A World Powered By Wind, Water and Sunshine

Goodbye to scenes like this?

Two scientists from the U.S. have come up with a study that concludes the world could be run on on renewable energy alone, using current technology, by 2050.

The pair (Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford and Mark Delucchi from the University of California-Davis) have written a 2 part paper that details how this can be done on a similar spend on energy as we do today. It would involve wind and solar giving us 90% of the energy, geothermal and hydroelectric giving 4% each, and the rest from tidal and wave power.

They found that there are no technological or economic barriers to switching by 2050 and believe the only thing needed is the "societal and political will".

Yes, it would mean huge changes to the way we do things - comparison is made to the Apollo program, which put men on the Moon - but they believe it is possible.

The pay-back would be huge: To put an end to global warming; to save millions of lives lost to changing climate; kerbing air and water pollution; saving the oceans from acidification; and to bring about energy security and price stability.

Whether you agree with their conclusions or not (and I've yet to read the papers), these sort of studies take us ever closer to a roadmap for escaping fossil fuels.

More here (Look out for the links to the actual papers at the bottom of the article).

How We've Reduced Our Carbon Footprint (Revisited) Part 2

In part 1 I looked at what my family's done about our natural gas, electric, car and airflight usage. This time round I look at our secondary footprint using this website to work it out.

As you'll see below, secondary footprints come about from the goods and services people buy. So they often reflect our personal choices in life. It's important to realise that carbon calculators make no judgments about those choices. They just tell you where the carbon is and leave it up to you on what, if anything, you do next. I take the same line: I just tell you what we've done to cut our CO2. What you do next is none of my business (Unless you want to tell me how you are doing).

• Food Preferences: The difference between someone who eats red meat every day and a vegan is nearly a tonne of carbon. Red meat has the largest carbon footprint amongst the food we eat, followed by (in decreasing size of footprint), white meat, fish, and vegetables. So even a simple switch from all red to a mix of red and white meat will give you a reduction. We tend to eat mostly white meat and fish, and even have weekly veggie days.

• Organic Food: Organic food is less carbon intense than the usual stuff. It also tastes better and is chemical free. Unfortunately, it often costs more. We try to buy organic food wherever possible.

• Seasonal Food: Food grown out-of-season is generally grown with the help of artificial lighting and heat, or is grown abroad (adding to it's food miles). To be honest, I can do without green beans in winter if they have to be flown in from East Africa. We only buy seasonal veg. We even grow some of our own!

• Imported Food: Food that needs to come from abroad in a lorry, ship, or plane brings with it it's own footprint. If you buy local produce instead, you not only avoid taking on that footprint, you also support local farms and businesses.

• Fashion: Keeping up with the latest fashions means consuming more goods than are actually necessary. Since all goods have their own carbon footprint, it would add to ours faster than someone who just replaces stuff when they're worn out. So we only buy clothes when we need them.

• Packaging: Ever noticed how much unnecessary packaging is on our purchases these days? Whether it's multiple layers, oversized containers for tiny devices, masses of polystyrene, or all those shopping bags we end up throwing out. They all take energy to make. Unnecessary energy. So, we try to avoid over-packaged items (hard though that is at times) and even have re-usable shopping bags.

• Furniture and Electricals: Buying all the latest gadgets and replacing furniture on a regular basis consumes more goods than are really necessary and are expanding your footprint. We only buy what we need and use them until they wear out.

• Recycling: If you don't recycle, all that stuff you throw out adds to your footprint. Recycling stuff reduces that effect. We try to recycle or compost everything possible, even to the extent of selling/giving away what we no longer need (like kids clothes, baby cots etc).

• Recreation: Carbon intense hobbies like quad-biking, flying, or jet-skiing obviously add to your footprint. Even regular visits to the restaurant and/or cinema have an effect. We prefer walking, cycling etc. with the occasional visit to the cinema or a restaurant as a treat.

• Car Manufacture:  Every car you own adds a tonne to your footprint for similar reasons everything else you consume adds to your footprint. This is true even if they're second-hand. We have one car each.

• Financial Services: This reflects the amount of carbon the banking, insurance, and pension industry contribute. By using their services, we take on a part of that carbon (about 0.4 tonnes a year). My family uses all these services. Hard to avoid really!

