oil – Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist

New Book: ‘Water, Energy, and Environment – A Primer’

After a long hiatus from blogging while I worked on a new book, I am pleased to announce that the book ‘Water, Energy, and Environment – A Primer’ will be published by International Water Association Publishing (IWAP) on February 18th (2019). It will be available in both printed and digital form, and the digital version will be downloadable for free as an Open Access (OA) document.

To access the free digital version go to IWAP’s OA website on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IWAP_OA.

Attached below is front material from the book, its preface and table of contents. Designed to serve as a basic and easily read introduction to the linked topics of water, energy, and environment, it is just under 200 pages in length, a convenient size to throw into a folder, a briefcase, or a backpack. Its availability as an OA document means that people all over the world with access to the internet will have access to the book and its 10 chapters.

With the completion of the book I plan to return to a regular schedule of blogging.
…………………………..
Contents
Preface ………………………………….. xi
Acknowledgement ……………………….. xv
Acronyms ……………………………… xvii
Epigraph ……………………………….. xxi
Chapter 1
Water and its global context …………………. 1
1.1 Earth’s Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Saline Water and Desalination Processes . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Energy Requirements and Costs of Desalination . . . . . 5
1.4 Demand for Freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 Implications of Limited Access to Freshwater . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6 Actions to Increase Access to Freshwater . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7 Gender Equity Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 2
Energy and its global context ……………….. 13
2.1 Energy’s Role in Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Energy Realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 What is Energy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Energy Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.1 Important questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.2 How is energy used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.3 Electrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chapter 3
Exploring the linkage between water
and energy ……………………………….. 23
3.1 Indirect Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2 The Policy Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 The Conundrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Addressing the Conundrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.5 The Need for Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chapter 4
Energy production and its consequences for
water and the environment …………………. 29
4.1 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 More on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Environment and Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.1 The theocentric worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.2 The anthropocentric worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3.3 Other worldviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Chapter 5
Energy options ……………………………. 37
5.1 Fossil Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2 Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.3 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4 The Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.5 Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.5.1 Energy demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
vi Water, Energy, and Environment – A Primer
5.5.2 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5.3 Saving energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.5.4 Accelerating implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.5.5 Energy Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.5.6 The lighting revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.5.7 Energy efficiency in buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.5.7.1 Zero energy buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.5.7.2 Electrochromic windows . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.6 Energy Efficiency in Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.7 Energy Efficiency in Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Chapter 6
Fossil fuels ………………………………. 61
6.1 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.1.1 Carbon capture and sequestration . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1.2 A conundrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.2 Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.1 Oil spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.2 Peak oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.3 Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.3.1 Methane hydrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.3.2 Fracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Chapter 7
Nuclear power ……………………………. 85
7.1 Nuclear Fission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7.1.1 Fission fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7.1.2 Introduction to nuclear issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1.3 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7.2 Nuclear Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2.1 Fusion fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2.2 Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.2.3 Barriers to Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.2.4 Pros and cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.2.5 Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Chapter 8
Renewable energy ………………………… 97
8.1 The Sun’s Energy Source and Radiation
Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.2 Direct Solar Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
8.2.1 Photovoltaics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
8.2.2 Concentrating solar power (CSP) . . . . . . . . . . 108
8.2.2.1 Power tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.2.2.2 Linear concentrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
8.2.2.3 Dish engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8.2.2.4 CSTP history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
8.2.2.5 Advantages and disadvantages . . . 112
8.2.2.6 Thermal storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
8.2.2.7 Current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.2.2.8 Concentrating photovoltaics (CPV) . 115
8.3 Solar Power Satellite (SPS) System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
8.4 Hydropower and Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
8.4.1 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
8.4.2 Wind energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8.4.2.1 Onshore wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8.4.2.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
8.4.2.3 An onshore limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
8.4.2.4 Offshore wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
8.5 Biomass Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.5.1 Sources of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.5.2 Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.5.3 Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
8.5.4 Algae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
8.5.5 Biochar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
8.5.6 The future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
8.6 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.6.1 Sources of geothermal energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.6.2 Manifestations of geothermal energy . . . . . . . 135
8.6.3 Uses of geothermal energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.6.3.1 Geothermal power generation . . . . . 136
8.6.3.2 Ground-source heat pumps . . . . . . . 138
8.6.4 An unusual source of geothermal energy . . . . 140
Ocean Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.7.1 Wave energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.7.1.1 Wave energy conversion
devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.7.1.2 Potential and pros and cons . . . . . . . 143
8.7.2 Ocean current energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.7.3 Tidal energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
8.7.3.1 Barrage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
8.7.3.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.7.3.3 Environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.7.4 Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) . . 147
8.7.4.1 Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
8.7.4.2 OTEC technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
8.7.4.3 Other cold water applications . . . . . . 149
8.7.4.4 OTEC R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Chapter 9
Energy storage …………………………… 151
9.1 Storage and Grids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.2 Types of Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
9.2.1 Traditional and advanced batteries . . . . . . . . . 153
9.2.1.1 Lead–acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9.2.1.2 Sodium sulfur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9.2.1.3 Nickel–cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
9.2.1.4 Lithium-ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
9.2.1.5 Supercapacitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
9.2.2 Flow batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
9.2.3 Flywheels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.2.4 Superconducting magnetic energy
storage (SMES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
9.2.5 Compressed air energy storage (CAES) . . . . 159
9.2.6 Pumped storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
9.2.7 Thermal storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9.3 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9.4 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
9.5 Fundamental Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Chapter 10
Policy considerations …………………….. 165
10.1 Important Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
10.1.1 Is there a physical basis for understanding
global warming and climate change? . . . . . . 166
10.1.2 Is there documented evidence for global
warming and climate change? . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
10.1.3 Can global warming and climate change be
attributed to human activities, and what are
those activities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
10.1.4 What are the potential short- and long-term
impacts of global warming and climate
change with respect to water supply,
environment, and health? What is the
anticipated time scale for these
impacts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
10.1.5 What can be done to mitigate the onset
and potential impacts of global warming
and climate change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
References ……………………………… 183
Index …………………………………… 189

