Email

Energy’s New “Trilemma”

by | published April 5th, 2016

For more than four decades, David Howell (The Lord Howell of Guildford) has been one of the best known figures in British and global .

He was Minister of State for Energy under Prime Minister Edward Heath in 1974, Margaret Thatcher’s first Secretary of State for Energy in 1979, and later moved on to chair the British Institute of Energy Economics.

Lord Howell’s most recent government appointment has been as Minister of State in the Foreign Office for Prime Minister David Cameron from 2010-2012.

So when he has something to say on energy, I always pay attention.

And that’s exactly what just happened.

His recently released sixth volume – Empires in Collision: The Green versus Black Struggle for Our Energy Future – brings all of his experience expertly to bear on the current energy situation.

If you only read one book on energy this year, this should be it.

Lord Howell’s Unique Position

This is not just another book on energy. Rather, the prospects and frustrations of a worldwide drive for energy are considered against two worlds the author knows very well: the provision of energy in diverse markets on the one hand, and the milieu of the policymaker on the other.

There are few individuals with the ability and experience to bring both of these together in one volume.

Since the early 1970s, there has been no major energy problem confronting the world that Lord Howell has not been instrumental in addressing. One of the forums in which that has taken place is the Windsor Energy Group (WEG), a major international association bringing together some of the brightest minds in global energy to confront the world’s major issues.

Lord Howell has chaired WEG since 2003 and is the convener of the annual Windsor Energy Consultation held each March at Windsor Castle outside London. As many of you know, I have had the privilege of addressing that gathering for each of the last seven years.

This year, we had the occasion to welcome Empires in Collision during those proceedings…

The Energy “Trilemma”

The book’s thesis is both direct and complicated. Lord Howell regards the present energy situation as a “trilemma,” with three apparently conflicting aims in energy policy now dominating the landscape.

First among these is and remains the priority of affordable energy, not just for the developed countries but especially for the “quarter of the world’s population still living in abject poverty, struggling daily to survive, always under threat from sickness, disease, food and water failure.”

Second is the need for secure and reliable supply. At issue here is the rise of a range of geopolitical and geo-economic factors in a world beset by terrorism and rising cross-border tensions.

Third, and the most recent of the three, involves the recognition that lower carbon emissions are essential moving forward. The Paris agreement recently reached with such fanfare seems a step in that direction. But there remains absolutely no concrete way of attaining the climate goals as set forth in either that document or any other similar attempt.

These three objectives, as Lord Howell puts it, have become “horns” of a “double-layered dilemma” or “trilemma.” They are admittedly essential for both economic development and acceptable human life.

But they also appear to be in conflict, if not in outright opposition.

A Balance of Energy Sources is Necessary

As the sub-title of the book makes clear, the struggle is portrayed as one pitting environmentally friendly “green” energy sources against the more traditional “black” hydrocarbon sources of coal, crude oil, and even natural gas.

The book champions an objective that has likewise been one of my major positions. As we move into new eras of energy, markets will still require a number of different sources (an “energy balance” if you will) that will continue to include more conventional energy sources along with the rise of solar, wind, biomass, and even nuclear.

Despite the call in some quarters to lower reliance on coal, this will nonetheless remain a significant energy source for some time to come in Asia – the primary area for demand growth over the next several decades.

But even moves into renewables have resulted in unanticipated reliance on coal.

The Shortsightedness of Current Energy Policy

Lord Howell deftly traces the rise of a cruel policy shortcoming in Europe. Adeptly discussing the massive failures of both UK and EU policies (and policymakers) in the drive to subsidize alternatives to coal and oil, Germany emerges as the main example.

In a very clear and objective manner, the book traces what has actually been the result of Berlin’s decision to phase out nuclear power (as an environmentally-driven political response to the Japanese Fukushima disaster) and move quickly to a solar and wind-based power system. Germany now has some of the highest prices for electricity in the world and is importing more American coal and French nuclear-produced power to make up for domestic shortfalls.

From an environmental standpoint, the situation is worse than before the new policies were initiated. Affordability is also more of a problem, and the security of the country’s power supply is a rising concern. Germany is now dependent upon outside coal and electricity, and is importing more Russian natural gas. The domestic energy picture is now less secure than ever before.

All three elements in the trilemma are at issue.

But the move to “green” sources is likewise plagued by a further cost factor.

No Energy “Silver Bullet”

Both the UK and the EU have to provide backup power guarantees should the sun not shine or the wind not blow (both of which are recurring problems). That means, in addition to prospects across Europe that policies for cleaner energy will require higher costs for new sources, excess generating facilities are necessary to provide this backup power. Duplication in volume must be subsidized (at taxpayer expense), but most of the time isn’t utilized.

Lord Howell suggests that the trilemma will not be met until policymakers stop seeking “silver bullets” to replace hydrocarbons and begin introducing balanced approaches that include investing in cleaner coal usage, better ways of sequestering carbon emissions, and increased application of smaller self-contained nuclear reactors.

The share of renewables in the new energy balance will continue to increase. Yet the combined considerations of affordability, security, and lower carbon emission targets demand other sources as well.

The debate over reasonable and attainable energy policy is now well underway in Europe. The early lessons reveal the complexity of the issue, as well as the failures of initial attempts.

But the prospects for a new energy balance, and obligations to attain it, remain.

