Oil - TED Talks

The focus for the last few posts has been about investigating the world of oil. I wanted to just share this great video by Richard Sears who does a fantastic overview of oil and its part in the energy supply.

If you are interested in more similar talks check out this playlist put together by TED Talks including information of nuclear power, fossil fuels and renewables: TED Talks The End of Oil

Technology Idea of the Week

Green slime! Who says that renewable energy can't be attractive. I think there is something uniquely beautiful about the bright green fields of algae at the Parabel (formally called PetroAlgae) site in Florida.

Parabel HQ in Florida - courtesy of Parabel

Using algae as a biofuel instead of crops hit the news a couple of years ago and I wanted to catch up with what has happened since.

Extensive research into Algae took off in America during the 1950s and 60s. This was largely driven by concerns over a food supply crisis but researchers soon began to discover the other possibilities that algae offered. A paper by Weiss, 1952, Scientific American highlighted the potential as a food source, fertilizers and possibly a fuel. Further research into methane production from algae by Meier, 1953, Agriculture Journal was discussed at a solar energy symposium and the interest in algae grew.

However for the next few decades, efforts to use algae as a biofuel on an industrial scale were pretty stagnant. This can be largely linked to the economical viability of algae compared to fossil fuels and the interest in nuclear energy. The 1974 Energy Review carried out by Nature mentioned solar, wind, nuclear fusion and natural gas (Nature, 1974) but as Dr Umakantha of Karnatak University pointed out: it failed to mention algae (Letters to Nature, 1974).

Not until the last few years has research into algae as a biofuel really gained support again. We can probably link this to two key points. Firstly, the price of oil has now increased over $100 a barrel (Oil Price International) and is reaching the point of becoming commercially not viable. Secondly, the pressure on governments to meet carbon targets continues to grow (UN Conference on Climate Change, 2013). So why isn't everyone growing green energy?

Challenges to Industrial Scale Production of Algae - Summarised from (American Chemical Society, 2009)

• Space - algae require light to grow so you need a high surface area which is expensive
• Sunshine - constant bright sunshine is needed for high level growth rate required to make farming algae viable. Fine if you are in California but probably not in London!
• Strains - there are more than 3000 different strains of algae, understanding which are the best for energy production and how to cultivate them is still not fully understood. 
• Systems - a lot of research has been carried out into the algae themselves but much more R&D is required into the processing systems on larger scales
• Species Invasion - keeping the algae ponds free of invasive species or unwanted algal strains is challenging

Is there a future for algae? 

There is a growing of investment in algae. Investment by big chemical companies such as Chevron and Dow Chemicals in algae research facilities has dramatically increased in the last decade. For example in 2009 BP invested $10 million in Martek Sciences Corporation (Mascelleri, Chemical Journal, 2009).

There is a lot of research into alternatives uses of algae. The University of Bath has produced research into using algae to clean water (Scott et al, 2012). This could help improve efficiency and reduce carbon consumption of water treatment plants. 

There is still a potential for using it as a fertilizer on a wider scale. Algae can be up to 30 times more productive than oilseed crops such as palm and soy (Gabel, 2012). Therefore its potential as a food source, animal feed or fertilizer could be very significant in the future. 

Arctic Oil - The Final Frontier

Natural resources in the Arctic could play a vital part in global energy production and particularly in petroleum. A study by the United States Geological Survey in 2012 estimated around 66 billion barrels of oil and 240,000 billion feet of cubic gas (USGS, 2012). To put this in context, global consumption of oil in 2012 was 89 million barrels a day (EIA website) which means that the Arctic oil reserves alone could supply entire global for 2-3 years.

Who owns the Arctic: who owns the resources?

The Arctic is an ice shelf (not continental shelf like Antarctica) therefore it is governed by the Law of the Sea (United Nations, 1892). The waters around it are divided up between countries which have a shoreline in the Arctic ocean and countries can claim the right to water and any resource deposits up to 200 nautical miles of the coastline of the Arctic (Popular Mechanics). The map below shows the territorial claims in 2012. So now we know roughly who owes which area of the Arctic Ocean and that there are significant oil and gas deposits. So why haven't countries been exploiting these already? 

