Renew your energy: July 2010 Archives
In 1997, 'Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use' by Ernst von Weizsäcker, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, agued that technical innovation could cut resource use in half while doubling wealth. A new book, upgraded to 'Factor Five', builds on this idea- looking at how and where factor four gains have been made in the intervening period, and at how we might achieve greater factor five or 80%+ improvements in resource and energy productivity in future, in line with IPCCs recommended target of 80% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
It provides an overview of efficiency opportunities across a range of sectors. The approach is very positive and optimistic, making it hard to make any criticisms without appearing churlish, as with a most work from what is now sometimes called the Amory Lovins school of analysis. But it ought to be asked- aren't there limits to what can be achieved by energy efficiency? Using fuels more efficiently, in terms of both their conversion and consumption, means less emissions for the same amount of energy finally used. So obviously that's a priority. Investing in efficiency is also often seen as an economically attractive option. It is certainly true that, in the past, since fuels have often been relatively abundant and cheap, we have not paid much attention to their efficient use. So there is a lot of potential for cheap and easy energy saving options which we can and should exploit. Initial Factor 5 gains seem not unreasonable expectations. However once these 'low hanging fruit' options have been exhausted, there will surely be diminishing returns: it will, in many cases, be progressively harder and more expensive to make further savings.
This is where there is a key disagreement. The Lovins school view seems to be that costs of energy saving will continue to fall as new technology emerges. It is certainly true that for most mass-produced items, prices do fall from the initially expensive first versions- think of DVD players. It's the classic learning curve model. But it's not true of all products- e.g. cars are getting more efficient, but also more expensive.
Can Factor 5 type efficiency/resource savings continue to be made across the board, with costs continually reducing? Especially also given the rebound effect- with cost savings from efficiency often being used to buy more energy services, so undermining the emission savings. The new Factor 5 book does recognise this issue (Lovins tends to have dismissed it in the past as 'small') but suggests that the way out is to ramp up prices of fuels and resources to squeeze out consumption and steer consumers to the use of less energy and resource intensive options, including renewables. Certainly, if the money saved from efficiency is invested in renewables, then you capture all the emissions savings. And, like Factor 4, the new Factor 5 analysis does include the use of renewables- it's a key part of their programme. After all, quite apart from the rebound issue, that is where we might expect some major 'Factor 5' emission savings, i.e. from the widespread use of renewable energy supplies, although not necessarily with ever-diminishing costs. Clearly, whatever we do to improve efficiency, there will still be a need for new energy sources, as the availability of fossil fuels declines, and as we seek to avoid using them, for environmental reasons. But there are ecological and resource limits to how much we can get from renewables, and that means an acceptance of the need to curtail consumption at some point.
Whereas Lovins sometimes seems to have implied that we can all have more of everything, the new book challenge the simple 'win-win-win' belief that we can expect reduced costs and emissions while continuing to expand material consumption: it talks of rising eco-taxes and a focus on qualitative 'well being' in a more equitable world - a much more palatable, if maybe a little utopian, version of win-win-win, which most of us would no doubt be happy to sign up to. Growth may be vital for some developing economies in the medium term to allow populations to move beyond subsistence level, but it can't go on forever, everywhere. The result, after all, does not bear thinking of- endless material growth in an increasingly fractious and alienated global society, until it all shudders to a social and ecological halt. Much as the Dark Mountain group fears: for their rather different view on how we should respond, see www.dark-mountain.net
The above is based on my review in issue 186 of Renew: http://www.natta-renew.org
John Etherington's The Wind Farm Scam – an ecologist's evaluation (Stacey International, London, 2009) is evidently seen as a definitive text by anti-wind groups. You don't have to read much of it to see why. Here are a few quotes. He says that the wind power industry is determined "…to drive roadway after roadway through lonely places, to dump concrete in enormous quantity, to bulldoze acres of hillside into wind farms studded with gigantic, identically mass-produced steel and plastic monsters. This is akin to demolishing the great cathedrals for road stone or shredding the contents of the National Gallery to make wall insulation".
