Guest Speaker: Dr. Eduardo Zarza Moya
Eduardo Zarza is Director of Concentrating Solar Research at the Solar Platform in Almeria, Spain. PSA (as it is known in Spain) is a world reference centre for solar power generation, visited by political and scientific delegations from countries desiring to establish large-scale electrical generating plants power... Profile
Discussion - May 2009
Climate change and the world’s growing energy needs demand that we increase the use of alternative energies, but is it happening fast enough?
19 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Executive Vice President of Business Development, Marketing, and Sales
Princeton Power Systems
said: On 01/05/2009
The goal of answering this question must be to generate consensus, since this is what is needed to generate real change and progress on such a global and multi-faceted issue. We must therefore first agree on the goals of increasing alternative energy use – or likewise what the threat of not increasing alternative energy use represents. The ultimate threat of climate change is irreversible or catastrophic damage to the Earth and its environment. The ultimate threat of running out of conventional energy sources is sudden “immobilization” of society that leads to destabilization of governments, economies, and ultimately panic, loss of freedoms and access to a minimum standard of living. Since the worst-case scenarios are so dire, it could be argued that increasing use of alternative energies is critical, and we are not doing nearly enough.
Rather than only looking at an “avoid doomsday” scenario, though, it is also useful to think about the positive aspects of increasing alternative energies, such as improving quality of life, improving energy security for all nations, and ultimately reducing the cost of energy and increasing access to it globally, on a sustainable basis, in the long-term. These are goals that most everyone will strive for, although how best to achieve them causes plenty of disagreement.
Finally, though, understanding how feasible it is to cost-effectively increase alternative energy use, much faster than it is being done today, seems to me the best way to answer the question in a way that leads to change. There is much misinformation about the cost and reliability of modern alternative energy sources, and a major opportunity to educate people so that they can make well-informed decisions on this subject. If we are successful at this challenge, we will be able to generate consensus; I have a high confidence level that, if the goal is to have a positive impact on the Earth and on society, everybody will want to do more to increase alternative energy use at a pace even greater than what we are experiencing today.
Professor
Open University
said: On 01/05/2009
Renewable energy is developing fast- so far there is over 1000 gigawatts of generation capacity in use globally, although most of that is large conventional hydro. But there is now over 120 GW of wind capacity and about the same of solar thermal capacity, plus over 10GW of solar PV and 10 GW of geothermal plant. By 2020 the EU hopes to get 20% of it energy from renewables, and by 2050 many scenarios look to a 50% contribution or more. Under Obama the US is catching up- it plans to get 25% of its electricity from renewables by 2025, while China is aiming for 15% by 2020. Will that be enough? Probably not, unless energy demand can also be reduced – the EU is aiming for a 20% reduction by 2020.
We could move faster, if the political will was there. We know that ultimately we have to shift to renewables 100%, since reserves of all the existing fuels, coal,oil, gas, uranium, thorium, are finite. Fusion is a possibility but it’s still a long shot- and at best even enthusiasts admit that might only supply 20% of world electricity by 2100, assuming all goes well. Renewables are already supplying that now.
There is a strong case for avoiding detours back to old ideas like nuclear fission, and for getting on with the transition to renewables as fast as possible now, not least since deploying renewables like wind farms can generally be done quite rapidly. But we will also need to redesign the grid system to help balance the often variable inputs from some of these new sources- the currently proposed pan-EU supergrid is one such project.
Head of the “III–V- epitaxy and solar cell” group
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE)
said: On 01/05/2009
I believe that mankind in the 21st century is facing two incredible challenges of disruptive nature and the ability to change life on earth considerably: the use of fossil energies resulting in global warming and the overpopulation of our planet and its ecosystems. It is our responsibility to protect the living environment on earth for our children and generations to come. As soon as we understood that we are changing this world with the risk of destroying the basis for life, we had the responsibility to act! This is true since the early reports of the Club of Rome and the Brundtland Commission in the 1980s but today there is certainly no doubt that global warming is reality and can be disastrous.
The problem of global warming is that the consequences of our today’s emissions are not precisely predictable and are not leading to a single event but are long-term. This is due to the chaotic nature and the slow response of our climate system. Therefore, we tend to argue about the necessity to act and to convert our existing energy systems. But, it is a one way road and once the climate has changed considerably it will be impossible to turn the system back into its original state.
How different would the situation be, if NASA predicted a 90 % probability for a major meteorite collision in 2030 with disastrous consequences for mankind. I am convinced not a single person on earth would argue about the necessity for immediate action to develop all necessary technologies to save this planet. I believe we are in a similar situation today and we have to focus all our efforts on developing new and cheaper renewable energy technologies and to convert our energy system to be sustainable. This goes along with the necessity of political actions to invest into R&D and into the renewable energy market itself and to grow this industry continuously from now on. The demand of energy on earth is huge and it will take at least a decade or two to build up the necessary industry and enable it to produce sufficient amounts of green energy. But it is possible! Every minute the sun delivers enough energy to us for a whole year – we need to make use of this free gift by using wind-, solar-, bio- and all other renewable forms of energy. My answer therefore is: “Yes, we must be more aggressive and faster in converting our energy systems to use renewables.
We know how to use the suns energy, we have the technologies available and we need to do it now. We owe this to our children.”
International Program Manager
Solar Energy International
said: On 01/05/2009
The past few years have seen an exciting increase in the amount of renewable electricity generation worldwide, an increase of over 50% from 2004. But is it enough to help curb global warming and the resulting devastation that comes with it? Probably not.
