1 / 33

Powered by Rock

Powered by Rock. Earth's Energy Systems. Dr Liam Herringshaw lgh865@hotmail.com. Week 8: Reviewing The Options. Why Bother?. “The UK is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, relative to 1990 levels”. A Quick Recap. AGAINST Climate change Pollutants

ohio
Download Presentation

Powered by Rock

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Powered by Rock Earth's Energy Systems Dr Liam Herringshaw lgh865@hotmail.com

  2. Week 8: Reviewing The Options

  3. Why Bother? “The UK is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, relative to 1990 levels”

  4. A Quick Recap

  5. AGAINST Climate change Pollutants Import dependence Opencast impact Subsidence Easy resources exhausted CCS uncertainty 1. Coal FOR Cheap Available Employment Base-level power Known technology Existing infrastructure Inert material CCS

  6. AGAINST Spills, pollution, emissions Geopolitics Import dependence Over-reliance 2a/b. Oil & Gas FOR Availability Revenue generator Existing infrastructure UK energy security Cleanliness of gas CCS

  7. AGAINST Danger Accidents Terrorism Waste disposal Long-term impacts Construction costs 3. Nuclear FOR Very low CO2 impact Available technology Baseload supply Large capacity Area vs Mwh Thorium potential

  8. AGAINST Uneven distribution UK potential? Construction cost Low production? Fracking Radon release 4. Geothermal FOR Heat supply Local potential Dependency Low visual impact No external energy source required

  9. AGAINST Cost of development Environmental impact Raw materials Induced seismicity Unproven tidal/wave 5. Hydro FOR Proven renewable Long-term supply Security Low emissions UK tidal potential

  10. AGAINST Intermittency Aesthetics Wildlife impacts Storage? Non-local construction Lifespan 6a. Wind FOR Clean, emission-free Aesthetics Easily built/removed Known technology Unlimited resource Employment

  11. AGAINST Inefficiency Non-local mineral sources Uneven distribution Cleaning! 6b. Solar FOR Clean, emission-free Local usage Water heating Speed of construction

  12. Original rankings In week 1, how did you rank them? • Coal, oil, gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar

  13. Strengths & Weaknesses COAL CHIEF STRENGTH Abundance + cheapness CHIEF WEAKNESS Environmental impacts

  14. Strengths & Weaknesses OIL & GAS CHIEF STRENGTH Abundance + cheapness CHIEF WEAKNESS Environmental impacts

  15. Strengths & Weaknesses NUCLEAR CHIEF STRENGTH Reliability CHIEF WEAKNESS Radioactive risks (perceived or real)

  16. German nuclear challenge Having abandoned nuclear power, and stopped solar support, German power increasingly coal-dependent

  17. Renewable sustainability Evans et al. (2009) compared: Hydroelectric power Wind power Photovoltaic solar power Geothermal power + Coal + Gas

  18. Evans et al. (2009) Price of generated electricity; Full life-cycle GHG emissions; Source availability; Conversion efficiency; Land requirements; Water consumption; Social impacts

  19. Findings Efficiency of electricity generation: Photovoltaic 4–22% Wind 24–54% Hydro >90% Geothermal 10–20% Coal 32–45% Gas 45–53%

  20. Findings Water consumption in kg per kWh of electricity generation: Photovoltaic 10 Wind 1 Hydro 36 Geothermal 12–300 Coal 78 Gas 78

  21. Findings Greenhouse Gas Emissions

  22. Findings

  23. Conclusion Variabilities due to technology and geography But: Wind power most sustainable, then hydroelectric, PV solar, geothermal

  24. Raw materials Vidal et al. - Nature Geoscience (2013)

  25. Some data to digest Pacca & Horvath (2002):

  26. Some data to digest Pihl et al (2012) compared 2 types of CSP – tower vs trough Materials required: Aluminium (Metal), Cement, Chromium, Copper, Aluminium (Elemental), Fibreglass, Foam glass, Glass, Iron, KNO3, Lime, Limestone, Magnesium, Manganese, Molybdenum, NaNO3, Nickel, Niobium, Oil, Polypropylene, Rock, Rock wool, Sand, Silicon sand, Silver, Soda ash, Steel, Titanium, Vanadium, Zinc.

  27. The UK Energy Mix

  28. The Recent Past

  29. The Future?

  30. Predictability? IEA World Energy Outlook “hides the real potential of renewables”

  31. Your UK preferences Week 1 rankings: • Coal, oil, gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar • Have you changed your mind at all? • Why?

  32. My UK preferences Baseload: Gas with CCS + Nuclear (+ Tidal) Additional grid: Wind + Hydroelectric Local-scale: Solar + Geothermal Reduced usage Improved efficiency

  33. A More Informed Approach? Try the UK 2050 Calculator: 2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/

More Related