Arctic Territory Claims 2012 - NOAA, Arctic Strategy, 2011

What are the challenges in extracting resources?

• Climate - low temperatures, long periods of total darkness and challenging topography. The extreme climate will effect equipment, personnel and therefore the efficiency of the process. This is largely linked to tolerance levels for electronic equipment and cement structure in the well (Villar et al, 2000) 
• Infrastructure - there is presently very limited infrastructure or supply chains which would be required for oil and gas extraction. This adds to the cost of the process and environmental risks. For example the nearest back-up clean up equipment for American projects would be 2000 miles away in Seattle (Forbes, 2011). 
• Competition - the recent boom in natural gas from fracking operations is currently a much cheaper alternative to businesses. Both America and Russia are investing heavily into gas exploitation at the moment therefore less investment in Arctic Oil exploration (EY Arctic Report 2012)
• Spills - containment and recovery from oil spills is a unknown factor in Arctic conditions. Boxall 2012 argues that a spill is inevitable and that the potential effects on the local environment could effect global climate and food chains. The lower temperature also reduces bacterial activity therefore the oil from the spill would remain for a much longer time. 

The underlying theme to all these challenge is the climate of the Arctic. Reduction in summer sea level ice in the Arctic over the last few decades is now raising concerns about a potential 'resource rush'. Earlier this year the United Nations Environment Programme stated in the UN Yearbook 2013 that the Arctic needs better protection. 

"The rush to exploit these vast untapped reserves have consequences that must be carefully thought through by countries everywhere, given the global impacts and issues at stake."

Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director (Reuters, February 2013)

Ellis et al 2011 discusses human influence on the environment and the impacts it can have. The potential loss of species diversity and change to natural environment are definitely a concern for the Arctic. The impacts of change to this environment could have huge influence on global climate, ecosystems and food chains so it is vital we manage the resources in this area with great care.

Update on Chernobyl

A few weeks ago I did a focus section on Nuclear Power, recently there have been some developments in Chernobyl which I feel are important to include so this is just a quick break in the discussion about oil.

At the beginning of November, work began on the Chernobyl site to remove the ventilation stacks which are 75m tall and weight around 220 tonnes (World Nuclear News, 5th November). The aim of this is to allow the construction of a shield over the site to contain any future radation links. The first ventilation stack has been successfully removed and the construction of the shield has begun. The 110m high shield is also enough to hide a football pitch and will be a oppressive feature on the landscape (BBC News, 27th November).

The arch so far

First part of construction of the arch - BBC News

This is one of the most ambitious engineering projects in history and is aiming to finish in 2015. The challenges in construction have been enormous, before you even start considering the radiation levels and risk to workers. The reactor (which exploded in 1986) is still far to reactive for people to work there for significant periods of time so the arch is constructed at another site and then transported on rails to the site (VINCI Construction).

A model of the final structure - aiming to be complete in 2015

The final construction - Novarka

Once completed the shield should contain any future leaks and protect the surrounding area: finally allowing the population to move on more from the disaster. It does raise the question of what is a reasonable level of risk to take and is Nuclear Power a step too far. There is still so much we don't fully understand about the effects of disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima that the response to them is limited.

Oil - A Brief History

IPCC Report 2012

Petroleum is the biggest energy source globally in the world today (IPCC). It played a part in the industrial revolution although coal was the dominant energy source. From the 20th century onwards and throughout the Great Acceleration is seen by many as the key for fuelling society (Ruddiman, 2012). Industrial production of oil created cheaper energy, increased fertilizers and fuelled construction. Everything that makes the modern world! 

It interesting to note a few key dates in the history of oil summarised from World History of Oil

450BC - Herodotus described oil pits near Babylon

1500s - Oil from seeps in the Carpathian Mountains in Poland was burned in street lamps to provide light in the Polish town of Krosno

1836 - For the first time, academician G.I. Gessi researched Absheron natural associated gas from a scientific point of view and defined its composition.