Developing countries, those who are most affected by climate change, are demanding rich nations cut their emissions by at least 40% on 1990 levels by 2020. Small island states and many least developed countries are pushing for a 45% cut. But at the recent meeting in Bonn (the UN climate change talks), the rich countries committed to a cut in emissions of between only 4 and 14% on 1990 levels by 2020. According to scientists, that will still result in a 2.8 – 4 degree temperature rise which would drastically affect people in the developing world (it could lead to an additional 3 million more deaths from hunger and malnutrition, and water shortages affecting up to 4 billion additional, not to mention all the ecosystems and species the earth will lose). Even with the recent surge in wind farms and solar photovoltaic systems, renewable energy technologies still only represent less than 4% of the world’s power generation (not including large hydro). That number will have to increase dramatically (along with an increase in efficiency and conservation) if we are to cut emissions by enough to truly make a difference to the majority of people in the world.
The new bill being considered in the US congress to provide 25% of our electricity from renewable energy by 2025 is a great step. But people from the industrialized countries in the world, and especially the United States, need to change our consumption habits as well, or we’re taking one step forward and two steps back.
Managing Director
Navigant Consulting
said: On 01/05/2009
Alternative energy markets grew significantly in 2008, with annual wind and solar photovoltaic installations growing by 42% and 78% respectively over 2007 installations. Alternative energy market share relative to total power generation, however, is still minimal. There needs to be more aggressive and accelerated investment in alternative energy, in addition to energy conservation and fuel efficient transportation options too, if we are to truly address our global climate challenges. There is no single solution, and our attention needs to be focused on several options. With regards to alternative energy, key hurdles need more immediate attention in order to accelerate their use and make alternative energy technologies even more competitive with conventional power. These include: access to financing for larger projects; increased investments in transmission infrastructure; more rapid reductions in installed costs, and in some cases, advances in storage technology. We are currently not moving fast enough when it comes to overcoming these hurdles. Increased government support and additional policies and investment addressing these specific issues will help to ensure that we move closer to the tipping point in accelerating market adoption for alternative energy.
Consultant
Sol Shapiro Consulting
said: On 01/05/2009
This question is tougher to pose than to answer. Let me interpret it to be: “What can be done to improve upon the world’s response to climate change and the world’s growing need for energy.”
I will present this from the perspective of the United States, but much of this is applicable to the western world and to all of the world.
* AMERICA’S GREATEST ENERGY CHALLENGE: The greatest energy issue in the United States is transportation fuel. We have a long range program which addresses the issue by calling for improving energy efficiency of our transportation fleet, by “inventing” batteries that are more viable – technically, economically and reliably. We are working to “invent” biofuels using cellulosic ethanol and algae. But these “inventions” have uncertain time frames and in the case of cellulosic ethanol a definite land limitation relative to U.S. consumption. And so we need a “bridge” to this uncertain time frame. This bridge should entail drilling responsibly in United States land and water areas – probably good for one to two million barrels per day in a decade and 3 million barrels per day in 20 years. AND we need to use America’s abundant coal resources for an additional 3 million barrels per day in 2 decades.
- Both of these “bridge” approaches are being attacked by the environmental community based on environmental issues – including CO2 emissions; which leads to the next issue: How to put a hold on climate change.
* GEOENGINEERING needs to become mainstream. This process of “tinkering” with the Earth on global scale has been kept on the back burner by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; it was mentioned in the last mitigation report Executive Summary of 2007 – but on a back page and in a disparaging way – raising concerns for possible problems – rather than going to the scientist’s approach of calling for study. The environmental community along with the IPCC just won’t talk about geoengineering – fearing that it will result in the long range approach of changing the world’s energy base be side-tracked. The subject has recently been discussed by President Obama’s Science Adviser, John Holdren: see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_sc/sci_obama_science_adviser
Geoengineering has also been included in the subject of a Congressionally mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences under a program called “America’s Climate Choices.” A program meeting was held March 30/31 with video archives at http://americasclimatechoices.org/summit_webcast.shtml
To see a summary statement which says that only geoengineering can have an effect on climate change over the next 2 to 3 decades, go to Session 9 and time slot 53:00. There are other references throughout the meeting for which I can provide time tags on request.
* ELECTRICITY GENERATION: This is by far the “easiest” technological feat to accomplish; though the economics will take some time to be worked out. The long range approaches which have worldwide capacity and distribution to supplant all current use – individually – are solar and geothermal. Wind is an early renewable which has gotten most play because its economics have developed faster than solar and geothermal is a worthwhile contributor. But I see solar, probably in the solar thermal approach with storage and geothermal becoming the backbone of electric generation. The American Southwest, North Africa (to feed Europe per a “Trans-Mediterranean” study, many parts of Australia and many parts of Asia can serve as the resources areas. Geothermal in the EGS (Extended Geothermal Systems) tapping hot rocks needs development but has the capacity.
* LOCAL HEATING/COOLING: Here, the idea would ber to replace the use of natural gas with electricity – using geothermal heat pumps. It just seems so logical. The world really needs to do this.
I think I’ve covered all the bases for energy issue. The one long range activity that truly needs invention remains transportation fuel. I think the answer will probably not be found in batteries or the current primary approaches to biofuels (e.g., algae requires a concentrated source of CO2 as currently envisioned and thus would be tied to coal plants and still spew CO2, but at a lesser rate) and cellulosic ethanol will probably have land limitiations. Hydrogen would need a total new infrastructure for distribution. And so, I see the need, probably for a liquid fuel made from air, water and energy.
Professor
National Defense University/ Georgetown
said: On 01/05/2009
Indeed climate change and the world’s growing energy need demand that we increase the use of alternative energies. My intervention will focus on solar energy. Later in the month I will add in comments on wind, geothermal, ocean energy, tidal energy, and more. For now I will focus on whether solar energy is moving forward fast enough.
