want to consume as much electricity as the Chinese, their country needs to produce 1.2 million GWh more electricity per year, or 816,000 GWh from coal (assuming similar ratios for production). 

Let’s put that in perspective to the situation in the United States – Per capita consumption of electricity in the United States is about 12,400 kWh, half of which is produced from coal.  If India matched China’s per capita electricity consumption (which is 12% of American consumption), the United States would need to cut 45% of its coal-produced electricity to make up the difference in global CO2 emissions. 

And what about Bangladesh?  Kenya?  Burundi?  Cambodia?  Nicaragua?  Laos?  Mozambique?  Nigeria?  Indonesia?  Honduras?  Zaire?  Zambia?  Yemen?  On the average, the 764 million people of these countries use an average of 238 kWh per capita every year, almost half as much as India).  Bringing electrical use in these countries up to par with China will, well, you get the point. 

For some personal context, Morgan and I currently live in a small apartment and use electricity to power lights, appliances (a fridge, microwave, toaster, and occasionally a food processor), a laptop, two cell phones, and a 1000W space heater we run for about an hour every week.  Regular heat, hot water, and cooking are all gas powered.  We used 50 kWh in our first month and 60 kWh in our second, so we’re on pace to use about 330 kWh per capita per year.  In my house in Portland, which used electricity for everything but heat, we used somewhere around 2100 kWh per capita per year.  Of course, this doesn’t include any of the electricity used on my behalf at stores, places of employment, hospitals, schools, or any other public buildings or businesses.

In short, if the world’s population is going to achieve a standard of living equivalent to what I think most Westerners would consider a minimum, the world is going to need to produce much more electricity, not just replace current coal-produced electricity with clean energy sources and improved efficiency.  While great gains can be made by improving efficiency in the United States, you can’t save energy through improvements in efficiency in a country that doesn’t use very much electricity to begin with. 

So how are we going to confront global warming?

The Answer:  G) All of the Above

Million and millions of people worldwide, including most Americans, recognize that global warming is a threat to human life as we have come to know it over the past 12,000 years. 

Despite this victory, there is tremendous disagreement over the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Many people argue for their pet energy projects.  Solar companies say solar energy needs to be the main thing we pursue.  Farm-state politicians push biofuel subsides to rid us of our oil addiction.  T. Boone Pickens’ “Pickens Plan” is probably the most publicized renewable energy plan in the United States thanks to a widespread marketing campaign.  His plan puts emphasis on wind and natural gas to produce electricity and fuel vehicles, respectively.  Though I don’t think his plan is consciously self-serving, Pickens is especially familiar with these energy sources because he owns large wind farms and natural gas pipelines.  Shai Agassi, founder of Better Place, promotes electric vehicles as the cure for all the world’s problems. 

This isn’t to say that each of these ideas doesn’t have merits.  But each is not a be-all, end all solution to global warming.  Each nation is going to have to evaluate its needs and pick the best composite solution.  For some countries, it might be nuclear power.  Others might rely heavily on geothermal and hydroelectric power.  Large countries like India, China, Brazil, and the United States, will probably need to rely on a mix of everything, with different sources in different regions.  For example, the south-eastern United States has very little wind, so a combination of solar and nuclear might be appropriate.  In the west, geothermal and wind would probably do most of the trick. 

I don’t know enough to say exactly what the right mix is, and it will probably take a bit of experimenting and failure before we get it right.  But the problem we face is too big to rule out any possible sources of clean energy.