1803 - Offshore oil extraction reported in Bibi-Heybat Bay of the Caspian Sea (Azerbaijan) from two hand-dug wells 18 and 30 meters away from the shoreline. The first offshore oil field ceased existence in 1825 when a huge storm ravaged all wells in the Caspian

1818 - In southeastern Kentucky another salt well produced oil. It was known as the "Beatty Well," named after the owner of the land on which it was drilled (Shepherd 1988).By 1820, oil from this well was being shipped to Europe as well as several other southern states. Thus the Beatty Well seems to be the first drilled well which produced commercial oil in North America.

1846 - Baku the first ever well drilled with percussion tools to a depth of 21 metres for oil exploration

1849 - Abraham Gesner developed a method for distilling kerosene from crude oil

1859 - Col. Edwin Drake struck oil 69ft below the surface of the ground in Titusville, Pennsylvania.

1870 - J.D.Rockerfeller formed Standard Oil (Ohio).- controlled 10% of American oil refining

1885 - Oil discovered in Sumatra by Royal Dutch

1910 - Lakeview gusher blew out near Los Angeles, CA, reportedly at rates of >100,000BOPD with a total of 9,000,000 Bbls oil released before the well was brought under control

1938 - Oil discoverd in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

1960 - OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) founded in Baghdad - Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran

1969 - Oil discovered in North Sea

1971 - US oil production peaked

1986 - Oil prices collapse

1989 - March - Exxon Valdez aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska

1998 - 50 year moratorium on mining and oil exploration in Antarctica approved

2002 - (November) - Oil tanker Prestige sunk off NW coast of Spain

2004 (Oct 25) - Oil at a record price of $55.67 US per barrel on concerns over high demand and possible supply disruptions in the Middle East and damage on the Gulf Coast from Hurricane Ivan .

2007 (Nov 20) - WTI oil price futures hit a record close of $99.29US driven by supply concerns and weakness in the US dollar

2008 (July 23) - Alaska gives nod to TransCanada Pipeline to develop the Alaska Gas Pipeline.

2009 (Jan 19) - Oil price falls to $34 US per barrel

2010 (Apr 20) - Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and fire while drilling BP’s Macondo exploration well, in Gulf of Mexico, 11 workers killed and concern about a major environmental catastrophe along the Gulf Coast

2010 (Oct 12) - USA lifts ban on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

2011 (Dec 31) - US natural gas production in December 2011 at a record high level of 66.2Bcf/d breaking a previous high dating back from 1973

012 (Apr 1) - Total well leaking gas at Elgin Field 240Km east of Scotland in North Sea

2012 (Aug 25) - A blast at the Amuay oil refinery in Venezuela kills nearly 50 people

Introducing the star of the show: Oil

Over the last few weeks I have done focus sections about fracking and nuclear power, I am now going to focus on petroleum. To get us started a few facts about the state of play in 2012.

The World of Petroleum in 2012 - Summarised from the US International Energy Statistics Website

Production

• Total world production was 89,000 barrels per day
• The biggest oil producting region is the Middle East: supplying 27,000 barrels a day.
• The two biggest oil producing countries are the USA and Saudi Arabia (both producing around 11,000 barrels a day.
• For comparison, the UK produced about 1000 barrels per day in 2012, 90% of this is from offshore deposits

Consumption

• The Asia and Oceania region consumes the most oil: 28,000 barrels a day. 
• USA is the biggest single consumer of oil: 18,000 barrels a day. This is more than South America and Africa combined.
• Oil consumption between 2007-2012 has plateaued or decreased in North America, South American, Europe, Eurasia and Africa.
• Oil consumption in the Middle East and Asia and Oceania has significantly (by more than 20%) increased in the last five years between 2007-2012. 

Imports vs. Exports

• Asia and Oceania are by far the biggest importers of oil (more than three times any other region) 
• Asia and Oceania have had the biggest growth in amount of imports in the last five years 
• Asia and Oceania are the biggest exporters of oil in 2012. Starting to see a pattern here...