It depends on what one means by solar energy. Is it for the production of electricity, water heating, water disinfecting, and desalinization, passive solar heating for houses and greenhouses for agriculture, cooking, process heating (such as for crop drying, etc.), solar chemical processes, water pumping, vehicle propulsion, or many of the other things that solar power can be used for? Overall, the use of solar energy has been a common aspect of human existence for millennia. Consider the drying of crops by the ancient Egyptians, for example, or the simple and time-immemorial act of drying clothes in the sun. Solar energy, mostly passively used, has been so important for human history that some cultures had solar deities.
Solar energy for the production of electricity, vehicle propulsion and the like are fairly new methods of using this massive solar radiation that is granted to us free by the sun. By the way, almost all other sources of energy are secondary solar sources of energy. How could biomass, and hence oil, gas, and coal, exist at all without the sun, and photosynthesis? Winds are produced by temperature and pressure differences in the atmosphere due much to differences in solar radiation. Wave power is then a result of solar radiation effects. Consider the winds in the afternoon along the coastlines of the world. There are patterns of global wind developed via differences in solar radiation in certain areas of the world. Even hydroelectric power has its solar connection. The hydrological cycle including evaporation (from solar radiation) and precipitation is in part based on solar radiation. Without solar power most other energy sources would not even be here.
Solar energy is the largest single source of energy for the earth. The entire use of energy in the world each year is about 15 terawatts equivalent. That includes oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydropower, which account for 99% of this energy use. The other 1% is all other renewable energies. Solar heat and solar voltaic energy are only about .54% total.
The amount of potential terawatts that could be produced from the direct use of solar radiation on earth could be about 86,000 terawatts. (This is not including wind, hydroelectric and other secondary solar energy sources.) The earth receives about 1.3 KW of energy per cubic meter in the best weather and other conditions when the sun is directly overhead. That changes with weather, climate, times of days, times of the years, time within solar cycles, etc.
Not all places in the world are treated equally when it comes to their potential for solar energy uses. The usefulness of solar energy is determined by the solar radiation potential of a specific area. The Sahara Desert, the Sinai, the Empty Quarter in Saudi Arabia, parts of Australia, parts of Spain, and good parts of California and Arizona are great examples of places where solar radiation potentials can lead to enormous production of solar electricity and more. On the other hand, Iceland is not exactly the best place for the use of solar power, especially in the winter time. However, it is blessed with a lot of geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric power. Even generally chilly Iceland is thankful for the power from the sun. One can find solar radiation maps to help judge the usefulness and sometimes profitability of certain solar technologies at places such as: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/ , http://www.bom.gov.au/sat/solrad.shtml , http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/countries/europe.htm , for examples.
Clearly, the most underutilized source of energy in the world is solar power. The use of solar power in photosynthesis makes life on earth possible, but those are though natural events rather than human ingenuity. Solar energy is also clean energy, and renewable. And for the pro-nuclear activists in the audience, solar energy is actually the result of nuclear fusion occurring on the sun.
One of the reasons behind the massive underutilization of solar energy has been the relatively inefficient way solar energy has been converted to electrical energy in the past. Over the past decade in particular there have been huge technological and economic breakthroughs in solar technologies. There have also been significant breakthroughs in the use of solar power for cooking, desalinization, and many of the other uses mentioned above. (Even so, only about 10-15% of the fuel that goes into the typical gas, coal, and oil electricity generating plant is useful energy in households, factories, and so on. Most of that fuel is tossed into the air as heat in generation, and lost along the transmission and distribution lines.)
Another reason for the underutilization of solar energy has been a lack of knowledge about the technologies already developed and being developed. Yet another reason has been the bias against solar energy in some investment circles because it has been seen as an outlier technology when “cheaper” gas, oil and coal has been readily available. In recent years, however, some of the “smart money” has turned to solar energy. Venture capital and private equity has discovered it. Some of the large energy companies, such as BP have started a focus on solar power.
It is still cheaper, externality costs excluded, to make electricity by many other means, such as nuclear power, hydropower dams, and gas-fired generations, in most normal circumstances. Some of the driving forces behind the huge increase in investment in solar energy in the last few years have been the government policies, such as net-metering, tax credits and other subsidy programs. These policies have increased the demand for solar technologies in places like Germany, Japan, the US, Spain and others. (If somehow the entire externality costs of oil, gas, coal, nuclear and other fuels sources were calculated into the price of the electricity produced by them then solar and other energy sources would almost immediately become more competitive. However, the overall macroeconomic effects of such changes, unless they are done very gradually, could be quite negative. ) Most of the investment in the solar industry up to 2004 was from governments. After that private equity and venture capital has been pouring into solar energy technology development, diffusion and applications.
The cost of making a KwH of electricity from solar has dropped considerably in the last decades. Most of the new investments in solar have been for on-grid solar electric devices. There are some huge strides being made in solar investments in mainly OECD countries, India and China. Even so, solar electric energy is still only a tiny percentage of all electricity production worldwide, and in the OECD. Some believe that the price of producing electricity from solar will be far more competitive in the next few years. After that one should expect that investments will really take off.
One of the arguments against solar power is that the energy is produces cannot be stored. Actually, it can. This can be done via heating special salts during the day, and having this energy stored over the evening times. The molten salts can be used to create steam from ammonia or another liquid that gasifies at fairly low temperatures, or it can even be used to make steam from water, which can be used to turn turbines to produce electricity. The energy produced from the CSP during the days can also be stored at pressurized air, in batteries, pressurized steam, graphite, cement, and some rather interesting phase-changing materials (PSMs). Sandia Lab has a good, short description of molten salts storage: http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm.
Here is something from DOE on solar thermal storage: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/thermal_storage.html. Clearly a lot more needs to be done in storing this energy, but it is just a matter of time – and of incentives.
