What A Small Country Can Do  

I liked the story about Sweden's response to peak oil enough that I feel it should get slightly higher prominence than being relegated to the end of yesterday's post, so for those who didn't read it, here it is again.

Resources for energy research have been increased substantially in Sweden. The purpose of these measures is to achieve more renewable energy production and more efficient energy use. Special research projects in areas such as energy use in built environments, biofuels, gasification of biomass, and commercialisation and risk capital provision may also be called for.

This also points to the great opportunities that energy transition presents. New energy is growth! Environmental technology is Sweden´s 8th largest export trade; 100 000 work in the environmental sector - which is also the industrial sector in Sweden with the largest economic growth. Being at the forefront of development, we will also be in a position to succeed in the export market and support sustainable development in countries that are now experiencing strong growth.

In promoting sustainable energy that does not cause severe air pollution or climate change, we are all obliged to work together in crucial processes like Kyoto and the development of the Kyoto Protocol. Needless to say, we continue to hope the large countries will join the Kyoto Protocol.

Breaking the dependence on oil is, in my view, a matter of political will. A consistent policy will turn obstacles into opportunities. To hide behind excuses of ignorance or economic considerations is not leading us to a sustainable future.

In Sweden, we call this vision the green welfare state. The modernisation of our societies has to help ensure that the resources of our planet are sufficient for us all, which is a moral obligation to our rich countries. If everyone used energy and resources the same way we do in the western world, we would need 3 more Earths. We only have one.

Breaking dependence on oil brings many opportunities for greater competitiveness, technological development and progress. Our aim is to break dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. By then, no Swedish home will need oil for heating. By then, no motorist will be obliged to use petrol as the sole option available. By then, there will always be better alternatives to oil.

In stark contrast to the enlightened politicians of Sweden, the Rodent has been off to Washington to visit Cheney and Rumsfeld in the great hunter's eastern lair and receive further instruction in the ways of the dark side. He has also been discussing the possibility of turning Oz into the world's nuclear waste dump.

Australia may be asked to take back spent nuclear fuel left over from uranium it sells to other countries under proposals to be discussed by Prime Minister John Howard and United States officials this week.

Howard will have his most extensive talks ever with the US administration over two days in Washington, starting on Monday with new Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior figures, and a formal meeting with the cabinet after talks with President George W Bush on Tuesday.

Energy - including nuclear power and potential liquid natural gas exports to the US - will be among the issues dominating the talks, as well as troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan and the smouldering crisis over Iran's nuclear plans.

Howard would not confirm specifically that the proposal was on the table at the talks and refused to speculate on whether Australia would consider taking back spent fuel for disposal, presumably at a nuclear waste dump planned for the Northern Territory.

But he said any proposals would be considered. "I think everybody's just running ahead of themselves on this issue," Howard told reporters in Washington after lunch with Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney at the vice-president's private home in Maryland.

I was amused to see Johnny on the TV news tonight trying to hold a little impromptu press conference in Washington while being heckled by a passing American who recognised him.

A lone protester has heckled Australia's prime minister as he returned from lunch with US Vice-President Dick Cheney in Washington.

Construction worker Jay Marx, 36, repeatedly shouted "John Howard, get out of Iraq. The Bush administration is a sinking ship" as Howard spoke to waiting Australian journalists outside Blair House, the official residence where he and his wife Janette are guests of US President George W Bush.

Although Marx was at least 20 metres away from Howard and held back by iron railings, his shouts clearly distracted the prime minister. Eventually, Secret Service agents moved a black van to block his view of Howard.

Later, Marx told journalists he had recognised Howard after seeing Australian flags outside the White House. "I know that the majority of Australian people oppose the war, I know that John Howard has supported the Bush administration from the get-go, and it's pathetic," he said. "It's pathetic that the Bush administration has managed to cow so many allies into supporting this war that is criminal, that is mistaken, that is horrific, that is murderous, and it has to stop.