He says that "…as the developers have grabbed the remote lands of Britain, so their flailing blades perforce creep closer to habitations". He describes windfarm turbines as "wind monsters" spreading "environmental harm" and sees anti-wind campaigners as "the heroic defenders of the land". And, rather than "twitching crucifixions of landscape", he recommends, as an alternative, nuclear power, which he claims "could give secure supply of very large amounts of electricity". For good measure he's also a bit of a contrarian on climate change: he feels that: "It is not credible that the virtual-world output of the models can reliably be used to make policy decision."
So can this book be ignored as just a silly opinionated diatribe? Unfortunately no, since John Etherington is an ecologist and academic of some standing, having been reader in ecology at the University of Wales, Cardiff, and a former editor of The Ecologist. And the bulk of the book consist of a well written and detailed account of wind power – how it works and what problems there might be – with much of this being respectably done, even if there are occasional lapses and errors. Some of the errors are technical – he is not an engineer and occasionally slips up on details, some of which are important.
Fortunately Prof. John Twidell has provided a detailed critique, pointing out the errors and misunderstandings, in a review in Wind Engineering, Vol. 34, Issue 3, pp 335-350' , 2010. For example, Twidell notes that, in his account of the impact of variable inputs from wind turbines on the grid, Etherington fails to mention that demand is constantly changing, and that supply has to be altered to match the demand. This omission is serious, since the impression is given that variations as from wind power are distinct and previously unknown, whereas the variations due to changes in load have always been similar and predominantly more extreme. Thus a grid that copes with load/demand variation, copes easily with the arrival of wind power. A similar unforgivable error is not to mention that all forms of generation fail and hence need back-up strategies. Maintaining short-term operating reserve capacity with a range of mechanisms to balance supply and demand have always been the central tasks for grid operators.'
There are many more such examples of omissions or errors, which are catalogued in detail in Twidell's 8,000 word assessment, along with some statements which can only be described as disingenous: Etherington describes the various ways in which wind projects have been financed, with most (like the Renewable Obligation and Feed In Tariffs) passing the costs on to consumers. Nothing new there – it's all well known. So how can he then complain about "huge and concealed benefits to the wind power developers and covert arrangements which prevent this from being common knowledge"?
Twidell's review deserves to be widely read – it's a carefully measured analysis, which strives to keep irritation at the anti-wind rhetoric in check. He even rather kindly offers a let-out at the end: "Visual impact and its psychological implications is probably the key to understanding the divisions exposed by this book; every other criticism from Etherington and his colleagues probably flows from this problem." Other readers may not be so kind.
Even so, despite its often hectoring tone, this book deserves to be read: some wind-power enthusiasts do overstate their case, there certainly can be problems with managing wind systems, and it is always useful to have beliefs and certainties challenged, especially since, on most plans, many countries around the world now expect to rely on wind for large parts of their energy input in the years ahead. In addition, this book may also serve as a timely reminder to us all, whatever our beliefs, that "purple prose" and rhetoric do not sit well with, and can undermine, more careful analysis. And that is something that can apply to "greens" as well as to contrarians.
You can access Twidell's review at www.embracemyplanet.com/critique-wind-farm-scam.
For more on renewable-energy policy and issues, visit www.natta-renew.org.
"We advocate inverting and fragmenting the conventional approach: accepting that taming climate change will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals that are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic. Without a fundamental re-framing of the issue, new mandates will not be granted for any fresh courses of action, even good ones".
That's the line adopted in the Hartwell report, by an international group of academics co-ordinated by the London School of Economics. They claim that 'it is now plain that it is not possible to have a climate policy that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal'. They note that 'in particular the ambitions for regional- let alone global - "Cap & Trade" regimes to regulate carbon by price, can be now seen to have been barren in their stated aims although profitable for some in unexpected and unwelcome ways.'
