A
Anonymous
Guest
Professor Ian Fells is a specialist in matters regarding energy generation, is/was head of Chemical Engineering at Newcastle University, and has influenced government energy policy as a consultant. In short, he knows his stuff, and I summarise below an article published in this month’s The Chemical Engineer journal. It highlights some shortfalls in our current thinking on energy policy in the long term. The article refers to a report issued by the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) to the government which will influence future energy policy.
“One of the planks of the PIU Energy Review is a move to a low carbon economy; no one will disagree with the efficacy of this but some of the solutions presented in the report smack of wishful thinking.
“10% of electricity is to come from renewable sources by 2010 and 10% by 2020. The current figure is 2.8%, most of which comes from large-scale hydroelectric sources or from burning waste such as landfill gas. The PIU report postulates that the increase will be largely provided by wind, both onshore and offshore, and biomass; there are no large scale hydroelectric sites remaining….no attempt at energy arithmetic seems to have been attempted. For example, if all the wind farms currently operating in the world were to be put on the South Downs…they would generate only 10% of the UK’s electricity. To produce just 5% of the UK’s electricity would require two 2MW machines to be installed every day between now and 2010, around half of them offshore. The floating cranes necessary to install at this rate will have to be built, and in addition the undersea cabling also presents a problem. No doubt a huge capital investment programme…can be mounted, but it is doubtful that the private sector will pay for it.
“The other problem with wind is its fickle nature; on average, the necessary wind strength to generate electricity is only available for one quarter of the time. Alternative sources will be needed to keep the lights on should an anticyclone dominate the weather; this should be factored in…Accommodating any intermittent electricity source into the grid presents considerable problems and…seems to have only been considered in the PIU report in an inspirational way.
“As to biomass as a major source of electricity, a little arithmetic shows the whole of Kent would have to be turned over to coppiced willow to replace half the output of Dungeness B nuclear power station on the Kent coast. Wind and biomass will play a part…but it is irresponsible to project a role for them which is unrealistically high.
“The PIU is enthusiastic about hydrogen taking over as the fuel for road transport. Fuel cells ‘burning’ hydrogen are at an early demonstration stage. But where is the hydrogen to come from? Currently, hydrogen is produced by reforming natural gas or naphtha, which puts yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. Only electrolysis of water using renewable or nuclear electricity will provide hydrogen without CO2 as a by-product. The additional electricity required would require a doubling of the electricity supply system. To do this, we need to start planning now for new nuclear power stations.
“What is already clear by applying a little arithmetic is that ‘clean energy’ is what is required, and that means all the renewable and nuclear energy we can muster….This will require investment, as free-market policies will not deliver the long-term strategies required. We must move into a ‘post-market’ era.”
Interesting, eh? Especially when all our nuclear stations are being mothballed and decommissioned.
One last titbit (from a different source):
“The Toshiba Corporation has announced plans to build pig-dung gasification technology into its construction projects in Guangdong province, China… plans are now afoot to make similar use of human excrement from the country’s prison population…Perhaps if we all committed a crime, the world’s energy problems would be solved.”
“One of the planks of the PIU Energy Review is a move to a low carbon economy; no one will disagree with the efficacy of this but some of the solutions presented in the report smack of wishful thinking.
“10% of electricity is to come from renewable sources by 2010 and 10% by 2020. The current figure is 2.8%, most of which comes from large-scale hydroelectric sources or from burning waste such as landfill gas. The PIU report postulates that the increase will be largely provided by wind, both onshore and offshore, and biomass; there are no large scale hydroelectric sites remaining….no attempt at energy arithmetic seems to have been attempted. For example, if all the wind farms currently operating in the world were to be put on the South Downs…they would generate only 10% of the UK’s electricity. To produce just 5% of the UK’s electricity would require two 2MW machines to be installed every day between now and 2010, around half of them offshore. The floating cranes necessary to install at this rate will have to be built, and in addition the undersea cabling also presents a problem. No doubt a huge capital investment programme…can be mounted, but it is doubtful that the private sector will pay for it.
“The other problem with wind is its fickle nature; on average, the necessary wind strength to generate electricity is only available for one quarter of the time. Alternative sources will be needed to keep the lights on should an anticyclone dominate the weather; this should be factored in…Accommodating any intermittent electricity source into the grid presents considerable problems and…seems to have only been considered in the PIU report in an inspirational way.
“As to biomass as a major source of electricity, a little arithmetic shows the whole of Kent would have to be turned over to coppiced willow to replace half the output of Dungeness B nuclear power station on the Kent coast. Wind and biomass will play a part…but it is irresponsible to project a role for them which is unrealistically high.
“The PIU is enthusiastic about hydrogen taking over as the fuel for road transport. Fuel cells ‘burning’ hydrogen are at an early demonstration stage. But where is the hydrogen to come from? Currently, hydrogen is produced by reforming natural gas or naphtha, which puts yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. Only electrolysis of water using renewable or nuclear electricity will provide hydrogen without CO2 as a by-product. The additional electricity required would require a doubling of the electricity supply system. To do this, we need to start planning now for new nuclear power stations.
“What is already clear by applying a little arithmetic is that ‘clean energy’ is what is required, and that means all the renewable and nuclear energy we can muster….This will require investment, as free-market policies will not deliver the long-term strategies required. We must move into a ‘post-market’ era.”
Interesting, eh? Especially when all our nuclear stations are being mothballed and decommissioned.
One last titbit (from a different source):
“The Toshiba Corporation has announced plans to build pig-dung gasification technology into its construction projects in Guangdong province, China… plans are now afoot to make similar use of human excrement from the country’s prison population…Perhaps if we all committed a crime, the world’s energy problems would be solved.”