"Okay, he (Howard) didn't start the war but he supported it from the get-go. So I think anyone who is sending troops is culpable. If no-one but the United States had troops in Iraq, then the facade of international cooperation would end."

Meanwhile Mark Vaile is holding the fort back home - and he's in the news pushing biofuels, ie. ethanol, which is being labelled "environmentally friendly". It will be interesting to see just how long people will stay on the biofuel bandwagon - I'm sure rising food prices will annoy the punters even more than rising petrol prices in the long run.

Australians need to embrace biofuels if they are to help reduce the burden caused by the rising price of fuel, acting Prime Minister Mark Vaile says. Mr Vaile said while there was no "silver bullet" to beating the soaring petrol prices, biofuels were a viable and cheaper alternative.

The major biofuel being proposed is environmentally friendly ethanol, which is currently selling in Australia for between 70 and 80 cents a litre.

"The challenge is now before the oil companies to get this product out there faster, and consumers should be demanding it on price, on environmental benefits and on health benefits," Mr Vaile told the Nine Network.

TreeHugger has a post on the "Solar Sailor" - a hybrid electric ferry that uses solar power to reduce fuel consumption (via Bouphonia).

We’ve mentioned the Solar Sailor before. And while their vision was breathtaking then, it seems that was just namby-pamby stuff. In the past week or so, two new proposals have emerged that the term audacious hardly seems to encompass. One is to build two 600 passenger hybrid-electric ferries to carry tourists to the island national park of Alcatraz from San Francisco. The ferries utilise massive solar wings to generate electricity, which cut fuel needs in half, with zero emissions while docking at the wharf. "As needed, the vessels will operate with diesel generators burning low-sulfur diesel fuel and equipped with air pollution controls that cut emissions by 70% to 90% (compared to conventional marine diesels)." The first such craft is due in two years. Their other plan is to develop massive ‘aquatankers’ to ship water from the monsoonal Kimberley region of Western Australia down to the State capital of Perth, who a is currently considering a desalination plant to extract the city from a drought plagued water shortage. Tankers much like those used to ship oil around the globe would be deployed to bring half a million tonnes of water, per load, down to Perth. Using solar wings, such as those on the ferries, it is expected that fuel costs could be reduced by 40 to 60%.

The report in the Hobart Mercury about this is quite bizarre - though I guess its just one example of the unusual tactics cities are going to consider to deal with global warming. The inconclusive WA water report didn't mention this alternatice that I'm aware of - though it did consider a strange proposal to fill giant plastic bags with water in the Kimberly and tow them to Perth - which was apparently the cheapest of the various options.

Tasmania stands to make billions from an untapped export - water.

A company chaired by former prime minister Bob Hawke has proposed shipping Tasmania's water to other states facing chronic shortages. Solar Sailor has already submitted its "aquatanker" idea to a West Australian inquiry, which is considering importing or piping water as an alternative to desalination plants.

Solar Sailor chief executive officer Robert Dane told The Mercury Tasmania could expect to make as much as $300 million a year from water exports. Dr Dane's engineering company works on marine systems for ships boosted by solar or wind power.

"Because of climate change, there are many cities on mainland Australia suffering from lack of rain, including Perth, but also Sydney and the Gold Coast. With energy costs going as they are and potential environmental problems with desalination, there has been thought about transporting water," Dr Dane said.

Also at TreeHugger - Halliburton's One-Size-Fits-All Climate Change Solution - a "gated community for one".

For those who've never come across WorldMapper, it has some very interesting views of various pieces of national data plotted via maps of the world adjusted based on each countries contribution to the world total. A couple of interesting examples are below (but there are lots of others at the site):



Gas and coal exports



Ore exports



Crude Petroleum Exports

"The cost of getting oil out of the ground is going up, the amount of water in it is increasing, and there's less and less of the really good oil down there. All of this is forcing the prices up." James Brock, 2006

While I was reading "The Predator State" I noticed another interesting article by James K Galbraith - this one on "Smith vs Darwin" - which seems to be where Peter got his "evolutionary economist" tag for Galbraith from.