Adding everything up, our secondary carbon adds about 4.14 tonnes to the family footprint, about 40% of our overall total. To be honest, I don't see us getting it any lower unless we go veggie (unlikely).

So that's how we've cut our footprint down to just 2.6 tonnes per person. I hope this has been helpful.

Tidal Power Gets Moving

Tidal power has been around on a commercial scale since 1966. Yet, compared to wind and solar, it doesn't even show up on the radar. The reason being that there are less than 10 tidal power stations running at the moment worldwide with the majority being very small-scale.

However, all that is about to change. India has just announced plans to start building a 50 MW scheme which can be scaled up to 200 MW+. South Korea are also planning several "large projects" of their own, including a 1 GW tidal barrage. And the go-ahead was given for a 400 turbine tidal farm off Scotland in the Pentland Firth last year.

It looks like tidal power is finally on the up.

More here on the story.

More on tidal power.

How We've Reduced Our Carbon Footprint (Revisited)

Last August I posted a piece with a similar title. Whilst it gives some useful hints on how to reduce your carbon footprint, I wanted to do a more detailed breakdown of how we got it down to only 2.6 tonnes per person: Just over a quarter of the UK average. I hope you find it useful.

Heating
This is a sizeable chunk of any brit's footprint. Ours is 3.43 tonnes (or 18500 kWh) per year from gas central heating. This compares with average gas usage for a house our size (4 bed semi) of 5.37t or 29000 kWh. So our bills are over a third less than average. Looks like we're doing something right!

Here's what we're doing:

• We have cavity wall insulation. It cost us less than £200 to install and it helps stop up to 35% of heat loss. It probably paid for itself within 2 years. Highly recommended if appropriate for your home.

• The house was double glazed throughout when we bought it. Some is aluminium framed, so isn't the most efficient but it could be saving us up to 10% of heat loss. 

• We've draught proofed the house for less than £30 which saves up to 15% of heat. Cheap and easy to do. Recommended. 

• Loft insulation: We have very little at the moment but I'm working on it. We should have that in place by Spring. 25% of heat is lost through the roof, yet you can insulate your loft for around £200 including labour (thanks to government incentives). It should pay for itself within a couple of years too. Well worth the investment. 

• Our radiators all have thermostats, and our heating is on a timer, controlled by a central thermostat set at 20 degrees C. Just 1 celsius reduction can save up to 10% of your heating bill.

• We replaced our old, unreliable gas boiler with a new, A rated condenser boiler 2 or 3 years ago. Modern boilers are much more efficient than old ones. They could save you up to 40% on your heating bill. Gas boilers are expensive to replace though (£1000 to £2000 including labour), so they take several years to pay for themselves. If you're going to replace yours anyway, check out ones using renewable fuels, you may pick up incentives from the government through RHIs.

Electric
We use 5000 kWh per year which is equivalent to 2.71 tonnes of CO2. The average is 6000 kWh (3.26 t). So we're saving about 17% on our bills.


We have all the usual stuff: 2 LCD TVs; 2 DVD players; 4 PCs/laptops/netbooks; games console; 2 satellite boxes; power shower; dishwasher; washing machine; tumble dryer; freezer; and fridge/freezer.


So where are the savings? We do a lot of things mentioned here. In particular, all our lights are energy savers, we don't overfill the kettle, our TV screens aren't huge (around 23") so aren't particularly hungry, lights are turned off when we leave rooms, all appliances are A rated (replaced as they died), we have short showers (power showers use a lot of electric), run the dishwasher full, and try not to leave anything on stand-by.


We also try to use Economy 7 (low rate) electric wherever possible. This has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with saving us money.


In fact, all the above is about saving money because our fuel bills are on a green tariff i.e. The electric comes from a renewable source (in our case, hydro-electric) which means it's zero/low carbon. A quick and painless way of taking 2.7 tonnes off our footprint.


Check here for a way to get to grips with your electric bills.

Transport
We get around using a Nissan Primera and a Nissan Almera. They average only about 5000 miles a year each (We both work locally). Total footprint 2.96 tonnes. If we did the national average mileage (10k), that would double the footprint.


If we wanted to cut our emissions further we'd need to find more economical cars, perhaps try diesels or hybrids. If we wanted to really go for it, we could use public transport to get to work, or cycle/walk, but this would make life difficult, especially for my wife. So we're sticking with the cars for now.

