(Updated on 2/2/2010)
We have only seven years more before we trigger potentially irreversible climate change. With a deadline to mitigate, our options are limited. We already have many of the solutions we need. The developed world is already on the track for constructing post fossil fuel era infrastructure mainly in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. New Zealand and Denmark have pledged to convert to 90% and 30% renewable electricity respectively by 2025 while Australia and Germany have pledged 20% and 18% by 2020. Norway and Japan have decided to reduce carbon emissions by 40% and by 25% by 2020.
Even the USA – the main culprit in bringing about the climate catastrophe - has recognized solutions and targets within a firm time frame for action. In July 2008, the former vice president of the US, Al Gore, challenged America to generate 100% of their electricity from sources that do not lead to global warming and to do it within 10 years. President Barack Obama has established a goal to double alternative energy production in three years and included a new 30% investment tax credit for energy saving technologies and renewable energy technologies while signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Renewable energy cost trends show on the one hand, that the cost of a unit of renewable energy technologies has reduced drastically since 1980: solar PV by 80%; wind by 90%; and biomass by 65%. On the other, that global renewable energy investment has increased from 15 billion USD to 155 billion USD during the period 2000-08. The ADB is to substantially increase its clean energy investments to $2 billion a year from a previous target of $1 billion in a bid to accelerate low carbon growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Asian region.
The renewable energy potential in Sri Lanka could help respond to the threat of energy security but only if policy and finance measures quickly scale-up for proven renewable technologies. For the first time in Sri Lanka, a National Energy Policy was introduced by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2006 as a foundation for addressing this issue. This policy clearly highlighted the importance of promoting energy efficiency and conservation and the main thrust of the policy was to promote indigenous energy resources. It states that indigenous energy resources will be developed to optimal levels to minimize dependence on non-indigenous resources.
What are these indigenous resources? Mainly renewable energy technologies such as hydro, biomass (dendro, biogas), wind, wave & Ocean Thermal Energy conversion Technology (OTEC) and possibly off shore oil and gas. Coal is by no means an indigenous energy resource which is the main energy source that emits climate change related gasses. Minimal dependence on non-indigenous resources and optimal development of local energy resources will also minimize the vulnerability of energy supplies to external dependencies such as the international socio-political environment. Renewables also have the added advantage of easing pressure on the country’s balance of payments.
The national energy policy came up with the target of 10% of total power from non-conventional renewable energy by 2016 amounting to 300 MW. This is in addition to the 1000 MW of conventional hydro power. It is expected that about 50% of the total power will be generated from renewable energy sources by 2015 in Sri Lanka. In order to implement the national energy policy and to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy the Mahinda Rajapaksa government established the Sri Lanka Sustainable energy Authority (SLSEA) in 2007. Since then Cumulative non-conventional renewable energy capacity has increased to 145 MW. This is a 60% increase during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. Further, construction is underway to add a further 100 MW of renewable energy to the grid and engineer an overall increase of 170%. Additionally, the SEA has already compiled the mandatory Energy Efficiency Building Code as a step towards managing the demand side. Establishment of the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Fund and the Sri Lanka Sustainable Guarantee Facility will have a major impact on promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies in Sri Lanka in the future.
In the final analysis it is important to understand the distributed nature of renewable energy sources. Unlike concentrated fossil fuel, renewable energy is scattered as the primary energy source is the sun. Hence it is essential to have a policy framework that allows the general public to harvest sunlight and heat, wind, and biomass from their lands and their surroundings and produce electricity. In order to allow electricity consumers to produce and sell electricity to the national grid the 'net metering' scheme was introduced by the present government for the first time in Sri Lanka in 2009. This is a great step forward towards harnessing renewable energy resources in Sri Lanka.
Another key aspect of energy supply is the quality of energy services. To impose appropriate quality standards and regulatory interventions the present government took steps to establish the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) last year. Necessary steps will be taken by the PUCSL to protect the interests of consumers and to ensure fairness and predictability to all energy sector investors.
What will happen to the renewable energy sector initiatives, after 26th of January? On page 44 of President Mahinda Rajapaksa's manifesto, 'A Brighter Future', he states that "Plans have already been completed to start construction work on the 120 MW Uma Oya Hydro Power Station and the 35 MW Broadlands Hydro Power Station within the next 3 months. Further, the Moragolla Hydro Power Station (35 MW) and Gin Ganga Hydro Power Station (45 MW) will be started within the year. The contribution to electricity generation from non-conventional renewable energy sources in Sri Lanka will be raised to 10% of the total electricity production by the year 2016."
It is unfortunate to note that despite world wide development in the climate change and renewable energy fronts the Mahinda Chinthanaya has failed to live up to the expectations of the sustainable energy sector community by not proposing new initiatives to promote renewable indigenous resources in Sri Lanka. Thus, if the present president Mahinda Rajapaksa wins the 2010 presidential election then we can only expect a continuation of activities that have already commenced which is not adequate to achieve time bound targets given to human beings by the nature.
