Future Fuel - That's a Wrap!

It is going to be very strange not to scour newspapers, websites and journals looking for new projects and research to blog about. I feel I have begun to read things though a pair of "blog potential" glasses.

At the start of the blog I decided I wanted to investigate three main areas: energy demand, energy sources and the future for fuel supply. With growing population and more importantly increasing living standards it is certain that the demand for fuel is going to increase. Particularly in cities and rapidly developing countries the demand increase could be exponential. I looked at the current sources of energy: focusing on gas, oil, nuclear, coal and renewables. Over the next 50-100 years we are likely to see a shift towards natural gas and nuclear with many experts predicting that oil supply has peaked and will now decline. Growth of renewables will probably continue at the slow steady pace but the next big milestone will be the commercial scale of hydrogen fuel cells.

Energy Supply

After a few weeks of writing the blog I kept finding articles about new inventions that were being researched but weren't necessarily producing industrial scale amounts of electricity. So I introduced the "Technology Idea of the Week" section alongside my focus sections on different energy sources. They ranged from algae and artificial leaves to mining meteorites and hydrothermal vents. It was fascinating investigating these new ideas and seeing them being turned into business. There are definitely some I will follow over the next few years! One of the biggest lessons I have seen through every section of this blog is that energy supply is big business and it needs to be profitable. New, renewable, clean technologies have to be more profitable if they are going to be successful. I loved the wordle on Helen's blog (gaiaocean.blogspot.co.uk) and was intrigued to see what the one for my blog would be. With the words energy, solar and hydrogen jumping out I think it summarieses it very well!

Energy Enquiry most used words - produced by Wordle

At the start of this investigation, I wondered about what ingredients do you need to make a successful blog? Well informed content, interesting new topics, amusing titles, bad puns, pictures and videos have all played a part for me. By far the most important aspect has been writing on a topic that you are really interested in. Writing becomes enjoyable rather than a chore and you feel a sense of responsibility to provide accurate and interesting posts. My search for the right balance of ingredients reminded me of the Roald Dahl book: George's Marvellous Medicine: I think I have discovered the recipe that works for me!

George's Marvellous Medicine

Technology Idea of the Week

Finding alternative energy sources to produce cheaper electricity for households and businesses is becoming a huge business but what about carbon intensive industrial processes as well?

Cement Processing 

Making cement is one of these intensive industrial processes. After water, cement is the second most consumed substance on the planet: each person uses about 3 tonnes per year (Environment Publications, UNEP, 2010). It is one of the main materials in essentially every construction project including buildings, bridges, reservoirs and roads. We often do not see the extent to which concrete is used in construction for example The Shard has concrete foundations reach down 53m: approximately 1/6 of the buildings height (Ingenia Engineering, 2012). In 2010 the global production of cement produced about 3 billion tonnes of CO2, accounting for 5% of global emissions (TIME, 2010). The diagram below shows a very simplified outline of the process where raw materials (gypsum/limestone) are heated in a kiln to produce cement and give off CO2 emissions.

Cement Production - image courtesy of CO2CRC

The Energy Demands 

This is a summary of the main energy demands - summarised from Madool et al 2011, Renewable Energy Reviews 

• Extraction and crushing of raw materials before going into the kiln (green on diagram below)
• Heating the kiln to ~1440°C (purple on diagram)
• Final grinding of the clinker into a fine grey powder which can be added to fluid to make cement (blue on diagram below)
• Other auxiliary needs such as transportation of raw materials (red on diagram) 
• On average, producing 1 ton of cement produces just under 1 ton of CO2

Energy Distribution in Cement Manufactoring - Madool et al 2011, Renewable Energy Reviews 

New Innovations 

1. Using the by product - one way to reduce the energy costs of cement which has become common in the last few years is to use the 'slag'. This is the waste product from the production of Portland Cement and was previously thrown away creating the distinctive 'slag heaps'. However, it is now often used in combination with pure cement for example the foundations of The Shard use 70% slag and only 30% Portland Limestone (Ingenia Engineering, 2012). This dramatically reduces the cost of building and the CO2 emissions. 

