Pakistan's growing need for Energy: options of coal, gas & nuclear energy and renewables by Dr Maria Sultan, Director General, South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, Pakistan. Published on Dec 19, 2014
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2014
© 2014Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Solar Resource Fundamentals
 |
| Figure 1: Comparing finite and renewable planetary energy reserves (Terawatt-years). Total recoverable reserves are shown for the finite resources. Yearly potential is shown the environmental for the renewables (source: Perez & Perez, 2009a) |
We have, on this planet, vast renewable energy potential: First and foremost, the solar energy resource is very large (Perez et al., 2009a). Figure 1 compares the current annual energy consumption of the world to (1) the known planetary reserves of the finite fossil and nuclear resources, and (2) to the yearly potential of the renewable alternatives. The volume of each sphere represents the total amount of energy recoverable from the finite reserves and the annual potential of renewable sources.
While finite fossil and nuclear resources are very large, particularly coal, they are not infinite and would last at most a few generations. More
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Nuclear power may have saved 1.8 million lives otherwise lost to fossil fuels, may save up to 7 million more.
Nuclear power is often promoted as a low-carbon source that mitigates fossil fuel emissions and the resulting health damage and deaths caused by air pollution. But is it possible to provide estimates and actually quantify these effects?
A new paper from NASA’s Goddard Institute authored by Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen in the journal Environmental Science and Technology purports to do just that. Hansen is well known as one of the founders of modern global warming science. The authors come up with the striking figure of 1.8 million as the number of lives saved by replacing fossil fuel sources with nuclear. They also estimate the saving of up to 7 million lives in the next four decades, along with substantial reductions in carbon emissions, were nuclear power to replace fossil fuel usage on a large scale. In addition the study finds that the proposed expansion of natural gas would not be as effective in saving lives and preventing carbon emissions. In general the paper provides optimistic reasons for the responsible and widespread use of nuclear technologies in the near future. It also drives home the point that nuclear energy has prevented many more deaths than what it has caused.
Let’s start with the abstract:
“In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, on balance it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by midcentury, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.”
The authors look at deaths caused by various power sources during the period 1971-2009. To provide a comparison they build a model in which all the power which was provided by nuclear energy was hypothetically replaced by fossil fuel sources. They employ the same technique for the projected 2010-2050 period, assuming that all current nuclear power sources have been replaced by fossil fuels. Two scenarios are considered – one in which nuclear is replaced by coal and another in which it is replaced by gas. This takes into account the uncertainty regarding the nature of fossil fuel usage that’s inherent in future energy projections.
It’s worth noting that the authors consider only deaths and exclude from the model serious health crises such as heart failure, bronchitis and other respiratory problems; including these problems would further weaken the case for fossil fuels. The study also excludes aspects of nuclear power that cannot be easily quantified, such as deaths from nuclear proliferation.
The results are quite clear. In the 2000-2009 period alone nuclear power may have prevented an average of 76,000 deaths. This is an average and the range is quite large, but even the lower limit runs into the tens of thousands. For countries like Germany which have cut back on nuclear, the range of deaths is naturally higher. This is a result that Japan’s current leaders should take to heart.
What is even more starkly clear is that the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is far lower than those saved by it; in fact there’s scant comparison. As the report notes, even the worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) caused about 40 deaths; these include 28 immediate responders and about 15 deaths caused among 6000 victims of excess cancers (it’s always very difficult to detect statistically significant excess cancers in the presence of a high natural background rate). There have been no deaths attributable to the Three Mile Island accident. And while the verdict on Fukushima is still not definitive, the latest report on the accident predicts no direct deaths and a much lower exposure to radiation for the surrounding population than that purported to lead to fatal cancers. The bottom line is that, even assuming pessimistic scenarios, the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is a minuscule fraction of those lives which were saved by nuclear power replacing fossil fuels.
Nuclear-free projections for the next four decades look even more dire. The authors estimate between 4 and 7 million deaths for the “All-Coal” scenario and between 420, 000 – 680, 000 deaths for an “All-Gas” energy policy. This is something which countries like Germany and Japan that are planning to phase out nuclear must seriously consider. Only if all the nuclear power were replaced by equipotent renewable energy sources in the next four decades would these deaths be prevented. This kind of high-capacity deployment of renewables seems quite uncertain for now. More
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Great Transition, Part I: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy
The great energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy is under way. As fossil fuel prices rise, as oil insecurity deepens, and as concerns about pollution and climate instability cast a shadow over the future of coal, a new world energy economy is emerging.
The old energy economy, fueled by oil, coal, and natural gas, is being replaced with an economy powered by wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The Earth’s renewable energy resources are vast and available to be tapped through visionary initiatives. Our civilization needs to embrace renewable energy on a scale and at a pace we’ve never seen before.
