|
References
There are numerous sources of basic information. A good general introduction
to the different energy sources in the
Alternative Energy
Resources
website created by Andy Darvill,
science teacher at Broadoak Community School, Weston-super-Mare, England.
The Wikipedia provides
a thorough and more formal overview, as well as full detail on the various technologies.
A stimulating, realistic and provocative view by Cambridge physicist David MacKay
is presented in his book Sustainable
Energy – without
the hot air, available free for downloading or on paper in bookshops. There
are more suggestions on our links page.
Renewable Resources
The amount of solar energy available is enormous. Every hour enough
energy arrives at the Earth to meet our current energy demands for a whole
year. Simple but effective applications use solar energy as it arrives. For
example, it can be focused onto a container to heat water, it can stream through
windows to heat buildings and greenhouses, or it can provide hot water by heating solar
thermal panels on
roofs.
The two main methods of converting solar energy to electricity are either
concentrated solar power, to focus sunlight onto a boiler and create
high-temperature steam which can drive a turbine, or to convert it directly
into electricity using arrays of solar
photovoltaic cells.
Less direct uses of solar energy extract the energy after it has been converted
into wind or waves,
or after it has raised water into the atmosphere to be dropped as rain and then
to drive hydroelectric
schemes. Biomass schemes burn plant material, which may either
be agricultural waste or grown for the purpose. This is in principle renewable,
as the carbon dioxide produced in burning the fuel was taken from the atmosphere
as the plants grew.
Two other sources of renewable energy do not depend on the heat arriving from
the sun. Tidal energy arises from the
gravitational attraction of the moon and sun. It can be extracted most easily
by taking energy from tidal flows into and out of estuaries. Geothermal
energy uses the hot interior of the Earth as a source.
Matching the load and energy storage
Discussions of electricity generation from renewable sources sometimes neglect
the need to match availability to demand. Some of the sources discussed below
have obvious limitations – solar power can only be generated during daylight
hours and varies with the weather, tidal power depends on tidal flow, wind
power isn't available in still weather, etc. A substantial fraction of electricity
generated has to be available according to demand. One way to help with this
is the use of stored-power schemes, such as exist in Wales and Scotland, but
these have limited capacity. It is therefore important to develop new and
efficient ways to store energy, to make it available when required. The need
to supply a constant base load is also one of the arguments advanced in favour
of building new nuclear
fission power stations, discussed on a separate page.
Energy storage is also important for portability. When we drive in a car or
bus, or fly in a plane, at present we carry the energy source with us in the
form of fossil fuel. In order to utilise renewable energy sources, we have
to develop efficient, affordable ways to store energy. Will this be in the
form of batteries charged by mains electricity, or energy stored as hydrogen (separate
page) and either being burned or used to power fuel cells? There are a lot
of possibilities, but in all cases there are problems that must be overcome
by further research and development.
Top of Page
Large-Scale Renewable Energy Generation
In this section we discuss various possible sources that
can be used for generating electricity in large, centralised installations.
We also touch on large-scale production of replacements for petrol and diesel
as motor fuel.
Sources already in use
Hydroelectric power comes from the potential
energy of dammed water (e.g. Hoover Dam in the US at right), and is the most
widely used and well-established form of renewable energy. It uses no fuel,
produces no waste, and does not generate carbon dioxide. It is very economic
in appropriate cases. However, many schemes are controversial. Construction
costs can be high, there is inevitably damage (often severe) to the environment,
large numbers of people may be displaced, and silting-up can limit the useful
lifetime.
Nuclear power using fission is an established
form of electricity generation. As it is very controversial for a number of
reasons, it is discussed separately on its own
page.
Geothermal energy comes from heat
stored beneath the Earth's surface. It uses no fuel, produces no waste, and
does not generate carbon dioxide. In addition, geothermal power plants
work all the time and are unaffected by changing weather conditions. It is
cost-effective where it is easily available, as in Iceland where it produces
10% of electricity and heats 87% of homes, New Zealand, and California.
The photo shows the Krafla power station in Iceland. The main disadvantage
is that the circulating fluid is at a relatively low temperature compared
to steam from boilers, which limits the efficiency for generating electricity.
It is therefore best used locally for low-temperature heat, such as greenhouses,
district heating, etc.
Wind power from large propeller-driven turbines
is now a well-established technology, and the least expensive of the remaining
list of technologies for renewable electricity generation. It uses no
fuel, produces no waste, and does not generate carbon dioxide. Wind power is
expanding rapidly, at around 30% per year (see graph), and is now about 1.5%
of total generation world-wide. It accounted for 19% of electricity production
in Denmark, 13% in Spain and Portugal, and 7% in Germany and Ireland in 2008.
