Energy Post

Daily reports on the European and Global energy transition

Good luck G7 leaders – we won’t be off fossil fuels by 2100

by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
G7 and world leaders meet in Bavaria (photo Number 10)

G7 and world leaders meet in Bavaria (photo Number 10)

The most powerful leaders in the West used the G7 summit in Germany to make a big statement on the environment. Their stated goal is to cut carbon emissions by 40% to 70% by 2050 and then end all fossil-fuel use by 2100. They announced a US$100bn (£65bn) fund by 2020 comprising public and private money to help smooth the transition. My response to David Cameron, Angela Merkel and the rest is pretty simple: good luck with that.

When people talk about decarbonisation, they tend to make the mistake of thinking about energy only in terms of electricity. If you ask how to wean us from fossil fuels, they will say build more solar power, more wind farms and so forth. There are several problems with this. We are already struggling with capacity on the grid and have a huge task to add as much renewable energy as it can cope with. To cover the extra requirements to make heat and domestic transport electric, we would need five times more. I don’t know anyone who thinks this is remotely realistic.

I wish I could simply endorse the climate change protesters and say it can all be done, but that would require a suspension of disbelief at the expense of scientific honesty

Because most forms of renewable energy only work when the power source is available, be it wind, sun or whatever, we will need large amounts of storage capability to allow them to replace electricity powered by fossil fuels. And while it’s easy to see how you can store kilowatts and megawatts of green power in the batteries of the future, getting up to gigawatts is another matter. The huge engineering requirement makes it almost impossible to get the costs to a point where this is viable.

Electricity is also the least of the big drains on energy. The big challenges are transport fuels, especially for long-distance haulage and trans-ocean shipping. We really don’t have any smart ideas for replacing diesel for these yet, and it’s difficult to see where they will come from. The Royal Academy of Engineering did a study in 2013 looking at the options for low-carbon fuelling of shipping. The best it could come up with was LNG (liquefied natural gas).

You can conceive of running large numbers of domestic cars on green electricity by charging them on the grid. But the idea that anybody is going to be able to produce a battery big enough to store the electricity to power a passenger aircraft or a major container ship is laughable.

Energy consumption by sector

Paul Younger chart 1

(Source: Eurostat)

Energy consumption that is renewable

Paul Younger chart 2

(Source: The Carbon Brief)

Then there is hydrogen. It’s got fantastic potential. It has a few cost issues at the moment, but they can probably be sorted out over the next few decades. It may well emerge as a viable option for domestic transport, but it has nothing to offer heavy haulage either. To have enough hydrogen to power a trans-ocean ship or plane would require massive amounts of compression that would use so much energy that it would not be worthwhile. It appears beyond the limits of physics to overcome this.

Other drains on fossil fuels

So far I have only talked about energy – yet we have built our societies around many other uses of fossil fuel that rarely get mentioned. Fertilisers is a good example. Most of the world’s food supply is based on fertilisers, and I don’t know of anybody who is suggesting that the largely urban population we will have by 2050 can be fed without using the amount of fertilisers we use at the minute, or that they can be produced without using fossil fuels.

Realistically the only solution to our fossil-fuel dependency is an end to mass consumer culture, but that’s just not what the politicians are proposing

Then there is steel. We are recycling more and more steel, but 50% of it is still primary production from virgin materials (and this is expected to continue). Steel is actually an alloy of iron and carbon, so it’s not just a question of the energy that we need to produce it. You can reduce the fossil fuels on the energy side by switching to an arc furnace powered by hydroelectricity, for instance, but where are you going to get the carbon for primary production? Your only alternative to fossil fuels is charcoal, which would entail mass deforestation across the world to get enough – and massive carbon emissions to make it from wood.

Society also depends on plastics. Where are you going to get plastics in sufficient quantities to meet demand without fossil fuels? The same applies to materials we need for renewable-energy essentials like lightweight carbon-fibre wind-turbine blades, and thin-film photovoltaics. Nobody has a serious alternative to this. Equally we could talk about pharmaceuticals, cement – the list goes on. Source:(www.top10pharma.net).

That’s not to say I don’t welcome the $100bn fund. It means more funding for research into renewable energy, which is definitely needed. But even on an 85-year timescale, it’s difficult to see what we can do about the barriers of physics. I wish I could simply endorse the climate change protesters and say it can all be done, but that would require a suspension of disbelief at the expense of scientific honesty.

Mass consumer culture

That’s not to say we can’t make a difference in many ways. Geothermal energy is not on most people’s radars, but it has vast potential that’s not even close to being exploited. We can change the game in short-haul transport by switching to electric and hydrogen-powered cars.

There are various ways in which nuclear power can potentially be improved, for example by using thorium instead of uranium as the feedstock, or by getting more energy from nuclear waste. There is nuclear fusion too, if it ever succeeds. But nuclear is no good at responding to fluctuations in power demand – and neither are renewables – and it’s difficult to conceive of this changing.

Probably where we are more realistically heading is towards a world in 2100 where we depend more heavily on coal

I have no sentimental attachment to fossil fuels. I have had relatives who died in coal mines. But as an engineer, I have to admit when I am beaten. I can see a Gandhian future where everyone uses many fewer fossil fuels and lives in a much more spiritual way, and I would welcome it. But I don’t see any signs of that coming out of the G7. Realistically the only solution to our fossil-fuel dependency is an end to mass consumer culture, but that’s just not what the politicians are proposing. Instead we are just encouraging the developing countries to get addicted to the same consumer lifestyle as those in the West.

Probably where we are more realistically heading is towards a world in 2100 where we depend more heavily on coal. Unlike oil, it will still be available in large quantities. We will remove the majority of the carbon emissions by coupling carbon capture and storage technology to underground coal gasification.

The fact that the politicians are not telling us this is a sign of the triumph of the protesters. They have managed to change the argument from reducing carbon emissions to getting rid of fossil fuels, since nuclear is low-carbon and not something they approve of. So instead we get platitudes that are empty and unachievable. Until we can have an honest conversation about the future of our relationship with energy, there is no point in taking our leaders seriously.

Editor’s Note

Paul Younger is Professor of Energy Engineering at University of Glasgow. This article was first published on The Conversation and is republished here with permission from the author.

[adrotate group=”9″]

About Paul Younger

Comments

  1. Mike Parr says

    “When people talk about decarbonisation”, they often frame their arguments in a “TINA” (there is no alternative) fashion coupled to generalisations. The writer of this article does this.

    “We are already struggling with capacity on the grid”. Really? For example, Germany (& the UK) have north-south problems soon to be solved in the case of the UK, Germany will take a bit longer. At distribution network levels, there is plenty of capacity – I know cause I have the numbers from, for example, DNOs. I have developed island projects where moving to 65 – 70% RES is easy. By comparison, doing so on a mainland network is trivial.

    “To cover the extra requirements to make heat and domestic transport electric” is that so? heat electric? I can think of one deployed tech that does not need elec’, can heat a house/building, in mid-winter with 100% cloud cover & can substitute for around 85% fossil fuel. Example: an NHS hospital in Northern Ireland – gets this result – right now. So, residential & commercial heating sorted.

    Transport elec? hydrogen (e.g. ITM & Intelligent Energy etc) produced from RES, synthetic methane (Audi) ditto – all deployed now & deployable locally thus matching local RES generation. Indeed, hydrogen/syn methane production could act as a buffer with respect to RES generation. & yes, the fossil route is cheaper, at the moment. “hydrogen…..It’s got fantastic potential…a few cost issues……but they can probably be sorted out over the next few decades” – we don’t have decades – the problem is a “now” problem & an economics one – not a tech availability one – we have the tech.

    RES (wind) in Nord Pool to a large extent competes with rather than cooperates with hydro. Admittedly, some of the hydro is must run. Regulatory problem? Of course we could also use hydrogen and/or syn methane. Yes, round trip efficiency is not great but the solution exists (and starts to answer the question: to fry or not to fry).

    “long-distance haulage and trans-ocean shipping” – circular economy is the answer. In fairness Prof Younger recognises that consumer society and an inhabitable earth are on a collision course. We need to move away from shipping lots of “stuff” long distances. Either we do it ourselves or “events” will do it for us.

    “Fertilisers” – steam reform nat’ gas to get hydrogen, combine with nitrogen to get ammonia and then use for fertiliser production. Make hydrogen using RES. Yes not so “economic” – raising the question – which economics do we use? Infinite earth economics or finite earth economics?. Steel production? circular economy would reduce need for primary production.

    I agree with Prof Younger – the problem is the politicos, I disagree with the good Proff that nuclear and CCS forms a significant part of the answer, there is other tech out there, now, which can be rapidly deployed and which provide long term solutions.

    • Paul Younger says

      I am glad we agree that the root issue here is consumerism and the lack of any advocacy of a circular economy (though the second law of thermodynamics tells us it can never truly be circular – but we can at least try and get close).

      On a couple of technical points (for further discussion on all, you could have a shufti at my recent book ‘Energy: all that matters’ (Hodder, Nov 2014; https://www.hodder.co.uk/Books/detail.page?isbn=9781473601888)):

      1. Solar hot water is viable in Northern Ireland and will typically produce 60% to 85% of the HOT WATER needs for a building over the year. However (given some of the poorest solar radiation rates in sub-arctic Europe), it is nowhere near capable of producing enough thermal energy for HEATING. Check out CAAT and other sources of advice on solar hot water. It is part of the tragedy of solar that it is least available when you need it most. But i am NOT advocating ignoring it – i am trying to install solar hot water at my own place, despite the fact it will never pay back the capex in the predicted lifetime of the kit.

      2. Hydrogen. you are quite right that the technology is available now for cars etc – and far more convenient than batteries. You are WRONG that we can immediately apply it to inter-continental flights and shipping, though, due to the irreducible problem of how to store enough of the universe’s least dense substance to get large heavy vehicles over distances of thousands of miles. I AGREE that the urgency is now – but who is going to pay for you and I to have hydrogen-powered cars in the next couple of years? Not the G7 leaders, with their addiction to neo-liberal economics. Another possibility for long haul is ammonia – but there are serious doubts over the potential yields of renewable production methods for it.

      3. Grid issues in the UK are just about sorted. When Longannet closes next year, and even more so post-2023 when Torness and Hunterston B nuclear power stations close, Scotland will destructively test this claim. It would appear that Scotland is about to embark on a frightening experiment which will reveal that you cannot control frequency via a HVDC cable. So the North-South issues are not as sorted as you think. I agree abut the spare capacity at community level but we need an alternative ownership model for local energy systems for that to be realised. Again, you will wait till warming has reached 4 deg before the G7 leaders will advocate social ownership …

      • Mike Parr says

        I will just address point 1: Musgrove NHS Hospital Northern Ireland – space heating & hot water delivered (85%) by solar thermal. Prof Younger – you are somewhat behind the tech curve on this one (i.e. next gen solar thermal designed to work under 100% cloud cover – on a cold day – in winter). There are around 4000 installations using the tech in Europe. Some of them have the system on-line so one can see the results. Feel free to contact me directly if you want to expand this particular discussion.

        • Paul Younger says

          I would love to see some actual data on this then – the solar radiation in UK in winter is simply not up to the job of space heating – I am pretty sure your figure will be for hot water.

          • Paul Younger says

            just checked on-line – there is just one small building (Forest Lodge) on the extensive Musgrave Hospital campus that is actually fitted with the Surface Power HONE system (see SE corner of map at: http://www.belfasttrust.hscni.net/pdf/MusgraveHospital_SitePlan_v3.pdf). Thus they are NOT providing heating for the whole hospital site, so the above 85% figure cannot be correct for the entire hospital complex, which is what i understood Mike Parr to be claiming. The data provided for the Forest Lodge building on the Surface Power web-site (https://twitter.com/surfacepower) just give instantaneous values of temperature in the system – not enough information to judge what proportion of annual heating of that small building is provided by the HONE system, let alone what proportion of the total heat demand of the hospital it might be. I agree the technology looks interesting (albeit technical details on the web site are sparse) – but what we really need to know is total amount of space heating delivered as a proportion of total ANNUAL demand, and also a levelised cost in pence per KWh – onl withthat info can we benchmark it against alternatives. I have contacted the hospital to see if they can shed any light on this.

  3. Ski Milburn says

    You have to be very brave, very foolish, or simply unconcerned with being wrong to predict anything 85 years in the future.

    For example, if all we did was to continue to reduce the cost of solar PV electricity, and increase the installed base along the exponential progress made over the last ten years, we’ll have five times as much as the grid could possibly use by the year 2100. And that’s just one of many things that are happening now, we need not every conjure up any one of the breakthroughs we can’t yet imagine.

    If in 1915, you had predicted the electric grid, long haul trucks, diesel and gasoline fuels produced in the billions of gallons, jet air travel for the masses, 100 km/hr automobiles, smartphones, personal computers, or IBM’s remarkable Watson (now a commercial product, not just a one-trick game show pony), there would have been a host of Prof Youngers stepping up to proclaim that none of it could possibly be done. With the facts to prove it.

    Of course, with no internet in those days, very few would have heard them.

    • Paul Younger says

      For Ski Milburn:

      It was not I that started the foolish game of predicting 85 years into the future; I am merely trying to offer a reality check to our engineering-illiterate political leaders. They offered no science- or engineering-based defense of their bold boasts; as an engineering educator, I must do so. I am sorry if you don;t like my conclusions, but these are not my judgments alone – most engineers I know in the energy sector agree, but are nervous about speaking out in public (I don’t relish the death threats I get for trying to give a reality check …).

      As regards your solar panacea, in the optimistic event that the materials constraints for such a massive expansion of solar (and remember that these materials would need to be obtained WITHOUT resort to fossil fuels …) then you still have some fairly substantial problems over how to convert these things to large-scale (inter-continental) transport vectors – e.g. the sheer size and weight of batteries, the problem of storing the lowest density substance in the universe (hydrogen) in sufficient quantities. i sincerely hope i am wrong, and that all of the technologies most beloved of individual enthusiasts confound the materials-based limitations that physics seems to present them with.

      • Ski Milburn says

        You are absolutely right. There wasn’t enough high quality birch and bamboo in the whole world in 1915 to manufacture enough buggy whips to deliver the passenger miles we consume today, and there still isn’t.

  4. Robert Callaghan says

    This is where we stand:

    ► In just 13 years, we will “lock in” an inevitable near term 6°C earth temp rise because we continually exceed the worse-case emissions scenario set out back in 2007 says climate scientist, Dr. Michael Jennings.

    .. http://www.ecoshock.info/2014/03/climate-dark-age.html

    â–ş Energy demand will increase 100% by 2060 because the population of the world’s cities will go up by 2.5 billion people by then. That’s like building 290 cities the size of London (pop: 8 million) in 35 years. Check out the following 6°C scenario for energy use.

    .. http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/

    â–ş 75% of the infrastructure that will have to exist in cities by 2050 has yet to be built.

    .. http://thecityfix.com/blog/why-opportunity-now-save-lives-through-vision-zero-claudia-adriazola-steil/

    ► Rich countries have to decrease emissions by 80% by 2030 for a 50/50 chance of keeping global heating below 2°C says climate scientist, Kevin Anderson.

    .. http://kevinanderson.info/blog/letter-to-the-pm-outlining-how-2c-demands-an-80-cut-in-eu-emissions-by-2030/

    ..

    This is our reality:

    â–ş The Energy Collective says that if you covered all of South Korea with wind turbines, they would generate less energy than is consumed there.

    .. http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters

    â–ş Reality Check: Germany Does Not Get Half of its Energy from Solar Panels

    .. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-of-its-energy-from-solar-panels/

    â–ş Why we cannot make wind turbines without fossil fuel.

    .. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/can-you-make-a-wind-turbine-without-fossil-fuels-2/

    â–ş China makes 75% of the world’s solar panels because they ignore all health, safety, labor, currency, trade and environmental laws. Six out 10 of the world’s biggest solar panel makers is Chinese owned.

    .. http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2015/05/11/china-increases-its-dominance-in-the-global-solar-industry-with-70-global-marketshare-in-solar-panels/

    ..http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2014/11/25/how-china-is-expanding-its-influence-in-global-solar-market/

    â–ş China controls 90% of the world’s rare earth minerals our hi-tech, green energy world will require.

    .. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs

    â–ş It takes 10X the rated intermittent electrical energy to displace 1 unit of fossil electrical energy. This is extremely important because it means the world would need 10 times the amount of renewable power to have a 100% green energy world. As you will see, the world does not have enough resources to ever reach 100% renewable power.

    .. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n6/full/nclimate1451.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201206

    â–ş Our hi-tech, green energy dream requires all kinds of exotic minerals, conflict minerals, heavy metals and nano-particles. Like all electronics, the new thin-film solar panels wear out faster, have shorter life spans and are more toxic to the environment. Exotic materials research can promise nothing if there are not enough exotic materials to go around.

    .. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3044467/a-periodic-table-of-elements-that-the-world-is-running-out-of

    â–ş 40% Green Energy requires 200% more copper says John Timmer of Ars Technica. Even performance improvements won’t be enough in time.

    .. http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/making-lots-of-renewable-energy-equipment-doesnt-boost-pollution/

    .. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/renewable-energy-needs-huge-mineral-supply-16682

    .. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/

    ► Peak copper hits 2030 – 2040 says Ugo Bardi.

    .. http://energyskeptic.com/2013/ugo-bardis-the-universal-mining-machine/

    â–ş Post peak copper production cannot accelerate at any price says Dave Lowell.

    .. http://www.mining.com/web/peak-copper/

    â–ş This is true of any post peak mineral production.

    â–ş There is no real substitute for copper says Mat McDermott of Motherboard.

    .. http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/blog/there-are-no-substitutes-for-the-metals-in-your-smartphone

    â–ş We mined 50% of all the copper in human history in just the last 30 years.

    â–ş 100% green energy requires 500% more copper.

    â–ş Peak minerals includes more than just copper.

    â–ş By 2050, expect to be past peaks for tin, silver, nickel, cadmium and more.

    â–ş We move some 3 billion tons of earth per year to get 15 millions tons of copper.

    ► We can’t afford to mine 500% more copper at ever lower concentrations.

    â–ş We cannot recycle it into existence.

    â–ş Recycling green energy alloys uses more energy than mining for lower quality results.

    â–ş We cannot conserve it into existence.

    â–ş Substituting aluminum for copper takes 5X the energy and is less safe.

    â–ş Manufacturing just five, 1-megawatt, wind turbines produces 1 ton of radioactive residue and 75 tons of toxic, acidic water used to leach out the required neodymium.

    â–ş Wind turbines only work at 25% of their rated capacity 90% of the time.

    â–ş Wind power requires 10X as much nickel as fossil power. Peak nickel may hit by 2025.

    .. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/

    â–ş Prof. Jian Shuisheng of the Jiatong-University estimates the production of just 6 solar panels requires one ton of coal.

    â–ş Solar cell manufacturing produces 3 green house gases that are over 10,000 times worse than C02.

    â–ş Solar cell manufacturing requires all kinds of deadly liquid acids to manufacture.

    .. http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html

    â–ş Solar panels lose efficiency at the rate of 1% per year lasting 20-25 years. The expensive inverters and batteries they require have to be continually replaced. The new thin cell panels use nano materials and are even more toxic with shorter life spans.

    ► Google’s own Stanford Phd, green energy experts, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, tell IEEE Spectrum why green energy “simply won’t work” and is a “false dream” without major lifestyle changes.

    .. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

    â–ş Ozzie Zehner explains his book, Green Illusions, at Google Talks in 2012.

    .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?…

    â–ş Here is Gail Tverberg on Green Energy.

    .. http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/11/18/eight-pitfalls-in-evaluating-green-energy-solutions/

    â–ş Battery Performance Deficit Disorder:

    .. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/08/battery-performance-deficit-disorder/

    .. http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/471651/catch-22-energy-storage

    ► Our “green” energy hi-tech future requires the following: conflict minerals, rare earth elements, heavy metals, nano metals and graphite. Search for “rare earth mining in China” on YouTube and see what special hell your solar panels and wind turbines produce in Mongolia. China can do this because they have undercut all the world’s production of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) with low wages, low currency and no environmental enforcement.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLC59rCCDc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLR39sT_bTs

    ► It doesn’t matter how “clean” the latest experimental solar panels are because existing manufacturing plants will stay open to recoup major investments and new exotic mineral materials still face post-peak shortage scenarios.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

    â–ş Smithsonian Institute calculate wind turbine bird deaths.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/?no-ist

    â–ş New study on bat deaths due to turbines.

    http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/wind-turbines-may-lure-bats-into-fatal-errors/

    One company in the U.S. cut down 5 acres of trees to build a solar farm to power a plant for the production of plastic bags. Green plastic bags — fucking mind blowing. Green power will not be enough. Part-time energy and billions of tons of toxic lead, liquid metal or molten salt batteries adds up to death to all life on earth just from sheer destructive ecological inertia due to mineral extraction.

    Tim Garrett explains why

    ► we can’t decouple growth from emissions.

    â–ş efficiency & conservation only leads to more energy growth.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tim+garrett+is+it+possible+to+decouple+economic+wealth+from+carbon+dioxide+emission+rates%3F+part+i

    So far, we have to replace fossil fuels with 10X its rated power, while emissions have to drop 80% while total energy demand doubles in the midst of energy, mineral, food and water shortages. Please don’t be offended if I tell you this is fuckn impossible. You can’t use solar panels to make 10X as much green energy without accelerating peak minerals, ecological destruction, water mismanagement etc.

    Civilization is slowly collapsing while the earth is quickly dying. My credentials? I cut grass in a trailer park in Canada. I never made it past high school, but I learned all this stuff when i woke up hungover the other day with my dog licking my face using E.S.P. to let space aliens tell me to warn you.

    ..

    Now, take a look at where we are going:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/311m7d/collapse_data_cheat_sheet/

Never miss
an important story

Get our FREE weekly newsletter straight to your inbox