Renewable Energies and Barriers

Renewable energies could offer a solution to the plight of a large part of the world’s population. The developing world struggles everyday with energy related problems and green technology could be implemented more easily to solve them than our traditional hydrocarbon systems. The adoption of renewable energies is made difficult in developing countries as well as in the Western world because of systematic barriers that occur during their implementation.

The case study of the Maharashthra State in India by Reddy and Painuly (link), exposes the barriers to the diffusion of renewable energy technologies.

• A lack of awareness and information:

Obtaining information about renewable energies can be difficult for households and small firms. This represents a barrier to their diffusion in important parts of the population. This holds particular importance in developing countries, where information is less free and accessible.

• Economic and financial constraints:

Once again the problem of economic viability of renewable energies is paramount to understanding the difficulty of implementation. The original investment for green technologies is too high to be justified, this is especially true for developing countries and their populations.   

• Technical risks:

Site specific rejections make the efficiency of green energies unreliable in some places in the world and it therefore represents a major barrier to their dissemination.

• Institutional and regulatory barriers:

A lack of sufficient governmental regulations and incentives can slow the expansion of renewable energies. Once again this lack of political stimulus is most apparent in developing countries where governments have “better things to do”.

• Market barriers:

The way the market works pushes individuals to seek the most beneficial scenarios for themselves. This usually excludes expensive renewable energies because of the high investment cost. Furthermore, information is oftentimes lacking when these technologies are concerned which makes people even more sceptical of their economic benefits.

• Behavioural:

 

It seems to be entrenched in common belief that renewable energies represent a sacrifice for the user compared to conventional technologies. Individuals usually do not think rationally when it comes to the adoption of these technologies. Their decisions are mostly based on popular belief and myths.

For environmental friendly energies to be commonplace, these barriers must be overcome. The IPCC has recently started according more importance to their solutions (link). Similarly, both the World Bank (link) and academics (Oliver, Jackson: 1999) have been exploring the subject with more enthusiasm. However, more needs to be done in order to help green technology to become accepted and implemented correctly.

M Oliver, T Jackson, "The market for solar photovoltaics" Energy Policy, 27 (1999), pp. 371–385

The Hydrogen Economy: the future of our energy system?

The future of renewable energy does not necessarily rely on “traditional” renewable technologies. New ways of creating our power are being investigated, and they promise great things for the future. Could our renewable energy problems be solved by technological advances?

The Hydrogen Economy was coined in the 70’s by John Bockris at a General Motor conference. It represents a new energy system where power is delivered using hydrogen. The current economy is named hydrocarbon because most of our energy is delivered by burning hydrocarbons that are found in fossil fuels. Any hydrocarbon combustion necessarily creates Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and therefore pollutes the atmosphere. This is where the benefits of a hydrogen economy come in to play; molecular hydrogen can be used as a fuel that does not release any pollutants.

Why are new fuel sources such as hydrogen not used on a global scale?

1. Production

Hydrogen can be generated in different ways. The method most used today is steam reforming from hydrocarbons. This procedure makes steam react at very high temperature with a hydrocarbon such as natural gas. This method is very wasteful and still contributes to our dependance on fossil fuels. Other ways are known (electrolysis and thermolysis) but are not used as much.

The production of hydrogen can also be done by splitting the molecules of hydrogen (H) out of water (H2O). This method has however not yet yielded any industrially applicable results but as the science advances so do the hopes of using water as the source of our hydrogen.

2. Storage

Hydrogen can be stored in two ways. Liquid hydrogen has less energy intensity by volume than hydrocarbon fuels which means that less energy can be created out of a litre of pure hydrogen compared to a litre of gasoline. Furthermore, the storage of liquid hydrogen requires cryogenic storage because of the very low boiling temperature of the liquid (-253 °C). This storage method requires even more energy to keep the hydrogen cold and requires a specific costly technology wherever the molecule is to be stored.

Compressed hydrogen is stored quite differently under the form of a gas. Hydrogen gas has a good energy intensity by weight but very poor energy intensity by volume. This entails the creation of larger tanks in cars for example to store it.

Three other storage methods are also candidates but they all have their own barriers interfering with industrial application of the technology as described by Li Zhou in this article.

 

3. Costs

The production of a unit of hydrogen fuel by steam electrolysis (water splitting) is today six times more expensive than the production of an equivalent unit of fuel from hydrocarbon sources (source). The main problem with the cost of hydrogen fuel is that it is compared through the market to fossil fuels. For the case of hydrogen however, the cost of creating the molecule of hydrogen from water splitting or steam reforming contributes to the final price. For fossil fuels, only the extraction, refining, transportation and distribution contribute to the market price. Therefore, until the depletion of fossil fuels or government incentives push the price of hydrocarbons higher than hydrogen, it will always be more economically viable to use fossil fuels.

4. Infrastructure

A hydrogen infrastructure would require industrial hydrogen pipelines and hydrogen filling stations. This entails the transformation of our whole energy system to accommodate the new gas. Furthermore, the vulnerabilities of steel to hydrogen means that the steel natural gas pipelines would need to be changed if hydrogen were to be transported through them.