Flights
This is probably one of the main areas where we differ from other people. 

We tend to holiday a lot in Britain and countries we can drive to. So, only about 1 in 4 of our holidays involve flights. When we do fly, we use carbon offsets to compensate for the added emissions.


Coming Up:  Okay, that's enough for the moment. In part 2, I'll look at my family's 'secondary carbon footprint': The emissions that come about as a result of our lifestyle choices. 

Until then, if you want to work out your own carbon footprint, try this website.

2010 Was The Warmest Year On Record

2010 tied with 2005 for the warmest year on record according to NASA and the NOAA. This helped to make last decade the warmest on record, ahead of the 1990s in 2nd place, and the 1980s in 3rd.

More here.

An Electric Vehicle Experiment

A BBC reporter has decided to try driving an electric vehicle (EV) from London to Edinburgh to see if it can be done.

Most motorists take such journeys for granted: 373 miles (600 km)? No problem. However, for EV drivers, the experience would be somewhat different (as the reporter is discovering).

Brian Milligan set out from London on Monday (10th Jan.) in an electric Mini and hopes to reach Edinburgh some time  tomorrow (13th). It's not taking 4 days because he's taking in the sights on the way, it's because he has to stop every 50 to 80 miles to recharge the car, and each charge takes up to 8 hours! This highlights the problems EVs have over range per charge, and the time it takes to refuel.

Another problem is the rarity of charging points in the UK at present. This gave the reporter some anxious moments as he wondered if he'd even make it to the next point. He's often had to resort to turning off the heater to conserve power and increase range.

You can follow his adventures here. The link includes short videos on such things as what you need to carry around to charge your car, how little luggage space there is in an electric Mini, how you charge up your EV, and planning the trip.

The reports make up a useful guide to some of the issues of EV ownership. Unfortunately, given the conditions of the experiment, it also makes them look lame. Which is a bit unfair.

You'd have to be a complete idiot if you bought a current EV with the expectation of using it like a normal car. Even the most basic research makes it clear they are best suited for driving round town: Charge the EV overnight, drive it around all day, then stick it back on charge.

Most people's car journeys are round-trips of less than 100 miles - well within the range of most EVs (the Mini seems to be a notable exception) - So the range shouldn't be an issue most of the time. And, for those trips over a 100 miles? Use your second, petrol powered, car, or public transport, or hire a car.

Clearly, EVs aren't ideal for everyone but, for a family like ours - with weekly mileage of less than 50 miles, and a second vehicle - it would be great.

One day, EVs will have a range more like petrol cars, will charge in a fraction of the time, charging points will be everywhere, and EVs will have a comparable price to a standard vehicle, but that's a few years away still.

Update: He made it!

Signs And Portents

Trilobite Party

If you're one of these people who believes the end of the world is nigh, then you'll love this post from Universe Today website. They provide a link to a special Google Earth map that plots all the recent mass animal deaths that have been going on around the world. Don't worry, I'm sure these mass mortalities have always happened: It's just the media's latest obsession.

The Future Of Energy Part 5: Alternative Sources

In part 1 of this series, I made a case for reducing our dependance on fossil fuels as much, and as soon, as possible. Since then I've been looking at ways this might be done.

So far I've looked at wind (part 2), and solar (part 3), but pointed out that these can only ever make up 20% of our total electric supply. This is because they are intermittent sources (i.e. not round the clock) and you can't run a modern society on an electric supply that shuts down over-night!

However, in part 4, I looked at energy storage, which could allow wind and solar to provide up to 100% of a country's electric. The trouble is, it may be a decade or more before energy storage has matured enough to allow this.

So what do we do until then? Well, for starters, keep adding to the wind turbines and solar power stations as fast as possible. It will take a while for most countries to reach their 20% thresholds anyway. By then, energy storage may be ready to go.

My concern is what happens if, for some reason, energy storage doesn't take off?


What we need is some form of energy that will allow us to quickly and easily replace existing coal fired power stations (which are the main problem). One that provides a constant rather than intermittent supply.

So let's have look at the options:

1) Hydroelectric: Dams have been generating electric since the early 1880s. In 2006, they produced around 20% of the world's electric and 88% of all renewable electric. They have a very small CO2 footprint (All of which is produced when they're first built), have a long life (some are still going after 100 years), and are relatively cheap to build and operate.