Before Darwin, when scientists gazed on the natural world, they imposed categories on it: order, families, genera, species, with Homo sapiens sapiens coming out on top. Evolution meant progress; order and progress were signs of God's plan. Darwin shifted the focus to individuals, to mutation, and to the processes of natural, sexual, and social selection. Order now recedes. Variations are key, and they occur entirely by chance. God is left out. "What was radical about On the Origin of Species," Menand writes, "was not its evolutionism, but its materialism."

Economists, on the other hand, have been Intelligent Designers since the beginning. Adam Smith was a deist; he believed in a world governed by a benevolent system of natural law. Consider this familiar passage from Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, with its now mostly forgotten anti-globalization flavor:

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry [every individual] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention…. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

Smith's Creator did not interfere. He simply wrote the laws and left them for events to demonstrate and man to discover. The greatest American economist, Thorstein Veblen, observed that "the guidance of…the invisible hand takes place…through a comprehensive scheme of contrivances established from the beginning." What is this if not Intelligent Design?

But to Veblen this was, precisely, unscientific. And so he made a mighty effort back in 1898 to move economics into the Darwinian age. In a magnificent essay entitled "Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?" Veblen pointed out the problems of classical economics: too much preoccupied with classification schemes and higher purposes, too little with material process and "cumulative or unfolding sequence." Economics could become a science, but only if it detached itself from the idea that change intrinsically led to improvement.

The Oil and Gas Journal has a write up of the recent APPEA conference.

The Australian petroleum industry must overcome a number of challenges if it is to prosper and arrest its country's rapid decline in oil production over the next few years, the new head of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association told the group's annual conference.

Belinda Robinson, APPEA executive director, said high on the list of challenges is a rapid rise in costs—up to 40% in the past year in categories such as drilling, labor, equipment, and fabrication. The increases have been aggravated by limited availability of equipment, especially rigs.

Other speakers at the conference discussed the future course of the Australian gas industry, remaining potential of the country's oldest producing area, vulnerability of oil and gas infrastructure to terrorist threat, and international issues such as transparency and the long-term outlook for global oil supply.

Robinson pointed to several signs of diminishing oil and gas activity in Australia.

Australian drilling totaled only 98 wells on and offshore in 2005, down from 130 in 2004. An increasing share of spending by Australian companies occurs outside Australia. And exploration in Australia focuses on proven areas, not in the vast sedimentary basins offering potential for discovery of a new oil province.

In addition, while the country is finding much less oil than it is producing, discoveries are shrinking; there was no find in 2005 larger than 10 million bbl.

Robinson said there is no doubt that Australia's attraction for oil exploration and production investment is declining in comparison with other parts of the world. And growth of LNG output doesn't offset declining oil production.

Robinson said Australia remains underexplored. "This sets Australia apart as one of the few politically stable regions with significant exploration and production potential," she said. "Australia is also very well placed to meet the huge demand for energy in the Asia-Pacific region. Over the next 10 years some of Asia-Pacific's traditional LNG suppliers, including Indonesia, will wind down as reserves expire. Traditional markets like Japan are thinking long-term and will continue to expand, as will the demand in other parts of the region."

Robinson said new projects might add 30-50 million tonnes/year to Australian LNG output by 2015. They would primarily target markets in Japan, South Korea, China, the US, and India.

Jeff Vail has a post on the value of elegance and simplicity - in which he looks at passive solar and Annualized Geo Solar.