……………………

Preface
This book springs from my strong conviction that clean water and clean energy are the critical elements of long-term global sustainable development. I also believe that we are experiencing the beginning of an energy revolution in these early years of the 21st century. Providing clean water requires energy, and providing clean energy is essential to reducing the environmental impacts of energy production and use. Thus, I see a nexus – a connection, a causal link – among water, energy, and environment. In recent years we have adopted the terminology of the water-energy nexus for the intimate relationship between water and energy, and similarly we can apply the term nexus to the close connections among water, energy, and environment. Thisuse of the term nexus can be, and has been, extended to include the related issues of food production and health. Dealing with, and writing about, a two-element nexus is difficult enough. In this book, I will limit my analysis and discussion to the three-element water -energy-environment nexus and leave the discussion of other possible nexus elements to those more qualified to comment.

This book also springs from my observation that while there are many existing books of a more-or-less technical nature on the three elements of this nexus, a book addressing each of them and their interdependencies in a college-level primer for a broad global and multidisciplinary audience would be valuable. Consideration of these and related issues, and options for addressing them, will be priorities for all levels of government. They will also be priorities for many levels of the
private sector in the decades ahead, both in developing and developed nations. A handbook-style primer that provides an easily read and informative introduction to, and overview of, these issues will contribute broadly to public education. It will assist governments and firms in carrying out their responsibilities to provide needed services and goods in a sustainable manner, and help to encourage young people to enter these fields. It will serve as an excellent mechanism for exposure of experts in other fields to the issues associated with the water-energy-environment nexus. Further, in addition to the audiences mentioned above, target audiences include economists and others in the finance communities who will analyze and provide the needed investment funds, and those in the development community responsible for planning and delivering services to underserved populations.
The book is organized as follows: the first chapter will be devoted to the concept of nexus and how the three elements, water, energy, and environment, are inextricably linked. This recognition leads to the conclusion that if society is to optimize their contributions to human and planetary welfare they must be addressed jointly. No longer must policy for each of these elements be considered in its own silo. Chapters 2 and 3 will be devoted to spelling out global contexts for water and energy issues, respectively. Chapter 4, on related environmental issues, will address the issues of water contamination, oil spills, fracking, radioactive waste storage, and global warming/
climate change. Chapter 5 will be a discussion of energy efficiency – i.e., the wise use of energy – and its role in limiting energy demand and its associated benefits. Chapter 6 will focus on the basics of fossil fuels – coal, oil, natural gas – which today dominate global energy demand. Chapter 7 will discuss nuclear-fission-powered electricity production, which today accounts for 10% of global electricity. It will also discuss the prospects for controlled nuclear fusion. Chapter 8 will discuss the broad range of renewable energy technologies – wind, solar,hydropower, biomass, geothermal, ocean energy – which are the basis of the now rapidly emerging energy revolution. Chapter 9 will discuss the closely related issue of energy storage. Finally, Chapter 10 will address
policy issues associated with water, energy, and environment, discuss policy history and options, and provide recommendations.