The country with the most installed capacity is now the USA, followed by Germany,
China, Spain and India. Wind's costs have become roughly comparable to fossil
fuel generation, with higher capital costs and lower generating costs. Subsidies
and favourable treatment have encouraged its growth. However, wind is not always
available so using it to generate more than 20% of the required peak power
brings diminishing returns because it needs to be backed up by other methods.
The need for good and consistent wind conditions, and the environmental unpopularity
of wind turbines in scenic regions, has led to the biggest wind farms increasingly
being built offshore in Europe, and this demands larger-capacity turbines which
are currently in short supply and which need to be made more reliable.
Biomass for biofuels as a source of energy has
a long history. Humans have used wood fires from prehistoric times. Using biomass
to produce motor fuel from sugar cane or corn is well established.
Brazil meets a significant proportion of its requirements with ethanol
generated from sugar cane (photo).
The US has recently introduced subsidised production of both biodiesel
and ethanol. The ethanol is made mainly from maize. This has encouraged
farmers to switch to maize from other crops, and has contributed to sharp rises
in food prices world-wide. In Europe, production of biodiesel is being encouraged
by requiring a small percentage in all fuel on sale, using rapeseed or palm
oil as a source. Again, this seems to be causing unpredicted knock-on effects
on food production and prices. There are also other question marks over biofuel
production. A lifetime analysis of the production cycle raises
doubts about whether producing ethanol or biodiesel really reduces carbon dioxide
emissions. And if the
land used to grow biofuels is cleared forest, that too contributes to global
warming. Finally, a recent paper reports that using
biodiesel from maize or rapeseed generates significantly more nitrogen dioxide
than had been assumed. As nitrogen dioxide is a much more potent greenhouse
gas than carbon dioxide, the effect on global warming is calculated to be greater
than from the use of fossil fuels.
Where crops
are grown solely for the purpose of converting solar energy into fuel, the
efficiency of conversion is typically about 0.5% so a large area of land
is needed. Increasing the use of biofuels is likely to put more pressure on
vulnerable natural habitats such as forests, and lead to an undesirable growth
in the use of artificial fertilisers. More recent proposals are to use waste
material from food growing, or to use plants normally classified as weeds and
to grow them on otherwise unproductive land. However, this requires progress
in conversion to biofuels, especially ethanol as it would be mainly cellulose
rather than sugar and starch that must be converted.
Top of Page
Future possibilities
The other large-scale methods of producing energy
are not yet making really significant contributions, or are at the prototyping
stage, and in some cases are no more than ideas.
Solar energy can be used to generate electricity
directly. However, this is not available during
hours of darkness, and in climates like the UK's the
output is also reduced in grey and rainy weather as well as in winter. To obtain
a higher and more reliable yield, there are beginning to be grandiose schemes
to cover large areas of desert (the Sahara in the case of Europe) with solar
power generators.
One technique is concentrated solar power (CSP), for example
by focusing sunlight on a collector in which a fluid is heated and the resulting
steam passed through a turbine. This is likely to become economic if fuel costs
increase. The focusing elements are movable reflectors that follow the sun
throughout the day, focusing for example on the tower pictured at right. A
number of systems are already running or proposed, most notably in the southwestern
United States and Spain. Spain has a short-term target to generate 2.2–2.5
gigawatts with CSP by 2011, which would be nearly 5% of its total consumption.
In some versions, instead of using water to produce steam directly, the sunlight
heats molten salts. These can then be stored in insulated containers for some
hours, allowing energy to be produced during the night. The Desertec
initiative for
Europe is described below.
The alternative of direct conversion to electricity by solar
photovoltaic cells is also being developed in a number of places, with
outputs up to tens of megawatts. This method (photo at left) is probably less
likely to be successful for large-scale power generation on cost grounds
unless the cost of the cells can be reduced dramatically. A way around this
is again to use reflectors to concentrate more light on the photovoltaic cells.
Cells optimised for this purpose would probably be very different from the
ones currently in use.
A third and more speculative method for large-scale solar energy generation
would use a very tall chimney with its base surrounded over a wide radius
with a transparent roof. The air under the roof is heated and drawn to and
up the chimney. Energy is extracted by turbines at the base of the chimney,
while much of the space under the roof could be used for agriculture. The energy
available increases exponentially with the height of the chimney. A prototype
system in Spain generated 50 kilowatts. A single solar-tower power plant
with a collector area 7 km in diameter and a chimney
1 km high,
built and operated in an area with high annual solar radiation, might
generate between 700,000 and 800,000 megawatt-hours per year. Thus a small number
of solar-tower power plants might even replace a large nuclear power station.