Well you'll be pleased to hear I am done bombarding you with facts! There probably isn't anything too surprising here, it is just helpful to put some numbers on things so that when reports talk about 'thousands of barrels a day' etc we have an understanding of what this compares to. Over the next week or two I will look into the global petroleum market and its a future. 

A quick Google of 'oil' is likely to spring up some images from the Popeye cartoon of his one true love: Olive Oil. I am definitely going to need a spinach fix to help with the research on this topic! Fond memories...

Courtesy of popeye.com

Technology Idea of the Week

Technological developments help determine the future of energy sources so I have decided to introduce a new feature in my blog: Technological Idea of the Week! Some of the ideas maybe in the start up stage, some of them maybe more in the creative stage! This will help to examine some of the new players in the energy market alongside the giants such as oil and nuclear power.

The Solar Chimney 

For my first edition in this series I am going to look at a project that takes a new approach to solar and wind power. What is particularly unique about this project is the way it combines different renewable technologies to help improve reliability and maximise power production. 

Image Courtesy of Solar Innovations

The Solar Chimney has two key components: a array of solar cells and a chimney with a turbine at the top. Air is heated at the base by the solar cells and therefore decreases in density and rises up through the chimney. This creates an updraught of air which will propel the turbines at the top of the chimney generating electricity. This can be seen in the diagram below which also demonstrates how this could be attached to houses and utilise pre-existing chimneys.

Image Courtesy of Solar Innovations

This idea has been around since the beginning of the 20th century and an experimental one was constructed in 1982 but then taken down due to concerns over collapse (BBC News, 20th November 2013). However, this idea has suddenly been given life again due the backing of Per Lindstrand who aims to build a 1km (yes 1km) high tower! He is famous for being the first person to cross the Atlantic in a balloon and has funding for this project from the 1851 Royal Commission (The Engineer, 19th November 2013).

Over the last thirty years there has been a lot of research into modelling solar chimneys to try and estimate how effective they can be. The chimney height and turbine head design have the biggest impacts on the efficiency of the solar chimney (Hamdam, Renewable Energy, 2011). Comparison of existing solar chimneys in Spain and Australia have allowed testing of the models to access their validity but there is much more research needed to make sure we use the best design to maximise efficiency (Nizetic et al, Energy Journal, 2008).

Nuclear Power - Final Thoughts

To conclude my section on Nuclear Power I wanted to do a brief summary of the threats and opportunities it presents. More detail and references to relevant information on each aspect can be found in previous posts, this is just a quick conclusion!

Opportunities

• Reliable and continuous form of energy
• Ongoing research to improve the safety and efficiency of the process
• Offers energy security and independence for many countries
• Low carbon technology compared  to fossil fuels
• Public perception

Threats

• Very expensive technology and decommissioning costs
• Safe disposal of radioactive waste
• Risk of fallout after accidents or natural hazards
• Taking focus from renewable energy
• Public perception

I have deliberately put public perception in both opportunities and threats. A wealth of research suggests that a lot of the general public are very opposed to nuclear power, largely for concerns over safety. After disasters such as Fukushima and Chernobyl this isn't overly surprising (Macilwain, Nature, 2011). However, the ultimate challenge nuclear power has to overcome is the cost. A study by MIT in 2003 and again in 2009 showed that the cost of building a nuclear power plant had doubled in just five years from $2000/kW to $4000/kW (Du and Parsons, CEEPR, 2009). These units represent the price per kilowatt hour to build a new rector. The price of oil and gas power plants has also increased though not as rapidly. 

The increasing cost of nuclear reactors is set to increase due to material costs, safety improvements and uranium costs. Ultimately this increasing cost will eventually make nuclear power unprofitable as a energy source over the next 50-100 years (European Parliament Conference). 

My final thought, living in a country that never experiences devastating earthquakes it is difficult to imagine the reaction to the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant disaster. This week the UCL Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction commemorated its work with Japan by hosting a symposium on the disaster with representatives from UCL and Tohoku University. Attending the symposium helped me understand this a little more and I wanted to finish with a map of the world showing nuclear power plants and seismic activity. The devastation after Fukushima really makes you question if nuclear power is worth it.

