p6 Flashcards
Alternatives to fossil fuels
The global drive to reduce carbon emissions and to decouple fossil fuels from economic growth must involve increasing reliance on alternative sources of
‘clean’ energy. Renewable and recyclable energy sources are part of the multi-energy approach to energy security and protecting the carbon cycle.
Renewable and recyclable energy
The main forms of renewable energy being harnessed today are hydro, wind, solar (mainly via photovoltaic cells), geothermal and tidal. All are up and running, but their contributions to the energy budget vary from country to country. It is a simple fact of physical geography that not all countries have renewable energies to exploit. For example, not all countries have coasts or ‘hot rocks’; not all countries have warm climates with long sunshine hours; not all countries have permanently flowing rivers or persistently strong winds. Furthermore, hydro and tidal power are the only sources that could provide base-load electricity.
It is frequently claimed that renewable sources of energy will be the saviour of the global energy challenge. However, some sobering facts are often overlooked:
- There are very few, if any, countries where renewables might completely replace all the energy currently derived from fossil fuels. The most likely are those with good hydro resources.
- As oil prices tumbled during 2015, renewables - with their slightly higher costs - became less attractive as an option.
- Upping the importance of renewables is likely to have significant impacts on the environment: more valleys would be drowned to create HEP reservoirs; large areas of land and the offshore zone would be covered by wind and solar farms.
- It is particularly frustrating that, while the majority of people believe that we must make greater use of renewable sources, most suddenly go off the idea when there is a proposal to construct a wind or solar farm close to where they live. They protest even when the wind farm is to be located well offshore!
Another unpalatable fact is that those countries with high levels of energy consumption will have no option but to look to nuclear energy to generate their
electricity supply in a reasonably carbon-free manner.
An added attraction is that nuclear waste can be reprocessed and reused, thereby making it a recyclable energy source. Nonetheless, nuclear power does have a downside. There are issues related to:
- safety, as exemplified by the incidents at Chernobyl (Ukraine) and Fukushima (Japan)
- the security of nuclear-powered stations in an era of international terrorism
- the disposal of highly toxic radioactive waste with an incredible long decay life
- the technology involved, which effectively means that the nuclear option is only open to the most developed countries
- costs - although operational costs are relatively low, the costs of building and decommissioning are high.
The UK energy mix
p1
The UK government is very mindful of the need to become energy secure and to play its part in reducing global carbon emissions. Figure 5.17 clearly shows that when it comes to primary energy consumption, while there has been a complete shift away from a direct use of coal, the reliance on oil and natural gas seems to have settled at a rather high level, providing close to 80 per cent of the UK’s primary energy. Much of the petroleum is used by transport and most of the natural gas is used to generate electricity. Forecasts suggest that this is unlikely to change much in the near future. The electricity shown in Figure 5.17 is in fact ‘primary electricity’ generated by renewable (hydro, wind, solar, photovoltaic and geothermal) and recyclable (nuclear) energy.
The UK energy mix
p2
Figure 5.18 shows that a significant amount of electricity is still generated by coal-fired power stations, while oil has virtually ceased to be used in this way.
Natural gas produces slightly more electricity than nuclear energy. The contribution by renewables remains disappointingly small.
One piece of good news about the UK’s energy budget is that today we consume less energy than we did in 1970, despite a population increase of some 6.5 million. The UK is now more efficient, both in producing energy and in using it. The rise of a less energy-intensive service sector at the expense of industry has also played a part. Households now use twelve per cent less energy while industry uses 60 per cent less. However, these savings have been offset by transport, particularly the big increase in the number of vehicles on the road and of flights. It now looks as if the UK will be using the same amount of energy in 2030 as it does today.
Biomass:
Organic matter used as a fuel, especially in power stations for the generation of electricity.
define Biofuel:
A fuel derived immediately from living matter, such as agricultural crops, forestry or fishery products, and various forms of waste (municipal, food shops, catering, etc.). A distinction is made between primary and secondary biofuels:
* Primary biofuels include fuelwood, wood chips and pellets, and other organic materials that are used in an unprocessed form, primarily for heating, cooking or electricity generation.
* Secondary biofuels are derived from the processing of biomass and include liquid biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, which can be used by vehicles and in industrial processes.
Biofuels
Of all the energy sources, fuelwood perhaps has the longest history. However, while fuelwood remains important in the energy mix of some parts of the world, biomass has recently come into prominence with the commercial use of a number of relatively new biofuels.
They have now joined the ranks of recyclable energy, alongside nuclear energy.
Increasing attention is now being paid to the growing of biofuel crops as a way of decreasing the consumption of fossil fuels. These so-called energy crops include wheat, maize, grasses, soy beans and sugar cane. In the UK, the two main crops are oilseed rape and sugar beet. Most are converted into ethanol or biodiesel and used mainly as a vehicle fuel.
There is no doubt that biomass and biofuels have much to commend them as a ‘green’ source of energy. Their increasing use is not without costs, however. The most notable of these is the fact that a hectare of space used to grow energy crops is a hectare less for growing much-needed food in a hungry world. The experience of Brazil shows that this competition for agricultural space also has unfortunate environmental costs.
