The Energy Challenge Chris Llewellyn Smith

1
The Energy ChallengeChris Llewellyn Smith

• Part A The energy challenge
• Part B What can/must be done

2
Energy Facts

• The world uses a lot of energy at a rate of
  15.7 TW
• average 2.4 kW per person UK 5.1 kW, Spain
  4.4
• - very unevenly (use per person in USA
  2.1xUK
• 48x Bangladesh)
• 2) World energy use is expected to grow 50 by
  2030
• - growth necessary to lift billions of people
  out of poverty
• 3) 80 is generated by burning fossil fuels
• ? climate change debilitating pollution
• - which wont last for ever
• Need more efficient use of energy (and probably
  a change of life style) and major new/expanded
  sources of clean energy - this will require
  fiscal measures and new technology

3
1.6 billion people (over 25 of the worlds
population) lack electricity
Source IEA World Energy Outlook 2006
4
Distances travelled to collect fuel for cooking
in rural Tanzania the average load is around 20
kg
Source IEA World Energy Outlook 2006
5
Deaths per year (1000s) caused by indoor air
pollution (biomass 85 coal 15) total is 1.5
million over half children under five
Source IEA World Energy Outlook 2006
6
Annual deaths worldwide from various causes
Source IEA World Energy Outlook 2006
adding coal, total is 1.5 M
7
One example of the asymmetry of the likely
effects of climate change

Source Stern Review
8
HDI ( life expectancy at birth adult literacy
school enrolment GNP per person at PPP) and
Primary Energy Demand per person, 2002
Goal (?) To reach this goal seems
need
Human Development Index
tonnes of oil equivalent/capita
For all developing countries to reach this point,
would need world energy use to double with
todays population, or increase 2.6 fold with the
8.1 billion expected in 2030 If also all
developed countries came down to this point the
factors would be 1.8 today, 2.4 in 2030
9
Reaching 3 tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per
capita for everyone seems almost impossible
(completely impossible while reducing CO2
emissions) need to lower targetat least
without a large reduction in population there
could be a Malthusian solution? But 3 toe
looks quite luxurious as a target for all it is
77 of current UK per capita usage, which (I
think) could easily be tolerable for Japan,
Europe 38 for USA? Equity (same energy for
all) without any energy increase would require
going to 46 of current UK usage per capita at
current population level (23 for USA) - 35 with
8.1 billion population (18 for USA)!

• Equity without lots more energy (whence?) would
  require changes of life style in the developed
  world

10
Sources of Energy

• ? Worlds primary energy supply (rounded)
• 80 - burning fossil fuels (43 oil, 32 coal,
  25 natural gas)
• 10 - burning combustible renewables and
  waste
• 5 - nuclear
• 5 - hydro
• 0.5 - geothermal, solar, wind, . . .
• NB Primary energy defined here for hydro, solar
  and wind as equivalent primary thermal energy
• electrical energy output for hydro etc is also
  often used,
• e.g. hydro 2.2

11
Fossil Fuels

• are
• generating debilitating pollution
• (300,000 coal pollution deaths pa in China
  Didcot Power Station large coal gas fired
  plant near Oxford has probably killed more
  people than Chernobyl)
• driving potentially catastrophic climate change
• and will run out sooner or later (later if we can
  exploit methyl hydrates)
• Saudi saying My father rode a camel. I drive a
  car. My son flies a plane. His son will ride a
  camel
• Is this true? Perhaps

12
With

• With current growth, the 95 year (2100) line will
  be reached in
• 2068 for oil (growth 1.2 pa but growth will ?
  decline beyond Hubbert peak)
• 2049 for gas (growth 3.1 pa)
• 2041 for coal (growth 4.5 pa) note some
  people believe coal resource much smaller

13
Oil Supply
Note discoveries back-dated
14
Oil Supply
Source ASPO
15
Fossil Fuel Use - a brief episode in the worlds
history
16
UNCONVENTIONAL OIL

• Unconventional oil resources are thought to
  amount to at least 1,000 billion barrels
  (compared to 2,300 billion barrels of
  conventional oil remaining according to the USGS)
  
