Mediterranean Solar Plan gets green light

Sometimes certain decisions are determined in the international political arena that are seismic in their potential for shaping our future yet remain largely under the radar of general public knowledge. Of course CSP being my bag, means I am here to bring you the latest sunny developments - and the future is indeed looking bright.

In Paris on Sunday 13th July at the Heads of State Summit, a formal declaration launching the Union for the Mediterranean was issued, laying out the goals and workings of the 43-member organisation. One initiative in particular holds huge promise - the formal endorsement of the Mediterranean Solar Plan, which was presented by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Even Gordon Brown has backed the Solar Plan, stating at the conference: "in the Mediterranean region, concentrated solar power offers the prospect of an abundant low carbon energy source. Indeed, just as Britain's North Sea could be the Gulf of the future for offshore wind, so those sunnier countries represented here could become a vital source of future global energy by harnessing the power of the sun. So I am delighted that that the EU is committing at this summit to work with its neighbours - including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and the League of Arab States - to explore the development of a new 'Mediterranean Solar Plan' for the development and deployment of this vital technology from the Sahara northwards.".

According to the International Energy Agency in it's recently published Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 - Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, on top of the investments in the Business-as-usual scenario, total additional investment needs for the period 2010-2050 amount to USD 45 trillion. The average year-by-year investments between 2010 and 2050 needed to achieve a virtual decarbonisation of the power sector include, say the IEA, the build of 215 million square metres of solar. Others technologies proposed to achieve 50% cuts by 2050 include 55 fossil-fuelled power plants with CCS, 32 nuclear plants and 17 500 large wind turbines as well as widespread adoption of near-zero emission buildings and, on one set of assumptions, deployment of nearly a billion electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

The Union for the Mediterranean agreed that the recent activity on energy markets in terms of both supply and demand, confirms the need to focus on alternative energy sources. Market deployment as well as research and development of all alternative sources of energy was declared a major priority in efforts towards assuring sustainable development. The Secretariat is now tasked to explore the feasibility, development and creation of a Mediterranean Solar Plan. It is expected that 20GW of CSP will be constructed by 2020, with electricity exports transmitted into Europe, and exponential growth thereafter.

The political will is now in place for the deployment of CSP plants in the Sahara Desert, with transmission of it's clean electricity into Europe. It's nemesis will of course be nuclear. But CSP has many advantages over nuclear: rapid construction times (3 years versus 10 -20 years), low environmental impact (even positive environmental impact can be achieved where desalination is incorporated in the plant, thereby providing water for both human consumption and agricultural use), unlimited availability of resource (in any given 2 week period, deserts receive the same amount of energy from the sun as is contained in all nuclear fuel reserves), lower security and terrorist risk (compare the bombing of a nuclear plant to the taking out of a bunch of mirrors in the desert - transnational devastation versus 7 years bad luck). Let the race commence.

London Aware Sustainability Fair at the Barbican, London

This weekend (10 & 11 May 2008) at the Barbican you will find the London Aware Fair - Green Ideas for Everyday Living. I shall be there, manning a stand for TREC-UK, and speaking today (Saturday) on Eco-living, then giving a talk on Sunday on my ever favourite subject, Concentrating Solar Power. The guys that run it have given me a 2 for the price of one offer - just go to the UK Aware website and enter the code SP241.

Hope to see you there!

Polly

Current Thinking by Howies

Think back. Like before the Ipod, the Iphone, Google, the Breville toaster, even before black and white television, to the 1880s. Back then two men had a fight over the future of electricity and how it would reach us.

In one corner was Thomas Edison. He backed DC (electrons flowing in one direction around a circuit). In the other corner was George Westinghouse who backed AC (in which the electrons shuffle back and forth). Edison lost. The reason he lost was because over short distances spanned by early power grids AC suffered lower losses than DC. Subsequently, it became industry standard.

So what’s the big deal? Well, these days electricity travels much further than it did
in the 1880s. And DC suffers lower losses than AC. So not only does that make DC better in its own right but it would allow electricity grids to be restructured in ways that would make wind power more attractive. That would reduce the need to build more conventional (and polluting) power stations.

You see, wind power has two problems. You don’t always get wind where you want it. And secondly, you don’t always get wind when you want it.

According to Jürgen Schmid, head of ISET, an alternative-energy institute at the University of Kassel, Germany, the answer to both these problems is a continental-wide power distribution. Then the question of where the wind is blowing would no longer matter as the wind is almost always blowing somewhere. If it were windy in Spain but not in West Wales, current would flow in one direction. Conversely if it were a blustery day over here, then it would flow in the other direction.

The ‘when’ aspect of the equation would be to use a country within the European grid to store the electricity until you need it. So how does that work? Well, for example you could use Norway’s hydroelectric plants. The power is used to pump water up into the reservoirs that feed the hydroelectric turbines. That way the power is on tap when you need it.

Should the wind drop all over Europe, which happens rarely, the hydro plants could fill the gap for up to four weeks. Complicated, but at the same time, simple too.

