Spanda Journal | Energy and Development

SPANDA JOURNALq u a r t e r l y o f t h e s p a n d a f o u n d a t i o n

EEN E RG Y &DDE V E LO P M E N T

O N L I N E E D I T I O N | W W W . S P A N D A . O R G / A R C H I V E . H T M L

SPANDA.ORG

I,1/2010

S P A N D A

t h e

s o f t

a p p r o a c h

http://www.spanda.org/archive.html

Per i tuoi bei occhi ho perso il senno, non quello dipoi ma quello di adesso. If everything is one, who are we? An emanation

reaching back to its origin?Engaged in attaining the ori-gin, more than in knowing itsinconceivable nature, we swiftlymove forward: backwards tothe source, to the beginning oftime and before. Anábasis andkatabasis, contraction andexpansion, the synchronic pul-sation of reality is gainingpace, when time is no longerthe frame of reference neitherof the two actions comesbefore the other, they really aresimultaneous, both inhalation(inspiration?) and exhalation: asuspension of breath. Reachingback to the origin always impliesan inner journey, a change ofdirection, an energy conversion.At a given point of this process,the inner transmutes into theouter and all polarities relin-quish. Now there is only one,not two or three, even God,Allah, YHWH, K.r.s.na, Maria,Giovanna e Giuseppe are allone – only the methodologiesand techniques leading back to

the origin differentiate them. There is no exclusiveway to the origin, no copyright holders; religethem all together and you will have again just one.No further recognition or personification is inneed: the inner human collective plane takes hold

V E N T H O U G H C O N S C I O U S N E S S A N D S O U L A R E

separate entities, a soul can be deep-seatedin the consciousness and eternally dwellthere in a state akin topeace. When we are

able to freely share our time,passion, enthusiasm, determina-tion, insight and love with norefrain and expectation of anyreturn, then we are softly pavingthe path to growth. Whichprosperity does not increase invalue? It is not you or I thatmatters, we are both mere polar-ities, in unity, you and I are one.Never bargain for a ‘thank you’for what you do or have done, asyou did it for me not for you.Discovery takes place deepwithin our selfhood where innerand outer are no longer two, butone, solely one. The deeper wesink into ourselves, the furtherswe reach out into the world.The essence of the cognition ofunity, by which creator, creationand creature are one, is the ini-tial impulse unfolding itself intothe space-time dimension. Thetime is ripe, but there is notime, actually.

D E M E S OT E R I C A H U M I LTA D E

The sword is for the one whose proud neck is held high;no blow falls on the shadow thrown flat

upon the ground.RU M I , Mathnawi, IV: 2759

S P A N D A J O U R N A L I , 1 /2 0 1 0 | EE N E RG Y & DD E V E LO P M E N T | 2

E D I T O R I A L | SSAAHHLLAANN MMOOMMOOTurya: A Subtle Energy?AALLEESSSSAANNDDRROO CCOOLLOOMMBBOOThe Many Futures of EnergyPPAAUULL AALLLLEENNMeeting our 21st CenturyChallengesGGRREEGGOORR CCZZIISSCCHH (interview)The Super-gridBBAAHHAARREEHH SSEEYYEEDDIIMMIINNOORRUU TTAAKKAADDAAEnergy fo the Poor: The MissingLink for Achieving the MDGsCCAARRLLOO GGUUBBIITTOOSSAAThe Energy we are EatingSSIIMMOONNAA SSAAPPIIEENNZZAAAn Eco-logic Move: A RenewedLegal Framework for RenewableEnergy SourcesAANNDDRREEAA SSIILLVVEESSTTRRIITowards the Smart GridSSVVEENN TTEESSKKEEEnergy [R]evolution 2010.A Sustainable World EnergyOutlookA B S T R A C T S

g | I N T H I S I S S U E

E

SPANDA JOURNAL

T U RY A:A S U B T L E E N E R G Y ?

SPANDA.ORGSPANDA.ORG

I,1/2010

EDITORIAL

– the final reality for which this universe wa[i]sconceived. Poeti, vati e cantori, santi e intronauti.The cosmic dance, its energy and power, neitherends nor dies: it rebounds in itself, in its stillnessresilience. Beware, the aboriginal wave is anew, noone could ever stem its tide, this plane of the mani-festation has already transmuted onto the next onewhere one and one makes zero, where only undif-ferentiated unity holds true.At re-birth there is light, light upon light: enérgeia,érgon, physical, not meta-physical, the active andexpressive power of an entity, of an organism, ofan órganon coming into existence. Before you and

me were differentiated by birth, before the big-bang of this current universe, or the fiat lux of thismanifestation (non ho sentito un grazie, ma non ven’era bisogno) there was turya, the still undifferenti-ated subtle energetic plan preceding creation:timeless, nameless, without attributions, in still-ness, acting at rest. All of a sudden light into dark-ness (love?) with a longing to give. The restlessentelécheia is at work again: a rûh, a pneuma, asoul, a jiwa takes off from the first manifestation.Then, subtle energies flourishing all over and round,consciousness shifts towards its own primacy, devel-opment, inner and outer, in-out: the creative energysets its play. Keep quite, “go placidly among thewinds.” Neither fear nor hesitate, just follow it,recall it, remember it, and act.The world of reality is a world of acts, not of still-ness, nirvana is a gateway to reality not the finaldestination. If we only abode in this time-space

dimension we are bound to death. Expand, devel-op yourself and give back to the world what youreceived so far. Released from lila’s joyful play,consciously take part in the virtuous cycle: fromabove to below, from below to the world, from theworld to above, back and forth. Once united within,the border in-between gradually fades, ‘giving’ is aresult of growth. Philanthropos, don’t stop the flow!Build on what unites, not on what divides. Furtherto history lay meta-history with its hierohistorywhere everything is in the present – past and futureare declinations of time. The past is past: learn, for-get and forgive, and move on. Action springs from

the encounter of spirit and matter in the soul, fromquality and quantity, supported by a sincere, pureand unconditioned impulse to give, freed from self-interest, egoism or profit: the time of secrets is over:spirit and matter are one. When spirit has spiritu-alised matter and matter has materialized the spirit(anábasis katabasis) then a pure act is possible, an actthat doesn’t generate karma but concurs to its ownpurification, to laundry the actor’s individual historyand, in more general terms, to lessen human pain. Inother words, actions performed in purity alleviatepoverty – and not merely the material poverty ofgoods and monies. Energy & Development is an overview of certainphysical aspects of some renewable energies andtheir use in our ‘times’, and an invitation to con-stantly re-new ourselves, and our views. ©


Alessandro Colombo (Milan, Italy,1967) is an electrical engineer spe-cialized in electrical power systems.He has been project manager at theItalian Electric Test Center (CESI)

and Head of the R&D electronics atABB Power Technology in Dalmine(Italy). Since 2003 he is PatentExaminer at the European PatentOffice in The Hague (Netherlands).Strongly involved in technologyinnovation and patent matters, heholds the EQE qualification forpatent attorneys and a Master inIntellectual Property Law and Man-agement at the CEIPI (Strasbourg,France, 2009). To foster awareness onenergy issues, he contributes witharticles to several online magazinesand organizes open working groups.

C C E S S T O E N E R G Y I S

considered a necessity forthe survival and the devel-opment of individuals andsocieties.

The rich OECD countries are so addicted to energyavailability in the daily life that even a temporaryshortage of electricity or gas supply leads to a waveof panic and irrational behaviors, as recently seenduring the Ukrainian crises. No energy todaymeans no food tomorrow. Since the largest quotaof the energy sources derive from oil, gas and coal,the control of those fuels is often considered amatter of national security. In several developing countries, on the other hand,the chronic lack of energy services or their lowaffordability prevents any social and economicprogress. Energy poverty can be dramatic even inregions with abundant resources, when they lackthe infrastructures and the technology necessaryfor the distribution and use.Access to energy is therefore a multi-dimensionalissue involving social, financial and geo-politicalaspects beside the technical and geographical factors.Nevertheless, the energy market has traditionally beena low-transparency business, based on a centralized

control of the sources and the processes, with very lit-tle influence from the customers and low public atten-tion. The less people know, the smoother it works. Fortunately, the wheel is now moving. After theineffective world summit in Copenhagen inDecember 2009, the energy debate has spread

beyond the circle of the techni-cal-scientific community andinvolves more actively the polit-ical level, the mass media andthe civil society. The disequilib-ria of the present fuel-based sys-tem are more clearly perceived,especially the environmentaldamages created by carbonemissions and the perspectiveexhaustion of the fuels reserves. The recent Energy Reportfrom the International EnergyAgency (IEA) suggests indeedthat we are at the doorstep of aradical change in the way ofproducing and consumingenergy and foresees differentscenarios, each featuring spe-cific advantages and supportedby different groups of interest.The following intends to offeran overview of the mostpromising opportunities for thefuture energy sector. For a better

understanding of the discussion, the main energy-related concepts are summarized in the box.

T H E « C L E A N » F U E L S

Since the known reserves of coal and natural gasappear sufficient to cover the world’s demand foranother 150 years, utilities and big industries areinvesting in a technology called Carbon Captureand Storage (CCS), whose aim is to extract the car-bon dioxide form the exhaustion gases and to storeit underground as a liquid or solid waste.Even if achieving a carbon-free combustion, thosetechniques present other environmental inconve-niences, such as the absorption of a dispropor-tioned amount of fresh water and energy (everythird power station needs another one for the CCSonly), resources that will be indeed more rare andvaluable in the future.In its 2008 Energy Report, for example, Greenpeacedefines the CCS a “false hope”, since it will not beoperative anyway before year 2030, it cannot elimi-nate the risk of gas leakages from the storage location


T H E M A N Y F U T U R E S O F E N E R G YA L E S S A N D R O C O L O M B O | G U E S T E D I T O R

“ Happiness is

not an ideal

of reason

but of

imagination. ”II MM MM AA NN UU EE LL KK AA NN TT

g | O V E R V I E W

A

and, most importantly, subtracts today crucial fundsto the research on sustainable forms of energy.

R E N E W A B L E E N E R G I E S ‘ A T P O W E R 2 0 ’

Renewable energy sources include sunlight – col-lected either with photovoltaic or solar thermaltechniques - wind power, hydropower, tides andwaves, geothermal, biomasses (e.g. wood, plants,biofuels, micro-algae) and fermentation biogases.They represent altogether a niche segment, with an8% production share in Europe and 2% worldwide,but showed a remarkable growth in the recentyears. Europe differs from all other regions in itsclear policy of subsidies and in the ambitious goalof achieving the quota of 20% by the year 2020 (theso called Direc-tive “20-20-20”).The advantagesof those sourcesare their quanti-tative abun-dance (usablewind powerw o r l d w i d eamounts at 200times the globalenergy demand,solar irradiation3,000 times), andtheir distributedavailability which may guarantee independencefrom geo-political agreements (think of the benefitfor the developing countries...) Moreover they areeasily scalable to different sizes, from big powergeneration plants to micro domestic installations. A strong limiting factor for renewable sources isthe high cost of the installation in relation to thepotential production: natural sources, dispersedand discontinuous, must be captured over a rela-tively large area and accumulated in some storagedevice (batteries, heat tanks, pressurized air).The market potential however is really huge, andsufficient to attract research centers, manufacturersand energy suppliers into a “technological run”which is expected to achieve a decisive cost reduc-tion of the renewable technologies, and their subse-quent large-scale adoption. In particular, the seg-ment of off-shore wind generators is living a goldenseason, with rate of growth of 15-20 % per year, andunit cost decreasing at 0.04-0.08 cent/kWh, thuscompetitive with the traditional fuel generators.Also the civil and residential segment presents vari-ous innovations, such as the “solar tile” or the ver-tical-axis wind turbines, which tend to simplifytheir installation and the structural integrationwithin the buildings.The Energy Social Forum held in Stuttgart in Janu-ary 2009 presented examples of energy sharing amongsmall communities or multi-family groups. It wasnoted that a direct participation in the production

cycle stimulates a more critical approach in the useand consumption of energy.

T H E H Y D R O G E N E C O N O M Y

A different possible scenario is based on the use ofhydrogen (H2), a totally clean fuel releasing onlywater steam and easily convertible into heat, elec-tricity, or motion of vehicles.Several research projects and information groupsare now active on that technology. The EuropeanCommission launched in 2006 the project“HyFleet” by sponsoring a fleet of 47 public buses,now circulating in ten EU cities with excellentresults. BMW has manufactured a pre-series of 100units of its ‘Hydrogen-7’, with satisfactory perfor-

mances and dri-ving range. The Hydrogentechnology, how-ever, requires thedevelopment ofcomplementarysystems, such asstorage devicesor distributionnetworks, whichstill show poorefficiency andlimited diffu-sion. The advent

of the Hydrogen Economy – so baptized by JeremyRifkin in his best-seller dated 2002 – is thereforepossible but highly uncertain.

N U C L E A R E X P E N S E S

The CO2 alarm is pushing big investors and severalgovernments like US, China, France and Italytowards a return to the nuclear power, a technologyappreciated for the high energy productivity at lowcost (0.02-0.04 Eur/kWh) and the virtual zero-foot-print on the atmosphere.Against new nuclear programs, however, both envi-ronmentalists and scientists like Nobel laureateCarlo Rubbia keep warning about two unsolvedproblems: the unsafe storage of the radioactivewastes (refer to the aborted “Yucca Mountain pro-ject” in USA, the biggest attempt ever to create along-term storage facility) and the uncertain evolu-tion of the costs, which are expected to ramp up inthe next decades. The nuclear energy represents a rigid model, highlycentralized and requiring decade-term plans of inflex-ible operation. In a context of open market, growingflexibility, and diffusing alternative technologies, thenuclear choices appear strategically shortsighted.

W H A T A S M A R T G R I D

The traditional power network is designed on aunidirectional model of energy distribution (from



P R O P R I E T I E S O F E N E R G Y

ENERGY = the physical quantity associated to the dynamic processes and responsible for any activity ormovement.

FORMS OF ENERGY = Gravitational (potential of an elevated mass), kinetic (mass in movement), Electri-cal, Magnetic, Chemical, Electromagnetic (light or radiation), Thermal, Nuclear.

SOURCES OF ENERGY = sunlight, wind speed, tides and waves, water jumps, biomasses, fossil fuels, nuclearfuels

CHANGE OF ENERGY FORM = transformation or conversion.

Example of a vehicle: chemical energy (fuel) -> kinetic energy (motion) -> heat (brakes).

Energy can be stored and transported, but the various forms are not equivalent in this respect. Optimalfor storage are potential energy (e.g. pumping stations), chemical (in fossil fuel or batteries) and nuclear.On the contrary, electrical energy is very flexible to use and to be transmitted over long distances, butcannot be stored.

T H E M A G N I T U D E S O F E N E R G Y

The international unit to measure energy is the Joule (J), a very tiny amount for the practical applica-tions. One joule is the work of lifting by one meter a potato of 100 grams.

3,6 million joules equate 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh), the unit used by electricity suppliers.

8 million joules (2,000 calories) is the average daily energy intake for a working man.

The range of billion joules (gigajoules [GJ]) expresses the energy consumption per person in one year; Fig. 1represents the differences between the average consumption in India (6 GJ), Europe (95 GJ) and USA (200 GJ).

In Industry, energy is often measured in equivalent tons of oil [toe], corresponding to 42 GJ circa. Theworld population in 2007 consumed 12,000 Mtoes (million toes), 80 percent coming from the combustionof oil, gas and coal (Fig. II).

D I S T I N C T I O N B E T W E E N E N E R G Y A N D P O W E R

While energy is a cumulated quantity, power is the rate at which energy is exchanged or consumed. Ifenergy is thought as the water content in a recipient, power is the water flow through the tap, thus ener-gy per unit of time, and is measured in watt (W) (joule per second).

The distinction between Power and Energy is important for intermittent energy sources, e.g. for windgenerators. The installed power, expressed in kilowatt (kW) or megawatt (MW), indicates the peak generat-ing capacity under full wind speed, and is related to the initial investment. The produced energy, instead,is the cumulated amount of kilowatt-hours produced in a day or in a year, and depends also on the windbehavior in the specific location.

Typical sizes for wind turbines are 200-500 kW up to 3 MW for very large units.

In comparison, the power of nuclear or fuel stations ranges from 600 to 2500 MW, equivalent to a park ofhundreds large wind turbines.

E F F I C E N C Y

In any conversion a quota of the incoming energy is not converted into the desired form, due to disper-sion into heat, noise or other un-useful effects. The ratio between the desired output and the input is theefficiency, very important when comparing different solutions or different technologies (e.g. tungstenlamps vs LED lighting).

The higher the efficiency, the lower is the energy consumed to achieve the same result.

For practical and economical reasons, the efficiency tends to increase with the size of an apparatus. A 1000

kW generator is normally more efficient than 10 generators of 100 kW. This factor is key when choosingthe optimal scale of a power installation or network.

the power station to final users) and cannot sustainmore than 25-30% of renewable sources withoutrisks for its operative stability. To overcome suchlimitations new power grids equipped with intelli-gent and inter-communicating devices are beingdeveloped. The “smart grids” will allow real timetransits of energy among users and a high numberof distributed generators, similarly to how Internetworks out the exchanges of information amongsingle computers.The smart grid technol-ogy represents a focus ofthe US Energy programpromoted by theObama’s administration,and is being implement-ed as first step throughthe installation of intel-ligent energy controllersand meters in several UScities.Also the European Com-mission has included thesmart grids in its strategicresearch agenda, promot-ing a dedicated fundingwithin the current Frame-work Program 7running until year2013.

F U T U R I S T I C

E N E R G I E S

Beside the tech-nologies describedabove, other futur-istic lines ofresearch have nowbeen launched,normally spon-sored by publicfunding, in thehope of achievinga prototype andperhaps practicalapplications in afew decades.An important project concerns the nuclear fusion,the reaction between hydrogen isotopes occurringinside the stars, which can provide a virtuallyunlimited amount of energy with minimal envi-ronmental impact. Through one of the biggesttechnological cooperation of our era, the govern-ments of US, Europe, Japan, Russia, China, Koreaand India have started in 2006 the project ITER,with the scope of realizing a prototype of largefusion reactor, now under construction in the siteof Cadarache (South France). Skeptical voicesobject that the intrinsic difficulty of dealing with acore material at a temperature of some-milliondegrees makes the whole project extremely uncer-tain and practically unrealizable before 30-40 years.

Another interesting direction relates to the greenestdreams of the mankind: replicating the naturalphoto-synthesis processes of plants and leaves, tocapture sunlight energy and atmospheric carbon atthe same time. The Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology (MIT) with its program ‘MIT Energy Initia-tives’ is now at the forefront of that line of research,expecting operative results within the currentdecade.Last but not least, the project SERT of the NASA is

exploring the futuristictechnology of the “spacesolar”. It consists of apark of solar panelsinstalled on satellites, ableto transmit power to areceiving station on Earththrough a microwave or alaser beam. The criticalfactor is the long dis-tance between transmit-ter and receiver, but thepossibility to exploit per-manent irradiation,independent from mete-orological circumstances,represents the attractiveadvantage.

R E F E R E N C E S

AEI (Italian Electro-technical Associa-tion), Issue on Ener-gie rinnovabili, 2008- Energie rinnovabiliemergenti, 2010.EUROPEAN COM-MISSION – EURO-PEAN TECHNOLOGY

PLATFORM SMART

GRIDS, Strategicresearch agenda forEurope’s electricitynetwork of theFuture, 2007.G R E E N P E A C E

IN T E R N AT I O N A L,Energy revolution, a sustainable pathway to a cleanenergy future for Europe, 2005.

IEA (International Energy Agency), World Energy Outlook,2007, 2008, 2009.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, The future of Energy, SpecialEd., April 2009.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A big plan for the Solar Energy,(1) 2008. ©


FIGURE I

FIGURE II

Paul holds an Honours degree in Elec-tronic and Electrical Engineeringfrom Liverpool University. Followingthe successful design, development andoperation of a community accessrecording studio in Liverpool, Pauljoined the Centre for Alternative Tech-nology in 1988, responsible for design,development, production of a widerange of renewable energy systemsincluding solar powered medical sys-tems for use in Bosnia, Eritrea andmany other parts of the world. Paulworked to develop CAT’s spin-out engi-neering company Dulas Ltd in 1990,which has now gone on to become asuccessful independent business.In 1995 Paul took up the newly creat-ed position as CAT’s Media andCommunications Officer, thisinvolved pro-active and re-activework with radio, television and thepress, acting as principal spokesper-son for the centre. 1997 Paul was afounding director of EcoDyfi, thelocal regeneration organisation for the Dyfi Valley, in MidWales. Winner of the 2002 EU Campaign for Take-OffAward, Ecodyfi has established a number of community-based water, wind, solar and wood-fuel schemes.In 1997 Paul became the Development Director heading thestrategic development of the organisation for the nextdecade. Recent projects include the Autonomous Environ-mental Information Centre, development of the ‘CarbonGym’ calculator and most recently the ‘Wales Institute forSustainable Education’.Paul is currently CAT’s External Relations Director, headingthe ground-breaking Zero Carbon Britain strategy pro-gramme, liaising directly with key policy makers in Govern-ment, business, public sector and the devolved assemblies todisseminate the findings of their evidence-based scenariodevelopment work.He held key positions as UK Millennium Fellow (1996);Director ‘EcoDyfi’ (1998); Fellow Royal Society of the Arts(2005) Board Member Cynnal Cymru (2006); ClimateChange Commissioner for Wales (2007); Presented to All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (2007), Envi-ronmental Audit Committee (2008) & European Parlia-ment (2009); Board member of the International Forum forSustainable Energy (2008).

H E W O R L D I S I N C R I S I S , I N T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y W E

face enormous challenges brought about bychanges in the earths climate. In Europe andthe industrialised west, the well being of indi-viduals and communities is underpinned by:

1. Climate Security – Our hospitable, reliable climate; 2. Energy Security – Access toabundant, cheap fossil fuels;3. Economic Security – Stableeconomic and monetary systems.All three of these aspects arenow in crisis, and left un-checked they will compoundand synergise. As we feel theseimpacts they bring wider issuesto the forefront such as climatechange and migration. A cli-mate refugee is a person dis-placed by climatically inducedenvironmental disasters. Suchdisasters result from incremen-tal and rapid ecologicalchange, resulting in increaseddroughts, desertification, sealevel rise, and the more fre-quent occurrence of extremeweather events such as hurri-canes, cyclones, fires, massflooding and tornadoes. Allthis is causing mass global

migration and border conflicts. Furthermore dis-placements of peoples and reduced resourcesimpacts on the areas where people are migratingtoo and consequentially social pressures.In our report Zero Carbon Britain 2030, we took alook at the science behind our most recent under-standing of these key challenges and argue that weneed to rapidly decarbonise Britain now in orderto do so equitably and humanely. In doing so theindustrialised west and in this case Britain canaccept responsibility for its carbon emissions.The full report is available free to download atwww.zerocarbonbritain.com, but here below is anoverview of our analysis.

C L I M A T E S E C U R I T Y

Since the industrial revolution, global atmosphericconcentration of carbon dioxide has increasedfrom 260 parts per million to around 380ppm. Sofar, by the greenhouse effect, we have raised theaverage global temperature by 0.8°°C. Even if we


“ If a man

hasent’

discovered

something he

will die for,

he isn’t

fit to live. ”MM AA RR TT II NN LL UU TT HH EE RR KK II NN GG

g | C H A L L E N G E S

TMEETING OUR 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES

P A U L A L L E N

were able to stick at 380ppm, we are locked intoanother 2 or 3 decades of warming which will takeus up to around 1.5°C.Below a 2°C rise on average global temperature weknow the earths natural ‘carbon sinks’ work tobuffer us from the worst effects of our fossil fuelemissions, slowing climate change by helping sinkaround half of the carbon dioxide we release backinto the earth.Over recent years, clear and robust evidence hasemerged, a global temperature rise above 2°°C trig-ger has a high likelihood of triggering an array ofmuch larger climate feedbacks which will runawaybeyond control and unleash climate chaos. Allow-ing this to happen on an Earth supporting six tonine billion inhabitants would unleash widespreadeconomic collapse, massive agricultural losses,international water shortages, dangerous rises insea levels, food famines, widespread ecologicald e g r a d a -tion andcreate tensof millionsof environ-m e n t a lrefugees –basically aglobal cata-s t r o p h ethat wouldd w a r frecent hur-ricanes orfloods andlast for tensof thou-sands of years. Long industrialised countries are responsible forthe majority of the problem and possess infrastruc-ture and wealth achieved through burning fossilfuel over the past 150 years. Historical responsibili-ty for climate change rests overwhelmingly on thelong-industrialised world, but it is the majorityworld that will be hit hardest by the consequences.We, who have already spent so much of the globalcarbon budget should therefore set the pace tohelp foster a global agreement. All of these factssuggest that a programme to avoid a 2°C rise mustaim for zero emissions as quickly as is possible.However, even a 2°C rise cannot be considered‘safe’. It would still mean we have made the Earthwarmer than it has been for millions of years. Analliance of the most vulnerable (Small Island Statesand Least Developed Countries) has called for themaximum to be 1.5°C. So 2°C must be consideredas the very maximum absolute upper limit for anacceptable level of risk, and it is imperative thatthis target at least is not exceeded.There is no time to delay. In light of the mostrecent evidence, the UK must aim for as close to a

100% cut as possible, as fast as possible. The ZeroCarbon Britain 2030 scenario explores how thiscould be achieved in just two decades.

E N E R G Y S E C U R I T Y

Climate security is not the only reason we shouldembark on a transition away from fossil fuels. Ourunstoppable oil economies are now being halted bythe immovable facts of geology. For the first timein our history, just as demand is exploding acrossthe globe, humanity will soon no longer be able toincrease fossil fuel production year on year. No oneis talking about oil “running out,” but rather therealisation that despite accelerating demand, globalrates of production must inevitably plateau and gointo decline. What remains being dirtier, consider-ably more expensive and harder to extract.Of the 98 oil producing nations in the world, 64 are

thought tohave passedtheir geo-l o g i c a l l yi m p o s e dproductionpeak, andof those, 60are now int e r m i n a lproductiond e c l i n e .Britain hasnow joinedthose indecline.In 2005 the

UK again became a net energy importer, as shown inFIGURE 1. The principal reason for this is the declinein North Sea oil and gas production. Britain hasbeen producing gas from the North Sea since 1967and oil since 1975. The basin is now ‘mature’ (UK Oil& Gas 2009).Our North Sea oil production reached its peak in1999; UK gas production peaked in 2000, and isnow declining at 2% per annum. If the UK contin-ues to rely on gas, it will increasingly have toimport it from Norway, the Netherlands, the for-mer Soviet Union and Algeria. If we can find or borrow the money, importingenergy from overseas can for now substitute forour failing domestic production. But, due to glob-al geological constraints they cannot offer a reli-able long-term solution. There are other short-term energy security options such as a return tocoal, which would of course accelerate climatechange. Coal, therefore is not an environmentallysustainable option and may quickly becomeuneconomic if carbon pricing is deployed.Our longer-term energy security is dependant onour development of alternative sustainable sources.


FIGURE I

These sources can be powered up to meet the dri-vers of both climate and energy security.

E C O N O M I C S E C U R I T Y

The rules that determine the next two decades willbe very different from those that determined theprevious two. Since the late 1970s the North Sea oiland gas reserves have enabled the UK to be a netenergy exporter, making a significant contributionto the UK’s balance of payments. It has been esti-mated that replacing North Sea extraction withimports would add £ 45 billion to the trade deficit,based on a rough estimate of 100 billion cubicmetres of gas at 2p/kWh, 680 million barrels of oilat $ 60 per barrel and an exchange rate of $ 1.75 tothe pound. In addition, the Exchequer raised near-ly £ 13 billion in tax from the offshore oil and gasindustry in 2008.