However, as with all solar powered systems the energy supply is only available
during the day.
The possibility of generating solar electricity in tropical deserts in order
to get maximum benefit from the sunlight requires a way to transport the energy
over long distances. This is discussed below.
Biomass for generating electricity using plants
grown for this purpose requires large areas of land for limited energy production,
and is labour intensive. However, by using sugar cane fibre,
urban wood waste and similar things the US currently generates about 1.5%
of its electricity from biomass.
Hydrogen as a fuel, notably for motor vehicles,
is much talked about and has potential, but is not yet in significant use and
there are many problems to overcome. It is discussed on a separate
page.
Tidal energy is another form of hydroelectricity,
and could be attractive in appropriate locations. There are two forms: tidal
barrages have been around for many years, while tidal streams are
more recent.
Tidal barrages are in operation at three locations world-wide.
The largest, in France, was completed in 1966 and generates 240 megawatts
peak – it is shown at right. It is estimated that tidal schemes in selected
places around the UK could generate up to 20% of the current UK electricity
demand. Barrages work by damming estuaries, with the tidal flow turning turbines
as it enters and leaves. However, the dams interfere with shipping and damage
the ecosystem. The energy is intermittent, but schemes in different locations
with tides 3 hours apart could complement each other. Capital costs are high
but running costs are low. The recently revived Severn barrier scheme, for
example, is a huge project which would cost perhaps £15 billion and generate
perhaps 5% of the UK's electricity. Despite its green intention there is
strong opposition, not least by environmental groups.
Tidal streams can generate energy without requiring dams. Rotors
or similar devices are installed where islands or other constrictions generate
fast tidal flows. There have been several successful trials, and there
are now proposals to build deep-sea tidal-energy farms. In terms of output
these are similar to wind farms, with each turbine generating about 1 megawatt
peak.
Wave power uses the up-and-down motion of water
caused by waves to generate electricity. Trials of various types of devices
have been going on for years, but it is only now that the world's first commercial
wave farm, based in Portugal and utilising three 750 kilowatt
Pelamis devices (picture at left), is being tested. Efficiently converting
the irregular motion of waves into a reliable source of power is challenging,
and building reliable devices which will survive storms and saltwater corrosion
is not easy.
Geothermal energy ("hot rocks") to
generate electricity in non-volcanic areas, using the heat of rocks deep below
the Earth's surface, is being looked into, notably in Australia.
Ocean currents could in principle be a major
source of energy. The Gulf Stream moves at 4 km per hour in some places, and
a turbine anchored in it could generate continuous power. However there are
obvious difficulties in getting the energy ashore.
Ocean thermal energy uses the fact that deep
ocean temperatures are lower than surface temperatures. Unfortunately,
the energy that can be generated from the relatively small temperature difference
is probably too low to be viable.
Top of Page
Small-Scale Renewable Energy Generation
In this section we mention smaller-scale systems that could be used for generating
electricity and heating. These options are
discussed in more detail on our domestic renewable
energy options page, including information on the new Feed-In
Tariff for renewable electricity and the proposed Renewable
Heat Incentive for heat
and hot water – these will make such systems much more viable financially.
For electricity generation
these systems would be deployed in large numbers and connected to the
electricity grid, replacing some large central power stations and eliminating
much of the energy waste incurred by long-distance distribution over power
cables. This microgeneration would
cause a major change in the economics of electricity generation. A significant
issue where small, variable quantities of electricity are generated locally
is how the owner is rewarded for the electricity generated. Germany, and
then other countries including Spain and Portugal, have had feed-in tariffs that
initially pay much more than the real price for electricity exported to the
grid, in addition to the savings made because some of the generated
electricity is consumed locally in place of electricity from the grid. This
encourages people to install these systems, which it is hoped will lower
their cost via large-scale production and innovations in the technologies.
In the UK the initial approach was to subsidise installation with government
grants, but the system was not generous or well focused. This will change dramatically
with the new arrangements mentioned above. The UK Feed-In
Tariff scheme is
unusual in rewarding all generation generously, whether used locally
or exported, though exports attract a somewhat higher return.
The UK's proposed Renewable Heat Incentive claims
to be a world first. The final arrangements are not yet settled, but the scheme
is being designed to reward a wide range of renewable systems for heat and
hot water over their lifetime.
