The Energy Problem: Which Way Forward?

With David Cameron recently officially backing the development of a new nuclear power station in Britain for the first time in our generation, the UK looks to be more comfortable than not with accepting the presence of nuclear energy production operations, even as the discovery of healthy shale gas reserves were made known last year by a British Geological Survey report. However, not very many countries around the world are in a similarly happy dilemma about choosing which means of energy production to pursue. Further to that, which one ought the UK to be really pursuing as well, when climate change and environmental effects are considered?

To know which way to go forward, we must first eliminate which ways lead back. Fossil fuels are commonly perceived as being one such doomed path – even though their carbon footprint is decreasing through means of technological development and innovations such as carbon capture & storage (CCS) techniques, their lack of accessible deposits and the economic & environmental setbacks associated with digging further and deeper mean that, for any country, sticking purely to fossil fuels to meet energy demands is only going to cause bigger problems after the short-term future comes to pass.

Another point of consideration is the ways in which any energy solution would factor into our lives and the way we use energy on the personal level. This is a very motivating factor which affects public opinion – for instance, consider the effect on the private transportation sector. Some communities in developed countries are more welcoming of biofuels replacing petrol because it would still allow them to use their preferred vehicle models, whereas they may not be so keen on wind/hydroelectric energy being the substitute as it may mean they have to swap to electric/hybrid vehicles (for which the supply and variety on offer is comparatively very limited).

It may seem a naïve reason to turn up one’s nose at a possible future energy production method, but unless the public is persuaded to recognise and care more about the bigger picture and how it’s not none of their business, for instance how harvesting hydroelectric energy could lead to them enjoying better air quality for a longer time period in the future despite having to drive unflashy cars, there is not much that can and will get done about the energy problem. Solar energy could end up being our best bet on paper, with minimal climatological and environmental side-effects, but if no one appreciates it, it would not get developed on at all.

With climate change and the environment taking centre stage in the public consciousness more often than ever before, we also tend to forget about all the existing infrastructure, equipment, systems, networks, and resources related to fossil fuels that we have which will fall into obsolescence when a new energy technology takes over, unless their compatibility issues can be solved.

Coal mines that would be shut down could potentially be developed to harness geothermal energy instead, whilst petrochemical processing facilities could be adapted to produce more efficient biofuels…on the other hand, nuclear power stations are not able to adapt much existing energy infrastructure (including the vast marine and land transportation networks that exist primarily to serve transport of oil & natural gas.)

This is a critical point as existing resources need to be redeployed as efficiently as possible so sufficient new resources can be directed towards developing any given energy technology. Physical space in our environment is a precious commodity that is constantly becoming scarcer, so the extent of utilisation of pre-existing infrastructure would also play a significant role in determining which source of energy is deemed most suitable for development in a particular country or region. Minimising the need for new land and construction generally might mean a smaller impact upon the environment and would avoid considerably increasing the number of sources of carbon emissions in worldwide human activity.

Finally, any energy technology that we choose to progress needs to be sustainable – a key difference from our main energy sources in the past. This heavily involves the economic and financial aspects of the matter and also relates to the source of the energy; whether it is renewable or not. The energy sector is perhaps the most important economic sector and its future form would also need to be able to sustain jobs and livelihoods, which means it needs to be invested into. Furthermore, some possibilities such as biofuels are in the grey area as to whether they are renewable, however other such as solar energy and nuclear energy are considered virtually inexhaustible due to their sources’ sheer reserves/energy densities.

Want to hear more conclusive and insightful discussions about the future of energy? Come along to the London Climate Forum at Imperial College London on 9th November for a panel discussion on this subject and a host of other exciting talks and exhibitions.