What can be done is a swap from centralized to distributed production sites. This means that hydrogen generating facilities can be created locally in order to bypass the distribution line (hydrogen creation necessitates less infrastructure than fossil fuel extraction and refining).

A final point must be made about the required personal infrastructures. All fossil fuel using machines would need to be transformed in order to use hydrogen. The hydrogen fuel cell would replace the combustion engine and therefore represents a huge investment in anything ranging from cars and buses to gas heating and cooking.

  

5. Safety

Hydrogen has one of the most potent explosive and ignition mix with air. This entails that whenever there is a hydrogen leak into air there will most likely be an explosion (see hydrogen bomb). To increase the danger further, hydrogen leaks are odorless and very difficult to recognize. This leads to worries about the safety of using hydrogen as a fuel where any accidents can lead to large explosions.

Each of these points indicate that hydrogen fuel is not yet an energy source that we are ready for. The production of pure hydrogen still uses fossil fuels at the moment and the technology is not yet present to significantly create it otherwise. Hydrogen storage is also lacking as we are not yet ready to store in at any industrial scale. The costs of both the fuel itself and the costs of adapting our infrastructures to be able to accommodate it are too high in particular when compared to fossil fuels. Finally, the dangers that hydrogen represent are hindering not only the large scaled adaptation of the energy but also the smaller scale tests and trials of the fuel. Until the science and technology solve these problems and governments and corporations enable the adaptation of the fuel through incentives, the hydrogen economy will remain out of reach.  

Renewable Energies Have Risks? The Example of Hydropower

Renewable technologies such as hydro energy, solar power or wind energy, are quite consistently labelled as harmless. When compared to other non-renewable energy sources this statement holds a lot of truth. However, renewable energies are not an instant fix to the problems of our energy systems.

By using the example of hydraulic power, I will go through some of the risks and consequences that renewable energies hold for the future.  These risks are quite different to their fossil fuel counterparts as these renewable energies hold social and political importance as well as some underlying environmental consequences.

Hydropower is power created by the movement of falling or running water. The largest hydropower producers in the world are the countries with a large landmass frequently crossed by rivers (China, Brazil, USA, Russia).

This energy source is 100% renewable because none of the water disappears as the only resource used is the water’s motion. However, hydropower does nonetheless present certain risks and disadvantages.

The biggest disadvantage that renewable energies have is their relative price compared to fossil fuel sources of energy. This difference has hindered the adoption and penetration of clean energies on the market. However there are other disadvantages and risks for renewable energies, here I will loook into them by using hydropower as an example.

1. Population displacement and the destruction of entire valleys

The creation of dams requires the flooding of a large portion of landmass. This entails the destruction of entire valleys and the displacement of large amounts of people. This social problem is highlighted at the 2004 UN symposium on hydropower and sustainable development in Beijing by Professor Michael Cernea. He exposed the social consequences of dam building in four main bullet points:

1. Forced population displacement and impoverishment
2. Boomtown formation around constructions
3. Downstream unanticipated changes in agro-production systems
4. Loss of cultural heritage assets

He concludes that these social problems can be partially prevented by a mind-set that sees negative externalities as potential risks instead of unavoidable. Mitigation of these risks can be achieved instead of simply trying to adapt to them.

2. Modifications to flora and fauna

Obviously flooding a valley will result in the destruction of the flora and fauna present there. However, dam building also modifies the livelihood of the fauna present in the river itself as they now need to adapt to a lake environment.

3. Dangers of dam failure

This risk is by far the most dangerous for humans. When a dam collapses, huge amounts of water are released downstream which results in flooding and destruction. In 1975, the Banqiao Dam in China broke. 171,000 people were killed and 11 million individuals lost their homes. 

The next few months in the Henan Province of China were similar to the aftermath of a natural disaster: sickness was rampant, the water was dirty and millions of people had no shelter to sleep under.

                                   

                                              Failure of the Teton Dam in 1976

4. Siltation

Siltation is the process of water pollution by fine material particulates. When water is flowing, it has the ability to carry particulates that are heavier than itself. When a dam is constructed on a river this phenomenon is no longer possible because the water is slowed down to a stop. The fine particulates therefore stay in the basin and the water becomes polluted. Studies have been conducted and explained the relationship between siltation and dams. Here is one led on the Gilgel Gibe Dam in Ethiopia.

                                   


                                     
                                         The effects of siltation of a waterway

5. Necessity of an eligible building spot

The fact that a particular geographic formation needs to be present (narrow part of a deep river valley) in order to build a dam means that other important criteria can be omitted. For example, a dam can be built in a location that is also prone to earthquakes or storms because perfect dam locations are not easy to find.  

6. Dams and their link to seismic activity    

Many studies have been conducted to link unusual seismic activity to the construction of new dams. Indeed, the large reservoir of water created by a damm affects the underlying geology of the region. The Hoover Dam on the Colorado river (also known as the Boulder Dam) has been linked with new seismic shocks in the area. Similarly Lake Pukaki in New Zealand has induced seismicity.