Solar thermal panels for
water heating (photo at right) are reasonably competitive, more so
with electricity than gas, when installed in suitable buildings. They are a
relatively simple and reliable technology. In the UK they can typically heat
up to about 60% of the annual requirement for hot water, but of course do even
better in sunnier and warmer climates. The country with the largest number
of installations is China, while 90% of houses in Israel have solar hot water
systems.
Solar photovoltaic cells are widely used for
powering installations such as motorway telephones and road signs, where they
save the cost of cabling mains electricity. At present the cost of the panels
is still quite high, but it is coming down with improved technology (photo
at left). They are widely used in Germany due to the feed-in tariff that encourages
their use, and the new arrangements in the UK will have a similar effect.
At present solar cells are made from silicon wafers,
but cheaper alternatives are being researched and developed. There is a trade-off
between efficiency and cost, and working lifetime is also a concern for some
of the possibilities. These newer types are currently less efficient than
the 14–19%
conversion of solar energy into electricity achieved by commercial silicon
solar cells, but they should be significantly cheaper. The alternatives include
thin-film devices using either silicon, electrically conductive plastics, a
cell using phthalocyanine dye to mimic the action of chlorophyll, and more
exotic ideas using nanoparticles.
Both photographs above are of systems installed in Blewbury.
Wind turbines in relatively small sizes can
be useful to reduce requirements for mains
electricity, particularly in isolated locations. For most UK domestic situations
the average wind speed is not sufficient to justify their cost, and there can
be structural problems if they are installed on houses.
Ground-source heat pumps to heat buildings use
the heat in the ground a short distance below the surface (due mainly to solar
energy) as a source to drive a heat pump that works like a refrigerator in
reverse. To gather the energy a pipe must either be buried under a large area
of land, or placed in a deep, drilled hole.
Air-source heat pumps are also like reversed refrigerators or air conditioners,
and are simpler than ground-source heat pumps because they do not need underground
pipes.
The key figure of merit for both kinds of heat pumps is the ratio of
heat energy produced to electricity consumed.
Combined heat and power (CHP) uses some of the
heat produced by a central heating boiler to generate electricity rather than
wasting it. Using fossil fuel the overall efficiency is
higher than normal central heating. However, it is only renewable if the fuel
is renewable, for example wood pellets.
Small water turbines are being installed where
suitable. A proposed project near
Blewbury aims to generate about 245 kW using three
Archimedes Spirals in the weir next to Goring lock on the Thames (photo); it
would cost over £1 million. There is information on
the basics of small-scale hydro possibilities on our domestic generation
page.
Top of Page
Nuclear Fusion Energy
The basic concept of fusion reactions is to force two atoms of light elements,
such as hydrogen, helium or boron, close enough together so that the strong
nuclear force in their nuclei will pull them together into one larger atom.
The resulting nucleus will have a
slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses. The difference
in mass is released as energy, according to Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence
formula E = mc2.
Fusion is the power source of the sun and all the stars. It is also the reaction
used for the hydrogen bomb, in which the fusion is triggered by a nuclear
fission explosion. The goal is to produce fusion reactions in a controlled
way that can replace burning of fossil fuels, and that is potentially much
safer and cleaner than the nuclear fission reactions used in current nuclear
power stations.
The favoured atoms are usually
the heavier isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, which have one proton
and either two or three neutrons in their nuclei, respectively. For example,
fusing deuterium with tritium produces a helium nucleus and a neutron,
plus energy, as shown in the figure. Deuterium can be extracted from water,
while tritium can be produced by adding lithium to the fusion device. (More
details are in the Wikipedia.)
An alternative is to fuse two deuterium nuclei, though this requires
more exacting operating conditions.
The amount of power that could be generated by a fusion reaction is potentially
much greater than that available from nuclear fission.
Magnetic confinement
The currently favoured approach is to use
machines that confine the materials in the form of a very hot plasma, using
a magnetic field. (A plasma is a gas so hot that its atoms have separated into
electrons and atomic nuclei.) The currently favoured configuration is a doughnut-shaped
(toroidal) chamber called a Tokomak.
The problem is how to heat a plasma up to about 100 million
degrees, and to maintain the temperature and confine the plasma for long
enough to produce useful energy.
Current status: Experimentation and progress
continues, but even after half a century of research fusion reactors are a
prospect only in the long term. The Joint European Torus (JET) located in Culham,
Oxfordshire, can produce energy – it
has generated 16 megawatts
for nearly a second, which approaches the energy it needed to run (so-called
break-even). The inside of JET is shown at left, with the purple an
artist's impression of the plasma.