We inherited our current fossil fuel based world energy economy from another era. The 19th century was the century of coal, and oil took the lead during the 20th century. Today, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the principal climate-altering greenhouse gas—come largely from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal, mainly used for electricity generation, accounts for 44 percent of global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Oil, used primarily for transportation, accounts for 36 percent. Natural gas, used for electricity and heating, accounts for the remaining 20 percent. It is time to design a carbon- and pollution-free energy economy for the 21st century.
Some trends are already moving in the right direction. The burning of coal, for example, is declining in many countries. In the United States, the number two coal consumer after China, coal use dropped 14 percent from 2007 to 2011 as dozens of coal plants were closed. This trend is expected to continue, due in part to widespread opposition to coal now being organized by the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.
Oil is used to produce just 5 percent of the world’s electricity generation and is becoming ever more costly. Because oil is used mainly for transport, we can phase it out by electrifying the transport system. Plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars can run largely on clean electricity. Wind-generated electricity to operate cars could cost the equivalent of 80-cent-per gallon gasoline.
As oil reserves are being depleted, the world has been turning its attention to plant-based energy sources. Their potential use is limited, though, because plants typically convert less than 1 percent of solar energy into biomass.
Crops can be used to produce automotive fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Investments in U.S. corn-based ethanol distilleries became hugely profitable when oil prices jumped above $60 a barrel following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The investment frenzy that followed was also fueled by government mandates and subsidies. In 2011, the world produced 23 billion gallons of fuel ethanol and nearly 6 billion gallons of biodiesel.
But the more research that’s done on liquid biofuels, the less attractive they become. Every acre planted in corn for ethanol means pressure for another acre to be cleared elsewhere for crop production. Clearing land in the tropics for biofuel crops can increase greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. Energy crops cannot compete with land-efficient wind power. More
We inherited our current fossil fuel based world energy economy from another era. The 19th century was the century of coal, and oil took the lead during the 20th century. Today, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the principal climate-altering greenhouse gas—come largely from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal, mainly used for electricity generation, accounts for 44 percent of global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Oil, used primarily for transportation, accounts for 36 percent. Natural gas, used for electricity and heating, accounts for the remaining 20 percent. It is time to design a carbon- and pollution-free energy economy for the 21st century.
Some trends are already moving in the right direction. The burning of coal, for example, is declining in many countries. In the United States, the number two coal consumer after China, coal use dropped 14 percent from 2007 to 2011 as dozens of coal plants were closed. This trend is expected to continue, due in part to widespread opposition to coal now being organized by the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.
Oil is used to produce just 5 percent of the world’s electricity generation and is becoming ever more costly. Because oil is used mainly for transport, we can phase it out by electrifying the transport system. Plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars can run largely on clean electricity. Wind-generated electricity to operate cars could cost the equivalent of 80-cent-per gallon gasoline.
As oil reserves are being depleted, the world has been turning its attention to plant-based energy sources. Their potential use is limited, though, because plants typically convert less than 1 percent of solar energy into biomass.
Crops can be used to produce automotive fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Investments in U.S. corn-based ethanol distilleries became hugely profitable when oil prices jumped above $60 a barrel following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The investment frenzy that followed was also fueled by government mandates and subsidies. In 2011, the world produced 23 billion gallons of fuel ethanol and nearly 6 billion gallons of biodiesel.
But the more research that’s done on liquid biofuels, the less attractive they become. Every acre planted in corn for ethanol means pressure for another acre to be cleared elsewhere for crop production. Clearing land in the tropics for biofuel crops can increase greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. Energy crops cannot compete with land-efficient wind power. More
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Asia Risks Water Scarcity Amid Coal-Fired Power Embrace
Inner Mongolia’s rivers are feeding China’s coal industry, turning grasslands into desert. In India, thousands of farmers have protested diverting water to coal- fired power plants, some committing suicide.
The struggle to control the world’s water is intensifying around energy supply. China and India alone plan to build $720 billion of coal-burning plants in two decades, more than twice today’s total power capacity in the U.S., International Energy Agency data show. Water will be boiled away in the new steam turbines to make electricity and flush coal residue at utilities from China Shenhua Energy Co. (1088) to India’s Tata Power Co. (TPWR) that are favoring coal over nuclear because it’s cheaper.
With China set to vaporize water equal to what flows over Niagara Falls each year, and India’s industrial water demand growing at twice the pace of agricultural or municipal use,Asia’s most populous nations will have to reconsider energy projects to avoid conflict between cities, farmers and industry.
“You’re going to have a huge issue with the competition between water, energy and food,” said Vineet Mittal, managing director of Welspun Energy Ltd., the utility unit of Leon Black’s Apollo Global Management LLC-backedWelspun Group. “Water is something everyone should be probing every chief executive about,” he said in an interview.
