Today, many are ready to accept, devoid much understanding, that the era of coal, petrol and gas is coming to an end. Coal, though available in plenty in China , India
The above argument may not necessitate going back to the Stone Age. Alternative sources of energy would be sufficient to meet reduced energy needs; will still allow for a life of comfort given our evolved sensibilities and improved low energy technologies. Most people today find it difficult to accept this argument because of rationales based on experiential memory.
The first being, many people believe the powerful will always find a way to remain in power; for example, during the Emergency in India
The history of the last 10,000 years or so shows that mankind has increased its access to power through systematic ‘exploitation’ of nature through science, technology, social power, exploitation of man by man etc. Hence it is difficult to imagine or believe that the availability of energy at present levels will decrease.
More importantly, people are not ready to accept a drastic change in their lives. It is akin to accepting a personal tragedy; sudden loss of job; death of a child; self admission of compulsive addictions etc. Similarly, having got used to a certain life style or as George Bush said, ‘we are addicted to oil.’ it is difficult to accept that present lifestyles will have to change; that the era of industrialisation is over; and that one will have to live at a much lower level of energy utilisation. Psychologists use the term DABDA - Disbelief and Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and finally Acceptance to describe the process of accepting the unacceptable. Drawing an analogy - today the world is mainly going through “denial”. Some are angry because of loss of job, scaling down from set life styles etc. Those who are secure today are going through a process of “bargaining”. It is they who are asking the question, but what about alternative sources of energy?
Accepting change is relative to previous experiences. People who have never been inside an airplane are ready to accept a world without aviation. People who have never owned a car are happy to have bicycles and public transport. Thousands of poor or rural dwellers have only seen such conveniences from a distance. When told about it, they are more likely to say: ‘Is that so, well, we can survive!’
Energy Generation
To begin with, the production or generation of any form of energy resource from fossil fuel deposits or from other sources requires an initial expenditure of the same - also known as energy investment. To produce, procure or extract any energy resource whether it is pumping oil out of the ground or building and operating a wind turbine it requires expending some amount of energy. Simplistically communicated it means, energy is required to produce, transport, store and use energy. If the energy return is less than the energy used to produce it, then, it is generally not worth the bother! This significant element - hardly ever considered in popular debate - in the generation of energy goes by the acronym EROI – Energy Returned on Investment.
Comparing different Energy Processes
Given in the table are EROI values for various energy production processes. The break even for EROI being 1.0, any figure less than 1.0, infers a net "loss". The value 0.8, for example would mean a net energy loss of 20%. That is, it would take 20% more to acquire, generate or produce a given quantum, than the energy available for use. Obviously not a good deal! In practice, an EROI of 1.4 is generally considered minimum acceptable as there are other losses in using that energy. This is so because all real-life processes are irreversible.
The EROI value in the 1940's for oil and gas stands at greater than 100 for discoveries. Meaning, at the wellhead i.e., where the oil/gas springs out of the ground, the energy returned is more than 100 times the energy utilized for its extraction...a very good deal!
Table of comparative EROI values. *
| PROCESS | EROI |
| Nonrenewable Resources | |
| Oil and gas (domestic well head) | |
| 1940’s | Discoveries> 100.0 |
| 1970’s | Production23.0 Discoveries8.0 |
| 2000 | Production 11.0 |
| Coal (mine mouth) | |
| 1950’s | 80.0 |
| 1970’s 2000 | 30.0 11.0 |
| Oil shale | 0.7 to 13.3 |
| Coal liquefaction | 0.5 to 8.2 |
| Geopressured gas | 1.0 to 5.0 |
| Renewable Resources | |
| Ethanol (sugarcane) | 0.8 to 1.7 |
| Ethanol (corn) | 1.3 |
| Ethanol (corn residues) | 0.7 to 1.8 |
| Methanol (wood) | 2.6 |
| Solar: Flat- plate collector | 1.9 |
| Solar: Concentrating collector | 1.6 |
Electricity Production | |
Coal: | 9.0 |
Hydropower | 11.2 |
Nuclear (light–water reactor) | 4.0 |
Solar | |
Power satellite | 2.0 |
Power tower | 4.2 |
Photovoltaic | 1.7 to 10.0 |
Geothermal:Liquid dominated | 4.0 |
Geothermal:Hot dry rock | 1.9 to 13.0 |
*Source: Energy and the U.S.
Cutler J. Cleveland; Robert Costanza; Charles A. S. Hall; Robert Kaufmann
Science, New Series, Vol. 225, No. 4665 (Aug. 31, 1984), 890-897.
Figures for the year 2000 are from the internet.
On examining the table, a few things become clear. For both coal and oil the EROI decreases as resources deplete. Translated into economics this means a drop in viability and production. Being a nonrenewable resource, a stage is bound to come when it is no longer economical to extract or mine the two. In case of oil, we are very near it. The stage is also known as ‘Peak Oil’. Liquid Gas may take another decade or so to peak. Coal is becoming unacceptable even before peaking occurs because it is the dirtiest of all fuels -causing pollution. It contributes to global warming more than oil or gas. Thus, producing electricity from coal instead of from natural gas causes nearly 70% more carbon dioxide emissions; apart from the consequent pollution and cleansing costs. However, being 10 to 30 times more efficient, no other form of energy is anywhere near as efficient or profitable as coal and oil. Hence, none can replace coal and oil to the present level of consumption.
Generating electricity will reduce EROI further for coal and gas because energy is required to run the power plant. Except hydro electric power, in all other cases the EROI is not very good and therefore their use will be limited.
Other problems with Alternatives
Some other problems with alternatives to oil and gas are:
• That they are generally only of use in the production of heat and electricity and not the multitude of uses that oil in particular is put to from transport to plastics. Of course wind and flowing water has been used for millennia for transport; for pumping; for grinding; for cooling and ice-making; in agriculture as energy. Solar heat has been used for all kinds of drying.
• Each is accompanied by its own form of pollution
• Even with increasing their harnessing to maximum potential, it would be hard to meet present day requirements.
Fuel Source and Pollution Problems
Pollution problems of different fuel sources may be summarised as follows:
Oil: global warming, air pollution by vehicles, acid rain, oil spills, oil rig accidents.
Natural gas: global warming, pipe leakage, methane explosions.
Coal: global warming, environment degradation due to opencast mining, land subsidence due to deep mining, spoil heaps, groundwater pollution, acid rain.
Nuclear power: global warming (despite what they say), radioactivity (routine release, risk of accident, waste disposal), misuse of fissile material by terrorists, spread of nuclear weapons.
Bio-fuels: effect on landscape and biodiversity, groundwater pollution due to fertilisers, use of scarce water resources, competition with food production.
Hydroelectric: displacement of populations, effect on rivers and groundwater, dams (visual intrusion and risk of accident), seismic effects, effects on agriculture downstream.
Wind power: noise, visual intrusion in sensitive landscapes, bird strikes, TV interference.
Solar energy: sequestration of large land areas, use of toxic materials in manufacture of PV cells, visual intrusion in both rural and urban environments.
A closer look at some of the alternatives
Nuclear Power
Of all the alternatives; inspite of being advertised most, the nuclear option is not acceptable at all! The Indian government is hell bent on getting nuclear energy in spite of opposition from all sides of the debate. Here, I would like to introduce a personal experience.
In the nineteen fifties I was in school. At that time, the U.S.
Many years later (1967-68) I actually worked at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Calcutta
Today no one speaks of ‘Atoms for Peace’ as it has been demonstrated to be a total lie. There have been campaigns against nuclear arms and energy for decades, the most famous being, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in England India
- In spite all the hype about nuclear energy, the total contribution to electricity generation from nuclear energy to the world is only 15 % and to any country’s electricity supply it has never exceeded 20% except in France (78%), Belgium (54%), South Korea (39), Switzerland (37%) and Japan (30%). Not even in the U SA where the first nuclear chain reaction was performed!
· Nuclear power stations have a life of 40 years or so, after which, they have to be decommissioned. The nuclear waste and the old plant have to be then protected from causing radiation damage for the next thousands of years. The myth of electricity produced from nuclear power being cheap holds true to the extent of operating costs only. Even then, the EROI is only 4 as compared to oil, coal and hydropower, which are in the range of 10. When the cost of research, development, construction, decommissioning, storage and disposal of waste are included, nuclear turns out to be the most expensive conventional energy source.
- Many countries that have a nuclear energy programme also have a weapon programme including
- In all other cases, nuclear power stations have only if ever, been built with huge subsidies. British nuclear power industry has cost tens of billions of pounds over the last 50 years. Decommissioning old nuclear power stations is costing over £70 billion and rising.
- What it implies is; in all the countries that have weapon programme - open, hidden or potential - nuclear power stations have been built as a civilian front for the weapon programme. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share a common technological basis. Skilled workers and continuing research are beneficial for both industries. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel (spent nuclear fuel) from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons.
Biofuels
Bio-fuel is made by converting biomass into a fuel. It is used for running machinery and motor vehicles; and is the only alternative fuel that can almost directly replace oil and gas. The diesel engine after all, was originally designed to run on a variety of fuels and it can be operated using bio-fuels with little or no adjustment.
Bio-diesel is a chemically altered vegetable oil while ethanol - another common fuel - is a fuel-grade form of alcohol produced by grain fermentation and as a profitable byproduct of the sugar industry. However, bio-fuels come with their own set of deterrents; especially where farming is carried out specifically for the purpose.
- Bio-fuels are not cheap. The EROI is less than 2 and can even be less than 1 in which case it is not even worth producing. Growing maize [used to create ethanol in the
- With limited land available it may be prudent to use it for farming or forestry. The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person for a year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required could keep a few families well fed for a year.
- The irresponsible growing of bio-crops can do tremendous harm. The rise in the production of palm oil for bio-diesel could turn out to be catastrophic; threatening to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than it could save. This is because countries like
In light of the above, bio-diesel should not be looked upon as a replacement for oil, but at most, as a temporary measure for a tide over to a more sustainable future. Ultimately we need to travel far less than we presently do if we are to exorcise the twin demons of climate change and peak oil.
Hydroelectricity
Flowing water has been used to generate electricity since the 1880s and has been used to create mechanical power for centuries before that. It is the most advanced, efficient and important renewable source at the moment contributing to about 19% of the world's electricity supply. It has a potential of nearly five times that figure - including areas in Asia and Africa . Although expensive to construct, it is very cheap to maintain, store and release quickly on demand - a quality few other energy sources have. The largest power station today is the Itaipu plant between Brazil and Paraguay
It is however not all-good news.
- The damming of rivers can create many serious environmental problems and destroy valuable farmland, which is often found in valleys. Existing inhabitants are often forced to move and the collapse of a dam or even release of water during heavy monsoon can prove catastrophic for those living downstream.
- Dams too have a finite life; their performance begins to downslide in about 30 years caused by silting of the reservoir. This raises the reservoir bed, increases its area and inundates more fertile land. Rise in the bed level also reduces its capacity to hold water. Water may then have to be released during the monsoons, causing heavy floods downstream. Hence, instead of controlling floods, it may become the cause of more floods! Indian scientists in the 1950s cautioned about this possibility when the first dams under Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) were proposed.
- Today, many studies are available which prove that the harm done by dams far exceed its benefits. The actual performances of most dams are far below their designed capacities.
- Thus, while
Wind Power
Wind power has seen the largest growth as an energy source in recent years. There are many advantages to wind power. Most countries have large areas where wind blows fairly reliably and stronger winds can usually be harnessed by simply building higher. They do not take up much space as the land beneath the turbines can be used for farming or storage. The fuel for the turbine is free and the environmental ill effects limited when placed in areas of low bird movement.
With a typical modern wind turbine, electricity would begin to be generated at a starting wind speed of maybe 3.5 m/s and the power output would increase with wind speed until it reaches a maximum of say 225 kW at 13 m/s. Any further increase in the wind speeds beyond that would not produce any greater output. Finally, there would be a maximum speed, where after, the turbine would need to be protected to stop it from spinning at dangerously high speeds. This might be at about 25 m/s., these high speeds are rarely reached.
However, with maximum EROI of only 2, wind power is neither cheap nor efficient. Also space required for generating power from wind is very high. It has limited use in specific areas and its contribution to the total energy resource will be less than 10%. In India
Solar Energy
Solar energy is the acquisition of heat or power directly from the rays of the Sun, unlike biomass and ground source heating which use the Sun indirectly. (In the long term, this indirect harvesting of the Sun is the most sustainable form). The amount of sunlight falling on any area of ground obviously depends on its location and the time of year. As the Sun does not shine at all at night in India
There are two ways of using solar energy: solar heating and photovoltaic (PV).
Solar Heating
The simplest and practical use of solar power is the solar box cooker. With cooking gas supply decreasing there will be tremendous pressure on the already delicate state of firewood supply. Solar cookers can supply at least half the energy required for cooking. Another similar application is solar driers. They can be used for drying a large variety of household necessities. Larger ones can be used for drying wood.
Solar water heaters are another popular use of solar heating. This usually involves piping water through insulated boxes, which have glass covers and the insides painted black. These act like 'mini-greenhouses'; heating water as it is pumped through the box (known as a 'collector'). This water is then used either directly or transfers its heat to the domestic supply. The heat generated is not likely to do away with the need to use other fuels to heat water, especially as there would be no solar input during the night and part of the daytime. Nevertheless, it could be used to pre-heat domestic water to a temperature of 35ºC or so, thereby reducing overall domestic fuel bills.
On a larger scale, it is possible to use this principle to create a solar power station. This would involve positioning hundreds of mirrors to reflect their radiation onto a boiler at the top of a tower. The liquid in here is heated enough to generate steam and turn turbines to generate electricity. Another option is to create a tall hollow tower in the centre of a vast greenhouse. As the sun warms the air, it rises and turns turbines.
These large-scale power stations are still a rarity as they suffer from the same problems of no Sun at the night and little sun in the winter. However, in sunnier climates like India , Australia or California
Photovoltaic (PV)
Photovoltaic known to everybody from solar cells in calculators turns the light of the Sun directly into electricity rather than via heat. However, a calculator uses very little power. Generating enough electricity to make a significant contribution towards illuminating a house or office is another matter altogether.
Initial solar cells were only 4.5% efficient. They grew to about 15% in the 1960s and are about 20% efficient now. A square meter on a sunny day would keep a 100-watt light bulb going. At the moment, PV electricity is one of the most expensive of the renewables. Research on PV is long drawn; solar cells require pure Silicon which is expensive to produce. Land requirement for the power plants is large. No doubt it will become cheaper as production increases and new cells are developed. It remains to be seen how significant the contribution of this energy source will be.
On the whole, passive use of solar energy (solar cookers, driers and solar water heaters) will certainly grow, whereas generation of electricity will be limited. One reason being, the former is a low technology product and can be manufactured locally. EROI for solar power generation is also below 2 and demands superior technology.
Other Sources
It is not possible to discus all the sources of alternatives. In general one can say three things about them.
- There may be some which have real potential. For them to become viable takes about two decades. There are none such that are ready or in the pipe line.
- Some fall more into the science fiction category. That is, a competent group of scientists can show that such sources are unviable.
- Some are pure bluffs or lies. These are used by ‘fly by night operators’ to fool the public with the connivance of government officials to raise money, and then walk away with the money by declaring that it was not a viable project.
The case of hydrogen fuel cells illustrates this very well. A fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen and produces electricity and water. For the last few decades this emission-free hydrogen fuel cell was held to be the solution. And yet today the verdict is ‘Neither government policy nor business investment should be based on the belief that hydrogen cars will have meaningful commercial success in the near or medium-term.’ And, ‘fuel cells provide a multi-decade lesson in high-tech humility’. The problem that never got solved was to evolve a pollution free source for hydrogen itself. Most hydrogen today is obtained from fossil fuels. And yet, there are many companies in the world that are surviving on government subsidies through false promises.
We began by saying that, ‘we are used to a certain life style’ or as George Bush said, ‘we are addicted to oil’. It is difficult to accept that all this will change; that the era of industrialisation is over, and that, we will have to live at a much lower level of energy.’ However, if we remove the irrational use of energy then it is entirely possible to continue to have modern sensibilities and even ‘comforts’ with alternative forms of energy along with a judicious mix of fossil fuels in small quantities.
The main purpose of this essay is to prepare a basis to accept the inevitability of the change. Once we accept this; it may be possible to plan a transition that will be smooth and may even be exhilarating - as we have seen in Cuba
For a smoother transition, one basic rule is that the transition be incremental. As a general policy we can
- Say ‘No’ to every new coal, gas and nuclear energy project.
- Reduce energy consumption through energy auditing.
- Reduce waste due to ‘Transmission and Distribution’ losses.
- Develop the alternatives – solar, wind, wood gassifiers, micro hydel etc. to their full capacity. Concentrate on low power local projects.
- Reduce consumption of petroleum by using more public transport and reducing personal automobile transport vehicles.
- Reduce use of fossil fuel (LPG) in cooking by using solar cookers, bio gas and even wood fuel.
- Change over to organic farming to reduce use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
- On the whole move towards using much less net energy in a more equitable fashion.
Given the present social system, the rich and powerful have a greater resistance to change and they will continue to carry on the irrational social, political and economic system. The reality however is that, technological fixes alone do not solve problems. The solution will have to be holistic and will be carried out by the victims of the present system, that is, the working people. Only the organised working people with a rational plan can bring about such a transition. For this, peoples’ struggles against inequity and injustice will have to continue and at the same time an implementable plan for a rational fossil fuel free society will have to be executed. The incremental changes mentioned previously can only be carried out in the context of such struggles and plans.
See also
No comments:
Post a Comment