Speech by Dr. Hermann Scheer, MP, President of EUROSOLAR, at the International Impulse Conference for the Creation of an International Agency for Renewable Energy (IRENA), Berlin, June 8th, 2001 Three major contradictions support the argument for establishing an International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in the form of a multinational intergovernmental organisation: First, the lasting contradiction between the perceived dangers resulting from the use of nuclear and fossil energy and the dearth of political initiatives to introduce renewable forms of energy with which to avert those dangers.
Second, the fact that within the system of international institutions there is not one organisation similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency to promote the global development and introduction of renewable sources – despite their being the only hope of sustaining an independent and emission-free supply of energy for mankind which, according to the reasoning of the fifties and sixties was supposed to come from the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Today, the slogan is not "atoms for peace", as called for by US President Eisenhower in his address to the UN General Assembly in 1953, but "solar energy for peace".
And third, the widespread tendency to underestimate renewable energy potential, both natural and industrial. This applies not only to politicians and businessmen, but to scientists and thus the general public as well. It is partly a common failure to realise that the political, economic and socio-cultural conditions governing the use of renewable energy differ from those applying to conventional sources.
As there are relatively few providers of conventional energy, greater concentration and usually large facilities are necessary. By contrast, renewable energy requires many providers, and their facilities should be mostly small and decentralised.
1. The contradiction between growing world energy requirements and the slow introduction of renewable energy
World demand for energy, and hence its supply, are still increasing faster than the introduction of renewable sources. This is clear from statistics since 1990 – the reference year for the proposed international climate protection agreements – and from forecasts up to the year 2020 by various organisations ranging from the IEA to the WEC.
This means that in spite of the many initiatives to stimulate the growth of renewable energy, consumption of conventional energy continues to increase. All of these initiatives – whether by the World Bank and other development banks, UN organisations or bilateral development aid agencies, or in the form of government or business projects – have a part to play in the process. They are the building blocks.
But the overall picture tells us that it is far too little and far too slow. There are not enough players and they have too little scope. Unless they are mobilised on a massive scale, unless the providers are given wider and better scope, the world civilisation will lose the race between the demand for energy and its non-polluting provision.
The political mobilisation of renewable forms of energy is mankind's most vital field of activity. It is the greatest challenge of the 21st century upon which everything else depends – from global environmental protection to economic development.
2. The ambivalence of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the discrepancy between the existence of the IAEA and the non-existence of an IRENA
When the IAEA was established in 1957 it had fewer than 20 member states. Its task is to maintain nuclear safety, to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It is a product of the fifties, the "atoms for peace" concept. At that time it never entered anyone's head that the world's power supply could one day come from renewable sources.
Today, the IAEA has 130 members, including most African countries. Its nuclear safety and non-proliferation responsibilities remain. In the case of renewable energy, on the other hand, responsibilities of this kind are not necessary.
The IAEA has a second task, however, which is to promote the transfer of nuclear technology. It has an annual budget of more than 100 million dollars for this purpose – in spite of the fact that the majority of its members do not have any nuclear power stations. Nor do they want them any more, whether on principle or for economic, structural or security reasons.
Yet this transfer responsibility - and with it the IAEA - is even enshrined in international treaty law. The crucial provision is article IV of the Non Proliferation Treaty of 1 July 1970, which was not extended indefinitely until the sixth review conference held in New York in May 2000.
Article IV, paragraph 2, of the NPT reads:
"All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate, in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organisations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States being Party to the Treaty, with consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world."
This article is not mere theory. It is, of course, being implemented by the IAEA and was unanimously endorsed in the review conference's final document in May 2000. Thus it is also upheld by those countries which have decided and already begun to phase out nuclear energy. That document includes the following passages:
"The conference notes the contribution that the peaceful use of nuclear energy can make to progress in general and helping to overcome the technological and economic disparities between developed and developing countries."
"The conference underlines the role of IAEA in developing countries in the peaceful use of nuclear energy through the development of effective programmes aimed at improving their scientific, technological, and regulatory capabilities."
"The conference commends IAEA for its efforts to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Agency's Technical Cooperation Programme to ensure the continuing relevance of the programmes to changing circumstances and needs of the recipient member states."
"The conference welcomes the new strategy for technical cooperation which seeks to promote socio-economic impact within its core competences, by integrating its assistance into the national development programme of each country with a view to ensuring sustainability through expanding partnerships in development, model project standards and the use of country programme frameworks and thematic plans."
"The conference recommends that IAEA continue taking this objective and the needs of developing countries, notably least developed countries, into account when planning its future activities."
This places member states in a dilemma. It implies that those who support the principle of non-proliferation and thus underscore the validity of the NPT must continue to favour the transfer of nuclear technology, otherwise they will breach the terms of the treaty.
In the case of renewable energy, there is as yet no adequate treaty framework and no binding international, institutional and financial initiatives comparable to those applying in the field of nuclear energy. This contradiction is intolerable and ignores the needs of the world civilisation. All governments asked about this situation find it embarrassing.
The same international effort that has been put into the development of nuclear energy is required for the development of renewable forms of energy, particularly so in view of the fact that the world's energy problems are more acute than ever. Anyone who believes that a specialised agency for renewable energy is unnecessary ought to be consistent and stop providing funds for the IAEA's technology transfer activities.
The world demands binding requirements in connection with renewable forms of energy, but hardly anyone still asks about nuclear energy. It is imperative that renewable energy receive equal treatment with nuclear energy within the system of international treaties and institutions. Consequently, we require not only an IRENA, which should have at least the same institutional and financial resources as the IEAE – more in fact.
Also needed is a supplementary protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty, which should be adopted not later than at the 7th review conference in 2005. It should take the form of an International Treaty for the Proliferation of Renewable Energy. The main provision should read as follows: "The present Treaty permits the parties to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to replace the assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear energy provided for in article IV with assistance in promoting the use of renewable energy."
We intend to communicate this proposal to the UN Secretary General and all parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty. Such a supplementary protocol would be an indication rooted in international law that we are leaving the nuclear age of 50 years ago and entering the solar age.
3. Underestimating the potential benefits of renewable energy
The main argument put forward to justify the continuing use of nuclear and fossil energy is that renewable forms would not be sufficient to meet world requirements. This is a biased view which is not rendered any more valid simply through being shared by scientists who have received the Nobel Prize for physics. Here is not the place to go into this aspect. Let it suffice to say that world energy requirements really can be met from renewable sources.
In its World Energy Outlook the International Energy Agency forecast that by 2010 global electricity consumption would be 20.8 trillion kilowatt hours, with 3.4 trillion coming from large hydroelectric power stations and only 154 billion from other renewable forms of
energy. Based on this requirement, therefore, about 17.2 trillion kwh would have to be covered by renewable instead of conventional sources of energy in order to secure
emission-free production. This is easier to achieve than the advocates of conventional energy would have us believe. We only have to free our practical imagination from the shackles of current dogma. For instance, a wind power station with a capacity of 1.5 megawatts produces about 3 million kwh a year under average wind conditions. Thus, to produce 17.2 trillion kwh some 5.7 million such facilities would be needed all over the world. This number of wind turbines, though much smaller in size, were already being used to produce electricity in rural parts of the United States during the thirties, until overhead lines where installed to supply electricity from the big power stations.
Photovoltaic energy can be projected in the same way. Starting from the current 10% annual effectiveness of solar cells – a figure which can be improved considerably – and based on an average global solar radiation of 1,700 kilowatt hours per square meter, approximately 100,000 square kilometres of solar cell modules would be required in order to generate the world's total energy requirement for the year 2010. This is but a fraction of the area covered by the buildings which would house such modules.
These are only two means of calculating the full requirement, though they would not have to be applied exclusively because renewable energy is always provided in various mixed forms. In addition to wind and photovoltaic energy there are countless ways of generating electricity using small facilities operated by flowing water and wave movement, large solar-thermic systems in the earth's sun belts, or tidal power stations in flat coastal areas. It is also possible to tap the natural heat of the earth, and of course there is bio-energy. If all of these options were to complement one another there would be no need to exhaust any of them completely. This also answers the standard question about what happens if the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.
All home-heating energy, which in Europe accounts for about one third of the total energy requirement, could be supplied over the next few decades by construction systems which make it possible to collect and retain solar heat in buildings. Houses of this kind, which are not dependent upon traditional fossil energy and do not emit any pollutants,
already exist, even in Germany, which is not exactly over-endowed with sunshine, and they cost little more than ordinary houses.
The International Energy Agency estimates that demand for oil products, that is to say, fossil fuels required for road, waterway and air transport, will reach 1.3 billion tonnes in the year 2010.
