Final words

This blog has been a bit of a bumpy ride to say the least! I initially came into this blogasphere thinking I would write some grand posts looking at the impacts of our greed for all resources...

With all my best intentions, this was never my passion. I ultimately wanted to look at energy, and how it shapes and controls our lives. 

This became a firm reality when I hit upon an article in The Times which explored our future energy security. From there I have explored our excessive use of energy through reporting on COP21, and how to mitigate against our exploitative habits through renewables (here, here and here.. oh, and also here). But renewables are old news, over-discussed and a tad boring... so I wanted to incorporate some of the issues in measuring and understanding energy consumption (something of vital importance if you are going to define exploitation (which can be found here and here)), as well as other issues people usually cite when faulting renewables (because people always complain about things!), and how to mitigate against the main issue (reliability) with storage solutions (here, here and here). My aim across all of my later posts was to discuss the current research being published in mainstream journals to understand how the scientific community was approaching a contemporary topic of astronomical future (and arguably current) importance.  

Wooo! Hope! (Source)

Ultimately, my opinions have changed. I have gone from someone who was a little sceptical (maybe cynical) of the potential that renewables could have in mitigating carbon emissions, to being incredibly hopeful.

Previously I would always argue that nuclear is the most promising energy source, as it is the most efficient and least polluting fuel. However efficiency isn't everything, and provided the initial investment hurdles can be overcome, the future for renewables could be bright. Two posts have really inspired me: Morocco and its quest to become a renewable powerhouse and the potential host for COP22; and the creative solutions for energy storage that are being developed and discussed. However the most heart-warming article I have read is the first-order investigative research report on Ontario's potential to become a fully renewable city! We are now at the stage of scientific understanding and development where we could develop fully renewable cities. Whether we will be a matter for politicians, lobbyists and people with money to decide!

Renewables are our best friend and worst enemy. They are cause for both optimism and concern. I will try to explain why.

Our future depends on renewable resources - in a world that thrives on consumerism and excessive consumption of resources, the limitless resources will always be most valuable. However, the means of collecting and generating electricity from these resources is expensive, technologically difficult and require a shift in perceptions. They are also expensive and tend not to provide the same standalone reliability compared to a fossil-fuel power station, as they must be used in conjunction with other renewable sources or energy storage solutions, further making them more expensive. Above all, it's worrying to know that amongst all the COP21 talks and investment in recent months and years, the dawn of renewables may be quickly over in the UK (a fellow blogger, Caitlin, discussed this topic in fantastic detail over at her blog)!

However from my blogging I hope you can see the optimism in academic literature. Scientists are trying to improve the situation through developing new and innovative ways to power our future. The models, experiments and investigations, although may seem silly ("why would you model the potential for renewables to fully power desalination plants?" you might ask), the results show that renewables have the capacity to do the things we need them to do.

At the beginning of these blogs I discussed the potential for a centralised resource system which efficiently distributes resources based on demand, instead of based on their value. I now think that idea is wrong. The distribution of resources equally and efficiently, although reduces the potential for greed and exploitation, does not mean we are not harming the environment. A means of efficiently collecting resources whilst having little impact upon the environment is of even greater importance. Although I have only focused on energy and the potential of renewable solutions, I believe other resources, when investigated could be efficiently and substantially consumed.  

Scientists have done their work. Its now time for everyone else to join in and provide a means to make renewables work. Our exploitation, greed, reliance and demand for electrical resources will never cease. However, how efficiently and environmentally friendly we collect, modify and distribute these resources can change. it just requires someone to take that first step.

*Little bit of a brain dump, sorry....*

TL;DR: renewables are promising, scientists are great; however only time will tell!

Renewable Solutions: Novel Ideas

As previously discussed, energy storage for renewables is important, especially when relying on them for a greater proportion of global energy production. The innate unpredictability of natural renewable energy resources (wind, sun, river discharge, tides) makes energy storage facilities vital for supplying constant levels of electricity to our constant (exploitative) demand.

