Falsifying the two-pillar theory

The two-pillar theory is open to falsification, and attempts to falsify it, identifying black swans [37], are easily prepared.

For example, while biomass is a renewable energy resource, there is evidence that replacing fossil fuels with biofuels may pose serious social, environmental, and economic risks. In April 2007, atmospheric scientist professor Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University found that ethanol vehicles, independ-ent of the origin of the ethanol, while reducing atmospheric emissions of benzene and butadiene, increases emissions of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, all of which are carcinogens, and while his first conclusion is that cancer related deaths are likely to be similar for gasoline and ethanol fuelled vehicles, he also found that ethanol fuelled vehicles increases ozone emissions, and that replacing 15% of gasoline with ethanol would be likely to lead to an increase of about 4% in ozone-related deaths in 2020 [38]. In another study prepared by

Publications 129

42

researchers at Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona it is indi-cated that CO2 reductions for biofuels may be negligible or even negative, mainly due to the way biofuel is being pro-duced. In yet another study, Nobel Prize winner Poul Crutzens finds that the production of biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn due to N2O emissions can contribute as much or more to global warming as fossil fuels [39]. It only adds to the problem that the production of biofuels is becom-ing responsible for much of the deforestation takbecom-ing place in South East Asia and in Brazil. In Malaysia, between 1985 and 2000 palm oil plantations caused 87% of the total deforesta-tion, deforestations rates remain high at 3,9% p.a. for 2000-2005, and existing plans for deforesting will make room for further 6 million hectares of palm trees, equivalent to another 16% of Malaysia’s share of Borneo [40]. Similar efforts are underway on the Indonesian side, which has expanded palm oil plantations from 600,000 hectares in 1985 to 6 million today, with plans for reaching 10 million hectares by 2010 [41].

I would like to contribute with an eye-witness account of my own, having worked in Malaysia from 2000 to 2005, at a couple of occasions flying over what I initially thought was rainforest, because it was mapped as such. Today, seeing only endless fields of palm oil trees, I was left with the impression that logging of rain forests and subsequent palm oil planta-tions on Malaysian Borneo, increasingly targeting a market supported by European biofuel demand, is a mistake that will hurt future generations, while rewarding only short-term interests. From this perspective, the idea of introducing biofuels, a renewable energy resource by technical definition, to replace fossil fuels appear to hold serious risks towards a sustainable development.

For large-scale hydro power, another renewable energy resource by technical definition with concerning impacts, recent studies postulate that due to an abrupt reduction in the river flow caused by the Yangtze River Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest hydroelectric construction, the East China Sea is experiencing significant changes in microbial diversity, including the loss of pico-plankton, the result of which is likely to have a noticeable effect on the marine life [42]. In another study, researchers from the University of Brasilia and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro published an article in

130 Publications

43

Energy Policy to document that large-scale dams under Brazil’s so-called sustainable energy policies are in fact “harming rich Amazon wetland ecosystems” [43].

“Renewable energy is not green” claims Jesse Ausubel, director and senior research associate of the Rockefeller University, in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, based on his assessment of the land-use required if hydro, biomass, wind, and solar renewables alone were to provide for today’s energy demand. For exam-ple, Jesse Ausubel finds that one km² of dammed land is required to provide electricity for every 12 Canadians, and that every vehicle in the US would require 1,5 hectares for biofuel crops, and that “considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors” [44].

While the analysis seems to be made in an effort to promote nuclear power as a climate friendly energy resource and technology, the problem of extensive land-use associated with certain renewables is evident, and has been investigated for Denmark and EU by Dr. Kaj Jørgensen from Risø National Laboratories, who finds that biomass availability is limited mainly as a physical resource, rather than by environmental and economic consequences, while quoting findings from the European Agency for the Environment that the technical potential for environmentally acceptable biomass crops for energy purposes in EU-25 represent only 12% of total primary energy supply in 2006 [45].

While more examples of potentially non-sustainable impacts of renewables may be provided, it should be evident that building a theory of sustainable energy simply upon the pillar of renewable energy sources is failing.

But at least energy conservation, the second pillar, always induces positive environmental consequences towards sustain-ability, right? Well, not always. For Denmark, it may be argued that efforts to reduce residential space heating demand within district heating networks risks undermining future investments in distributed co-generation. As continued investments is necessary to maintain an energy system based on distributed cogeneration, the discontinuation of investments could mean the return to the split supply of heat and power, which could turn into a less resource efficient energy system. It is there-fore evident that even demand side changes are required to be

Publications 131

44

put into perspective of how it impacts context, in this case the entire energy system, and that even energy conservation is no solid pillar in defining sustainable energy.

I have come to think that renewable energy and energy conservation fails to describe what sustainable energy is. So what would be a better theory of sustainable energy?

As it is, claiming a more efficient land-use than renewables, Ausubel considers nuclear power to be sustainable energy and an appropriate response to the climate crisis. A typical argu-ment against considering nuclear energy as sustainable energy refers to the two-pillar theory, in saying that nuclear power is not sustainable energy because uranium is a depletable resource. Other arguments quickly follow, referring to all the other problems associated with nuclear energy, mainly waste disposal, operational safety concerns, nuclear proliferation, and social organisation. However, the current two-pillar theory does not allow references to these other problems as they are not referred to in the definition. The only valid argument relying on the two-pillar definition is that uranium is not a renewable energy source.

But even for this argument, nuclear science seems to have an answer. While uranium may be expected to be available for perhaps as long as 350 years at the current rate of consump-tion, when used in light-water reactors, the introduction of new reactor types, particular referring to the promises of the fast breeder reactor, the uranium resource may last 10,000 years, in praxis establishing itself as a lasting resource [46].

In his Ph.D. thesis, Wilfred van Rooijen from the Delft Univer-sity of Technology shows how this is possible with the Gas-cooled Fast Reactor concept that produces virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste, acting as an incinerator of nuclear waste in a closed fuel cycle [47].

A similar cycle of arguments are carried out with respect to coal and so-called clean coal technologies, which are, by some, confidently categorized as sustainable energy. Propo-nents will argue that resources are lasting and that the problem of storing emissions is manageable [48].

Professor Noam Lior of University of Pennsylvania, the dedi-cated editor of Energy – The International Journal, suggests in a recent review retreating to the original definition according

132 Publications

45

to Brundtland, by saying that “while having various definitions, we can simply state here that sustainable activities mean that they meet the current needs without destroying the ability of future generations to meet theirs, with a balance among economic, social, and environmental needs” [49].

But “... without destroying the ability of future generations” is that not necessarily a criteria in itself, more important than anything else? And it is not so that an unsolved climate crisis would destroy civilization?