The potential for solar electric energy is massive, particularly when one considers projects such as DESERTEC that could develop huge amounts of electricity for Europe, North Africa and beyond by tapping the gigantic solar radiation of the Sahara Desert. (Please see http://www.desertec.org/.) I present this project to my classes; most particularly how DESERTEC is looking into the production of desalted, clean water along with electricity via CSP (concentrated solar power) for the Gaza Strip. There are some technical and political issues to be ironed out, but this sort of project can bring some hope to many areas of the world that are in need of alternative energy sources and clean, fresh water. Applying this to the Israeli-Arab issues could surely be a lot cheaper than the next war over water and energy.
Then there are the potentially revolutionary technologies of the various solar towers, including one I consider one of the most ingenious energy inventions I have heard about, the solar tower of Environmission of Australia. This is an amazing technology that could be used throughout the world, but with particularly good applications in the areas of the world where the solar radiation potential is best. Its greenhouse emissions over its life cycle are minor per kilowatt hour. It produces no carbon in its production of electricity. It uses the simple concept of hot air rising, such as what happens in any fireplace. When the air is heated, which in this case happens in the local environment and is helped by solar panels that surround the tower, it whooshes through many large wind turbines at the base of the solar tower, and then it rushes up the tower to the cooler air above. The huge solar panel circle around the tower also produced electricity. This solar tower can be connected to a power grid or could be the major source of a distributed energy system in an area. Hundreds of thousands of households, schools and businesses then have reliable solar energy. Please see: http://www.enviromission.com.au/IRM/content/home.html. There is a good video on how the tower works at http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/building-the-future-solar-power-tower.html. I met Dr. Martin, one of the genii behind this project, 4 years ago in Australia. He presented this idea to my NDU students at a hotel in Sydney. After that I have presented this idea to many audiences. New ideas usually have a tough time getting to be common ideas. This is the sort of idea that, after a few things are worked out, could be revolutionary. Sometimes the best solutions are the simple ones.
The Israelis and others have solar tower ideas that are quite fantastic. Some of these ideas can be found at: http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/new_et-brochure_zaslavsky.pdf . The Stirling Energy Systems utility grid solar application is yet another example of something with potential: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/ . Indeed, some of the solar ideas coming out do seem rather like science fiction, but not long ago the internet, space flight, and even flying in jet aircraft would have been considered science fiction. Surely some of these technologies and their economics need to be ironed out, and the final results could be very different from what we are observing today, both in their engineering and in their economics. The more common application of concentrated solar power is already on its way, although not without some bumps along the way: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/.
Unfortunately, many of the applications of solar energy that could do some of the most good, such as improving the health, economic opportunities, educational potential, and even the safety of people in Africa, Southeast Asia, and part of Latin American, are vastly underutilized and underinvested. Only about 17% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa has access to electricity. Most people in Sub-Saharan Africa have little or no access to clean water. Over a billion people worldwide have no access to clean water. Solar energy may be a way to get that clean water to them, even via passive solar desalinization, such as through SODIS, or via solar boiling techniques that could be easily and cheaply diffused. Investing a few million in these applications in these areas could save a large number of lives, and improve the lives of even more people.
Investments in grid-connected solar energy in the rich, industrialized countries increased 20 times from 2004 to 2007. Solar electric energy investments have been the quickest growing renewable energy investments in the world. Even so, these are dwarfed many times over by exploration and production investments in oil, gas and coal. But grid-connected solar electric power is the fastest growing energy investment in the world, but it has a long way to go to make any real headway in overall world energy use.
As we face down the multiple barrels of guns from global warming, peak oil, the health effects of hydrocarbons, potential hydrocarbon conflicts, and more then there may be much greater emphasis on sources of energy such as solar power.
However, it will have lots of competition from sources such as nuclear, wind, hydropower, biofuels, geothermal, methane hydrates, and some technologies and energy sources we may not even be considering. Solar power will likely become more important, and more investment will follow, as we head toward the post-hydrocarbon world that is inevitable, even if its exact timing is not clearly predictable given the thousands of variables that need to be considered. However, in the portfolio of energy choices that we will likely face in the future solar will likely gain in importance. However, let’s not rule out those coming disruptive technologies that may push things in very different directions than we may consider possible today.
Oil and gas will remain important for some time, but they may likely prove to be increasingly expensive bridges to our energy futures. Investment in solar power will increase as the needs for this energy source conversion to other energy types, such as to electricity for households, factories, offices, transport and the like increase. The future is coming a lot faster than some may think.
Research Assistant
NATTA
said: On 02/05/2009
We are living on borrowed time as far as climate change is concerned. Our fossil fuels are not only being used to meet our transport, power and heating demands, but are also, temporarily, propping up our ability to feed our rapidly growing population. The carbon footprint in agriculture, worldwide is immense.
At the beginning of the 20th century, through the Haber Bosch process, we found a way of fixing nitrogen from the air to make fertilisers. We used these fertilizers plus herbicides and pesticides, along with heavy farm machinery, in order to expand our food production, particularly in the West. All this is currently dependent on fossil fuel input, throughout the production cycle, which allows us to boost our potential global calorific intake by roughly a third.
What happens, when after ‘peak oil’ the monetary value of fossil fuel is such that we can no longer afford to use it as a fundamental input into our existing food production chain?
Renewables, with the right political will, could go a long way to addressing our future energy needs. But it will take time for them to expand enough to be able to meet all our needs. The crunch, in food terms, will come long before that. And there are ultimate limits to how much renewables can supply. We cannot continue to expand material consumption forever, on a planet with finite resources. The limits include land for energy and food production, water and, more fundamentally, the total amount of incoming solar energy the planet receives.
We in Britain are, according to the New Economics Foundation, using up roughly three and a half planets on the basis of our current annual lifestyle choices. The US is currently at 5.3. Not only will climate change make agricultural production more challenging, with greater uncertainty as to rainfall and drought conditions, but we will not have the benefits of this fossil ‘fuelled’ holiday from Darwinian evolution, that has largely underpinned the progress from the Industrial Revolution onwards.