• oil sands in Canada, extra heavy oil in
  Venezuela, shale oil in the USA,
• generates 2 of global oil supply today ? 8 by
  2030?
• Expected increase mainly in Canada. Cost of
  producing synthetic crude (which is very
  sensitive to price of gas or other fuel used ?
  steam injected to make bitumen flow) is currently
  33/barrel (vs. a few s/barrel in Saudi Arabia)
• Production of 1 barrel of crude requires 0.4
  barrels of oil equivalent to produce steam

17
Methyl Hydrates Bane or Boon?

• MHs are gases (bacterially generated methane)
  trapped in a matrix of water at low temperature
  and/or high pressure in permafrost and marine
  sediments (below 500m)
• USGS (which thinks that 370 trillion m3 of
  natural gas are left) estimates that there are
  (2,800 8.5M) trillion m3 of MHs
• Bane? Methane in MHs could be released by global
  warming some evidence that this happened 55.5M
  years ago (late Paleocene) when the temperature
  rose by 5-8C
• Boon? Potentially a huge source of energy
• - Permafrost Japanese test underway in Canada
  to release by drilling into porous sandstone
  containing MHs (release by pressure decrease)
• - Sea danger of boiling sinking ships and rigs

18
Use of Energy

• Electricity production uses 1/3 of primary
  energy (more in developed world less in
  developing world)
• - this fraction could (and is likely in the
  future to) be higher
• End Use (rounded)
• ? 25 industry
• ? 25 transport
• ? 50 built environment ? 31 domestic in
  UK
• (private, industrial, commercial)

19
Source IEA WEO. 2008 IEA Key Statistics give
2.3 of Other (2006 data)
Note that mixture of fuels used ? electricity is
very different in different countries e.g. coal
35 in UK, 76 in China (where hydro 18)
20
Conclusions on Energy Challenge

• Large increase in energy use expected, and
  needed to lift billions out of poverty
• Seems (IEA World Energy Outlook) that it will
  require an increased use of fossil fuels
• which is driving potentially catastrophic
  climate change
• will run out sooner or later
• There is therefore an urgent need to reduce
  energy use (or at least curb growth), and seek
  cleaner ways of producing energy on a large scale
• IEA Achieving a truly sustainable energy system
  will call for radical breakthroughs that alter
  how we produce and use energy
• Ambitious goal for 2050 - limit CO2 to twice
  pre-industrial level. To do this while meeting
  expected growth in power consumption would need
  50 more CO2-free power than todays total power
• US DoE The technology to generate this amount of
  emission-free power does not exist

21
Meeting the Energy Challenge what can/must be
done? I

• Introduce fiscal measures and regulation to
  change behaviour (reduce consumption) and
  stimulate RD (new/improved technology)
• Increased investment in energy research will be
  essential
• public funding down 50 globally since 1980 in
  real terms worlds publicly funded energy RD
  budget 0.25 of energy market (which is 4
  trillion a year)
• Note when considering balance of RD funding,
  should bring market incentives/subsidies
  (designed to encourage deployment of renewables)
  into the picture

22
Energy subsidies (28 bn pa) RD (2 bn pa)in
the EU in 2001 30 Billion Euro (per year)
Source EEA, Energy subsidies in the European
Union A brief overview, 2004. Fusion and
fission are displayed separately using the IEA
government-RD data base and EURATOM 6th
framework programme data
23

• Meeting the Energy Challenge II
• Recognise that the solution will be a cocktail
  (there is no silver bullet), including
• Actions to improve efficiency ( avoid use)
• Use of renewables where appropriate (although
  individually not hugely significant globally,
  except in principle solar)
• BUT only four sources capable in principle of
  meeting a really large fraction of the worlds
  energy needs

• Burning fossil fuels (currently 80) must
  develop deploy CO2 capture and storage if
  feasible
• remaining fossil fuels will be used
• Solar - seek breakthroughs in production and
  storage
• Nuclear fission - cannot avoid if we are serious
  about reducing fossil fuel burning (at least
  until fusion available)
• Fusion - with so few options, we must develop
  fusion as fast as possible, even if success is
  not 100 certain

