Global Warming Energy Security Hard Choices Ahead Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE Energy Science...

Global WarmingEnergy Security

Hard Choices Ahead

Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICEEnergy Science Director: Low Carbon Innovation Centre

School of Environmental Sciences

WI Meeting UEA

6th July 2005

CRed

Future Global Warming RatesConcentration of C02 in Atmosphere

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

(ppm

)

I Risks to Unique and Threatened Systems

Reasons for Concern

I II III IV V

Range of predicted

temperatures

Risks to Many

Risks to Some

Large Increase

Increase

Negative for most Regions

Negative for some Regions

Some positive/

some negative

Most people

adversely affected

Net Negative

for all markets

most

Very Low Risk

Higher Risk

Current temperature

Historic Average

Average 1950 - 1970

oC

II Risks from Extreme Climatic Events

III Distribution of Impacts

IV Aggregate Impacts

V Risks from Future Large Scale Discontinuities

Total winter precipitation Total summer precipitation

Source: Tim

Osborne, C

RU

Change in precipitation 1961-2001

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.51860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000T

emp

erat

ure

Ris

e (o C

)

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.51860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Tem

per

atu

re R

ise

(o C)

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.51860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Tem

per

atu

re R

ise

(o C)

Source: Hadley Centre, The Met.Office

actual

actual

actual

predicted

predicted

predictedIs Global Warming man made?

Prediction: Anthropogenic only

Not a good match between 1920 and 1970

Prediction: Natural only

good match until 1960

Prediction: Natural and Anthropogenic

Generally a good match

Predictions include:

• Greenhouse Gas emissions

• Sulphates and ozone

• Solar and volcanic activity

20031979

Climate ChangeArctic meltdown 1979 - 2003

• Summer ice coverage of Arctic Polar Region– Nasa satellite

imagery

Source: Nasa http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

•20% reduction in 24 years

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods

Gas CCGT0 - 80% (currently 40% and rising)

available now, but UK gas will run out within current decade

~ 2p + but recent trends put figure

much higher

nuclear fission (long term)

0 - 60% (France 80%) - (currently 20 - 25% and falling)

new inherently safe designs - some practical development needed

2.5 - 3.5p

nuclear fusion unavailablenot available until 2040 at earliest

"Clean Coal"

Traditional Coal falling rapidly -

coal could supply 40 - 50% by 2020

Basic components available - not viable without Carbon Sequestration

2.5 - 3.5p - but will EU - ETS affect

this

potential contribution to

Electricity Supply in 2020

costs in 2020

Difficult Choices Ahead

On Shore Wind ~25% available now for commercialexploitation

~ 2p

Hydro 5% technically mature, but limitedpotential

2.5 - 3p

Resource Potential contribution to electricity supply in2020 and drivers/barriers

Cost in2020

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable

Photovoltaic 50% available, but much research neededto bring down costs significantly

10+ p

Energy Crops 100% + available, but research needed insome areas

2.5 - 4


~ 2p


2.5 - 3p


Cost in2020


Transport Fuels:

• Biodiesel?

• Bioethanol?

Photovoltaic 50% available, but much research neededto bring down costs significantly

10+ p

Energy Crops 100% + available, but research needed insome areas

2.5 - 4

Wave/TidalStream

100% + techology limited - extensivedevelopment unlikely before 2020

4 - 8p

Tidal Barrages 10 - 20% technology available but unlikelywithout Government intervention

notcosted

Geothermal unlikely for electricity generationbefore 2050 if then


~ 2p


2.5 - 3p


Cost in2020


Solar Energy - The BroadSol Project

Annual Solar Gain 910 kWh

Solar Collectors installed 27th January 2004

House in Lerwick, Shetland Isles

- less than 15,000 people live north of this in UK!

It is all very well for South East, but what about the North?

Our Choices: They are difficult

If our answer is NO

Do we want to return to using coal? • then carbon dioxide emissions will rise significantly• unless we can develop carbon sequestration within 10 years which is unlikely

If our answer to coal is NO

Do we want to leave things are they are and see continued exploitation of gas for both heating and electricity generation? >>>>>>

Do we want to exploit available renewables i.e onshore/offshore wind and biomass. Photovoltaics, tidal, wave are not options for next 20 years.

If our answer is NO

Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power

• Are we happy on this and the other attendant risks?


If our answer is YES

By 2020

• we will be dependent on around 70% of our heating and electricity from GAS

• imported from countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, AlgeriaAre we happy with this prospect? >>>>>>

If not:

We need even more substantial cuts in energy use.

Or are we prepared to sacrifice our future to effects of Global Warming? - the North Norfolk Coal Field?

Do we wish to reconsider our stance on renewables?

Inaction or delays in decision making will lead us down the GAS option route

and all the attendant Security issues that raises.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

MT

on

ne

s C

O2

ActualHigh Growth (1)Low Growth (1)High Growth (2)Low Growth (2)

Gas Consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

bil

lio

n c

ub

ic m

etr

es Actual

High Growth (1)Low Growth (1)High Growth (2)Low Growth (2)

The Gas Scenario

Assumes all new non-renewable generation is from gas.

Replacements for ageing plant

Additions to deal with demand changes

Scenarios (1) - 7.5% renewables by 2010

15% by 2020

Scenarios (2) 10.4% by 2010

20% by 2020

• High Growth – Business as Usual

• Low Growth capped at 420 TWH by 2010

• Rise in emissions 2005 – 2010

• loss of nuclear generating capacity

• Fall in 2010 – 2020

• loss of nuclear and coal capacity

• Little new generating capacity available before 2010 except Wind

Electricity Options for the Future


0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

MT

on

ne

s C

O2

ActualGasNuclearCoal40:20:40 Mix


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Mto

nn

es C

O2

ActualGasNuclearCoal40:20:40 Mix

Electricity Options for the Future

Low Growth Scenario

Capped at 420 TWh

• Represents a cumulative 1.5% per annum per household reduction below historic trend

• 33% CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990

• 62% CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990

• 68 % increase in gas consumption ( Gas Scenario) cf 2002

High Growth Scenario

Business as Usual

• 0.3 % CO2 reduction (Gas) cf 1990

• 54% CO2 reduction (Nuclear) cf 1990

• 257% increase in gas consumption ( Gas Scenario) cf 2002


A diverse renewable supply will be local, and will be less prone to cascade power cuts such as those recently in US, London, Italy, Denmark.

Conventional generation is based on large units: 500 – 660 MW enough to supply over 1 million homes. These do fail from time to time, and require much greater backup than required for the failure of a few wind turbines.

Renewable generation is less prone to major interruption

We must not get drawn into a single issue debate

– a rational debate covering all the alternatives is needed.

Available Renewables: Nuclear: Conservation


• NETA has to cope with the loss of Sizewell B through a reactor trip. This loss amounts to around 1.5 times the total installed capacity of wind at present.

• NETA also has to cope with sudden changes in demand (up to 2.5 times Sizewell B) in a matter of minutes e.g. from TV scheduling.

• Experience from Denmark shows that the normal maximum change in any one hour from Wind Output is no more than 18% on one occasion in a year. With a larger country area the figures for diverse wind generation will be less in UK.

One will not save Carbon Dioxide because power stations are running in case they are needed.

• There is very little truth in this. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted is dependant on the output of a fossil fuel power station. If it is running under low load it will emit only a very small amount of extra CO2.

• Allowing for this, the effect of standby reserve will amount to a maximum of 15 – 20 gms per kWh of Wind Energy compared to 430 for gas or 1000 for coal.

• A substantial saving is made.

Renewable Energy: The Issues

Isn’t Energy from Renewables unreliable? – we need secure supply

Whilst the wind turbine is considered 'ugly' by some residents of Swaffham, most consider it a unique landmark and see it as an asset to the town. Most of the local population are proud of the turbine and it seems to have had a positive

impact on the town in a number of ways.

I do believe that were it not for the number of visitors to Swaffham, coming to see the turbine for whatever reason, we would not have such a high influx of buyers from out of the area. This has increased house prices, and the prosperity of

the area.

Our Choices: They are difficultAffect House Prices

• Evidence from Estate Agents in the Swaffham Area say they have a positive effect on house prices.


Wind Turbines are Incredibly Inefficient

Efficiency: the ratio of the USEFUL work to the total energy available (or expended)

Oxford English Dictionary

Modern Wind Turbines convert 40 – 42%% of available energy in the wind

Modern Coal Fired Power Stations achieve 38%

Sizewell B achieves 32%

A car engine achieve 30% at best

Compared to many other energy devices, Wind Turbines are Very Efficient

Are those who say that Wind Turbines are inefficient really meaning that they have a low load factor.

UK wind turbines have a much higher load factor than German, Danish and Spanish because of much higher wind speeds

27% but likely to increase with offshore turbines

A car driven 10 000 miles a year has a load factor of 1 – 3%

Less than one tenth of a wind turbine

Definition: production (or consumption) as a proportion of rated output (consumption).

Our Choices: They are difficult - Myths

Our Choices: They are difficult - Myths

• Latest some evidence to suggest that a few birds are killed typically 3 per installed MW per year except in a few locations.

• the oldest wind farm in UK on Burgar Hill has an RSPB reserve right next to it.

• in Orkney a party from UEA came across new fewer than 3 dead birds on roads in 2 days in area around turbines.

•Currently UK has around 850 MW installed perhaps 2500 killed a year

•Estimates of 1 million killed each year by vehicles

•British Trust for Ornithology estimate 100 million birds collide with fixed objects of whom one third are killed

Wind Energy: The Issues

Wind Turbines kill birds


• Wind Turbines are beautiful!

» Wind Turbines are Ugly!

• What is the consequence of not using wind alongside conservation, biomass etc?.

• Insecure supply of Electricity when we import fossil fuels from Russia

• The North Norfolk Coal Field• Increased Famine• 20 new nuclear power stations in the UK by 2025• Increased incidence of extreme weather events.

Government Response

• Energy White Paper – aspiration for 60% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050

• Will require unprecedented partnership activity in

local communities to ensure on track by 2020s

• (– but no indication of how this will be

undertaken)

“There will be much more local generation, in part from medium to small local/community power plant, fuelled by locally grown biomass, from locally generated waste, and from local wind sources. These will feed local distributed networks, which can sell excess capacity into the grid.’’

- Energy White Paper: February 2003

The CRed ambition• To engage, enthuse and empower a large, diverse community to debate, plan and execute a programme to reduce carbon emissions by up to 60% by 2025

• Can a local community take on the responsibility for starting to confront the challenge of climate change and make a difference?

• Or will it continue to be - someone/somewhere else?

• Can we encourage politicians/officials to be bolder on our behalf?

• It will involve an integrated approach to use of renewables alongside conservation

“exemplar for the world”

How many people know what 9 tonnes of CO2 looks like?

5 hot air balloons per person per year.

900 000 party balloons each year

On average each person in UK causes the emission of 9 tonnes of CO2 each year.

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."

Edmund Burke (1727 – 1797)

Some facts:

A mobile phone charger left on even when not charging

up to 20 kg CO2 a year (200 party balloons)

Standby on television > 60 kg per year

Filling up with petrol (~£35 for a full tank)

--------- 90 kg of CO2 (5% of one hot air balloon )

How far does one have to drive in a small family car (e.g. 1300 cc Toyota Corolla) to emit as much carbon dioxide as heating an old persons room for 1 hour?

1.6 miles or 25 party balloons

• Many residents on island of Burray (Orkney) compaigned for a wind turbine.

• On average they are fully self-sufficient in electricity needs and indeed are a net exporter of electricity

Involve the local Community

Electricity Statistics: North Norfolk

• Each house in North Norfolk consumes, on average 5668 kWh per year 50% more than a house in Norwich

• North Norfolk consumes a total of 559 million kWh per year (288 million domestic).

• A wind farm the size of Scroby Sands would supply 55% of domestic needs for whole of North Norfolk (or 28% of total demand)

• Would save ~ 80 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year or 45 000 hot air balloons each year.

• The alternative:

• Persuade 32 000 motorists never to drive the car again

• Or 320 000 motorists to drive 1000 miles less each year.

Some Media Articles might be counter productive

Saturday 28th May 2005

If this statement were true then a mini would do 16944 miles per litre or 77000 miles per gallon

Hard Choices• What could the Women’s Institute do as an

organisation?

• What can you do individually at home?

• Visit the CRed WEB Site www.cred-uk.org

• Sign a pledge to

• combat global warming

• help secure energy supplies for the future• saving energy

• promoting appropriate renewable energy

http://www.cred-uk.org/

Conclusions• Global Warming will affect us all - in next few decades

• Energy Security will become increasingly important. Inaction over making difficult decisions now will make Energy Security more likely in future.

• Move towards energy conservation and LOCAL generation of energy

It is as much about the individual’s response to use of energy as any technical measures the Government may take.

• Wind (and possibly biomass) are the only real alternatives for renewable generation in next 5 – 10 years.

• Otherwise Nuclear???

• Even if we are not convinced about Global Warming – Energy Security issues will shortly start to affect us.

WEBSITE

www.cred-uk.org/

This presentation is available at

www2.env.uea.ac.uk/cred/creduea.htm

• Need to act now otherwise we might have to make choice of whether we drive 1.6 miles or heat an old person’s room

Conclusions

Are you up to the Challenge?: Will you make a pledge?

Global Warming Energy Security Hard Choices Ahead Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE Energy Science...

Documents

Transcript of Global Warming Energy Security Hard Choices Ahead Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE Energy Science...