" ...the ‘2050 Calculator’ is a refreshing approach to thinking through how we might solve the misalignment of demand and supply. The concept of the calculator is one in which individuals can experiment with a wide range of behavioral decisions and tolerance for energy options."
Angela Yeh, Climate and Energy Project Officer at Delta Electronics Foundation
The short but sweet visit of the Former UK Chief Scientific Advisor of DECC (Department of Climate Change and Energy), Prof. David Mackay, brought with him – not only his scientific insights on global warming, but also a paradigm-shifting-type of thinking to the very stagnant energy policy conversation in Taiwan. Weeks before Prof. Mackay’s visit, Taiwan held its National Energy Conference. And as most national meetings go, regardless of subject, very limited (if any) consensus was reached. I apologize that this post will not be about the gridlock of the energy debate in Taiwan (as interesting as it otherwise would have been) – but will be about why and how we should view the energy problem with, hopefully, a fresher pair of lens.
One interesting viewpoint Prof. Mackay offered was that energy solutions should not be presented to policy makers as separate items on a menu of options, but should be presented in ‘packages’ – i.e. different portfolios of energy mixes. If you ask, “do we want wind energy?” The answer is probably no – there will be oppositions from the economists, from the oil and gas industries, and even the environmental community. If you ask – “do we want nuclear?” Obviously, the answers will be overwhelmingly polarized. However, if the question is – “given the existing energy demands, and the existing energy sources available(technologically and financially) – what solutions should remain on the table?” Then it would be very difficult to remove wind power, solar energy, nuclear, or any solution off the table – if we truly want to see supply and demand add up. The takeaway from this is that, one of the reasons policies fail is because of ‘wishful thinking’, which leads to incompatible policies. Yes, it would be nice if we could harness the energy solely from the sun – but to power the entire UK for example, would require 2.5 times the size of the United Kingdom to meet the energy demand nationally.
Taiwan and the UK have a lot of similarities in terms of their energy challenges – both are islands with limited indigenous energy resources, and both import roughly 90 percent of their respective energies from abroad (most of which are fossil fuels). Similarly, both countries have highly mature democratic systems that not only allow for freedom of speech, but public expressions and demonstrations of preference (or in most cases, non-preference in the most modest terms). In Taiwan, the anti-nuclear movement that was heavily influenced by civil societies, students and environmentalists have essentially stopped the construction of the fourth nuclear power plant. In the UK, a ‘consultation exercise’ can take place where public engagement sometimes impacts, or dictates the adoption (or non-adoption) of a particular energy deployment (e.g., wind power in Scotland). There remains, however, differences between the two – one of which lies in the countries’ respective openness to conventionally controversial energy solutions. For example, nuclear and CCS (carbon capture and storage) are very much still part of the solution in UK’s energy strategy moving forward, albeit their controversies. But it is difficult to visualize such solutions being deployed at commercial scale in Taiwan, if they ever make their way past the general public’s personal prejudice and unusual levels of scrutiny. The bottom line is that we need to stop being so emotional about the already limited energy options we have, and start looking at the numbers and the facts.
That brings me to my last point – the ‘2050 Calculator’ is a refreshing approach to thinking through how we might solve the misalignment of demand and supply. The concept of the calculator is one in which individuals can experiment with a wide range of behavioral decisions and tolerance for energy options, with the ultimate goal of having demand and supply add up. Surprisingly, individual ‘diets’ alone can reduce carbon emissions by 1/4 if one is committed to an ‘average Indian diet’ as opposed to an ‘average European diet’. To take the commitment to an even more ambitious level, the ‘types of meat’ consumed could potentially reduce emissions by over 30 percent. Through the Global Calculator, one could also experiment with different energy technology options – it is perhaps not too convenient to rule out CCS or nuclear if one wants to keep the same lifestyle choices. After all, having the cake and eat it too might just be a little bit idealistic. It is about time that we start taking the reality of the energy challenge seriously.
2015/02/12
葉怡辰