While we can and should push ahead with renewables as fast as possible, we can also make lifestyle choices that lower our energy demands, such as becoming largely vegetarian, choosing to work in the same place that we currently live in, consuming less material goods and using fewer energy-intensive services. But these potentials for radical energy saving are dependent on accepting a “no growth” economy. We in the West should have ambitions to use and own less. This is the exact opposite of the principles on which Western economic development programme has historically been based. We have allowed the fossil fuel boom to lull us into the idea that expanding and spreading free market economies will allow us all to consume more- forever.
And this is how we have ‘historically’ defined progress! We will have to overthrow this archaic idea and inculcate new values, that don’t depend on ever increasing fossil fuel inputs, or indeed ever increasing renewable energy inputs, in order to achieve a new ‘quality of life’ that is not based on material consumption as its ‘qualitative’ basis. We need to believe that ‘less is more’ in a sustainable and even possibly a ‘spiritual’ sense if the human race is to continue much beyond the next century. Climate change is the driver, and unless we wean ourselves off the existing ‘passenger’ mentality we are on ‘a hiding to nowhere’ as, globally, there won’t be much left that will be ‘liveable’ in. And on the way to that, unless we change path, we face many potential social crises, for example in relation food production and the health of the ‘food chain’. Apparently it was an old MI5 maxim, that we were only ‘9 meals away from anarchy’, which is perhaps overdoing the drama, but like many an old adage, it has a grain of truth in the sentiment.
Principal Engineer and Manager of the Thermal Systems Group
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
said: On 02/05/2009
Probably the simplest indicator of our progress in addressing climate change is the amount of carbon dioxide contained in the atmosphere. It is now at 386 parts per million—more than 30% higher than at any time in at least the past 800,000 years—and rising at a rate of roughly 2 ppm per year. Based on studies of the Earths’ climate history, NASA climate scientist James Hansen has concluded that the polar ice sheets cannot be sustained at carbon dioxide levels above about 350 ppm. It is clear that unless we greatly increase our efforts to use energy more efficiently and convert to carbon-free forms of energy, mountain glaciers and ice sheets will continue to melt at an accelerating rate.
Numerous studies have shown that the costs of environmental damage resulting from climate change will vastly exceed the costs of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It is thus imperative, both from an environmental and an economic standpoint, that we deploy carbon-free energy much more rapidly. Addressing climate change will provide many additional benefits including cleaning up our air, creating millions of new jobs, and reducing our dependence on dwindling world oil supplies.
Senior Analyst
Greentech Media
said: On 02/05/2009
The brief answer is, no. Although there is greater awareness as to the scientific veracity of global warming and its dangers than ever before, the fact of the matter is that the international community, by and large, has not responded in proportion to the urgency of the problem we are facing. Developing nations such as India and China, currently in the midst of their industrial revolutions, are building coal plants by the week, meaning that without their co-operation, solving the carbon problem on a global level is extremely challenging, if not intractable. Simultaneously, developed nations also lag far behind the curve: most available hydroelectricity options have been utilized to the hilt, and solar and wind installations in Western nations currently constitute a miniscule proportion of installed generating capacity. Most damning is the failure of the U.S. to sign the Kyoto protocol and the fact that it has not approved the pricing of carbon thus far, and will likely not implement such a legal framework for the next few years – which would result in significant financial incentives for the adoption renewable electricity. If any further proof of our lack of urgency was required, a look at the CO2 meter would suffice: it stood at 394 parts per million in March 2009, the highest in 650,000 years – this in the midst of a global macro-economic slowdown. Those in the know must solider on, but it would require a suspension of belief to say that the picture is not bleak.
Senior Research Fellow
University of Oxford
said: On 05/05/2009
Some countries are making substantial progress but on the whole I feel that this is not happening fast enough. The interaction between science and media has unfortunately painted a fuzzy picture leaving many people confused about the potential consequences of climate change. While climate models are not sufficiently accurate to make any clear predictions on local scales, most scientists are in agreement that climate change is taking place and that this will present many challenges in terms of the variability of weather patterns and extreme events. It is dangerous to think that the impacts of climate change will eventually become so obvious that we can simply change our behaviour in time to reverse the effects before reaching a point of no return. Integrating large amounts of wind power onto our existing power systems will be challenging and requires the adoption of complicated techniques for dealing with the variability of wind power. New mechanisms will be required to operate our future power systems efficiently with multiple forms of alternative energy, but we have to accept that this is not simply a difficult problem but something that must be overcome in order to address climate change. I am also developing mathematical models to relate natural catastrophes to observations of key variables such as wind and rainfall. This research will be employed to develop parametric insurance products for providing protection to those at risk of adverse weather conditions. Even if one is not concerned about climate change, it should be clear that making power systems more efficient and improving risk management is a good idea.
Director, Energy, Principal Analyst
Navigant Consulting
said: On 06/05/2009
There is a short easy answer to this question – no, the increase in the use of alternative energies is not fast enough. Globally, we need to make a real commitment, and this will mean a short term sacrifice, in order to more rapidly implement changes in our energy choices. In terms of electricity, since my area is the photovoltaic industry, this means re-educating electricity consumers that the energy that allows them to easily flip the light switch or turn on an appliance has a higher cost than what appears on the monthly electricity bill. The cost of polluting forms of electricity is catastrophic climate change along with significant health concerns that come with breathing unhealthy air. As a global society, we need to make a commitment to mindset change from what appears to be easy – though, at a significant cost to us, and to future generations – to what seems difficult and costly, but is really necessary and freeing. Solar electricity is a clean, renewable form of energy with low running costs, and is one answer in a portfolio of renewable technologies all of which will move us to true energy independence. The price we pay for delaying our conversion to renewable technologies as a significant part of the energy mix is higher than the initial cost of implementation.