J O I N I N G

T H E D O T S

O N E N E R G Y

So whatdoes this alltell us? Well,on numer-ous fronts,the conse-quences ofthe past 150years of rapid industrialisation are all simultaneouslycoming home to roost. Many of us still haven’t real-ly grasped the serious nature of our predicament.Even senior experts, scientists, NGO’s and politicalleaders fail to appreciate that the most recent evi-dence on both climate and energy security reveals asituation more urgent than had been expected, evenby those who have been following it closely fordecades.There is a huge gulf between what the most recentclimate science tells us we urgently need, presentCO2 reduction targets (80% by 2050) and the speedof which we are moving away from fossil fueldependency.The urgent challenges of the 21st Century cannotbe solved with a 20th century mind-set; theyrequire a smart, conscious and integrated approach.Once we join the dots and look for the bigger pic-ture, we find a great many solutions to climate secu-rity are the same as solutions to energy and econom-ic security. This requires an immediate and funda-mental overhaul of the way we use energy to deliverour well being, and a massive new programme toharvest our indigenous renewable energy sources.Never has in our history has a closing window ofopportunity been so vitally important to grasp.The credit crunch has shown us the consequences

of not reacting ahead of events. If we ignore thewarnings and wait until the climate / energy / eco-nomic crunch is really upon us before becomingserious about scaling-up the solutions, in the ensu-ing chaos and dislocation we may struggle tomuster the resources required.

A Z E R O C A R B O N B R I T A I N

If the problems are left un-checked they will com-pound and synergise, but if we act in time, the solu-tions will also synergise, but in a positive way. To fos-ter debate around such a transition, CAT has devel-oped the ‘Zero Carbon Britain 2030’ strategy to showhow we can integrate our detailed knowledge andexperience from the built environment, transport,energy industry and agriculture into a nationalframework offering a common, coherent vision link-ing government and industry and citizens – endors-

ing, sup-porting andconnectinga c t i o n sacross allsectors ofsociety.By takingthe righta c t i o n snow, westay aheadof events –

through re-thinking our attitudes and taking anuncompromising new approach to energy we findwe can deliver well being on with a lot less energy,and we can extract the energy we do need from ourindigenous renewable energy sources.The built environment, for example, can play asignificant role in reducing the UK’s greenhouse gasemissions through measuring and reducing emis-sions in construction and maintenance as well asregulation to enforce the reduction of emissionsfrom both new buildings and the existing stock.Putting a price signal on carbon will furtherencourage businesses and individuals to upgradetheir buildings, and creative business models suchas ‘energy service companies’ plus improved designand refurbishment standards can play a vital role.Through careful selection of building materials anational campaign can enable the building stockto lock away carbon helping to reduce atmosphericlevels of CO2.Rather than residing at the leaky end of a peakingpipeline of polluting fossil fuel imports, Britaincan head its own indigenous energy-lean renew-able supply chain. Every field, forest, island, river,coastline, barn or building holds the potential tobe a power station, with different technologiesappropriate to every scale or region.

S P A N D A J O U R N A L I , 1 /2 0 1 0 | EE N E RG Y & DD E V E LO P M E N T | 1 0

FIGURE II

By their very nature these renewable reserves willnot peak, in fact as the technology matures andbecomes economic in a wider range of applica-tions, the available reserve actually increases.This transition is the cornerstone of a new eco-nomic approach that will move society on fromdoing the things that got us into so much troublein the first place. By learning the hard economiclessons of the past few decades we can re-focus theingenuity of the finance sector on the actual chal-lenges at hand.

Investment in such an economic stimulus wouldnot only create a vast carbon army of re-skilledworkers, and inject money into the economy atground level, it would also deliver very tangiblereturns to repay the taxpayer, or pension fundfrom the price of the energy saved or generated.Through this approach, we not only tackle climateand energy security, but also get the nation back towork, within a stable economy by our indigenousrenewable energy sources, and heading off an esca-lating balance of payments crisis as North Seaexports tail off and the we pay price of importedenergy goes through the roof.A zero carbon transition will, of course, entail achallenging period in our history, requiring bolddecision making and an urgent sense of commonpurpose, more akin to that which pertained duringWorld War II than in any period since. There is lit-tle to be gained however by they way we live todaywith those of a zero carbon future, because life aswe know it now must inevitably change whetherwe prepare for it or not. A more useful comparisonis between a future where we have been proactive

and acted ahead of events and a future where wehave let events overtake us. Britain can stay ahead of events through creating anew kind of economy; stable in the long term,locally resilient but still active in a global context,rich in quality jobs, with a strong sense of purposeand reliant on indigenous, in-exhaustible energy.But the window of opportunity is closing, - now isthe time to act. Such a rapid de-carbonisation willbe the biggest undertaking we have made in gener-ations, so it will require a great many to commit to

the challenge, but in doing so we will find a senseof collective purpose that we have been craving fora very long time.The full report is available free to download atwww.zerocarbonbritain.com. ©


Dr Gregor Czisch, a fully qualifiedagriculturist, studied physics atMunich Technical University, spe-cializing in energy supply. He wrotehis PhD in electrical engineering onscenarios for a future electricity sup-ply with renewable energies. He hasworked on various topics in the ener-gy-related field at Munich TU, theDLR Stuttgart, the Fraunhofer ISE inFreiburg, and the Max Planck Insti-tute for Plasma Physics (IPP) inGarching. Among his key areas ofscientific focus were solar buildingengineering, utilization of biomass,wind energy and hydropower, pri-mary energ y analyses, emissionanalyses, high temperature heat stor-age and solar thermal power plants.During his work in the R&D divi-sion Information and Energy Econo-my at the Institute for Solar EnergySupply Techniques (ISET) and at theInstitute for Electrical Energy Tech-nology/Rational Energy Conversion(IEE-RE) at the University of Kassel, he worked on potential-analyses for renewable energies and on simulating their pro-duction behavior, on conceptualizing energy transport sys-tems and on developing scenarios for a CO2-neutral electrici-ty supply. This work resulted, among other things, in a PhDwith the title Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply –Cost-Optimized Approaches to Supplying Europe andits Neighbors with Electricity from Renewable Energies,for which he was awarded the distinction summa cumlaude. Since completing his doctorate, parallel to his researchat the University of Kassel, Dr Czisch has worked as a con-sultant to the Scientific Advisory Council on EnvironmentalChange of the German Federal Government (WBGU) andwas, among other things, invited as an expert to hearings invarious ministries, parliaments and utilities.

O U R S T U D I E S D E M O N S T R AT E T H E F E A S I B I L I T Y O F A

European electrical system supplied only byrenewable sources. What are the main pointsof your proposal?

My proposal – derived from the results of myresearch – is to develop a large scale grid through-out Europe and Sahara – called super-grid – to

interconnect wide spread different sites with elec-trical generators supplied by renewable sources,namely wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass.In contrast with the smart grids, which represent afuturistic approach made of highly intelligentapplications, the super-grid is already feasible with

the technology available today,and serves to exploit in anoptimal way the enormouspotential of the renewablesources. [FIGURE 1].To demonstrate this possibility, Icarried out from 1997 till 2004 atechnical and economical sys-temic study. The first prelimi-nary publication was in 2001. Ianalyzed the potential and thetemporal behavior of the renew-able sources in all different loca-tions worldwide and the corre-sponding unitary cost of theequipment for production andtransmission of renewable elec-tricity including all costs foroperation and maintenance. Thedata for Europe and its neigh-borhood were then fed in a hugemathematical optimization tocalculate the optimal distributionand dispatch of all generatorsand transmission systems.

The main result for the base case scenario – onlyallowing to use existing technologies at currentmarket prices (around 2001) – is that the most effi-cient arrangement is a system where two thirds ofthe electrical supply are provided by wind power,which is available in all areas but with differentdaily and seasonal behaviors (e.g. in NorthernEurope the strongest winds are in winter, while inSahara in summer). The super-grid indeed com-pensates the fluctuations of electricity produced indifferent countries and therefore is foreseen – as aresult of the optimization – to strongly intercon-nect the sites of production and consumption.The other sources selected to provide a mayor con-tribution are biomass (17%) and already existinghydropower plants (15%). Biomass and existing stor-age hydropower (not pump storage which only pro-vides a minor contribution as backup) are mainlyused as energy storage (the most important storagehydropower is existing in Scandinavian countries)and as backup when the production from windpower is not sufficient to meet the demand.


T H E S U P E R - G R I DAA CC OO NN VV EE RR SS AA TT II OO NN WW II TT HH G R E G O R C Z I S C H BB YY AA LL EE SS SS AA NN DD RR OO CC OO LL OO MM BB OO

Y

“ It is a good

morning exercise

for a research

scientist to

discard a pet

hypothesis every day

before

breakfast. ”KKOO NN RR AA DD LLOO RR EE NN ZZ

g | O N F O C U S

The role of the solar power from solar thermalpower plants would be instead only marginal(1,6%), because the present technology to exploitthe sun is very expensive compared to the otherones. In fact the cost figures for the solar thermalpower plants in the scenarios might have been a bitoptimistic. They have not been based on currentmarket data since there was no new plant built formore than a decade. The first new commercial onewas built in 2008 and the costs were twice as high asestimated for the base case scenario. Therefore it is

unlikely that the optimization would have chosensolar thermal power plants if it would have“known” the real today’s costs.

Photovoltaic (PV) production is not selected by theoptimization. To give a significant contribution,the cost of the PV installations should be reducedby 8 times compared to the costs figures of around2001 or about 5 to 6 times compared to the today’scosts. Then the optimization finds a best solutionthat includes 4% of the electricity produced by PVapplications only sited in the sunniest Saharastates. But this cost decline might be unrealistic.So even this small contribution might eventuallynever become part of a cost optimal solution.The overall cost of electricity calculated for thebase case scenario is 4.6 Euro cent/kWh. This canbe compared to the 6-10 cents/kWh we are paying

at the electricity market (EEX) for consumptionshaped electricity today. This outcome is veryencouraging: with a proper mix of renewable ener-gies and a super-grid infrastructure embracingEurope, North Africa and smaller parts of Siberia,we can provide electricity to all countries at alower cost than today, freeing the system from fos-sil or nuclear fuels and with no more substantialimpact on the environment.

Isn’t the sun power more available than wind inSahara?

Yes and no, the wind resources are tremendous inNorth Africa. I agree that in the common percep-tion the Saharan region is normally associated withthe sun resource, but at a closer look also the poten-tial of wind energy is enormous. According to arecent study from the Harvard University, and con-firmed by several others also my some years olderstudies, eight countries in the Sahara could individ-ually generate the whole electricity need of Europeor some times more from wind power. Hereby nosite is selected where the average load of the wind-mill was less than 20% of the rated power. Manysites are much better. So the potentials could servewith more than enough amount cheap electricity.

On the other side, the nuclear energy seems to be evencheaper, at 2 cents per kWh, according to its supporters.Is that realistic?


FIGURE I.

The figures for the nuclear energy are under seriousdebate. The nuclear power stations need a hugeinvestment for their construction and a long work-ing time for their amortization. This creates theneed to run the plants continuously at full power,“until it breaks into pieces”, and only then the aver-age cost of the generated electricity can decreasemore or less to the variable costs of 1.5-2 c/kWh ifwe neglect the debate about the costs of insuranceand the long term cost of nuclear waste disposal. Nuclear plants are therefore used to mainly coverthe steady base of the demand of electricity. But ifthe use of alternative sources like wind powerexpands also a growing part of the base load bandwill be provided by them, the nuclear plantswould no longer be run continuously, the initialinvestment is recovered more slowly, and the aver-age production cost increases.In other words, nuclear plants are more or lessincompatible with an increasing quota of renew-able generation. An intelligent strategy of invest-ment should privilege instead other flexible andadjustable types of generation, which can perfectlywork with the variability of alternative sources.The existing nuclear stations should be graduallyphased out and no new ones should be built.

How was the reaction from the scientific communityand the political level to your proposal?After almost nine years from the first publicationof the results and a large number of presentationsin conferences and papers, I consider the reactiontoo cold and too slow.This has to do with the political positions, and theinterests involved. In Germany for example wehave three main strategic directions with regard tothe energy issues.First, the coal lobby, which is strong both in theright and the left-wing parties like the SPD, andpromotes the construction of new coal powerplants more or less ignoring the climate impact.Secondly, we have the supporters of nuclear power,equally strong and well connected to the utilitiesand also with some background in different parties. At last, there are the opponents of both of them,which can be identified in the “green groups” acrossthe several parties. They often promote a vision of“beautiful” small-scale installations, a sort of decen-tralized autarchic model, and are supported by man-ufacturers and installers as the ones of solar panels.Such an approach, even if perceived as alternative tothe traditional system, can never really compete withor hardly replace the big nuclear or coal industry,and therefore allows for their long-term permanence.Decentralists oppose even the construction of newpower lines, which are also needed to transport ener-gy from wind power within the national borders. They think of an ideal like every house suppliedby its own solar cells and independent from the

network, but that in the best case leads to veryexpensive supply with poor energetic efficiency.

Who are the parties supporting your scenario?My proposal received strong support throughoutmost political parties, either officially or indirectly. Ihave been invited to many hearings, like at the Ger-man ministry of Economy, to discuss the law for theacceleration of the construction of transmission lines[Energieleitungs-ausbaugesetz], as well as in the EUparliament, where I presented my results firstly in2004, or in conjunction with the Baltic sea parlia-mentarian conference, leading to a resolution for theconstruction of HVDC lines (High Voltage DirectCurrent, an old and modern technology used totransmit electricity to very long distances, above 800km). In 2009 a new EU directive was issued, to allowthe import of electricity generated from renewablesources from non-EU countries, in order to arrive atthe aimed quota of 20% of the EU energy consump-tion provided from renewables by 2020.These regulations are consistent with the Super-grid idea.Also the industry is now drawing attention to thesuper-grid thanks to the Desertec Industrial Initia-tive, joined by major energy groups like RWE andEON. I initiated this idea since I contacted the maindriver the Munich RE in 2005. Now the result is – abit different than I tried to communicate – based onlarge solar thermal installations in the Sahara Desert,with the electricity transported to Europe by HVDClines. So again we see parts of the super-grid.Unfortunately the solar thermal technology is notmature enough, it is still expensive in comparisonto wind power (15-20 c/kWh against 3-5 c/kWh forwind energy) and would take too long time todevelop to a major source able to help to avoid theworst effects of the climate change in time. In 2008 we have had only 100 MW of new solar ther-mal plants, while the new wind generators amount-ed at 27.000 MW in the same period, almost 300 timesmore, and growing constantly by 30-40% per year.I don’t know why Desertec Initiative focues onsolar plants, but a guess is that they don’t reallyfoster a quick transition to alternative sources,since they represent the industrial groups and utili-ties that also run the existing traditional plants.

Do you see geopolitical issues that might render insta-ble such realization?I answer with a question. Why don’t we raise ageopolitical concern to the fact that Europe cur-rently imports about 25% of its natural gas importsfrom a single country, Algeria, and another 40%from one other single country, Russia? The gaspipelines currently in use act exactly like a super-grid, transporting gas from Sahara and fromSiberia to Europe. There is no conceptual differ-ence from transmitting electricity instead of gas.


The only difference is that the gas is stored in bigstorages to guarantee about 2 month of autonomy(The storage hydropower storages with a capacityroughly equal one month of the electricity consump-tion are somewhat smaller), but if Algeria wouldstop the supply we would soon have big problems.And we experienced a crisis when Ukraine stoppedthe transit of gas from Russia through its territory.The scenario with renewable electricity would beinstead much more secure, because the sources canbe diversified, with less dependency from singlecountries.Think about the enormous rise of the oil price,which increased ten times in a decade, jumpingfrom roughly 10$/barrel in the 90s to the 150$/bar-rel we saw recently… this cannot happen withrenewable sources, which instead become cheaperwith time, thanks to the advancement of technolo-gy, and are available more or less everywhere, witha relatively low variation of cost.

What conditions would facilitate the implementation ofa new grid? How are you involved in fostering that idea?One approach is to apply the EU directive and theGerman law mentioned before, which facilitatesthe erection of new transmission lines, but we lacka similar legislation all over Europe. We furtherneed a harmonized regulation to support thefinancing of these projects, for example a commonEuropean feed-in tariff able to cover the cost forproduction and transmission of the electricity. This would be a powerful instrument to attractinvestors and to guarantee a certain security of thefinancial returns, which in turn would give accessto cheaper credits. I’m lobbying for that idea sinceseveral years, lately in the “Mitigation CountryStudy for Germany” for the UN Human Develop-ment Report 2007/2008 Fighting climate change:Human solidarity in a divided world.

What consequences may this large grid system have onthe Saharan countries?The benefits for the concerned countries in Africacould be tremendous. I give one simple example. To import 10% of itselectricity demand from wind energy in Morocco,Europe would have to invest about 3% of its GDP inwind generators in Morocco. This corresponds toroughly 200% of the Moroccan GDP. Such a deci-sion would boost the local economy, creating jobs,local competences and industries. In addition itwould help Morocco to produce its electricity fromits own wind resources since the resources can morecost efficiently be used in large scale than for thesmall national demand. The tremendous potentialcan hardly be exploited to a considerable extend ifthere is not a powerful connection with an inter-regional grid with the big consumer Europe.

Such a large-scale cooperation based on renewableenergies would constitute a win-win situation, andthe same is valid for several other Saharan countries.It would be a clear sign towards a systematicalchange in the way we live together, because it wouldnot be a fragmented intervention or a temporaryhelp for a developing country, but a sustainableinvestment in order to serve for a mutual interest inthe long term.Before we go on with a more divided world, moretensions throughout the Mediterranean, moreimmigration phenomena, we have to think ofcooperation and catch such an opportunity for aglobal human development. It reflects an impor-tant decision we have to take, to find a standpointcooperation or separation.

Is there any feedback from the Saharan countries?Yes and very positive. Since the beginning of mywork I’ve been cooperating with politicians andscientist from Morocco and from other NorthAfrican countries, like the former Minister ofMining in Algeria who published the results of mystudy in his journal, or Egyptian authorities, orSahara-wind a company lobbying for exports ofwind energy from Morocco for roughly onedecade now. Many Africans have well understoodthe benefits of such a system.

Are there similar projects outside Europe and Sahara?Nobody has developed so far a systemic study likemine for another world region. A study with some similarities but much simpler waspublished in Scientific American. I had exchangedideas with the authors in some conference in 2004,but they followed a more simplified approach anddid not optimize the whole system.I have discussed the results of my research also inChina and India – here in connection with theObserver Research Foundation – and I saw somefurther developments.An interesting development in Africa is driven bythe enormous hydropower potential located closeto Inga at the river Congo. Here could be builtone single hydropower station that could deliverabout two thirds of the whole African electricitydemand at very low cost, around 1 c/kWh. Thisopportunity is known since decades. And there areother very good sites at the river Congo and atother African rivers. Several African countries are joining together to buildup so called power pools. The Idea is to erect a kindof pan African Super-grid to make use of this poten-tial source of electricity at Inga all over Africa. Thereis some involvement of The World Bank, the AfricanDevelopment Bank, and industries like ABB. Thisdevelopment could be combined with the develop-ment of the European/North African Super-grid.In 1989 Karl-Werner Kanngießer, an expert atHVDC, proposed that a part of the electricity from


Inga could be delivered to Europe by means of anHVDC connection.I knew this proposal and therefore I also elaborat-ed one scenario making use of the energy fromInga, with the interesting result that the overallcost of electricity would be reduced considerably,both because the hydropower is cheaper in itselfand because it helps to restrict the remaining useof wind power to better sites with higher efficien-cy, an advantageous systemic effect.I am discussing this scenario and the combinationof the two Super-grids with African experts. Wealso consider potential problems of security when ahuge proportion of electricity comes from one sin-gle site. Or we look at the situation where at once ahuge part of the production comes from a newplant and would force existing plants to be switchoff, a situation which is not very welcome by theowners of the existing plants. But combining theAfrican Super-grid with the European/NorthAfrican Super-grid both problems could be solvedsince the relative contribution of the Inga powerplant would be much smaller in the common sys-tem and the backup capacities for emergency situa-tions would be much bigger. So the combined Super-grid system expandingfrom Inga over the whole African continent and toEurope matches very well with the European andAfrican demand and the need of African develop-ment. If we imagine the routes connecting Ingawith Europe, we could feed electricity along theway in many grids of African countries, support-ing industrialization and development at very lowcost. When the African demand grows furtherAfrican renewable sources like wind, hydropoweror biomass could be used to feed into the Super-grid while the more expensive electricity could beused and paid by the rich European countries.

How is public awareness about the energy debate? Isit still considered a merely technical issue?My feeling is that the public awareness is growingquickly. I am asked to give presentations in manydifferent contexts, technical, political, or groups ofinterested citizens, and all of them are very openminded – as long as they do not belong to a cer-tain lobby or a company’s shareholders or belief ina very decentralistic approach.However, the opportunities represented by thesuper-grid are not yet fully arrived at the politicallevel. If we look at the recent Copenhagen debates:instead of developing new ideas, they are still dis-cussing about the trading of CO2 emissions, carbonlimits, carbon-taxes and other old-style proposalswhich hardly are effective because they are toomuch based on the unrealistic believe in the positivemarket forces and neglect the inelastic behavior ofthe consumers in the case of energy consumption.

The carbon tax for example cannot achieve any sig-nificant CO2 reduction, because Energy is a goodwith low price elasticity: when the price increases,the consumption remains the same (like the men-tioned 10-time increase of oil price which had hard-ly any effect on the consumption). Another tax onthe fossil fuels will not really help to reach any goalof reduction, but will only make the energy moreexpensive, resulting in harmful social effects likereduced accessibility for poor people. In the richstate Germany, as many as about 800.000 house-holds are disconnected from electricity and/or gassupply annually because they simply cannot paythe bill. This has serious consequences not only forthe lifestyle but also for health. A tax intervention on energy reflects an old politi-cal mentality based on the believe that the markedwill be the best regulation.If governments want to change something theyhave to think in completely other ways. E.g. theyshould directly change the electricity system,which is responsible for roughly half of the globalCO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Our society hasthe possibility to establish a cheaper electrical sup-ply without CO2 emissions. Why aren’t these solu-tions taken into account in the climate debate?There is not enough political awareness about theknown possibilities. ©


Bahareh Seyedi is affiliated to theEnvironment and Energy Group ofthe United Nations DevelopmentProgramme. Prior to her engage-ments at UNDP Headquarters inNew York, she took part in multipledevelopment initiatives as pro-gramme officer and project managerin West Africa, Central America,and South East Asia.

Minoru Takada is Head of the Sus-tainable Energy Programme at theEnvironment and Energy Group ofthe Bureau for Development Policyat United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) in New York.Before joining UNDP’s Policy Bureau,he was posted at UNDP in Angolaand also served in Ghana as a com-munity development officer.

I ~ E N E R G Y I S

T H E M I S S I N G M D G

N E R G Y I S A P R E R E Q U I S I T E F O R I M P R O V I N G T H E

livelihoods of billions of people living inunimaginable conditions of poverty. It isthe missing link that can no longer beignored if the development community is

serious about achieving the Millennium Develop-ment Goals (MDGs). Meeting the MDGs is an extra-ordinary endeavor that enables the poor to breakout of poverty by unleashing socio-economic devel-opment and environmental sustainability. Adoptedby 189 world leaders during the Millennium Sum-mit in September 2000, the MDGs provide a num-ber of benchmarks to overcome major hurdlestowards sustainable human development. The eightgoals range from eradicating extreme poverty andhunger, achieving universal primary education, andpromoting gender equality, to reducing child mor-tality, improving maternal health, combating dis-eases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and aglobal partnership for development. Missing fromthe list of eight goals, however, is energy. None ofthe MDGs can be met without access to adequate,

affordable, and reliable energy services that provideessential input to tackle poverty in its multipledimensions including deprivation from economicopportunities, poor health, gender inequality, andlack of education (BOX 1). Promisingly, the globalcommunity has come a long way since 2000 in rec-

ognizing the intrinsic linkagesbetween energy and the MDGsas they are becoming evermore visible and can no longergo unrecognized. Indeed, thisis evident from the UnitedNations Secretary-GeneralAdvisory Group on Energyand Climate Change (AGECC)who calls for expanding energyaccess to more than 2-3 billionpeople by 2030 to overcomeenergy poverty, climate chal-lenges, and meet the Millenni-um Development Goals in itsrecent report “Energy for aSustainable Future” launchedin April 2010.

I I ~ T H E E N E R G Y H A V E S

A N D T H E H A V E - N O T S

In light of growing consensuson energy’s multiplier effect for

poverty reduction and achieving the MDGs, effortshave been on the rise to meet the energy needs ofthe poor by expanding access to modern forms ofenergy services. Yet, in spite of the efforts made overthe past two decades - whether its improving accessto electricity, clean fuels for cooking and heating, ormotive power – there remains an enormous energygap between the haves and the have-nots. In the developed world, energy is often taken forgranted- light turns on at a flick of a switch, waterflows with slight force on the tab, space is heatedwith pressing of a button and cooking is possiblewith turning of a knob. This picture of availabilityand accessibility of energy and the services that itprovides is not homogeneous across the globe.Two glaring statistics attest to the scale of the cur-rent energy inequality: about 3 billion people –half of humanity- still rely on solid fuels for theirmost basic energy need, cooking, while 1.5 billionpeople lack access to electricity. Energy poverty is particularly acute in the mostvulnerable parts of the world including the Least


E

E N E RG Y F O R T H E P O O RT H E M I S S I N G L I N K F O R A C H I E V I N G T H E M D G S

B A H A R E H S E Y E D I ~ M I N O R U T A K A D A

“ All moanday,

tearsday,

wailsday,

thumpsday,

frightday

shatterday,

till the fear

of the law. ”JJ AA MM EE SS JJOOYY CCEE

g | M D G S

Developed Countries (LDCs) and Sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA) where more than 80 percent of peopleprimarily rely on solid fuels for cooking, comparedto 56 percent of people in developing countries asa whole. In other words, the consequences of useof solid fuels in developing countries illustrates thereality of billions of poor, particularly women andchildren, who bear the burden of spending muchof their time searching for and collecting wood,animal dung, and other polluted fuels that theyuse for cooking in smoke-filled kitchen environ-ments or for heating their living spaces. Not onlythey face arduous workloads and limit their freetime that could otherwise be invested in produc-tive activities (ea.g. education, healthcare, etc.),they are also exposed to major, if not deadly,health hazards (BOX 2).For the haves in the regions of the world wherepeople have enjoyed the benefits of electricity mostof their lives, even one day without it is hard toimagine. Yet, for over 80 percent of people living inSouth Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa, lack of access toelectricity is a daily reality, where physicians cannot

provide quality health services because they do notoperate within quality facilities, where children’stime on educational activities is limited by darknessafter dusk, and where entrepreneurs’ economic out-put is restricted by insufficient power that is neces-sary to enhance the productivity of their businesses.This is a significant opportunity cost debilitatingsome of the poorest communities in the world inmeeting their development objectives.

I I I ~ S U R M O U N T I N G T H E E N E R G Y

C H A L L E N G E S O F T H E P O O R :

A 5 - P O I N T A G E N D A

Ending energy poverty is no doubt a dauntingchallenge. But the stakes are high and the conse-quences of inaction are almost certain to be exacer-bated. According to International Energy Agency(IEA) analysts, under the business-as-usual scenario,1.3 billion people will still lack access to electricityand 2.4 billion will continue to use traditional bio-mass for cooking and heating in 2030. Nevertheless,in the face of these mounting challenges, cause foroptimism remains and meeting the energy needs of


E N E R G Y A N D M D G S L I N K A G E S

G O A L 1 ~ E R A D I C A T E E X T R E M E P O V E R T Y A N D H U N G E R

4 Access to affordable energy services from gaseous and liquid fuels and electricity enables enterprisedevelopment, job creation, and increased agriculture production. In Bangladesh, villages with electricitygenerate 11 times more jobs than those without. The annual income in poor electrified households was65% higher than that in non-electrified ones.4 The majority (95 percent) of staple foods need cooking before they can be eaten and need water forcooking.