The reason it has not been built goes back to that fight between Edison and Westinghouse back in the 1880’s. He won because high voltage is the best way to transmit power. The higher the voltage, the smaller the loss. Yet AC with its shifting current runs to earth easier, which is another way of saying it loses its power. Hence the reason why the pylons are so high off the ground.

In short, a DC pylon will beat an AC one over long distance (600 miles). And a DC line will beat an AC line at a distance as short as 20 miles. That’s why Dr Schmid calculates that a DC continental grid would allow wind to supply at least 30% of the power needed in Europe. And do so reliably.

Edison was right. DC was the best way to transmit electricity of any given voltage. He was ahead of his time.

Speed read
1 AC may no longer be the future.
2 DC suffers lower losses over longer distance.
3 This will make wind power more commercial.
4 A European-wide power distribution would mean that it won’t matter where the wind is blowing as it is almost always blowing somewhere.
5 Norway has started building DC power lines between Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany.
6 Edison may have been right after all.

TREC say the same - use HVDC to transmit clean electricity from concentrating solar power as well as wind throughout Europe, Middle East and North Africa:


Thanks to Howies for telling the story of electricity so well - they make cool clothes too.

No to Nuclear, Yes to CSP

With John Hutton set to announce a new generation of nuclear power stations for the UK today, it raises the issue of what price such a benefit would be.

Whilst it cannot be denied that our current generation would benefit from nuclear energy generation, it will be future generations who will carry the detriment of the legacy that remains.

Future generations will carry the burden of policing it, paying for it as well as suffering the consequences if /when disaster strikes, which would result in substantial additional economic, environmental and social costs.

Whilst we were not fully aware of the potential future consequences back in the 1950's, or were reckless in proceeding without understanding those consequences and detriment to others, we now carry the knowledge of the inherent risks and costs to future generations. With that knowledge comes the responsibility to ensure the highest possible standards of safety and damage limitation strategies are imposed. Likewise, with it comes the duty to implement a programme of cessation of current use of nuclear as soon as possible.

The only conclusion I can draw, is this: to proceed with a new generation of nuclear would be morally wrong, especially where other solutions, including Concentrating Solar Power, are viable, cost competitive, renewable, low carbon and benign.

Greenpeace response:
Greenpeace Nuclear Power Briefing
Energy Bill:
Energy Bill, Bill 53 07-08

Earlier Postings:
Why I say No to Nuclear
Concentrating Solar Power - the DESERTEC vision
Concentrating Solar Power Basks in the Glow of a Sunny Future

Film Preview of A Crude Awakening

Yesterday my mate Jeremy Smith (former editor of the Ecologist - so, a guy who knows his megawatts from his terrawatts) phoned on spec to see whether I'd be interested in joining him for a preview screening of a Peak Oil film and Q&A with the directors afterwards. Excellent, I said, I'm on my way. The film, A Crude Awakening, is to be released nationally on the 9th Nov.

So off I zooted to the Everyman cinema, fully expecting an audience of the great and good from Hampstead's energy royalty (David Strahan lives close by, as does Dr David Flemming, and the irascible Meyer Hillman - and given the size of some of the homes up on the hill, no doubt a whole clutch of oil magnates). Instead, it was a random audience made up of what seemed to be general passers by (that's how Jeremy happened to be invited - he was just walking along South Bank the previous evening). They were, we were promised, looking forward to a challenging debate in the Q &A session afterwards. Hmmm. If that was the case, where were the experts? This audience was largely comprised of concerned individuals picked randomly off the street.

Not wanting to spoil a good story, nevertheless let me tell you about my experience.
The first three quarters of the film has some stonking good footage of Baku oil fields and of a woman at her dressing table with all manner of things flying through the air (including her clothes!) to demonstrate what items are reliant on oil for their production. This and more is cut with various weighty talking heads from Colin Cambell to Matt Savinar (who seems to be in the process of future proofing himself with stacks of purified canned food boxed up behind him) to a range of retired oil experts, geologists, scientists and even some footage of Hubbert, the original whistleblower in the oil industry who predicted 50 years ago that oil would peak about now. The story of oil and our reliance on it is told - and told effectively.

But - it's a big but - the film then moves onto possible solutions, and wham! it seems to literally run out of energy. A slow trot through the (valid) problems with hydrogen, biomass, nuclear. Weirdly no mention of coal, and a petering out with a passing reference to solar. All a rather bleak picture which left most of the audience depressed and feeling rather hopeless.

So this was strange - a film made by a journalist who had clearly done his homework (after all that's what you do, isn't it, when you go off and make a film?) - to a certain extent, then stopped short of examining what possible solutions there out there. Well, if you have been following my blog, you know that one of my passions is Concentrating Solar Power, which to me seems to provide a huge solution. This wasn't touched on at all and I wanted to know why.

Before I even did so, it came up, and to my surprise a stock answer was given that I have often heard given before - one that often comes from oil men and nuclear supporters: that solar is the key, it's just too expensive and will take forty years of research and development. This is strange, simply because it is not correct.