Investors have driven up the 49-member S&P Global Water Index (SPGTAQD) about 96 percent from its low point after the 2008 financial crisis. That beat the 88 percent gain in the period by the 1,625-stock the MSCI World Index, a global benchmark, and trailed the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s 101 percent increase. More
With China set to vaporize water equal to what flows over Niagara Falls each year, and India’s industrial water demand growing at twice the pace of agricultural or municipal use,Asia’s most populous nations will have to reconsider energy projects to avoid conflict between cities, farmers and industry.
“You’re going to have a huge issue with the competition between water, energy and food,” said Vineet Mittal, managing director of Welspun Energy Ltd., the utility unit of Leon Black’s Apollo Global Management LLC-backedWelspun Group. “Water is something everyone should be probing every chief executive about,” he said in an interview.
Investors have driven up the 49-member S&P Global Water Index (SPGTAQD) about 96 percent from its low point after the 2008 financial crisis. That beat the 88 percent gain in the period by the 1,625-stock the MSCI World Index, a global benchmark, and trailed the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s 101 percent increase. More
Saturday, July 7, 2012
National Energy Conference 2012
A Two Day National Conference titled “Applications of Nuclear Science and Technology in Pakistan” Organized by South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI) to be held from 12th-13th July 2012 (Tentative) at Islamabad Serena Hotel.
Concept:
Economic growth and industrialization in a globalized world today is inextricably linked to the continuous availability, access, diversity and modernization of energy resources. Ensuring a secure and safe supply of energy, both from domestic and foreign sources, constitutes a core foreign policy pillar of both emerging and established global powers today.
Energy security establishes a frame work which links the issues regarding energy supplies with foreign and national security policy. This link is all the more relevant and provides the requisite flexibility for a state to manage both the crisis and opportunities in this regard. Placing the formulation of energy policy in security domain comes with the benefit of establishing linkage between economic development and national survival.
Pakistanis facing an acute crisis of energy and consequently adverse economic situation. The energy crisis is effecting cross spectrum dimensions of society and economy. The crisis have resulted in a number of substantive protests, some of them being violent, in the back drop of power shortages, limited availability of transport fuel such as compressed natural gas and petrol and price hikes.
The industrial sector is also struggling to meet its production demands and improving the consumer output required to sustain a minimum level of sustainability. Energy crisis has slowed the industrial output and resultantly the already limited manufacturing base. Moreover, the energy crunch has also put restraint on Pakistan’s economy to compete globally in an era of increasing globalization.
In an environment of bleak global economic outlook in the after math of prevailing financial crisis, the problem is compounded given the lack of competitiveness. The much touted Pakistani narrative of “market access” is exhausted by the fact that the energy crunch has limited Pakistan’s capacity to compete with emerging and established economies. So market access will not bring desired output unless the domestic economic front is strengthened in Pakistan.
There also exists an international dimension to Pakistan’s energy crunch.Pakistanis subjected to international diplomatic and political pressure, by the select few, over its efforts of diversification of its energy imports. The case in point isIran–Pakistangas pipeline (IP). International sanctions on Iran and subsequent diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to be a process of Iranian containment have exacerbated the energy crisis and increased the uncertainty of its economic future. More
Economic growth and industrialization in a globalized world today is inextricably linked to the continuous availability, access, diversity and modernization of energy resources. Ensuring a secure and safe supply of energy, both from domestic and foreign sources, constitutes a core foreign policy pillar of both emerging and established global powers today.
Energy security establishes a frame work which links the issues regarding energy supplies with foreign and national security policy. This link is all the more relevant and provides the requisite flexibility for a state to manage both the crisis and opportunities in this regard. Placing the formulation of energy policy in security domain comes with the benefit of establishing linkage between economic development and national survival.
Pakistanis facing an acute crisis of energy and consequently adverse economic situation. The energy crisis is effecting cross spectrum dimensions of society and economy. The crisis have resulted in a number of substantive protests, some of them being violent, in the back drop of power shortages, limited availability of transport fuel such as compressed natural gas and petrol and price hikes.
The industrial sector is also struggling to meet its production demands and improving the consumer output required to sustain a minimum level of sustainability. Energy crisis has slowed the industrial output and resultantly the already limited manufacturing base. Moreover, the energy crunch has also put restraint on Pakistan’s economy to compete globally in an era of increasing globalization.
In an environment of bleak global economic outlook in the after math of prevailing financial crisis, the problem is compounded given the lack of competitiveness. The much touted Pakistani narrative of “market access” is exhausted by the fact that the energy crunch has limited Pakistan’s capacity to compete with emerging and established economies. So market access will not bring desired output unless the domestic economic front is strengthened in Pakistan.
There also exists an international dimension to Pakistan’s energy crunch.Pakistanis subjected to international diplomatic and political pressure, by the select few, over its efforts of diversification of its energy imports. The case in point isIran–Pakistangas pipeline (IP). International sanctions on Iran and subsequent diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to be a process of Iranian containment have exacerbated the energy crisis and increased the uncertainty of its economic future. More
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)