Solar power is the root of most of our energy: it is captured by carbon-based plant life and available for our later use as firewood or ethanol or oil, it causes the wind to blow. It powers Photovoltaic Cells—high technology, low efficiency means of converting solar energy into electricity, and a notably poor example of elegance. PV is really more of a brute-technology approach. A much more elegant design use of solar energy is passive solar. I’ve long been an advocate of the superiority of passive solar over active (PV) solar—owing largely to its use of vernacular technology. PV creates a dependent power-relationship for the individual—not very elegant. But passive solar, despite its ability to effectively heat our homes, our water, cook our food, is not perfect. One issue is that many climates have cold and cloudy winters, so heating that depends on passive solar will also require a backup system. But thanks to the work of architect Don Stephens, the possibility of Annualized Geo Solar (AGS) is a tantalizing solution to these problems. Basically, the AGS approach stores heat in a huge bank of thermal mass under a house all summer long, and harvests that heat throughout the winter to maintain a comfortable 70 temperature year-round.

The design is brilliant: entirely passive, superior, utilizing only simple, vernacular technology, and adaptable to many different regimes of climate, materials, etc. It could even be inverted, using a passive solar chimney that I have outlined previously, to draw cold winter air to cool an insulated bank of earth under a house in, say, Phoenix, to provide lasting cooling all summer long. Overall, it is extremely elegant. Perhaps most importantly, it shows that achieving elegant simplicity really only requires looking for it: Stephens just wasn't satisfied with the techno-utopian approach of using PV to drive a heater, nor with the day-to-day passive solar heating systems, so he found something both better and simpler.

I'm not sure if I blogged Dave Roberts' interview with Al Gore last week - but if not, here's the link.

Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.

Q: Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate change. What do you think?

A: I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.

Q: Won't, or shouldn't?

A: Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.

We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.

When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build.

In any case, if they can design a new generation [of reactors] that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role.

Q: How about the other big, new contender, ethanol?

A: Cellulosic ethanol. Different from corn-based ethanol. I think it is going to be a huge new source of energy, particularly for the transportation sector. You're going to see it all over the place. You're going to see a lot more flex-fuel vehicles. You're going to see new processes that utilize waste as the source of energy, so there's no petroleum consumed in the process -- that makes the energy balance uniformly positive, so you can regrow it and it does become, in a real sense, renewable. You may also begin to see a new generation of fuel cells that run on cellulosic ethanol, where you can grow your own electricity. I think it's going to play a huge role.

Q: James Hansen says we have 10 years before there are irreversible changes [because of the climate crisis]. Two and a half years of those 10 ...

A: We can't spot the problem two and a half years. We've got to concentrate on changing the country's mind even during this president's term.

The latest issue of Optimist magazine also takes a look at a wide range of energy issues - including the question of nuclear power having any part of the solution to global warming.

Chernobyl – which revealed for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the cataclysmic potential of nuclear disasters – raised questions that are still pertinent, and largely unresolved. How can we be sure that the states which possess nuclear power, whether civilian or military, today adhere to the necessary safeguards and regulations? How can we justify gambling with the well-being of future generations for the sake of our “national security” or energy consumption? And, finally: Is nuclear power a viable solution to our energy or climate change challenges anyway?

Half the battle to finding solutions lies in asking the right questions. But regarding the struggle against climate change, and the need to transform our energy sources and habits, we are not asking the right questions. That’s why we have recently been hearing that nuclear energy could play a major role in the solution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It sounds tempting: a technological solution that will allow us to continue to behave exactly as we are today while still meeting Kyoto Protocol commitments.

Regardless of one’s position on nuclear energy, it is not the solution to climate change. It is currently a small player in global energy supply, accounting for 16 percent of electricity consumption, which itself is only 12 percent of total global energy consumption. Even with an aggressive, broad acceleration in the commissioning of nuclear reactors it can only hope to generate a maximum of about 9 percent of global energy by 2030. The greenhouse gas emissions that this would save could be achieved far more sustainably, quickly and cheaply by improving energy efficiency. But this option does not attract the same political, financial or media interest, and would actually involve us – the individual consumers – taking some responsibility!

The questions we need to be asking are: How can we stop our behavior and decisions today from putting future generations at risk? How can we extend the opportunities and benefits of access to energy to all people in a sustainable way?

