alternatives1

Is he right?

 

June 25, 2007

High hopes and hard truths dictate future

Efforts to fight global warming will be wasted unless we concentrate on energy efficiency

Jeroen van der Veer

When it comes to the future of energy, the world needs a reality check. Contrary to public perceptions, renewable energy is not the silver bullet that will soon solve all our problems. Indeed, in the decades ahead, three hard truths will generate turbulence in the global energy system.

We all know that global demand for energy is growing, but the reality of how fast hasn’t really sunk in. The first hard truth is that demand is accelerating. Energy use in 2050 may be twice as high as it is today, or higher still. The main causes are population growth, from six to more than nine billion people, and higher levels of prosperity. China and India are entering the energy-intensive phase of their development. This is the point when people buy their first television or car, or board a plane for the first time, and start to consume much more transport fuel and electricity. And most people in China and India have never boarded a plane yet! The pace of change is startling. Last year, China enlarged its electricity capacity by roughly the equivalent of Great Britain’s entire stock of power stations.

The second hard truth is that the growth rate of supplies of “easy oil”, conventional oil and natural gas that are relatively easy to extract, will struggle to keep up with accelerating demand. Just when energy demand is surging, many of the world’s conventional oilfields are going into decline. The problem is not the availability of resources as such. Overall, the International Energy Agency believes that there could be roughly 20 trillion barrels oil equivalent of oil and natural gas in place. This includes both conventional and unconventional resources, such as oil shale and sands. In theory, this is enough to keep us going for about 400 years at the current rate of consumption. In practice, though, less than half can be recovered with existing technology. The world now produces 135 million barrels oil equivalent a day of oil and natural gas. We could still raise that number with new technologies, but only gradually and certainly not indefinitely.

The third hard truth is that increased coal use will cause higher CO2 emissions, possibly to levels we deem unacceptable. The IEA believes that coal use could grow by around 60 per cent in the next 20 years. The main reason that countries turn to coal is energy security. China and India will continue to exploit their domestic coal reserves to be less dependent on oil and gas imports. So will the United States, which even now generates more than half its electricity with coal. But burning coal for electricity generates twice as much CO2 as burning natural gas. Gasifying coal, instead of burning it, reduces emissions, but still this is not enough to solve the problem.

In our battle against greenhouse gas emissions, taking the CO2 out of fossil fuels, especially coal, is crucial. It will be a huge challenge: to keep greenhouse gases in the atmosphere well below 550 parts per million, the upper most bound of where science tells us we should be, Shell works with models that assume carbon capture and storage is installed at 90 per cent of all the coal and gas-fired power plants in the rich countries by the year 2050, and at 50 per cent in nonOECD countries. Time is short: it will take a decade to test the technology in pilot projects before we can move to larger-scale projects.

So what about renewables, such as wind and solar energy? The share of renewables in the global energy mix could go up from its existing very low base of about 1 per cent to about 30 per cent by the middle of the century. The number of wind turbines, for instance, may grow from about 30,000 today to one million and their capacity will be significantly larger than the ones we have built so far. This assumes that the hunt for technological breakthroughs to make renewables cheaper will be successful. But even then, fossil energy will still make up most of the remaining 70 per cent. However, this is out of sync with what opinion polls show that most Americans and Europeans believe – that renewable energy will have replaced most fossil energy by 2050. As the hard truths make clear, this simply isn’t going to happen.

That is why energy efficiency is so important. More than half the energy we generate every day is wasted. In an average car, about 20 per cent of every unit of petrol goes into moving a car forward, the rest is lost as heat. For an aircraft during take-off, the figure is 8 per cent. Only 35 per cent of burnt coal in a power plant becomes electricity; the rest, again, is lost as heat. What’s the point of producing ever more energy if we continue to waste most of it? Instead, we should aim to become twice as efficient in our use of energy by the middle of the century. That is entirely feasible, provided that the will is there.

The world’s energy system is entering a turbulent phase, and the only question is: how turbulent? A cooperative world will respond more effectively than a fragmented one. Provided governments create the right rules and incentives, and don’t throw up barriers, the global market will direct money and brainpower to the best solutions. The alternative is a global market failure, and future generations would pay the price.

The author is chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell

 

 

 

 

Research at Oxford shows how renewables can plug Britain's energy gap, says Oliver Tickeil

 For years, nuclear power has looked expensive, dangerous and dirty. That opinion may be about to change. Britain is facing a power gap of up to 2,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity—almost 40% of peak national demand — by 2020 as ageing, unreliable and inefficient nuclear and coal-fired power stations are shut. There is a growing consensus that only new nuclear power can plug that gap without contributing to global warming.

Renewable electricity technologies that harness wind, wave, tide and sun are all very well, the thinking goes, but their output is too variable and unpredictable to provide more than a small part of our electricity needs. Meeting the government's target of 20% renewables by 2020 could mean getting as much as 15% from wind and other intermittent sources, with the balance coming from "firm" renewables such as biomass and landfill gas. And that, say critics of renewables, is as much intermittency as the system can take. Any more and we will need huge reserves of expensive, polluting backup capacity, ready to cut in whenever the wind stops blowing.

