When Renewable is not Renewable!

[Chandra Kishore]

Reuters quoted Key facts from the upcoming IPCC report today. Out of the Total Global Energy production 12.9% comes from Renewable energy.  Biomass energy is its top contributor at 10.2 %. So, the bragging rights for renewable energy still comes from cutting trees and using agricultural produce for Biofuels! Those are not renewables in the true sense for me! A scary scenario.

After all the hoopla and the effort of the environmentalsts, true renewables like the sun and the wind still accounts for nothing. Time for environment professionals and scientists to really work hard and come up with some ground breaking technology and innovations. Just another report painting a rosy picture for 2050 is still too distant for me!

 

Would appreciate the thoughts of members of Indian Environment Network.

-----------------------------

 

(Reuters) - Following are findings by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a draft report about renewable energy (RE). 

 

TOTALS - RE accounted for 12.9 percent of global primary energy supply in 2008. The top contributor was biomass (10.2 percent) -- mainly firewood used in developing nations -- ahead of hydropower (2.3), wind (0.2), direct solar energy and geothermal (0.1 each) and ocean (0.002 percent).

 

 

RECENT EXPANSION - Of about 300 gigawatts of new electricity generating capacity added globally in 2008 and 2009, 140 GW came from RE. Developing countries host more than 50 percent of global RE power generation capacity, with China adding more capacity than any other country in 2009.

 

OUTLOOK - "Studies have consistently found that the total global technical potential for RE is substantially higher than both current and projected future global energy demand." Solar power has the highest technical potential.

 

 

Go to the source

[SHAILESH ISHWARRAO TELANG]

Completely agreed with Pradipta Halder

[Pradipta Halder]

Dear all,

I think there is nothing new in the recent IPCC statistics related to biomass energy. ‘The share of biomass energy is 10% of the global primary energy supply’ was already mentioned in many research articles in the last year. In fact I also used that figure and the reference was from IEA Bioenergy. Now coming to the concerns related to bioenergy. Yes, it is a concern when it is not done in a sustainable way. When you say 'biomass' it can include many types and you cannot say all are 'equally harmful'. Of course there are problems with 1st generation of biomass sources for energy production such as corn, soyabin, rapeseed, etc from which you get bioethanol and biodiesel. However, 2nd generation of biomass sources does not have that problem when you use wood for biodiesel, or waste for biogas. 3rd generation is coming from algae biomass. Therefore, it is not a fact that bioenergy always leads to deforestation, food crisis, emission of GHGs, etc. The key is keeping the 'sustainability' concept in mind. Unfortunately, we do not think about ‘sustainability’ in the practice.

I do not share the concern that there is no renewable biomass or solar and wind energies are much better than biomass. We talk about life-cycle GHG emissions from biofuels. But what about solar panels, windmills. We use silicon, glass, cement and many other harmful materials which are not good for human health and environment. They also need energy to be produced and probably such energy is coming from fossil fuel burning. Therefore, we cannot give a higher score to solar panels compared to bioenergy. Of course, we can say that energy from solar panels is better than coal or petroleum.  

I personally believe that bioenergy coming from sustainable forest management is much better than any other renewable energy sources. If you have a forest and if you use it for multi-functional purposes such as timber, non-timber, energy, environmental, social (recreation) purposes then it is much better than installing solar panels on roof tops or wind mills destroying the landscape beauty. Solar panels or windmills do not also generate community level incomes but bioenergy coming from sustainable forest management can do so. However, it is also important to conduct the whole life-cycle analysis for bioenergy coming from sustainable forest management.    

The development of renewable energy sources should be country specific. I am working in Finland and here bioenergy from forests is the main source of renewable energy. But it does not mean that they are cutting trees and using them for energy purposes. They are using logging residues, forest industry residues, short rotation plantation, etc. Similar practices in Sweden. In India, we have various options. We can develop solar, wind, wave energy sources. However, it is only sustainable forest management can greatly solve the deteriorating environmental problems in the country.

I welcome more discussions and debates on bioenergy in this forum!

Pradipta

 

[Adam Halliday]

Someone once said trees are the answer, because trees can be planted again and again. Social Forestry (plantations for use, not disturbing standing forests) is, i think a step in this direction,. Nevertheless, that replenishment component is to be really looked into.

[GOPI KANTA GHOSH]

I TOO SHARE CONCERN...IT IS A FACT..LET US THINK AND ACT...

[Prof. L. Ramakrishnan]

I share your concern.  Biomass is not a "renewable" energy source; I am sure if a proper life cycle analysis is carried out one would find that all the biomass we claim as "carbon positive" or "carbon neutral" will end up as "carbon negative". If one adds the nitrogen oxides and other GHGs emitted during the life cycle of these "biomass" it will support your view strongly. Unfortunately we are guided by vested interests not scientists and technologists.