In January this year, two consecutive black-outs almost paralysed the whole country. Without warning, darkness flashed upon us like its opposite counterpart at more than 300,000 km/s. We got caught in our own materialistic philosophy; the lights were off, the magic box remained dumb and the kettle refused to whistle. We were helpless and waited until the government came up with a scapegoat ? the CEB workers. But the real problem lies in our energy equation.

Today experts generally agree that our current reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable. Already oil is near $50 per barrel, and the millions of Chinese and Indians destined to take to the road in the next decades have not yet got behind the wheel. If the clamour over global warming seems apocalyptic now, just wait until those two countries are as developed as the West. With environmental push and the price pull, we may say alternative energy is back in style. But oil prices would have to go a lot higher to make so-called renewable energies ? such as solar and wind ? commercially viable. That means their future won?t be decided by consumer tasks or market conditions, but by government policy.

We figure the cost of one kilowatt of solar power at a minimum of 5 times the cost of oil power, even when oil is hovering near $50 a barrel ? a price we don?t expect to hold up for long. Solar power is even less competitive against cheaper fossil fuels and relies on mature technology. Wind and biomass are closer than solar to becoming competitive with fossil fuels, but their capacity to supply large amounts of energy is limited. Many energy industrialists think nuclear is the answer but they rely on a misleading analysis of its cost competitiveness. It costs about as much to close a nuclear plant as it does to build a new one.

The conclusion is that, even with real oil prices at their highest levels in 20 years, no alternative can compete head to head with fossil fuels on a scale broad enough to challenge their market dominance. Given this outlook, market forces won?t wean society away from oil, gas and coal. Only governments can do that.

Yet the road to a society less dependent on oil is clear. If politicians were serious about the goals, the solution would be at hand : a mix of tax increases on oil products, more rigid mileage and emission standards for automakers, and incentives to retire old cars and buy cleaner new ones. The transportation sector is crucial. These measures would motivate automakers to step up research, development and production of new cars. Public funding for research and development in the energy sector has incentives and subsidies to produce alternative energy sources.

But the message coming from more than 60 energy ? industry leaders, recently surveyed by the World Economic Forum is loud and clear : securing supply tops the energy-policy agenda, and bottomline decision concerns about reliable supply always trump the call for cleaner energy. History shows that policymakers will put price and supply before social and environmental concerns. This explains the basic rules of Maslow?s pyramid. As the famous American psychologist put it, a healthy person lacking food, love and esteem ??would most probably hunger for food more strongly than anything else.?? This idea explains the current comeback of socially and environmentally controversial energy sources.

<B>Building a hybrid economy </B>

As long as supply security dominates the policy agenda, international agreements on higher-order issues, including the Kyoto protocol on climate change, will face hurdles. Countries like Mauritius that have not secured an affordable electricity supply will look for cheap solutions before committing to an environmental agenda. As Maslow foretold, people will worry about putting food on the table before they worry about how clean the plates are. The recent deficiency in our fuel supply shows how vulnerable we are, how vicious the circle is is and how we are caught in Maslow?s web.

Even with higher oil prices, clean energy sources like wind and solar ? not to mention hydrogen- don?t yet make enough economic sense to replace oil. That?s why many experts are starting to talk of building a hybrid economy. Rather than replacing hydrocarbons entirely, what we need is to find ways to use less oil and more efficiently. This means changing everything from the kinds of cars we drive to the homes we live in to the way we make and distribute electricity. It is a revolution in thought and in the making.

A good example is Toyota?s new hybrid, which may just be the biggest thing in cars since the combustion engine. It uses an electric motor at low speeds and a small engine at high speeds to power the car with a lot less gas. Toyota engineers who developed the brand had hoped the gas-electric hybrid introduced in Japan in 1997, would make the company?s reputation in America. Last year sales helped push Toyota past Ford to become the world?s second largest carmaker. Since October, Toyota has had to increase production of the Prius three times. To be sure, the hybrid phenomenon is still only a ripple in the pool of US gas guzzlers. Nissan, Honda, Ford and Hyundai are following the trend.

Now, with the biggest hybrid bus fleet in the world, Seattle, a northwest oasis, has become the main testing ground for a technology that claims it can drastically cut air pollution and fuel consumption. Sixteen of these early hybrids still service Genoa, Italy, where drivers switch from diesel to electric power when passing the city?s downtown architectural treasures. The town has long been a hotbed of both crunchy green politics and cutting-edge technology. It can climb like a diesel but accelerate without belching black fumes.

But hybrid technology does not apply only for vehicles. Energy experts know the world economy won?t be able to rely on oil and other hydrocarbons forever, and that the future therefore lies in a broad array of energy sources, large and small, from solar and wind to hydrogen fuel cells in cars and basements, to micro turbines that burn fuel made from corn and other plants. Unfortunately, at present, no energy grid is capable of accommodating such a hotch-potch.

On average, 8% of this energy is lost as heat from the electricity as it moves through the wires. If the energy grid were smarter ? if it were more decentralized and democratized like the Internet ? it would improve efficiently by shortening the average distance between energy producers and consumers. It would also make the grid less vulnerable to disruption from overloading, storms and terrorists.

The solutions and alternatives are clear. What we need is only the political, economic and social will-power. To build a hybrid grid, power-industry executives would need to get out of the habit of thinking only in terms of big, expensive infrastructure like power plants. We need to think differently. We need to think beyond - beyond our own thoughts. Otherwise in the future Mauritius will be known as a black-out nation.

<B>Soorab BOODHOO</B>