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

Nuclear debate and Happy Halloween!

I am a huge fan of autumn and all the celebrations that come along with it so I thought I would weave this into a blog post. Last one of the weak I promise! 

Grinning pumpkins illuminated by candles can be spotted from many windows this evening and we are fast approaching bonfire night. So I thought this would be a good chance to think about fire: the original energy source! 

Fire Factoids:

• There is evidence in the fossil record for wildfires dating back 470 million years ago
• Most recent evidence from the Wonderweck Cave in South Africa suggests that hominids first controlled fire 1.0 million years ago (Berna et al, National Academy of Sciences, 2011) 
• Wood has been used as a fuel since prehistoric times 
• Currently around 80% of the world’s energy comes from burning of fossil fuels in power stations (International Energy Agency 2013 Report)
• Earth is the only known planet where fire can exist; no other has enough oxygen in the atmosphere for the reaction to occur.
• The higher the oxygen level, the bluer the flame. That is why fire is blue at the base as it gets the ‘fresher’ air but then yellow above as it is ‘suffocated’.
• Spontaneous combustion is an actual thing. It occurs when a material with a low ignition (burning) temperature releases heat due to bacterial fermentation, moisture air etc. Pistachios can spontaneously combust which is why they have to be transported with care!
• A candle usually burns at about 1000C. Mind those pumpkins! 

In this post I also wanted to share this video from TED Talks. TED is a hugely inspirational organisation which aims to promote ‘Ideas Worth Spreading’. You can find discussions on everything from “The Thrilling Potential of Sixth Sense Technology” to “How to Tie your Shoes”. Next week I will be talking about nuclear power and this is a great introduction to the debate.

Happy Halloween everyone! 

The Price of Power

The debate over energy prices has become increasingly heated over the last few days after the parliamentary committee so I wanted to just do a quick post about the situation. Understanding energy pricing is a really important aspect in understanding the energy market so this is a quick look at exactly how much we pay for our energy.

The Office for National Statistics has recently published a report on household expenditure. There are a couple of really important points I wanted to highlight from it:

• Household disposable income has flat lined for the last four years
• The proportion of household income spent on essentials has increased by almost half in a decade:  from 19.9% in 2003 to 27.3% in 2013
• The increase spent on gas and electricity in the same decade almost doubled: from 1.8% in 2003 to 3.1% in 2013. 

Source (ONS Parliamentary Briefing PDF October 2013)

This graph shows the relative yearly change in energy prices relative to the general price index. The 1980s saw a similar increase due to the recession but today’s relative prices are still higher. The volatility in heating oils (black line) over the last few decades can be linked to the oil shocks of the 70s. 

Source: DECC quarterly fuel prices table 2.1.1

Efforts such as the winter fuel allowance are incredibly important to support vulnerable people but there is no denying that the government will need to look further to help protect the consumer. It will be interesting how the politics around this develop and maybe the subject of another blog post soon!

Fracking case study: The Marcellus Shale

The map below shows the vast number of shale deposits in the USA. Estimates of the potential natural gas reserves in these deposits could meet America’s energy needs for 90-116 years (Karbo et al 2010). For a country that has been one of the top importers of energy for the last decade there is huge appeal at the potential of being self-sufficient. Little wonder then the dramatic investment in hydraulic fracking technology: currently the only way to access the shale gas reserves. 

I am going to look at the case of the Marcellus Shale: by far the biggest reserve in the US and a hotly debated issue. It lurks beneath 10 states including New York and Pennsylvania then crosses the border into Canada.

Shale deposits of America (Image from Kerr, 2010, Science Volume 328)

The formation is about 400 million years old (Devonian era) and the black colour comes from the organic rich material. Setting up the horizontal drilling wells has proved to be expensive, costing $3-5 million each. Yet the income generated from the industry is huge: in Pennsylvania alone, extraction of natural gas has generated 29,000 jobs and bought huge revenue through taxes and investment. This is a little shot of the actual deposits from the Marcellus Shale containing the natural gas. 

Sample from the Marcellus Shale (image from Environment, Science and Technology Journal 2012)

Challenges of the Marcellus Shale

• Most of the gas is about 1.6km below the surface – the challenge of drilling increases with depth as rock hardness and pressure increases. Therefore the drill bit has to be replaced regularly and the therefore process is very slow. Up to 50% of the drilling cost is consumed by drilling the last 10% of the well.
• Protection of the natural flora and fauna at the surface – there are limits to the horizontal reach of each well to maximise extraction numerous wells across a wide area are installed. There is also a lot of new infrastructure and transport links that have been constructed
• Secure cementing of the well - this is essential to prevent leakage of gas or fracking fluids. Given the depth and temperature of the wells in the Marcellus Shale (35-51C) this is very challenging. It is believed that this led to the leakage of methane into local groundwater (Vidic et al 2013).
• Water consumption in extraction – up to 10 million gallons of water are required to complete the extraction per well. Transporting this much water has huge energy costs and also raises moral issues in periods of drought when water is needed for agriculture.  

Opportunities that are being pursued

• Advancements in drilling – using multilateral rather than horizontal drilling for more efficient access to the gas. Also using paraffinic fluids rather than diesel to reduce the amount of atmospheric pollutants by 85% (Karbo et al 2010)
• Using environmentally friendly fluids – using plant oils such as palm or soy instead of chemical based (Fracking Report 2008) 
• Improved drinking water – increasing monitoring and treatment of drinking water to ensure the local communities are not harmed and to increase public support for the industry

Overall, the business here has been hugely successful and given a huge boost to the local economy. It has produced 12% of all natural gas in America and this figure is predicted to increase for many years despite the controversy around the site.

