Power generation systems are undoubtedly critical infrastructures. But they are more fragile than is commonly supposed, and there is plenty of evidence they are getting frailer. Recent blackouts are dress rehearsals for a future in which they will appear with greater frequency and greater severity, due to growing uncertainties in supply and growing certainties in demand.
Supply is generally taken for granted in western societies. Such is our dependence that our comfort, security, communication systems, transport, health, food supply, businesses and social equity systems struggle when electricity supplies are interrupted. Continuing sophistication and prevalence of electrical appliances only serves to increase our dependence. In the digital world, interruptions and disturbances less than 1 cycle (1/60th second) can have catastrophic effects.
We now face a significant social problem. Increasing numbers of people are living longer and enjoying rising living standards. In 2008, the world’s population was 6,700,000,000, predicted to rise to 8,500,000,000 by 2035 with demand for electricity estimated to grow in that time by a staggering 80%.
This will require an additional 5,900 gigawatts of capacity, according to the IEA. No one knows how this will be generated. Irrespective of their cause, research has shown that social impact patterns emerge when blackouts occur.
This is generally measured by loss of sales or production. Losses can vary considerably from minor inconvenience when the ATM system fails (UK 2009) to major economic failure.
Blackouts obviously severely impact on food production and storage. Inability to safely store food has a number of consequences, including the economic impact.
When the lights go out, crime rates increase, and security systems fail without electricity. Blackouts provide opportunity for fraud, theft and exploitation.
The loss of traffic lights is an immediate consequence of electricity blackouts, together with loss of trains below and above ground. And airports are not immune to these failures.
Diesel fueled generators may appear to be a lifeline to households, hospitals and businesses, offsetting the effects of electricity blackouts. However, they also become a symbol of wealth, further emphasizing the rift between rich and poor and creating social unrest.
The looming threat of blackouts cannot solely be blamed on the vulnerabilities of power generation and distribution. As growing consumer demand increases our dependency, we must consider a crisis of over-consumption. While calling our relationship to air conditioning an addiction may seem an overstatement, once acclimatized to it, research shows that people are reluctant to give it up.
Like diesel generators, air conditioning offers solutions to private problems that create larger collective ones. As they cool and dehumidify domestic and commercial spaces, they heat the wider environment and are linked to ozone depletion. The US is currently the “undisputed champion” of air conditioning, accounting for 20% of all domestic consumption and 13% of commercial. (That equates to the entire African continent’s electricity demand.) And it is expected to grow a further 22% over the next two decades.
This of course adds an additional burden on utility companies that are being pressured to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But the real growth will occur elsewhere. Air conditioning already constitutes 20% of overall Chinese consumption, where household ownership of air conditioners tripled in the decade to 2007. India shows a similar pattern: sales are growing at 20% per annum. Global air conditioning demand has the potential to exceed that of the US by a factor of 50.
The first planetary study of residential demand for heating and cooling paints an alarming picture. Researchers state that world demand for heating will rise until 2030, then stabilize. By contrast, demand for air conditioning will rise rapidly to 2100, mostly as a function of rising prosperity. Moreover, demographic trends suggest more people will live in the tropics, where cooling demand will increase – along with its cost. As a consequence, demand for cooling will be 40 times greater in 2100 than it was in 2000. Another study predicts between 18 and 25% less cold weather per annum in four decades, and 17-23% more hot weather. This will equate to a 65-72% increase in cooling demand.
Technical efficiency gains may partially offset this. However, between 1940 and 2001, refrigeration efficiency increased by just 10%, while refrigeration demand grew by double that amount. Similar figures apply to heating and cooling.
So serious questions have to be asked at both the individual and collective level, concerning what is wanted and what is needed, balancing what is good for individuals with what is good for others and for the environment we all share.
By Dr Steve Matthewman, Department of Sociology, University of Auckland, New Zealand, and Prof Hugh Byrd, School of Architecture, University of Lincoln, United Kingdom. This article is taken from Connection Magazine, Issue 5. Connection is a collection of educational and thought-leading articles focusing on critical communications, wireless and radio technology.