In 2005 there was international agreement (including the UK)
to build a pre-production reactor called ITER in Cadarache, France. Work is
starting in 2010 and it is now planned to begin operation in 2019, although
full operation with deuterium and tritium isn't scheduled until 2026. In the
meantime, the estimated cost has nearly tripled. ITER is designed to generate
500 megawatts
for 400 seconds at a
time. If this 30-year programme is successful, prototype power stations could
then be built. However, there are enormous technical difficulties to overcome
before there is a practical solution for large-scale electricity generation.
Cost: As no viable fusion reactor design exists, the costs are unknown.
There have been design studies which indicate that such plants may be economically
viable.
Advantages: Fusion reactors do not generate any
greenhouse gases. The fuel is very widely available. The main products of fusion
are not radioactive. The reactors are inherently safe since they contain very
small quantities of fuel at any time, and it is difficult to create the conditions
for energy generation – any disturbance in their operation is likely
just stops the reaction very rapidly. And unlike fission reactors, there is
no direct link to nuclear weapons and their proliferation.
Disadvantages: The neutrons produced make the
materials surrounding the reactor core radioactive. However, compared to the
waste from nuclear fission reactors, if the materials are carefully chosen
their radioactive half-lives are far shorter.
The neutrons also do severe damage to the mechanical properties of
the materials while they are in use, and this may well be the most serious
technical problem. To progress on this, a programme of materials research will
be centred in Japan in parallel with the development of ITER.
Another concern is the possible release
of tritium, which is radioactive and difficult
to contain, into the environment. It could be released
during operation through routine leaks, and an
accident could release even more. This is one reason why long-term hopes are
for the deuterium-deuterium fusion process, dispensing with tritium.
Inertial confinement
Another route to fusion
power would use extremely intense laser beams to implode small capsules containing
deuterium and perhaps tritium. This idea has been around for quite some
time, and tests have been done, for example in the US, to induce fusion and
show that the basic principles are correct.
The huge National Ignition Facility at
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, USA is just starting up after
12 years of construction. It will use the most powerful laser currently in
existence, split into 192 beams, to attempt to go beyond "break-even" and produce
between 10 and 100 times as much energy as it puts in. However, this is more
an experiment than a practical solution.
Recently
a three-year project was started to evaluate whether laser-driven fusion can
be a practical energy source. Called HiPER (High Power Laser Energy Research
Facility), it is supported by the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy, Spain
and the UK, as well as scientists from nine other countries world-wide. (The
UK's leading effort involves universities as well as the Central Laser Facility
at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Harwell in Oxfordshire, a world
leader in high-power lasers.)
The idea is to heat a small (millimetre size) fuel capsule containing deuterium
and tritium at extremely high pressure for a very short time (about a picosecond,
i.e. a thousandth of a billionth of a second). Powerful laser beams heat the
outer surface of the capsule in such a way that the central core implodes.
Another ultra high-power laser then heats this core to about 100 million
degrees Celsius, which induces nuclear fusion and releases energy in the form
of neutrons that could be used to produce electricity. What is new is the idea
of using two separate lasers and very fast heating. Compared to other methods,
this could allow much less powerful (but still huge) lasers to induce a larger
mass of fuel to undergo fusion. This method is what has to be tested in the
first three-year phase. A commercial version would have to repeat this process
about five times per second in order to produce power equivalent to a 2 gigawatt
power station.
If this HiPER first phase is successful it
would be followed by a prototype development phase and then a full-scale facility.
Like magnetic confinement, there are huge technical hurdles so electricity
generation on a large scale is clearly at least several decades in the future.
The advantages and disadvantages are fairly similar to those listed for magnetic
confinement fusion.
Cold fusion
Claims made in 1989 to have observed so-called cold fusion, in small-scale
inexpensive equipment on a lab bench, have been thoroughly discredited. Although
a trickle of claims to have observed this continues, to date results of this
nature have never been reproducible.
Top of Page
Transporting
Energy Over Long Distances
The most energetic source of green energy is the sun, which delivers a maximum
of about 1 kilowatt per square metre to a collector facing it, in the
absence of clouds and haze. Tropical desert is the best place to capture the
most energy from a given land area, since the land surface faces the sun and
cloud cover tends to be less. How
to transport this energy to colder and less sunny places is therefore important.
Currently, energy is transported for long distances over power lines, as fuel
in ships, road tankers and trains, and again as fuel in pipelines.
These options are explored using a notional requirement to transfer energy
from a modest sized solar plant in the Sahara to London, a distance of a little
under 4,000 kilometres. If the plant to convert solar energy to electricity
were 15% efficient, it would need to capture solar energy from about 10 square kilometres
to generate a peak output of 1,500 megawatts in electricity.