Adapting to Change – Never Easy

The attached article by Giles Parkinson (renew economy.com.au) about the energy debate in Australia is reposted here because it illustrates a universal issue – resistance to change. This is certainly a characteristic of the global energy sector as it transitions from dependence on fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) to increasing use of renewable energy in its various forms. There are many vested interests in the energy sector and each will attempt to maintain its current status, but the coming change is inexorable, and forward-looking energy companies will position themselves to take advantage of these changes. Others resistant to change will eventually become footnotes to history, as has happened to so many other commercial ventures that have been overtaken by new technologies and associated events. Australia, because of high energy prices and a resistant utility sector, is going through this change a bit earlier than others, but we will all get there.

…………………………..

The great divide over Australia’s energy future
By Giles Parkinson on 22 May 2017

It was the head of the biggest electric network operator in the world, China State Grid, that summed up best the challenge of moving to a high renewable energy grid: It is not so much a technical problem, but a cultural one.

In other words, there are those who say it can be done, arguing that it offers a smart, cleaner and ultimately cheaper and more reliable alternative. And there are those who say it can’t be done, and are reluctant to adopt the new technologies and the new ways of managing a complex electricity grid.

In Australia in the past few weeks, we have been getting a clear signal as to which authorities fall into which camp, and the obstacles facing those who want to get on with the job and go with the technology, rather than fight it.

There is, inevitably, the politics, led by the federal Coalition, railing against the “reckless pursuit” of wind and solar and yet, at the same time, drumming up huge ideas for massive pumped hydro schemes, a sure sign that they see more wind and solar as inevitable.

And there is institutional resistance. The Australian Energy Market Commission, which sets market rules, last week released a document which painted a view of Australia’s energy market nearly as dystopian as Donald Trump’s inauguration speech, the one that prompted former president George W Bush to note at the time: “That was some weird shit.”

And so was the AEMC’s. Its full document is a thorough appraisal of the events of 2015/16, but the media release was another thing altogether: painting a dark picture of energy shortages, risky additions of wind and solar, lost inertia, reduced reliability and the threat of blackouts – comments that were readily picked up by the green-baiting Murdoch media.

Ivor Frischknecht, the CEO of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, has said on several occasions in the last few weeks that it is clear that the technologies exist for transition to a renewables-based electricity grid. It is only old rules and regulations that are getting in the way and preventing it from happening.

tesla_grid_battery

It’s a view that is now widely shared. The CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia, in their ground-breaking Network transformation roadmap, speak of the critical important for rules and regulations to catch up with technology, lest the changes and cost reductions in solar, storage, and software becomes so rapid that the industry is unable to catch up.

Their two-years of research found a zero emissions grid could be put in place, based largely around renewables and with a special focus on consumer-owned solar and storage, and save consumers more than a $100 billion by 2050.

That would be at least some recompense to those consumers, who are clearly the biggest losers from the creation of the National Electricity Market two decades ago, and its failure to check the spending of the networks or the pricing power of the gentailers.

The consumers are now paying ridiculous prices from electricity still mostly delivered by now mythical “cheap coal”, and are facing even more rises in coming months.

Yet, as Accenture points out in a separate report, these consumers now have the technologies to be masters of their energy destiny, driven by concerns about sustainability, energy independence and simple economics.

When the cost of solar and storage is likely to be half the cost of grid power, as some networks recognise it will be, the economic modelling behind this grid concoction has a major, major problem, one that rivals the disruption posed by the internet and digital technology.

And because this is a heavily regulated and essential service, the challenge is not just to the incumbents but the regulators and rule makers.

Accenture warns that unless the industry changes quickly, there will be hell to pay in their boardrooms, and consequences everywhere. To do that, they need the rules to be changed, and to be changed quickly.

The Grattan Institute added to those calls on Monday, saying that urgent market reforms and rule changes are needed to ensure reliability of supply. It is hard to find anyone in the industry who disagrees with this statement.

The irony is that it is the AEMC that is charged with making and adjusting these rules, which makes its position on the risks to energy security all the more galling for many, given it has done so little to make the grid fit for purpose, either rejecting new proposals, or kicking them endlessly down the road.

The Australian Energy Market Operator has grown so frustrated with the situation that in its submission to the Finkel Review it asked to be allowed to take responsibility of many of the rule changes itself, so it can rapidly adapt the markets to the changing technologies and dynamics.