Renewable energy sources are without doubt a less risk heavy alternative to our fossil fuel energy system. However, these new technologies still do carry social, political and environmental risks that cannot be ignored. As Professor Cernea indicated in his keynote address, they must be taken into account when investing in these technologies. Further, these risks should not be understood as inevitable consequences but instead as risks that we can overcome when prepared properly.

Further reading on social and environmental impacts of hydropower are available at the International Energy Agency internet site: http://www.ieahydro.org/Technical_Information_%3E_IEA_Hydropower_Agreement_Technical_Reports.html

The importance of an efficient energy demand side when talking about renewable energies.

Six years ago, the UK parliament passed the Climate Change Act 2008. The goal is a reduction of at least 80% of carbon emissions by 2050 using 1990 as a baseline. The RSPB (Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds) published a quick explanation of what the 2050 goal entails and how we can achieve it (here).

The UK government wants the process to be as transparent and democratic as possible and has therefore created an online calculator for anyone who wants to understand and participate in this common goal. (It is found at this link).

The calculator is an incredibly complex tool that covers everything from the supply to the demand side with an astonishing amount of details, options and possibilities.  It is also the perfect way to model and predict what role renewable technologies can play in our energy systems.

Here is what two UK strategies that use the most renewable energies look like:

Higher renewables, more energy efficiency pathway:

http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/pathways/e0d3jrg221ci12110222112004423220444404202304440420141/primary_energy_chart#

Friends of the Earth pathway:

http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/pathways/10h4nn4431w23y110244111004424440343304202304430420441/primary_energy_chart#

Both of these pathways have something in common and it is not simply a higher use of

renewable energies, it is a much more effective energy demand side. Indeed, they both largely rely on better and more frequently used public transport, more efficient shipping and much more efficient commercial and domestic insulation, heating and lighting.

                                   Higher renewables, more energy efficiency pathway.

                                                         Friends of the Earth pathway

Their use of renewable energies are in fact quite moderate as shown in the graphs underneath:

                                     Higher renewables, more energy efficiency pathway.

                                                Friends of the Earth pathway.

It seems that the “greener” pathways that include a lot of renewable energies are always followed by a more efficient energy demand side (the most obvious indicator of this is that the total primary supply graphs both show a decrease). This can be explained by the cost of implementation of very large scale renewable energies and by the aforementioned cost in land mass. For example the cost to implement the Friends of the Earth pathway is estimated at an additional £889 more per person per year from now until 2050.This paper outlines some differences that appear within demand fluctuations in different countries.

I believe that this is the most poignant argument against blindly investing in renewable energies at the moment: our energy systems are still too wasteful and inefficient to rely solely on “green” energies. We would indeed be wasting a much more expensive energy per unit than let’s say nuclear power.

"We get 90% of our energy from fossil fuels". Is this problem solvable?

David MacKay is a Natural Philosophy professor at the University of Cambridge and the chief scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. In this Tedx talk, he explores the mathematics behind our sustainable energies and what it means for the future.

MacKay covers two main points: the worrying limits that our renewable energy systems are going to face and why we should nonetheless pursue them.

If we were to try and fulfill the UK's energy demands (1.25W/m² ) using wind power (2.5W/m²) we would need about half of the UK to be covered in wind farms. Solar parks create about 5W/m² which means we would have to cover 20-25% of the UK's land mass in solar panels in order to meet the 1.25W/m² demand.

This is how much energy each renewable source can produce:

 

Each of these technologies would require a huge amount of land mass in order to meet the UK energy requirements (and that is without counting investment prices, costs of running and maintaining them...) An interesting note to make here is that nuclear power creates 1000W/m² 

"People are anti everything and we have got to keep all the options on the table. What can a country like the UK do on the supply side?" MacKay proposes a combination of three things:

- Renewables in the UK (in our countryside)

- Renewables in other countries (in their countryside)

- Nuclear power

However, we can also affect the demand side of energy systems by making it more efficient (heating, new technologies, less wasteful transportation...)

By manipulating both the supply side and demand side we can completely change what our energy systems look like. However it seems unlikely that we would be able to achieve an acceptable balance only with the use of renewable energies.

On the next blog post, I will explore what kind of  combinations of energy supply and energy demand could work and what would be there costs using the UK government 2050 energy model (here)

 

Introductory words

The words "renewable energies" are thrown around a lot these days. Solar panels, wind turbines, tidal power harnessing, all of these technologies are presented, particularly by the media, as being the saviours of our energy systems and the rescuers of humanity. People regularly invoke a ''100% green future'' where all of our energy comes from renewable sources. Yet it seems to me that this grand idea will not develop due to numerous reasons that range from technological to political. In this blog I am going to look for what we should really expect from renewable energies, what part they will play in the future and whether it is really such  a bad thing if they are not our exclusive energy source.