As the sun shines for only 12 hours a day, and the angle of incidence
varies during the day, the average capacity of the plant would be about 480 megawatts.
Power lines
The current limit for the technology of long distance power lines is for direct
current transmission with a voltage on the two lines of plus and minus 600 kilovolts.
Such a line might cost £500,000 per kilometre to construct
at a total cost of perhaps £2,000 million. However, as the
solar plant has no need for the line at night the line might also be used
for load-sharing between the countries through which it passes.
Some of the energy would be lost in resistive heating in the transmission
cables. Thus
London might gain a supply which averages about 450 megawatts over
24 hours, with a peak around mid-day of 1,380 megawatts. At
this rate the capital cost of the line discounted over 10 years would amount
to about 5p per kilowatt-hour. The benefit depends on the usefulness of a supply
of electricity with these characteristics.
Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar do not work all the time.
To allow use and sharing of sources that are available at any given time, nine
countries (Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg,
Denmark, Sweden and Ireland and the UK) are developing a plan to build
a high-voltage direct-current 'supergrid' in northern Europe within the next
decade.
A project on a much larger scale is the Desertec
Industrial Initiative (DII).
The aim is to build high-voltage direct-current power lines from North Africa
and the Middle East across the Mediterranean to Europe, in order to provide
15% of Europe's electricity by 2050. Announced in 2009, the partners include
some of Germany's biggest companies, including the Munich Re insurance company,
Siemens, E.ON, ABB and Deutsche Bank as well as a number of smaller companies
specialising in renewable energy. The plan, estimated to cost about $400bn
(£240bn), is to use concentrated solar power (CSP) to supply both local
electricity needs to the desert countries and to export about 100 gigawatts
to Europe.
Transport by pipeline
For this it is necessary to convert the energy into a fuel, such as
hydrogen (discussed in detail on a separate page).
This could then be pumped under pressure along a pipeline.
A
pipeline 0.5 metres in diameter moving hydrogen gas under 25 atmospheres
pressure at 7.5 metres per second would carry about 375 megawatts, and
might cost about £2,000 million for 4,000 km. The cost
per kilowatt-hour for transport would be similar to that of the electricity
line – say 5p per kilowatt-hour – however in practice larger pipelines might
be used, giving economies of scale.
The benefit depends on the use of the hydrogen on arrival. If it is used
to generate electricity in a conventional power plant the output energy would
be halved to about 170 megawatts. If it is used as a gas for heating
or to replace other fuels, most of the energy would be useful. However, gas
is typically less valuable than electricity. In either case it would be more
expensive than current fossil fuel supplies.
Transport by ship
This also requires that the energy is first converted into a fuel. For example,
liquid hydrogen might be chosen. If the plant uses the electrical energy to
generate liquid hydrogen at about 75% efficiency, it would create about 3,000 cubic
metres of liquid hydrogen a day with an energy capacity of 8,640 megawatt-hours,
an average rate of about 360 megawatts.
A single ship to carry 30 days production would need to store about
100,000 cubic metres. This is rather smaller that the size of existing
large tankers for liquid natural gas (see photo). The ship
could transport this load over, say, 5,000 km of sea in less than
10 days at 25 km/hour, so a single ship costing, say, £100 million
should be able to transport the total output of the solar plant, with one delivery
every 30 days.
Conclusion
The very ambitious Desertec initiative looks like a serious attempt to use
solar power in a significant way for Europe. The transport of energy as a fuel
by ship also appears to be promising at present. The capital costs are much
lower. It is also more flexible, can handle longer distances, is easier to
introduce and is less likely to be disrupted by sabotage or political actions.
However the technology to carry liquid hydrogen by ship is still under development.
Top of Page
Intermittent
Energy Sources and Energy Storage
In this section we discuss the problems and possibilities for dealing with
the output from renewable energy sources, some of which (most notably wind
and solar) are intermittent. Part of the solution involves storing energy on
a
large scale. This can help in matching
these unpredictable energy sources with the rapidly varying electricity
load, and to provide energy when renewable sources cannot supply enough. Energy
storage on a domestic scale is discussed on our domestic
generation page.
Handling
intermittent energy sources
Some of the most promising sources of green energy do not collect power continuously.
Those dependent on the sun operate only during the day, though concentrated
solar power can be extended by storing heated fluids. They are
also affected by cloud cover and the season. Tidal power, as in the proposed
Severn Estuary scheme, can generate a significant proportion of the energy
needs of the country, but the supply is not continuous. Wind power can be averaged
with turbines in different locations, but there are extended periods when the
wind is light across the country. How can we use such energy sources as a major
part of our electricity supply?