On the downside, their reservoirs flood large tracts of land, displacing the people and wildlife that occupied that land. So the siting of dams is often controversial and trades off the needs of the many against those of the few.

Hydro is ideal for countries with rugged highlands and abundant water sources, which can be seen from a list of nations that create most of their electric this way: Paraguay; Norway; Canada; Venezuela; Brazil; and Switzerland.

There are many hydro projects underway around the world, especially in China, so hydro will continue to be a major player, but it's not the solution for all countries, including my own. More on hydro here.

2) Tidal and Wave Power: Still in it's infancy basically. They could be major contributors in the future but that is probably some years off. More on Wave, more on Tidal.

3) Biomass: A variety of biological materials are used to generate electric. For example, burning wood alongside coal in a coal-fired power station (a process called cofiring) to reduce the overall carbon emissions; using waste from crops or manufacturing as fuel; and burning the gases given off by rotting garbage on rubbish dumps.

There are a huge range of opportunities here, whether it's growing trees and crops to be used as fuel, or recycling the mountains of waste humanity produces each year.

You've got to wonder though if there is enough potential fuel to make a difference. The only way I can see biomass making a real impact is if huge areas of land are set aside for energy crops. And that's kind of difficult to do when you need to feed a growing world population (9 billion by 2050), whilst putting a halt to deforestation.

Biomass will play a significant role in some countries (as it already does for Mauritius and Brazil, thanks to their sugar cane crops) but it may not be the 'silver bullet' some are hoping. More about biomass here.

4) Geothermal: With geothermal, we use the planet's own heat to create electricity. 24 countries currently do this, with Iceland and the Phillipines generating almost a third of their needs. Total worldwide capacity is forecast to increase by about 80% by 2015.

Any country with volcanoes and/or hydrothermal activity (e.g. geysers and hot springs) can potentially use it, and it can be scaled up to power whole cities. However, there are significant costs involved, half of which go on drilling the deep boreholes used to exploit the heat.

Geothermal is definately one to watch but, once again, it's not complete solution....yet.

According to Prof. Jefferson Tester at of Cornell University, 'Universal Geothermal' may one day  (10-15 years from now) solve all our energy problems. He believes we have the technology to make geothermal energy available almost anywhere, so long as we are willing pay for the huge initial costs of setting up the power plants.  More on universal geothermal here. More on geothermal.

5) 'Clean Coal': The coal industry is understandably concerned about it's future what with the world's governments looking to make serious reductions in their CO2 emissions. So they're trying to re-invent their product by finding ways to reduce it's carbon footprint. This all boils down to carbon capture and storage (CCS). 2 big problems there: We are probably many years away from a sufficiently useable CCS system; And any CCS system is likely to be massively expensive.

Don't get me wrong. If they did find a way to make coal low carbon, non-polluting, and affordable, I'd be amongst the first to be cheering them on. But I'm not holding my breath.

Is That It?!
Based on what I've said so far, I don't think we'd have any option but to continue relying on coal fired power stations until as late as 2030, until some revolutionary technology came along to replace them.

We just can't afford to do that. We need to start making serious reductions in CO2 emissions as soon as possible. The more we delay, the more expensive it will be to sort the mess out, and the greater the problems we'll experience from global warming.

So what's the answer? Well, there's one more option to discuss:

6) Nuclear: It's a controversial subject isn't it?

On the minus side, nuclear power stations are considered to be dangerous by some, they are a potential terrorist target, and then there's all that nuclear waste.

On the plus side, nuclear power stations can replace coal power stations one for one, nuclear is a very low carbon option, it increases a nations energy independence, and there's enough potential fuel to last out the century (and more).

Those are the headlines, the actual details are hotly debated. So here are some thoughts for you:

• Modern nuclear power stations are far safer these days. The lessons have been well and truly learnt from 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.

• There are 440+ nuclear stations around the world at present, and another 50 or so under construction. So, like it or not, the 'genie' is already out of the bottle. We might as well make the best of it.

• A few years ago the French decided to go nuclear. Today, they have 58 reactors which generate 75% of their electric. They even export their power, bringing in billions of Euros of income. Less than 10% of their electric is from fossil fuels. The end result of their forward thinking is that they have a low carbon economy, and have complete energy security. An enviable position to be in.

I'm not saying nuclear is a perfect solution but, given the circumstances, it's the best we've got available.