24
Energy Efficiency

• Production e.g. world average power plant
  efficiency 30 ? 45 (state of the art) would
  save 4 of anthropic carbon dioxide
• Distribution typically 10 of electricity
  lost (? 50 due to non-technical losses in
  some countries need better metering)
• mostly local not in high voltage grid
• Use - more energy efficient buildings, CHP (40
  ? 85-90 use of energy) where appropriate
• - smart/interactive grid
• - more efficient transport
• - more efficient industry
• Huge scope but demand is rising faster
• Note Energy intensity ( energy/gpd) fell 1.6
  pa 1990-2004
• Efficiency is a key component of the solution,
  but cannot meet the energy challenge on its own

25
The Built Environment

• Consumes 50 of energy (transport 25 and
  industry 25)
• ? nearly 50 of UK CO2 emissions due to
  constructing, maintaining, occupying buildings
• Improvements in design could have a big impact
• e.g. could cut energy used to heat homes by up to
  factor of three (but turn over of housing stock
  100 years)
• Tools better information, regulation, financial
  instruments

Source Foster and Partners. Swiss Re Tower uses
50 less energy than a conventional office
building (natural ventilation lighting)
26
APS Study of Building Efficiency

• In USA buildings use 40 of primary energy -
• Heating and cooling 500 GW primary energy (65
  residential 35 commercial)
• Lighting 250 GW primary energy (43
  residential 57 commercial) 22 of all US
  electricity (29 world-wide)
• Spain total electricity 31 GW 90 GW primary
  energy, thermal equivalent
• Measures on lighting
• Better use of natural light reduce
  over-lighting more efficient bulbs
• Traditional incandescent bulbs 5 efficient
• Compact fluorescent lights 20 efficient
• Detailed study in USA, upgrading residential
  incandescent bulbs and ballasts and lamps in
  commercial buildings could save 3 of all
  electricity use ( If this finding translates pro
  rata to UK, it would save one 1 GW power
  station!)
• In longer term LEDs (up to 50 efficient) RD
  needed ? white light reduce cost

27
TRANSPORT 25 of primary energy

• Consider light vehicles
• Major contributor to use of oil (passenger cars
  and light trucks use 63 of energy used in all
  transport in USA) CO2

T

• Growing rapidly e.g. IEA thinks 700 million
  light vehicles today ? 1,400 million in 2030
  (China 9m ? 100m India 6.5 m ? 56m)
• Is this possible?
• Can certainly not reach US levels for the
  worlds per capita petrol consumption to equal
  that in the USA, total petrol consumption would
  have to increase by almost a factor of ten

Report APS Study of Potential improvements.Consi
der what after the end of oil? (Biofuels, coal
gas ? oil, electric, hydrogen)
28
Trends
Improvements front wheel drive, engine,
transmission, computer control..
1975 1985 mandatory Corporate Average Fuel
Economy standards improved annually, but
thereafter manufactures continued to improve
efficiency but built heavier, more powerful cars
29
Prospects for ImprovementsAPS Considers 50 mpg
(US) by 2030 reasonable (decreased weight -10
? 6-7 fuel economy), improved efficiency,
hybrids possibly Homogeneous Charge Compression
Ignition, variable compression ratios, 2/4 stroke
switching.4.7 litres/100km
MIT Study In longer term maybe Plug-in
Hybrids, hydrogen (or other) fuel cells
30
Petrol engines much less efficient than electric
motors (90), but comparison needs overall well
to wheels analysis
31
Electric vs. Petrol
Pro electric efficiency Oil well ? 90 tank ?
0.9 x 12.6 11 wheels Source ? 30
electricity ? 0.3 x 90 27 battery ? 0.27 x
90 24 wheels Source? ? fuel cell ? ? x 60
electricity ? ?x 0.6x 90 ? x 55 wheels
Pro petrol weight/volume Petrol 34.6
MJ/l 47.5 MJ/kg Li ion battery (today) 0.7
MJ/l 0.5 MJ/kg H at 1 atmosphere 0.009
MJ/l 143 MJ/kg H at 10,000 psi 4.7 MJ/l 143
MJ/kg Liquid hydrogen 10.1MJ/l 143 MJ/kg
APS Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles unlikely to be
more than a niche product without
breakthroughschallenges are durability and cost
of fuel cells, including catalysts,
cost-effective on-board storage, hydrogen
production and deployment and refuelling
infrastructure
32
Hydrogen