Later on we discuss some options for storing energy on a fairly large
scale. However, such solutions are most appropriate
for smoothing temporary variations in output. Indeed, some are already coming
into use to help the electricity system adjust
to sudden changes in demand. A much bigger challenge is to compensate
for major changes in output, for example at high or low tide with a tidal system,
when there is a prolonged period of low wind, or when cloud covers the country,
as these cases would require storage systems comparable in size to
the energy source being supported.
If we wish to obtain a large part (e.g. more than 30%) of our energy from
clean but intermittent energy sources, then we have to find ways to handle
large-scale variations in output. Some of the main strategies for maintaining
supplies are likely to be as follows:
- Energy sources that can be turned on and off as needed
(e.g. waste incinerators or hydroelectric stations). It is rare that the
electricity demand requires all the generating capacity to
be operating, and if necessary more could be built.
- Electricity supergrids covering very wide geographical areas, including
other countries. This can average out some of the local variations.
- A smart grid communicating
with appliances that don't need to work all the time, e.g.
fridges. An attractive option, tied to
electric transport (cars and lorries), is to have smart charging stations
that work mainly when demand is low.
- Arrangements to switch off heavy industrial
electrical loads when supply may be a problem. Some businesses will accept
an intermittent supply in return for a reduced tariff.
The decisions to start generating from additional conventional plant or to
stop supplying heavy industrial users need not be made instantly. The distributed
nature of green energy sources means that variations in output will be somewhat
smoothed over a short time period, and it is possible to predict the energy
available for a reasonable time ahead using weather forecasting. Smaller fluctuations
can be handled using the energy storage techniques described below.
Energy storage
At present, pumped-storage hydropower provides 99% of the large-scale storage
for electricity generation world-wide; in the UK this is done in Wales and
Scotland. However, the total amount energy that can be stored is currently
very small. Pumped storage is a well-tested, low-technology solution and could
be very usefully expanded, but it can only provide a small fraction of the
huge amount of storage needed. Three new possibilities receiving
much of the attention are compressed air, batteries and flywheels, but other
interesting ideas are also being suggested.
Compressed air
Renewable electricity would be used to compress air to high pressure. The
air would then be stored until needed, and released through a turbine to generate
electricity. At present a number of systems are being developed that
would each provide power levels of several hundred megawatts for several hours.
Some of these systems store the huge volumes of compressed air in abandoned
mines or salt caverns. Other approaches use
large high-pressure tanks, but their available volume is a severe limitation.
A proposal (from Nottingham University) recently
in the news would use huge, slowly rotating wind turbines with pistons inside
their blades to compress the air, then store it in flexible, relatively inexpensive
plastic bags on the bottoms of lakes or oceans in deep water close to a coast.
The advantage is that constant high pressure is provided by the deep water
as the bags are filled and emptied, and without needing high-pressure
tanks. Although such air-compressing wind turbines don't exist yet, the underwater
storage and compressed-air generation could be tested and developed using other
compression methods.
The main obstacles these compressed air schemes have to overcome are the overall
energy efficiency of the compression and electricity generation, the many logistic
and technical problems of using mines or underwater sites, and safety considerations
of using high-pressure storage vessels and pipes.
Batteries
Batteries store electricity in the form of chemical
energy. In addition to familiar small-scale applications such as the lead-acid
batteries in cars or the small batteries used in electric and electronic
gadgets, there is also considerable work to develop batteries for large-scale
storage. The main problems to overcome are that batteries are currently expensive,
and have limited lifespans.
Lithium-ion batteries are a popular type because they store a lot of electricity
in a small volume and they hold their charge for a long time. They will be
used in most types of electric cars appearing soon, and they are also under
consideration for utility-scale applications.
Another possibility is sodium-sulphur batteries, which are being developed
as a possible replacement for pumped-storage hydropower in Japan. Batteries
providing up to 7 megawatts
are being developed as temporary short-term storage to reduce "congestion" on
electric transmission lines.
Vanadium redox batteries are beginning to be used in several locations to
smooth the output of wind turbines. Recent
installations can store up
to 12 megawatt-hours of energy.
Lead-carbon batteries are being developed as improved versions of existing
lead-acid batteries, especially in stationary situations where weight is not
an important issue. They could be cheaper
than lithium-ion batteries because they would use everyday materials.
Flywheels
Flywheels can quickly convert electricity
into the kinetic energy of a heavy, rotating disc and back again at
high efficiency. The disc is accelerated by an electric motor which acts as
a generator when reversed, slowing down the disc and producing electricity.