The most wide spread and popular energy storage technologies include (taken from Perna et al., 2015):

• Electrochemical batteries
• Supercapacitors
• Thermal-storage materials
• Flywheels
• Pumped hydro reservoirs
• Superconducting magnetic energy storage
• Chemical (hydrogen, synthetic natural gas, etc.) storage
• Compressed air energy storage (CAES and ACAES)

Each method is suited to different applications and vary in stored capacity and efficiency, and discharge rate. Electrochemical batteries can be highly efficient and store large amounts of energy, but have limited life cycles and discharge stored electricity at a slow rate (Perna et al., 2015). CAES systems similarly have a high efficiency, but contrastingly have longer life cycles and can store a varied amount of electricity, depending on the built capacity. Hydrogen-based energy storage systems (water electrolysis) tend to have lower efficiencies, but has a high storage of energy per mass, whilst having a long life cycle (Perna et al. 2015). However, this post will look at some of the more interesting solutions published recently!

Perna (et al., 2015) undertook an interesting study looking at how hydrogen-based energy storage systems could be integrated with biomass powerplants, making the biomass production more efficient. Overall, electrical efficiencies of the integrated systems ranged between 40-43%. To me this is incredibly low, but compared against incineration or biomass gasification (which has an efficiency of 20-24%), efficiency levels look great! Furthermore, integration provides a demand for electricity when consumer demand is low, reducing electrical fluctuations across the supply networks and improving reliability!

Another unique and new means of storing energy is the use of using liquid carbon dioxide. Wang (et al., 2015) investigated different systems by which to pressurise liquid carbon dioxide. During off-peak or low demand periods, liquid carbon dioxide is pumped from one tank to another through a series of compressors (consuming excess power). When additional power is required, the pressurised liquid carbon dioxide is released through turbines to generate electricity. Heat exchangers are cooled using oil, and the heated oil is used as a secondary source of electrical generation, heating water to turn turbines. 

Figure 1: Comparison of methods of energy storage with
RTE (Round Trip Efficiency - total efficiency) and EVR (energy:volume ratio) (Wang et al., 2015)

Wang's paper explores a number of schematics, suggesting that the improvement of thermal energy storage (heated oil) can improve overall efficiency (RTE) to 56.7%. Furthermore, the energy to volume ratio (EVR) is a reasonable 36.kWh/m3, making liquid carbon dioxide energy storage a more efficient (in terms of volume to energy ratio) means of storing energy compared to CAES and Pumped hydroelectric reservoirs (Figure 1).

When combined with storage mediums, renewables can be very useful. A mixture of various renewable resources combined with storage capacities mitigates reliability issues. To wrap up this post, I have found an exciting article which provides a model for a completely renewable-powered city.

Richardson and Harvey (2015) have modelled the renewable potential surrounding Ontario, Canada, investigating what would be required to move from conventional fuels to a fully renewable system which includes pumped hydroelectrical and battery storage. The model results aren't particularly detailed, as rough estimates are used based on existing literature or known specifications. However they optimistically conclude that Ontario could move towards a renewable-based electrical generation system which is reliable and a renewable-fuelled city "can be maintained without excessive generation costs". The idea, they explain, is technically feasible, however there are issues surrounding potential demand fluctuations with electrification of transportation, which could prove to be problematic.

The results from all 3 studies are optimistic. There are an abundance of methods and means to cope and sustain our excessive demands for energy, and when scaled up to a city-wide model, the level of technology we currently are at seems to prove that we can indeed live sustainably (whist still exploiting the abundance of energy)!
As a side note, Richardson and Harvey do note that a change in behaviours would probably help to make renewable-based cities a reality for more parts of the world. I completely agree with this, but that conversation is for another blog!

Renewable Solutions: Compressed Air

My last few blogs will revolve around the topic of making renewables more suitable for the world. One of the largest issues that renewables face is they only work when the wind blows or when the sun shines (or when earthquakes occur...!). This is fantastic for sunny countries, where this can work to power high energy-demand installations with few issues. However, for countries where it isn't always sunny or windy, renewables are used to top up fossil-fuel generation, as their unreliability is too great to make them a dominant source of electrical generation.

This is where stored energy comes into play! Storing energy during off-peak or excess supply periods provides a more reliable and constant supply of electrical energy to renewable-dominant countries during periods of low supply or high demand. Storing energy on large scales is known to be inefficient, hence why power stations are switched on and off to meet demands of energy (Steadman, 2013). However more efficient means of storing energy is being developed. 

(There are a vast number of other electrical storage systems. A good summary of the literature was conducted by Chen (et al, 2009). Newer technologies, such as hydrogen storage are not included in the review, but are an important technology that is efficient and has lots of potential (Schiller, 2014).)

Compressed air storage uses off-peak excess electricity to power air compressors. The air is compressed into large vessels or geological formations, such as old mineshafts, mixed with natural gas, and then released to generate electricity through thermoexpanders (Pendick, 2007).  The mixing with natural gas increases the efficiency of electrical generation. There is one down side to the Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) method: there is still a pollution aspect. CAES is predicted to be approximately 60-90% efficient, depending on methods used (Brown, 2013). 

Two examples of CAES in operation are: Huntorf in Germany, built in 1978 and has a capacity of 290 MW and facility in McIntosh, Alabama, USA, built in 1991 and has a capacity of 110 MW, with both facilities using salt mineshafts as a means of storing the air (Succar and Williams, 2008). Both facilities run efficiently (~60% efficiency) and prove that this is a suitable low-cost energy storage technology. However, CAES, as briefly mentioned previously, has a pollution element, and requires natural gas. It has previously been found that CAES makes wind power less profitable and is heavily reliant on fossil fuel markets (Greenblatt, et al., 2007).

The solution: adiabatic CAES (ACAES). Now I would attempt to explain this, but there is a video with a far better explanation available... so let's rely on that instead:

To summarise, the heat energy is used and conserved, negating the need for natural gas to be used in the thermoexpanders to regain the stored electrical energy. 

So, how do we understand which is best? Well of course I would not ask that question if I did not already know! 

Boumana (et al., 2015) recently published a model examining the lifetime (from mining material out of the ground to make metals, etc., to the decommissioning of the facilities) environmental impacts of both CAES systems. They found that the most significant environmental impacts are from the natural gas consumption (CAES) and thermal-storage tanks construction (ACAES) (insulation, considerable amount of plumbing work, and overall construction). However, overall, ACAES is deemed to be the least environmentally impactful and cheaper in the long term, due to not requiring a constant natural gas consumption.

So, what should we take home from this? Renewables  can be unreliable, but their reliability can be improved!

Dusty PV

Energy is of vital importance in today's world, but creating sustainable energy sources is even more important for the future sustainability of Earth. When assessing sustainable energy sources, renewables come to mind. But they always come with a warning label. There are those who will always criticise renewables for being inefficient and costly. There is one notable issue with renewables that people always reference - a lack of reliable renewable resources. If the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, they are useless (that isn't strictly true as solar can still produce energy with little sunlight). But if you're lucky enough to live in a sunny, windy, hydrologically and geologically active, that tends not to be an issue.

In sunny countries, solar makes an ideal renewable energy. However dust can be an issue as it settles on the surface of PV modules, covering the surface and reducing the amount of solar radiation hitting the surface. This is a real issue for sunny desert countries, but what are the implications? Well I suppose I wouldn't be writing a blog or asking the question if I hadn't found a rather nice recent article that looks at the issue!

Zarei and Abdolzadeh (2016) modelled the thermal and optical impact of dust on solar PV panels. The authors compared and validated their model with literature values. They modelled the amount of "6.44 μm sized mono-disperse dust particles" which withstand average angles of solar PV installation. At a 30° tilted dusty PV cell, Zarei and Abdolzadeh (2016) found the maximum power with 0.224 mg/cm2 of dust (the amount of dust that tends to stick to the module at 30°) is 13.53% lower than a dust-free solar PV cell (figure 1).

Figure 1: maximum power output of PV cells at different dust densities (Source)

This information is very useful, especially in modelling the effectiveness of solar PV cells in dusty countries. Furthermore combined with average local dust or sand sizes, the model can be localised to find the maximum electrical output of dusty solar PVs. Finally, in national and international energy models, this information is vital for recreating realistic and accurate understandings of renewable energy production.

Resources are vital, but our over reliance on energy is incredible. For a sustainable future, we need to rely on clean and un-exploited sources of fuel. These small studies can help our fuller understanding of global energy consumption and potentially calculate and reduce the impact of climate change!

Dry Islands

In a previous blog, I likened energy to water (or more specifically virtual energy to virtual water). On the whole, we can survive without electricity. I mean, us younger folk who are glued to our phones and various other devices, it may be more of a necessity... but on the whole, we can survive.

This is where the similarities between water and energy diverge. Water is a necessity of life, and when humans decide to live in dry places with limited surface water and also use up all the groundwater, there are issues. Quality and quantity of water is vital, especially for inhabited islands which find themselves in these predicaments. In some regions of the world, tankers of water are used to supplement groundwater supplies to reduce reliance and exploitation of groundwater.

Desalination plants offer a limitless (okay almost limitless) source of freshwater, especially for islands which, by definition, have lots of water around them. They also require vast amounts of energy to evaporate the water to remote the salt. Traditionally fossil-fuel derived electricity has been the go to supply of this required energy, which has unnecessarily high carbon emissions, especially considering if the water supplies were managed more efficiently to begin with, the islands may not have to resort to such lengths.

So, seeing as this blog looks at exploitation and ways around it, can renewables be used to reduce the impact of desalination plants? Well it turns out, yes (woo!!).

Desalination and Renewables

A team lead by Mentis (et al., 2016) looked at designing a tool to design and plan the most efficient size of desalination plant with the available renewable supply. The tool uses an excel interface linked with a local database of the water demand for the region. It requires tourism and domestic population estimates for the next 20 years, along with wind and solar levels, desalination efficiencies, fuel and production costs and taxes and tariffs (Mentis et al., 2016). Finally, a 50% increase in demand is added to the predicted demand value to produce an estimated required supply.

This tool is especially useful across Greek Islands, which currently experience high levels of groundwater salinity and have high renewable resource availability (Prodromidis and Coutelieris, 2011). Compared to the cost of supplying water per m3 of water in Athens (€0.70 per m3), the Dodecanese and Cyclades Island groups pay considerably more (€7.30/m3 and €9.30/m3, respectively), due to having to ship water from the mainland (Mentis et al., 2016). The tool was run using data from 3 Greek islands (two islands from the Dodecanese Island group and one from the Cyclandes Island group). The substitution of fossil-fuel powered desalination plants for renewable-powered (and more specifically solar PV) desalination plants considerably reduced the operational and maintenance costs of either shipping fuel or shipping water. The results of the model show that water costs could range from €1.45/m3 for larger islands to €2.60/m3 for smaller islands. 

Desalination plants are boring...
So here are some pictures of Patmos, a Dodecanese Island (I wish I were there!)
(Source and Source)

The results from Mentis' (et al., 2016) work not only show that there are considerable economic benefits, but also environmental benefits, reducing the carbon emissions of the islands and improving the sustainability of the region. In Greece's economic state, this can only be a good thing!

Hope

The model presented in the article shows that renewables are something that can be useful in even the most remote situations. Granted, Greek islands get an unfair amount of sunshine, but the model demonstrates the potential for renewables. In our ever growing carbon- and consumption-heavy world, it's research like this that will ensure the sustainable growth of human populations whilst having a (slightly) lower impact on Earth's resources.

High rise energy production

Although this blog has visited a vast number of topics, I think I've finally got it nailed (only took 15 blogs)!