• Excites public and politicians
• - no CO2 at point of use
• Only helpful if no CO2 at point of production
• e.g. - capture and store carbon at point of
  production
• - produce from renewables (reduced problem
  of intermittency)
• - produce from fission or fusion
  (electrolysis, or catalytic
• cracking of water at high temperature)
• Usually considered for powering cars
• Excellent energy/mass ratio but energy/volume
  terrible
• Need to compress or liquefy (uses 30 of
  energy, and adds to weight), or absorb in light
  metals (big chemical challenge being addressed
  by Oxford led consortium)

33
Renewables

• Could they replace a significant fraction of the
  13 TW (and growing) currently provided by burning
  fossil fuels?
• Solar could in principle power the world given
  breakthroughs in energy storage and costs (which
  should be sought) see later
• Hydro - already significant could add up to 1TW
  thermal equivalent
• Wind - up to 3 TW thermal equivalent conceivable
• Burning biomass - already significant additional
  1 TW conceivable
• Geothermal, tidal and wave energy - 200 GW
  conceivable
• All should be fully exploited where sensible,
  but excluding solar, cannot imaging more than 6
  TW huge gap as fossil fuels decline
• Conclusions are very location dependent
  geothermal is a major player in Iceland, Kenya,
  the UK has 40 of Europes wind potential and is
  well placed for tidal and waves the US south
  west is much better than the UK for solar there
  is big hydro potential in the Congo

34
Preliminary Conclusions

• Must improve efficiency but at best will only
  stop growth (unless we are prepared to tolerate a
  very inequitable world). Needs initial
  investment, but can save a lot of money
• Must exploit renewables to the maximum extent
  reasonably possible (not easy as it will put up
  costs)
• Likely most of remaining fossil fuels will be
  burned. If so, carbon capture and storage is the
  only way to limit climate change (but will put up
  costs)
• In the long-run, will need (a combination of)
• - Large scale solar
• Much more nuclear fission
• Fusion

35
Carbon Capture and Storage

• In principle could capture CO2 from power
  stations (35 of total) and from some industrial
  plants (not from cars, domestic)
• Capture and storage - would add 2c/kWh to
  cost for gas more for coal - in both cases much
  more initially
• Storage - could (when location appropriate) be
  in depleted gas fields, depleted oil fields, deep
  saline aquifers
• Issues are safety and cost (capture typically
  reduces efficiency by 10 percentage points, e.g.
  46 ? 37, 41 ? 32,..)
• With current technology capture, transmission
  and storage would double generation cost for
  coal

36
(No Transcript)
37
After capture, compress (gt70 atmos ? liquid)
transmit and store (gt700m)
38
(No Transcript)
39
Conclusions on Carbon Capture and Storage

• Mandatory if feasible and the world is serious
  about climate change - big potential if saline
  aquifers OK (said to be plenty in China and
  India)
• Large scale demonstration very important
• - First end-to-end CCS power station just opened
  in N Germany (30MW oxy-fuel addon ? steam to
  turbines in existing 1 GW power station)
• - EU Zero Emissions Power strategy proposes 12
  demonstration plants (want many, in different
  conditions) by 2015 needed to develop/choose
  technologies, and drive down cost, if there is
  going to be significant deployment by 2030
• Meanwhile should make all plants capture ready
  (post-combustion or oxy-fuel)
• It will require a floor for the price of carbon

40
Solar Potential

• Average flux reaching earths surface is 170
  Wm-2, 220 Wm-2 at equator, 110 Wm-2 at 50 degrees
  north
• 170 Wm-2 on 0.5 of the worlds land surface
  (100 occupied!) would with 15 efficiency
  provide 19 TW
• Photovoltaics are readily available with 15
  efficiency or more, and concentrated solar power
  can be significantly more efficient
• Photosynthesis
• Natural energy yields are vary from 30-80
  GJ/hectare/year (wood) to 400-500 GJ/hectare/year
  (sugar cane)
• 100 GJ/hectare/year corresponds to 0.3 Wm-2, or
  0.2 of average solar flux at earths surface, so
  even sugar cane is only 1 efficient at producing
  energy.
• At 0.3 Wm-2, would need 15 of worlds land
  surface to give 10 TW
• Artificial exciting possibility of mimicking
  photosynthesis in an artificial catalytic system
  to produce hydrogen (to power fuel cells), with
  efficiency of possibly 10 (and no wasted water,
  fertiliser, harvesting) should be developed