G O A L S 2 A N D 3 ~ A C H I E V E U N I V E R S A L P R I M A R Y E D U C AT I O N A N D P R O M O T E G E N D E R E Q UA L I T Y

4 Lighting in schools and homes helps retain teachers and provides illumination required for after dusk study. 4 Many children, specially girls, do not attend primary schools in order to carry wood and water tomeet family needs.4 In Mali, access to mechanical power for water pumping has almost doubled the girl-to-boy ratio inprimary school.

G O A L S 4 , 5 A N D 6 ~ R E D U C E C H I L D M O R T A L I T Y, I M P R O V E M A T E R N A L H E A LT H ,C O M B A T D I S E A S E

4 Indoor air pollution and gathering and preparing traditional fuels exposes young children to health risksand reduces time spent on child care. Occurrence of child pneumonia (up to 5 years of age) in childrenexposed to use of solid fuels increases by 2.3 times. Use of modern fuels can therefore help reverse this trendand enhance child mortality. Kitchen smoke contributes to about 2 million premature deaths annually.4 Women are disproportionally affected by indoor air pollution, water, and food-born diseases, all ofwhich contribute to poor maternal health conditions, especially in rural areas.4 Health care facilities, their staff and equipment all require electricity (illumination, sterilization,refrigeration, etc.).

G O A L S 7 A N D 8 ~ E N S U R E E N V I R O N M E N T A L S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y, D E V E L O P G L O B A L

PA R T N E R S H I P F O R D E V E L O P M E N T

4 Energy production, distribution, and consumption has adverse affects on the local, regional, andglobal environment including local indoor air pollution, land degradation, acidification of land and waterand climate change.4 The World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) called for partnerships to support sustainabledevelopment, including the delivery of affordable, reliable, and environmentally sustainable energy services.

BOX 1

the poor is far from impossible. Indeed, experiencein the last two decades has convincingly demon-strated a variety of successful technological, financ-ing, and delivery mechanisms that have led to sig-nificant results in many developing countries.Based on such experiences, the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) firmly believesthat surmounting the energy challenges of the pooris attainable. UNDP proposes five priority actions topave the way towards universal access to energy for3 billion energy poor by 2030.

1 ~ P R I O R I T I Z I N G E N E R G Y N E E D S O F T H E P O O R :

S E T T I N G T I M E - B O U N D E N E R G Y A C C E S S T A R G E T S

In developing countries, governments must makethe energy needs of the poor a national development

priority. The logic is not far fetching: nationalbudgets are allocated based on the priorities setout in a country’s development and poverty reduc-tion strategy. Budgetary allocations are needed toroll out policies and programmes that address theenergy needs of the poor. Accordingly, if a countryis to tackle the energy challenges of the poor, it hasto reflect energy access as a priority in its povertyreduction strategy. This, however, is not always thecase in many developing countries, where nationalpoverty reduction strategies are typically focusedon the business-as-usual development planningprocesses aimed to extend infrastructure andpower generation capacity while the needs of the

poor who are mostly “beyond-the-grid” are toooften ignored. A recent UNDP analysis found thatabout half of developing countries have establishedtargets for electricity access, for example. In con-trast, only few countries have set targets for accessto modern fuels (17 countries), access to improvedcooking stoves (11 countries), or access to mechan-ical power (5 countries). To successfully improveenergy access and scale up energy services forachieving the MDGs, goals, policies, and budgetsneed to be aligned according to the needs of thepoor. Setting time-bound targets is paramount tobetter articulation of such needs and to monitor-ing of progress towards achieving the end goal.Fortunately, there are some countries that havedone so successfully (BOX 3).

2 ~ D E L I V E R I N G B A S I C H O U S E H O L D A N D

P R O D U C T I V E N E E D S : G O I N G B E Y O N D

E L E C T R I C I T Y T O A D D R E S S C O O K I N G F U E L S

A N D M E C H A N I C A L P O W E R

Access to three energy services of electricity, cleanfuels, and mechanical power is needed to addressthe basic needs of the poor at the household level.Despite the traditional energy sector view of energyas electricity generation, poles, and transmissionlines, electricity alone is not the solution to all theneeds of the energy poor. Access to cleaner fuelsand improved devices for cooking and heating haveproved to be crucial in reducing health risks associ-ated with use of solid fuels and inefficient stoves in


H E A L T H R I S K S S S O C C I A T E D W I T H U S E O F S O L I D F U E L S

4 About two million premature deaths occur each year that are associated with the indoor burning ofsolid fuels in unventilated kitchens.4 Inhaling indoor smoke doubles the risk of pneumonia and other acute respiratory infections amongchildren under five years of age. 4 Women exposed to indoor smoke are two times more likely to suffer from lung cancer than womenwho cook with cleaner fuels.

E C O W O S W H I T E P A P E R O N E N E R G Y A C C E S S

The title White Paper for a Regional Policy Geared towards increasing access to energy services for rural andperiurban populations in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals indicates the underlying con-cern of the 15 West African Heads of State who adopted this policy on 12 January 2006. The White Papercontains an analysis of the existing situation with respect to access to energy in the region, and fixesambitious objectives: 4 Access to improved cooking services for 100% of the population in 2015; 4 Access to motive power for at least 60% of the rural population;4 Access to individual electricity service for all urban and 36% of rural dwellers.

The White Paper has already succeeded in mobilising political and financial efforts in favour of access toenergy in the region.

BOX 2. ~ SOURCE: UNDP ~ WHO, 2009.

BOX 3. ~ SOURCE: ECOWAS, 2005.

unventilated environments. Mechanical power foragro-processing machinery or water pumping candrastically reduce the time spent on drudgerychores and increases opportunities for productiveand income-generating activities. A variety of tech-nological innovations based on locally driven busi-ness models are already in existence that have sig-nificantly improved the socio-economic conditionsof the poor and have set foot in the road towardsachieving the MDGs (BOX 4).

3 ~ M O B I L I Z I N G F I N A N C I N G A N D S E E K I N G

I N N O V A T I V E I N V E S T M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S

While technologically feasible, providing about 3billion people with access to modern energy servicesmay at first seem financially unbearable and out ofreach. Recent studies, however, suggest otherwise.According to United Nations Secretary GeneralAdvisory Group of Energy and Climate Change,

the capital investment required for achieving uni-versal levels of access by 2030 is about $30-40 billionper year. This is relatively insignificant (only about5 percent) in comparison with the total global ener-gy investment expected during this period. Align-ing national poverty reduction strategies to energyaccess goals and targets will allow public sectorfunding to be channeled accordingly. In addition,innovative funding mechanisms such as public-pri-vate partnerships are needed to leverage public

sector financing. Furthermore, creating enablingenvironments to increase the poor’s access to smallscale financing – loans, credits, and other financingmechanisms targeting low-income households – isessential in enhancing the purchasing power of thepoor to benefit from the energy services available tothem (BOX 5).


I M P A C T O F M E C H A N I C A L P O W E R F O R A G R O - P R O C E S S I N G

M A C H I N E R Y I N B U R K I N A F A S O

The Multi-functional Platform (MFP) programme promotes economic development and poverty reduction,particularly for women who are amongst the most vulnerable groups. It does so by providing a low-cost,simple and robust energy service for agro-processing enterprise managed by women that can also be used topump water and generate electricity. To date, 400 platforms have been installed in 8 regions of the countrybenefiting 600,000 people in total. The programme’s contribution to accelerating the achievement of theMDGs, particularly reducing poverty and hunger, gender equality, and education are impressive: 4 Time-use surveys show that the platforms reduce by 2 to 4 hours per day the time women devote todomestic chores. This time is invested in income generating activities.4 Among the 24,000 women who benefit directly from the platforms, each woman saves an average of$55 per month compared to $11 per year without use of the platform.4 An evaluation, conducted in 14 villages in the Eastern region of Burkina Faso, shows that the literacyrate has raised from an average of 29% to 39 % after the installation of a MFP.

4 Women’s position in rural communities is extremely weak due to social and cultural practices. Benefi-ciary women who have involved themselves in a MFP enterprise have become more active community citi-zens. The women are not only engaged in the improvement of their own enterprise but participate moreactively in community meetings.

Between 2010 and 2015, 1,400 new platforms will be installed to the benefit 2,5 million people (i.e. 23%of the population). In this phase, UNDP will focus especially on the reinforcement of economic activitiesaround the Platforms and on the development of female, rural entrepreneurships. The programme hasalready spread to other countries in West Africa with support from UNDP.

S M A L L S C A L E F I N A N C E F O R M O D E R N C O O K I N G F U E L S I N K E N Y A

Substituting use of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) for wood is one means for providing sustainable cookingfuel. Families that wish to switch from wood to LPG must buy an LPG stove and pay a deposit to obtain anLPG cylinder.In Kenya, the number of household LPG cylinders grew from 50,000 in 1995 to over 700,000 in 2002.Some 4900 SACCOs (Savings & Credit Co-operatives), provided micro finance for LPG cylinders, at aninterest rate of 12 to 15% per annum. The loans were packaged and refinanced by the Kenya Union ofSavings & Credit Co-operatives.While micro finance played an important role, the success of the programme is also due to accompanyingmeasures: liberalisation of the fuels market; government mandated standardisation of cylinder valves;removal of VAT and import duties on LPG sales.

BOX 4. ~ SOURCE: UNDP, 2010a.

BOX 5. ~ SOURCE: UNDP, 2009.

4 ~ D E V E L O P I N G C A P A C I T Y O F I N S T I T U T I O N S A T

T H E L O C A L , N A T I O N A L , A N D R E G I O N A L L E V E L S

Capacity development lies at the heart of success-ful delivery of energy access to the poor. It is cen-tral in every step of the delivery process, from cre-ating enabling conditions and integrating energyneeds of the poor in poverty reduction frameworkand strategies, to identifying investment opportu-nities and mobilizing financing, to building theinstitutional capacities of local authorities, com-munity organizations and beneficiaries, and tosuccessfully deliver, manage, and maintain the ener-gy service systems. Capacity development also playsan essential role in bringing down the cost of inter-ventions by enhancing local markets and attractingfurther investments for replication and scale-up.Evidence from decentralized energy programmesdemonstrates that upfront investment in capacitydevelopment is initially 2 to 3 times higher than thelevel of investment required for hardware. In laterstages of the programme, however, when capacityhas developed and with economies of scale, thecosts are reduced dramatically. Experience fromNepal’s Rural Energy Development Programmeprovides a perfect example of the role of capacitydevelopment in successful delivery of energy accessprogrammes (BOX 6).

5 ~ F O R G I N G S T R A T E G I C P A R T N E R S H I P S

Surmounting the challenge cannot be addressed byone sector alone. Meeting the energy needs of thepoor requires concerted efforts to leverage the nec-essary knowledge, skills, and resources from abroad coalition of public entities, developmentagencies, civil society, and the private sector. Form-ing synergies and partnerships allows risks and

responsibilities to be shared while it enables com-bining, complementing, and capitalizing onstrengths and capacities to meet the needs of thepoor most effectively in a way that it can inducefundamental impacts on their socio-economicdevelopment and achievement of the MDGs. Tothis end, the United Nations has formed UN-Ener-gy, the UN -wide partnership to coordinate andstrengthen joint efforts to advocate for and takeaction on energy issues. Given the important role itcan play for the UN system, it is envisaged that UN-Energy’s activities will be significantly scaled-up inthe years to come.

I V ~ E N E R G I Z I N G T H E M D G S :

T O W A R D S U N I V E R S A L E N E R G Y A C C E S S

Energy is inseparable from socio-economic devel-opment and environmental sustainability. Achiev-ing universal access to adequate, reliable, andaffordable energy services for the 3 billion energypoor must be put at the forefront of the develop-ment discourse if MDGs are to be met. It is ambi-tious and challenging, but the goal of universalaccess to energy is also an achievable one, asdemonstrated through many successful examplesof technically and financially viable and innovative

experiences that have induced developmentimpacts with significant scale to some of the mostvulnerable communities. Strong political commit-ment is essential at all levels. Energy needs of thepoor must become a priority in poverty reductionstrategies where time-bound targets to deliverthree essential services of electricity, clean fuels,and mechanical power must be reflected. The role


D E V E L O P M E N T O F I N S T I T U T I O N A L C A P A C I T Y O F L O C A L A C T O R S

I N S C A L I N G - U P A N D R E P L I C A T I O N O F D E C E N T R A L I Z E D E N E R G Y

S Y S T E M S I N N E P A L

Nepal has made a significant progress in developing local institutional capacity to expand access to mod-ern energy services for rural populations. The Rural Energy Development Programme (REDP), imple-mented under the execution of the Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC), has directly impactedover 230,000 beneficiaries with a total of 267 micro-hydro schemes installed and owned by the local com-munities. Its aim is to enhance rural livelihoods through promoting rural energy technologies, primarilycommunity-managed micro hydro systems. It does so in part by developing the capacity of rural peopleto effectively utilize locally available energy resources and manage rural energy systems, thus reducingenergy production costs. With support from UNDP, the programme was initiated in 1996 to cover 5 districts only. Recent field sur-veys indicate development impacts such as increase in income by almost 30% per year in households,improved rate of enrolment in secondary education by 50%, and twice as much time-saving for womenfor activities such as reading, participating in educational programmes, and healthcare in communitieswith electricity. The programme has now evolved to cover 40 districts in its current third phase in part-nership with the World Bank.By 2012, the programme is planning to be present in Nepal’s 75 districts with anticipated capacity togrow by a further 6000 kW, supplying electricity and mechanical power to roughly 1.5 million ruralhouseholds that will accrue cumulative quantifiable benefits of over US$ 285 million per year. The pro-gramme is also working towards seizing the opportunity through Clean. Development Mechanism (CDM)with an aim to install a total of 15 MW of new MHS capacity, of which REDP would contribute 6.5 MW.

BOX 6. ~ SOURCE: UNDP, 2010b.

of capacity development cannot be ignored and ithas to be an integral part of all the processes asso-ciated with delivering energy services to the poor.There is an urgent need for concerted actionamong the public, the private, and civil societyorganizations to build awareness, catalyze financ-ing, and capitalize on knowledge, skills, and bestpractices that have demonstrated successful scale-up and replication of development impacts for theenergy poor.

The 2010 MDG Summit – to be held in September –presents an immense opportunity to make the case forthe criticality of achieving universal access to energyby 2030, and to pave the way in this direction. It istime for world leaders to commit to liberating 3 bil-lion energy poor from poverty by setting time-boundtargets on providing access to energy services, by iden-tifying innovative financing mechanisms to be chal-lenged in this direction, and by building a strongcoalition in all sectors to work together in makinguniversal access to energy a reality.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

UN-SG AGECC (United Nations Secretary General Advi-sory Group on Energy and Climate Change), “Ener-gy for a Sustainable Future”, 2010.

BARKAT A., S.H. KHAN, ET AL., “Economic and SocialImpact Evaluation Study of the Rural ElectrificationProgram in Bangladesh”. Arlington, VA: HumanDevelopment Research Centre and NRECA Interna-tional, Ltd., USAID, 2002.

ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States),“White Paper for a Regional Policy Geared towardsincreasing access to energy services for rural and peri-urban populations in order to achieve the Millenni-um Development Goals”, 2005.

IEA (International Energy Agency), “World Energy Out-look”, 2009.

KJØRVEN, OLAV, “Energizing the MDGs: going beyondbusiness-as-usual to address energy access, sustain-ability and security”, in Annual Report of The Com-monwealth Finance Ministers Meeting, 2006.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme),“Women Entrepreneurs in Burkina Faso”, UNDP

newsroom item, 2010a.——, “Assessment of the development benefits from

expanding access to micro-hydro electricity in ruralNepal”, upcoming publication, 2010b.

——, “Bringing Small Scale Finance to the Poor forModern Energy Services: What is the role of govern-ment? Experiences from Burkina Faso, Kenya, Nepal,and Tanzania”, 2009.

——, “Energizing Poverty Reduction: A Review of theEnergy-Poverty Nexus in Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers”, 2007.

——, “Achieving The Millennium Development Goals :The Role of Energy Services, CaseStudies fromBrazil, Mali and the Philippines”, 2005.

—— and WHO (United Nations Development Pro-gramme and World Health Organization), “TheEnergy Access Situation in Developing Countries: Areview focusing on least developing countries andSSA”, 2009.

UNITED NATIONS MILLENNIUM PROJECT, UNDP AND

WORLD BANK, “Energy Services for the MillenniumDevelopment Goals”, 2005. ©


a b

Certum est quia impossibile est.[It is certain because it is impossible]

T E RT U L L I A N , De Carne Christi.

a b

Carlo Gubitosa is a telecommunica-tion engineer working since 1996 asfreelance journalist for many majorItalian newspapers and websites,writing about social issues and no-profits activities. He collaboratessince 2003 with the faculty of com-munication sciences in Bologna aslecturer, and is currently followingthe development of a Content Man-agement System (CMS) realized to fitthe need of non-profit organization.He wrote nine books about socialcommunication, forgotten wars andother issues, and strongly believes inthe power of non-violent socialchange that communication tech-nologies can reveal. In 2009 hefounded the magazine Mamma!,the first Italian magazine who meltsjournalism and comics.

H E N I E X P L A I N TO M Y

omnivore friendsthat the cattle’s farts can damage theozone layer more than the vehicle traffic,and that the main scope of the oil wars is

to feed our stomach before filling our tanks, theythink I am getting crazy and stare at me with aston-ishment and disbelief. I really can’t blame them.That diffidence has indeed encouraged my study,from a scientific point of view, of the energetic andthe environmental impacts of the consumption ofanimal proteins. After a deep study of the scientificliterature, I find crazy those people who struggle tominimize their ecological imprint with small actionsonly – short showers, flow-splitting taps, high-effi-ciency lamps – and forget the most simple and effec-tive solution to save water, oil and land: reducing theintake of meat and animal proteins in general.Scientific documents show clear evidence (TABLE I):by replacing 1 kg of ovine meat with the equivalent1 kg of soya, it is possible to save as many as 49thousand liters of fresh water, more than theamount we individually consume for bath and

showers in one year. To make up one food calorie ofbeef meat, it is necessary to burn 40 calories of fossilfuels. While a hectare of land used for the farmingof bovine meat can feed one person only, the samehectare would feed more than 20 people, if convert-ed to the production of potatoes. Moreover, as the

FAO Report “Livestock’s longshadow environmental issuesand options” demonstrated in2006, the methane expelled bylivestock in intensive farming isfar more dangerous, in terms ofgreenhouse effects, than theexhaustion gases emitted by theglobal vehicles fleet worldwide. Despite being publicly known,these data are commonlyignored and kept out of theflashlights. The limitation ofmeat consumption is nevermentioned as an effective toolfor the reduction of our eco-logical imprint. Why?The reasons are related to aseries of concurrent factors.Animalists and vegetarians tendto have a radical approachtowards their choices, which arethen perceived as “difficult”

even by those sensible people who would be willingto lower their consumption of animal ingredients,even if not eliminating them from their diet. Fur-thermore, strong economic interests are connectedto the meat industry, encouraging our ministries,for example, to eat meat in public by any minimalsign of consumers’ hesitation. Besides, a large disin-formation campaign anachronistically describes veg-etarianism as an unsustainable and unhealthyoption; on the contrary, it is demonstrated, with thehighest medical-scientific reliability, that a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet is perfectly compatible with anhealthy alimentation, and that the risks of cardio-vascular diseases, in comparison with an omnivorediet, are strongly reduced.In such a context, people hardly realize how muchland, water and energy could be potentially “liber-ated” by means of a simple improvement of theirdiet habits.Science indicates that peace is built also at thetable, starting from the food choices, and that we


THE ENERGY WE ARE EATINGC A R L O G U B I T O S A

“ If we want

things to stay

as they are,

things

will have

to change. ”GG II UU SS EE PP PP EE DDII LL AA MM PP EE DD UU SS AA

g | A LT E R N AT I V E S

W

can contribute everyday to rebalance the explodingneeds of the mankind with the possibilities of ourEarth, which could give to everybody all what isnecessary for a sober life. There is no need to embrace a particular “foodreligion”, but to learn how eating “with our brain”before using our mouth and stomach. We will dis-cover that animal proteins are neither indispens-able for a balanced alimentation nor for the plea-sure of the taste, and that their productionrequires an enormous amount of resources whichcould be more usefully employed. That concept isindeed at everyone’s reach.We may therefore follow a more balanced dietstandard in order to reduce our ecological imprintat the minimum. What we need is only a deeperawareness and a broader view over our intercon-nections with the world, to get the link betweenthe move of the butterfly in our garden and thehurricane in the other part of the world. Smallactions in our daily life may have big consequenceson the whole planet.A diet able to conjugate vegetarianism and aresponsible use of resources leads to a differentvision of the world, free from violence and choles-terol, the latter being even potentially dangerousfor our body, as well known by those invited tosuspend meat intake for medical reasons.The excessive consumption of animal proteins in oursociety jeopardizes the food sovereignty and the sur-vival of populations living on other countries far away.Water, cereal, prime materials and oil consumedjust for our tables are both limited and exhaustibleresources. The basic idea of an energetically andecologically sustainable approach to the alimenta-tion requires just some respect for our motherEarth. By reducing the meat consumption we canachieve a better and tastier eating, and restore thehope to populations who have turned poor due toour greed and unaware lifestyle. Our willingness to understand the world and tosearch what is better for us will become an activeinstrument of peace and justice for all.

TABLE 1 – MEAT CONSUMES MUCH MORE WATER

TO PRODUCE 1 KG OF ... ... THE NEEDED AMOUNT OF WATER IS

SOURCE: David Pimentel et al., “Water Resources: Agricultural and Envi-ronmental Issues” [Food production vs. water consumption] ~http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/352/1/pimentel_report_04-1.pdf .

TABLE 2 – MEAT CONSUMES CEREALS

TO PRODUCE 1 KG OF… … THE NEEDED AMOUNT … THE NEEDED AMOUNT

OF CEREALS IS … OF FORAGE IS...

SOURCE: David e Marcia Pimentel, “Sustainability of meat-based andplant-based diets and the environment” [Amount of cereal needed to theproduction of animal food] ~ http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/660S.

TABLE 3 – MEAT OCCUPIES LAND

1 HECTARE OF LAND EMPLOYED TO PRODUCE… … CAN FEED FOR ONE YEAR

SOURCE: Colin Spedding, “The effect of dietary changes on agriculture”[Efficiency of land by different uses].

TABLE 1 – MEAT CONSUMES OIL

TO PRODUCE 1 CALORIE OF… … THE NEEDED AMOUNT OF FOSSIL ENERGY IS

B I B L I O G R A H Y

IPPOLITO, A. ~ GUBITOSA, C., Ricettario della pace. Con-sigli e ricette per mangiar bene senza appesantire ilmondo, Meravigli, 2009.

PIMENTEL, D. ET AL., “Water Resources: Agriculturaland Environmental Issues”, in BioScience 10 (2004).

—— ~ PIMENTEL, M., “Sustainability of meat-basedand plant-based diets and the environment”, inAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78 (2003).

SPEDDING, C., “The effect of dietary changes on agricul-ture”, cited in “The Social and Economic Contextsof Coronary Prevention”, in Current Medical Litera-ture, 1990. ©


Millet 272 litersPotatoes 630 litersCorn 650 litersGrain 900 litersRice 1,600 litersSoya 2,000 litersChicken 3,500 litersPork 6,000 litersBeef 43,000 litersOvine 51,000 liters

Milk 0.7 kg 1 kgChicken 2.3 kg --Turkey 3.8 kg --Pork 5,9 kg --Eggs 11 kg --Beef 13 kg 30 kgLamb 21 kg 30 kg

Cabbage 23 peoplePotatoes 22 peopleRice 19 peopleGrain 15 peopleBeans 9 peoplePeas 9 peoplePork 3 peopleLamb 2 peopleChicken 2 peopleBeef 1 person

Turkey 10 caloriesPork 14 caloriesBeef 40 caloriesLamb 57 calories


D E C A L O G U E F O R E A T I N G P R O P E R L Y W I T H O U T B U R D E N I N G T H E W O R L D

1 ~ Eat seasonal fruit and vegetables, locally produced: it required less energy to reach your table.2 ~ Be aware that all proteins you need can be provided by vegetal food, with an environmental andsocial impact much lower with respect to the animal proteins.3 ~ Independently from the specific diet, ingredients like soja, seitan and tofu can perfectly replace themeat and give to your alimentation a higher variety and a lower ecological imprint.4 ~ To avoid contributing to the environmental damages related to the intensive farming, use eggs pro-duced in biological farms only, where huns live outdoors and not in cages, fed by biological food. InEurope there is a numeric code pressed on each egg. The last digit of biological egg is “0” (zero).5 ~ Balance your diet with at least 20% of raw food, such as fruit, salads, vegetables, ready to be con-sumed without any energy for the cooking.6 ~ Cultivate at home or on your terrace what you can produce autonomously, like parsley, basil, smallonions.7 ~ For imported products like spices, tea, coffee and cocoa, use preferably the circuits of the fair trade.8 ~ Use the tap water for your daily drinking. In 99% of the cases it is good enough to drink or can beeasily depurated.9 ~ Avoid products packaged in plastics. In contrast with supermarkets, open markets in your neighbor-hood allow you to use recyclable paper bags.10 ~ As a general rule, avoid eating or consuming beyond your real needs.

Simona Sapienza was educated atthe Sawyer Business School (Pitts-burgh, US), at the University ofRome «La Sapienza» where shereceived her MA in Law and PhD.Ms Sapienza has held various acade-mic positions in Italy and has beenlegal counsel for the Italian Instituteof Research for the international pro-tection of human and civil rights. Shehas been actively engaged in support-ing NGOs projects associated with theDepartment of Public Information ofthe UN and in inter-cultural projectspromoted by the EU Commission.Ms Sapienza is currently Senior Asso-ciate in the International CapitalMarkets department of Allen & Overy(Rome), which she joined in 2000.Ms Simona Sapienza is a Boardmember of the Spanda Foundation.

OR MANY YEARS RENEWABLE

energies were seen as an energy option that,while environmentally and socially attrac-tive, occupied niche markets at best, due tobarriers of cost and available infrastructure.