These questions are officially on the agenda of the G8 Summit being held in Russia for the first time in July. The Summit has set energy as a priority, but sadly the discussions appear more likely to focus on concerns of more direct political interest to those gathering around the table: securing supplies of traditional (i.e. oil and gas) fuel supplies and examining the potential for nuclear energy.

Oil consumption now exceeds 1000 barrels per second, that’s over 85 million barrels per day! This is the fundamentally unsustainable basis upon which our global economy and politics currently rest. Building new nuclear power stations will not have any real impact on this problem (little of this oil is used to produce electricity), and no nuclear fuel cycle is entirely immune to proliferation, accidents or terrorist risks. But direct subsidies to nuclear energy in the U.S. totalled USD115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with a further USD 145 billion in indirect subsidies. By contrast, subsidies to wind and solar power combined were just USD 5.5 billion.

There are no quick-fix technological solutions. Breaking our dependence on oil and other fossil-fuels will not be easy. But if we embrace the real solutions – renewable energy, decentralized networks and improvements in the efficiency of our buildings, vehicles and appliances – we can begin building a genuinely sustainable society. This is not a soft “tilting at windmills” option, it means making tough decisions and changes – and it is the option that the leaders of the world’s richest and most powerful states should be guiding us towards.

Twenty years after the Chernobyl tragedy it is painfully apparent that the consequences of decisions and mistakes outlive those who make them. The articles in this issue of The Optimist cannot claim to cover all aspects of either the Chernobyl accident and aftermath, or the debate on the future of nuclear energy, but certainly include much insight and analysis not so readily available in the mainstream press.

We should all take the time this spring to remember those who lost their lives, their health or their homes due to the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and think seriously about the lessons that can be learned.

The Real Deal notes that China is about to exchange their "funny money" for hard assets.

Dow Jones: “China plans to start building strategic reserves for uranium, iron, copper and other key mineral resources, and accelerate the construction of strategic petroleum and coal reserves as part of the government’s official five-year plan, said the Ministry of Land and Resources. The ministry is targeting adding proven reserves of 4.5 billion-5.0 billion metric tons of oil, 2 trillion-2.25 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, 100 billion tons of coal, 5 billion tons of iron, 20 million tons of copper and 200 million tons of bauxite by 2010.”

Analysis: We have talked about this in the past. If you were holding one trillion dollars and they were losing value wouldnt you exchange them for something for value before the US prints up so more funny money. I am doing the same thing.

The Energy Blog points to a report that Raytheon is promoting a new shale oil recovery process. As with everything to do with shale oil, I'm highly skeptical of this. Bouphonia seems at least as dubious about it (also pointing to Halliburtons survivaball as an anti-solution to the world's problems).

China wants to build 48 new airports. Fortunately, the good folks at Raytheon are proposing to make shale-oil recovery cost-effective and environmentally safe, apparently by using some form of death-ray:

"Raytheon is an expert in RF technology," said Lee Silvestre, director of Mission Innovation at Raytheon IDS. "What makes this effort a breakthrough is that similar RF technology that we have been applying in core defense products -- radars for tracking and guidance systems -- has demonstrated applications in the energy crisis."

Whatever Raytheon's scheme is, it was probably foreshadowed in The Comic Book Periodic Table of the Elements.

Even with Raytheon on your team, you can't be absolutely sure that your short-sighted, midbogglingly stupid decisions will lead to an optimal outcome for you and your cronies. That's why the SurvivaBall is vital to your contingency planning:

Fred Wolf and a colleague at Halliburton demonstrated yesterday at the Catastrophic Loss conference in Florida three SurvivaBall mockups, and described how the inflatable units will sustainably protect managers from natural or cultural disturbances of any intensity or duration. The devices will include sophisticated communications systems, nutrient gathering capacities, onboard medical facilities, and a defense infrastructure to ensure that the corporate mission will not go unfulfilled even when most human life is rendered impossible by catastrophes or the consequent epidemics and armed conflicts.

