Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Global Renewable Energy Trends

Renewable energy has come a long way from the early days, when most people thought global warming was nothing more than scaremongering and when the fossil fuel giants used their power and influence to block research and silence anyone who dared question the feasibility of our continued reliance on oil, gas and coal. Climate change (the new and more accurate term for global warming, and peak oil is now accepted as fact by most if not all governments, even the United States which has traditionally denied any link between carbon emissions and climate change.

There is still a long way to go, but the fact that the problem has been widely recognised has allowed for the creation of whole new industries, focussing on how best to shift away from traditional energy sources to cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. At a time when the global economy is struggling to emerge from the worst recession in decades, the renewables industry appears to be booming.

There are three reasons for the drive toward renewable energy – the environment, energy security and economics. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acts like insulation in that it prevents heat from escaping back into space. Once the rate of release of carbon dioxide exceeded the rate at which the Earth could reabsorb it, the Earth was obviously going to heat up, causing draught, flooding and many other damaging environmental effects. That point has passed and we are seeing the predicted effects now.

As well as the environmental issues, fossil fuels are clearly a finite resource. Experts argue about how long reserves might last but noone can deny that they will run out eventually. Such is our reliance on fuel for every aspect of our daily lives that it is difficult to see how society as we know it could continue without it. Imagine if you could only travel as far as you could walk. You had to grow your food, find your own water, make fired for heat and light, make your own clothes. There are no hospitals or doctors, no teachers or schools. No police and no courts. We would be cast back into the Stone Age but the vast majority would lack all of the essential skills to survive in that environment.

Since its invention, money has always been a driving force for technological advancement. Well before the oil eventually runs out, any economy which relies solely on it will collapse because of spiralling prices. Already, many experts say that the current global recession has been made deeper and longer as a result of record oil prices. As demand increases and supply decreases the major oil producing nations, most of whose ideologies are at odds with Western culture and politics, will become more and more powerful.

At one time, nuclear power seemed to be the answer. To many it still is. After all a small amount of fuel can produce an incredible amount of energy with no harmful emissions. The problems though are threefold. First, there is the potential for another Chernobyl. Nuclear accidents are relatively rare but when they do occur the potential consequences are unthinkable. Second, uranium itself is a finite resource, so nuclear can never be the final solution since uranium will eventually run out. Third, if nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels as the world’s major energy source then no longer could certain countries be prevented from developing their own nuclear technology. This in turn would mean it would be only a matter of time before an unstable regime developed a nuclear weapon. Imagine if Hussein or Gadaffi had had nuclear weapons? The threat to the security of the rest of the world would simply be too great to tolerate.

Perhaps surprisingly, in terms of kilowatt hours of electricity produced, the world’s largest producer is China. Historically criticised for its spiralling carbon emissions as its industrial sector boomed, China has clearly realised the potential of the renewable energy sector and now produces 576.1 terrawatt hours of renewable electricity per year, which equates to 17.88% of total consumption. Brazil, another recently industrialised nation that has been accused of not pulling its weight in the battle against climate change, is 3rd in the global list, with the United States 2nd.

These countries are however also among the largest consumers, so this only half the story. In terms of the percentage of total electricity consumed coming from renewable sources, most African nations are in the high eighties or nineties. This is probably more to do with the fact that many of these are third world countries and do not have a mature electricity network. Of the industrialised nations, Interestingly Albania, which produces all of its electricity from renewables, leads the way. Of the major global economies, Brazil is streets ahead of the rest with 88.88% of its electricity coming from renewable sources. China is on 17.88%, India manages 14.58%, the USA just 10.05% and the UK lags behind most of the world on a pretty poor 6.18%.

Hydro electricity accounts for the vast majority of the renewable energy produced by 9 out of the top ten renewable energy producing countries. The only exception is Germany. Hydro electricity accounts for around 20% of its production, with wind power (approx. 36%) and biomass (approx. 33%) accounting for the majority of its production. It also produces around 12% from solar power.

Hydro electricity is often criticised for the dramatic and often adverse effect it has on the local environment and on the natural habitat of the wildlife in the area. It is however one of the most reliable alternatives to fossil fuels. Unlike solar or wind power electricity production can continue at a stable rate irrespective of any prevailing weather conditions and whether it is night or day. Unlike biomass it does not require fuel to be grown and transported. There will always be water and water and water will always flow so barring a burst dam or similar catastrophe hydro power can be relied upon indefinitely.

Wind power is the next most prolific. Solar power ranks quite low, however this may have plenty to do with the fact that the countries best placed to exploit it, those on the equator and in or around the Sahara desert, are least able to summon the necessary resources. Expect that to change over the next decade or so as international consortia begin to invest in solar farms in these countries.