Worldwide nuclear power plants and earthquake zones - courtesy of MAPTD 2013

Blue dots - The location of 248 atomic energy plants, including numbers of reactors
Heatmap - Every earthquake after 1973 with a magnitude over 4.5. Around 173,000 in total

A Good Day to Die Hard

You can't go wrong with a classic action plot line, although I have to say that Die Hard Five (hilariously named "A Good Day to Die Hard") pushes the limits slightly.

The final seen sees Bruce Willis and his son (who conveniently is undercover for the CIA) destroy a house containing a large amount of uranium weapons: the same technology used in commercial nuclear reactors. What caught my eye in this scene was the iPad app that Brucey was using which told him the radiation levels in the house: informing him they were in a perilous situation. I wanted to see if there was much science behind this or whether Hollywood was just having a laugh. 

During the Japan Earthquake and Tsuanami in 2011, radio and TV were recorded as being the most useful media for distributing information. However mobile devices which can connect to wifi are becoming increasingly significant, alongside this is a the development of apps for emergency situations. 

Earthquake Warning App - using data from the Japan Meteorological Agency, users get an early warning about an earthquake. This only gives a few minutes warning but allows people to go into emergency procedures such as turning off gas supplies and getting to a safer location. 

Defibrillator App - this app shows the users proximity to automated defibrillators which can be used by anyone to restart someone's heart. This is one example of many useful apps which relate to emergency services and healthcare in the area. 

Safe Area Checker - this app was created after the disaster at the Fukushima power plant so that users can check their proximity to the area which is deemed unsafe to enter. This app has been incredibly popular. 

I couldn't find any 'die hard' style radiation apps yet but there are certainly some really helpful products being created. The ones focused on getting information or support to people during or after the event seem great, providing they are kept up to date. I'm a little more sceptical about ones that aim to 'predict' events or show augmented realities of what different hazards would do. To me this seems unnecessary scaremongering and I'm not sure what 'evidence' some of the apps are based on. 

Information sourced from Emergency Journalism website 

Nuclear Power - The Debate

A few weeks ago I posted a TED video about the energy debate which touched on a number of the different issues. Here is a summary of the debate with evidence from other publications as well.

In Proposition of Nuclear Power: 

1. New technologies - to improve safety of the plant and waste removal. For example the AP1000, developed by Westinghouse Electric Company, reactor does not require any human input to be activated and it prevents the release of radioactive waste (Ferguson, 2011, Nature) 
2. Reliability - nuclear power is a consistent and reliable source of energy. Despite several very serious examples of safety issues, it can be argued that nuclear power is safe providing it is well regulated. Corner et al (2011, Energy Policy ) argue that the UK public is 'reluctantly accepting' nuclear technology because of the reliability and energy security it offers. 
3. Low carbon - nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide as a bi-product therefore it is seen as low carbon compared to fossil fuels. Much political debate has now re-framed nuclear power as part of the solution for low carbon energy options (Bickerstaff et al, 2008, PUS). 
4. Energy security - nuclear offers energy independence to many countries and is relativity unaffected by embargoes, which affect other non-renewables. 

In Opposition to Nuclear Power: 

1. Safety - the Fukushima disaster left a 30km2 area around the power plant "severely affected" (population evacuated) by radioactive waste. In addition the long term impacts on health, mental well-being and the economy are hugely implicated (Brumfiel, 2013, Nature)  
2. Expense - construction of a large nuclear reactor (>1000 megawatts) varies between £3-6 billion. (Ferguson, 2011, Nature). Since the 2009 Fukushima disaster, the cost of nuclear power plants has escalated due to increased safety precautions and governments often have to subsidise construction.
3. Nuclear waste - one of the arguments in favour of establishing the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch includes information about changes in chemical traces in the earth (Zalasiewicz, 2011 Royal Society). There are strict regulations about disposal of radioactive waste however there are still many concerns that storage is not sufficient for isotopes with long decay rates. 
4. Takes focus from renewables - a slightly less quantifiable yet still important issue is how much does this detract from researching new technologies? If governments and companies have to subsidise nuclear power so heavily, wouldn't this be better invested in more sustainable solutions. 