They say that in any case we shouldn't just be focussing on climate change: 'there are many other reasons why the decarbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable'. In the approach they would like to see 'decarbonisation is achieved as a by-product of pursuing more pragmatic and popular primary goals, including expanding energy access, energy security and, ultimately, making energy less expensive and more abundant.'
They also claim that we have focussed too much on carbon. So for example they want vigorous and early action on non-CO2 climate forcing agents like black carbon and tropospheric ozone. But their main overall concern is to rebuild public trust via successful improvements in energy efficiency and new energy innovation which clearly cut costs. So they want to develop 'non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels' and advocate funding this work by 'low' hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes.
However they say that there is a way to go: renewables are still mostly expensive, 'except under the best of circumstances, i.e. when located at optimal sites; close to existing transmission lines; displacing peak generation rather than base load, and serving a constituency willing to pay higher prices'. In passing, they manage a dig at 'the chilling history of European and particularly British wind-power, recently', which has 'led to poorly-chosen wind facilities that have performed much less well than promised, with serious financial and social consequences because they also distort overall portfolio investment decisions in significant ways'
Clearly they see carbon taxes, as being better than government subsidies, which is evidently what they see as being the basis of the EU approach. In fact, at present, RD&D apart, there are not many EU government subsidies - the UK's RO, the Feed In Tariffs in the EU, and even the EU Emission Trading System, are all in the end supported by extra charges levied by supply companies on consumers - not by taxpayers.
While the authors clearly don't like subsidies, really though their fundamental objection to current climate policy is much wider. They say 'energy policy and climate policy are not the same thing. Although they are intimately related, neither can satisfactorily be reduced to the other. Energy policy should focus on securing reliable and sustainable low-cost supply, and, as a matter of human dignity, attend directly to the development demands from the world's poorest people, especially their present lack of clean, reliable and affordable energy. One important reason that more than 1.5 billion people presently lack access to electricity is that energy simply costs too much'.
This sounds a little disingenous- there will be precious little dignity if climate impacts turn out to be as bad as expected. Carbon and other emission have to be dealt with- and fast. What the Hartwell report is claiming is that it is no good focussing on emission targets, in part since, as was stated in an earlier comment from the team quoted in the report "It is a characteristic of open systems of high complexity and with many ill-understood feed-back effects, such as the global climate classically is, that there are no self- declaring indicators which tell the policy maker when enough knowledge has been accumulated to make it sensible to move into action. Nor, it might be argued, can a policy-maker ever possess the type of knowledge - distributed, fragmented, private; and certainly not in sufficient coherence or quantity - to make accurate 'top down' directions."
So do we just leave it to the market? The authors seem to think so, in terms of choosing which way to go: 'Driving cost reductions must be the explicit purpose and primary design of deployment policies. Achieving consistent reductions in the unsubsidised cost of clean energy technologies must be the measure that determines which technologies will fly and which will stall in the long term'. But it can't, they say, just be left to the free market: 'since much of the energy technology revolution will require…basic RDD&D investment, public funding on a long-term basis is essential; and that is why an hypothecated tax is so important'.
A bit confusing since later they say 'innovation activities will of necessity be sponsored initially by the public sector' i.e. a short-term input. But what they are adamant about is that the carbon tax must not try 'to alter short-term consumption behaviour'. They were clearly chastened by the spectacular failure and withdrawl of the ambitious Carbon Tax proposed for France by President Sarkozy. Theirs would be lower and just for technology push. But then it sounds like they hate government dictats of any sort, and only accept government intervention and support grudgingly, since the private sector won't fund much R&D.
Overall, the carbon tax aside, their approach seems to have much in common with that adopted by the US and China at COP 15 - a free market technology-led approach, with no binding emissions targets, or government edicts. That may not be too surprising when you look at some of the sponsored of the report- who include the Japan Iron and Steel Federation, and the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association.