This call is likely to be intensified under its new CEO, the reforming Audrey Zibelman, and it was notable that last week AEMO and ARENA teamed up to drive a pilot on the use of demand response, an obvious and relative cheap solution to dealing with peak demand, and a lot cheaper and cleaner than building new peaking generators.

Zibelman knows it will work, because she has seen it operating effectively in markets throughout the world, including the one in the US where she used to manage New York’s radical shift in energy policy.

“There is often skepticism about change,” she told RenewEconomy last week. “This (trial) is a good way to show this technology can work. And when we have done that we can get it into the market and modify the market rules. Technology is changing. We have to look at the market design, to ensure it attracting the right sort of investment.”

It just so happens that demand response has been one of many initiatives presented to the AEMC (way back in 2012) that were rejected or delayed, with the rule maker arguing that there was sufficient demand response in the system. Clearly not, given the enforced load shedding that occurred across the country last summer.

But demand response is just another example of the number of initiatives that the incumbent fossil fuel industry has managed to have killed or shrunk: think carbon pricing, high renewable energy targets, energy efficiency, emission limits and other mechanisms.

All could have made the market more efficient and delivered savings to consumers. The latest of these is the proposed shift to 5-minute settlements, a change widely acknowledged as crucial to level the playing field for battery storage, and remove the pricing power ruthlessly exploited by the coal and gas generators.

Like many of the other proposals, it will likely crimp the bottom line of the incumbents. So they are fighting it, keen to push the argument that any impact on their profit margins could have an impact on reliability and supply.

The equivocation over whether we have the tools to manage the energy transition appears to gripped the South Australian government too, whose state is surging past 50 per cent wind and solar and may find itself with two thirds of its demand coming from these two variable sources by the end of next year.

This is perhaps not surprising given the power interruptions of the last year, and the state election that looms next March. The bitter irony is that these events had sweet F.A. to do with the nature of renewables, but of the way the grid has been managed.

The major event cited in the AEMC report was a blackout in South Australia in November 2015, caused by a network fault during repairs to the interconnector to Victoria, and made significantly worse because of how a gas generator responded to frequency and voltage changes.

As the AEMC panel noted, the Torrens B gas generator was expected to reduce output to manage the frequency changes, but did the opposite.

The problem is being blamed on the governor response mechanisms for such plants, an issue raised by numerous analysts and which may be widespread across the country. It adds to concern about the reliability of gas and coal generators that are failing in the heat and at critical junctures in the market.

It might make you wonder why the AEMC and apparently the S.A. government is appearing to put all its eggs in the basket of gas generators, as it appears to have done by insisting only something called “real inertia”, delivered by large spinning turbines, should qualify for its proposed energy security target, at the expense of battery storage.

The draft proposal has stunned the industry. As a report from the CEC highlighted last week, the delivery of inertia can take multiple forms. Citing the same incident in South Australia in November, 2015, Tom Butler wrote:

“Those who advocate for the status quo because of the inertia provided by synchronous generators should be aware that these technologies are far from perfect.

“For example, they can become unstable at low power output. And there is simply no information available on how effectively these generators can respond to fast rates of change of frequency if they started operating before 2007.”

red flag twoIt reminds you of the transition from horse and cart to the automobile. For a while, all cars were required to have a human walk in front of them, waving a red flag, until someone woke up to the folly of the idea.

The hope is that the Finkel Review – due in just over two weeks – might convince more people that we can do without the waving of red flags. The change is upon us and it’s all OK. We just need our regulators and our politicians to catch up.

Renewable Energy and Jobs

The attached article was first published on the website energypost.eu edited by Karel Beckman. The article was stimulated by my strong belief that the job-creation aspects of renewable energy manufacture and deployment are receiving too little attention.

………………………………

Jobs? Investing in renewables beats fossil fuels
May 19, 2017 by Allan Hoffman

For policymakers who are interested in job creation, investing in renewable energy is considerably more effective than investing in fossil fuels, writes Allan Hoffman, author of the blog Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist and formerly with the U.S. Department of Energy. Solar and wind are powerful engines of job creation and economic growth.

Job creation is always a safe issue for politicians to address and it played a crucial role in our recent presidential election. Donald Trump achieved his unexpected upset victory over Hillary Clinton by appealing to disaffected workers in normally Democrat-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. A primary focus of the Trump campaign was jobs in the manufacturing and coal-mining industries, where many workers had been laid off in recent years. Some people have blamed these job losses on Obama Administration policies, including support for solar and wind energy. What are the facts?