41
Solar (non-bio)

• Photovoltaics (hydrogen storage?)
• Concentration (parabolic troughs, heliostats,
  towers)
• High T
• ? turbines (storage molten salts,
  dissociation/synthesis of ammonia, phase
  transitions in novel materials)
• ? thermal cracking of water to hydrogen
• Challenges new materials, fatigue

• Thermal (low T) hot water (even in UK not
  stupid), cooling

42
Projected cost of photovoltaic solar
power? 1/WpAC ? 2.6 -cents/kWhr in California
(4.7 in Germany) - requires cost cost
of glass!
43
Solar Parabolic Trough Mirrors receivers
conventional (super) heated steam turbine.
Generally solar/fossil hybrids (can be ISCC).
Considerable experience (a few with heat
storage). Individual systems lt 80 MW.
44
Heliostats Heats molten salt to 565C (buffer)
? steam, or air or water. May (initially at
least) be hybrid (including ISCC). Pilots built,
but none yet on commercial scale 50 200 MW.
Dish/Stirling engine Up to 750C, 20 MPa.
High efficiency (30 achieved. Small (lt 25 kW
each). Modular. May be hybrid. Needs mass
production to drive down cost (can ? Brayton
turbine)
45
Nuclear Power

• Recent performance impressive construction
  (?) on time and (?) budget, excellent safety
  record, cost looks OK
• New generation of reactors (AP1000, EPR) fewer
  components, passive safety, less waste, lower
  down time and lower costs
• Constraints on expansion
• snails pace of planning permission (in UK )
• concerns about safety
• concerns about waste
• proliferation risk
• availability of cheap uranium

46
Problems and limitations

• Safety biggest problem is perception (arguable
  that Didcot power station has killed more people
  than Chernobyl)
• Waste problem is volume for long term disposal
  
• US figures
• Existing fleet will ? 100,000 tonnes (c/f
  legislated capacity of Yucca mountain 70,000
  tonnes)
• If fleet expanded by 1.8 p.a. ? 1,400,000
  tonnes at end of century
• Proliferation need to limited availability of
  enrichment technology, and burn or contaminate
  fissile products

47
Uranium Resources

• . US DoE Data/Projections

• Assuming 1.8 p.a. growth of worlds nuclear
  use
• Unless there is much more than thought, or we can
  use unconventional uranium, not long to start
  FBRs

Will need to use thorium and/or fast breeders in
50 years Need to develop now
48
Different Fuel Cycles

• Goals
• - reduce waste needing long-term disposal
  (destroy 99.5? of transuranics, and heat
  producing fission products caesium, strontium)
• - burn or contaminate weapons-usable material
• - get more energy/(kg of uranium)
• Options (some gains possible from improved
  burn-up in once through reactors as in all
  thermal power plants, higher temperature ? more
  energy/kg of fuel)
• Recycle in conventional reactors can get 2
  times energy/kg reduce waste volume by factor 2
  or 3 (note increase proliferation risk
  short-term risk from waste streams)
• Fast breeders
• Mixed economy conventional reactors burn
  waste by having some FBRs or accelerator based
  waste burners

49
Plutonium Fast Breeders

• In natural uranium, only 235U (0.7) is fissile,
  but can make fissile Plutonium from the other
  99.3
• 238U n ? 239Np ? 239Pu
• fertile fissile
• order 60 times more energy/kg of U
• more expensive (and not quite so safe large
  plutonium inventory), but far less waste ?
  storage
• Potential problem
• slow ramp up (1 reactor? 2 takes 10 years)
• Based on figures from Paul Howarth
• 1 GWe FBR needs stockpile of 30 tonnes Pu to
  operate 12 years
• 30 tonnes of Pu is output of a 1 GWe LWR for
  140 years
• After 12 years ? 30t Pu to refuel 30t Pu to
  start another