Leaving conflicting ideological views on markets aside, of course more needs to be done across the board - the Kyoto approach was marginal at best. However, it's not clear the Hartwell approach is any better. A carbon tax would increase consumer energy bills, and most studies suggests that, although, in time, the transition to renewables will reduce prices, initially it may not.
Some have also seen the reports emphasis on non-CO2 emissions as odd. Dr Bill Hare, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, commented that 'The paper's focus away from CO2 is misguided, short-sighted and probably wrong'.
And underlying it all is a belief that technical fixes are the answer, while social and behavioural change is likely to be hard. The latter is clearly true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do both. Technical fixes may well work in the short to medium term , but is it really realistic to expect continually reducing costs, and perhaps more importantly, continually expanding energy use, long term? Energy efficiency and renewables can allow us to expand energy use up to a point, but there are limits. We also need to start thinking about sustainable consumption.
Technology guru Bill Gates of Microsoft fame gave a sparkling presentation on energy back in February, under the title 'Innovating to Zero' (i.e. zero emissions).
Oddly he repeated the old saw about renewables being expensive and needing a lot of backup. Strange given that ,in California, wind power is the cheapest energy source on the grid and the main issue in the US is not so much the intermittency of wind as there often being too much wind generated electricity for the grid to handle (see my earlier blog on curtailment issues).
And even more oddly, he didn't mention the smart supergrid idea, which could balance and manage local variations in supply and demand. You might think that would be right up his street, as someone who pioneered internet information grid systems and applications.
However his main thrust was on innovations in nuclear. He said: 'innovation really stopped in this industry quite some ago, so the idea that there's some good ideas laying around is not all that surprising'. He backed the so called 'Terrapower' idea, in which a mix of fresh uranium and depleted uranium is formed into a log type tube, buried deep in the ground and 'burnt' progressively, with the fission reaction running through it from one end to the other, like a candle. So it's sometimes called a 'travelling wave reactor'. It's envisaged that it would take 60 years to burn through end to end , and that the waste products could just be left where they were, underground . Using depleted uranium/ spent fuel to breed more plutonium and run reactors essentially from some of the wastes from conventional nuclear plants , is hardly a new idea, but the travelling wave idea is new and untried.
What Gates now wants to see is a lot of supercomputer modelling to test if it will work. He is obviously keen. If 'Instead of burning a part of uranium, the one percent, which is the U235, we decided, let's burn the 99 percent, the U238' we could "power the U.S. for hundreds of years". And there's more: "simply by filtering sea water in an inexpensive process, you'd have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet". For more on the Terrapower idea see its UCB originators' website.
This says that you might need to add in some plutonium and/or thorium, basically to avoid the reaction fizzling out. Sounds a little crude and messy, leaving a wide range of wastes for future generations to deal with. And also quite hard to control, once started up. A rival approach to this mix of solids, mentioned briefly by Gates, uses liquids – actually a molten thorium flouride salt. For more on the Liquid Flouride Thorium reactor, see http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com.
Gates evidently likes the solid idea, but the US government seems to be focussing mostly on (slightly) more conventional concepts in its 'Next Generation Nuclear Plant' R&D programme. The main emphasis is on an advanced High Temperature reactor with co-generation (CHP) capability, to be built at Idaho National Lab. WNN noted that 'This was originally meant to actually operate in 2010, but its priority has fluctuated'. NGNP is part of the 'Reactor Concepts RD&D' programme, which will also begin working on small modular reactor concepts with a total budget of $195m.
Although the Terrapower idea may be a little off the beaten track, it's interesting that nuclear plant designers are looking to new concepts, for example co-generation reactor systems which can be used to provide heat and well as power, possibly for industrial process heating purposes. In addition there is renewed interest in developing systems which can be used to generate hydrogen gas, either directly (by high-temperature dissociation of water), or indirectly (by electrolysis), for use as a vehicle fuel. It could be that they think that the long-term future for nuclear is not in electricity supply, but in other perhaps more lucrative and less contested markets. With wind power, and some other renewables, already looking increasingly competitive as electricity suppliers, perhaps that's not surprising.