In the last decade, however, the case for renewableenergy has become economically compelling as well. There has been a true revolution in technologicalinnovation, cost improvements and in our under-standing and analysis of appropriate applications ofrenewable energy resources (RES), notably solar, wind,small-scale hydro and biomass-based energy, as well asadvanced energy conversion devices such as fuel cells.There are now a number of energy sources, conver-sion technologies and applications that make renew-able energy options either equal or better in priceand services provided than the prevailing fossil-fueltechnologies. In a growing number of settings inindustrialised nations, wind energy is now the leastexpensive option among all energy technologies,with the added benefit of being modular and quickto install and bring on-line. Also, photovoltaic panelsand solar hot water heaters placed on buildings can

help reduce energy costs, produce a healthier livingenvironment and increase the overall energy supply.Conventional energy sources based on oil, coal andnatural gas have proven to be highly effective driversof economic progress, but at the same time, they arehighly damaging to the environment and human

health. These traditional energysources are facing increasingpressure on a multitude of envi-ronmental fronts, with perhapsthe most serious one being thelooming threat of climatechange and a needed reductionin greenhouse gas emissions. Itis now clear that efforts to main-tain atmospheric CO2 concen-trations below even double thepre-industrial level cannot beaccomplished in an oil- andcoal-dominated global economy.In principle, RES can meetmany times the world’s energydemand. More important,renewable energy technologiescan now be considered majorcomponents of local andregional energy systems. As analternative to centralized powerplants, renewable energy sys-tems are ideally suited to pro-

vide a decentralised power supply that could help tolower capital infrastructure costs. Renewable sys-tems based on photovoltaic arrays, windmills, bio-mass, or small hydropower can serve as mass-pro-duced energy appliances that can be manufacturedat low cost and tailored to meet specific energyloads and service conditions.These systems have less of an impact on the envi-ronment, and the impact they do have is morewidely dispersed than that of centralised powerplants, which in some cases contribute significantlyto ambient air pollution and acid rain.Renewable energy systems are now poised to play amajor role in the energy economy and in improvingthe environmental quality of many countries.A sound vision for a sustainable energy policy hasbeen laid at the European Union level.In January 2007 the European Commission set outan integrated energy/climate change proposal thataddressed the issues of energy supply and climatechange. Two months later, European Heads of


A N E C O - L O G I C M O V EA RENEWED LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

S I M O N A S A P I E N Z A

F

“ The end of law

is, not to abolish

or restrain, but

to preserve and

enlarge

freedom. ”JJ OO HH NN LLOO CC KK EE

g | N E W D I R E C T I O N S

State welcome the plan and agreed upon an EnergyPolicy for Europe. The plan called for a: — 20% increase in energy efficiency; — 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions;— 20% share of renewable energies in overall EU

energy consumption by 2020;— 10% biofuel component in vehicle fuel by 2020.

In January 2008, the European Commission put for-ward an integrated proposal for Climate Action,referred to as the Energy-Climate Legislative Package.After nearly a year of intensive negotiations, theEnergy-Climate Legislative Package was adopted bythe 27 EU member states on 12 December 2008, bythe European Parliament on 17 December 2008, andfinally by the Council of the European Union on 6April 2009.In order to achieve the European renewable energytargets, the Council adopted Directive 2009/28/ECon the promotion of the use of energy fromrenewable sources and amending and subsequentlyrepealing Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotionof electricity produced from renewable energysources in the internal electricity market andDirective 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the useof biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.The directive aims at achieving by 2020 a 20% shareof energy from renewable sources in the EU’s finalconsumption of energy and a 10% share of energyfrom renewable sources in each member state’stransport energy consumption. To achieve these objectives, the directive for thefirst time sets for each member state a mandatorynational target for the overall share of energy fromrenewable sources in gross final consumption ofenergy, taking into account countries’ differentstarting points.The share of renewable consumption comprisesthe direct use of renewables like biofuels plus thepart of electricity and heat that is produced fromRES like wind and hydro, while final energy con-sumption is the energy of households, industry,services, agriculture and the transport use. Thedenominator for the RES share includes distribu-tion losses for electricity and heat and the con-sumption of these fuels in the process of produc-ing electricity and heat.The main purpose of the mandatory national targetsset out by the directive is to provide certainty forinvestors and to encourage technological develop-ment allowing for energy production from all typesof RES. To ensure that the mandatory national targetsare achieved, member states have to follow an indica-tive path towards the achievement of their target. Each EU member state will have to adopt a nation-al renewable energy action plan setting out itsnational targets for the share of energy from RESconsumed in transport, electricity, heating andcooling in 2020 and will have to notify it to theCommission by June 2010.

To reach the mandatory targets, member states willapply national mechanisms of support or measuresof cooperation between different member statesand with third countries. They will also be able toimport physical renewable energy from countriesoutside the EU and this would provide the possibil-ity of a physical connection with large-scale solarinstallations in North Africa for example. The creation of a tradable guarantee of originregime allows member states to reach their targetsin the most cost-effective way: instead of onlydeveloping local RES, member states will also beable to buy guarantees of origin, thus certificatesproving the renewable origin of energy, from othermember states where the development of renew-able energy is cheaper to produce.————————————————————

This table gives national overall targets for the share ofenergy from renewable sources in gross final consumptionof energy in 2020 set under Directive 2009/28/EC.MEMBER STATE SHARE OF ENERGY FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES TARGET REQUIRED

IN GROSS FINAL CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY, 2005 BY 2020

————————————————————Austria 23,3% 34%Belgium 2,2% 13%Bulgaria 9,4% 16%Cyprus 2,9% 13%Czech R. 6,1% 13%Denmark 17,0% 30%Estonia 18,0% 25%Finland 28,5% 38%France 10,3% 23%Germany 5,8% 18%Greece 6,9% 18%Hungary 4,3% 13%Ireland 3,1% 16%Italy 5,2% 17%Latvia 32,6% 40%Lithuania 15,0% 23%Luxembourg 0,9% 11%Malta 0,0% 10%Netherlands 2,4% 14%Poland 7,2% 15%Portugal 20,5% 31%Rumania 17,8% 24%Slovak Republic 6,7% 14%Slovenia 16,0% 25%Spain 8,7% 20%Sweden 39,8% 49%United Kingdom 1,3% 15%

————————————————————EU-27 8,5% 20,0%

————————————————————

The directive sets out the following interim targetsin order to ensure progress towards the 2020 target:— 25% of target between 2011 and 2012;— 35% of target between 2013 and 2014;— 45% of target between 2015 and 2016;— 65% of target between 2017 and 2018.

Individual member states are free to decide themost suitable mix of RES to be used to meet theirrespective targets. They will also be required toreport their progress towards the interim and 2020target every two years, from 2010.


There will be non-financial penalties if a memberstate fails to meet its interim targets. Said that, theCommission has reserved the right to take legalaction against member states if they fail to demon-strate sufficient progress towards the interim targets.Each member state is also permitted to trade anyexcess renewable energy credits it may have aftermeeting its respective interim targets.The directive does not recognize virtual renewableenergy from investments in renewable energy pro-jects in other countries nor allows for the creationof a European-wide market in renewable energiescertificates. The directive requests that memberstates encourage the use of small-scale renewableenergy in buildings and provide priority gridaccess to renewable energy sources.It is worth noting that the directive does not providefor a single EU-wide harmonised support scheme.This is to be appreciated as at present the range ofmechanisms of support for the promotion of energyfrom renewable sources in operation around Europeare too different and it would have been too risky toattempt any form of harmonisation.So far member states have maintained or estab-lished their preferred support mechanism, be thatpremium systems/feed-in tariffs or certificate sys-tems. In premium/feed-in systems the support lev-els are often differentiated for different technolo-gies. Certificate systems are often technology neu-tral. All this has led to different results. The circumstance that the Commission did notattempt to create a harmonised EU-wide paymentmechanism for electricity production from RES(RES-E) must also be welcome. At this stage in factit would have put European leadership in renew-able energies at risk.Harmonisation of a payment system for RES-E willmake sense after a single EU truly competitive elec-tricity market is established. At present, we have 27different electricity markets with different electricityprices and it would have been highly risky to set onlyone support mechanism for renewable electricity.Were the Commission to pursue a harmonised EUsystem, the optimal way to do so would be throughthe application of the polluter pays principle 1 andby imposing a tax on electricity production.A part from the targets imposed by the directive, asuccessful framework for the development anddeployment of RES-E at EU level will require politi-cal effort in four fields:— Well designed payment mechanism;— Grid access and strategic development of the

grids;— Good governance and appropriate administra-

tive and planning procedures;— Public acceptance and support.If one or more of these key components are miss-ing, little progress will happen. Looking at pay-ment mechanisms in isolation may lead to wrong

conclusions about the effectiveness of a specificmechanism of support for the promotion of RES-E.It is therefore important that any analysis of thesuccess or failure of national support mechanismsseeks to identify whether a positive or negativedevelopment can be attributed to the design of thepayment mechanism, or whether other factors inthe form of administrative, grid access and, or pub-lic acceptance barriers affected the development.It should also be noted that no country has evermanaged to develop a market for renewable electric-ity through the application of just one policy. His-torically, success has been the result of combinationsof policies as stated by the International EnergyAgency 2: “Significant market growth has always result-ed from combinations of policies, rather than singlepolicies. (…) In no case is there evidence of strong mar-ket growth with only one policy in place. Those coun-tries that have experienced strong growth in ‘new’renewables, such as wind and solar, including Ger-many, Spain, the United States and Denmark, havedone so through a combination of financial incentivesand guaranteed prices, underpinned by strong R&D.”The Commission’s efforts to identify successful andunsuccessful approaches to support mechanisms inthe member states will have to take a more holisticapproach, and will have to include identification ofthe sources leading to success or to failure. In addi-tion, prior to a decision on harmonisation, the Com-mission should conduct an analysis of the variousmarket distortions that exist, such as the varying gridconnection costs throughout the EU and the differ-ing administrative barriers, for example planningprocedures, as well as specify the steps to be taken toremove the various market distortions prior to theharmonisation of the support mechanisms.There are requirements that any future EU-widemechanism must meet in order to create a soundinvestment climate for renewable energies such ascompatibility with the polluter pays principle, highlong-term investor confidence, simple and trans-parent implementation, high effectiveness indeployment of renewables, encouraging technologydiversity, innovation, manufacturing, R&D, tech-nology development and lower costs, compatibilitywith the liberalised electricity market and withother policy instruments, facilitating a smoothtransition, encouraging local and regional benefits,public acceptance, transparency and integrity, pro-tecting consumers, avoiding fraud and free riding.With regard to biofuels, the directive sets the 10%target for renewable energy in the transportationsector at the same level for each member state inorder to ensure consistency in transportation fuelspecifications and availability. Member states thatdo not have the relevant resources to produce bio-fuels will easily be able to obtain renewable trans-port fuels from elsewhere. While it would techni-cally be possible for the European Union to meetits biofuel needs solely from domestic production,


it is both likely and desirable that these needs willin fact be met through a combination of domesticEU production and imports from third countries. Within the past few years, concerns have beenraised about whether biofuel production is actuallysustainable. If biofuels are a crucial part of renew-able energy policy and a key solution to growingemissions in the transport sector, they must not bepromoted unless they are produced sustainably. Although the majority of biofuels currently con-sumed in the EU are produced in a sustainablemanner, the concerns are legitimate and need to beaddressed.The directive therefore sets out stringent environ-mental sustainability criteria to ensure that biofu-els that are to count towards the European targetsare sustainable and that they are not in conflictwith overall environmental goals. This means thatthey must achieve at least a minimum level ofgreenhouse gas savings and respect a number ofrequirements related to biodiversity. Among otherthings this will prevent the use of land with highbiodiversity value, such as natural forests and pro-tected areas, being used for the production of rawmaterials for biofuels. Regardless of whether the raw materials were culti-vated inside or outside the EU territory, biofuelscan be accounted for with respect to the target of10% renewable energy in transport and, therefore,with respect to the national targets in terms ofrenewable energy, and benefit from possible finan-cial support from the member states, only if theyfulfil the following sustainability criteria: — The greenhouse gas emission saving from the

use of biofuels shall be at least 35%;— Biofuels shall not be made from raw material

obtained from land with high biodiversityvalue, such as primary forest and other wood-ed land where there is no clearly visible indi-cation of human activity, areas designated fornature protection purposes or for the protec-tion of rare, threatened or endangered ecosys-tems or species, or highly bio-diverse grass-land;

— Biofuels shall not be made from raw materialobtained from land with high carbon stock,such as wetlands, continuously forested areas;

— Biofuels shall not be made from raw materialobtained from peat land.

Although targets themselves do not guarantee suc-cess they act as an important catalyst as theyencourage investors to commit, enable stable tech-nological deployment and cost reductions, andencourage research.A critical strategy for effectively promoting energyefficiency is implementing new standards forbuildings, appliances and equipment. Significantadvances in the efficiency of heating and coolingsystems, motors, and appliances have been made

in recent years, but more improvements are tech-nologically and economically feasible.The current status of legislation and the differentmechanisms of support for the promotion ofrenewables, and of RES-E in particular, currently inplace at national level need now to be briefly out-lined also for a better understanding of the impactthat the new mandatory targets imposed by Direc-tive 2009/28/EC may have on the renewable energypolicies of each member state.

————————————————————

This table gives the reference values of national indicativetargets for electricity produced from renewable energysources set under Directive 2001/77/EC.

MEMBER STATE RES-E% 2010 INDICATIVE TARGETS

Austria 78,1Belgium 6,0Bulgaria 11,0Cyprus 6,0Czech Republic 8,0Denmark 29,0Estonia 7,5Finland 31,5France 21,0Germany 12,5Greece 20,1Hungary 21,0Ireland 13,2Italy 25,0Latvia 49,3Lithuania 7,0Luxembourg 5,7Malta 5,0Netherlands 9,0Poland 7,5Portugal 39,0Rumania 33,0Slovak Republic 31,0Slovenia 33,6Spain 29,4Sweden 60,0United Kingdom 10,0

————————————————————

A U S T R I A

With a share of 70% RES-E of gross electricity consump-tion in 1997, Austria was the leading EU Member Statefor many years. Large hydropower is the main source ofRES-E in Austria. More recently, a steady rise in the totalenergy demand has taken place, and a decrease of theshare of RES-E has been noted.Austrian policy supports RES-E through feed-in tariffsthat are adjusted annually by law. The responsibleauthority is obliged to buy the electricity and pay a feed-in tariff. The annual allocated budget for RES supporthas been set at EUR 17 million for new RES-E up to 2011.This yearly budget is pre-allocated to different types ofRES (30% to biomass, 30% to biogas, 30% to wind, 10% tophotovoltaic and other RES). Within these categories,funds will be given on a first demand basis.Biofuels are completely exempt from fossil fuel taxes.On 1 October 2007 an Order entered into force regardinga tax rebate for biofuel blends.


A variety of federal programmes for the support of theproduction of heat and cold from RES is being applied.These consist mainly of investment subsidies.

B E L G I U M

With a production of 1,1% RES-E of gross electricity con-sumption in 1997, Belgium was at the bottom of the EU15.Targets differ between the three regions of the country(Flemish region, Walloon region and the Brussels-CapitalRegion) and national energy policies are implemented sep-arately, leading to differing supporting conditions and sep-arate, regional markets for green certificates. Policy mea-sures in Belgium contain incentives to use the most cost-effective technologies. Biomass is traditionally strong inBelgium, but bothhydropower andonshore wind gen-eration haveshown stronggrowth in recentyears.Two sets of mea-sures are key to theBelgian approachto RES-E: obligato-ry targets havebeen set throughthe obligation forall electricity sup-pliers to supply aspecific proportionof RES-E and guar-anteed minimumprices have beenforeseen. In allthree of theregions, a separatemarket for greencertificates hasbeen created. Dueto the low penaltyrates that will increase over time, it is at the moment morefavourable to pay penalties than to use the certificates. Lit-tle trading has taken place so far.Investment support schemes for RES-E investments areavailable. Among them is an investment subsidy for pho-tovoltaic. Production of heat and cold from RES is beingsupported by investment incentives in all three regions.The maximum level of support is as high as 15% in theWalloon region and 20% in both Flemish and Brussels-Capital regions.

B U L G A R I A

The RES-E target to be achieved in 2010 is about 11% forelectric energy consumption. The goal of Bulgaria’sNational Programme on Renewable Energy Sources is tosignificantly increase the share of non-hydroelectric RESin the energy mix.RES-E policy in Bulgaria consists of a green certificatetrading system under which public providers are requiredto supply minimum mandatory quota as a percentage ofthe total annual electricity production. Highly efficientcombined heat and power plants is also included in thetradable green certificate scheme. In Bulgaria, biofuelshave been exempt from excise tax since 2005.In order to promote production of heat and cold from RES,Bulgaria implemented the Bulgarian Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy Credit Line. RES projects are eligible fora 20% grant. Large-scale hydropower exhibits a high pene-tration rate. Some pilot projects have been implementedusing wind power, but in absolute figures, the contributionmade by wind power is minimal.

C Y P R U S

The leading RES in Cyprus is photovoltaic, and windpower offers high potential. An issue regarding policyintegration has been observed as there is investment atpresent in a new fossil fuel power plant creating excesscapacity. Until 2005, measures that proactively supportedrenewable energy production, such as the New GrantScheme, were not very ambitious. In 2006, a New

Enhanced GrantScheme for EnergyConservation andPromotion of theUse of RES wasagreed upon. Itregulates RES-Epolicy and pro-vides financialincentives (30-55%of investments) inthe form of gov-ernment grantsand feed-in tariffsare part of thisscheme. In orderto promote the useof biofuels, a mea-sure was taken toexempt the bio-mass percentage ofbiodiesel fromexcise duty, as of2005.The NewEnhanced GrantScheme for Ener-

gy Conservation and Promotion of the Use of RES alsoprovides financial incentives for RES heating and coolingactivities: 30-45% of investment in solar systems for cen-tral water heating systems and 40-55% of investment inspace heating and cooling can be recovered in this way.

C Z E C H R E P U B L I C

The Czech Republic’s legislative framework in relationto RES has been strengthened by a RES Act adopted in2005 and a Government Order regulating the minimumamount of biofuels or other RES fuels that must be avail-able for motor fuel purposes. Targets for increasing RESin total primary energy consumption have been set atnational level. The use of biomass in particular is likelyto increase as a result of the new legislation.In order to stimulate the growth of RES-E, the CzechRepublic has decided on the following measures: a feed-in system for RES-E and cogeneration in 2000. The RESAct extends this system by offering a choice between afeed-in tariff, thus a guaranteed price or a green bonus,thus an amount paid on top of the market price.Premiums to the electricity price are foreseen for producersof electricity from combined heat and power plants.Besides this, investment support from 30-80% is availablewhenever the applicants are non-profit organizations.


The use of biofuels is being encouraged through an airprotection act, which requires that a minimum amountof biofuel, or other fuels produced from RES, is madeavailable to the market. Government Resolution no.1080 of 20 September 2006 provides for a minimumquantity of biofuels in the range of motor-vehicle fuelswithout any subsidies or state support.

D E N M A R K

Due to an average growth of 71% per year, Danish off-shore wind capacity remains the highest pro-capite.Denmark is at present close to reaching its RES-E targetfor 2010. RES other than offshore wind are slowly butsteadily penetrating the market, supported by a widearray of measures such as a new repowering scheme foronshore wind.Denmark has been slow in introducing biofuels to themarket and is behind on its EU target.In order to increase the share of RES-E in overall electrici-ty consumption, Denmark has implemented a tenderingprocedure for two new large offshore installations. Aspot price, an environmental premium and an addition-al compensation for balancing costs for 20 years is avail-able for new onshore wind farms. Furthermore, fixedfeed-in tariffs exist for solid biomass and biogas undercertain conditions. Subsidies are available for combinedheat and power plants based on natural gas and waste.The generation of heat and cold from RES is supportedby means of tax exemptions. Biomass, being CO2 neu-tral, is exempt from CO2 duty. Solar heating plants areexempt from both energy and CO2 taxes. The ExecutiveOrder Solar heating obligations in new buildings outsidethe district heating areas, adopted in 2001, requires theintroduction of solar heating from owners of new build-ings, excluding the domestic sector. Solar thermal instal-lations are also eligible for subsidies. Both regulationsapply only outside district heating areas.Biofuels have been exempt from the CO2 tax imposed onordinary petrol and diesel for transport since January2005. This is currently the main supporting measure forbiofuels. As of 1 January 2010 all filling stations have tosell at least 5.75% biodiesel and bioethanol.

E S T O N I A

Estonia’s potential lies mainly in biomass, biogas, windand cogeneration from biofuels. Small-scale hydroelec-tric is being developed as only about half the potential iscurrently exploited. By end-2005, 36.2MW were producedfrom hydroelectric and wind. The use of renewable fuelsdid not change significantly between 1999 and 2005, andin 2006 the percentage of biofuels in the transport fuelmix was just 0.12%.For electricity, feed-in tariffs will be paid for some yearsbut not beyond 2015. There is a single feed-in tariff levelfor all RES-E technologies. Relatively low feed-in tariffsmake new renewable investments very difficult. In 2001,a voluntary mechanism involving green energy certifi-cates was created by the grid operator, the state-ownedEesti Energia Ltd.District heating law promotes the use of indigenoussources and RES for heat production. Biofuels used fortransport or heating have been exempt from excise taxsince 2005. In 2006 a development plan to promote the useof biomass and bioenergy for 2007-2013 was drawn up, anddirect aid is available to expand the energy crop area.

New RES-E regulation in force since 2007 includes threesupport options: feed-in tariff, premium and certificateof origin, and is valid for RES-E production from facili-ties with capacity less than 100MW.

F I N L A N D

Finland continues to adjust and refine its energy policiesin order to enhance the competitiveness of RES. Throughsubsidies and energy tax exemptions, Finland encouragesinvestment in RES. Solid biomass and large-scalehydropower dominate the market, and biowaste is alsoincreasing its share. Additional support in the form offeed-in tariffs based on purchase obligations or green cer-tificates is being considered for onshore wind power.Biomass is the most important renewable energy sourcein Finland, with its use accounting for about 20% of pri-mary energy consumption.The main measures to encourage the use of RES-E inFinland consist in tax subsidies, the RES-E has been madeexempt from the energy tax paid by end users, in discre-tionary investment subsidies, new investments are eligi-ble for subsidies up to 30%, up to 40% especially for windand in guaranteed access to the grid for all electricityusers and electricity-producing plants, including RES-Egenerators. Taxes imposed on heat are calculated on thebasis of the net carbon emissions of the input fuels andare zero for RES. Further encouragement of the produc-tion of heat and cold from RES takes the form of directbiomass investment support.Feed-in tariff for biogas plants started in 2008.Biofuels benefit from tax exemptions under certain con-ditions. Biogas used as motor fuel, for instance, isexempt from excise duty. A law on the promotion ofbiofuels, entered into force on 1 January 2008, obligedfuel distributors to supply a minimum of 2% biofuels tothe transport market in 2008, with annual increases sothat it will be at least 5,75% by end of 2010.

F R A N C E

France has centred its RES approach around feed-in tar-iffs on the one hand, and a tendering procedure on theother. Hydropower has traditionally been important forelectricity generation, and the country ranks high whenit comes to biofuel production. France has vast resourcesof wind, geothermal energy and biomass. Wind powerand geothermal electricity have shown growth. In addi-tion, there is potential in the area of solid biomass.The French policy for the promotion of RES-E includesfeed-in tariffs introduced in 2001 and 2002, and modifiedin 2005 for photovoltaic, hydro, biomass, sewage andlandfill gas, municipal solid waste, geothermal, offshorewind, onshore wind, and combined heat and power, atender system for large renewable projects.Stimulating the uptake of production of heat and coldfrom RES is done in three ways: tax credits of 50% areavailable, a 5,5% reduction in VAT has been introducedfor residential energy equipment using RES, and subsi-dies of up to 40% are granted for biomass heating plants.Policy exists to ensure electricity is bought from biomassinstallations of less than 12 MW capacity. There is a taxcredit for private individuals who purchase renewableenergy products for their homes like wood heating.Law no. 2005-781 of 13 July 2005 ensured that biofuel usereached 5,75% by 2008 rather than by 2010 as mentioned inDirective 2001/77/EC, and reaches 7% by 2010 and 10% by


2015. Suppliers who do not meet these targets pay anadditional tax for polluting activities. Partial tax exemp-tion exists to cover the currently higher costs of biofuelproduction compared with fossil fuels, with the percent-age changing annually, depending on economic condi-tions. Capital grants are also in place to promote biofuels.

G E R M A N Y

Germany is a EU leader in wind utilisation, photovolta-ic, solar thermal installations and biofuel production. Itsonshore wind capacity covers approximately 50% of thetotal installed capacity in the EU. A stable and pre-dictable policy framework has created conditionsfavourable to RES penetration and growth. Feed-in tar-iffs for RES-E, market incentives for the production ofheat and cold from RES, and tax exemptions for biofuelshave proven to be a successful policy mix leading to avery dynamic market for RES. In 2006, about 70% ofrenewable energy was generated from biomass, and11,8% of electricity was generated from RES.Germany has already exceeded its 2010 biofuel target of5,75%. With the aim of promoting RES-E, Germanythrough its Renewable Energy Act of 2004 has intro-duced feed-in tariffs for onshore wind, offshore wind,photovoltaic, biomass, hydro, landfill gas, sewage gasand geothermal, large subsidised loans available throughthe DtA (Deutsche Ausgleichsbank) Environment andEnergy Efficiency Programme.A Market Incentive Programme provides subsidies for theproduction of heat and cold from RES, with excellent resultsin solar thermal and small-scale biomass heat generation. From 1 January 2007, firms have been obliged to marketbiofuels using a quota system: 4,4% for diesel and 1,2%for petrol; this will be increased annually. Second gener-ation biofuels, biogas and pure bioethanol will be grant-ed a decreasing tax incentive until 2015.

G R E E C E

Hydropower has traditionally been important in Greece,and the markets for wind energy and active solar ther-mal systems have grown in recent years. Geothermalheat is also a popular source of energy. The Greek parlia-ment has recently revised the RES policy frameworkpartly to reduce administrative burdens on the renew-able energy sector.General policies relevant to RES include a measure relatedto investment support, a 20% reduction of taxable incomeon expenses for domestic appliances or systems using RES,and a concrete bidding procedure to ensure the rationaluse of geothermal energy. In addition, an inter-ministerialdecision was taken in order to reduce the administrativeburden associated with RES installations.To stimulate the growth of RES-E, Greece has introducedfeed-in tariffs in 1994 as amended by the recently approvedFeed-In Law. Tariffs are now technology-specific, insteadof uniform, and a guarantee of 12 years is given, with apossibility of extension of up to 20 years, fuel taxes are notapplied to biofuels.

H U N G A R Y

Geographical conditions in Hungary are favourable forRES development, especially biomass.Whilst environmental conditions are the main barriersto further hydropower development, other RES such assolar, geothermal and wind energy are hampered by

administrative constraints like the permit process. Asregards the policy framework, promotional schemes arebeing used and refined, and subsidies are available undercertain conditions for the development of RES.RES-E 2010 target was achieved in 2006 (5%), with the maincontribution being from biomass. However, domesticproduction was at 4,4%.For the promotion of RES-E Hungary as introduced a feed-in system. It has used technology-specific tariffs since 2005,when Decree 78/2005 was adopted. These tariffs are guaran-teed for the lifetime of the installation. A green certificatescheme was introduced with the Electricity Act of 2001, asamended in 2005. In July 2007, two advantageous tax levelswere introduced for bioethanol. In particular bioethanolfor E85 has been completely exempt since 2007. A similarprocedure was introduced in January 2008 for biodiesel.

I R E L A N D

Hydro and wind power make up most of Ireland’s RES-Eproduction. Despite an increase in the RES-E share dur-ing the past decade, the target is still far off. Ireland hasselected the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff as its maininstrument. From 2006, this new scheme has providedsome investor certainty, due to a 15-year feed-in tariffguarantee. No real voluntary market for renewable elec-tricity exists. There is also an absence of a genuine mar-ket for biofuels, however, support schemes have been inplace since 2005 so this is expected to change.Between 1995 and 2003, a tender scheme, the AlternativeEnergy Requirement, was used to support RES-E. Since2006, the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff has becomethe main tool for promoting RES-E. Feed-in tariffs areguaranteed for up to 15 years, but may not extend beyond2024. During its first year, 98% of all the REFIT support hasbeen allocated to wind farms.Since 2005, the Biofuels Mineral Oil Tax relief schemeallows for excise relief on biofuels for a total of EUR 3 mil-lion per year. In 2006, a five-year biofuels excise relief pack-age worth EUR 200 million was also approved. The EnergyCrops Scheme provides further support, with aid of EUR 45per hectare for areas sown under energy crops, topped upby EUR 80 of Irish funds. A scheme was launched in early2007, primarily for vehicle fleets, using pure plant oil: theywill receive a 75% grant for modifying engines.Grant aid is available through the Greener HomesScheme and the ReHeat Programme for the develop-ment of the production of heat and cold from RES.An Energy White Paper was published in March 2007,setting the energy policy framework for 2007-2020. Thegovernment has presented policy proposals to signifi-cantly increase the use of biomass in electricity genera-tion by co-firing it in peat-fired power stations.