The fact that renewable energy, mostly in the form of solar and wind energy, is entering the energy mainstream, both in the U.S. and in other countries, is a reality. This is often attributed to their reduced costs and role in reducing carbon emissions. What is often overlooked or given minimal attention is that investment in the manufacture and deployment of these clean energy technologies creates many ‘green jobs’. What data supports this statement?

Already the largest source of renewable energy jobs in the U.S., solar energy will be a major factor in shaping our future energy system and creating new jobs

Data for the U.S. was available from the Green Jobs Initiative of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in annual reports for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Unfortunately, budget sequestration brought an end to this program in 2013. Today other organizations are filling the gap, e.g. The Solar Foundation’s annual ‘National Solar Jobs Census’, monthly reports from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and occasional reports from other non-governmental organizations.

Largest employer

On a global basis the International Energy Agency (IEA) has become a source of jobs information, as has the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) through its Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Reviews. Two highlights of IRENA’s 2016 Review were that (a) global direct and indirect employment in the renewable energy industry had reached 8.1 million in 2015, a 5% increase over 2014, and (b) solar photovoltaics (PV) was the largest renewable energy employer at 2.8 million jobs, an 11% increase over 2014.

Solar Foundation data indicated that in 2016 the U.S. solar industry (8,600 companies) employed 260,00 workers. This was an increase of more than 20% for the fourth straight year and more than 178% since 2010. This outpaced the overall 2016 national jobs growth rate of 1.5%. California led U.S. states in solar employment with 100,050 jobs.

How do these numbers compare with numbers in the fossil fuel industries? In 2015 workers employed directly in oil and natural gas extraction numbered about 187,000, a decrease of 14,000 from 2014. Indirect related jobs number about 2 million, of which about 40% are at gas stations. Another fossil fuel industry that received considerable attention during the 2016 election was coal mining. It accounted for 68,000 jobs in 2015, continuing its decrease of recent years.

A different story

Looking ahead, what can we expect? As oil and natural gas prices increase from their recent lows, and fracking is therefore reinvigorated, the number of related extraction jobs should stay approximately level. This should continue as long as no cost penalty is imposed on carbon emissions, and Trump Administration support for maintaining and expanding fossil fuel extraction is strong.

Coal is a different story. Long the basis of more than half of U.S. electricity generation, coal’s share of that market is now down to about a third and heading lower. When combusted it is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, and automation of the coal digging process and competition from fracked and low cost natural gas has signaled the beginning of the end of the coal era and related jobs in the U.S. In addition, utilities are not adding new coal powered systems because their capital and operating costs are higher than for new natural gas, wind and solar power plants (data provided by EIA).

Solar and wind are no longer niche businesses

What are the prospects for renewable energy and related jobs in the U.S. in the future? As reported by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), at the start of 2016 jobs in the U.S. wind industry totaled 88,000, an increase of 20% over 2014. This was made possible by the installation of nearly 9,000 megawatts of new electrical generating capacity across 20 states, an increase of 77% over 2014. Wind accounted for 41% of all newly installed U.S. electrical capacity in 2015, ahead of solar (28.5%) and natural gas (28.1%). This growth will continue both onshore, where essentially all U.S. wind turbines have been installed to date, and offshore as this large resource begins to be tapped.

Impressive prospects

Two recent reports have documented the equally impressive prospects for solar energy’s growth. IRENA’s ‘Letting In the Light: How Solar Photovoltaics Will Revolutionize the Electricity System’ states that “The age of solar energy has arrived. It came faster than anyone predicted and is ushering in a shift in energy ownership.”

Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported in a June 2016 report that “..solar and wind technologies will be the cheapest way to produce electricity in most parts of the world in the 2030s..” Already the largest source of renewable energy jobs in the U.S., solar energy will be a major factor in shaping our future energy system and creating new jobs. A recently published book Sun Towards High Noon: Solar Power Transforming Our Energy Future (Pan Stanford Publishing; Peter Varadi editor and contributor) discusses the jobs issue in detail along with other issues, including solar financing, markets, and quality control.

We must not be left behind as this energy transition unfolds in the next several decades

What conclusions can be drawn? If a primary national goal is to create jobs in the energy sector, investing in renewable energy is considerably more effective than investing in fossil fuels. Solar and wind are no longer niche businesses, their widespread use addresses global warming and climate change, and their manufacture and deployment are powerful engines of economic growth and job creation.

The U.S. Congress must recognize this and put policies in place that accelerate their growth. Other countries recognize this potential and are moving rapidly onto this path, some even faster than the U.S. We must not be left behind as this energy transition unfolds in the next several decades, but we must also not forget the people who will be displaced from their jobs in traditional energy industries.

Editor’s Note

Allan Hoffman is author of the blog Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist. He is a former Senior Analyst in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and physicist by training.

Hoffman is a contributor to a new comprehensive handbook, Sun Towards High Noon, edited by solar pioneer Peter F. Varadi, which details the meteoric expansion of the solar (PV) industry and describes how solar power will change our energy future.

Addressing the Coal Issue – Useful Thoughts

The article by Dr. Maria Zuber that is reproduced below, and appeared recently in the Washington Post, is a thoughtful, intelligent, and realistic approach to addressing coal issues in the United State. It recognizes the realities of our evolving energy system as renewable energy begins to displace energy from fossil fuels, but also recognizes that some people will be adversely impacted as this transition unfolds. As a compassionate nation we must take these impacts into account as we move forward to a clean energy future. Dr. Zuber’s careful thoughts on this issue are well worth reading.

……………………………

How to declare war on coal’s emissions without declaring war on coal communities

By Maria T. Zuber February 24, 2017
Maria T. Zuber is the vice president for research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Chair of the National Science Board.

I grew up in a place named for coal: Carbon County, Pa., where energy-rich anthracite coal was discovered in the late 1700s. By the early 1900s, eastern Pennsylvania employed more than 180,000 miners. By the 1970s — when I left Carbon County for college — just 2,000 of those jobs remained.

For decades, my family’s path traced the arc of the industry. Both my grandfathers mined anthracite. My father’s father died of black lung before I was born. My mother’s father lived long enough to get a pink slip, teach himself to repair TVs and radios and finally get a job on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. He often slept in a recliner because he couldn’t breathe in bed. He had black lung, too.

We faced economic challenges, but thanks to my father’s career as a state trooper, we had more security than most. Still, our neighbors’ struggles left a deep impression on me. When I hear coal-mining communities talk bitterly about a “war on coal,” I understand why they feel under attack. I know the deep anxiety born from years of watching their towns empty out and opportunity evaporate.

I was one of the people who left, in my case to pursue my passion for science. I was lucky: I became the first woman to head a science department at MIT, as well as the first woman to lead a NASA planetary mission.

As a daughter of coal country, I know the suffering of people whose fates are tied to the price of a ton of coal. But as a scientist, I know that we cannot repeal the laws of physics: When coal burns, it emits more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel. And if we keep emitting this gas into the atmosphere, Earth will continue to heat up, imposing devastating risks on current and future generations. There is no escaping these facts, just as there is no escaping gravity if you step off a ledge.

The move to clean energy is imperative. In the long run, that transition will create more jobs than it destroys. But that is no comfort to families whose livelihoods and communities have collapsed along with the demand for coal. We owe something to the people who do the kind of dangerous and difficult work my grandfathers did so that we can power our modern economy.

Fortunately, there are ways we can declare war on coal’s carbon emissions without declaring war on coal communities.

First, we should aggressively pursue carbon capture and storage technology, which catches carbon dioxide from coal power plants before it is released into the atmosphere and stores it underground. To be practical, advances in capture efficiency must be coupled with dramatic decreases in deployment costs and an understanding of the environmental impacts of storage. These are not intractable problems; scientific and technological innovations could change the game.

Next, we should look beyond combustion and steel production to find new ways to make coal useful. In 2015, 91 percent of coal use was for electrical power. But researchers are exploring whether coal can be used more widely as a material for the production of carbon fiber, batteries and electronics — indeed, even solar panels.

These avenues hold promise, but even if carbon capture becomes practicable and we expand other uses for coal, the industry will never come roaring back. Globally, coal’s market share is dropping, driven by a range of factors, including cheap natural gas and the rapidly declining costs of wind and solar energy.

That’s why we must also commit to helping the workers and communities that are hurt when coal mines and coal plants reduce their operations or shut down. Policymakers, researchers and advocates have proposed a range of solutions at the federal and state levels to promote economic development; help coal workers transition to jobs in other industries, including renewable energy; and maintain benefits for retired coal workers.

Helping coal country is an issue with bipartisan support. Still, to succeed, strategies such as these may require a champion who, like President Trump, has widespread support in coal country and can address skepticism from coal communities.

