07 December 2003 01:42
Looking for energy breakthrough
Someone in the White House must be saying, ``I told you so!'' Even as ministers and delegates from around
the world were meeting last week in Milan, Italy to discuss ways to revitalise the Kyoto Protocol on climate change,
serious problems are emerging over its implementation, for the very reason the US backed out of the agreement: the
economic costs are higher than most nations are willing to pay. A major setback to the treaty came from the Kremlin,
when an aide to President Putin indicated Russia would not ratify the treaty because the financial restraints imposed by
significantly reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide are not in Russia's national interests. In later reports the
Kremlin seemed to be backtracking. Another major blow came with the news that 13 of the 15 nations of the European Union
will be way off the emission reduction targets set by the agreement. Though still backing the Protocol, the political
leaders are obviously more concerned with their economies. America's official opposition to Kyoto has long been
known. Paula Dobriansky, US undersecretary of state for global affairs, earlier in the week denounced it as being
unrealistic. She said that the US policy of promoting breakthrough energy technologies was the ``only cost-effective
option'' to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. She may have hit the nail on the head there. Technological
innovation will be necessary to meet the energy needs of the future while easing off the oil. It is significant,
however, that the energy bill proposed by President Bush, which is now being considered by Congress, does little to
promote the type of truly breakthrough technologies needed. Mostly still committed to fossil fuel technologies, the bill
does give a fairly substantial incentive for fuel cell technology and gives a big push for nuclear power plants. Fuel
cell technology is important and worthwhile, but it is not the answer in itself. The process of producing the hydrogen
that fuel cell vehicles will run on takes electricity, which at present is generated mostly at power plants using fossil
fuels. There is no question that nuclear power could supply the world's energy needs, and as industry spokesmen
like to point out, their safety record is actually quite good. Still, people worry about the possibility of accidents
like the one at Chernobyl, and the pesky problem of what to do with the wastes that stay highly radioactive for
thousands of years. In any case, it can hardly be called a breakthrough technology. There aren't many options that
now seem feasible. Energy conservation, sun, wind and tidal power, and other ``green'' technologies are
important, but it is doubtful they will be enough to power the economies of the 21st century and beyond. While it seems
futuristic, proposed orbiting solar collectors which would beam energy back to the Earth are a real possibility. Another
technology with promise is nuclear fusion, which mimics the energy-releasing processes inside the sun. It has long been
an elusive dream, but many scientists now believe that a nuclear fusion reactor will be a reality within three or four
decades. Toward that end a joint effort by Russia, Japan, the European Union, the United States, Canada, China and South
Korea will soon inaugurate a prototype nuclear fusion power plant called the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (Iter), located either in Japan or southern France. The budget for the project is about $5 billion. Aside from
the global warming issue, there is a strong likelihood that at some time in the not-too-distant future oil reserves will
begin to run out. Despite the cost and the uncertainty of success, Iter is the kind of multinational project which
should be promoted if we do not wish to see nuclear fission power plants dotting the planet.
[AIW [Asia Africa Intelligence Wire]] |
RUSSIA IN FACTS