50
Thorium

• Thorium is more abundant than Uranium and 100
  can be burned (generating less waste than
  Uranium), using
• 232Th n ? 233Th ? 232Pa ? U233
• fertile
  fissile
• Thermal neutrons OK, but then to avoid poisoning
  need continuous reprocessing ? molten salts
• accessible 232Th resource seems (??) to be over
  4 Mt, vs. 0.1 Mt for 235U (if total accessible U
  resource is 16 Mt)
• Need Pu or highly enriched U core (? large
  number of neutrons) or neutrons from accelerator
  driven spallation source
• in order to get started
• Relatively rapid ramp up but long doubling time
  (?)
• avoids having a near critical system, but
  economics suggest AD systems best potential is
  for actinide burning

51
FUSION

• D T ? He N 17.6 MeV
• Tritium from N Li ? He T
• So the raw fuels are lithium (? T), which is very
  abundant, and water (? D)
• The lithium in one laptop battery half a bath
  of water would produce 200,000 kW-hours of
  electricity
• EU per-capita electricity production for 30
  years
• without any CO2
• This ( fact that costs do not look
  unreasonable might be able to compete with fast
  breeders?) is sufficient reason to develop fusion
  as a matter of urgency
• Now focus on magnetic confinement (inertial
  fusion should also be pursued, but is a
  generation behind, and faces additional
  challenges)

52
FUSION (magnetic confinement)

• D T ? He N 17.6 MeV
• Challenges
• Heat D-T plasma to over 100 M 0C 10xtemperature
  of
• core of sun, while keeping it from touching the
  walls
• This has been done using a magnetic bottle
  (tokamak)
• The Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham in the
  UK has produced 16 MW of fusion power
• Make a robust container (able to withstand huge
  neutron bombardment 2MW/m2)
• Ensure reliability of very complex systems

53
FUSION (magnetic confinement- cont)

• Attractions unlimited fuel, no CO2 or air
  pollution, intrinsic safety, no radioactive ash
  or long-lived nuclear waste, cost will be
  reasonable if we can get it to work reliably
• Disadvantages not yet available, walls gets
  activated (but half lives 10 years could
  recycle after 100 years)
• Next Steps
• Construct a power station sized device (? at
  least 10 times more energy than input) this has
  just been agreed it is called ITER and is being
  built by EU, Japan, Russia, USA, China, S Korea,
  India in Provence
• Build a Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility
  (IFMIF) and develop fusion technologies
• IF these steps are taken in parallel, then -
  given adequate funding, and no major adverse
  surprises - a prototype fusion power station
  could be putting power into the grid within 30
  years

54
Could what is available add up to a solution?

• Known technologies could in principle meet needs
  with constrained CO2 until the middle of the
  century, but only with
• technology development, e.g. for carbon capture
  and storage essential
• measures to increase efficiency (cost is a big
  driver, but need strong regulation also)
• all known low carbon sources pushed to the limit
• After fossil fuels depleted, must continue to
  use everything available. But the only major
  potential contributors are
• Solar which must be developed
• Nuclear fission ? fast breeders
• Fusion which must be developed

55
(No Transcript)
56
Cost Effectiveness of Modest CO2 Saving in IEAs
2006 Alternative Scenario

• (only 30 CO2 in 2030 50
  in Reference Scenario)
• Supply side investment saved 3.0 trillion to
  2030
• out of over 29 trillion in reference
  scenario, which wont necessarily be available
• Additional demand side investment 2.4
  trillion to 2030
• by consumers, who cumulatively save 8.1
  trillion in power bills so investment very cost
  effective (even with an enormous discount rate as
  pay back times 3 years in OECD/1.5 years
  developing countries)
• Gains biggest in developing world
• low hanging fruit demand side work cheaper
• but implementation requires many individual
  investment decisions, by people
• - such as landlords, developers who wont be
  paying the power bills
• - in the developing world, without access to
  capital
• - in developed world, without a great interest in
  individually small savings

57
Final Conclusions

• Huge increase in energy use expected large
  increase needed to lift world out of poverty
• Challenge of meeting demand in an
  environmentally responsible manner is enormous.
  No silver bullet - need a portfolio approach
• Need all sensible measures more wind, hydro,
  biofuels, marine, and particularly CCS
  (essential to reduce climate change) and
  increased efficiency, and in longer term more
  solar and nuclear, and fusion we hope
• Huge RD agenda
• Need fiscal incentives, regulation, carbon
  price, more RD, political will (globally)
• The time for action is now