Biofuels in Brazil
Brazil took action in the 1970s to diversify its energy sources in order to combat concerns about its energy security. It has since invested in alternative energy sources, initially in hydroelectricity and more recently in biofuels. Today, four per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources, and approximately 90 per cent of new passenger vehicles sold in Brazil contain flex-fuel engines that work using any combination of petrol and sugar cane ethanol. This has led to a significant reduction in the country’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Brazil is now the world’s largest producer of sugar cane. It has also become the leading exporter of sugar and ethanol. Since 2003 the area planted with sugar cane has increased significantly and is set to double by 2018. Sugar cane production is concentrated in the central southern region. The result has been the displacement of other types of agriculture, particularly cattle pasture. The knock-on effect has been to create a need for replacement pastures. This, in turn, has resulted in the large-scale clearance of the tropical rainforest (Figure 5.19). This deforestation is, in effect, now cancelling out the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions related to the increasing use of ethanol.
Skills focus: Emissions comparison
Possibly the fairest way of comparing the emissions of different fuels is to see how they all perform when they are used to generate electricity. Surprisingly, every fuel produces greenhouse gases (GHGs), but in varying quantities. This is because account needs to be taken of what are known as life cycle’ emissions. These include not just the emissions that occur while electricity is being generated, but also those GHGs given off during the construction and decommissioning of generating plants. So, for example, coal-fired electricity releases large emissions of GHGs during the operational stage, whereas with wind, hydro, solar and nuclear energy, emissions occur mainly during construction and decommissioning. In short, there are no carbon-free forms of energy.
Figure 5.20 shows the emissions per gigawatt hour for nine fuels. Proportional bars are a good technique for representing such data as they make for an easy visual comparison. Another important point is that the data are derived from no less than twenty independent emissions studies, so the range of results is shown for each fuel. The figures show how relatively ‘green’ the renewable sources of energy are compared with fossil fuels.
Figure 5.21 conveys three important messages about the UK:
- greenhouse gas emissions have fallen over the last twenty years
- energy supply remains the largest contributor, but its share has begun to decline with gas replacing coal and gas as the main fuel in electricity generation
- transport’s contribution has not changed, for the simple reason that it remains highly dependent on the burning of petroleum and diesel.
Radical technologies to reduce carbon emissions
Greater use of renewable and recyclable sources of energy clearly offers one pathway to a more sustainable energy future. But are there any radical new technologies on the horizon that might play a part in reducing carbon emissions in the near future? Let’s take a quick look at two: carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen fuel cells.
Carbon capture and storage
It is widely accepted that coal will never cease to be a part of the global energy budget: it is an attractive energy source as it is abundant and cheap. Because of this, and its wide global distribution, it can often be locally sourced, particularly by poorer developing countries.
CCS involves ‘capturing’ the carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels and burying it deep underground (Figure 5.22). This technique promises the greatest savings in emissions where coal is being used to generate electricity. A slightly different technique, which ‘scrubs’ some of the carbon dioxide out of natural gas is already used quite widely, either at the point of production or at energy facilities from which gas 1s distributed to consumers.
It is frustrating that the implementation of this apparently simple idea is throwing up considerable challenges:
- It is expensive because of the complex technology involved.
- No one can be sure that the carbon dioxide will stay trapped underground and that it will not gradually leak to the surface and enter the atmosphere.
Hydrogen fuel cells 1
Although it is chemically simple and an abundant element, hydrogen does not occur naturally as a gas on Earth. It is always combined with other elements, for example with oxygen in water. Currently, most hydrogen is extracted from other forms of fuel, such as oil and natural gas. Hydrogen is high in energy,
and an engine that burns pure hydrogen produces almost no pollution (Figure 5.23). Since the 1970s, NASA has used liquid hydrogen to propel space shuttles and other rockets into orbit. Hydrogen fuel cells have also powered the shuttles’ electrical systems.
A fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, heat and water. It will produce electricity as long as fuel (hydrogen) is supplied, and it will never lose its charge.
Fuel cells are a promising technology for use as:
- a source of heat and electricity for buildings
- a power source for electric vehicles.
Hydrogen fuel cells 2
They operate best on pure hydrogen, so fuels like natural gas, ethanol or even petrol need to be
‘reformed’ in order to produce it. In the future, hydrogen could also join electricity as an important energy carrier, namely delivering energy in a usable form to consumers.
Given where we are today, it is the second of these radical technologies that offers the brightest prospect of reducing carbon emissions. There seems to be a fair measure of certainty about the role it is just beginning to play in the context of transport. It does seem to be a very promising way of meeting future energy needs in an environmentally safe manner.
A world with no need to burn any fossil fuels is highly improbable. However, a world deriving much of its energy from renewable and recyclable sources, and making full use of the hydrogen cell, does promise relatively little disturbance of the carbon cycle and its stores and fluxes. It would also promise a longer human survival on the Earth.
Land conversion:
Any change from natural ecosystems to an alternative use; it usually reduces carbon and water stores and soil health.