
Â
The 20th World Energy Congress is being held in Rome this week. The Congress has brought together a diverse collection of policy makers and experts from industry, international organizations, and academia to discuss energy related issues of global import. In its opening days the Congress discussed the relationship between energy production and consumption and global warming, as well as possible solutions to the problem.Â
Earlier in the week industry leaders and energy experts held a roundtable discussion where they talked about ways to reduce carbon emissions that have been linked to climate change. The panel agreed that improving the efficiency of world's transportation systems would be one way to address the problem. “We need to reduce the average size of cars,â€Â said Masamati Takimoto, an executive vice president at Toyota. Consensus was also reached on the need to increase the use of biofuels. Toyota's Takimoto also proposed other solutions to the transportation dilemma, including increasing the use vehicles powered by electricity and hydrogen.
Gunter Zimmermeyer, representing German auto parts manufacturer Robert Bosch, provided additional ideas for reducing the carbon footprint of the world’s transportation system. Defeating traffic congestion in Germany alone would reduce carbon emissions by 30 million tons per year, he said. He also advocated increasing the use of diesel vehicles and taking action to decrease the average age of vehicles found on the road.
A World Energy Council representative from Africa, Mary Kimitho M’Mukindia, argued that while decreasing the age of the average vehicle being driven in Germany might be possible, such solutions would not fit well with the realities facing the world's less developed countries. She noted that vehicles being driven in Africa are on average 18 years of age, comparing that to an average vehicle age of 8 years in Germany. She said that the creation of a cleaner diesel alternative would be a better solution to problem of carbon emmissions.
The president of the Brazilian oil company Petrobas, Jose Sergio de Azevedo, spoke about his country’s achievements in the area of ethanol. Ethanol is now used to fuel 40 percent of Brazil’s transportation needs. He advocated the use of sugar cane as a means of producing ethanol, saying that sugar cane based ethanol produces up to 5 times less carbon than traditional petroleum based gas.
Panelists at the panel also discussed the possibility of using electricity to fuel cars. But they noted that such a strategy would only succeed if the electricity used vehicles is produced in a way that does not produce significant greenhouse gas emissions.
Â

The idea of using nuclear power as an efficient means for producing energy without high levels of carbon byproduct was also raised during the Congress. “In a world enjoying a growing thirst we have in our hands nuclear energy: a formidable asset to build an energy sustainable future,†said Anne Lauvergeon. Lauvergeon is the President and Chief Executive of Areva, a French nuclear power company. Lauvergeon emphasized the relatively small size of nuclear power's carbon footprint. She also noted that nuclear power can be produced at a stable price due to the ready availability of uranium on the world market, likely a reference to the volatile gas prices being experienced around the world.
The 20th World Energy Congress is of particular importance because it precedes December’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, India. The UN Conference is expected to set the grounds for debate over future international efforts to combat climate change once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The Congress highlighted some possible solutions to the world’s dual energy and environmental crisis. Some were controversial, particularly the issue of using nuclear power to decrease the world’s reliance on fossil fuels.
So what do you think of the ideas proposed at the World Energy Congress? What sorts of policies should the United States agree to at the UN Climate Change Conference next month? How do these issues affect your own life?
The World Energy Council is a self-described non-commercial, non-governmental organization that organizes events and produces reports aimed at providing information about how the world’s energy supply is produced, distributed, and used. The information used in this article was found in press releases issued on the official website of the 20th World Energy Congress. More information about the World Energy Council can be found at www.worldenergy.org
Our World is published weekly on Gather by political correspondent David Anderson. The column focuses on issues related to the environment and seeks to inspire meaningful discussion amongst its readers. You can find all of David's correspondent pieces under the tag "live from New Hampshire".




Comments: 27
Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential
Nuclear power has always presented the same dilemma. On the one hand is efficient and supposedly cheap to produce over the long term. On the other hand it is dangerous - to a degree - and produces waste that we have no idea how to deal with. The problems associated with nuclear power will only proliferate if we choose that option to over other solutions. On the other hand I can see why people are willing to give the nuclear option another try. It is here now and ready to be implemented, and it provides a desirable alternative to widespread resource destruction in the developing world.
Notice that I did not include ethanol. It's no better than oil, maybe worse.
Jane - Thanks! Could you provide a link to info about the rentable solar panels? I think it is a great idea!
First, ethanol uses land and water resources that are or will be needed for food as the world population continues to grow. But more importantly, the fossil fuel input to grow the corn...soil preparation, seeding, cultivating, fertilizing, harvesting and processing...makes it only marginally useful at all. In other words, it takes almost as much energy to produce it as is derived from burning it. I'll find some stats on this if you are interested, or you can find them yourself.
Burning it is somewhat "cleaner" than burning gasoline, but that is partly because it creates some new products of combustion like formaldehyde that are not currently classified as pollutants or greenhouse gases, but probably should be.
Mostly, I view the ethanol buzz as an attempt by agribusiness to claim yet more and larger farm subsidies than the billions they already get. Companies like ADM and Cargill give HUGE sums to political campaigns...but those sums are dwarfed by what they get back in subsidies.
Ethanol can also be produced from biomass, and this is somewhat more attractive, since it uses organic material that would otherwise just rot in the fields, creating methane anyway. Problem is, nobody has figured out how to process biomass on the scale required to provide significant quantities of energy efficiently. This is the only source for ethanol that makes any sense to me at all.
There are a number of reasons not to use nuclear energy.
Bert: "I am not a nuclear power fan, but I think the solution to the world's energy problems as the oil supply declines and the planet heats up will require a broad range of alternative solutions...solar, wind, biomass, hydro, tidal/wave, nuclear and others."
No need for nuclear - it is an expensive distraction and will actually slow transition to renewables. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has a strategy for getting off oil, which will have substantially reduced our oil use by 2025 and completely eliminated oil by 2050. There are absolutely no reasons why we should take the risks associated with nuclear.
A Strategy for the Hydrogen Transition
Did you hear, that the supporters of the GW scam lost another member, the founder of the Weather Channel just made an anouncement that this whole thing is a major scam.
GE was found to be supporting the GW scam because they will profit from it as the main manufaturer in Solar and wind technology, as a few other companies have been found to be supporting this scam for reasons that it supports their wallets as well.
There are a few deniers, and a very few of them are actually climate experts, but the one thing they are is VERY VOCAL in their doubt. And the media give them prominent play, so a lot of the public thinks there really is a controversy.
It's kinda like the "intelligent design" issue. Scientists know that it is definitely not science. It is religion. But the people from Discovery Institute call it science, and so the media call it a "controversy."
"Some scientists have doubted the scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that there is not a clear connection between increases in GHG emissions and climate change. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), launched in the course of 2007, put an end to that discussion. Prepared by scientists from all over the world, it placed the reality of human-induced climate change beyond any doubt. It is politically significant that governments endorsed the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report by consensus, making it a solid foundation for sound political decision-making."
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
Personally, I think the Rocky Mountain Institute's Hypercar concept sounds like a pretty good way to go.
Bert, I agree that ethanol from biomass that is currently nothing more than waste is a good idea. I also think it (and many other forms of alternative energy production) work better in smaller, distributed operations.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc