Suddenly

For literally thousands of years, humanity made little technical progress at least as it helped to improve the life of millions upon millions of people and then, suddenly, 200 years ago or so our technological capabilities just exploded.

To what do we owe this?

On a first approximation we could say that fossil fuels were the trigger but on second thought, they had already been known for hundreds of years and little was made of them.

No, more important than the fuels themselves were the engines developed:

1. The steam engine.
2. The internal combustion engine.
3. The gas turbine.

These engines allowed coal, oil and natural gas to be converted into movement, into transportation.

Electricity had also been known for a long time but it was not until the electric generator (powered by one of the engines above) provided abundant energy to illuminate and power the world that electricity became overwhelmingly important.

However, electricity was not only power and light, it was also signals, and here the all important developments before 1950 were:

1. The telegraph
2. The telephone
3. Radio and television

Crude implementations of the first two could exist without electronics proper, but radio and television required an amplifier and thus came into being side by side with them the vacuum tube.

Finally, electricity was one more thing: "intelligence." The first fully electronic general purpose computer, ENIAC, came into being in the late 1940s. It used prodigious amounts of vacuum tubes (more than 18,000).

So, by 1950, we had cars, airplanes, trains, air conditioning, elevators, radio, television, telegraph, telephone and even some computers.

Accelerated progress seemed to lay in the past because the vacuum tube required loads of power and was too big and unreliable to be implemented by the thousands in computers and other devices.

Say, a basic cell phone was completely out of the question, let alone a personal computer, tablet or smart phone.

And then came William Shockley and the transistor.

The first transistors were more often than not just (lower power / smaller) replacements for vacuum tubes, but if we wanted hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of transistors in a single device another breakthrough was needed.

And then came Robert Noyce and the integrated circuit. This allowed complex circuits with many transistors to be built into a single crystal of silicon, but if we wanted a full computer to be swallowed in a single integrated circuit, another breakthrough was needed.

And then came Ted Hoff and the microprocessor.

So arguably, our awe inspiring current civilization critically depends on at least the following foundations:

1. Abundant / relatively cheap energy (mainly fossil fuels).
2. Engines that use those fuels to produce useful work.
3. Electricity that, aside from light and power, means signals and "intelligence."
4. The transistor / integrated circuit / microprocessor

The future challenge for our civilization is probably more than anywhere else in point number 1. If fossil fuels won't continue to be forever cheap and abundant, then we'll need other types of energy to replace fossil fuels.

How much time we have is open to discussion, but almost everybody agrees eventually we'll need to massively replace fossil fuels or enter into the twilight of our civilization as we know it.

Are the current alternatives we have today (nuclear and renewables) good enough to massively replace fossil fuels? Probably not.

In the past, technology has always come to our rescue:

Engine technology.
Electricity generation.
Semiconductors

Today, once more we need technological breakthroughs, this time to develop cheap / abundant / low carbon energy.

Let's remember that wide deployment of a technology critically depends on cost. The first transistors Fairchild Semiconductor produced for IBM in the 1950 had a price tag of $150 USD each in bulk amounts (1950's dollars). Today the cost of each transistor in an iPhone is around one millionth of a cent (2014 cents).

Thus, if something is going to replace fossil fuels, the cost of that energy is all important (we have to consider the full system, not only a component).

Will humanity rise to the challenge? Let's stay tuned.


Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Key World Energy Statistics 2014

The Key World Energy Statistics 2014 has just been published by the International Energy Agency.
A link to the full report is at the bottom of this page.

Total Primary Energy Supply. Fossil fuels still comprise 81.7% of the total (a slight market participation increase from the 2013 report).

Solar + Wind + Geothermal, etc., have finally exceeded 1% of the total.

Let's now see the top producers per energy source.

Oil:

Coal:

Natural Gas:

Nuclear:
Two countries represent almost 50% of the world's production.
Germany is still a nuclear nation.
China is coming from behind, but may eventually overtake the USA.

Hydro:
Nobody touches China.

And finally, here we present total final consumption:

Fell free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Link to the full IEA report:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/key-world-energy-statistics-2014.html

Nuclear Power for Australia?

Should the electricity production in Australia go nuclear?

In this entry we'll calculate the number of reactors that would be required to produce 50% of the electricity in Australia.

Before even starting, here we state two facts:

1. Australia is the Saudi Arabia of Uranium reserves: they have 31% of the world total. The country in second place, Kazakhstan, has less than HALF Australia's reserves.*

2. Australia has the 4th largest global reserves of Thorium.**

Other countries would certainly kill to own these amounts of fissile material.

Now, let's make the math.

According to the IEA, Australia produced 228,152 GWh of electricity in 2013.  Let's convert this to average power:

     228,152 GWh / 24 hours / 365 days = 26.045 GW.  For simplicity, let's leave it at 26 GW.

50% of the above power is 13 GW. So now let's calculate how many 1 GWe nuclear power plants would be required to supply 13 GW of electrical power.

To be conservative, let's say that the capacity factor of these reactors is 85%. Thus:

     13 GW / 0.85 / 1GWe = 15.29 nuclear reactors.  Let's round it up to 16.

That's it! 16 reactors is all that Australia needs to replace 50% of its electricity and thus dramatically reduce its carbon emissions (in 2013, 86.4% of Australia's electricity was produced with combustible fuels).***

With their current reserves, Australia essentially has enough U / Th to power a civilization "forever."

Sure, the Australian coal industry would suffer greatly, but this is probably the price that has to be paid to reduce emissions Down Under.

The growth in Australia's electricity consumption is projected to amount to only 1.4% per year, so by 2035 they would need 22 reactors to supply 50% of its electricity. China today is building 28, so 22 should be a perfectly achievable objective for a developed country like Australia.

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram

Thank you.

*
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

**
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/thorium/

***
http://www.iea.org/statistics/relatedsurveys/monthlyelectricitysurvey/

****
http://www.bree.gov.au/sites/default/files/files//publications/aep/australian-energy-projections-report.pdf

Renewable Energy Reduces Emissions

Is renewable energy (solar and wind) the best way to reduce carbon emissions?

At first sight, this question seems almost absurd and we are tempted to say: of course it is the best way!

But, is it? Before jumping to hasty conclusions let's do our homework.

This exercise is going to be a simplification, the purpose is mainly to show us that things in real life are not as simple as in the lab.

So, let's consider a country that supplies 100% of its electricity with coal plants.

According to this table (see link at the bottom of this page), these are the emissions per kWh generated with the different energy sources: **

Thus, if this country generates 100% of its energy with coal, their emissions per kWh would be ~1001 grams.

Now, let's say we install wind turbines (enough to supply 100% of the power when the turbines are producing at full capacity):

Let's say wind capacity factor at this country is 25% (in other words, turbines actually produce 25% of their plate rating on average). It is important to underline that this is not constant power: at some moments the turbines are producing at 100%, at other they produce nothing and at any other moment their output can be anywhere in between these extremes.

So, (simplifying) wind will produce 25% of the energy on an annual basis and the coal plants will produce the rest (75%).

Then we calculate the emissions that are really just a weighted average:

Annual average emissions per kWh = (25% x 12 g/kWh) + (75% x 1001 g/kWh) = 754 g/kWh.

We can see that the emissions of the system did drop, but they are still too high.

What better options do we have?

1. If we replace the coal plants with natural gas plants (which have much higher capacity factors and can be staggered since they are not wind / sun dependent) then the emissions would be:

          469 g/kWh

2. If we replace the coal plants with nuclear plants then the emissions would be:

          16 g/kWh

As we may see from the calculations above, Renewable energy investments are not the best way to reduce emissions.

Arguably, the fastest way to reduce emissions is to replace coal plants with natural gas plants, however, if the higher investment can be made (and the longer lead times are acceptable), nuclear is truly the low carbon energy solution.

Conclusion: Yes, Renewable energy reduces carbon emissions in most systems, however natural gas, nuclear and of course hydro, are better options.

Thank you.



Notes:
a. In the developed world little new electrical capacity is needed and thus Renewable energy almost directly replaces some other energy source, however in the developing world substantial additional electrical capacity is required and thus a double investment would be required: the Renewable one, plus the reliable one.
b. Sure, Renewables (wind and sun) could be combined to somewhat compensate the fluctuations of the other one. Still, at any particular moment of the year we may have no sun and no wind. At another moment we may have both which could even force us to divert (or disconnect) capacity.
c. To simplify, here we are not considering the possibility of "dumping" energy into another country or using massive storage systems.

**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

A Little Stuff Goes a Long Way

How much uranium is required to power an average home in the USA for a full year***?

According to Energy Efficient Homes for Dummies by Rik DeGunther, the average North American home consumes 8,400 kWh in a year.

Since 200 tons of natural uranium produce one GWe of electricity for a full year*, grinding the numbers we arrive at the following figure: 192 grams of uranium per year (less than 7 ounces). As a reference, the iPhone 5 weights 140 grams. Considering that uranium is 70% more dense than lead, this is indeed a very small amount (around 25% more volume than the one occupied by the current iPod Shuffle).

Now, let's compare this to the amount of coal that would be required for the same purpose**** (today, close to 40% of the world's electricity is produced with coal).

According to How Stuff Works, one kilogram of coal produces 2.70 kWh of electricity**.  Making the math we arrive at a total of 3,111 kilograms (6,800 lbs) to power the same typical North American home (PLUS more than eight tons of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere).

We are talking of many orders of magnitude of material difference!

The mass of coal required is 16,200 times larger than the equivalent amount of uranium, but since the density of coal is only 1.1 to 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter (vs. 19.1 for uranium), the VOLUME of the needed coal would be at least 206,000 times as great as the equivalent uranium volume.

Wow!

We are not saying that uranium is clean, but considering the amount of material that has to be mined, transported and finally "burned", uranium is cleaner (actually, much, much, much cleaner) than coal.

Oh! and did we mention uranium powered utilities produce almost no CO2 during operation?

* http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/The_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle-all.pdf

** http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm

*** In a nuclear power plant.

**** In a coal fired power plant.

Fracking: the New Villain

There now seems to be a new villain in the energy scene and it is fracking (hydraulic fracturing) which is mainly used for extracting shale gas (natural gas) that was previously inaccessible.

If there was ever an energy extraction technique that was born to a concerted effort against it from all quarters it is precisely fracking. Hey! There is even a Matt Damon movie out there denouncing the process and the whole industry!

Is fracking that bad? Does it really have so many issues? The short answer is yes, fracking has all sorts of negative consequences: loads of water are required in the process, chemicals are injected into the ground, there has been some drinking water contamination, etc., etc. However, before unanimously condemning fracking we have to ask ourselves what the natural gas produced with this technique is replacing. Once we make this question, and particularly when we answer it, things begin to look better.

So, here is the question: what is the natural gas produced by fracking replacing (mostly)?

Answer: coal.

Coal is the worst fossil fuel in almost any facet we wish to consider:

     Extracting it is not only dangerous for the miners, but often highly destructive for the environment (e.g. "mountaintop removal" in the USA).

     Per unit of energy produced, coal emits more carbon dioxide than any of the other main fossil fuels.

     Coal emits other important pollutants such as mercury, sulfur and even radioactivity (believe it or not, a coal power plant emits more radioactivity to the environment during operation than an equivalent nuclear one).

     Atmospheric visibility can be greatly affected with the soot produced by burning coal.  China is often in the news lately due to its extreme air pollution.

     Loads of ash are left behind after the combustion process and these have to be disposed of (sometimes with catastrophic consequences when a depot bursts into a river).

Through the replacement of coal by shale gas, the USA is actually reducing its carbon emissions faster than almost any other major nation in the world.

So, we SHOULD NOT compare fracking with the "perfect energy source" (which by the way, doesn't exist) and condemn it off the bat.  No, fracking is mostly replacing the dirtiest and most dangerous energy source: coal.

Thus, fracking is cleaner, safer, and consequently better than the alternative.

Conclusion: we should embrace fracking, at least in the short and medium term while we develop an even better and viable energy source.

Clean Energy

Clean Energy is really a misnomer.  There is no such thing as "clean energy".  All energy sources emit pollutants during their life-cycles.

All we can say is that there are cleaner energy sources.  In other words, some sources are cleaner than others.

Since CO2 is the main green-house gas we are now concerned about, following is a comparison of carbon emissions when different energy sources are used for generating electricity.

"A literature review of numerous energy sources CO2 emissions by the IPCC in 2011 found that that the CO2 emission value, that fell within the 50th percentile of all total life cycle emissions studies conducted, was as follows." (From Wikipedia):

Now, depending on what lobby calculates the above numbers they tend to vary somewhat, but the point is that NO energy source is clean.  Sure, there is no doubt that coal is the dirtiest one but on the other hand it is significant that, at least in this particular study, solar (which is considered by many the ultimate green energy) is dirtier than nuclear energy.

Why is this?  

Answer: although solar panels produce no carbon emissions during operation, the emissions produced during their manufacture have to be "amortized" in the energy produced by the panels during their useful life.  And these emissions are not negligible.  The silicon has to be mined, purified, fused, doped, cut, soldered, transported, installed, etc.  Plus the aluminum and glass components of the panels also go through an energy intensive manufacturing process.

And by the way, oil is located somewhere between coal and natural gas.

So, even though ALL energy sources emit carbon dioxide when you factor in their complete life cycle,  it is obvious that fossil fuels are the dirtiest.  All the rest we could label as "low carbon" energy sources.  

What humanity needs to do to prevent a climate catastrophe is to move from "high carbon" to "low carbon" energy sources.

Today the USA is significantly reducing it's carbon emissions by switching part of their coal electric utilities to natural gas.  This is probably the simplest and fastest way to reduce carbon emissions but is obviously only an intermediate step in the solution.

Long term we have to move aggressively to "low carbon" sources.