Lecturer
University of Exeter
said: On 07/05/2009
Indeed the growing energy demand in combination with climate change needs not only an acceleration of alternative energies but also a re-thinking of national and global energy policies. The sources of Renewable Energy should take a major part within the future energy supply, and as such we have to accelerate the development/installation at a fast rate. However, the integration of Renewable Energy can not be achieved simply by accelerating the production of energy from sustainable sources without ‘designing’ a wider strategy of overcoming demand and supply issues. For example, ‘Smart’ electricity supply would be an essential part within the integration of electricity from Renewable Energy, and in particular if wind, wave and tidal sources will have a major part in the energy supply. Resuming, the energy supply from alternative sources has to be accelerated whilst the development has to be integrated in a wider energy and supply context, that requires major changes in national and global energy policies.
Lead Author
KPMG Sustainability
said: On 12/05/2009
The three forces of climate change, increasing energy demand and natural resource depletion have combined creating the perfect opportunity to re-think our attitudes towards energy and embrace cleaner alternatives.
Together these forces should have been a sufficient catalyst to push forward the alternative energy agenda. However, I feel after a bright start the agenda has been dragging its heels of late. In the short-term we see price irrationality due to low energy prices, the financial crisis and projects not being financed, even though economically these projects are still viable.
In our report Turning up the heat (2008) – a look into M&A in the renewable energy sector – we revealed an explosion in the number of deals. Analysts estimated that 2007 saw US$55.7 billion in M&A transactions up by 47 percent on the year before. However, according to New Energy Finance, in the first quarter of 2009 there has been a significant drop in clean-tech investment (53% below the level achieved in Q1 2008). Later this month we will publish a revised edition of our report Turning up the heat, which will provide a thorough assessment of recent M&A activity.
Obviously the current economic environment is having an impact on current investment decisions – funding is either unavailable or it is very hard to come by.
To briefly summarise, I believe this is only a short-term setback and remain confident that once the markets pick up we will witness increased investment activity in the alternative energy sector, given the imperatives for G20 economies to reduce carbon emissions and improve energy security.
Professor and Head of the Chemistry Department.
Virginia Tech
said: On 12/05/2009
A great quality of humans is that they react well with innovation and determination when confronted with a crisis. A bad quality is that they often only react well in face of an immediate crisis and when that immediacy disappears, they often relax and become complacent. Hence, we are currently not doing enough to develop alternate sources of energy right now since the recent energy crisis has “disappeared”. Of course it hasn’t, but unless the consequences are being felt now, the crisis is out of mind. In the late 1970’s there were impressive programs to provide energy sources apart from petroleum: coal liquefaction, coal gasification, syngas to fuels and chemicals, solar energy and nuclear energy. When the “crisis” responsible for those initiatives abated all of those programs disappeared. The crisis did not – it was simply waiting in the background.
Several approaches could help us along a path that will address the crisis, many of them requiring a certain amount of government influence. First, research into engine and fuels research should be accelerated and results implemented on a very short time scale of 3-5 years. A 10% improvement in engine efficiencies could provide several more years of petroleum reserves that would allow for development of energy alternatives. Moving vehicle production to a greater mix of hybrids and electrics could also aid in this part of the plan. Second, large oil companies should be persuaded to invest much more heavily in alternative energy research. At the moment, many appear to carry out enough research to yield a public relations benefit and not make a significant contribution to solving the energy problems. Tax credits given to those companies who make significant contributions to university research in energy areas could be a friendly means of persuasion with taxes on the oil companies going to research could be a more direct means. Finally, in each country, the implementation of alternate energy sources must be a political priority akin to the Manhattan Project. Waiting for the marketplace to react at a pace that is needed to address our current situation is not acceptable. The waxing and waning of the marketplace will have us on a research rollercoaster: we will travel rapidly with many ups and downs but, in the end, going nowhere.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 26/05/2009
The quest for alternative, non-fossil fuel, energy sources is driven by two misconceptions: (1) The mistaken belief in “peak oil” (that we are nearing the complete depletion and exhaustion of economically extractable oil reserves) and (2) That market mechanisms cannot be trusted to provide adequate and timely responses to energy needs (in other words that markets are prone to failure).
At the end of the 19th century, books and pamphlets were written about “peak coal”. People and governments panicked: what would satisfy the swelling demand for energy? Apocalyptic thinking was rampant. Then, of course, came oil. At first, no one knew what to do with the sticky, noxious, and occasionally flammable substance. Gradually, petroleum became our energetic mainstay and gave rise to entire industries (petrochemicals and automotive, to mention but two).
History will repeat itself: the next major source of energy is very unlikely to be hatched up in a laboratory. It will be found fortuitously and serendipitously. It will shock and surprise pundits and laymen alike. And it will amply cater to all our foreseeable needs. It is also likely to be greener than carbon-based fuels.
More generally, the market can take care of itself: energy does not have the characteristics of a public good and therefore is rarely subject to market breakdowns and unalleviated scarcity. Energy prices have proven themselves to be a sagacious regulator and a perspicacious invisible hand.
Until this holy grail (“the next major source of energy”) reveals itself, we are likely to increase the shares of nuclear and wind sources in our energy consumption pie. Our industries and cars will grow even more energy-efficient. But there is no escaping the fact that the main drivers of global warming and climate change are population growth and the emergence of an energy-guzzling middle class in developing and formerly poor countries. These are irreversible economic processes and only at their inception.
Global warming will, therefore, continue apace no matter which sources of energy we deploy. It is inevitable. Rather than trying to limit it in vain, we would do better to adapt ourselves: avoid the risks and cope with them while also reaping the rewards (and, yes, climate change has many positive and beneficial aspects to it).
Climate change is not about the demise of the human species as numerous self-interested (and well-paid) alarmists would have it. Climate change is about the global redistribution and reallocation of economic resources. No wonder the losers are sore and hysterical. It is time to consider the winners, too and hear their hitherto muted voices. Alternative energy is nice and all but it is rather besides the point and it misses both the big picture and the trends that will make a difference in this century and the next.