Firstly, I pointed out, the technology is out there. It is mature, tried and tested technology that has been around for 30 years. Commercial-scale plants have been operating in California since the mid 1980s and are still supplying electricity to about 100,000 homes. (In fact, versions of CSP have been tried since the late 19th century, not counting Achimedes' attempts to set the Roman navy ablaze). There are also sites here in Europe (in Spain) and plants are due to be rolled out in various sunbelt countries. Electricity can be transmitted economically for three thousand kilometres or more via a Supergrid of HVDC of lines (on pylons or laid underground or under the sea). With this technology, transmission losses are no more than about 3% per 1000 km. Cost wise it is already looking to be cost-effective against the soaring oil prices (which as I write have now hit $96 per barrel - they say it will reach $100 by end of next year, but it looks set to be far sooner than that). It has been estimated that only 113 km x 113 km of desert covered in mirrors would supply all the electricity needs for the whole of Europe - that is, in desert terms, a tiny fraction of available space (and available sun). You can find out more at concentratingsolarpower.info and on the TREC-UK website.

"Well, hey what do I know, I'm just a journalist" was the response I got. Someone made the point that if such momentous a message is to be told they have a duty to give a happy ending. Maybe a happy ending is asking too much, but he had a point. At the very least a responsible examination of possible solutions would have been welcome.

Well, if they aren't prepared to do something about it I am. I leave for Seville today and the reason I am going there is to attend a conference on CSP. I want to know just how viable CSP is, just how big it can go and how soon. We need big solutions as well as small, and CSP could be just that. Watch this space - I will be reporting back live from the conference.

A Crude Awakening

TREC-UK

concentratingsolarpower.info

[photo credits of Baku oil fields: State Archives of Azerbaijan Republic, Stanley Greene, Sezin Aytuna, Mark Lewandowski]

Concentrating Solar Power

Latest short (3 mins) video on Concentrating Solar Power - the remarkable global solution to our energy needs.

Energy Revolution Report: How to cut Global Energy CO2 Emissions by 2050

Just how on earth is this planet going to substantially reduce it’s carbon emissions? For sure, it will require radical solutions to be implemented, and a groundbreaking study released this week provides the very roadmap we so desperately need. The report is the first comprehensive analysis of how the global energy system can be restructured based on a detailed assessment for the potential of proven renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and the utilisation of efficient, decentralised cogeneration. Such a route would deliver nearly 70% of global electricity supply and 65% of global heat supply by 2050.

The report, ‘Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook', was developed in conjunction with specialists from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world. Commissioned by the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and Greenpeace International, it demonstrates how we can halve global CO2 emissions by 2050, whilst allowing for increased energy consumption and economic growth. It concludes that renewable energies must represent the backbone of the world’s economy – and that includes developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.

Structural change is at the core of the report. Decentralised technologies and energy systems connected to local distribution networks and large scale renewable energy supplies, such as large offshore wind farms and Concentrating Solar Power plants will be key components. This will achieve higher fuel efficiencies and reduce distribution losses.

In stark contrast, following a "business as usual" scenario would see demand for energy double by 2050, the authors warn.













The report also highlights the short time window for making the key decisions in energy infrastructure. Within the next few years governments, investment institutions and utility companies have to act. Within the next decade, many of the existing power plants in the OECD countries will come to the end of their technical lifetime and will need to be replaced, whilst developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are rapidly building up new energy infrastructure to service their growing economies.

This is a rallying call for governments to phase-out subsidies for fossil and nuclear fuels by 2010 and introduce the `polluter-pays principle`. The market as it currently exists is distorted by the fact that it is still virtually free for fossil and nuclear fuel industry to pollute. Current conventional energy subsidies (to the tune of $250-300 billion worldwide) artificially reduce the price of power, keep renewable energy out of the market place and prop up non-competitive technologies and fuels. Thus, at present new renewable energy generators have to compete with old nuclear and fossil fuelled power stations which produce electricity at marginal costs.

Without political support renewable energy remains at a disadvantage, marginalised by the distortions in the world’s electricity markets created by decades of massive financial, political and structural support to conventional technologies. Developing renewables will therefore require strong political and economic efforts, especially through laws that guarantee stable ‘feed-in’ tariffs over a period of up to 20 years.

Energy Revolution presents demands that are needed in the energy sector to encourage a shift to renewable sources. The main ones are:
• Phase out all subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy and internalise external costs of damage to health and the environment
• Establish legally binding targets for implementation of renewable energy
• Provide defined and stable returns for investors
• Guarantee priority access to the grid for renewable power generators
• Implement strict efficiency standards for all energy consuming appliances, buildings and vehicles

This a report with far reaching aims which, it is hoped, will result in far reaching consequences – consequences that would contribute to sustainable economic growth, high quality jobs, technology development, global competitiveness and industrial and research leadership. And of course, a whopping 50% reduction in carbon emissions. All we need do now is start working out how to tackle the remaining 30%

Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook