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.

Virtual energy

The 'virtual' resource theory (not strictly an official theory but I had to call it something) is the idea that resources can be embodied within a traded good, reducing the requirement of that resource to exist within the country, independent of population. This theory negates the use of water metrics and indexes, as a country may be listed as water stressed, but if they import all of their food, the existing water supply could be sufficient to sustain a good quality of life. Allen (2001) established the concept of virtual water. He suggested that virtual water provides a mitigation against water stress in the Middle East, as it reduces the dependency on national water supplies. 

Now consider this. Energy could align to the same theory as water.

This idea was quite a shock for me, but something that also makes sense. Similar to water, we have a typical consumption to sustain a certain standard or quality of life. Furthermore, there is energy embedded within devices, food and goods which we do not have to provide when utilising the item. Aluminium is a perfect example. It requires a considerable amount of electricity to turn bauxite ore into aluminium. Similar to the idea that to produce 1Kg of beef requires >10,000l of water.

A recent paper by Bortolamedi (2015) explores this topic. The paper draws upon issues with country-level energy metrics, explaining they are production-orientated (calculated based on energy produced) and neglect to include "indirect foreign energy consumption", which would reflect a fuller understanding of energy consumption.

Deviation in energy intensity from the inclusion of traded goods energy intensity (Bortolamedi, 2015)

Bortolamedi (2015) undertook a study of 25 of 27 EU member states from 1995 to 2009, and included the primary energy consumption within traded goods into the country's energy intensity. This was then collectively summaries. Although the lower quartile shows a negative deviation for each year, the upper 50% and mean are positive, suggesting for over half of the nation states energy intensity of traded goods is not fully considered. The embedded energy intensity metric can be used independently from primary energy consumption and GDP, and would correlate well with trade (net imports would produce a positive deviation, and vice versa for net exports). Although this idea assumes all goods exported or imported consume the same amount of energy (as item based electrical consumption is difficult to calculate) and does not consider industry-specific exports and imports. 

Bortolamedi's (2015) paper provides grounds to suggest that energy security policies are inaccurate due to a lack of consideration of traded energy, raising queries over the reliability of energy security assessments made by countries.

An aspect that Bortolamedi did not consider is the international implications. Although the embedded traded energy is important for national-level energy assessors, it may be more important for assessing the energy consumption of countries during climate talks. There is therefore the potential that countries are under or over predicting their energy consumption. For example, if a country does not produce much electricity, but trades heavily in high-energy goods, they are promoting the generation of electricity elsewhere and this should be considered. However, you then have to ask: do you measure primary energy intensity (where the power is generated) or total energy intensity (power and embedded energy)? If you only consider primary energy consumption, you miss energy included in transporting the goods. 

The concept is in its infancy and the results are geographically restricted. However, the metric could really contribute to a more accurate and fuller understanding of energy consumption globally.

COP21: The Results

So COP21 has now ended! It was extended an extra day to finalise the agreement, but what has been the result?

You can find the report here for yourself (or, if you want the TL;DR version, it's here). For me, it's nothing spectacular.

I suppose I was expecting detailed targets and commitments from regions and countries. Compared to Copenhagen in 2009, this is a great result - there are some legally binding aspects, but in terms of carbon targets, there is nothing explicit. I'll explain.

The report asks that:

• Greenhouse gas emissions are peaked as quickly as possible, towards a world which balances human emissions with natural sinks -- An important aspect, as it incentives greater afforestation to provide a more sinks, ensuring the security of woodland and forest habitats. However, this requirement isn't until the second half of the 21st century, so maybe it will be too late by then?
• Review the progress of countries every 5 years -- now this is one of the legally binding requirements. I feel this can facilitate a good conversation and further progress in the future and drive further commitments.
• Limiting global temps to 2C, and strive towards 1.5C -- I really admire the ambition of the delegates. But I think the results from our mock COP21 (see Kaitlin's opinion of our mock COP21 here) show that we will strive to get to 2C. We managed 2.7C and the assessments of the INDCs predict countries will only just reach 2.7C.
• US$100 billion every year to finance climate initiatives in developing regions -- this item is a little more confusing. The report outlines the fund is for "mitigation actions" and "implementation". Funds will range from financial resources up front to results-based targets. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this aspect. The funds are only for developing countries, but some there are many issues with that. Do all countries have equal allocations of money? For those more affected by climate, will the funds be prioritised for them, or can it be used for aid? This will only come by 2020 though...

The legal aspects are the review (good!) and submission of targets (great!). The irony: the submitted targets will be voluntary (not legally binding).

Overall, I see this as a good stepping stone. Action needed to be taken and this is a good step forward.

What do you think of the results of COP21? Do you think the results are positive or negative?

The glimmer of hope in COP21

In light of COP21 and this blog's (slowly developing) aims to investigate resource utilisation with regards energy production, it makes sense to look at renewables! Essentially, renewables can provide countries with unlimited, free electricity, if the conditions are correct. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising to know that sunnier countries have pledged high levels of solar energy investment to contribute towards their carbon targets.

Morocco has made great strives towards reducing their reliance on coal. In 2011, Morocco was heavily reliant (47%) on coal for energy production. However, this has considerably reduced from 2001 (77%). Furthermore, they have made great steps through commitments at COP21, agreeing to reduce GHG emissions by 32% by 2030 through 50% renewable electricity generation by 2025 and reduced energy consumption of 15% by 2030. Finally, and most significantly, they have offered to host COP22, solidifying their drive and dedication to meeting their climate objectives.

To do this, Morocco requires support. The UN Green Climate Fund can be of some help; however investment by private companies is becoming increasingly significant in efforts. Saudi investment has been important in the Arab region.

The shining hope in COP21 (Source)

A solar thermal plant planned to open next month will aim to eventually supply energy for 20 hours a day from energy collected from the sun and thermally-stored in liquid salt. The potential renewable generation capacity could provide export capacity to Europe, instead of the heavy importation of electricity from Spain.

Another great blog post has questions the hopefulness of COP21, citing Morocco and Ethiopia as leaders in setting targets internationally. I agree that more needs to be done - but maybe the baby steps will eventually make more of an impact in the future? I think there is some hope from COP21, even if it is only the smaller and less developed countries providing that hope.

Bad Coal, Good Alternatives

Coal is an important resource and is predicted to become of increasing importance in new energy production. In light of COP21 and a global push to keep carbon emissions to a minimum this is an important issue.

Coal has become a staple across the energy landscape (Source) 

Analysis which was presented at COP21 suggests that if all coal plants planned to be built by 2030 are built, coal emissions would increase by 400%. Even with no additional coal plant construction, predicted emissions from coal are 150% too high to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees.

Calculated carbon increase from analysis results (Source)

This is a slight issue... And considering temperatures have already gone up by an average of 1 degree since pre-industrial times, the threshold of 2 degree temperature rise is becoming more and more problematic.

For many countries, providing their citizens with electricity is of far more importance than cutting carbon emissions, even for those countries may have agreed Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (to cutting carbon), or INDCs. Ultimately, this can lead to a number of issues which will impact the final result of COP21: increases in carbon emissions and displacement of renewable energy. These countries, many of which are developing, such as India and China, are still investing in renewable energy sources, but the uptake, cost and generation is too small to be effective in bringing electricity to the masses.

So how do we approach coal? I believe we need to appreciate it is a cheap, very widely recognised and used technology globally. What can be changed is the types of coal and the technology used within coal plants to mitigate the issues. Furthermore, pushing cleaner technologies, such as gas may be a more suitable, cleaner and (potentially) more efficient solution (and one which will be dominating the UK energy space for the next 20 years).

Technology:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)? I feel CCS is a utopian idea which is and will continue to be only suitable in a hypothetical world. CCS has had has limited testing. It provides us with an additional carbon sink. But continues to allow our exploitative approach to carbon for energy. There are also risks to CCS. The principle is to pump the carbon back into old oil fields, but contamination and leakages could present themselves as a large issue.

Renewables? Could be a solution for developing nations. Funding must be available, however renewables do provide grassroots-scale energy production without the need for expensive infrastructure development - an especially important issue in fast growing cities.

These two latter aspects are items I will look at and investigate in my next two blogs: carbon sinks (afforestation) and renewable production (solar farms) - how can our use of the sun and trees mitigate against our exploitative use of electricity?

Edit: the second photo was added at a later date to provide some visualisation to the figures discussed above

Malawi’s trees

A vital aspect of COP21 is understanding how the world can mitigate against increasing CO2 levels. One way is to reduce reliance on carbon-based energy sources. The other solution is to improve carbon sinks.

Malawi is not a country you hear much about. It is a country which struggles to provide energy to all its population - only 10% are connected to the grid; however, 90% of the electricity generation in Malawi is produced by a very unreliable system of hydroelectric power stations.

Those who do not have electricity depend on firewood. Depend isn't a strong enough word. Malawi has one of the highest deforestation rate globally. This has had massive impacts on the environment: reduced impact of CO2 sinks, soil erosion and reduced soil infiltration. The lack of groundwater recharge promotes surface runoff and increases river discharge, ultimately causing flooding and impacting the reliability of hydroelectric power plants.

Deforestation is highly prevalent (Source)

The solution: more coal. Total emissions of Malawi are predicted to increase by 38% by 2040. But they haven't ignored the INDCs. Mitigation against the coal power plants will include deforestation, increased 'clean' cookstove usage, and increased utilisation of solar (with help from the clean carbon find).

Although this isn't the best way forward (in my opinion), Malawi has a desire to develop. To do this, they need reliable power generation.

The human impacts of deforestation have heavily impacted the potential for renewables. Solar, although very under utilised, has great potential in Malawi. The current decision is simple, wood or coal. Do we save the forests and improve the production and potential of hydroelectric power, or do we continue deforesting regions of Malawi because wood burning has a lower CO2 level than coal?

*This blog will be edited when I get to a computer... I am currently on a plane using my phone, so more links and images will be added later*

Edit: links and images have been added! There is also a short blog series on deforestation in Malawi which might be of interest.

The cheap and dirty fuel

COP21 has just begun. It's a fantastic chance to promote and persuade countries to opt into cleaner fuels and promise the use of less resources or reduced environmental impact. A great blog review of COP21's objectives, aims and outcomes can be found here. 

During the industrial revolution, coal was a cheap and dominant source of energy for Britain and fuelled much of revolution as an efficient, high energy-resource. But the emergence of 'dirty' coal impacting lakes through sulphur emissions has forced many countries, including Britain, to use 'cleaner' varieties of coal which are not found in the UK (I won't go into the politics of this...).

Is our need for power more important than the environment? (Source)

For me, coal is a no-brainer. It is one of the dirtiest fuels which should be opted against. But opting for cleaner forms of energy production may not be the easiest, however dirty the fuel is. Many developing countries, including India, want to bring reliable electricity to a larger proportion of their populations. But it therefore means choosing for the cheapest form of power production - coal.

The International Energy Agency has reported that in 2014, renewable accounted for half of the world's new electricity generation, after coal (woo!). In the UK, a more exciting development has been announced - power generation from coal will end in 10 years! Unfortunately, leading by example is not always effective, and many developing countries, are going to have to meet their increased energy demands somehow.

Coal is the answer for many. For example, in the Philippines, 23 new coal power plants will be built by 2020...! And 40% of the 400 Gw of electrical generation will be coal-driven by 2040 in SE Asia.

So does coal have a role in the future of the world's energy demands for the future? Well we have an ever growing need and want for energy, and as the world becomes more developed, and a greater number of people gain access to electricity, the demands for accessible and cheap electricity will increase. 

We are a greedy people. But is the strategy to stem the greediness? Or do we allow the greediness and then solve the issues later?