Digital Footprint

In my last post I looked at the change in electricity generation. That got me thinking - how is energy consumption changing? Beyond just "energy efficient light bulbs" - but sectoral and industry change. That led me to the rise of Digital, and the disruption and challenges it brings with it. So I decided to do a brief post on what that may mean for the future outlook of energy consumption.

The Digital Economy has a number of contested definitions, with its increasing establishment in the "normal running" of things blurring the line between the digital and traditional economies. Put simply, it is the economy that grows from digital computer technology. The digital economy is continuing to grow at a rapid rate, as networks expand and networked devices proliferate.

This has introduced several sources of energy consumption, with one of the largest drains being data centres - facilities that hold computer systems (like servers). Data centres are required by every big company, the likes of Google and Microsoft have sprawling data centres with vast energy requirements. In 2012, these data centres alone accounted for 2% of global energy consumption, and at the time the annual growth rate was 4.3% - it is now likely higher (Aroca et al., 2014). Alongside these large-scale installations, the Digital Economy brings energy drains in the form of phones, laptops, desktops, smart watches. Every download and upload, whether it's a film on your laptop or an internet-connected fridge, comes with an energy cost.

Cloud computing also brings with it an "always on" capacity. More traditional appliances, such as ACs, had a limit to how long or how much you would use them. With cloud computing, with connections spanning households, borders, time zones, the demand for the services are ever present, and so is the energy consumption (Walsh, 2013). There has been considerable research into making data centres more energy efficient, not only because of the environment, but also because of costs. Aroca et al.'s (2014) research focused on optimising server function and components to minimise energy usage.

More granular research has also been conducted with Weber et al. (2010) establishing carbon dioxide emissions from different methods of music delivery. Direct downloading being by far the least energy intensive process. However, this research did not look at the usage of downloaded music and how it may differ. Is the era of downloads and streaming also encouraging further energy consumption with Wi-Fi speakers and Smart TVs?

Alongside the more technical solutions to the Digital Economy's energy requirements, it is also important to understand the behaviour of consumers. Hertwich (2005) conducted research into the rebound effect - the possible behavioural and systematic secondary impacts that can 'offset part of the environmental gain' of more environmentally-friendly products and services (e.g. downloading music rather than shipping physical CDs). Hertwich concluded that in fact 'ripple effects' is a better term than rebound effects, as the secondary impacts can actually be positive.

The Digital Economy therefore will be of increasing importance to energy solutions in the future, and work is well underway to keep emissions down as they are so closely linked to costs. How the Digital Economy can in fact reduce carbon dioxide production is still being researched, as a lack of physical copies and products does not necessarily translate into significant, if any, emissions reductions. 

Is the future bright for renewables?

In 2015, for the first time ever, more than half of the growth in electricity generation capacity came from renewable sources. This is according to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2015. The document was compiled with the help of peer reviewers from across the spectrum of expertise (and vested interests!) - industry, government, NGOs and academic institutions.

The report being an "Energy Outlook" and not "Climate Change Outlook" however means input from commercial sources is to be expected and indeed necessary. Further, the IEA have been criticised in the past for not supporting renewable energy enough. If those criticisms were true, the IEA's position in the 2015 report would reflect considerable progress in the viability of renewable energy. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) echoed the IEA's findings, reporting the record 8.3% growth in renewable energy capacity.

The installed capacity of renewable energy has managed to trump that of coal's (barely - Figure 1). This is especially good news because out of coal, oil and natural gas, coal produces the most carbon dioxide per unit of energy. However, the trends of the fossil fuels are extremely complicated. The oil price plunge in 2014* took most by surprise, and oil prices have a complex relationship with gas. Overreliance on trends in the fossil fuels as a way of judging the success of renewables therefore is not advisable, and we should not allow ourselves to become complacent.

Fig 1 Total global installed cumulative capacity in 2015

China is a consistent area of focus in reports of the global energy makeup, for the present and the future. It is one of the largest economies in the world and forecast to grow to the number one spot. It emits more carbon dioxide than any other country in the world. But according to Bloomberg, by numerous renewable energy metrics (investment, total capacity, growth), it is a leader. China therefore represents a key and quite confusing player on the renewable energy stage. The IRENA (2016) lists ‘falling costs for renewable energy technologies, and a host of economic, social and environmental drivers’ to explain the increase in renewables. As renewable energy technologies develop and scale of production continues to increase, the falling costs are relatively straightforward, and China’s role as a massive consumer and producer of this technology is clear.

China, in its recent Five-Year Plans, has introduced clear goals of reducing energy intensity. This policy-driven change, spurred by the economic, social and environmental drivers the IRENA refer to, shows a Chinese commitment to moving towards more renewable energy. Structural shifts in the economy, moving towards the less energy-intensive, services sector; plans for an emissions trading scheme; and mandatory efficiency standards are all changing the projected outlook of China’s energy consumption.