Communications Chair
United Soybean Board
said: On 28/05/2009
As I wrote last month, soy biodiesel can be a part of the world’s future energy mix, but like other parts of that solution, we must be doing it bigger, better and faster. U.S. soybean farmers and others in the U.S. soy industry already have the structure in place to accomplish just that.
Through the U.S. soybean industry’s research and promotion program on behalf of all U.S. soybean farmers, the United Soybean Board (USB) has helped increase annual U.S. soybean production from under 2 billion bushels in 1991 to nearly 3 billion bushels in 2008. As part of its production research efforts, USB has spent millions of dollars looking for ways to increase U.S. soybean yields. With USB’s investment, a team of researchers recently sequenced the soybean’s genome, which will prove to be immensely helpful with future research efforts, including those looking into higher yields.
Scientists are studying the soybean genome, looking for signs that point to higher yields. While there does not appear to be one magic gene that will alone have a huge effect on yield, there are plenty of genes that look like they should collectively contribute to higher yields. Stacking those genes in the right combination will one day give us a much higher yielding soybean germplasm.
USB has already played a major part in the development of the biodiesel industry, which has boosted production from about 500,000 gallons in 1999 to an industry estimate of nearly 700 million gallons last year. With continued research into increasing soybean yields, which results in more soybean oil that could potentially be used to manufacture more soy biodiesel, USB can continue helping biodiesel find its place as part of the world’s future energy solution.
Higher soybean yields benefit everyone: farmers who get paid by the bushel; humans who eat soy foods; animals that eat soy feeds; equipment that can use clean, renewable soy fuel; and our planet, which depends on us to find new renewable ways of powering our lives.
President
The Clearlight Foundation
said: On 20/06/2010
Every six hours the sun bathes the lands of the earth in as much energy as the world consumes in a year. If we could just find a way to collect and distribute that energy our energy problems would be solved. Unfortunately, most of our energy consumption is in the places with the least sunshine.
Biomass captures and stores the suns energy for later use. In tropical zones biomass grows year round and can be five times more productive than in the temperate zones. Biomass can be converted to denser forms and shipped to where it is needed surprisingly economically. For example, ocean shipping of coal priced at $73/ton from Australia to China only adds about $12/ton to the final cost. Wood chips are bulkier, but they can be made as dense as coal by heating and compressing them into torrefied pellets.
Ocean shipping is amazingly more efficient for long distances than electrical transmission. Australia has shipped an average of two million tons of coal per month to China so far this year. Ordinary (untorrefied) wood pellets have less than half the energy density of coal, yet Plantation Energy just signed two contracts to ship $130 million worth of pellets to Europe over the next three years. With torrefied pellets shipping costs could be halved so the economics would work out even better. Torrefaction is like coffee roasting. It requires no external energy but uses about 8% of the biomass energy to drive the process. Some of that energy is recovered because pelletizing energy is reduced because the heat-softened lignin in the biomass makes it easier to compress into pellets.
Another big biofuel order recently announced by Valero Energy could be worth up to $3.5 billion dollars. Mission New Energy, an Australian company, will deliver 60 million gallons per year of biodiesel oil from Jatropha crops in Malaysia. Jatropha is a drought-resistant bush with oily seeds that are easily converted to diesel fuel. It is not edible and thrives in tropical climates but requires manual labor for picking the seeds. The all-year growing season, tropical sun and availability of inexpensive labor provides a clean replacement for diesel fuel that can be shipped by the same tankers used for fossil fuel. Valero’s annual sales are $120 billion, so this is a serious order.
Mission New Energy works with small farmers to encourage them to plant the bushes on unused and marginal land. They can press their own oil and sell it to the refinery. Larger farmers can refine the oil themselves, as the refining process is very simple compared to petroleum refining.
Jatropha can also be planted on depleted, marginal forestland to restore the land. Mission is careful to maintain a balance between food, fuel and forest so the development is a plus for the community. Unlike factory development, biomass makes it possible for people to remain on their ancestral lands and make money doing clean, outdoor farm work. With industrialization everybody moves to the city to work on dehumanizing production lines. Growing biomass can become a major source of income for the poor and undeveloped tropical countries of the world.
Biomass feedstocks can be grown on soils that have no other uses. For example, Florida has 100,000 acres of phosphate clays that are not stable enough to build on and useless for growing food crops. Leucaena is a bushy legume that grows nicely on these lands. It can be harvested three times per year using standard harvesting machinery to chop it into chips and put it into a truck that follows the harvest machinery. Yields of up to 25 dry tons/acre per year have been obtained but 15 tons is a reasonable average.
Moringa is another legume that has achieved even higher productivity and is tolerant of sulfate acid soils. Legumes need no nitrogen fertilizer because they can fix nitrogen from the air. In semi-desert areas, specially adapted plants like Agave can be grown with no irrigation. Agave stores water in its leaves and heart so that it can continue growing through the long dry seasons that are common in the tropics.
Bamboo has been known to grow as much as 48 inches in a 24-hour period and has been observed growing 39 inches per hour for brief periods. The plants can grow to full height in 3-4 months but die naturally on a six-year cycle.
Clenergen has been growing a variety called Beema Bamboo in India for four years achieving a yield of over 60 tons/acre after four years of cultivation. The company has also been raising a tree called Paulownia for several years with a yield of 40 tons/acre. The company uses a process in which it gasifies the biomass to generate local electrical power but it has announced plans to use gas-to-liquids technology to make liquid fuels out of the syngas. Liquid fuels can be inexpensively shipped around the world by existing tankers.