Lord David Howell’s Empires in Collision: The Green versus Black Struggle for Our Energy Future is mandatory reading for anybody intent on understanding the new energy picture.  

Please Note: Kent cannot respond to your comments and questions directly. But he can address them in future alerts... so keep an eye on your inbox. If you have a question about your subscription, please email us directly at customerservice@oilandenergyinvestor.com

  1. Don McCallum
    April 5th, 2016 at 17:41 | #1

    Dear Kent,
    The “Green Energy” movement is bound to fail as long as the “soft energy” crowd refuses to accept nuclear power as the most reasonable solution. But no, for decades now these folk have done everything in their power to relegate the cleanest, most abundant form of energy available to the scrap heap. They have fought every attempt to solve the so called waste problem of nuclear power while forcing the the use of carbon based fuels on the public. Now that their wind power and solar power pipe dreams are not living up to their unreasonable expectations even in their grandest evolution they are wringing their collective hands crying about climate change. Without diving into that particular stew pot, all I can say is if the carbon fuel cycle really is the cause of climate change, then the answer is nuclear and the timely application was 20 or 30 years ago. Nothing that smacks of “Green Energy” has the one thing needed to solve this problem and that is a concept known as energy density. Coal, petroleum and nuclear all have it. All the others don’t.

  2. Malcolm
    April 5th, 2016 at 20:02 | #2

    Kent, While it may be news to the policy makers of Europe it is not news to anyone who has spent time operating a power grid or running a power plant. The problem is that the policy makers all too often prefer to listen to the people that have the instant panacea solutions but consistently fail to listen to those who operate these complex systems of power delivery.

    It ought to be obvious that solar power in Germany, a Northern European country not blessed with copious amounts of sunshine, is impractical at any cost. Even for policy makers it should be reasonably clear that since the sun does not shine at night the very best one can achieve for a solar installation is a 50% capacity factor. For more than half of the time (it is more like 75% of the time for cloudy Germany) the investment in solar energy produces no output. Would BMW build a car plant that could only ever operate 25% of the time…of course not. Yet Germans are duped into spending billions of Euro’s to build solar installations that do just that…nothing for 75% of the time. That is why it is costly. I hear eminent people suggest storage of intermittent supplies as the answer which of course makes no economic sense at all.

    While life on the power grid is much more complex than this, simply put, to produce the same output as a 1000MW nuclear plant you need to install one 1000MW solar panel to meet demands during the day and another 1000MW installation to charge the battery or storage system so that you can produce the 1000MW overnight. Now you have incurred three lots of Capex. Two solar installations are required and one 1000MW storage system. Is it really any surprise that electricity bills in Germany are through the roof. It really should not be any surprise to anyone…least of all the policy makers.
    Unfortunately, Germany has abandoned one of the best and safest nuclear programs in the world for foray into higher cost, environmentally disastrous wind and solar programs that simply are not adequate to meet the needs of a modern industrialized society. Furthermore while Germany says it has abandoned nuclear it has not and the newer nuclear plants remain in operation. Should those be forced off line Germany will lose its industrial base to countries where energy policy has been formulated using logic and facts rather than political rhetoric and green dream propaganda.

    To remove high performing ultra safe nuclear power plants from the grid when Germany has zero likelihood of a Richter Scale 9 earthquake and zero possibility of a 50 foot Tsunami is policy making madness.
    The net result is higher power costs, lower safety, more coal being burnt and higher power imports.

    And we wonder why the European economy has hit the skids.

    The reason, Kent, is blindingly obvious.

  3. Malcolm
    April 6th, 2016 at 16:33 | #3

    I agree 100% Don,

    There is no way that wind or solar are ever going to power the grids of the world. We (the world) is investing vast sums of money in enterprises that will produce little or no return on investment. Every day we hear of X Megawatts of wind going in or Y megawatts of solar but the important parameter…the number of megawatt hours it ACTUALLY produces is completely ignored. Nameplate numbers are completely meaningless. But our wise politicians know best…until the systems start to come crashing down because they failed to invest using logic and facts.

  4. Whysaduck
    April 6th, 2016 at 17:19 | #4

    Don McCallum, your panegyric to nuclear power “the cleanest, most abundant form or energy available” in your words is as credible as now ex Senator Mary Landrieu calling tar sands oil the cleanest on the continent or Donald Trump vowing to take title to Iraqi oil. And it is the politically omnificeint carbon fuels companies not the environmental community who have forced continued reliance on carbon fuels. Funny that manufacturing of solar cells has become the leading job growth occupation in the U.S. while you assert “Nothing that smacks of ‘Green Energy’ has the one thing needed to solve this problem…”.

  5. Richard
    April 7th, 2016 at 16:18 | #5

    When a small yellowcake reactor was developed by Pinawa the head honchos of the AECL shut the facility down immediately and the personnel were either retired or scattered elsewhere with in the organization. I think our political masters speak out of both sides of their mouths.

    To quickly convert current infrastructure to solar/wind go to flowthough batterys. Substitute hydro-carbons with a lithium sulfide based fliud. This tech is not new.

    And how about the Israeli invention of infrared solar cells that work at night? Get with the 2000’s and distributed grids.

  6. Richard
    April 7th, 2016 at 16:27 | #6

    If you don’t want oilsands oil how about exempting it from NAFTA, and letting Canada use it as a strategic reserve?

  1. No trackbacks yet.