An important economic driver in play across the world is the issue of subsidies. Subsidies for renewable energy totalled $112 billion in 2014; subsidies for fossil fuels totalled $493 billion in 2014. The difference is vast. Since 2009, fossil fuels have enjoyed a $103 billion increase in subsidies. The absurdity of the situation is clear, especially when the high cost of renewable energy is so often compared to the roaring, capitalist success of fossil fuels. The IEA do note however that decomposition analysis showed recent policy changes have seen a restriction in the fossil fuel subsidy increases (Figure 2). The reduction in oil prices, which carried the risk of countries increasing their reliance on fossil fuels (IRENA, 2016), has been used by certain countries like India and Indonesia as an opportunity to reduce fossil fuel subsidies (IEA, 2015).

Fig 2 Contributing factors to change in value of fossil fuel subsidies

Most of the renewable energy capacity currently comes from hydropower (1,209 GW), considerably greater than any of the other sources; wind and solar are the next highest at 432 GW and 227 GW respectively (IRENA, 2016). The IRENA analysis also found that the hydropower comes primarily from ‘large-scale plants’. The prominence of hydropower in the renewable energy mix is a serious concern, now and for the future.

Hydropower projects, especially the big ones, have received extensive criticism for several decades. They have been accused of offering a poor return on investment, at the cost of the local ecology, destruction of local people’s livelihoods, and all too often involve foreign investment (and, invariably, influence) driving the projects through. The push for an Integrated River Basin Management framework would invariably see a reduction in the production of these hydropower dams. Maintenance and continued use of existing dams would also be thrown into question, as hydropower projects struggle to fit the demands of a multi-sectoral, inclusive solution (Savenije and Van der Zaag, 2008).

Whilst record increase in renewable energy growth sounds positive, it is still far too small to bring about the necessary scale of change. Only 23% of energy in 2015 was from renewable sources, more of the global population is moving away from traditional biomass sources of energy to electricity and nations are continuing to heavily subsidise fossil fuels (the UK has in fact reduced renewable energy subsidies). China’s aligning of economic and environmental priorities is encouraging, as are developments in India. However, we must move away from “promising” and begin achieving significant, material results. The issues of China (and other developing countries), the place of hydropower in a sustainable world and the lacklustre leadership of developed countries all warrant further research.

*To read this article without a subscription, search "Winners and losers emerge from the oil price slump FT" on Google.

A focusing of the blog

Having prepared for my post on energy, I found the topic to be far larger and more interesting than I had expected. And so I shall forego my original aims and continue down the path of energy exploration. I've learnt my lesson, so I won't try to predict my future posts, but they'll definitely be in keeping with questions of energy: how much do we use, how might that all change, how can we make renewables successful? The blog will still retain a focus on the pragmatic solutions, on renewable energy efforts that have actually succeeded or may realistically succeed in the future.

Money makes the world go round

In a series of blog posts over the coming months (and maybe beyond...) I'll be looking at the ways in which the environment is used/exploited for monetary gain. And also try to see how the economy can help or hinder attempts at protecting the Earth. Alongside this, I'll be exploring the part politics plays - as the stage where some (if not all) of the highest level decisions are made.

Before I get started, I thought it would be good to note what my "starting position" actually is. What are my immediate thoughts / feelings / impulses about saving the world?

Well, I agree with the need to proactively challenge climate change. I don't think the problem will go away by itself. I don't think it's fair that some of the poorest people in the world will feel the brunt of it. And I don't think that our current set-up in countries like the UK is sustainable.

I also believe that the ecosystems of the world should be protected as well as possible. That organisms, whether they are cute or ugly, majestic or humble, shouldn't be driven to extinction by our fumbling, bumbling hands.

I am, in that respect, a run-of-the-mill Geography student.

However, whilst the ideal will always be a sustainable world, where power and wealth are fairly distributed and where we have a healthy respect for our surroundings... I am highly sceptical of the "integrated", "holistic", "grassroots" schemes that are all too often suggested as ways of protecting and managing the environment.

My natural inclination (for the time being, at least) is towards the big, heavy, systems-level schemes. The ones that have the clout of the most prominent global organisations fully behind them. These schemes have often been lacklustre or downright failures in the past, but I still think - at least they're actually doing something. For all the virtues of an inclusive, bottom-up initiative, I fail to see how they have brought about tangible and sustained change beyond the small-scale. All too often the frameworks that are drawn up also fail to suggest pragmatic roadmaps for delivery.

That is a small (and frank) introduction to my viewpoint. I absolutely support the idea of sustainable solutions, but I also think a lack of pragmatism means a waste of time (and research funding!).

In the coming weeks, I'll explore the ecosystem services concept, the impact of Tesla, fracking and more! All in the hope of discovering genuine opportunities to protect the environment from genuine threats.

At the end of this module, I'd like to revisit this post and reflect on how my thoughts have changed