Adding to the frustration of the sustainable energy sector community, General Sarath Fonseka's 'Believable Change' has no reference whatsoever to the energy sector. This implies that he has no idea either on the situation in the energy sector or on world wide development in the renewable energy front. One can only wonder what one has to “believe” in with respect to “change” considering the complete lack of knowledge and vision on the part of the General’s manifesto on an issue that is critical not only to Sri Lankan citizens but the entire human race.
(Updated on 2/2/2010)
In the snowy Danish capital of Copenhagen, more than 110 Presidents and Prime Ministers together with the representatives of 193 countries gathered for a rare 12-day climate summit last week, emitting 40,500 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Ninety percent of emissions were from flights and the rest come from waste and electricity related to transport to and from the conference center and lodging in and around the Danish city.
As expected, the dispute between the world's biggest carbon polluters China and the U.S., who were aggressively reflecting aspirations of the South and North respectively, dominated the Copenhagen conference. Tens of thousands of protesters holding posters with slogans such as “Don’t betray our children’s future” and “Politician’s Talk Leaders Act”, took to the streets and staged demonstrations, even within the conference center, to demand action to cool an overheated planet. The historic U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen ended with the announcement of the Copenhagen Accord last Saturday, after a 31-hour negotiating marathon.
Within the Accord which highlighted climate change as one of the greatest challenges of modern human beings, the participating countries agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required with respect to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. The report suggested reducing global heat-trapping gases emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Centigrade against pre industrial levels; which have already risen to 0.7 degrees. Further, the Accord mentioned that countries should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development.
Dozens of countries including the top two carbon polluters, China and the United States, came to the climate talks with proposals to ratchet down pollution levels. The proposals made by them for emissions reductions were nowhere near the expected targets and the studies showed that those targets will ultimately end up at a 3.9 degrees Centigrade increase. The Accord has gone another step backwards during the last two weeks as it is not legally-binding, containing no mid-term or long-term targets for emissions reductions and does not refer to a ‘peaking’ year for global emissions in order to keep within the ‘safe’ limit of 2 degrees C of warming. This is an utter failure as this occurred after 2 years negotiations, which began with the publishing of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The Northern and Southern politicians who came to Copenhagen with insufficient targets went home happy that the Copenhagen Accord had no binding targets. As a result the Climate Catastrophe has become inevitable!
The Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, negotiating on behalf of the 27-nation EU, blamed the impasse on the Chinese for "blocking again and again," and on the U.S. for coming too late with an improved offer. President Obama didn't offer anything more at the conference. At the end of the day all the heads of states proved that the countries have no leaders who act but only politicians who talk.
Under the US rejected 1997 Kyoto Protocol 37 industrial nations were already cutting back on their emissions of greenhouse gases with an average of 5% against 1990 emission level. Under the new Copenhagen Accord which is a nonbinding agreement, those richer nations, including the U.S., are to list their individual emissions targets, and developing countries must list what actions they will take to reduce the growth in their global warming pollution by specific amounts.
Meeting targets given by science is not easy for humankind. It is going to be hard within countries therefore all countries wish to hide behind so-called “international treaties”. The Copenhagen summit proved that it's going to be even harder to meet emissions reduction targets between countries. If it were easy, it would have been done. This is a worrying thought.
The tug of war between US and China was a clear reflection of the tug of war between the North and the South. China which is more concerned about its economic growth than climate catastrophe represented the typical southern ‘emissions based development’ model. The main culprit however as far as carbon emissions go is the US. Therefore there are no excuses for the US not to drastically reduce emissions level. The Americans are addicted to fossil fuels and hence the former US President was reluctant to face the international community with dramatic commitments. The present US President Obama however had at least the courage to attend the conference. The overall outcome was a significant disappointment to those who had hoped Obama could put new life into the flagging prospects for some kind of legally binding agreement this year.
The US President Obama was not in a position to discuss about the targets given by IPCC with the Senate. He has so far failed to get the approval of the Senate to meet at least Kyoto targets as a step towards protecting the rights of the people living the South. How can he do it as he is already struggling with his health care package which is to safeguard the rights of his fellow citizens? He had no other option but to buy time for him to attending to domestic issues before approaching the international scene. Hence at Copenhagen he was successful in postponing taking a decision by another year leaving numerous details yet to be decided. The next major U.N. climate conference is planned a year from now in Mexico City.
As time is running out, the rest of the world needs to use force against US to face up to its climate terrorism. Such force is needed to tame fossil fuel addicts. The South, citing the historical carbon debt of the US should isolate it and impose sanctions against it. Such a measure by the South will not disturb the current efforts of Obama but strengthen him.