I T A L Y

Despite strong growth in sectors such as onshore wind,biogas and biodiesel, Italy is far from the targets set atboth the national and European level. Several factorscontribute to this situation. First, there is a large ele-ment of uncertainty due to recent political changes andambiguities in current policy design. Second, there areadministrative constraints such as complex authorisationprocedures at local level. Third, there are financial barri-ers such as high grid connection costs.In Italy, there is an obligation on electricity generators toproduce a certain amount of RES-E. At present, the Italian


government is working out the details of more ambitioussupport mechanisms for the development and use of RES.In order to promote RES-E, Italy provides that a priorityaccess to the grid system is granted to electricity fromRES and combined heat and power plants. Italy has alsointroduced the obligation for electricity generators tofeed a given proportion of RES-E into the power system.In case of non-compliance with national targets, sanc-tions are foreseen, but enforcement in practice is consid-ered difficult because of ambiguities in the legislation.Tradable Green Certificates, which are tradable com-modities proving that certain electricity is generated usingRES, are used to fulfil the RES-E obligation. A feed-in tarifffor photovoltaic exists. This is a fixed tariff, guaranteedfor 20 years and adjusted annually for inflation.National legislation is being developed, both for theproduction of heat and cold from RES and for biofuels.Subsidies are already in place for bioethanol productionand tax exemptions for biodiesel production.As yet, no national policy framework exists that sup-ports the production for heat and cold from RES. In themeantime, certain regional and local governments haveintroduced some measures to promote RES. These havetaken the form of incentives for solar thermal heatingand compulsory installation of solar panels in new orrenovated buildings.

L A T V I A

In Latvia, almost half of the electricity consumption isprovided by RES, with hydropower being the key resource.The growth observed between 1996 and 2002 can beascribed to the so-called double tariff, which was phasedout in 2003. This scheme was replaced by quotas adjustedannually. Wind and biomass would benefit from clearsupport since the potential in these areas is considerable.The two main RES-E policies which have been followedin Latvia consist of fixed feed-in tariffs, which werephased out in 2003 and a quota system which has beenin force since 2002, with authorised capacity levels ofinstallations determined by the Cabinet of Ministers onan annual basis.In addition, biofuels are subject to a reduced excise taxrate. Rapeseed oil is subject to 0% excise tax, regardlessof its end use.

L I T H U A N I A

Lithuania depends to a large extent on the Ignalinanuclear power plant that currently generates up to 70% oftotal electricity. The National Energy Strategy includesplans related to the start of operation of a new nuclearpower plant that will result in a major rise of electricitygeneration output in 2016. In order to provide alternativesources of energy and electricity in particular Lithuania hasset a national target of 12% RES by 2010. The implementa-tion of a green certificate scheme was however postponedfor 11 years. The biggest renewables potential in Lithuaniacan be found in the field of biomass, with an expectednine fold rise in electricity generation between 2006 and2017. Furthermore, electricity from wind is expected to riseby 54 times between 2006 and 2017.The core mechanisms used in Lithuania to support RES-E are feed-in tariffs. In 2002, the National Control Com-mission for Prices and Energy approved the average pur-chase prices of green electricity. The tariff levels willremain unchanged until December 2020.

In September 2006, the procedure for promoting genera-tion and purchasing of RES-E was updated to includewind, biomass, solar and hydropower plants with acapacity of less than 10 MW.The National Energy Strategy provides for the improve-ment of the procedures for the promotion and purchaseof electricity from RES to encourage competition amongthe producers and to introduce the system of green cer-tificates or other systems beyond 2020.In order to promote biofuels, the Law on Excise Taxes of2001 provides for excise tax relief. Besides this, the Law onPollution Tax further stimulates the uptake of biofuels.Through the Law on Heat of 2003, municipalitiesencourage the purchase of heat fed into heat supply sys-tems produced from RES. Investment subsidies and loanson favourable terms are also made available by theLithuanian Environmental Investment Fund.

L U X E M B O U R G

Despite a wide variety of support measures for RES and astable investment climate, Luxembourg has not madesignificant progress towards its targets in recent years. Insome cases, this was due to limitations on eligibility andbudget. While electricity production from small-scalehydropower has stabilised in recent years, the contribu-tions from onshore wind, photovoltaic and biogas havenow started to increase.The 1993 Framework Law, amended in 2005 determinesthe fundamentals of Luxembourg RES-E policy.Preferential tariffs are given to the different types of RES-E for fixed periods of 10 or 20 years.The feed-in system might be subject to change due to furtherliberalisation of the sector. Subsidies are available to privatecompanies that invest in RES-E technologies, including solar,wind, biomass and geothermal technologies.Tax exemptions are made for biofuels for transport. Thesetting of maximum levels of tax exemption is foreseen.Pure biofuels are tax-free from 2007 to encourage captivefleets to switch.To promote the production of heat and cold from RES,Luxembourg provides investment subsidies for combinedheat and power plants, for the installation of heat pumps(25%) and for installation of solar thermal (40%).

M A L T A

The market for RES in Malta is still at an early stage and,at present, penetration is minimal. RES has not beenadopted commercially, and only solar energy and biofu-els are used. Nevertheless, the potential for solar andwind is substantial. In order to promote the uptake ofRES, the Maltese government has created framework forsupport measures. It has set national indicative targetsfor RES-E lower than the ones agreed to in its AccessionTreaty, between 0,31% and 1,31%, instead of 5%.In Malta, RES-E is supported by a fixed feed-in tariff of46,6 EUR/MWh for photovoltaic installations below 3,7kWp; and a reduction in value-added tax on solar sys-tems from 15% to 5%.Since 2005, excise taxes no longer apply to the biomasscontent in biodiesel.

T H E N E T H E R L A N D S

In 2003, after a period during which support was high butmarkets quite open, a system was introduced that installedsufficient incentives for domestic RES-E production.


Although successful in encouraging investments, this sys-tem, based on premium tariffs, was abandoned in August2006 due to budgetary constraints. Political uncertaintyconcerning renewable energy support in the Netherlandsis compounded by an increase in the overall energydemand. Progress towards RES-E targets is slow, eventhough growth in absolute figures is still significant.RES-E policy in the Netherlands is based on the 2003Environmental Quality of Power Generation policy pro-gramme, and comprises source specific premium tariffs,paid for 10 years on top of the market price. These tariffswere introduced in 2003 and are adjusted annually. Trad-able certificates are used to claim the feed-in tariffs. Thevalue of these certificates equals the level of the feed-intariff. Due to budgetary reasons, most of the feed-in tar-iffs were set at zero in August 2006.A Guarantee of Origin system was introduced, simplyby renaming the former certificate system.Biofuels have traditionally been supported by means ofR&D funds. To date, technological innovations in thisfield are encouraged by means of financial support. In2006, a tax relief system was introduced. The mechanism that was chosen links the quantity ofbiofuels to the national targets, by requiring of suppliersthat regular fuels contain a 2% share of biofuel from 2007onwards, and a 5,75% share from 2010 onwards.No resources are specifically allocated to biomass pro-duction, but there are instruments for RES-E such as atax bonus.Limited investment subsidies are available for RES heat-ing and cooling activities. Feed-in tariffs are also appliedto combined heat and power plants.

P O L A N D

Progress towards the RES-E target in Poland is slow. Thepenalties designed to ensure an increased supply ofgreen electricity have not been adequately used. Thepotential of hydropower, biomass and landfill gas is highin Poland. Hydro power plants have not been fully usedto date, biomass resources in the form of forestryresidues, agricultural residues and energy crops are plen-tiful in Poland, and landfill gas is promising as well.Polish RES-E policy includes the Tradable Certificates ofOrigin introduced by the April 2005 amendment of theLaw on Energy of 1997. The Obligation for Power Pur-chase from Renewable Sources of 2000, as amended in2003 involves a requirement on energy suppliers to pro-vide a 27,5% minimum share of RES-E in 2010. Failure tocomply with this legislation leads, in theory, to theenforcement of a penalty.An excise tax exemption on RES-E was introduced in2002. The Energy Act of April 2007 incorporates a princi-pal support mechanism of Certificates of Origin for RES-E: all energy companies selling electricity to end usershave to obtain and present for redemption a specifiednumber of Certificates or pay a substitution charge. Aliquid biofuel quality requirement regulation enteredinto force in September 2006.Since January 2007, biocomponents for liquid fuels andliquid biofuels have been exempt from excise duty. Pref-erential excise duty treatment was planned to increaseunder an Act of May 2007. An obligation to add a speci-fied volume of bio-component to fuels was also intro-duced by two acts in June 2006.Another element in this policy mix is structural funds,which can be used to improve the infrastructure of bio-fuels and other RES.

P O R T U G A L

What has been adopted so far in Portugal in relation torenewable energy constitutes a comprehensive policymix, complete with monitoring system. Portugal hasbeen moving further away from its RES-E target between1997 and 2004. In part, this is due to the fact that the tar-get was not entirely realistic as it was based on theexceptional hydropower performance of 1997. As a con-sequence, Portugal is not expected to reach its target,even if measures are successful. In 2006, 74% of total RES-E production was from hydropower.The world’s first wave power plant with a capacity of 4MW is operating, and a licence has been awarded for aphotovoltaic power plant with forecast production of 76GWh per year.To stimulate the uptake of RES-E, Portugal has intro-duced fixed feed-in tariffs per kWh for photovoltaic,wave energy, small hydro, wind power, forest biomass,urban waste and biogas. Investment subsidies up to 40%can be obtained. Tax reductions are available.A law was adopted in August 2007 providing the legalbasis for government use of public maritime areas forproducing electricity from sea-wave power.Since January 2006, when Directive 2003/30/EC was trans-posed into national law, the form of support for biofuelproduction consisted in the total or partial exemptionfrom excise duty up to a quota set annually, total Petro-leum and Energy Products Duty exemption for biofuelsproduced in certain pilot projects. Besides this, there isthe possibility of imposing a quota for biofuels in trans-port fuels, and of establishing voluntary agreementswhenever the biofuel share in blends exceeds 15% in thecase of public passenger transport fleets. A broad range of policy measures has been implementedto ensure the uptake of the production of heat and coldfrom RES. Investment subsidies are available, and thenew Portuguese building code introduces the obligationto install solar thermal systems in certain cases. On topof this, accelerated depreciation on solar thermal equip-ment investments has been made possible. In the regionof Madeira, non-returnable grants are also available fordomestic solar thermal systems.In September 2007, new incentives for the micro-genera-tion of renewable electricity were approved as part of apackage for reducing carbon emissions. The micro-gen-eration tariff is EUR 650/MWh for an initial five-year peri-od. By 2015 national micro-generation capacity will bearound 200 MW.

R O M A N I A

In terms of RES of gross electricity consumption, Roma-nia is on target. The majority of all RES-E is generatedthrough large-scale hydropower. To a large extent, thehigh potential of small-scale hydropower has remaineduntouched. Provisions for public support are in place, butrenewable energy projects have so far not been financed.To promote RES-E, Romania introduced a quota systemwith Tradable Green Certificates for new RES-E in 2004.The mandatory quota increased from 0,7% in 2005 to8,3% in 2010. Tradable Green Certificates are issued toelectricity production from wind, solar, biomass orhydropower generated in plants with less than 10 MWcapacity. Mandatory dispatching and priority trade ofelectricity produced from RES has been introduced since2004. Legislation on biofuels was transposed into nation-al legislation in December 2005.


The list of priorities of the Romanian Energy EfficiencyFund established in 2002 includes the use of RES for heating.

S L O V A K R E P U B L I C

In the Slovak Republic, large-scale hydro energy is theonly RES with a notable share in total electricity consump-tion. An extended development programme with 250

selected sites for building small hydro plants has beenadopted. In the Slovak Republic, the highest additionalmid-term poten-tial of all RES lieswith biomass. TheGovernment hasdecided to onlyuse this source inremote, mountain-ous, rural areas,where natural gasis not available.The Strategy ofHigher Utilisationof RES in the Slo-vak Republic wasapproved in April2007.RES-E policy inthe Slovak Repub-lic includes mea-sures that givespriority regardingtransmission, dis-tribution and sup-ply of RES-E, guar-antees of origin,and tax exemptionfor RES-E. This regulation is valid for the calendar year inwhich the facility commenced operation and then forfive consecutive years. A system of fixed feed-in tariffs hasbeen in place since 2005.Subsidies up to EUR100,000 are available for the (re)con-struction of RES-E facilities.In 2005, the National Programme of Biofuel Develop-ment was adopted. Production of heat and cold fromRES is promoted through the Programme supportingEnergy Savings and Utilisation of RES aiming to create afavourable climate for investments. Subsidies up to EUR100,000 are also available for the (re)construction of facil-ities for the production of heat and cold from RES.

S L O V E N I A

Slovenia is currently far away from meeting its RES tar-gets. The potential of solid biomass is high, with over54% of land covered with forests. This RES has recentlystarted to penetrate the market. Hydropower, at thistime the principal source of RES-E, relies on a largeamount of very old small hydro plants.The Slovenian government has made their refurbish-ment part of the renewable energy strategy. An increasein capacity of the larger-scale units is foreseen as well. InSlovenia, a varied set of policy measures has beenaccompanied by administrative taxes and complicatedprocedures.In Slovenia, the RES-E policy provides that RES-E produc-ers can choose to receive either fixed feed-in tariffs or

premium feed-in tariffs from the network operators.According to the Law on Energy, the uniform annualprices and premiums are set at least once a year. Subsi-dies or loans with interest-rate subsidies are available.Most of the subsidies cover up to 40% of the investmentcost. Investments in rural areas with no possibility ofconnection to the electricity network are eligible toapply for an additional 20% subsidy.Since 2004, pure biofuels used as motor fuels have beenexempt from the excise inspection and payment system.

When blendedwith fossil fuels, amaximum 5%exemption fromthe payment ofexcise duty can beclaimed. Sloveniaapplies a systemwhereby distribu-tors are obliged toplace on the mar-ket a percentage ofbiofuels that corre-sponds to thenational target.This measure wasintroduced in 2005.Since 2004, Sloveniahas supported thegrowth of heat andcold productionfrom RES throughsubsidies, up to40% of the invest-ment, and throughloans with interest-rate subsidies.

S P A I N

Spain is currently far from its RES-E target. In 1997, astrong support programme in favour of RES was intro-duced. In 2004, hydropower still provided 50% of allgreen electricity, while onshore wind and biomass hadstarted penetrating the market. Photovoltaic energy isalso promising, with an average growth rate of 54% peryear. Proposed changes to the feed-in tariffs and theadoption of a new Technical Buildings Code in 2006show increased support for biomass, biogas, solar ther-mal electricity, and solar thermal heat.RES-E in Spain benefits from a feed-in tariff or a premiumprice paid on top of the market price. The possibility of acap and floor mechanism for the premium is being con-sidered. Recently support for biomass, biogas and solarthermal electricity has been considered. Low-interestloans that cover up to 80% of the reference costs are avail-able. In May 2007 a new renewable energy legislation waspassed that increased the tariffs for renewables from 50-100% for biomass, and from 16-40% for biogas.The fuel tax exemption currently in place is appliedspecifically to the volume of biofuel.The production of heat and cold from RES is supportedthrough the new Technical Buildings Code of 2006which includes an obligation to cover 30-70% of thedomestic hot water demand from solar thermal energyand it applies to all new buildings and renovations. Theassumed volume of hot water demand and the geo-


graphical location of the building determine the exactpercentage that applies. Investments in the productionof heat and cold from RES are eligible for investmentsubsidies of 36,4% of the total cost.

S W E D E N

Sweden is moving away from its RES-E target. Inabsolute figures, RES-E production has decreased mainlydue to a lower level of large-scale hydro production.Other RES like biowaste, solid biomass, off-shore windand photovoltaic have, however, shown significantgrowth. In Sweden, a comprehensive policy mix existswith tradable green certificates as the key mechanism.This system creates both an incentive to invest in themost cost-effective solutions, and uncertainty for invest-ment decisions due to variable prices.Swedish RES-E policy is composed of Tradable GreenCertificates introduced in 2003. The Renewable Energywith green certificates bill that came into force on 1 Jan-uary 2007 shifts the quota obligation from electricityusers to electricity suppliers, and incorporates a new tar-get of 17 TWh by 2016.Since 2005, renewable fuels must make up at least 3% ofall petrol and diesel consumption for transport opera-tions. Green taxes such as the carbon dioxide tax pro-mote biofuels in an indirect way. In addition, theSwedish government is currently increasing the numberof alternative fuel pumps. Finally, a subsidy is grantedfor investment in filling stations for biogas and otherrenewable fuels.In Sweden, the production of heat and cold from RES issupported in an indirect way by raising taxes on fuels.Biofuels, solid waste and peat are tax-exempt for mostenergy uses. Investment grants are available for solarheating installations.

U N I T E D K I N G D O M

In the United Kingdom, renewable energies are an impor-tant part of the climate change strategy and are stronglysupported by a green certificate system with an obligationon suppliers to purchase a certain percentage of electricityfrom RES, and several grant programmes. Progress towardsmeeting the target has been significant. Growth has beenmainly driven by the development of significant windenergy capacity, including offshore wind farms.The United Kingdom’s policy regarding RES consists ofthree key strands: obligatory targets with tradable greencertificate system, in particular renewables obligation onall electricity suppliers in Great Britain to supply a spe-cific proportion of RES-E, Climate Change Levy whichmeans that RES-E is exempted from the climate changelevy on electricity of £ 4.3/MWh; grant schemes such asfunds reserved from the New Opportunities Fund fornew capital grants for investments in energy crops/ bio-mass power generation, for small-scale biomass/com-bined heat and power heating, and planting grants forenergy crops. A £ 50 million fund is available for thedevelopment of wave and tidal power, the MarineRenewables Deployment Fund.The UK has developed a regional strategic approach toplanning and targets for renewable energies.A five-year capital grant scheme for biomass heat andbiomass combined heat and power systems waslaunched in December 2006. Wood fuel and waste strate-gies were published in March and May 2007 respectively.

In April 2008 the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligationtook effect to ensure the UK meets its 2010 target of 5% oftransport fuel from biofuels, however, this falls short of theEU target of 5,75% under Directive 2003/30/EC. Certificatescan be claimed when biofuels are supplied and fuel duty ispaid on them, enabling certificate trading to take place. The production of heat and cold from RES is supportedby grant schemes and investment subsidies, biofuels arecurrently supported by a tax exemption. The different targets set out by the EU and the steps takenby the member states towards a greener Europe are notisolated moves. Against the background of global climatechange certain states in the US and Israel set the politicalgoal of becoming ‘carbon-neutral’ by 2015. To achieve thisgoal they have developed a local climate-protection-con-cept with different topics. Especially in the sector of plan-ning and building, they intend to reach a high energy effi-ciency standard for existing buildings and also for plan-ning new building areas and use renewable energies for theenergy supply of planned housing and commercial areas.

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

The United States has a variety of existing and proposedlegislation to encourage both more energy efficientbuildings and the use of renewable energies. The primaryinstitutions involved in this effort are states and munici-palities. Consequently, there are many innovativeapproaches to the construction and retrofitting of build-ing to green them and to promote the use of alternativeenergy, but, as is typical in the United States, these ini-tiatives are decentralised.There is some coordination through the Mayors’ Cli-mate Protection Agreement. In this respect, the mayorsof US most large cities have committed themselves tomeet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets. The existing federal legislation does not impose energyefficiency or alternative energy use duties on eithermunicipalities or individuals. In general, the focus is oninformation provision, but increasingly mandatoryduties are being imposed by the federal states that inturn are imposing more duties on municipalities. TheAmerican Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,includes provisions for a smart grid system. The systemmay include time of use pricing for individual homes. A variety of federal acts provide incentives and subsidiesfor retrofitting and new energy efficient construction. TheEnergy Conservation and Production Act of 1992, createda pilot programme to ensure a small number of loans forthe purchase of existing energy efficient residential build-ings and the installation of cost-effective improvements inexisting residential buildings. In 2009, the Act was amend-ed to grant the owners of residential buildings who installqualified energy efficiency improvements a tax credit of30% of the cost of the improvements. States have theirown tax credit programs for green buildings. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment provides a great deal of best practices informa-tion to municipalities. This information includes modelbuilding code upgrades to mandate more energy effi-cient construction. The Department of Energy (DOE) has developed volun-tary labelling standards for consumer appliances such asclothes washers and dishwashers. The DOE also has thepower to compel states to adopt commercial energy con-servation codes as stringent as a widely accepted non-


governmental standard. These codes are important butdo not apply to all residential development. With regard to Federal Legislation for the Use of Renew-able Energy the first federal legislation to encourage theproduction of alternative energy was passed in 1978. ThePublic Utilities Regulatory Policies Act encouraged theconstruction of small hydroelectric and co-generationprojects. Public utilities were required to purchase elec-tricity from these sources at avoided cost rates. As con-cern over Global Climate Change mounted, states tookthe basic idea further and adopted green portfolio stan-dards for public utilities. Portfolio standards specify thepercentage of a utility’s load that must be generated byrenewable sources. Some states also allow homeownerswho generate their own electricity to sell the surplus tothe local utility. The United States Congress is currentlyconsidering Global Climate Change mitigation legisla-tion that includes weak portfolio standards. The Ameri-can Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 requires that6% of US energy be renewable by 2012 and 20% by 2021.At the present time, with the exception of the DOE man-dated commercial energy codes, there are no federal orstate mandated green building standards. Therefore,communities are free to adopt their own energy efficien-cy standards 3. Most municipalities use the standardsdeveloped by the non-profit United States Green Build-ing Counsel. The Council has developed the Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating sys-tem. The system awards points for all aspects of designfrom selecting environmentally degraded land to the useof rainwater irrigation. Like airline points programmes,there are four levels of certification: certification, silver,gold and platinum. The certification level is based onthe energy saved over a conventional building.In general, LEED certification is not mandatory. Themajor of Chicago has committed the city to the goal ofbecoming the greenest city in the US. To obtain a build-ing permit for a LEED certified building, a processfraught with difficulties including a high level of corrup-tion, developers can choose from a list of menu items’that work for the project. Few cities have mandated LEEDcertification for large buildings. For individual homes, afew cities have adopted the federal Environmental Pro-tection Agency’s Energy Star program standards. Most states do not pre-empt municipalities from adopt-ing higher energy standards. Municipalities are only pro-hibited from adopting lower standards.The promotion of renewable energy is a primarily federalstate function. There has been considerable federal statelegislation to promote sustainable communities. But, thislegislation is primarily concerned with encouraging thedevelopment of higher density residential and commercialdevelopment clustered around public transportation nodes.The proposed federal legislation dealing with alternativefuels focuses primarily on the production of electricity. Themost relevant planning provisions in the legislation are thesections amending the Energy Conservation and Produc-tion Act to revise conservation standards for new buildings.The proposed legislation establishes i) standards for anational building retrofit policy for residences; ii) a build-ing energy performance labelling programme; and iii) arebate programme to assist low income people living in pre-1976 homes to purchase new Energy Star homes. The renewable energy source with the closest link to landuse planning is solar energy. The United States does notrecognize a general right of a property owner who installssolar panels to be free from interference by neighbouring

structures 4, although interference with solar access maybe a nuisance 5. The sunny state of New Mexico has cre-ated a statutory right to solar access based upon the firstbeneficial use of sunlight for solar power. However, thislegislation, which has not been replicated in other states,can be challenged as an unconstitutional taking of propertywithout compensation.States and municipalities promote solar energy in severalways. Many sunny states such as California and Coloradoprohibit home owner associations from imposing privateservitudes which prohibit the installation of solar collec-tors. Many cities have zoning codes specifying the angleof protected solar access to which a building is entitled.Municipal zoning codes in a few cities specify the south-ern exposure angle for new residential construction. The next likely alternative energy source in the US is windpower. The United States is seeking to promote wind energy,but municipalities often see themselves as victims ofunwanted wind farms rather than active participants inthe production and use of this energy. The primary federalincentive for investment in wind energy is the ProductionTax Credit of 2,1 cents per KWh for electricity generatedfrom wind. The federal states encourage the constructionof windmill farms through a variety of means such asrenewable portfolio standards for public utilities. Were a zoning ordinance to mandate in the installation ofindividual turbines on new or existing construction orallow them as a matter of right, property owners whoinstall them face the risk that a neighbour could sue fornuisance relief based on the noise and the annoying strobeeffect of the turning turbine blades6. Cities are beginningto address the nuisance issue through zoning ordinancesthat promote the use of individual turbines. California hada law between 2001 and 2005 that required communities toadopt small wind turbine ordinances or face review of pro-posed turbines under a default law that provided for expe-dited review. Some 21 communities in the United Statesnow have ordinances to regulate small turbines.

I S R A E L

Israel is a small country encompassing characteristics of adeveloped economy on the one hand, as for its GDP pro-capite it is approximately the 30th country in the world,and of a developing country on the other as it has thehighest natural growth rate among the developedeconomies. Israel’s emerging policies regarding energy maytherefore be pivotal lessons for a range of other countriesthat do not yet belong to the richest group of nations. The country’s policies about renewable energy are rela-tively new. There is no national legislation that imposesrenewable energy production, but there is governmentpolicy that, if properly implemented, will mandate allgovernment ministries to work together to achieve thegoal. In 2003 the government adopted an overall nationalpolicy about sustainability, with a distinct energy policy.The production share for renewable sources is currentlyless than 1% but the target is for 10% by 2020 and 20% by2030. Given the country’s year-round sun on the onehand and relatively scarce open areas suitable for windfarms, the major part of renewable energy will comefrom solar energy (about 70%), 25% from wind powerand 5% from biomass.There are several factors, most of which unique to Israel,that explain the relative low and delayed target: first, as inmost developing countries, until a society becomes moreaffluence, public policy is oriented to what were con-


ceived to be more basic needs. There are many NGO’sactive in this area – though less than in many otheradvanced economies, due to the special Middle East secu-rity issues that capture much public attention. Whilepublic opinion and therefore public policy has in recentyears been showing a growing awareness of environmentalissues, water scarcity, the need to conserve water, protectthe aquifer and encourage the construction of desalina-tion plants has drawn more attention than the energyissue. Second, Israel’s geographic and security context hascreated a sort ofenergy island.Unlike Europe andNorth America,Israeli’s electricnetwork is notlinked with thegrid of neighbour-ing countries, sothat Israel must betotally self suffi-cient and must beable to accommo-date even the infre-quent peak peri-ods. Third, unlikeother advancedeconomy coun-tries, Israel has astrong positivenatural growthrate alongside agradual rise in thestandard of living.These trends meanthat the demandfor electricity, and thus for new electric-production facili-ties, is constantly growing. Every few years there is anenergy crisis threat. These combined factors have meantthat the Electricity Corporation has been able to wield itsinfluence to go for the traditional power plants. Third,there are no nuclear power plants and none are on theagenda. Fourth, while sunlight is ample, Israel is one ofthe most densely populated countries in the world. Bothsolar energy and wind power require large tracts of openspace. These are not easy to find and often compete withother environmental considerations, especially opensspace and biodiversity preservation.There is no mandatory national legislation on energyefficiency, but there are indirect policies, mostly based inplanning and building law. In 2008, the government adopted a national incentivespolicy for private solar energy production to be sold backto the national grid. The incentives are based on a highprice offered currently, which is to decline with time.Roof space may be used on either public facilities such asschools and municipal buildings or private buildingsbeing them commercial, industrial or residential and ofwhatever dimension. During less than one year, a grow-ing number of both public and private entities have beenjoining the scheme. If the trend grows, it is expected tomake the renewable energy goals attainable. Local plan-ning authorities faced with this new trend are now dis-covering the urgent need to draw up urban design guide-lines for the new roof usage.