Eventually, the practice of burning coal and other fossil fuels for energy — especially without the use of carbon capture and storage technologies — will end. It has to. The question is whether we have the wisdom to end it in an orderly way that addresses the pain of coal communities — and quickly enough to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Our choices will determine the future not just for coal country, but for all of us.

More History – Circa 1997

This is the second of the two articles from the 1990s mentioned in the previous blog post. It was published in the November-December 1997 issue of Asia Pacific Economic Review.

……………………….

Why We Must Move Toward Renewable Energy
by Allan R. Hoffman

Rapid economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region has been and will continue to be mirrored by a rapid increase in energy demand. Between 1970 and 1995 primary energy demand in the region increased from 19 to 70 Quads (quadrillion BTUs). This figure is expected to increase to 135 Quads in 2010 and to 159 Quads in 2015 (Source: Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook, 1997). The World Bank has estimated that developing countries alone will require 5 million megawatts of new electrical capacity over the next four decades to meet the needs of their expanding economies. The world’s current total installed capacity is just under 3 million megawatts. Thus, even if the World Bank’s estimate is too optimistic, installed world generation capacity will essentially have to double during the next 40 years. This much new capacity will require trillions of dollars of new investment.

What does this mean for renewable electric technologies – I.e., electricity generated from solar, biomass, wind, geothermal and hydropower resources? Fossil fuels are likely to remain the dominant energy source through the middle of the next century, while renewables can anticipate capturing only a fraction of that market. Every one percent of the emerging market in developing countries represents $50-100 billion of investment. If renewables can capture several percent of that market, the potential exists for several hundred billion dollars of renewable technology sales worldwide over the next four decades. Why are renewables important? They are the most environmentally responsible technologies available for power generation. Most renewable technologies have proven effective and reliable. Efforts are underway to further improve their technological performance, which may be the easiest problem to solve.

Providing Access to Renewables for Developing Countries
The more difficult problems are how to get renewable technologies into people’s hands, how to pay for them, and how to set up the non-technological infrastructure needed for widespread deployment of renewables. In many applications,  renewables are the least cost energy option.  Thinking on energy costs is distorted in the  United States because of relatively low  energy prices. Outside the US the story is  very different. Average electricity prices in  Germany and Japan approach or exceed  20 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even in remote  parts of the US, such as Alaska, electricity prices range from 40 to 60 cents per kilowatt-hour. In many parts of the world, including remote areas of the Asia-Pacific  region, it is hard to put a price on electricity because there is no access to it. The current world population is 5.8 billion people.  It is estimated that more than 2 billion of  those people have no access to electricity.  In China alone that number is 120 million.  At least another half billion people around the world have such limited or unreliable  access to electricity, that for all intents and  purposes they have no electricity. If we are  to make a difference in these people’s lives,  we have to make available to them free-standing power sources suitable for off-  grid applications – i.e., renewable electric  technologies. When people have no access  to electricity, even a 35 watt photovoltaic  panel or a small wind machine can make a  very large difference in their lives. Where  the alternative is to extend expensive electrical transmission and distribution systems, use of these technologies can be cost  effective.

What is the status of renewable  technologies today? Costs for photovoltaics, the use of semiconductor materials to  convert sunlight directly into electricity,  have come down from approximately $1 per kWh in 1980 to 20-30 cents per kWh  today. With increasing scales of manufacturing and increasing emphasis on thin-film devices, electricity costs from photovoltaics are expected to fall below 10 cents  per kilowatt-hour early in the next decade.  Current annual world production has just  exceeded 100 megawatts, and is growing  at more than 20 percent per year. This corresponds to a doubling time of less than 4  years. Current US. production capacity (40  megawatts per year) is fully subscribed,  and half a dozen new or expanded manufacturing plants are scheduled for operation within the next 18 months. Roughly  70 percent of US. production is currently  exported.

The “3- Flavors” of Solar Thermal  
Another form of solar energy, solar thermal technology, concentrates sunlight to  create heat that can then be used to generate stearn and/or electricity. This technology comes in 3 “flavors”: troughs that con centrate sunlight along the axis of parabolic  collectors; power towers that surround a  central receiver with a field of concentrating mirrors called heliostats; and dish-engine systems that use radar-type dishes to  focus sunlight on heat-driven engines such  as the Sterling engine. Electricity costs from  the parabolic trough units are in the 10 to  12 cents per kilowatt-hour range, but can  be reduced. Costs of electricity from the  other two solar thermal technologies are  expected to be even lower than those of the  parabolic trough systems, and could reach  4 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour when manufactured in commercial quantities.

