Doha - A Waste Of Time

So the Doha climate conference ended as it began, with disappointment.

There were hopes that the host nation, Qatar (The world's biggest carbon emitter per head), were going to open the conference by announcing bold plans for cutting their emissions (Wow, what an impact that would have had!). Instead, it appears they'd attempted to broker a regional agreement between Middle East countries and failed because of lack of agreement. Which, I assume, led the Qataris to believe they didn't have to make any unilateral commitments....

In a way, this is climate conferences in miniature: A group of nations failing to agree how to tackle climate change (which they all say they want to do) and walking away with a collective sigh of relief - The status quo has been preserved for another year.

Or am I being too cynical here?....Nah! Politicians are masters of seeming to be doing something when, in fact, they're planning on doing nothing.

The Durban climate agreement gave leaders of the rich nations plus the likes of China and India the perfect opportunity to agree precisely nothing until 2015. Doha demonstrated that all too well.

The European Super Grid

Copyright: DESERTEC, michael.straub@clubofrome.de        Author: Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation

One of the many challenges facing us humans in the 21st century is energy. It will need to be plentiful, cheap, reliable, secure, and clean.

Plentiful and cheap because, with a growing world population, anything else will lead to spiralling energy costs for everyone.

Reliable because modern life is increasingly dependant on energy to continue functioning.

Secure because energy security is becoming a priority for many countries. They no longer want their economies held hostage by unfriendly or 'flakey' nations.

And clean because, like it or not, carbon emissions are changing our climate and we need to reduce them. Fast.

'Super grids' may be a way to achieve all these goals.

A super grid is not just a very large electric grid that crosses national borders, as suggested by the above map, or necessarily related to renewables (also implied by the above).

The key elements are smart grid technology (See earlier post) and national grids linked by high voltage DC connectors aka HVDC  (Maybe AC connectors in USA).

The proposed European smart grid, for example, could use that smart grid tech to completely eliminate the use of coal and natural gas, despite making heavy use of intermittent renewables like wind and solar. Studies say this could be achieved based on the principle that, with a wide enough area, there will always be enough wind energy available somewhere.

That wide area would be achieved by running HVDC connections from Iceland (Wind, hydro, and geothermal) to Britain; and from Britain (Wind), Ireland (Wind), Scandinavia (Hydro), and Africa (Solar) to the continent (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass). The area may even spread as far as the Pacific (via Russia).

With an area that wide, so many sources, and smart grid control, you could achieve that plentiful, cheap, reliable, secure, and clean energy I was talking about.

Pie in the sky? Actually, the basics are beginning to appear now. The UK is already connected to France and the Netherlands. We're also talking to Iceland and Ireland to connect to their resources. There are numerous other connections around Europe, with more under construction.

Meanwhile, the DESERTEC Foundation is promoting the concept of a network of concentrating solar power stations (See the map) in the Sahara that could not only supply Europe with a vast source of electric but North Africa too. It's feasible but expensive. Unlikely in these cash-strapped times but it'd be worth the investment if we did.

Super grids make sense even without renewables. With renewables they unlock a limitless, clean, and cheap resource that no nation or nations can monopolise. They are where the future lies. Not with some rapidly depleting, dirty, fossil fuel peddled by the few at the expense of the many.... and our planet.

More here and here.

What Is A Smart Grid?

When you plug something into a wall socket, chances are you're connecting to a standard electrical grid. Like all grids, they are made up of power stations, a transmission network, and power distribution (i.e. sub-stations that actually supply your home and workplace).

Standard electric grids are overseen by control rooms where supervisors closely monitor the supply and demand sides, and attempt to match the two as closely as possible. They do this by running up or down, fast start, stand-by power sources like gas-fired power stations and hydro-electric. They might even shut down things like wind turbines if there's too much supply.

Standard electric grids depend on a great deal of manual intervention, backed up by a lot of mostly idle back-up power sources. Often these grids are pretty elderly, inefficient, and prone to local failures.

All this may have been manageable 20 or so years ago but things have become increasingly more complex. Back then a grid only had to cope with a relatively few sources of supply producing predictable amounts of energy. Now the grids have to handle far more sources, many of which may be highly variable (e.g. all those separate wind farms and solar arrays) and it's fast becoming unmanageable.

In short, standard grids are now considered inefficient, unreliable, too slow to respond to peaks and troughs in demand and supply, and expensive to run.

-ooOoo-

Source: http://horizonenergy.blogspot.co.uk/

In 2009, a United States Department of Energy study concluded that modernisation of US grids with smart grid capabilities would save 46 to 117 billion dollars over the next 20 years.

So what are smart grids? Well, the basic idea behind them is that they have real-time knowledge of everything that's relevant to them and act accordingly.

The goal is to have systems that know exactly how demand and every element of supply is changing as it happens and adjust both sides to smooth out those peaks and troughs.

If you manage that trick then you need fewer stand-by power stations, have no power outages, can handle more renewable energy, waste less energy, consumers have reduced energy bills, and carbon emissions are cut.

In short, smart grids improve efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability. It's good for the power companies, good for consumers, good for the economy, and good for the planet.

All this can be achieved with existing technology. For example:

• Smart meters in homes and businesses which let the system know about electric usage as it happens.
• Fault detection and self healing on all major elements of the system to avoid sudden loss of supply.
• Helping consumers cut their bills by showing them (via the smart meters) which appliances are the most power hungry.
• Reducing demand at peak times by automatically adjusting home appliances like air con, heating and fridges, with no adverse effects for the customer (via the smart meter, smart sockets, and smart appliances).
• Automated systems that juggle everything without the need for human intervention. 
• Once electric cars become more common-place, smart grids will even be able to store excess energy in their batteries, and draw on them when demand is higher.

This may all sound a bit futuristic but, in fact, smart grids are already rolling out across the world in the U.S., Italy, Canada, Germany, China, and the UK to name but a few.

Welcome to the future everyone.

More here.
Detailed 5 page analysis here.

No 2030 Carbon Target For UK

The UK government is about to publish it's long awaited Energy Bill. It's primary aim is to keep Britain's lights on when so many power plants are due to be retired whilst our energy requirements are growing.

However, it could also be a golden opportunity to move Britain towards a much lower carbon future. This would not only mean that we're 'doing our bit' to save the planet from climate change, but it would also stabilise our household fuel bills.

You see, at the moment, the UK, like most countries, gets the bulk of it's energy requirements from coal, gas, and oil. The cost of these are all subject to market forces, which explains why our annual energy bills are constantly changing, usually in an upwards direction.

With renewable energy though, whilst it may seem expensive to install, it's long-term costs are both low and stable. That's because the fuel (from wind, wave, and solar) comes free and the solar panels, turbines etc. that generate it, are low maintenance. Admittedly, the UK can't get all it's energy from renewables, but there's no reason why we can't get around 25% of our needs from them. Add in some new nuclear, energy saving measures, and a smart grid, and we've got ourselves a modern, clean, reliable, low cost, home grown energy system.

So, if we want cheaper, more predictable bills in the future, we go for renewables now.

Which brings me back to that Energy Bill.

If we are to encourage more renewables, then one of the best things the government can do is commit to a long-term carbon target. This would give private investors the confidence to commit their money to green energy. Which would give our economy a much needed boost and generate thousands of new jobs.

This was why many were calling on the government to set a target for 2030.

Unfortunately, the self-proclaimed 'greenest government ever' appears to be run by the chancellor, George Osborne, and he is more interested in a new dash-for-gas which would clearly screw any carbon target.

So, guess what? They decided not to set a target. Way to create uncertainty guys!

Solar Panel Problems Part 2

My original idea here was to show photos of hopeless solar panel set-ups. But, as is my style, I did a bit of research before I went for it.

One thing you always hear about solar is that your panels should always face south (or as close to as possible).

When you think about it, that makes sense: Panels facing south will see more of the sun than ones facing any other direction.

But how big a difference does, say, an east or west facing set-up actually make? Answer: Around a 20% reduction versus a similar system that faces south.

That's a bit less of hit than I would have imagined. After all, they'd only see the sun for about half the the day time. But, of course, they would see the sun at times a south facing array never would. So, I guess, most of the reduction comes from the sun not being at an ideal elevation some of the time.

Which brings me to the photo. This solar array has 20 panels and faces west. With that 20% reduction I mentioned above, that effectively means they'll only be getting as much electric as a 16 panel, south facing set-up. Put another way, the panels will take a fifth longer to pay back than if they looked south. That could mean 2 or 3 extra years.

Hopefully the solar panel salesperson made all this clear to the buyers and wasn't just thinking of their commission on this £12k to £15k system.

Part 1 here.

Are We Too Stupid To Survive?

We rather grandly call our species Homo sapiens: 'wise man'.

Wise man? What a joke. Certainly we're clever, imaginative, and inventive. But wise...?

The 21st century will be a make-or-break one for our species. Either we'll read the writing on the wall (Writ large by our finest minds) and have the wisdom to head off pending disaster, or continue staring stupidly into the on-coming headlights until it's too late.

Climate change, ocean acidification, nitrogen pollution, mass extinction, unsustainable economic growth, and environmental collapse. They're all bullets with our name on them. They've been clearly identified, we even have potential solutions laid out for us, but we refuse to change our ways. We fear change, especially those of us who have a vested interest in business-as-usual.

But if we carry on the way we are, there can be no more "business-as-usual".

Are we too stupid to survive?

Solar Panels Problems Part 1

I see a lot of solar panels in my corner of England.

Most of them look as though they will do their job properly and generate plenty of energy.

Occasionally I see ones that are clearly a waste of money.

Take a look at these photos of solar heating panels that came with these new build terrace houses.

The first thing you notice about it is there's a huge tree looming over them just a few metres away!

This breaks a basic rule for solar panels in a big way: Avoid having them in the shade, even partial shade. It dramatically cuts their output.

And it gets worse.

These panels face almost exactly West. Not South, as panels need to if you're going to get full use out of the sun.

In other words, these panels will only generate heat towards the end of the day, when the sun is at it's weakest.

What were the architects thinking?

DIY Renewables Anyone?

Want to do your bit for the environment but can't justify the cost of installing things like solar panels and wind turbines? Then I may have the website for you.

BuildItSolar provides you with free advice, information, plans/designs, instructions, and software tools for building any of a range of projects for your home, local school, or community for a fraction of the cost professionals would charge.

It covers things like energy and water conservation, solar heating, solar electric, biofuels, and even solar cooking.

Of course, you'll have to be a bit practical, up for a challenge, and need to be aware of any building regulations that might affect your project. But it could be the way to do your bit for a lot less, and save you money in reduced fuel/water bills in to the bargain.

Let me know how you do.

Osborne: Now Businesses Say You're Wrong

Really, George?

The UK Chancellor, George Osborne, is all for a second dash-for-gas as the solution to Britain's energy gap. This, despite the fact that it would result in us missing our legal commitments on carbon emission cuts of 80% by 2050.

Environmentalists don't like what he's saying, nor do the government's own parliamentary Energy and Climate Change Committee, and now 50 businesses and organisations have just written to him saying the same.

Those businesses include Alliance Boots, Asda, Aviva, British American Tobacco, EDF, Microsoft, Marks & Spencer, PepsiCo, Philips, Sky and the Co-operative.

Their message is basically this: Set an emissions target for 2030 to show your government's commitment and give investors the long-term confidence to transform the electricity market and boost the economy.

At the moment, the government is giving the opposite impression with recent statements about going all-out for new gas-fueled power stations. This would undermine renewable and nuclear energy investment and cripple one of the few areas of growth in our economy: Green businesses (who provided a third of UK growth in 2011/2012).

Even the CBI estimate that the current policies (or lack of them) could lose the UK £400m in exports in 2014/2015 alone.

Come on Osborne, wake up! You want to revive the economy, and green business could lead the way. Why don't you get it?

More background here.

German Greens Pave Way For Coal

Greens, as a rule, don't like nuclear energy. It may be renewable, it may have minimal carbon emissions, but they hate it anyway.

So when Fukishima happened, German Greens took the opportunity to turn up the pressure for closing Germany's nuclear plants. Never mind the fact that a Fukishima-style disaster (Earthquake followed by tsunami) could never happen in Europe. Logic doesn't apply here. They wanted nuclear out.

So, in the end, Angela Merkel (the German leader) gave in and promised to close down all 17 of the plants by 2022. Just 10 years time.

Of course, that leaves Germany with a problem. What do they replace them with? Nuclear provides 'base load' i.e. It's reliable and plentiful energy (Whilst renewables like wind and solar are intermittent). So, to replace like-for-like, that basically means gas- or coal-powered stations. Both of which DO emit carbon. Raising the nation's carbon footprint.

And since Germany is under economic pressure at the moment, they may be forced to plug the majority of that gap with coal-powered stations. Which give the worst possible carbon emissions of all fuels.

Oh dear, looks like the Greens haven't been looking at the wider picture and shot themselves in the foot.

Worse still, the coal for those stations is likely to come from outside Germany (who are no longer a major producer themselves), most likely Poland. So that's raised emissions, millions paid for foreign imports they wouldn't actually need had they kept nuclear, AND that money is going to the country that is vetoing all attempts by the EU to raise emission targets.

Great. Well, that really worked out didn't it?!

(More here)