In 2005 the Israel Standards Institute adopted a GreenBuildings Code7. It is based largely on the American LEED

code, but draws also on EU, German and UK codes. It is acomprehensive code that includes a major passive energyand energy conservation component. In addition to theusual energy conservation elements, the code also setsconditions for concealing open-air laundry drying zones,including apartment buildings. The adoption of the codeis elective and it may be applied either to new or refur-bished residential or office buildings. Developers or public

entities can obtaina Green BuildingLabel at two levelsof achievement.The first buildingto receive this codein 2007 was BankLeumi in Tel Aviv.In 2009, the gov-ernment beganincorporating thecode in tendersfor national infra-structure projects,such as desalina-tion plants. Com-pliance with thecode grants thebidder additionalpoints in the ten-der. National gov-ernment is unlikelyto support legisla-tion of the Codeas a compulsoryelement for all

private construction because the cost of housing is amajor political issue. Municipalities in Israel have relatively weak legal powersand independent financial resources than their counter-parts in West European countries. None have yet takenany initiative to create their own energy code or incen-tives beyond the regulatory instrument available throughplanning law, discussed next. National statutory planning is a major legal tool forplanning and implementing renewable energy produc-tion and conservation on the national level. Althoughthere is no special clause in the planning law thatrequires energy efficiency, this policy has been indirectlyincorporated by means of legally binding national spa-tial plans. Full compliance with these plans is mandato-ry on all local plans and building permits, but olderplans usually remain in force. The 1965 Israel Planningand Building Law as amended, are used for energy con-versation in several ways: solar heating in residentialbuildings, production of renewable energy, and regula-tion of new construction, potentially retrofitting as well.Since the Sixties, Israel was a pioneer in the use of solarenergy for household water heating. By means of thePlanning and Building Law and the National StandardsInstitute, solar heating is mandatory in all residential con-struction, including apartment buildings. The code waschanged to require one central energy absorbing facilityfor each building, and the water containers were moveddown to the balconies of the individual apartments.


However, Israel did not continue to pursue additionalsolar energy policy until very recently. In recent years national planning policy promotes theestablishment of wind and especially solar energy plants.Nationally-owned land is allocated for this purpose. Thisprovides an indirect subsidy, but is also a factual necessity.The land ownership pattern in Israel is such, that therearen’t enough inbuilt private land tracts large enough toenable the construction of a solar energy plant on privateland. Wind farm developers of small size could perhapsfind some privateland.The decisions overthe locations forsolar energy plansas well as wind-farm areas of sig-nificant size are amatter for nation-al-level statutoryplans and deci-sions. Both types ofrenewable energysites inevitably cre-ate a conflict withother environmen-tal considerations.Two major windfarms were incor-porated in nationalstatutory plans afew years ago, aftera long battle withopposing environ-mental movements.They objected ontwo grounds: theinterference with the bird-migration routes as Israel hoststhe major migration routes from Europe to the SouthernHemisphere, and the infringement of aesthetic qualities ofthe scarce open spaces in the hilly regions where the windturbines were to be sited. Sites for solar plants were difficultto find even in Israel’s southern desert area due to conflictswith other land uses and environmental considerations. Anoperative peace in the Middle East could in the future leadto contracts with Egypt for locating solar plants in thesparsely populated Sinai desert. After much debate, cur-rently there are tenders for the construction and operationof two large solar energy sites in the southern part of thecountry that is mostly desert areas with many tractsdeclared as environmentally sensitive areas.A major national plan approved in 2005 contains a writ-ten policy on sustainable development. Such policy isalso derived from the general government decision of2003 mentioned above. Direct implementation throughplanning regulation is currently only at its start. The dis-trict planning commissions, which oversee local plan-ning decisions and are to implement national policy,have recently issued guidelines to local planning bodies.These guidelines contain a major energy component.The guidelines are advisory, but since district commis-sions have the authority to decline approval of most localplanning initiatives, one can expect that this policy will begradually implemented through a case by case review. Thepace of implementation through this route is, however,expected to be slow because planning bodies area alreadycriticized for over regulation and for causing major delays,and thus raising housing costs, a very sensitive topic.

Much more effective is the national statutory planningpolicy on compact city development. This has a majorindirect influence on promoting energy efficiencythrough innovative and strict rules. In the Israeli context,the major motivation is not energy conservation butrather efficient use of scarce land resources in order toconserve some open spaces. Efficient use of public trans-portation is a second goal. Both goals of course alsomean energy conservation. Since 2005, and in some partsof the country since the late Nineties, there are nation-

wide planningrules that mandateminimal densitylevel not just thetraditional maxi-mum level. Incentral cities, thiscan mean at least140 housing unitsper net hectare. Itis graded lower intowns furtheraway from thecentral district.No new ex-urbanareas are to beestablished, unlessthey are contigu-ous with built upareas and meetthese densityr e q u i r e m e n t s .These nationalpolicies are legallybinding on alllocal planningdecisions, unless

they implement plans approved before 2005.Another effective, though small-scale route is the imple-mentation of the Israeli Green Building Code through adhoc municipal initiatives. Several local governments inhigh-demand areas, where buyers of housing units canabsorb some extra costs and where profits of developer areassured, have began to negotiate with developers over greenbuilding certification for a few pace-setting new housingand office projects. The legal basis for this is the same asany other development agreement: it relies on the fact thatmost new development requires an amendment of theexisting statutory plan or at least, the granting of a variance.Thus, the developers very much depend upon the localplanning authorities. Although the number of municipalinitiatives of this type is still small, experience with similarnew policies on other environmental topics, such as leavingwater retention areas in built up areas, has proven that aftera few successful models, the pace will accelerate. We stand at a critical point in the energy, economic, andenvironmental evolution of the world. Renewable ener-gies and energy efficiency are now not only affordable,but their expanded use will also open new areas of inno-vation. Creating opportunities and a fair marketplace fora clean-energy economy requires leadership and vision.The tools to implement this evolution are now wellknown. We must recognize and overcome the currentroadblocks and create the opportunities needed to putthese renewable and energy-efficient measures into effect.


———————

1 Pursuant to Article of the Treaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity, Community policy on the environment is to con-tribute to the preservation, protection and improvement of thequality of the environment.2 OECD/IEA: Renewable Energy. Market and Policy Trends in IEACountries, p. 94.3 To date, preemption issues have arisen with state statutesenacted to regulate the use of solar panels. E.g. Kurcera v. Lizza,Cal.Rptr.d (California Court of Appeals). Solar Shade ControlAct did not preempt local government ordinances regulatingtree planting that could interfere with active and passive solarenergy use.4 The leading case of Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. V. Forty-Five Twenty-Inc., So.d (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.) rejected the Englishdoctrine of ancient lights, which recognizes implied easementsbased on prescription. The case is still good law. Wolford v.Thomas, Cal.Rptr. (Cal.Ct.App.).5 Prah v. Maretti, N.W.d (Wis.).6 Burch v. Nedpower Mount Storm, LLC, S.E.d (West Virginia).7 Israel Standard (SI): Buildings with reduced environmentalimpact (“Green buildings”). On energy topics, the code includesrequirements relating to the maximum proportion of windowsrelative to the total wall area, the maximum thermal conductiv-ity (U-value) of different wall sections, rates of night ventila-tion, and the properties of external wall surfaces. Window sizeshave been prescribed according to orientation and climaticregions. Theoretically the standard consists of two complianceoptions: a prescriptive path in which specific requirements forenergy related elements should be followed, and a performancemethod that measures the energy consumption in the apart-ment against a reference apartment using a simulation tool.However, the latter has not yet been finalized.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

ALTERMAN R., “National-level planning in democraticcountries. An international comparison of city andregional policy making.” in Town Planning ReviewSpecial Study (2001), 4, Liverpool University Press.

——, “Correlation of planning law and renewable ener-gies”, in Proceedings of the Third Conference of Plat-form of experts in Planning Law, 21-29 Berlin 2009.

ANTONIO, J.R., “The Power of Wind: Current LegalIssues in Siting Wind Power”, in Planning & Envi-ronmental law (2009), 61, (5): 3-5.

BRAWER, J., VESPA, M., “Thinking Globally, ActingLocally: the Role of Local Government in Minimiz-ing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Develop-ment”, in Idaho L. Rev. (2008), 44: 589-593.

CARAVITA, B., Diritto dell’Ambiente, Il Mulino, Bologna,2005

Council Directive 2003/96/E of 23 October, Restructuringthe Community framework for the taxation of energyproducts and electricity in Official Journal of the Euro-pean Union of 31.10.2003: L283/51-L283/69.

Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of theuse of energy from renewable sources and amending andsubsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and2003/30/EC, in Official Journal of the European Unionof 5.6. 2009: L140/16-L140/62.

Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion ofelectricity produced from renewable energy sources in theinternal electricity market, in Official Journal of the

European Communities of 27.10.2001: L283/33-L283/40.

Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the useof biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, inOfficial Journal of the European Union of 17.5.2003:L123/42-L123/46.

European Commission proposal on an integrated energyand climate change package to cut emissions for 21stCentury, IP/07/29 of 10 January 2007.

KINGSLEY, B.S., “Making It Easy to be Green: UsingImpact Fees to Encourage Green Building”, in TheNew York University Law Rev. (2008), 83: 532.

KRZEMINSKA, J., “Are Support Schemes for RenewableEnergies Compatible with Competition Objectives?An Assessment of National and Community Rules”,in Yearbook of European Environmental Law (ed.Oxford UP), November 2007, VII: 125-265.

MACCHIATI, A., ROSSI, G., La sfida dell’energia pulita.Ambiente, clima e energie rinnovabili: problemi eco-nomici e giuridici, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2010.

PEPE V. (ed.), Diritto Comparato delle Energie. Esperienzeeuropee. ESI, Napoli, 2008.

RIVA, G., FOPPA PERDETTI, E., TOSCANO, G., “Renew-able energy sources and their applications: problemsand aspects to be developed”, International Confer-ence on Integrated Renewable Energy for RegionalDevelopment, Bali 28-31 August 2001: 10-23.

SUSSMAN, E., “Green Development, Climate Change,and Local Land Use Regulation”, in New York Uni-versity Environmental Law Journal (2008) 1: 16-32.

TARLOCK, A. D., “Land use regulation: the weak link inenvironmental protection”, in Washington Law Rev.(2007), 82: 651-666.

TWIDELL, J., WEIR A.D., Renewable Energy Resources,Taylor&Francis, London New York, 2006.

WISER, R., BOLINGER, M., CAPPERS, P., MARGOLIS. R.,Letting the Sun Shine on Solar Costs: An EmpiricalInvestigation of Photovoltaic Cost Trends in California,January 2006, National Renewable Energy LaboratoryPublications, US Department of Energy. ©


Andrea Silvestri (1942) is Full Pro-fessor of Electrical Power Systems atthe Polytechnics of Milan since 1986and Deputy Director in the Depart-ment of Energy.He carried out research in coordina-tion with ENEL, CESI, AEM, nowwith A2A, Edison, Sondel, Enel Dis-tribuzione, the Italian Authority forElectricity and Gas.Mr Silvestri is editor of AEIT (formerlyL’Elettrotecnica) of the Italian Federa-tion of Electrical, Electronic, Automa-tion, Information and Communica-tion Technology, and former memberof the Editorial Board of Interna-tional Journal of Power & EnergySystems”.He is Chairman of Technical Com-mittees “Symbols and documenta-tion” and “Human exposure to elec-tromagnetic fields. Low frequency”in the Italian Electrotechnical Com-mittee (CEI).He is the Italian delegate to theinternational conference Conférence Internationale desRéseaux Electriques de Distribution (CIRED).

1 ~ F O R E W O R D

H E T H E M E O F T H E “A C T I V E N E T W O R K S ” I S O N E

of the most interesting line of developmentof the electric power systems along therecent and the coming years. This paperwill draw more precisely some concepts

that are often disseminated by the media, to betteraddress the specific topic of the active networks.

2 ~ S M A R T G R I D A N D A C T I V E G E N E R A T I O N

The topic of the Smart Grids – with some defini-tional distinctions introduced below – will be out-lined in the broader context of the Active Net-works, that are networks with massive powerinputs of dispersed generation from renewablesources and that will be subjected to a real revolu-tion in the next future.

Active networks are indeed arousing a growinginterest among all people involved in electricalpower systems, as well as in the Italian and inter-national technical literature. I quote hereby theSeptember 2009 special issue 1 of the AEIT magazineof the Italian Federation of Electrical, Electronic,

Automation, Information andCommunication Technology, amagazine where I am the editor.At international level, I refer tothe ongoing attention from theEuropean Union and to therecent Conférence Interna-tionale des Réseaux de Distribu-tion (CIRED) conference2, largelydedicated to the Smart Grids.A clarification of terminology:the networks discussed herebyare the medium voltage (MV)distribution networks, energizedby high/medium voltage (HV /MV) primary substations andfeeding the secondary cabins inmedium/low voltage (MV / LV).I mentioned the need to deeplyrethink the distribution net-works, and the reasons why arevolution in electric powersystems appears necessary. First,the increasing attention to

environmental issues in general and the environ-mental impact of all energy conversion technologiesin particular. In the recent years, spurred by majorinternational directives – citing, among all, the so-called European target 20-20-20 to 2020 – the focushas been drawn on energy conversion technologiesscarcely considered so far, such as the dispersed ordistributed generation of electricity. From now on,only the term dispersed generation (DG) will beused, since it better expresses the non-predeter-mined nature – neither spatially nor temporally – ofthese forms of generation.In order to significantly increase the amount ofrenewable energy sources for the conversion toelectricity, it is mandatory to catch all opportuni-ties provided by the energy sources which are dif-fused and dispersed throughout the territory, likethe solar photovoltaic, the wind power and smallhydroelectric plants.Moreover, there is the need to exploit other energysources such as fossil fuels in cogeneration mode


T O W A R D S T H E S M A R T G R I DA N D R E A S I L V E S T R I

T

“ Art

does not

reproduce the

visibile;

rather

it makes

visible. ”PP AA UU LL KK LL EE EE

g | F U T U R E S

(combined production of electricity and heat) anddistributed storage systems, which also offer signif-icant opportunities for distributed power genera-tion. As a consequence, it is necessary to develop anew form of interconnection, no longer central-ized but widespread distributed.So far were the energetic considerations. From theviewpoint of the electrical grid, however, the newdistributed configuration implies the interconnec-tion of a large number of small generating units,which are by nature neither controlled nor central-ly managed. This explains the predicted evolutiontowards networks with simultaneous double flows(see FIGURE 1): electrical power is injected and/ortapped at various points of a bi-directional net-work, while data and information for line manage-ment run on another type of network.

3 ~ P E N E T R A T I O N O F T H E A C T I V E

G E N E R A T I O N A N D H O S T I N G

C A P A C I T Y

The Politecnico di Milano, and my group in par-ticular, has focused on active networks through aseries of analysis carried out on behalf of the Ital-ian Authority for Electricity and Gas (AEEG).In this study, attached as Annex 2 in the Annex Aof the AEEG Resolution 25/09 [3], we investigated

the possible additional power capacity of the medi-um voltage distribution network that, in compli-ance with the current technical constraints, doesnot require any modification in the existing protec-tion, control and automation equipment of theupstream primary substations.The analysis was performed on a sample of 400 pri-mary substations, sample already available to theAuthority for Electricity and Gas from a previousanalysis of the short-circuit currents. That amountrepresents about the 8% of the Italian MV network,and includes data related to different Italian utilities,areas with different load densities - high, mediumand low - and covers quite evenly all Italian regions.In particular, the maximum installation capacitywas determined node by node depending on anumber of technical constraints which take into

account the network management strategies andthe current legal situation1 ~ short-circuit current;2 ~ rapid changes in voltage;3 ~ steady-state capacity of MV lines; 4 ~ slow voltage variations;5 ~ power reversal. According to the survey outcomes, the nationalnetworks show a satisfactory capacity of accepting


FIGURE 1. Future evolution of the electrical networks.

FIGURE 2. Cumulative percentage of nodes with installable Distributed Generation capacity atthe value indicated in the abscissa.

the Distributed Generation (FIGURE 2), so as toensure approximately 3 MW of installed capacity(hosting capacity) 4 for the 85% of the nodes.

4 ~ S M A R T G R I D

A N D C O M M U N I C A T I O N

The penetration of the DG in the electrical system,however, shall overcome some obstacles that may pre-vent the full exploitation of the hosting capacity cal-culated above. These problems are due not only tothe fact that the current distribution facilities areoperated as passive networks – with no injection ofactive power from the users to the network – but alsoto the levels of the fault currents and, not least, to theamount of power flow for which they were designed.To address this critical factor and to enable the effec-tive use of the regulating capacity of the DG, it isessential to provide a new model of active networkthat, beside managing increasing amounts of distrib-uted generation connected to distribution networks– particularly in medium and low voltage – wouldallow an effective role in the functional optimiza-tion of the system, thereby significantly reducingthe environmental impact and increasing the degreeof reliability and safety.In this regard, even groups with larger powercapacity, up to some tens of MVA, not strictlyfalling within the definition of the DG, could beemployed in order to form intentional self-sup-plied islands in the absence of a primary network.A further opportunity is related to the electricvehicles: apart from reducing pollution in urbanareas, they could improve the use of the distribu-tion networks by covering the load peaks with thebatteries themselves: a proper public battery-charging infrastructure may become a new ele-ment of the distribution networks (in Italy severalprojects are being developed by distribution com-panies, such as Enel, A2A Milan, ACEA in Rome).The term Smart Grid has therefore become a com-mon expression, attracting a growing interest atseveral levels. At the international level we notice asteady increase in funding for research projects onSmart Grids, conferences and announcements ofinnovative equipment; this leads to the apparentparadox that the concept itself of Smart Grid isnot univocally shared, since the scientific, thecommercial and the political world hold far differ-ent positions about its interpretation.From the scientific viewpoint, the trend is to definea model where advanced ICTs (Information andCommunication Technologies, such as sensors,transducers, communication, control, measure-ment) are integrated into the power grid, openingup new possibilities for the improvement of the sys-tem; these possibilities are indicated indeed by theterm “smart” to recognize the underlying intelli-gence of the coordination of different infrastruc-tures, rather than that of the individual component;

the reference to a “grid” is meant to include bothpower signals and communication.I hereby refer to the definition given by the SubCommittee C6 of Conférence Internationale desGrandes Reseaux Electriques (CIGRE) WG 11 “Activedistribution networks (ADNs) are distribution net-works that have systems in place to control a com-bination of distributed Energy resources (DERs)(generators, load and storage). Distribution systemoperators (DSOs) have the possibility of managing theelectricity flows using a flexible network topology.DERs take some degree of responsibility for systemsupport, which will depend on a suitable regulatoryenvironment and connection agreement”.I would like to highlight some critical issue impliedby that line of development. First, the communica-tions system must involve both the distributor andthe network users. It is evident that such a commu-nication system must be developed on standard pro-tocols, independently from the constructive typolo-gy and specific technology employed by each dis-tributor. In other words, there must be a systemadapted to include, in progress, new users and newfeatures. Such a system can not be developedaccording to proprietary protocols, but must betransparent to the users. Indeed, each new user shallbe able to actively join the network managementand equipped with suitable communication devicesto properly interact with the control centers.Such a system can not be developed without a sig-nificant intervention from the regulatory authority.Clear rules will be necessary to manage both thetechnological specificities and the costs arising fromthe revolution.

5 ~ I T A L Y I N T H E

E U R O P E A N C O N T E X T

Coming back to the main topic, the active networks,Italy starts from an advantageous position: first, thehigh and very-high voltage networks are completelycontrolled and automated, while in other countriesthe automation and the electronic meters are stillin a testing phase. In Italy, as already mentioned,even the medium voltage network is automated,with a number of electronic meters exceeding 33million units.These are reasons to believe that the Italian systemcan be the first to successfully evolve towards theactive networks: it is however essential to focus onthe most important directions to follow and to takeinto account the most significant barriers, both fromthe regulatory and the technological standpoint.These assumptions are just a prerequisite for a possi-ble active management of the system; throughoutthe network are also deployed automatic measure-ment systems, such as electronic meters, which allowthe so-called Automatic Meter Reading (AMR), orbetter to say, Automatic Meter Management (AMM).


We often hear that these two features make the Ital-ian system the first extended Smart Grid deployedon a continental basis. This statement does notseem correct: if we refer to the above definition ofSmart Grid, these systems will surely facilitate theaccess of a new Distributed Generation, but werenot specifically designed for that purpose.Incidentally, with regard to the electronic meters,we noted in the past independent actions taken bythe largest utility in Italy, which has actually set itsown corporate stan-dard as a nationalstandard, with anumber of implica-tions on both tech-nical and regulatorysides that I have notime to address.An important tool toguide a proper evo-lution of the systemis certainly given bythe technical rules ofconnection. I spendonly two words toremember that ourresearch unit is sinceyears active on this issue, having been involvedwith major roles in the Italian ElectrotechnicalCommittee (CEI) and, at European level, in theComité Européen de Normalisation en Électron-ique et en Électrotechnique (CENELEC) to draft thetechnical standard for the high and medium volt-age connection (CEI 0-163), and is now participatingto the analogous rule for the connection to lowvoltage networks (CEI under publication, probablynumbered CEI 0-18). These rules take into account what is the key pointto the active networks, the need for an exchange ofsignals between the control centers of the distribu-tion network (primary substations) and the distrib-uted generators. The CEI 0-16 had introduced theconcept of logic signal for the protection againstislanding, while the CEI 0-18 has already provided thefeature (for the relays associated with generators, thecd interface relays) to receive signals from the dis-tributor. In the future, other signals aimed at the reg-ulation of the local voltage and possible limitation ofthe active power output will be introduced.

6 ~ S O M E A C T I O N O N T H E F I E L D

O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N T E S T S

SmartDGlab (http://www.fondazionepolitecnico.it/pagine/SmartDGlab.aspx), an interdepartmentallaboratory at the Politecnico di Milano , was createdunder the auspices of the Fondazione Politecnico

(FIGURE 3) with the aim of finalizing the appliedresearch in the field of active networks (Smart Grid).The current technological border is the need ofintegrating the power grid with appropriate com-munication channels and with an innovative logicof planning, programming, supervision, monitor-ing, control and protection of the electrical distrib-ution systems.At present, SmartGDlab cooperates with the twofollowing active projects.

— AlpEnergy,European territorialcooperation projectwhich brings togeth-er energy producers,development agen-cies, research insti-tutions and localadministrations offive different Alpinecountries – France,Germany, Italy,Slovenia and Switzer-land. Its aim is todevelop innovativecoordination tech-niques between gen-

eration and load, at level of single distribution net-work (www.alpenergy.net).— Milano Wi-Power, an ambitious project under-taken by the Politecnico di Milano dealing with thecritical aspects of the communication systems: thespecific goal is to test and validate, both throughsimulations and field trials, possible communica-tion systems able to interrelate the primary substa-tions with the diffused generators. Among the part-ners: a major Italian utility, the aforementionedA2A, and an important center of applied researchERSE (the former CESI, well known also interna-tionally). Further contacts are underway with ENELDistribuzione, to activate some of their primarysubstations and possibly integrate the existingautomation systems.

7 ~ C O N C L U S I O N S

To summarize what has been mentioned aboveand to arrive at the conclusions, the following arethe key points to be highlighted.First, from my point of view, talking about SmartGrids implies talking of communication systemslinking together the primary substations with thenetwork users, the latter being, in the first instance,active users or generators.A second point is the need to setup communica-tion systems based on largely accepted protocolsand not on proprietary protocols, to avoid possible


FIGURE 3. SartDGlab

distortions inthe develop-ment of thewhole process.In this regard,the role playedby the regula-tor AEEG willbe essential.Finally, fromthe viewpoint of the technologyand the research, in which weare particularly interested, it isnow time to start-up the rele-vant pilot projects involvingboth real distribution networksand laboratory tests.

* I wish to thank my young colleaguesMaurizio Delfanti e Marco Merlo fortheir cooperation, ?as well as our even younger PhD collab-orators Davide Falabretti, Gabriele Monfredini, ValeriaOlivieri (the latter having particularly helped me in thiswork) and Mauro Pozzi.

——————————

1 DELFANTI, M., FALABRETTI, D., MERLO, M., OLIVIERI, V.,SILVESTRI, A., “Impact of distributed generation on distributionnetworks,” in AEIT 9 (2009): 20-31.2 DELFANTI, M., GALLANTI, M., PASQUADIBISCEGLIE, M.S.,WELLS, M., VAILATI, R., “Limits to dispersed generation on Ital-ian MV networks”, in CIRED 20th International Conference andExhibition on Electricity Distribution, Prague 11/08 (2009): 1-5.3 Resolution ARG / elt 25/09, “Tracking the development of dis-tributed generation in Italy for 2006 and analysis of the possibleeffects of distributed generation on the national electricity system.”4 BOLLEN, M.H.J., YANG, Y., HASSAN, F. “Integration of Dis-tributed Generation in the Power System – A power qualityapproach”, in ICHQP 2008.5 CEI 0-16, “Rule technical reference for the connection ofactive users and passive networks and AT MT Companies dis-tributing electricity,” February 2008. ©


Sven Teske holds a Diploma Engineer(Dipl.-Ing.) from Wilhelmshaven,Germany. He has been Scientificadvisor for Greenpeace Germany,Energy Unit (1994-’95); RenewableEnergy Campaigner for GreenpeaceGermany, responsible for the devel-opment of renewable energy cam-paigns and renewable energy policiesdevelopment, esp. feed-in laws andliberalization of electricity markets(1995-2004) and from 2005 he isDirector of Greenpeace RenewableEnergy Campaign at GreenpeaceInternational.Mr Teske Originally developed theconcept for a green utility and founded“Greenpeace energy eG”– Germany’sand is Member of the board since1/2000. Greenpeace Energy eG is theonly cooperative in the power sector,today it employs 50 people and suppliesgreen electricity to 90.000 customers inGermany and Luxembourg.Mr Teske has published over 30 spe-cial reports on renewable energies (Global Wind EnergyOutlook and Solar Generation). He is Project leader forthe World Energy Scenario “Energy [R]evolution: A sus-tainable World Energy Outlook”. The energy [R]evolutionis an independently produced report that provides a practi-cal blueprint for how to half global CO2 emissions, whileallowing for an increase in energy consumption by 2050.Since January 2009 Mr Teske is Lead author for the newIPCC Special Report Renewables to be published at theend of 2010.

—————1 Greenpeace International, Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ

Amsterdam, The Netherlands.2 Ecofys, Kanaalweg 16G, 3526 KL Utrecht, The Netherlands.3 German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Ther-modynamics, Department of Systems Analysis and TechnologyAssessment, Pfaffenwaldring 38-40, 70565 Stuttgart, Germany.4 European Renewable Energy Council, 63-65, rue d’Arlon ,1040 Brussels, Belgium.Corresponding author: Sven Teske, Greenpeace International,Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands |Große Elbstrasse 39, 22767 Hamburg, Germany, T. +49-40-30618-421, E. [email protected].

