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.