Grist reports on a big wind farm development in Texas (thankfully out of the jurisdiction of our "environment" minister, otherwise it would no doubt be blocked).

Yesterday, officials approved a plan to build the biggest offshore wind farm in the U.S. off the coast of Padre Island, Texas. Say it with us now: everything's bigger in Texas. Superior Renewable Energy LLC plans to erect as many as 170 turbines, with the capacity to power about 125,000 homes. Some conservation groups are up in arms, as the farm will be built in a major migratory route for several rare birds, but SRE vice prez Michael Hansen said the firm would study bird migration patterns and use turbine blades unlikely to harm our avian friends. As the project will be built off an unpopulated swath of the island, it may not suffer the NIMBYism plaguing the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound. No rich people are in danger of losing their scenic views. You may all breathe a sigh of relief.

And to close, Bruce reports on the emergence of civil discord (for those unfamiliar with Bruce's style, his cynical interjections are surrounded by ((())) delimiters).

(((A "Wexelblat Disaster," named after long-time Viridian contributor Alan Wexelblat, is a disaster caused when climate violence provokes a further collapse in industrial infrastructure; for instance, a windstorm that causes people to be electrocuted by downed power lines.)))

Links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24688-2001Aug31
http://www.whump.com/moreLikeThis/link/02470

(((Here's a new twist: people angered by a collapse in their infrastructure, who, as a method of protest, go out and deliberately sabotage some other aspect of the infrastructure. As you can see, this isn't the classic Wexelblat formulation of "Mother Nature" taking some ironic revenge, but people taking revenge for what they consider to be the misdeeds of other people occurring during a climate-violence incident.)))

(((Firing small-arms to repel a rescue helicopter might be a pretty choice example of this phenomenon – if that event wasn't, in fact, just panicky Katrina street-legendry that never actually occurred.)))

Links:
Relief workers supposedly "confront urban warfare" http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katrina.impact/index.html

"The communication breakdown without and especially within New Orleans created an information vacuum in which wild oral rumor thrived."
http://www.reason.com/0512/co.mw.they.shtml

(((This kind of protest doesn't have to be violent; it might be done by people who understand passive resistance and Gandhian non-cooperation. A savage heat-wave is currently smiting India; the response? Take out the trains.)))

Source:
http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=55447

"Hit by power cuts, women block trains in Allahabad

Kanpur: Angry over acute power crunch, about 300 women blocked trains in Allahabad on Sunday. The women sat on railway tracks and shouted slogans demanding quality power supply in the city. A number of trains got delayed because of the protest.

The protestors threatened that if normal electric supplies were not resumed then they would step up their agitation. We blocked the train because there is no electricity. If there is no improvement in the condition then we will block the tracks again,' Sarita a local, said.

Allahabad city is facing huge power cuts every day. The current demand of Uttar Pradesh state is around 7,000-8,000 MW, while the supply is around 4,000-5,000 MW. To add to the woos of the people the temperature in the northern plains of the country is touching 45 degrees.

Besides, Uttar Pradesh, several other northern states – Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, national capital Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan and Uttaranchal – are facing power shortage. By one estimate, peak demand in India today exceeds electricity supply by 14 percent.

The vast Indian countryside, where more than two- thirds of the country's 1.2 billion people live, accounts for no more than 13 percent of electricity consumption while some 40 percent of the country's electricity supply is lost due to theft. (((Quite a statistic; if every thief doubled his efforts there'd be one watt in five for India's civil population.)))

According to industry estimates, India needs an additional 100,000 MW of power in the next 10 next years with an investment of $100 billion to meet soaring demand of an expanding economy. (((The world's full of stats like this now. They truly look surreal. How much train-blocking do you think it will take to get that done?)))

India has allowed foreign companies to invest in fully owned operations in the energy sector to overcome a peak electricity shortage of about 12.2 percent. (((Hint: in a power crunch, we'll be attacking those globalizing foreigners.)))