The world has large resources of organic  material, called biomass, which occurs in a  variety of forms (wood, grasses, crops and  crop residues). Biomass can be converted  into energy in a number of ways. As wood-burning fuel, it has been used extensively  in developing parts of the world, often resulting in widespread deforestation, soil  loss, declining farm productivity, and increasing likelihood of seasonal flooding. In  future, the most effective way to use biomass is likely to be gasification, where the  resulting gas can either be used as fuel for  high efficiency combustion turbines, or as  synthesis material for producing liquid fuels. The US Department of Energy (DOE)  has a series of projects underway to determine how to most effectively use biomass  for energy production. DOE is experimenting with biomass-coal co-firing in New  York state, biogasification with bagasse  (the residue from sugar cane) in Hawaii,  with wood in Vermont, with switchgrass  in Iowa, and with alfalfa in Minnesota. Biomass-based electricity has the advantage  of being a baseload technology (i.e., it can  be operated 24 hours a day) and is carbon  dioxide neutral – i.e., the carbon dioxide  released during its use is recaptured by the  biomass during its growth. The revenue  derived from the sale of biomass resources  can be an important component in rural  economic development. Costs for biomass-generated electricity are expected to be  competitive as long as biomass resource  costs remain reasonable.

Europe “Blows with the Wind”
Many locations offer wind resources. Wind  is the fastest growing energy technology  in the world today. Most ofthe 17,000 wind  turbines in the United States are located in  California, but a dozen U.S. states (from the  Dakotas south to Texas) have greater wind  potential. Today’s highly reliable machines  (typically available 95-98% of the time) provide electricity at 5 cents per kilowatt-hour  at moderate wind sites. The next generation of turbines, currently under development, should provide electricity at half that  cost. Use of wind energy is expanding rapidly in many parts of the world, with  Europe’s installed capacity now exceeding  that of the United States (4,000 megawatts  compared to 1,700 megawatts). India ranks  third with 800 megawatts of wind generated capacity. Large wind generation  projects are also being planned for China and other parts of the developing world.  Geothermal resources – i.e. hot water or  steam derived from reservoirs below the  surface of the earth – were first used to generate electricity in Italy in 1904. Today, more  than 6,000 megawatts of geothermal power  are installed world wide, with about half of  that in the United States. Rapid expansion  of geothermal power is taking place in several places around the world, most notably in Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico  and Central America. Geothermal power  is a baseload technology. It can be a low  cost option if the hot water or steam re source is at a high temperature. One California geothermal project produces electricity at 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Limit to Fossil Fuels?
Given the world energy situation, one can not project today’s energy system into the  long-term future. Fossil fuels will continue  to be the primary fuel source for years to  come. As history has shown, the transition to a different energy system is likely  to take 50 to 100 years. The world cannot  continue to be dependent on fossil fuels.  Transportation issues are a good example  of this misplaced reliance. If a reasonable  fraction of the large and growing populations of China and India start driving cars  as people in the developed world do, demand and prices for petroleum resources  will grow rapidly, causing serious international supply problems and political ten sion; unacceptable environmental consequences will affect us all. There is a limit  to the Earth’s fossil fuel reserves. Whether  it takes 50 years, 100 years or longer, these  reserves will run out. The head of Shell  UK, Ltd., a highly respected oil industry  planning organization, has said: “There is  clearly a limit to fossil fuels. Fossil fuel resources and supplies are likely to peak at  around 2030, before declining slowly. Far  more important will be the contribution of  alternative renewable energy supply.” For  many reasons, financial and otherwise,  nuclear power is not likely to meet the energy needs of developing countries. Hydro power is the most mature form of renewable energy and already provides a significant share of the world’s electricity. Though  potential exists for further hydropower developement in many parts of the developing  world, significant hydropower expansion in  developed countries is unlikely to occur  because of environmental concerns. With  limited choices, the world is entering the  early stages of an inevitable transition to a  sustainable world energy system dependent  on renewable energy resources.
_____________________________________________________________
Dr. Allan R. Hoffman is Deputy Assistant Secretary of  the Office of Utility Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.  Department of Energy in Washington, D.C.

Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist

Perspectives on energy and water technologies and policy

Category: oil

New Book: ‘Water, Energy, and Environment – A Primer’

Adapting to Change – Never Easy

Renewable Energy and Jobs

Addressing the Coal Issue – Useful Thoughts

More History – Circa 1997