The most obvious substitute for such quantities is bio-energy. Here again the natural potential of this source energy has been grossly underestimated. Annual organic photosynthetic production from the earth's total vegetation is 220 billion tonnes of dry mass. This vegetation has about half the energy content of mineral oil. Given an average yield of only 15 tonnes of dry mass pro hectare (about 2.5 acres) – which is a modest amount – the oil energy equivalent would be 7.5 tonnes. Thus, 1.3 billion tonnes would require the output of 1.75 million square kilometres of sustainable forest and farmland.
Compare this with the world's total forest area of 40 million square kilometres, 10 million square kilometres of agriculturally productive land, and 49 million square kilometres of desert and semi-desert, a large part of which is capable of revegetation, be it in the form of reafforestation.
These figures in themselves suffice to show that mankind's total energy requirements could be met from renewable energy in various mixed forms, albeit not by the year 2010. But the time needed can be reduced and the path made smoother by increasing energy efficiency and thus economising, and by making the best possible use of conversion technology, which up to now has hardly been in the forefront of public and private R & D activities.
Most energy experts, it seems, do not have the curiosity, imagination or will to mount a global projection of the use of renewable forms of energy which have been found viable in practice. Or they are too opportunist vis-à-vis the powerful conventional energy organisations. Otherwise they couldn't make the ridiculous assertion that renewable sources are not sufficient to cover the world's energy requirements. We realise, of course, that substitution cannot be completed by the year 2010 – but how about 2050?
However, since energy supply is the key to all else, this presupposes the biggest structural transformation since the beginning of modern economic history. No one can say how long this will take. It depends on the extent to which we can mobilise the necessary players.
One thing is certain: Transformation must take place more rapidly and on a larger scale. This is yet another reason for establishing an IRENA, which must be a highly efficient instrument for this purpose. It will have to overcome widespread resistance, whether in the attitudes of conventional suppliers or in the minds of energy consumers.
Where participants in world climate conferences have mostly gone astray is in trying to square the circle, that is to say, they want to protect the climate, but at the same time show leniency towards those responsible for climate change. This is like the dog chasing its own tail. The failure to see the potential inherent in renewable energy has been a common feature of such conferences and explains their lack of success. The transition to renewable forms of energy is regarded as an economic burden to be shared equally, in spite of the fact that conditions are unequal.
Yet this is actually a unique economic opportunity for all, whether it be to avoid environmental damage or save the cost of imported energy, whether it be to create new industries or prevent international conflicts over natural resources.
4. The arguments against an International Renewable Energy Agency are not valid
This brings us to the argument put forward time and time again ever since such an agency was first proposed. For the past twenty years its opponents have been claiming that the existing international organisations are adequate. Some contend that this proposal reflects a lack of appreciation of their work. Even several national development organisations with renewable energy as part of their remit react in this way. Moreover, a number of companies that export renewable energy technology consider the idea of an agency to be an encroachment on their territory.
But none of these arguments are sound. After all, it would be a case of supporting, not replacing, the work of the existing organisations. The truth of the matter is that the activities of governmental and non-governmental organisations combined have not been sufficient to meet the challenge. Either they lack the funds with which to expand their practical initiatives, or their work is focused on other tasks. All of them should devote greater attention to the use of renewable energy, and do so on their own responsibility. If, however, we look at a map of the world to see where renewable forms of energy are being developed we find that 95% of it is blank, in other words that nothing has been done so far. And where the human capacity is absent there is also no production capacity and no market. Creating that human capacity and building quality standards must be the prime responsibility of the IRENA. No network of research institutes can cope with this task alone.
The IRENA should have a subsidiary function. It should step in where there is a vacuum, where no one else is playing an active role, and where it is asked to provide assistance. And it can withdraw whenever – largely a due to its support – the transfer of technology can be taken over by others or where an independent system has been developed. No company can expand its market if its also has to train its clients. What would the computer market be like if manufacturers also had to pay to have their customers trained?
The global demand for renewable energy is so great that there is plenty of room for all concerned to expand – be they international or national governmental and non-governmental organisations, be they training centres, research institutes, banks or companies. A much greater effort is required, far greater than has been possible so far.
This will apply to the IRENA also, even if it is funded as well – preferably better - than the IAEA. The aim is to make it an international driving force for all initiatives, both practical and psychological. As a joint agency of governments focused entirely on renewable energy – in tandem with the proposed International Treaty for the Proliferation of Renewable Energy as a supplementary protocol to the NPT – it should be a sign that the community of nations are at long last seriously applying themselves to the task of developing renewable energy. It merely has to launch the kinds of organisational initiatives that emerged in the fifties for the development of nuclear energy.