Even in current cost terms the conservative Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have commented in their latest joint study into Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, that "nuclear, coal, gas and, where local conditions are favourable, hydro and wind, are now fairly competitive generation technologies for baseload power generation".
They add that "there is no technology that has a clear overall advantage globally or even regionally. Each one of these technologies has potentially decisive strengths and weaknesses".
They conclude that "the future is likely to see healthy competition between these different technologies, competition that will be decided according to national preferences and local comparative advantages".
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out long term, and, amongst other things, if Gates got it right. Personally, I don't fancy a Terrapower unit in my backyard! I'd much prefer the renewable energy technologies being backed by Google, in pursuance of its $4.4 trillion "Clean Energy 2030" plan, which calls for the replacement of all coal – and oil-fired electricity generation with natural gas and renewable electricity globally, including 380 GW of wind power, 250 GW of solar power and 80 GW of geothermal power. See http://knol.google.com/k/clean-energy-2030#.
For more on renewable energy developments and policies, see www.natta-renew.org.
There is enough sunshine to grow grapes for wine in Cornwall, so why not harvest solar electricity as well? Independent renewable energy generator and supplier Ecotricity is planning dozens of large grid-linked photovoltaic 'solar farms' in the South West and there are plans for 'Sun farms' in Cornwall and the Scilly Isles.
Ecotricity aims to start with a 25-acre, 5 MW solar farm, possibly near its HQ in Stroud, but by 2020 it plans to have 500 MW of PV arrays, all over the south of the country. Meanwhile Benbole Energy Farm, working with the Penzance- based Renewable Energy Cooperative, is planning a 15-acre Sun Farm near St Kew/St Mabyn in North Cornwall. It's seen as part of an eventual £40 m 20 MW network of 10 Sun Farms in Cornwall and the Scilly Isles.
Ecotricity say that solar farms would not be blight on the landscape, arguing that they would be less obtrusive than wind turbines, or rows of polytunnels used to grow fruit and vegetables. Dale Vince, the company's founder, told The Times (14/5/10): 'They won't stand more than 2 metres (6.5 ft) tall so you won't see them if you look across the landscape because they will be obscured by hedgerows. You would see them if you were standing on a hill but the visual impact is very minor compared with wind arrays.' But, he said that some might have solar panels and turbines in the same fields. 'Solar panels and wind turbines complement each other well because in summer the winds are lighter but there is more sunlight, with the opposite in winter.'
The farms will cost £15–20 m each but Ecotricity will receive index-linked income for 25 years from the feed-in tariff, which starts at 29p/kWh, and should yield a return of at least 8% a year. That's the main reason why large scale PV solar is now being seen as economically viable in the UK. But PV costs are also falling as new cells emerge and the market for them builds, so we are likely to see more in future.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that it would be better to place banks of solar panels on factory and warehouse roofs and above car parks. But it felt that some farms in the countryside could be acceptable, depending on the quality of the landscape.
PV solar is of course also widely touted as an option for domestic roof tops, and the 'Clean Energy Cashback' Feed In Tariff should stimulate that significantly: npower has already reported an 80% rise in PV inquiries and consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers have suggested that the rate of UK installation of solar PV panels will increase five-fold this year because of the feed-in tariff.
However, solar water heating is a much cheaper and already very widespread option in the UK. Hopefully that will get supported strongly by the governments proposed new Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), which should come into force next April. In its RHI consultation submission YouGen, a social enterprise lobby group for self-generation, said solar heating should be given top priority. That would make a lot of sense.
The UK may not be the obvious place to develop solar, but we do get enough annual insolation to make a significant contribution to meeting heat and power needs.
For more on renewable-energy developments and policy, visit www.natta-renew.org.
Alternatively you can browse posts for this category archived by month:
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009