The majority of the new money in the renewable energy sector is being invested in wind and solar power. China leads the world, with $54.4 billion invested in 2010, an increase of 39% on 2009. The majority, $45 billion, was invested in wind, with $4.7 billion spent on solar energy. Germany is the world’s second largest investor with $41.2 billion, a 100% increase for 2010. $36.1 billion was channelled into solar power projects.

The USA, despite increasing investment by 51%, moved down to third in the 2010 list with $36 billion worth of investment mostly in biofuels and wind. Brazil, with $7.6 billion, ranked 6th, also splitting its money between biofuels (40%) and wind (31%). The UK dropped to 13th, with investment totalling $3.3 billion, a 70% decrease in investment. The majority, 52%, was spent on offshore wind farms. Uncertainty around government energy policies has been blamed for the decrease in investment.

Related posts:

Desertec Solar Energy FarmRenewable Fuels: Low down on Bio FuelThe Future of Nuclear Power in the UKFeed in Tariff – The Effect on Green Energy ProductionInterested in the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)?

View the original article here

Is Large Scale Biomass Energy a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Biomass energy means energy generated from burning living or recently living organisms such as wood, as opposed to fossilised organisms (also known as fossil fuels). The energy production process is just the same as with a coal or oil fired power station. Biomass fuel is burned to heat water which creates steam which turns turbines which produces electricity. Its supporters claim that it is an effective way of reducing carbon emissions but are they right?

It is not immediately obvious to most people why burning wood would be good for the environment, after all this releases carbon into the atmosphere, right? So what are the benefits of biomass as a fuel and should be moving toward large scale use?

Those in favour of biomass claim that it helps to reduce carbon emissions but how can this be when burning wood releases carbon? First of all the argument depends on the alternative being to be burn fossil fuels, which in fairness at present it most probably is. As trees and plants live they absorb carbon from the atmosphere. When they die and rot some carbon is released and some is trapped in the ground. As layer upon layer of trapped carbon builds up over millions of years we end up with oil and coal deposits. When fossil fuels are burned, this carbon which has been trapped for millennia is released into the atmosphere.

The theory behind biomass is that, instead of mining fossil fuels, you plant an area of woodland. As the trees grow they take carbon out of the atmosphere. When they are burned they release it back but they only release the same amount which they absorbed during life, so in very simple terms the net carbon emissions from biomass fuels are zero. If therefore the whole world suddenly switched to using biomass there would be no new carbon emissions from electricity production and the world’s natural forests and plants could absorb what was already there and so the levels of carbon in the atmosphere would eventually reduce.

Critics of large scale biomass use argue that this is far too simplistic a view and ignores several important factors. Firstly, they point out that the immediate of effect of switching from fossil to biomass fuel is an increase in emissions and that it could take decades or even centuries for the offset effect of planting new trees to have an impact. They point out that we do not have that long to solve the emissions problem. Secondly, they stress the need to look at what the land was used for previously. If it was a brownfield industrial site then turning it into forest will have a positive impact but in reality meadows and farmland are likely to be used. Since the plants in these areas absorb carbon and are not subsequently burned, they are net consumers of carbon.

There are question marks over the sustainability of biomass on a large scale. Is there enough spare space to actually grow all of the trees necessary to fuel the power stations? Licences have already been granted to destroy areas of rainforest and turn them into trees farms. As more and more power stations are constructed and demand for fuel increases there is a fear more and more natural forests and plains will be wiped out, thus reducing the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon and actually bring down the levels currently in the atmosphere.

Economically there are question marks too. Presently wood for biomass is relatively cheap but as its value to the consumer increases, so does its price. In the UK we have relatively low capacity to produce fuel therefore if we are to rely on biomass on a large scale we will need to import. This means the UK government will not be able to exercise any control on prices and we could end up being held to ransom in the same way as we are with oil.

Biomass fuel is not carbon neutral. Although it is true that when burned it releases only the carbon it has absorbed during life, there is a cost associated with its production and transportation, particularly if it is imported from as far a field as South America. Also, waste has to be disposed of.

Biomass is seen in some areas as a simple short term solution to the carbon problem. On a small scale the advantages probably outweigh the disadvantages however on a larger scale it could be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Related posts:

Installing a Biomass Boiler at Your HomeAnaerobic Digestion and BiogasRenewable Fuels: Low down on Bio FuelDesigning an Energy Efficient HomeGlobal Renewable Energy Trends

View the original article here