A big advantage is that the electricity can be made available very quickly.
Flywheels can store the energy for a long time if friction is kept low,
for example by using magnetic bearings and keeping the flywheel in a vacuum.
To store a lot of energy, the flywheel must be very heavy and rotate very quickly,
and this requires very strong materials.
At present, flywheel storage is often used to provide uninterrupted electricity
for short periods, such as the interval between a power cut and the start-up
of a backup diesel generator at large data centres. They are beginning to be
used to optimise mixed use of wind power and diesel generators for small, isolated
electricity grids, where their smoothing action allows a larger overall contribution
by the wind generators.
At present, commercially available flywheel systems
can provide very short-term power of more than 10 megawatts, or store
more than 100 kilowatt-hours of energy.
Gravel?
An unusual proposal to use cheap, common materials to store renewable energy,
for example from a wind farm, is being pursued by a
small UK company called Isentropic. Their system uses two silos full of gravel
with a combined heat pump/heat engine between them, as in the diagram.
Electricity from the renewable source runs the heat pump to heat and compress
argon gas, which then goes to one of the silos and heats the gravel to about
500°C.
The exiting argon gas is at ambient temperature but remains compressed. It
is then sent to the second silo, where it expands back to atmospheric pressure
– this cools the gas and the gravel in the second silo to about –160°C.
(This works like a fridge.) The temperature difference between the two silos
effectively stores the electrical energy used to compress and heat the gas.
It is claimed that a
well-insulated silo can maintain its temperature for very long periods of time.
Will it work? The temperature difference seems very large for a single-pass
cycle, and the gravel will have to be kept out of the mechanical parts. Isentropic
is developing a pilot plant, shown in the diagram, to store 16 megawatt-hours
of energy.
The largest pumped-storage hydropower facility in the world, in Virginia,
USA, has a capacity of 30 gigawatt-hours (2000 times the pilot gravel
system). Its two lakes cover 820 acres of land; Isentropic claims their gravel
system would only need to cover a few acres to store the same amount of energy.
Other possibilities
Another possible storage method uses so-called supercapacitors, which store
electric charge at much higher densities than the small capacitors used in
electronic devices. They can discharge their energy more rapidly than batteries,
and have much longer cycling lifetimes. Their very serious limitation at present
is that the stored energy density is less than a tenth that of batteries, and
utility-scale devices are still a long way off.
Cars and other vehicles need mobile energy sources to replace petrol and
diesel. Renewable electricity can be used to charge batteries that drive electric
motors, and such electric cars will soon be widely available. A
possible alternative is to use renewable energy to produce hydrogen, which
can be used either by burning it directly or, probably better, in
electricity-generating fuel cells. Since it takes energy to produce the hydrogen,
it is best regarded as an energy storage medium rather than a fuel like oil.
If the much-publicised "hydrogen economy" ever materialises, hydrogen
could also be used in many other applications. All this is discussed further
on our hydrogen page.
Summary
At present it is not clear which of these possibilities will be widely adopted,
since more research and development is needed. It is likely that different
methods will turn out to be useful for different requirements, so there may
be a few winners. A useful article
with more details and links is available here,
and there is also an interesting Wikipedia article
on grid-scale energy storage.
Top of Page
Storing the Carbon Dioxide
In order to allow large-scale use of fossil fuels to continue, at least in
the short-term, various schemes for capturing carbon dioxide and storing it
indefinitely rather than releasing it to the atmosphere are being worked on.
This is variously called carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon
sequestration.
The main alternatives being considered are:
Biological: Increasing the growth of
plants to trap atmospheric carbon dioxide. The storage can be long term if
the plant material is retained in the soil. Note that this is really an "offset" scheme,
rather than a capture scheme for the carbon dioxide that is actually generated.
Geological: Storing the carbon dioxide underground, for
example in the reservoirs where natural gas or oil has been extracted.
Oceanic: Storing compressed and liquid carbon dioxide at
the bottom of the oceans, where it should be maintained in a liquid state
by the local pressure and temperature.
Mineralisation: Converting it to a solid form
such as a carbonate, which can then be used as a building material.
The problems include: evaluating whether the storage process itself
generates so much extra carbon dioxide that the benefits are cancelled out,
making sure the carbon dioxide will not escape from the storage, and solving
various other technical challenges.
A proposed coal-fired power station
at Kingsnorth, Kent was an issue recently because it (and possibly others)
would be built before a proven carbon capture and storage scheme exists. (Of
the various fossil fuels, coal produces the most carbon dioxide and is the
most polluting.)
Top of Page
|