The Politicians of the South on the other hand are not particularly worried about climate catastrophe but more concerned about continuing their destructive development of fossil fuel based infrastructure and about grabbing funds from the North. China on behalf of the South did it to perfection. The South wanted to recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Their stance of “Give us money or we will destroy our forests” is a shameful way of thinking from the Southern peoples.
The South should first settle for low carbon path ways; initiate discussions on trade off of financial debt with ecological debt and then explore the possibilities of imposing sanctions against the US. Unfortunately the people living in the South are not sufficiently aware of the gravity of the climate catastrophe to push their politicians to take such positive and aggressive measures to curb it.
(Updated on 7/23/2009)
Energy Forum has won the Silver Prize of the 2009 Ryutaro Hashimoto APFED Award ( Asia Pacific Forum for Environment and Development) for our project titled: "Establishing private, public and civil society partnerships for ensuring the long term sustainability of the off-grid community based renewable energy power projects in Sri Lanka".
The Ryutaro Hashimoto APFED Awards for Good Practices (GPs) aim at promoting information dissemination of good practices towards sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific. The initiative collects lessons and experiences from innovative activities implemented in the region in order to promote sustainable development and share knowledge and wisdom with other stakeholders concerned.
A representative from each of the top 3 prize-winners are entitled to an invitation for the Award Ceremony scheduled in Ishikawa on the occasion of the 5th APFED Plenary Meeting.
(Updated on 4/7/2009)
Reviewed by: Prof Arjuna De Zoysa,
Head, Dept. of Mathematics and Philosophy of Engineering
Open University of Sri Lanka

Review
Asoka Abeygunawardana, Executive Director of the Energy Form, and an Electrical Engineer has written a valuable book which questions the present Energy Policy of the government and CEB directly.
It is well known that globally there is a distinct shift away from fossil fuel based energy to sustainable sources of Renewable energies. This shift is significant and covers the entire political spectrum of countries, from China to North America. The depletion of their resources and the problems of climate change have resulted in this situation. Sri Lankan policy on energy stands out like a sore thumb, a lacuna resulting from erroneous advice given to the government, by the CEB and associated motley of consultants, who own consultancy firms and have direct economic interests in the outcomes of Energy Policy. This erroneous policy of coal as the major option has been carefully agued against in Asoka’s excellent book. A must read for any one of the stake holders in Energy supply and use. They are the government (Politicians, such as the Minister for Power and Energy), consumers paying excessive bills, Energy Experts and the CEB Engineers, and the Opposition aligned to trade unions (the JVP as example).
The book begins with the general background to the problem, showing an exponential increase in fossil fuel consumption during the last 150 years. Chapter two shows the depletion of these fossil sources, due to increasing demand and depletion of available sources. A temporary decrease in fuel price is not comforting, as both long terms cost trends and reasoning will predict a final catastrophic increase and thereby the urgency for change.
Chapter 3, links the gradual impact of climate change to use of fossil fuels, and ends with a pithy quote from the Lowadasangarawa, “The crab swims happily in the pot – only as it takes for it to heat up”
Chapter 5, is a critique of both the demand forecasts and the CEB’s generating plan to meet this demand: A plan singularly lacking in solutions for the new challenges faced by the modern world. A simple projection of the past to the future is apparently what the CEB planners demand. A paradigm deeply mired in orthodoxy. The other chapters are very interesting in that, Asoka shows the many options for a country such as Sri Lanka. An ‘Energy Crisis’ does not mean a retreat into darkness. There are Wind, Biomass, Solar thermal, Solar PV as solutions. And he show that they could be obtained at a much cheaper cost then the cost of imported fossil fuels (exception of Solar PV). The last chapter on Wave Energy is a call for us to be alert to new scientific and technology developments in this area. After all we are an island state surrounded by the seas, and waves if it can be tapped as a reasonably priced power source, could be abundant.
There is one aspect on Energy which is not covered in Asoka’s book, which needs to be done: The question of Total cycle expenditure in terms of Energy itself. Some Energy sources merely raise the quality of energy (from a raw state to electricity), but do not produced any net useful energy. A good example is Nuclear Energy, the total energy cycle takes so much energy that the net useful energy transformed in the process could be negative.
In which event they are not solutions to the Global energy crisis. Sri Lanka does not have to worry too much about this problem as it is reflected in its financial costs. For example as Asoka’s book give, solar photo-voltaics are very costly. This could be because they may not be producing net energy. This would be okay for lighting a few lights bulbs in remote areas and not much more. If Asoka’s book is to have a Global Appeal, he needs to address this question perhaps in a separate concluding chapter.
All in all, the book titled ‘A world without coal or oil’, ‘raises a number of thought provoking queries about our energy future. Energy is fundamental to life so is our environment, it is clear that things cannot continue as before.