2. Waterproofing cement - cement is rarely recycled because as water seeps in it reacts with the calcium carbonate (limestone) and causes it to slowly breakdown. This is the same chemical reaction that forms limestone caves, karst landscapes, stalactites and stalagmites. If we could waterproof cement and prevent the breakdown we would not have use new cement in every building. This is what the company Hycrete are aiming to do. A hydrophobic mixture is poured over the cement to reduce the absorption of water to less than 1% (Hycrete Admixtures). This is a bit like pouring oil over it except cheaper and more sustainable!

3. New Formulas - both the above solutions really help to reduce the energy demands of cement production but the ultimate goal would be to produce carbon neutral cement. This is what Novacem is aiming to do. Based on research from Imperial College London, a new type of cement based on magnesium silicate rather than calcium carbonate has been created. This absorbs CO2 as it solidifies: almost three times as much than the traditional formula. This could actually result in the cement industry being a net absorber of CO2 rather than emitter (Imperial College, Novacem Research). In addition, the by products of production can be used and it is waterproof. Almost too good to be true! 

Tackling big industrial processes is a really important part of finding energy solutions. It would take an awful lot of wind farms to see the same benefit as creating a carbon negative cement.  

Introducing Renewables

The next focus section for my blog is going to be on renewable energy, this will include a variety of different energy sources which have essentially unlimited supply To start off, just how much does renewable energy contribute to the global energy market?

Renewable Energy Share of Global Energy Consumption 2010

Figure 1 source: Renewables 2012 Status Report, page 20

Figure 1 Summary

• Fossil fuels (80.6%) - coal, oil, gas
• Traditional biomass (8.5%) - burning of wood primarily for cooking and heating
• Modern renewables (8.2%) - divided into hydropower, biofuels, heating and power generating, currently the 'heating' sector is significantly larger than power generation. 

Average Annual Growth Rates of Renewable Energy Production 2006-2011

Figure 2 Source: Renewables 2012 Status Report, page 21

Figure 2 Summary

• Over the five year period between 2006 and 2011, production of all energy types has increased. 
• Growth of the Solar PV cells is significantly higher than any other category in 2011 (74%) and over the five year period (54%).
• The main increases over the past five years have been in: solar PV, solar thermal power, biodiesel, ethanol production and wind power (total = 144% increase)
• Hydropower has seen a very minor increase over five years (3%) but it is one of the biggest contributors to the renewable market.

Technology Idea of the Week

Any Londoner will recognise that huge feeling of relief when you step into an underground station, escaping the winter weather the wind and rain of winter. That warm rush of air and being huddled down in seat without worrying about the outside world. This poster from 1927 captures this emotion beautifully, artist Fredrick Charles Herrick (1927).

Courtesy of Tony's Toy Shop
Artist: Fredrick Charles Herrick, 1927

The underground generates all of its own heat simply by the equipment, volume of people and being insulated at depth. A fact that is appreciated in winter as the temperature is kept around 20 degrees Celsius but is not so popular in summer where temperatures can reach over 30 degrees (WIRED, 2013). 

Popularity of the underground in the UK and many other countries raised the question of whether we can use the excess heat generated and put it to better use. Over the last few decades many groups and organisations have been established to investigate this potential. Here is a quick overview of how these plans are actually getting of the ground (or under it rather) in Islington. 

The Council of the London Borough of Islington have teamed up with the Mayor of London, Power Networks and TFL to invest £2.7 million in a heat capture system. This heat will be used to supply 700 homes with the potential to increase this to 1200 in another two years (Islington Council). It is estimated there will be a payback time of 10-15 years (Business Green). This is a little vague, largely because this is one of the first projects of its kind so research is limited. 

This is a cheaper and greener source of energy although it isn't technically classed as renewable. It is part of a government initiative to use 'secondary heat sources' and is really important in reducing fuel poverty (Buro Happold 2012 Report).

The use of secondary heat sources is being investigated by many other cities such as Cologne and Rotterdam (NewScientist 2013). It is pioneered by Celsius City is an EU collaboration who state that there is "enough heat produced in the EU to supply the EUs entire building stock, there just isn't the heating network to distribute it". If these plans are successful and continue to be implemented we could see a huge reduction in heating bills and energy consumption: a huge challenge facing mega cities today. 

Technology Idea of the Week

This week: is there a future for methane fuel cells? Methane hydrates have featured quite a lot recently while I researched for my posts on Arctic natural resources and in Anson Mackay's lecture on the crysosphere. It seemed deserving as this weeks technology focus!

Fuel Cells - A very brief introduction! 

• Convert chemical energy into electricity by an oxidising reaction
• Require a constant fuel supply 
• The ideal fuel is hydrogen because it doesn't produce greenhouse gases but the technological challenges in its cost and storage mean this currently not viable (Steele, 1999, Nature)
• Currently, the best fuel options are hydrocarbons (methane) and alcohols (methanol).  

Methane Hydrates

• Methane hydrates (clathrate) are crystalline solids composed of a mixture of water and light natural gas (methane, carbon dioxide, ethane). They are found in the shallow lithosphere (<2000m deep) where the surface temperature is less than 0 °C (Kvenvolden, 1993, Review of Geophysics)
• There are substantial natural deposits of methane hydrates in deep ocean sediments, permafrost and under frozen lakes. It is estimated that the global volume of methane hydrate is 10¹⁵ to 10¹⁷ cubic metres of methane which represents 53% of all fossil fuels ((Demiras, 2010, Energy Conservation and Management). The distribution of organic carbon can be seen in the image below. 

Distribution of organic carbon on earth (excluding kerogen and bitumen).
Source: Demiras, 2010, Energy Convservation and Management)

Advantages of Methane Fuel Cells

• Substantial deposits - it is estimated that the global volume of methane hydrate is 10¹⁵ to 10¹⁷ cubic metres. Deposits are found in widespread geographical locations including US permafrost, Lake Baikal in Siberia and Arctic sediments. (Demiras, 2010, Energy Conservation and Management)
• Low carbon energy - methane is a less carbon intensive fuel than coal or oil: it produces approximately half the amount of CO2 than coal for equivalent volumes. This can be seen the equation below. Therefore using methane hydrates as an energy source could help reduce anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide which may contribute to the greenhouse effect. 

Top equation - the combustion of coal. Lower equation - the combustion of methane hydrate
Source: Demiras, 2010, Energy Convservation and Management)

The Challenging side of Methane Fuel Cells

• Location and access - finding the deposits requires high level seismic imaging, we do not have detailed enough resolution for some deposits. In addition the deposits often cross national boundaries or are in international territories. This raises a lot of geopolitical issues in terms of researching the site and rights over the resources. (Kvenvolden, 1993, Review of Geophysics)
• Extraction - the gas can expand 160 times its volume as it is brought to the surface and is de-pressurised. This can cause explosions and leaks of methane gas (CH4) which contributes to the greenhouse effect. We currently need to do further research into drilling technology to ensure safe extraction of methane hydrates. (Demiras, 2010, Energy Convservation and Management)

It is possible...

In March of 2013, a Japanese drilling company successfully produced gas from frozen methane hydrates from the ocean floor. For equal volumes, this deposit holds 164 times the energy of conventional gas (NewScientist, 2013). The deposit is in the Nankai trough and could be a game changer for Japan's energy supply. Investigation into methane hydrates was fast tracked by the Japanese government after the Fukushima nuclear power disaster. Here is a film of the methane hydrate extraction in Wellington by a team of German Scientists (the video is in English)! 

In conclusion, methane hydrates could be a really important step in meeting our energy needs over the next 100 years. The ultimate goal still remains as the production of commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells. 

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

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.