In conclusion...

The term 'reluctant acceptance' used by Corner et al, 2011 seems to fit a lot of peoples view of nuclear power and I think it sums up mine as well. It seems a bit ridiculous that we have to take the safety risks inherent in nuclear technology yet the reliability and security of energy supply it offers are unparalleled. 

My prediction is that nuclear power will cease to play a significant part in energy supply over the next 50 years. Why? Simple: it is going to get too expensive. Better technology, improved safety and depleting uranium supply will eventually make this a completely unviable business model. 

Nuclear Power - Global Perspectives

In my last post I looked at the history of nuclear power in the UK and our reliance on it in the present day. Now we will take a look at the nuclear power globally and the impact it is having on the Earth.

Nuclear Power Today (adapted from World Nuclear Association)

• The first commercial power station opened in the 1950s 
• There are over 430 power stations in 31 different countries
• Nuclear power currently provides about 13% of the total energy demand
• There are around 240 research reactors operated by 56 different countries

This graph of energy supply shows the dramatic increase in nuclear power production from the 1970s to the present day. The debate around nuclear power is quite heated, in the next post I will look at both sides of it and put forward my own conclusions! 

Global energy supply - source IEA 2012 report 

Nuclear Power in the UK

In 1934, Nuclear fission was achieved by scientist Enrico Fermi. After the World War Two the UK government began to heavily invest in research into the commercial potential of nuclear power. At this time, it was one of the leading companies in nuclear research for energy and weaponry potential.

1956 and the world's first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall 1, was opened by Queen Elizabeth in Sellafield (The Guardian 2013). A fire in one of the reactors two years later destroyed part of the plant although no one was harmed in the incident. There were concerns over impacts of radioactive leakage from the plant, exacerbated by lack of communication from the company. Details about the event were not released for thirty years.

Over the next few decades many more nuclear reactors were built including Chapelcross, Hinkley Point and Dungeness. The government gave full support to nuclear power, despite the growth of many opposition groups. A successful campaign from opposition groups did stop the dumping of nuclear waste into the Atlantic. With hindsight it seems incredible that unregulated dumping of material was allowed to go on for thirty years! (Greenpeace Nuclear Waste Campaigns)

Nuclear power continued to grow as an industry in the UK, despite increasing environmental regulation and opposition groups. At its peak in the mid 1990s, it contributed around 25% of the UK's energy needs.

In 2000 the nuclear industry was brought under fire over a scandal relating to faked safety records. Over the next five years many reactors were shut down:

• 2000 - Hinkley Point A1 and A2 shut down
• 2002 - Bradwell 1 and 2 shut down
• 2003 - Calder Hall 1, 2, 3 and 4 shut down
• 2005 - Chapelcross 1, 2, 3 and 4 shut down
• 2006 - Dungeness A1 and A2, Sizewell A1 and A2 shut down

The UK government are caught between industry and anti nuclear groups. They continue to support the industry and the highlight the benefits for the economy and consumers. At the same time, very serious issues are raised over safety and the general public's opinion of nuclear power goes down. Now the government don't just need to worry about campaign groups but also general voters. This is occasionally tangled up with Nuclear weapons such as Trident, making it even more challenging for the government to get the support of the general public.

Most recent developments include the 2010 government funding package for Sheffield Forgemasters who make nuclear reactors and in 2013 a 40 year subsidy was agreed with energy companies who agree to building new nuclear power stations. In October of this year the new power plant, Hinkley Point C, got the go ahead from government. All of this suggests that government is still fully behind nuclear power. Dare I suggest that fracking is providing a nice distraction and allowing nuclear power to be the 'lesser of two evils'.

Nuclear Power in the UK. Source (BBC News) based on data from the Department of
Energy and Climate Change