In western society, electricity is a resource we rely on, take for granted, and exploit. We also have had the desire to exploit our land. Our exploitation can be renewable, as I discussed here and here, and our measurement of our consumption can be greatly misunderstood (depending, of course, on which of the 23 energy metrics you use...).

So let's combine some of these! What happens if you combine renewable energy production with our exploitation of land?

A recent paper produced by a Chinese-lead team of researchers have done just that. Xie (et al., 2015) looked at harvesting energy from tall buildings using a piezoelectric device. Now a quick Google search will tell you that a piezoelectric device is something you would not necessarily associate with buildings, as it uses changes in temperature, acceleration, force, etc., and turns them into an electrical charge (it's what you tend to find in push-button lighters, which produces an electrical spark to ignite a fuel). Buildings change temperature throughout the day, but they should do little in the way of accelerate or change force...

The pressure from your thumb creates the pressure required
for the Piezoelectric element to generate a spark of electricity (Source)

Here comes the smart part: these devices are used as a mass dampener, so can reduce the initial shock of vibration impacts, such as earthquakes as well as providing electricity generation during earthquakes. Having inner city electrical generation locations during and after earthquakes can provide emergency electricity to the local region. Xie and his team found that the piezoelectric device they modelled could potentially generate a maximum of 432MW of electricity during an earthquake.

Now if you're like me, you have no idea what 432MW of electric looks like. The intelligent folks over at quora (a site similar to yahoo answers, but used for asking more intelligent questions) gave a rough estimate that it would take 1000MW per year to supply a city of 1 million people. So 432MW could go a long distance! Regardless of how inefficient, inaccurate or poor  Xie's simulation of the piezoelectric mass dampener is, this provides a clean and quick means of producing electricity, as well as being integrated with a necessary earthquake dampers to prevent the building from collapsing. 

Although not the most sustainable method of electrical generation (as it relies on a natural disaster), it could be the way forward for earthquake risk regions of the world!

A Sustainable Energy Index

In my most recent post, I explored one aspect of energy metrics which is always overlooked - the the embodied energy in traded goods, or as I have labelled it, virtual energy. 

When considering resource exploitation, measurement is almost as important as impacts. Of course, if you do not fully understand what quantity is impactful, then how can you ever expect to gauge what level is exploitative? This idea is explored by Steffen (et al., 2015), who has provided "planetary boundaries" for many global-scale environmental impacts. However, one of the main issues with global-scale metrics is they are not always suitable for all countries. Garrick and Hall (2014) provide a nice example of the issues surrounding water security indicators and metrics. Although country specific metrics are unhelpful, as they prevent comparison between countries... nevertheless this has been attempted!

Even Dilbert needs to have good metrics! (Source)

A new paper from Narula and Reddy (2015) demonstrates an assessment for exiting energy systems, which produces a metric assessing their sustainable energy security (SES) in developing countries. This work has been inspired by Ren and Sovacool (2014) who assessed the appropriateness of 24 different energy metrics. In a carbon- and climate-focused paradigm, the sustainability aspect of energy policies is also a vital consideration.

The SES index is design to evaluate the availability, affordability efficiency and environmental appropriateness using sub-metrics. The approach is modular, multidimensional, flexible and can include the entire energy system, capturing stakeholders and concerns, making it suitable for policy design and when moving towards a sustainable and a secure energy future. covers the entire energy system. The flexibility of variables and use of modules makes this metric suitable as the index can be made country specific.

Overall, the metric sounds good. The built in flexibility of the metric allows for country-specific aspects, whilst a modular approach also provides sub-metrics which can be utilised.

However, Narula and Reddy (2015) neglect to explain why this metric would be suited only for developing countries. A metric should be created with universality in mind, as comparison is key to understand what the metric values really mean. 

Metrics are easy to critique - their lack of specialisation or generalisation of certain topics and aspects are two recurring and common issues. However global metrics are required. And even though Steffen (et al., 2015) may have been critiqued for his designation of "planetary boundaries", his work creates a baseline for future and past comparison using his metrics.