1 ~ B A C K G R O U N D T O

E N E R G Y [ R ] E V O L U T I O N S C E N A R I O S

E A R LY T W O Y E A R S A F T E R P U B L I S H I N G T H E F I R S T

Energy [R]evolution scenario in 2007 and 2008(Greenpeace/EREC, 2007; Kre-witt et al. 2007, Krewitt et. al2009), the new Energy [R]evolu-tion 2010 scenario picks uprecent trends in global socio-economic developments, andanalyses to which extent theyaffect chances for achieving thestill valid overall target: trans-forming our unsustainableglobal energy supply systeminto a system which complieswith climate protection targets,and at the same time offers per-spectives for a fair and secureaccess to affordable energy ser-vices in all world regions. TheEnergy [R]evolution scenario aimsat demonstrating the feasibilityof reducing global CO2 emis-sions to 10 Gt per year in 2050,while the advanced case reducesto 3.5 Gt/y in 2050. Accordingto IPCC findings is a prerequi-site to limit global average tem-perature increase to well below

2°C (compared to pre-industrial level) and thus pre-venting dangerous anthropogenic interference withthe climate system.

2 ~ T H E A P P R O A C H

Both the basic and the advanced Energy [R]evolu-tion scenarios are target orientated scenarios whichhave been developed in a back-casting process.The main target is to reduce global CO2 emissionsto 10 Gt/a in the base case and 3.5 Gt/a in theadvanced case by 2050, thus limiting global averagetemperature increase well below 2°C and prevent-ing catastrophic anthropogenic interference withthe climate system (Hansen et. al 2008). As we donot consider nuclear energy as an option that sup-ports the transition towards a sustainable energysupply system, a second constraint is the phasingout of nuclear power plants until 2050.A 10-region global energy system model imple-mented in the MESAP/PlaNet environment(MESAP, 2008) is used for simulating global energysupply strategies. The 10 regions correspond to the


“ Freedom

is always and

exclusively

freedom for

one who

thinks

differently. ”RROO SS AA LLUU XX EE MM BB UU RR GG

g | O U T L O O K

E N E R G Y [ R ] E V O L U T I O N 2 0 1 0A S U S T A I N A B L E W O R L D E N E R G Y O U T L O O K

S V E N T E S K E1, T H O M A S P R E G G E R

2, S O N J A S I M O N3, W I N A G R A U S

4, C H R I S T I N E L I N S5

N

world regions as specified by the IEA’s World EnergyOutlook 2009 (Africa, China, India, Latin America,Middle East, OECD Europe, OECD North America,OECD Pacific, Rest of Developing Asia, TransitionEconomies) (IEA 2009a). Model calibration for thebase year 2007 is based on IEA energy statistics (IEA2009b, c). Population development projections aretaken from the United Nations’ World PopulationProspects (UNDP 2009).

3 ~ M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D A S S U M P T I O N S

Three scenarios up to the year 2050 are outlined inthis report: a Reference scenario, an Energy [R]evolu-tion scenario with a target to reduce energy relatedCO2 emissions by 50%, from their 1990 levels, andan Advanced Energy [R]evolution version whichenvisages a fall of more than 80% in CO2 by 2050.The Reference Scenario is based on the referencescenario in the International Energy Agency’s 2009World Energy Outlook (WEO 2009) analysis,extrapolated forward from 2030. Compared to theprevious (2007) IEA projections (IEA WEO 2007),WEO 2009 assumes a slightly lower average annualgrowth rate of world Gross Domestic Product(GDP) of 3.1%, instead of 3.6%, over the period2007-2030. At the same time, it expects final energyconsumption in 2030 to be 6% lower than in theWEO 2007 report. China and India are expected togrow faster than other regions, followed by theOther Developing Asia group of countries, Africaand the Transition Economies (mainly the formerSoviet Union). The OECD share of global purchas-ing power parity (PPP) adjusted GDP will decreasefrom 55% in 2007 to 29% by 2050.The Energy [R]evolution Scenario has a key target of50% renewables by 2050. A second objective is theglobal phasing out of nuclear energy. To achievethese goals the scenario is characterised by signifi-cant efforts to fully exploit the large potential forenergy efficiency. At the same time, all cost-effec-tive renewable energy sources are used for heat andelectricity generation, as well as the production ofbio fuels. The general framework parameters forpopulation and GDP growth remain unchangedfrom the Reference scenario.The Advanced Energy [R]evolution Scenario takes amuch more radical approach to the climate crisisfacing the world and therefore assumes much short-er technical lifetimes for coal-fired power plants – 20years instead of 40 years. To fill the resulting gap, theannual growth rates of renewable energy sources,especially solar photovoltaics, wind and concentrat-ing solar power plants, have therefore beenincreased. Apart from that, the advanced scenariotakes on board all the general framework parametersof population and economic growth from the basicversion, as well as most of the energy efficiencyroadmap. In the transport sector, however, there is15 to 20% lower final energy demand until 2050 dueto a combination of simply less driving and insteadincrease use of public transport and a faster uptake

of efficient combustion vehicles and – after 2025 – alarger share of electric vehicles. Within the heatingsector there is a faster expansion of CHP in theindustry sector, more electricity for process heat anda faster growth of solar and geothermal heating sys-tems. Combined with a larger share of electric dri-ves in the transport sector, this results in a higheroverall demand for power. Even so, the overall glob-al electricity demand in the Advanced Energy [R]evo-lution scenario is still lower than in the Reference sce-nario. In the advanced scenario the latest marketdevelopment projections of the renewable industry(5) have been calculated for all sectors The speedieruptake of electric and hydrogen vehicles, combinedwith the faster implementation of smart grids andexpanding super grids (about ten years ahead of thebasic version) allows a higher share of fluctuatingrenewable power generation (photovoltaic andwind). The threshold of a 40% proportion of renew-ables in global primary energy supply is thereforepassed just after 2030 (also ten years ahead). By con-trast, the quantity of biomass and large hydro powerremain the same in both Energy [R]evolution scenar-ios, for sustainability reasons.

O I L A N D G A S P R I C E P R O J E C T I O N S

The recent dramatic fluctuations in global oilprices have resulted in slightly higher forwardprice projections for fossil fuels. Under the 2004

‘high oil and gas price’ scenario from the EuropeanCommission, for example, an oil price of just $34

per barrel was assumed in 2030. More recent pro-jections of oil prices by 2030 in the IEA’s WEO 2009

range from $2008 80/bbl in the lower prices sensi-tivity case up to $2008 150/bbl in the higher pricessensitivity case. The reference scenario in WEO

2009 predicts an oil price of $2008 115/bbl. Sincethe first Energy [R]evolution study was publishedin 2007, however, the actual price of oil has movedover $100/bbl for the first time, and in July 2008

reached a record high of more than $140/bbl.Although oil prices fell back to $100/bbl in Sep-tember 2008 and around $80/bbl in April 2010 theprojections in the IEA reference scenario might stillbe considered too conservative. Taking into accountthe growing global demand for oil we have assumeda price development path for fossil fuels based onthe IEA WEO 2009 higher prices sensitivity caseextrapolated forward to 2050 (see TABLE 1). As thesupply of natural gas is limited by the availabilityof pipeline infrastructure, there is no world mar-ket price for gas. In most regions of the world thegas price is directly tied to the price of oil. Gasprices are therefore assumed to increase to $24-29/GJ by 2050.


C O S T O F C O 2 E M I S S I O N S

Assuming that a CO2 emissions trading system isestablished across all world regions in the longerterm, the cost of CO2 allowances needs to beincluded in the calculation of electricity generationcosts. Projections of emissions costs are even moreuncertain than energy prices, however, and avail-able studies span a broad range of future estimates.As in the previous Energy [R]evolution study weassume CO2 costs of $10/tCO2 in 2015, rising to$50/tCO2 by 2050. Additional CO2 costs are appliedin Kyoto Protocol Non-Annex B (developing)countries only after 2020.

P R O J E C T I O N S O F F U T U R E I N V E S T M E N T

C O S T S F O R P O W E R G E N E R A T I O N

F O S S I L F U E L P O W E R P L A N T S

While the fossil fuel power technologies in usetoday for coal, gas, lignite and oil are established andat an advanced stage of market development, furthercost reduction potentials are assumed. The potentialfor cost reductions is limited, however, and will beachieved mainly through an increase in efficiency.

TABLE 2 summarises our assumptions on the techni-cal and economic parameters of future fossil-fuelled power plant technologies. In spite of grow-ing raw material prices, we assume that furthertechnical innovation will result in a moderatereduction of future investment costs as well asimproved power plant efficiencies. These improve-ments are, however, outweighed by the expectedincrease in fossil fuel prices, resulting in a signifi-cant rise in electricity generation costs.

R E N E W A B L E S

TABLE 2 summarises the cost trends for renewableenergy technologies as derived from the respectivelearning curves. It should be emphasised that theexpected cost reduction is basically not a function oftime, but of cumulative capacity, so dynamic marketdevelopment is required. Most of the technologieswill be able to reduce their specific investment coststo between 30% and 70% of current levels by 2020,and to between 20% and 60% once they have achievedfull maturity (after 2040). Reduced investment costsfor renewable energy technologies lead directly toreduced heat and electricity generation costs, as


U N I T 2000 2005 2007 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050

C RU D E O I L I M P O RT S barrelIEA WEO 2009 “Reference” 34.30 50.00 75.00 97.19 86.67 100 107.5 115USA EIA 2008 “Reference” 86.64 69.96 82,53USA EIA 2008 “High Price” 92.56 119.75 138.96Energy [R]evolution 2010 110.56 130.00 140.00 150.00 150.00 150.00N AT U R A L G A S I M P O RT S

IEA WEO 2009 “Reference”United States GJ 5.00 2.32 3.24 8.25 7.29 8.87 10.04 11.36Europe GJ 3.70 4.49 6.29 10.32 10.46 12.10 13.09 14.02Japan LNG GJ 6.10 4.52 6.33 12.64 11.91 13.75 14.83 15.87

Energy [R]evolution 2010United States GJ 3.24 8.75 10.70 12.40 14.38 18.10 23.73Europe GJ 6.29 10.87 16.56 17.99 19.29 22.00 26.03Japan LNG GJ 6.33 13.34 18.84 20.37 21.84 24.80 29.30

H A R D C OA L I M P O RT S

OECD steam coal imports tonneEnergy [R]evolution 2010 tonne 69.45 120.59 116.15 135.41 139.50 142.70 160.00 172.30IEA WEO 2009 “Reference” tonne 41.22 49.61 69.45 120.59 91.05 104.16 107.12 109.4B I O M A S S (S O L I D )Energy [R]evolution 2010

OECD Europe GJ 7.4 7.7 8.2 9.2 10.0 10.3 10.5OECD Pacific and North America GJ 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.2Other regions GJ 2.7 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.0 4.6 4.9

SOURCE 2000-2030, IEA WEO 2009 HIHER PRICES SENSITIVITY CASE FOR CRUDE OIL, GAS AND STEAM COAL; 2040-2050 AND OTHET FUELS, OWN ASSUMPTIONS.

TABLE 1 ~ F O S S I L F U E L P R I C E A S S U M P T I O N S F O R T H E T H R E E S C E N A R I O S

TABLE 2 ~ D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F F I C I E N C Y A N D I N V E S T M E N T C O S T S F O R S E L E C T E D P OW E R P L A N T T E C H N O L O G I E S

2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

Coal-fired condensing power plant Efficency (%) 45 46 48 50 52 53Ivestment costs ($/kW) 1,320 1,230 1,190 1,160 1,130 1,100Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs ($cents/kWh) 6.6 9.0 10.8 12.5 14.2 15.7CO2 emissions* (g/kWh) 744 728 697 670 644 632

Lignite-fired condensing power plant Efficency (%) 41 43 44 44.5 45 45Ivestment costs ($/kW) 1,570 1,440 1,380 1,350 1,320 1,290Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs ($cents/kWh) 5.9 6.5 7.5 8.4 9.3 10.3CO2 emissions (g/kWh) 975 929 908 898 888 888

Natural gas combined cycle Efficency (%) 57 59 61 62 63 64Ivestment costs ($/kW) 690 675 645 610 580 550Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs ($cents/kWh) 7.5 10.5 12.7 15.3 17.4 18.9CO2 emissions (g/kWh) 354 342 330 325 320 315

SOURCE: DLR, 2010 | *CO emission refer to power station outputs only. Life-cycle emission are not considered.


TABLE 3 ~ P R O J E C T E D C O S T D E V E L O P M E N T

F O R R E N E WA B L E P O W E R G E N E R A T I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S , M A R K E T V O L U M E S A N D I N V E S T M E N T S

P H OTOVO LTA I C S (PV) 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N

Global installed capacity GW 6 98 335 1036 1915 2968Investment costs $/kWp 3.746 2.610 1.776 1.027 785 761Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 66 38 16 13 11 10

A DVA N C E D E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N

Global installed capacity GW 6 108 439 1330 2959 4318Investment costs $/kWp 3.746 2.610 1.776 1.027 761 738Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 66 38 16 13 11 10

C O N C E N T R A T I N G S O L A R P O W E R (CSP) 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N

Global installed capacity GW 1 25 105 324 647 1002Investment costs $/kWp 7.250 5.576 5.044 4.263 4.200 4.160Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 300 250 210 180 160 155


Global installed capacity GW 1 28 225 605 1173 1643Investment costs $/kWp 7.250 5.576 5.044 4.200 4.160 4121Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 300 250 210 180 160 155

W I N D P OW E R 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N

Global installed capacity (on + offhsore) GW 95 407 878 1733 2409 2943Investment costs - onshore $/kWp 1.510 1.255 998 952 906 894Operation and maintenance costs - onshore $/kW/a 58 51 45 43 41 41Investment costs - offshore $/kWp 2900 2200 1540 1460 1330 1305Operation and maintenance costs - offshore $/kW/a 166 153 114 97 88 83


Global installed capacity (on + offhsore) GW 95 494 1140 2241 3054 3754Investment costs - onshore $/kWp 1.510 1.255 998 906 894 882Operation and maintenance costs - onshore $/kW/a 58 51 45 43 41 41Investment costs - offshore $/kWp 2900 2200 1540 1460 1330 1305Operation and maintenance costs - offshore $/kW/a 166 153 114 97 88 83

B I O M A S S 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 20500E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N

Global installed capacity - electricity only GW 28 48 62 75 87 107Investment costs $/kWp 2818 2452 2435 2377 2349 2326Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 183 166 152 148 147 146Global installed capacity - CHP GW 18 67 150 261 413 545Investment costs $/kWp 5250 4255 3722 3250 2996 2846Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 404 348 271 236 218 207


Global installed capacity - electricity only GW 28 50 64 78 83 81Investment costs $/kWp 2818 2452 2435 2377 2349 2326Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 183 166 152 148 147 146Global installed capacity - CHP GW 18 65 150 265 418 540Investment costs $/kWp 5250 4255 3722 3250 2996 2846Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 404 348 271 236 218 207

G E OT H E R M A L 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N

Global installed capacity - electricity only GW 10 19 36 71 114 144Investment costs $/kWp 12.446 10.875 9.184 7.250 6.042 5.196Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 645 557 428 375 351 332Global installed capacity - CHP GW 1 3 13 37 83 134Investment costs $/kWp 12.688 11.117 9.425 7.492 6.283 5.438Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 647 483 351 294 256 233


Global installed capacity - electricity only GW 10 21 57 191 337 459Investment costs $/kWp 12.446 10875 9184 5.196 4.469 3.843Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 645 557 428 375 351 332Global installed capacity - CHP GW 0 3 13 47 132 234Investment costs $/kWp 12.688 11.117 9.425 7.492 6.283 5.438Operation and maintenance costs $/kW/a 647 483 351 294 256 233

shown in FIGURE AF1. Generation costs today arearound 8 to 26 $cents/kWh for the most importanttechnologies, with the exception of photovoltaics. Inthe long term, costs are expected to converge ataround 5-12 $cents/kWh. These estimates depend onsite-specific conditions such as the local wind regimeor solar irradiation, the availability of biomass at rea-sonable prices or the credit granted for heat supply inthe case of combined heat and power generation.

4 ~ C O S T C U R V E S : D E F I N I N G T H E

O R D E R O F I N V E S T M E N T S

( Ü R G E V O R S A T Z , 2 0 1 0 )

While energy scenarios play an increasing role with-in the global, regional and national energy and cli-mate debate, the different ways of setting up scenar-ios are under discussion. In principle there are 2 dif-ferent types of scenarios: “Top-down” and “Bottomup” calculated energy scenarios.Top-down scenarios are mostly cost driven, the costprojections for each technology, fuel costs and CO2costs have a huge influence for the projected energymix in the future as the model usually optimizes themix in the basis of cheapest energy generation. A lowcost projection for e.g. nuclear energy or the coalprice will result in a large share of nuclear and coalpower plants in the electricity generation of thefuture. However those models are often not verytechnology specific and in same cases there is noteven a distinction between two very different solarelectricity technologies to concentrated solar power(CSP) and photovoltaic (pv) as both technologieshave very different capacities factors, costs and tech-nical parameters. While “bottom up” scenario aretechnology driven and have therefore a very detailedbreakdown of different technologies and can modelenergy system more exact. On the downside thosemodels are not cost specific and they do not opti-mize the economic side of a future energy system.In the past years, both models are moving towardseach other. While “top-down” scenarios have agreater level of technical details, bottom up scenarios

include more and more economic parameters. TheIEA World Energy Outlook – which is the referencescenario for both energy [r]evolution scenarios are inprinciple bottom up models, but with a greater levelof cost assumptions. The section provides anoverview about the resulting cost curves of all threescenarios. As “cost curves” do play an increasing rolein the energy and climate debate.

G L O B A L R E N E W A B L E E L E C T R I C I T Y

S U P P L Y C U R V E S

FIGURE 1 shows the global renewable electricitysupply curve for 4 scenarios: IEA WEO 1 (2009), ETP(2010), Greenpeace Energy Revolution (ER) andGreenpeace Advanced Energy Revolution (AER).For the ER and AER scenarios potentials are pro-jected both for 2030 and 2050, while unfortunatelyno such forecasts were available for the IEA scenar-ios for 2050. The figures attest the importance oflong-term frameworks for renewable energy.Potentials at the same costs more than doublebetween 2030 and 2050 (please note that presentlyexisting capacity is included in these potentials,with hydropower separated into “new hydro” andexisting “hydro”). The IEA scenarios find signifi-cantly lower potentials at equal cost levels than theER ones. Both IEA and the ER scenarios find windas having a large potential at very competitivecosts. In the ER scenarios this is followed by bio-mass and then PV in 2030, while PV becomescheaper by 2050 than biomass. IEA scenarios pro-ject very low costs for CSP, lower than for wind,however, this technology is not expected to add asignificant power production capacity to globalelectricity generation. Similarly, they also projectapp. half the cost for geothermal power for 2030 asthe ER scenarios, however, they see very littlepotential for this technology; while ER scenariosproject fairly large potentials at the highest (ER) orsecond highest (AER) cost levels from among thetechnologies. Ocean energy is expected to play asmall role, except in the AER scenario, even if itscosts are projected to be under that of severalrenewable electricity generation technologies.


OO CC EE AA NN EE NN EE RR GGYY 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N




HH YY DD RR OO 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N




5 ~ S H I F T I N G T O W A R D S R E N E W A B L E S :

A S U S T A I N A B L E G L O B A L E N E R G Y

S U P P L Y P E R S P E C T I V E

Worldwide renewable energy resources severaltimes exceed current energy demand, the availabil-ity of renewable energy sources however differbetween world regions. We use information onrenewable energy potentials by world region andtechnology from (REN21 2008; Hoogwijk andGraus, 2008) as a basis for developing a renewableenergy oriented supply scenario. As a response tothe controversial discussion on the availability ofbiomass resources, a study on the global potentialfor sustainable biomass was commissioned as partof the Energy [R]evolution 2008 project (Seiden-berger et al., 2008). The potential for energy cropsstrongly depends on food supply patterns andassumptions on agricultural production. Resultsfor global biomass potentials from energy crops in2050 range from 97 EJ in a business-as-usual sce-nario to only 6 EJ in a scenario which assumes noforest clearing, reduced use of fallow areas for agri-culture, and expanded ecological protection areas.The global potential for biomass residues is esti-mated to be 88 EJ in 2050. With a biomass con-sumption of 88.7 EJ in 2050 the Energy [R]evolutionscenario complies with the most stringent require-ments towards sustainable biomass use.

A S S U M E D G R O W T H R A T E S

I N D I F F E R E N T S C E N A R I O S

The Energy [R]evolution scenario is a “bottom-up”(technology driven) scenario and the assumedgrowth rates for renewable energy technologydeployment are important drivers (Neij, L., 2008).

Around the world, however, energy modelling sce-nario tools are under constant development and inthe future both approaches are likely to merge intoone, with detailed tools employing both a high levelof technical detail and economic optimisation. TheEnergy [R]evolution scenario uses a “classical” bot-tom-up model which has been constantly devel-oped, and now includes calculations covering boththe investment pathway and the employment effect.

6 ~ K E Y R E S U L T S

Today, renewable energy sources account for 13% ofthe world’s primary energy demand. Biomass,which is mostly used in the heat sector, is the mainsource. The share of renewable energies for electric-ity generation is 18%, while their contribution toheat supply is around 24%, to a large extentaccounted for by traditional uses such as collectedfirewood. About 80% of the primary energy supplytoday still comes from fossil fuels. Both Energy[R]evolution scenarios describe development path-ways which turn the present situation into a sus-tainable energy supply, with the advanced versionachieving the urgently needed CO2 reduction targetmore than a decade earlier than the basic scenario.The following summary shows the results of theadvanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, which willbe achieved through the following measures:— Exploitation of existing large energy efficiencypotentials will ensure that final energy demandincreases only slightly - from the current 305,095PJ/a (2007) to 340,933 PJ/a in 2050, compared to531,485 PJ/a in the Reference scenario. This dramaticreduction is a crucial prerequisite for achieving a


FIGURE 1 ~ R E N E WA B L E E N E R G Y S U P P L Y C U R V E S F O R T H E E N E R G Y [ R ] E V O L U T I O N S C E N A R I O

Electricity generation (TWh)

USD

/MW

h

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION 2050

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION 2030

ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION 2050

ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION 2030

ETP 2010

WEO 2009

160 —GEOTHERMAL

GEOTHERMAL

OCEAN

WIND

WIND

HYDRO

WIND

OCEAN

CSP

CSP

CSP CSP

CSP

OCEAN

OCEAN

NEW HYDRO

BIOMASS

BIOMASS

BIOMASS

BIOMASS

NEW HYDRO

NEW HYDRO

NEW HYDRO

PV

PV

PV

GEOTHERMAL

GEOTHERMAL

GEOTHERMAL

140 —

120 —

100 —

80 —

60 —

40 —

20 —

0 —0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

significant share of renewable energy sources in theoverall energy supply system, compensating for thephasing out of nuclear energy and reducing theconsumption of fossil fuels.— More electric drives are used in the transportsector and hydrogen produced by electrolysis fromexcess renewable electricity plays a much biggerrole in the advanced than in the basic scenario.After 2020, the final energy share of electric vehi-cles on the road increases to 4% and by 2050 toover 50%. More public transport systems also useelectricity, as well as there being a greater shift intransporting freight from road to rail.— The increased use of combined heat and powergeneration (CHP) also improves the supply system’senergy conversion efficiency, increasingly usingnatural gas and biomass. In the long term, thedecreasing demand for heat and the large potentialfor producing heat directly from renewable energysources limits the further expansion of CHP.— The electricity sector will be the pioneer ofrenewable energy utilisation. By 2050, around 95%of electricity will be produced from renewablesources. A capacity of 14,045 GW will produce

43,922 TWh/a renewable electricity in 2050. A sig-nificant share of the fluctuating power generationfrom wind and solar photovoltaic will be used tosupply electricity to vehicle batteries and producehydrogen as a secondary fuel in transport andindustry. By using load management strategies,excess electricity generation will be reduced andmore balancing power made available.— In the heat supply sector, the contribution ofrenewables will increase to 91% by 2050. Fossil fuelswill be increasingly replaced by more efficientmodern technologies, in particular biomass, solarcollectors and geothermal. Geothermal heatpumps and, in the world’s sunbelt regions, concen-trating solar power, will play a growing part inindustrial heat production.— In the transport sector the existing large effi-ciency potentials will be exploited by a modal shiftfrom road to rail and by using much lighter andsmaller vehicles. As biomass is mainly committedto stationary applications, the production of biofuels is limited by the availability of sustainable rawmaterials. Electric vehicles, powered by renewable


> 600 ppmIEA WEO

2008Reference E[R] advanced E[R] Reference E[R] advanced E[R] Reference E[R]

advancedE[R]

2020 27708 27248 25851 259192030 33265 34307 30133 30901

2050 50606 46542 37993 43922

PV 2020 68 108 437 594 17% 37% 42% 5 26 36PV 2030 120 281 1481 1953 11% 15% 14% 18 91 124

PV 2050 213 640 4597 6846 10% 13% 15% 40 141 211

CSP2020 26 38 321 689 17% 49% 62% 1 5 12

CSP2030 54 121 1447 2734 14% 18% 17% 2 24 45CSP2050 95 254 5917 9012 9% 17% 14% 4 44 66

Windon+offshore2020 887 1009 2168 2849 12% 22% 26% 26 74 101

on+offshore2030 1260 1536 4539 5872 5% 9% 8% 60 178 229on+offshore2050 1736 2516 8474 10841 6% 7% 7% 47 158 202Geothermalfor power generation

2020 119 117 235 367 6% 14% 20% 1 2 42030 158 168 502 1275 4% 9% 15% 2 7 18

2050 229 265 1009 2968 5% 8% 10% 2 7 21heat & power

2010 2

2020 6 6 65 66 13% 47% 47% 0 1 12030 9 9 192 251 5% 13% 16% 0 3 5

2050 17 19 719 1263 9% 16% 20% 0 6 11bioenergyfor power generation

2020 324 337 373 392 8% 9% 10% 3 4 42030 474 552 456 481 6% 2% 2% 10 8 8

2050 650 994 717 580 7% 5% 2% 6 5 4heat & power

2020 272 186 739 742 2% 19% 19% 1 13 132030 367 287 1402 1424 5% 7% 8% 6 26 27

2050 613 483 3013 2991 6% 9% 9% 4 26 25ocean

2020 6 3 53 119 15% 55% 70% 0 2 4

2030 12 11 128 420 13% 10% 15% 0 3 122050 28 25 678 1943 10% 20% 19% 0 10 27

hydro2020 4164 4027 4029 4059 2% 2% 2% 20 20 21

2030 4833 4679 4370 4416 2% 1% 1% 135 126 1272050 6027 5963 5056 5108 3% 2% 2% 78 66 67

Energy Parameter

Annual Market Volume[GW/a]

Generation[TWh/a]

TABLE 4 ~ N E E D E D R E N E WA B L E I N D U S T R Y D E V E L O P M E N T U N D E R T H R E E D I F F E R E N T S C E N A R I O S

energy sources, will play an increasingly importantrole from 2020 onwards.— By 2050, 80% of primary energy demand willbe covered by renewable energy sources. To achieve an economically attractive growth ofrenewable energy sources, a balanced and timelymobilisation of all technologies is of great impor-tance. Such mobilisation depends on technicalpotentials, actual costs, cost reduction potentialsand technical maturity. Climate infrastructure, suchas district heating systems, smart grids and super-grids for renewable power generation, as well asmore R&D into storage technologies for electricity,are all vital if this scenario is to be turned into real-ity. The successful implementation of smart gridsis vital for the advanced Energy [R]evolution from2020 onwards.It is also important to highlight that in the advancedEnergy [R]evolution scenario the majority of remain-ing coal power plants – which will be replaced 20years before the end of their technical lifetime – arein China and India. This means that in practice allcoal power plants built between 2005 and 2020 willbe replaced by renewable energy sources from 2040onwards. To support the building of capacity indeveloping countries significant new public financ-ing, especially from industrialised countries, will beneeded. It is vital that specific funding mechanismssuch as the “Greenhouse Development Rights”(GDR) and “Feed-in tariff ” schemes are developedunder the international climate negotiations that canassist the transfer of financial support to climatechange mitigation, including technology transfer.