In fact, biomass can be converted into a wide range of energy carriers for economic shipping. Here are some possibilities and their volume energy density in Watt-hours per liter:
Crude oil, biodiesel 8800 watt-hr/liter
LNG (Biomethane) 7216 (must be stored at -268°F)
Torrefied Wood Pellets 6500
Ethanol 6100
Methanol 4600
Ammonia 3100
Wood Pellets 2777
Liquid Hydrogen 2600 (must be stored at -423°F)
CNG 250 bar biomethane 2500
Wood chips 1388
Hydrogen, 150 bar
405
Lithium Ion Battery 300
The technology for converting biomass to gas and liquid fuels is well known. Methanol, also known as “wood alcohol,” is readily produced from biomass through gasification and catalytic synthesis. Methanol fuel cells can convert it to electricity for efficient hybrid electric cars. Methanol has a big advantage because it can be reformed into hydrogen at 200 °C, about half the temperature of other fuels. This makes fast warm up times practical, greatly reducing battery size. During World War II methanol was used extensively in Europe to keep cars running in the face of gasoline shortages.
Methanol and other liquid fuels can be made efficiently on a small scale using microchannel technology, originally developed for the space program. Velosys and Oxford Catalyst have developed a working prototype of a biomass-to-FT-liquids plant that is just being installed in Güssing, Austria. The 5 ft diameter X 25 ft assembly of 10 microchannel reactors is connected to a biomass gasifier and will output 400 barrels per day of ultraclean synthetic crude oil. This output can be shipped just like crude oil and burned or converted to a full range of clean, carbon-neutral fuels by conventional oil refineries. The microchannel reactor is much more efficient than massive-scale gas-to-liquids plants. The microchannel approach is much like a chemical microprocessor. This kind of small-scale upgrading technology will soon make it possible for tropical areas to convert their plentiful sunshine into easily shipped liquid and solid fuels.
Another approach to exporting solar power involves using electricity as the carrier. The Desertec scheme envisions building HVDC electrical transmission links under the Mediterranean Sea to connect the Sahara desert to the European grid. Massive solar thermal plants in the desert would then supply electricity to all of Europe. Similar concepts for Australia, India, and the USA have been worked out. It still remains to be seen if solar thermal with overnight storage can really be economical. Perhaps someday, but in the meantime, low-tech wood-pellet production is already working at prices almost competitive with coal.
Desertec is like the supercomputer approach while biomass is more like distributed microcomputers. An informal network of low tech, minimal investment biomass operations spread over the world and using existing transportation infrastructure could make a nice living for millions of small low-tech biomass entrepreneurs. Like the Internet, no central control is needed, just a free market that rewards innovation and efficiency. Ocean shipping compares very favorably with HVDC electrical transmission for efficiency. The energy wasted on a long ocean voyage is a tiny percent of the energy being transported.
Already, in 2008 the worldwide pellet market had reached 10 million tons. About 25% of it is already exported to other countries and the market is growing at 25-30% per year. As equipment for upgrading energy density improves, the economics of this market will also improve dramatically. Some power plants in Europe are running entirely on wood pellets but the pellet’s lower density means that extensive modification of the power plant are needed. Torrefied pellets can be burned without modifying the power plant. They can be stored, pulverized and burned just like coal. With shipping costs halved, the economics are compelling.
The southern United States has lots of sunshine and rain so it is an excellent biomass growing area. The most efficient model for biomass is to grow it locally in a small radius around a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant built where thermal heat is needed. Efficiencies of 90% are often attained because all heat that is normally wasted is used. A recent study showed that the southeastern U.S. could easily be energy self-sufficient. The U.S. government has done some detailed studies showing the dramatic environmental superiority of biomass power over fossil fuel plants. Even conventional farming techniques using fertilizers, insecticides and mechanization turn out to have an excellent energy efficiency factor of 20.5 under a detailed analysis that includes all energy inputs including the energy to make the farm machinery. With all of the energy inputs subtracted, the plantation analyzed yielded a net energy production of 125 MWh per acre per year.
You may have heard that biomass is much less efficient than photovoltaic cells. Solar cells are typically rated around 10% efficiency but this rating ignores the fact that the average energy from the sun is only about 20% of peak. The real average efficiency then is .1 X .2 = 2%. If we look at land use of some real projects now on the drawing boards we find that the latest photovoltaic, parabolic and tower projects all use about 5-6 acres per peak MW.
The Saguaro 1-MW parabolic trough plant near Phoenix for example, generates 2000 MWh of electricity annually, using 15.8 acres. That’s 130 MWh per acre per year. The 125 MWh figure for the biomass plantation that I mentioned above is for heating value. Electricity generation can be 80% efficient if it is done where wasted thermal energy can be used as in CHP plants. So biomass is at least in the same ballpark as other solar technologies for land use but much cheaper to implement, store and transport than direct electrical generation.
Some terrible mistakes have been made in recent years when tropical rain forests and peat bogs were burned for agricultural development. Big trees should not be replaced by a succession of little trees. We must structure carbon trading so that such acts are taxed and only sound actions are rewarded. Clearing land by open-air burning is common today. If simple, inexpensive equipment was available for upgrading biomass to shippable products, logging waste could be put to good use replacing coal power.
Biomass can help keep the lights on while we build more renewable capacity. If we don’t use it, coal will certainly fill the gap. Sweden, Norway and Finland have been making heavy use of biomass for power for decades. They have structured their laws to encourage good stewardship of the land. We can do the same thing internationally by defining good rules for carbon trading.
Business Developer
Energy MC
said: On 15/12/2010
I believe we need to keep on working on its development until we reach a certain threshold, and afterwards its development will accelerate. According to me, determining (technological) factors in this development are the transition of a centralized electricity grid to a decentralized one, material scarcity and electricity storage capacity. Apart from that, it will require us to create a new economic reality or mechanism in which we quantify more dynamics that determine the sustainability of our economic development. In other words, we need to determine economic growth on the basis of different and augmented parameters.