Convinced? Think again. Research at Oxford University shows that intermittent renewables, combined with domestic combined heat and power (dCHP) could dependably provide the bulk of Britain's electricity. "By mixing between sites and mixing technologies, you can markedly reduce the variability of electricity supplied by renewables," says Graham Sinden, of Oxford's Environmental Change Institute. "And if you plan the right mix, renewable and intermittent technologies can even be made to match real-time electricity demand patterns. This reduces the need for backup, and makes renewables a serious alternative to conventional power sources." In particular, it puts renewables ahead of nuclear power, which runs at the same rate all the time regardless of fluctuations in demand.

Sinden initially looked at just three generation technologies: wind, solar and dCHP — in effect, hi-tech domestic boilers, which produce electricity as they heat water. He ran computer models of power output based on

weather records going back up to 35 years, and found that electricity production could be optimised by creating a mixture of 65% wind, 25% dCHP, and 10% solar cells. The high proportion of wind is because the wind blows hardest in the winter, and in the evening — when demand is highest. The dCHP also produces more at peak times, when demand for hot water and heating is also strongest. Solar makes a smaller contribution, and produces nothing at night. But it is still important to have it in the mix as it kicks in when wind and dCHP production is lowest.

It is also essential to disperse the generators, whether wind turbines or rooftop solar cells, as widely as possible. By increasing the separation between sites, you can be sure that power is always being generated somewhere and so smooth out the supply curve. This goes against current practice, which is to put wind turbines where the wind is strongest.

Sinden's approach is remarkably effective in reducing the need for standby capacity. If offshore wind power alone were to provide an average 3,500MW of electricity — 10% of electricity demand in England and Wales — it would need to be backed up by an extra standby generating capacity of 3.135MW —90% of average production. But using Sinden's proposed mix of technologies, only 400MW of new standby capacity would be needed — just 11%.

In his latest work, commissioned by the Carbon Trust, Sinden has been researching the roles for wave and tidal power. Wave power output is concentrated into autumn and winter, when demand is greatest: 75% of wave power is produced between October and March. Tidal power output is predictable, but variable: at any site it drops to zero four times a day on the turn of the tide; and output is three or four times greater on the spring tide than on the neap tide. "A marine-based renewable system works best when it includes both tide and wave," says Sinden. "The combination has lower variability, is better at meeting demand patterns, and makes better use of expensive transmission infrastructure."

Putting these figures together with estimates of Britain's available renewable resources, wind (onshore and offshore) could realistically provide some 35% of the UK's electricity, marine and dCHP each 10-15%, and solar cells 5-10%. In other words, more than half the UK's electricity could ultimately derive from intermittent renewables.

"In the next year or so, the UK is going to have to decide how to meet its electricity needs for the next half-century," says Sinden. "It's an incredible opportunity for renewables but my fear is that it may be missed."

 

 
Instead of nuclear
HUGO Rifkind suggests that we have to choose between climate change and more nuclear waste (May 9). He plumps for the latter partly on the grounds that, because we have produced so much of the "unspeakable muck" already, perhaps adding more won't make too much difference.
In fact, the latest figures from the government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management show that a replacement nuclear power programme would more than double the volume of high-level waste and spent nuclear waste fuel that we would have to deal with. This is the most dangerous category of waste. And the committee ignores the thousands of tonnes of radioactive, toxic heavy-metal waste left in the tailings at uranium mines abroad.
Nuclear power's contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions could easily be matched far more cheaply by energy-efficiency measures without lowering standards of living. We can start implementing efficiency improvements now. By 2020 at least 13 million UK households will have replaced their central heating boilers. If replaced by a new type of boiler, already available in some parts of the UK, known as micro-combined heat and power boilers, householders could be generating much of their own electricity, as well as powering their central heating system without using any more gas than at present. These micro-CHP boilers could produce around half the electricity currently produced by the UK's nuclear stations.
Pete Roche, consultant to Greenpeace UK, 24 Parkhead View, Edinburgh.

 

 

From Hugh Richards
There are many problems with the option of nuclear power "to tackle global warming", but the main one is that it doesn't exist. Just like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. It is true that there are designs for Generation III reactors but none have been built or tested anywhere. The idea of nuclear as a "quick fix" is ludicrous. The earliest realistic date for delivery of power from a new UK reactor is around 2020. During those years of construction carbon dioxide emissions would increase while billions of pounds of capital expenditure on nuclear stations would throttle government spending on energy efficiency, ensuring that profligate use of energy continues unabated. If the taxpayer is to invest in meeting the country's Kyoto commitments it is the most cost-effective means that should be supported, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as tidal lagoons, biofuels, and wind. Nuclear power is an expensive technology that diverts money and time from cheaper, safer, faster and more resilient alternatives.


 
 
"Asleep at the Geiger Counter"
AIMS  -   newsletter one    -  newsletter two  -  newsletter three

 -   environment    -  nuclear industry  -  french nuclear

membership   climate change  & the effects of air travel  

world comment   

 

alternatives 1