F U T U R E C O S T S

Renewable energy will initially cost more to imple-ment than existing fuels. The slightly higher elec-tricity generation costs under the advanced Energy[R]evolution scenario will be compensated for, how-ever, by reduced demand for fuels in other sectorssuch as heating and transport. Assuming averagecosts of 3 cents/kWh for implementing energy effi-ciency measures, the additional cost for electricitysupply under the advanced Energy [R]evolution sce-nario will amount to a maximum of $31 billion/a in2020. These additional costs, which represent society’sinvestment in an environmentally benign, safe andeconomic energy supply, continue to decrease after2020. By 2050 the annual costs of electricity supplywill be $2,700 billion/a below those in the Referencescenario.It is assumed that average crude oil prices willincrease from $97 per barrel in 2008 to $130 per barrelin 2020, and continue to rise to $150 per barrel in2050. Natural gas import prices are expected toincrease by a factor of four between 2008 and 2050,while coal prices will continue to rise, reaching$172 per tonne in 2050. A CO2 ‘price adder’ isapplied, which rises from $20 per ton of CO2 in2020 to $50 per ton in 2050.

F U T U R E I N V E S T M E N T

It would require until 2030 $17.9 trillion in globalinvestment for the advanced Energy [R]evolution sce-nario to become reality - approximately 60% higherthan in the Reference scenario ($11.2 trillion). Underthe Reference version, the levels of investment inrenewable energy and fossil fuels are almost equal –about $5 trillion each – up to 2030. Under theadvanced scenario, however, the world shifts about80% of investment towards renewables; by 2030 thefossil fuel share of power sector investment would befocused mainly on combined heat and power andefficient gas-fired power plants. The average annualinvestment in the power sector under the advancedEnergy [R]evolution scenario between 2007 and 2030would be approximately $782 billion.Because renewable energy has no fuel costs, however,the fuel cost savings in the advanced Energy [R]evolu-tion scenario reach a total of $6.5 trillion, or $282 bil-lion per year until 2030 and a total of $41.5 trillion, oran average of $964 billion per year until 2050.

F U T U R E G L O B A L E M P L O Y M E N T

Worldwide, we would see more direct jobs createdin the energy sector if we shifted to either of theEnergy [R]evolution scenarios.— By 2015 global power supply sector jobs in theEnergy [R]evolution scenario are estimated to reachabout 11.1 million, 3.1 million more than in theReference scenario. The advanced version will leadto 12.5 million jobs by 2015.— By 2020 over 6.5 million jobs in the renewablessector would be created due a much faster uptakeof renewables, three-times more than today. Theadvanced version will lead to about one millionjobs more than the basic Energy [R]evolution, duea much faster uptake of renewables.— By 2030 the Energy [R]evolution scenarioachieves about 10.6 million jobs, about two millionmore than the Reference scenario. Approximately2 million new jobs are created between 2020 and2030, twice as much as in the Reference case. Theadvanced scenario will lead to 12 million jobs, thatis 8.5 million in the renewables sector alone. With-out this fast growth in the renewable sector globalpower jobs will be a mere 2.4 million. Thus byimplementing the E[R] there will be 3.2 million orover 33% more jobs by 2030 in the global powersupply sector.

D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O 2 E M I S S I O N S

While CO2 emissions worldwide will increase bymore than 60% under the Reference scenario up to2050, and are thus far removed from a sustainabledevelopment path, under the advanced Energy[R]evolution scenario they will decrease from 28,400million tonnes in 2007 (including internationalbunkers) to 3,700 in 2050, 82% below 1990 levels.Annual per capita emissions will drop from 4.1tonnes/capita to 0.4 t/capita. In spite of the phasing


out of nuclear energy and a growing electricitydemand, CO2 emissions will decrease enormously inthe electricity sector. In the long run efficiency gainsand the increased use of renewable electric vehicles,as well as a sharp expansion in public transport, willeven reduce CO2 emissions in the transport sector.With a share of 42% of total emissions in 2050, thetransport sector will reduce significantly but remainthe largest source of CO2 emissions – followed byindustry and power generation.

C H A L L E N G I N G T H E B U S I N E S S

M O D E L O F T O D A Y U T I L I T I E S

The Energy [R]evolution scenario will also result ina dramatic change in the business model of energycompanies, utilities, fuel suppliers and the manufac-turers of energy technologies. Decentralised energygeneration and large solar or offshore wind arrayswhich operate in remote areas, without the need forany fuel, will have a profound impact on the wayutilities operate in 2020 and beyond. While todaythe entire power supply value chain is broken downinto clearly defined players, a global renewablepower supply will inevitably change this division ofroles and responsibilities. The following table pro-vides an overview of today’s value chain and how itwould change in a revolutionised energy mix. Whiletoday a relatively small number of power plants,owned and operated by utilities or their subsidiaries,are needed to generate the required electricity, theEnergy [R]evolution scenario projects a future shareof around 60 to 70% of small but numerous decen-tralised power plants performing the same task.Ownership will therefore shift towards more privateinvestors and away from centralised utilities. Inturn, the value chain for power companies will shifttowards project development, equipment manufac-turing and operation and maintenance.

7 ~ C O N C L U S I O N S

Business-as-usual is clearly not an option for futuregenerations, as this would have dramatic conse-quences for the environment, the economy andhuman society. The Energy [R]evolution scenariosshow that options for change are at hand. Renewableenergies can play a leading role in the world’s energyfuture. Towards the mid of the century, renewableenergy can provide close to 90% of the world’s finalenergy needs, at the same time ensuring the continu-ous improvement of global living conditions, in par-ticular in developing regions. In the days of a globalfinancial and economic crisis, scenario results offer apositive message: investment in innovative renewableenergy technologies contributes to economicgrowth, to the creation of jobs, and in the mediumto long term helps to reduce the costs of global energysupply. By moving towards renewable energies, for-ward-thinking governments can act now to increaseemployment and investment opportunities.There is no doubt that a global CO2 emission trad-ing system will be a key element in the portfolio ofpolicy measures that is required to ensure compli-ance with climate protection targets. However,while it will take time until a difficult internationalnegotiation process will finally succeed in establish-ing a global CO2 trading system, we know from theIPCC 4th Assessment Report that we need urgentaction now to curb CO2 emissions. Complemen-tary policy measures like feed-in tariffs for renew-able energies have proved to be cost-effective inmany countries, and are easy to implement on anational level. Facing the challenge ahead, there isno time to loose.–––––––––––1 Please note that the only investment cost data were availablefor IEA scenarios, therefore the other cost components, such asfixed and variable capital and generation costs, including OM,have been taken from the ER data.


TASK & MARKET PLAYER (LARGE SCALE) PROJECT INSTALLATION PLANT OPERATION & FUERL SUPPLY DISTRIBUTION SALESGENERATION DEVELOPMENT MAINTANANCE

S T A T U S Q U O Very few power plants + central planning large scale generation in the global mining grid operationthe hand of few IPP’s & operations still in the

hands ofutilities

S M A R K E T P L AY E R

UtilityMining companyComponent ManufacturerEngineering companies& project developers

E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N Many smaller power plants + large number of players e.g. no fuel needed grid operationP OW E R M A R K E T decentralized planning IPP’s, utilities, private con- (except under state

sumer, building operators biomass) control

S M A R K E T P L AY E R

UtilityMining companyComponent ManufacturerEngineering companies& project developers

FIGURE 2 ~ V A L U E C H A I N P O W E R M A R K E T T O D A Y A N D U N D E R T H E E N E R G Y [ R ] E V O L U T I O N M O D E L


TABLE A1 ~ G L O B A L F I N A L E N E R G Y D E M A N D I N P J / A

PJ/a 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

TOTAL (incl. non-energy use) 337329 364357 374301 381812 377670 368650TOTAL ENERGY USE 305093 329380 338056 343263 337271 326476TRANSPORT 82068 87277 88691 86355 78012 69467

- Oil products 76535 78901 76682 62767 41671 18448- Natural gas 3131 3327 3253 2878 2130 1424- Biofuels 1429 3258 4832 8062 9000 9723- Electricity 973 1772 3574 11888 23420 36354

RES electricity 171 401 1321 7692 19531 34613- Hydrogen 0 18 349 760 1791 3517RES SHARE TRANSPORT 1,9% 4,2% 7,3% 19,1% 38,9% 68,9%

INDUSTRY 99249 112145 115603 118509 118870 115865- Electricity 24995 31759 33787 36531 38720 39770

RES electricity 4627 7622 12038 20944 30606 37202- District heat 9424 10605 12347 15249 19596 23718

RES district heat 560 2213 4542 8800 15123 21468- Coal 19546 21902 20114 16417 6334 515- Oil products 13517 12407 9889 6084 2802 815- Gas 23872 25277 25926 24663 18398 6025- Solar 5 741 2182 5518 12048 17457- Biomass and waste 7878 8991 10042 11197 12252 12564- Geothermal 12 462 1315 2850 7743 11330- Hydrogen 0 0 0 0 976 3670RES SHARE INDUSTRY 13,2% 17,9% 26,1% 41,6% 65,4% 86,3%

OTHER SECTORS 123776 129959 133763 138399 140389 141145- Electricity 33253 37880 39973 44424 48406 52551

RES electricity 5842 9618 16114 27991 39913 50000- District heat 6546 7968 9770 12740 16136 18145

RES district heat 439 1701 3610 7160 12504 16629- Coal 4535 4007 3146 2658 978 23- Oil products 19059 17886 15015 8687 4329 1090- Gas 25970 24768 24429 19529 11441 2865- Solar 378 1380 3834 11373 18762 26992- Biomass and waste 33884 35345 36084 35758 33587 28815- Geothermal 152 725 1513 3230 6750 10665RES SHARE OTHER SECTORS 32,9% 37,5% 45,7% 61,8% 79,4% 94,3%

TOTAL RES 55376 72462 97605 151116 220158 284295RES SHARE 18,2% 22,0% 28,9% 44,0% 65,3% 87,1%

NON ENERGY USE 32236 34977 36245 38549 40398 42174- Oil 24832 26267 27026 28444 29627 30761- Gas 6084 6901 7289 7951 8400 8817- Coal 1320 1808 1930 2154 2371 2595

TABLE A2 ~ P R I M A R Y E N E R G Y D E M A N D U N D E R T H E A D V A N C E D E N E R G Y [ R ] E V O L U T I O N P E R R E G I O N

P R I M A RY E N E RG Y

PJ/A 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

OECD 230.864 216.760 202.070 180.841 157.571 138.28NA 115.751 108.607 101.969 90.853 81.332 70.227Europe 77.525 72.095 66.504 59.077 50.784 46.754Pacific 37.588 36.059 33.596 30.911 25.455 21.299Rest 259.335 302.512 314.672 319.802 321.902 327.715WORLD 490199 519272 516742 500642 479473 465995

TABLE A3 ~ G D P D E V E L O P M E N T I N A L L T H R E E S C E N A R I O S

2007-2015 2015-2030 2030-2040 2040-2050 2007-2050

World 3,30% 3,00% 2,70% 2,44% 3,39%OECD Europe 1,00% 1,80% 1,30% 1,10% 1,37%OECD North America 1,80% 2,27% 1,55% 1,45% 1,77%OECD Pacific 1,10% 1,23% 1,33% 1,40% 1,27%Transition Economies 4,60% 3,77% 2,60% 2,54% 3,38%India 7,00% 5,90% 3,20% 2,50% 4,65%China 8,80% 4,40% 3,20% 2,55% 4,74%Other Developing Asia 7,20% 4,60% 2,50% 2,20% 4,13%Latin America 3,10% 2,50% 2,60% 2,40% 2,65%Africa 4,70% 3,10% 3,40% 3,40% 3,65%Middle East 4,50% 4,00% 2,30% 2,00% 3,20%

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

The authors would like to thank the many partners who providedhelpful input during scenario development: DLR, Institute of Tech-nical Thermodynamics, Department of Systems Analysis and Tech-nology Assessment, Stuttgart, Germany; Dr. Wolfram Krewitt (†);Dr. Thomas Pregger; Dr. Sonja Simon; Dr. Tobias Naegler, Insti-tute of Vehicle Concepts, Stuttgart, Germany; Dr. Stephan Schmid,Ecofys BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Wina Graus; Eliane Blomen,EcoEquity, School of Public Policy, Center for Climate Change andSustainable Energy Policy (3CSEP), Budapest, Hungary; ProfDiana Ürge Vorsatz, Director, (Cost Curves), Institute for Sustain-able Futures (ISF), University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; JayRutovitz; Alison Atherton (Employment calculations).

R E F E R E N C E S

GRAUS, W., BLOMEN, E., Global low energy demand sce-narios – [R]evolution 2008, Report prepared forGreenpeace International and EREC, PECSNL 073841,Ecofys Netherlands bv, Utrecht, 2008.

GREENPEACE/EREC, Energy [R]evolution – A sustainableworld energy outlook, GPI REF JN 035, GreenpeaceInternational and the European Renewable EnergyCouncil (EREC), 2007, www.energyblueprint.info.

GREENPEACE/ EREC, Energy [R]evolution 2008 – A sus-tainable world energy outlook, Greenpeace Interna-tional and the European Renewable Energy Council(EREC), 2008, www.energyblueprint.info.

GREENPEACE/ EREC, Energy [R]evolution 2010 – A sus-tainable world energy outlook, Greenpeace Interna-tional and the European Renewable Energy Council(EREC), 2010, www.energyblueprint.info.

HANSEN, J., SATO, M., KHARECHA, P., BEERLING, D.,MASSON-DELMOTTE, V., PAGANI, M., RAYMO, M.,ROYER, D., ZACHOS, J., Target Atmospheric CO2:Where Should Humanity Aim?, NASA Goddard Insti-tute for Space Studies, 2008.http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/Target-CO2_20080407.pdf.

HOOGWIJK, M., GRAUS, W., Global potential of renewableenergy sources: a literature assessment, Backgroundreport prepared for REN21. Ecofys NL PECSNL072975,Utrecht, 2008.http://www.ren21.net/pdf/REN21_RE_Potentials_and_Cost_Background%20document.pdf.

IEA, World Energy Outlook 2007, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2007a.IEA, Energy Balances of OECD Countries, 2007 Edition,

OECD/IEA Paris, 2007b.IEA,. Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries, 2007 Edi-

tion, OECD/IEA Paris, 2007c.IEA, World Energy Outlook 2008, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2008.IEA, World Energy Outlook 2009, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2009.KREWITT, W., SIMON, S., GRAUS, W., TESKE, S., ZER-

VOS, A., SCHÄFER, O., “The 2°C scenario – A sus-tainable world energy perspective”, in Energy Policy35 (2007): 4969-4980.

MESAP 2008, http://www.seven2one.de/mesap.php.NEIJ, L., “Cost development of future technologies for

power generation – A study based on experience curvesand complementary bottom-up assessments”, in EnergyPolicy 36 (2008), 2200-2211.

REN21, Renewable Energy Potentials – Summary Report,REN21 Secretariat, Paris, 2008.http://www.ren21.net/pdf/REN21_Potentials_Report.pdf.

SEIDENBERGER, T., THRÄN, D., OFFERMANN, R., SEYFERT,U., BUCHHORN, M., ZEDDIES, J., Global BiomassPotentials, Report prepared for Greenpeace Internation-al, German Biomass Research Center, Leipzig, 2008.

UNPD, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision,United Nations, Department of Economic and SocialAffairs, Population Division, 2009.http://esa.un.org/unpp/ (1.2.2008). ©


TABLL A4 ~ G LO B A L : P RO J E C T I O N O F R E N E WA B L E

E L E C T RY C I T Y G E N E R AT I O N C A PAC I T Y U N D E R B OT H

E N E RG Y [R]E VO LU T I O N S C E N A R I O S

I N G V

2007 2020 2030 2040 2050

H Y D RO E[R] 922 1,206 1,307 1,387 1,438advanced E[R] 922 1,212 1,316 1,406 1,451

B I O M A S S E[R] 46 212 336 500 652advanced E[R] 46 214 343 501 621

W I N D E[R] 95 818 1,733 2,409 2,943advanced E[R] 95 1,140 2,241 3,054 3,754

GEOTHERMAL E[R] 11 49 108 196 279advanced E[R] 46 69 238 469 693

P V E[R] 6 335 1,036 1,915 2,968advanced E[R] 6 439 1,330 2,959 4,318

C S P E[R] 0 105 324 647 1,002advanced E[R] 0 225 605 1,173 1,643

OCEAN ENERGY E[R] 0 29 73 168 303advanced E[R] 0 58 180 425 748

C S P E[R] 1,080 2,813 4,917 7,224 9,585advanced E[R] 1,080 3,359 6,252 9,987 13,229

REFERENCE, ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION AND ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION [“EFFICIENCY”=REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO]

FIGURE AF1 ~ G LO B A L D E V E LO P M E N T O F E L E C T R I C I T Y G E N E R AT I O N S T RU C T U R E U N D E R T H R E E S C E N A R I O S

‘EFFICIENCY’OCEAN ENERGY

SOLAR THERMAL

GEOTHERMAL

BIOMASS

PV

WIND

HYDRO

DIESEL

OIL

NATURAL GAS

LIGNITE

COAL

NUCLEAR

50,000 —

30,000 —

20,000 —

10,000 —

2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

TWH/A0 —

REF E[R] advE[R]

REF E[R] advE[R]

REF E[R] advE[R]

REF E[R] advE[R]

REF E[R] advE[R]

REF E[R] advE[R]

40,000 —

A L E S S A N D R O C O L O M B OT H E M A N Y F U T U R E S O F E N E R G Y

The transition towards low-carbon and sustainable energysources will be neither quick not univocal; rather, it willbe characterized by a mix of different technologies andstrategies, each featuring specific performances and sup-ported by different groups of interest. The article presentsan overview of the most promising opportunities, therelated advantages and the main risk factors.

P A U L A L L E NM E E T I N G O U R 21S T C E N T U R Y C H A L L A N G E S

Many people are only now grasping the serious nature ofour present human predicament. Senior experts, scien-tists, NGO’s and political leaders are beginning to appreci-ate that the most recent evidence on both climate securityand energy security reveals a situation more urgent thanhad been expected, even by those who have been follow-ing it closely for decades. In addition, the crisis in theglobal economy has painfully illustrated the cost and con-sequences of realising there are problems in the pipelineand not taking the required action in time.In June 2010 the Centre for Alternative Technologylaunches its new report ZeroCarbonBritain 2030 – a policyand technology scenario designed to expand on the detailand answer questions raised by our initial report.Through integrating cutting-edge findings from leadingexperts and researchers from a variety of organisationsand disciplines, ZeroCarbonBritain 2030 explores justwhat it is Britain must do to meet the scale and speed ofthe challenges defined by the most recent climate science.A great many solutions to climate security are the same assolutions to energy security and to long-term economicrecovery. A flagship of a new economic approach, Zero-CarbonBritain 2030 will show how we can re-focus theingenuity of the finance sector on the actual challenges athand. Rather than residing precariously at the end of thepeaking pipeline of polluting fossil fuel imports, Britaincan head an indigenous renewable energy supply chainpowering a lean, re-localised economy. Every field, forest,island, river, coastline, barn or building holds the poten-tial to become an energy and revenue generator, with dif-ferent technologies appropriate to every scale or location.ZeroCarbonBritain 2030 clearly illustrates how the parallelde-carbonisation and re-vitalisation of the UK economywould work, creating a single document of immediate rel-evance to policy-makers everywhere.

G R E G O R C Z I S C H [ I N T E R V I E W ]T H E S U P E R - G R I D

In this interview Dr Czisch explains the feasibility of apower network able to cover the whole European energydemand with sole renewable sources, mostly with windpower, hydropower and biomasses.The proposal comes from a seven-year technical and eco-nomical study of the potential of those sources in differ-ent areas and implies an extended power grid intercon-necting European and Saharan countries, the latter con-tributing thanks to their abundant wind resources.Such a super-grid would not only result in a cheaperand more secure electricity supply than that availabletoday, but would also draw a new model of mutualinter-regional cooperation.

B A H A R E H S E Y E D I ~ M I N O R U T A K A D AE N E R G Y F O R T H E P O O R : T H E M I S S I N G

L I N K F O R A C H I E V I N G T H E M D G S

This paper calls for universal access to energy as a devel-opment objective that is not only necessary to achieveall of the widely recognized Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) but it is also indispensible for 3 billionenergy poor whose socio-economic and environmentalprogress towards sustainable human development isjeopardized by the lack of access to modern energy ser-vices. While there is no explicit mention of energy inthe MDGs, none of the goals can be achieved withoutaccess to adequate, affordable, and reliable energy ser-vices. Strong political commitment-from both theNorth and the South-is critical to move beyond the‘business-as-usual’ approach to energy and address thechallenges of energy access, sustainability and securityhead on. The authors call for urgent action towardsachieving universal access to modern energy services onthe premise of five evidence-based priority actions. TheUnited Nations MDG Summit in September 2010 to beheld in UN Headquarters in NY provides a unique oppor-tunity for galvanizing political commitment and forspurring collective action to address energy challengesand to accelerate the achievement of the MDGs by 2015.

C A R L O G U B I T O S AT H E E N E R G Y W E A R E E A T I N G

Scientific evidences indicate that the production of meatrequires an abnormal consumption of natural resources,such as energy, fresh water, and land occupancy, in com-parison with other types of food with equivalent nutri-tional power.The article presents, by means of easy-reading tables, themain data related to such an environmental impact, andsuggests adopting the most simple but effective remedialstrategy: to reduce the consumption of animal proteinsin the everyday diet.

S I M O N A S A P I E N Z AA N E C O - L O G I C M O V E : A R E N E W E D L E G A L

F R A M E W O R K F O R R E N E W A B L E E N E R G Y S O U R C E S

The energy and climate policy in the EU and in otherstates is to bring the use of fossil fuels to a standstill. Partof this policy is energy efficiency and increase of renew-able energies resources. To reduce the effects of climatechange and establish a common energy policy, the Euro-pean Union has passed specific legislation and set out cer-tain mandatory and non-mandatory targets especially toregulate electricity produced by renewable energy sources,reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy effi-ciency by 2020. Different mechanisms of support for thepromotion of renewables are currently in place at nationallevel in each EU member state. The different targets setout by the EU and the steps taken by the member statestowards a greener Europe are not isolated moves. Againstthe background of global climate change certain states inthe US as well as Israel have set the political goal ofbecoming carbon-neutral by 2015. To achieve this goalthey have developed a local climate-protection-conceptwith different topics. Especially in the sector of planningand building, they intend to reach a high energy efficien-cy standard for existing buildings and also for planningnew building areas and use renewable energies for theenergy supply of planned housing and commercial areas.


::AB

STRA

CTS

::SU

MMAR

IES

::AB

STRA

CTS

::SU

MMAR

IES

::

A N D R E A S I L V E S T R IT O W A R D S T H E S M A R T G R I D S

In order to increase the amount of renewable energysources connectable to the electric grid, it is necessary todevelop a new form of interconnection, the active net-works or Smart Grids, adapted to integrate diffused gen-erators. To achieve such revolution in the power net-works, several challenges need to be faced, because thecurrent network is conceived upon a “top-down” modelof power flow. In particular, the intercommunicationbetween dispersed and non-homogeneous control unitsand the setting of an appropriate regulatory frameworkare the key issues to be addressed.The article outlines the most relevant projects carriedout by the Politecnico di Milano in this area and high-lights the potential prime role of the Italian research inthe development of the future Smart Grids.

S V E N T E S K EE N E R G Y [R ]E V O L U T I O N 20 10.

A S U S T A I N A B L E W O R L D E N E R G Y O U T L O O K

The Energy [R]evolution 2010 scenario is an update of theEnergy [R]evolution scenarios published in 2007 and 2008. Ittakes up recent trends in global socio-economic develop-ments, and analyses to which extent they affect chances forachieving climate protection targets. The main target is toreduce global CO2 emissions to 3.5 Gt/a in 2050, thus limit-ing global average temperature increase to below 2°C andpreventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with theclimate system. A ten-region energy system model is usedfor simulating global energy supply strategies. A review ofsector and region specific energy efficiency measures result-ed in the specification of a global energy demand scenarioincorporating strong energy efficiency measures. The corre-sponding supply scenario has been developed in an iterativeprocess in close cooperation with stakeholders and regionalcounterparts from academia, NGOs and the renewable ener-gy industry. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario shows thatrenewable energy can provide more than 80% of the world’senergy needs by 2050. Developing countries can virtuallystabilize their CO2 emissions by 2025 and reduce afterwards,whilst at the same time increasing energy consumptionthrough economic growth. OECD countries will be able toreduce their emissions by up to 90% by 2050. ©

S P A N D A J O U R N A L I , 1 /2 0 1 0 | EE N E RG Y & DD E V E LO P M E N T

EDITOR SAHLAN MOMO

GUEST EDITOR ALESSANDRO COLOMBO

EDITORIAL BOARD REBECCA BENTLEY,ALESSANDRO COLOMBO, JAMES JOPLIN,SAHLAN MOMO, LIAM OSBOURNE.EDITORIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE

LAAN VAN MEERDERVOORT 70

NL~2517AN THE HAGUE | THE NETHERLANDS

T +31 (0) 70 362 6523 | F +31 (0) 70 362 9848

[email protected] | WWW.SPANDA.ORG

PUBLISHER SPANDA PUBLISHING

© MMX SPANDA FOUNDATION

The Spanda Journal, the newsletter SpandaNews, andthe Spanda website are the official publications of theFoundation. Spanda does not accept responsibility forthe views expressed in any writing, signed or unsigned,which appears in its pages: what it does accept is theresponsibility for giving them a chance to appear here. Spanda Journal makes every possible effort to ensurethat the information in articles is accurate. To reporterrors requiring correction or clarification, please [email protected] reasonable attempt has been made to identify theowners of pictures’ copyrights. Errors or omissions willbe corrected in subsequent issues.Neither the Spanda Foundation nor any person acting onits behalf is responsible for the way in which informationcontained in this publication may be used.

�

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS You are warmly encouragedto contribute articles to the Spanda Journal. Help usmake this Journal with your pictures, views and stories.Guidelines for contributors GO!

Submissions to Spanda Journal may be edited for a varietyof reasons including the need to shorten them or improveexpression.QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? GO!

SEND THIS PUBLICATION TO A FRIEND GO!

TO SUBSCRIBE [email protected] GO!

NEXT ISSUE «Microfinance».

N | C O L O P H O N

year I, no. 1 ~ jANU ARY/may 2010

ISSN 2210-2175

s p a n d a n e w sB A C k I S S U E S

Available at www.spanda.org/publications.html GO!

�

VOL. I, 1. 2007 ~~ Multicultural Youth.VOL. I, 2. 2007 ~~ Water Wise.VOL. I, 3. 2007 ~~ Gender.VOL. I, 4. 2007 ~~ Death Penalty.VOL. II, 1. 2008 ~~ Hunger. A Clim(c)tic Perspective.VOL. II, 2. 2008 ~~ Education & Development. Africa.VOL. II, 3. 2008 ~~ Indegineous Knowledge (IK) &

Environment.VOL. II, 4. 2008 ~~ Consciousness & Development.VOL. III, 1. 2009 ~~ Human Rights & Security.

�

a b

Energy is Eternal Delight.WILLIAM BLAKE, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

a b

ISSN 2210-2175

9772210217004

01

mailto:[email protected]?subject=correction

http://www.spanda.org/SpandaNews_Guidelines.pdf

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Questions

mailto:?subject=Take a look at Spanda Journal

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Subscribe

Spanda Journal | Energy and Development

Documents

Transcript of Spanda Journal | Energy and Development