Presentation on theme: "Energy Futures Hard Choices Ahead Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE Energy Science Director: Low Carbon Innovation Centre School of Environmental Sciences."— Presentation transcript:
Energy Futures Hard Choices Ahead Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE Energy Science Director: Low Carbon Innovation Centre School of Environmental Sciences Common Purpose Suffolk 2nd Challenge Day Otley College 6 th October 2005 CRed
Future Global Warming Rates
Total winter precipitation Total summer precipitation Source: Tim Osborne, CRU Change in precipitation
Temperature Rise ( o C) Temperature Rise ( o C) Temperature Rise ( o C) Source: Hadley Centre, The Met.Office actual predicted Is 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
Climate Change Arctic meltdown Summer ice coverage of Arctic Polar Region –Nasa satellite imagery Source: Nasa 20% reduction in 24 years
Options for Electricity Generation in Non-Renewable Methods Difficult Choices Ahead
Options for Electricity Generation in Renewable
Transport Fuels: Biodiesel? Bioethanol?
Options for Electricity Generation in Renewable
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?
Our Choices: They are difficult 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, Algeria Are 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.
Our Choices: They are difficult 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 Local Small Scale generation saves 8.5% from losses in transmission An important advantage over conventional generation or far Offshore Wind
Our Choices: They are difficult 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 CO 2. 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 Isnt 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 difficult Affect House Prices Evidence from Estate Agents in the Swaffham Area say they have a positive effect on house prices.
Our Choices: They are difficult 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
Our Choices: They are difficult 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 CO 2 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
How many people know what 9 tonnes of CO 2 looks like? 5 hot air balloons per person per year each year for Mid Suffolk each year for Suffolk Coastal On average each person in UK causes the emission of 9 tonnes of CO 2 each year. "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he thought he could do only a little." Edmund Burke (1727 – 1797) One Party sized balloon is approximately equivalent to 10 gms of CO 2 CRed
Some facts: A mobile phone charger left on even when not charging up to 20 kg CO 2 a year Standby on television > 60 kg per year Filling up with petrol (~£35 for a full tank) kg of CO 2 (5% of one balloon) How far does one have to drive in a small family car (e.g cc Toyota Corolla) to emit as much carbon dioxide as heating an old persons room for 1 hour? 1.6 miles
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: Mid Suffolk : Suffolk Coastal Each house in Mid Suffolk consumes, on average 6167 kWh per year 35% more than a house in Ipswich. For Suffolk Coastal figures are 5610 kWh and 23% For Mid Suffolk 470 million kWh per year (236 million domestic) For Suffolk Coastal 615 million kWh per year (307 million domestic) A wind farm the size of Scroby Sands would supply 61% of domestic needs for whole of Mid Suffolk (or 31% of total demand) For Suffolk Coastal – figures are 47% and 23% respectively Would save ~ to tonnes of carbon dioxide a year or hot air balloons each year. The alternative: Persuade motorists never to drive the car again Or motorists to drive 1000 miles less each year.
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 individuals 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??? – but Uranium resources are limited Even if we are not convinced about Global Warming – Energy Security issues will shortly start to affect us.
WEBSITE This presentation will be available from tomorrow 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 persons room Conclusions Are you up to the Challenge?: Will you make a pledge?