Finally, it is just me or does the picture of the sample from the Marcellus Shale look a bit like a choc ice?

Meet the Frackers - Part 2

After my introduction to fracking last week I am going to look at both sides of the fracking debate in a little bit more detail. Fracking is the process where fluid is pumped into rock at high pressure which causes the rock to fracture. This creates more space within the rock and allows oil and gas to percolate through the formation therefore it can be pumped to the surface and extracted.

Figure: United States Environment Protection Agency

Arguments supporting Fracking

• Domestic production of energy means some countries may be able to become self-sufficient in energy production and even export it.
• It generates industry, employment and allows the country to control its energy prices, hopefully in favour of the consumer!
• For the UK, there is huge potential for fracking. A recent report by the Department of Energy and Climate Change estimated potential reserves of approximately 1466bcm (DECC 2013 Fracking Report). To put this into context, annual gas consumption for the UK is 77bcm. Therefore giving us 20 years of energy, give or take a few!  
• Breakthroughs in technology may help to reduce the environmental impacts caused by heavy water usage and infrastructure in extraction.
• Chemicals used can be nontoxic and methane has a shorter half-life than CO2 so will remain in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder, Nature 2011).
•   There is huge potential as an energy source globally as well! This could help us bridge the gap between renewable energy sources. 

Figure (Forbes 2012)

The Anti Fracking Campaign

•   It not a ‘clean’ energy source and produces fossil fuels which may contribute to global warming. It is slightly lower in carbon emissions than coal and oil (Tyndall Centre 2011). 
• Minor earthquakes can be produced, up to this date they have ranged from 1-3.8 magnitude (Davis et at 2013). See previous Part 1 for more detail.
• Heavy water usage which impacts the environment and costs a lot of energy to be transported to the site. Depending on the site, a well can use up to 20 million litres of water. (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder, Nature 2011)
• Many of the chemicals used in fracking are toxic or carcinogenic. There could be leakage of these from the wells due to bad practise or inherent problems with the technique. A study of 68 wells in Pennslyvania showed a dramatic increase in methane levels (and 75% of lakes very over contaminated levels) with proximity to the extraction site (Environmental Health Perspective 2011)
•  It is a very new technology to be adopted on such a large scale. Research on the impacts of fracking is minimal and has only appeared in two peer reviewed journals.
• ‘Old fashioned’ approach. Fracking is still utilising fossil fuels and therefore could distract energy companies and governments from focusing on long term solutions.

Which Side of the Fence? 

There are a lot of points on either side and essentially seems to come down to the huge potential for cheap energy vs the unknown and potentially catastrophic impacts of fracking. One of the most striking things I found doing this post is the gaps in our understanding of fracking and of course this is something campaign groups such as Frack Off have focused on. Despite this, I think that the potential for energy supply and positive improvements in technology mean that fracking will be and should be a key player in the energy market.  

Meet the Frackers - Part 1

“Meet the frackers” has become a popular name for news articles, TV documentaries and campaign groups linked to fracking. Over the next few weeks I am focus on fracking for my blog posts. Firstly lets introduce the process of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas and address two of the key issues the process has raised.

Hydraulic fracking is a process where fluid is pumped into rock at high pressure which causes the rock to fracture. This creates more space within the rock and allows oil and gas to percolate through the formation therefore it can be pumped to the surface and extracted. It has been used in the USA, extracting gas from areas such as the Marcellus Shale, for the last decade and has recently been given the green light by the UK government.

Video: BBC Horizon programme "Fracking: The New Energy Rush" 

Issue One: Does fracking cause earthquakes?

The honest answer: yes it can. The more the more important question is do these earthquakes matter and can they be avoided? Recorded earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing have a magnitude in the range of 1.0 – 3.8. This causes comparable ground shaking to a large articulated lorry driving past your house. Much higher magnitude earthquakes have been recorded from the use of controlled explosions in mining, up to 5.1, and from reservoir impoundment where the weight of the water causes ground fracturing, up to 7.9. (Davis et at 2013). So the earthquake damage cause by earthquakes induced by fracking doesn't even come close to other anthropogenic causes. 

Even if the earthquakes are small, it is important that oil and gas companies do all they can to avoid it in the first place. This can be achieved by improved research and method in the operations. A review of fracking in the UK was carried out which addressed the earthquakes causes in Blackpool (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers 2012). They recommended that better fault plane analysis could help minimise risk of earthquakes by avoiding injecting fluid directly into fault planes. Overall they gave fracking the go ahead in the UK. 

Issue Two: will fracking contaminate groundwater?

 Image courtesy of John Cole Cartoons (The Times Tribune, Pennsylvania) 

Water contamination has been a huge issue for some US fracking operations. Using geochemical isotropic tracers at a fracking site in Pennsylvania, it was shown that increased levels of methane, chlorine and potassium in groundwater are “related to stray gas contamination directly linked to shale gas operations”. (Darrah et al 2012, Procedia of Earth and Planetary Science). This maybe a case where improved technology and processes can prevent this occurring again however for some communities fracking has already had a severe impact on quality of life.