Greening Industry

The UK government's new Industrial Strategy is fine as far as it goes, but it lacks detail: its mainly about abstract higher level policy, within the framework set by its new Clean Growth Strategy. It says ‘We are investing £162m in innovation for low carbon industry, and developing a new strategy for the bio-economy. We will work with industry to stimulate further market investment in clean and efficient technologies and process, including through all manufacturing Sector Deals, and through developing a new scheme to support investment
in industrial energy efficiency’.
 http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662541/industrial-strategy-white-paper-print-version.pdf

What we now need is to out some industrial flesh on this broad outline- and not just in terms of products like wind turbines and electric vehicles, but also manufacturing processes. Renewable sources can be used to power product manufacture, but there are also some options, perhaps surprisingly, in the primary material sector e.g. steel production. Though that’s very energy intensive, so maybe it isn’t so surprising, if they can cut cost by greening up. For example, the GFG Alliance has a ‘Greensteel strategy’ which aims to cut the amount of raw steel imported to the UK by dramatically increasing the amount of scrap steel which is recycled and use renewables for its processing. It aims to use electric arc furnaces part-powered by renewable energy to melt scrap steel so it can be reused, a process which is more environmentally friendly than primary steel-making in a blast furnace powered by coal. ‘Greensteel, made using renewable energy, has only one tenth of the carbon footprint of blast furnace production’: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/27/gfg-alliance-reveals-strategy-increase-uk-steel-production-5m/

There are many more similarly welcome plans. A forge in Sheffield aims to use biogas, supplied from an anaerobic digester fed with food and other waste from a nearby waste recycling centre: http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/biomass/sheffield-forge-could-be-the-first-in-20171117 And up to 54 wind turbines are to be installed at the UK’s last aluminium smelter in Scotland. The Lochaber Smelter near Fort William is to get power from a wind farm at nearby Glenshero, which may also supply Liberty’s Dalzell steel mill in Motherwell. That could make some of the steel for the turbines: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wind-turbines-scotland-smelter-steel-plants-mills-highlands-gfc-alliance-motherwell-a7932946.html

Less dramatically, there are big savings possible from a range of process efficiency upgrades, although a recent study of 30 UK companies found that, in their investment appraisals of energy efficiency measures, they tended to be risk averse: they focused on short-term economic benefits and incremental changes that wouldn’t interfere with production.

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investing-in-energy-efficiency-investigating-the-total-costs-to-business

You can see why companies setting up new plants on green field sites have the advantage- they can adopt the latest manufacturing technology wholesale, rather than adapt the existing plant incrementally. That’s one reason why China has done quite well in recent years. But the old has to give way to the new everywhere. Though, in many sectors, that can be relatively easily done by just investing in green power supply, as in the primary materials production examples above. Although the level of innovation can get quite radical: an Australian steel works is to have 1GW of renewable power supply, including 680MW of PV, with 100MW of batteries, 100MW of demand response and 120MW of pumped hydro storage:

http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/australian-steelworks-aims-to-unite-renewable-energy-with-heavy-industry

In the UK, some while back, Ford installed Ecotricity-supplied wind turbines at the its engine plant in Dagenham in East London. Avon Docks in Bristol did the same. And PV roof arrays are widely deployed on many industrial warehouses and parts centres around the world- they have the roof space. And retail companies are following suit: greening their energy use. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/energy-efficiency/renewable-energy-sources-for-businesses/

A parallel set of development options exist in the chemical sector. As renewable electricity gets cheaper, it will be possible to use it to produce ‘green’ hydrogen, by the electrolysis of water, then perhaps converting that, along with biomass and/or captured carbon dioxide, into a range of syn-fuels like methanol and other useful products. A whole new bio-chemical industry could emerge, with ‘carbon capture and utilization’ being one new buzz phrase . There are also interesting ideas for using cheap surplus wind-derived electricity to make ammonia (NH3) via the Birkeland-Eyde process, using green hydrogen and air-captured nitrogen as feed stocks. Unlike the more familiar Haber-Bosch process used widely for fertiliser production, this would not produce carbon dioxide. Neither does burning ammonia, when it is used as a fuel: http://www.sonnenseite.com/en/future/fertilizing-with-wind.html

So, in addition to offering ways to avoid fossil fuel use in industrial product manufacturing,  there are a range of new options for using renewables to make basic materials- the chemicals and metals that underpin much of the rest of industry- and life.

Some greens will say wait a minute- even if we can produce it with less impact, do we really want a lot more of all this stuff? Well wind turbines need steel. So do tidal projects. And railways. You can overdo selling this idea, but we can’t avoid the need for some metals:  https://theconversation.com/nine-ways-steel-could-build-a-greener-economy-57506

And probably also for green fuels and almost certainly for chemicals, for a wide range of uses. What we actually do with all this then is another matter. We can make it into war planes and bombs, or lots of frivolous junk we don’t need.  Or we can make it into socially useful and needed things. Including green energy systems.

That does mean there still has to be some primary extractive industry- to supply the feedstock, e.g. metal ores and minerals. And that will need careful attention. We will need to recycle key rare materials. We may also have to find substitutes for stuff that really is hard to extract without causing eco-damage e.g. using carbon fiber composites and graphene from bio-sources.  But what we won’t need anymore is coal mines, oil wells, or shale gas fracking sites- arguably the worst eco-damagers. Instead, we can use renewables, which, in time, can supply all we need in terms of energy, with energy return on energy invested ratios improving all the time. So the demand for energy to make these new and better energy convertors should reduce.   

Even so, there will still be environmental constraints to our industrial activities- despite recycling and substitution, some key materials may be scarce, and there will be land use conflicts, fresh water scarcity issues and so on. There are limits to growth. So we still need to think about sustainable consumption - not something mentioned in the UK governments strategy- which is all about endless growth. That can’t be done on a finite planet!  

A proper green industrial strategy would of course work backwards from what resources we  have, and how much we can safely use them, relating that to what we need and how then we might go about meeting needs. A way to go on that..with all sorts of difficulties. Not least that we don’t all want the same things…. But we do all want a planet that we can still live on!

Greening industry is part of that… Though there is plenty of room for debate over options and outputs, ends and means: http://www.postcarbon.org/are-we-doomed-lets-have-a-conversation/

Energy, Aid and Africa

Fossil fuels still account for around 80% of the energy used globally. With concerns about climate climate and air pollution rising, change is underway, but it will be particularly hard in some developing countries. For example, around 90% of South Africa’s electricity comes from coal burning plants and oil and gas exports are the main sources of income for several African countries. At the same time, many people in Africa and other developing areas are still off-grid. Aid programmes have sought to extend energy access, but spreading renewables is an uphill struggle- many of these areas have many other problems, including widespread poverty.

My new Palgrave Pivot book, with Terry Cook, ‘Renewable energy: from Europe to Africa’, is based in part on extensive survey work Terry carried out under contracts with European Commission funded development aid programmes in Africa, aiming to spread the use of renewable energy. It looks at the successes, but also at some of the weaknesses of these and other current aid programmes. They are often well funded, but not everyone is convinced they are well run or even needed.
http://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9783319747866 

The book makes clear that, given the huge economic and social problems that exist in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, aid is definitely needed and can be very valuable. But its form may need to change.  For example, as the book notes, it is often hard to reconcile the obvious poverty and needs of parts of the population, in Africa especially, with extensive resources made available to those involved with the aid programmes and agencies: they are usually very well paid, and many live something of a jet set lifestyle.  They may work hard and with commitment, but it would be good to see local people playing more of a role: most of the Agencies are relentlessly western in recruitment terms.   The development and use of local technical expertise is vital.

However, it is not just a matter of who gets the remuneration: the emphasis of the work may need to be reconsidered, with, rather than high level policy frameworks, more of a focus on practical technology action and support.  The structure of many of the aid programmes can make this hard- they are usually focused on meeting agency staff support costs, not on direct project investment. Even so it is possible to support local technical skill development.

In terms of technology focus, as the book shows, local off-grid and mini grid systems are vital in Africa, but so are wider grid links.  There are wider plans for supergrids, but, although the World Bank/IMF and other global funds might help at some point, so far it seems to be mainly China, now quite heavily involved in investing in energy projects in Africa, that is supporting new grid links, in order to ensure that its generation projects can find paying consumers. It will be embarrassing if China’s essentially commercial strategies and pragmatic ‘no strings’ approaches turn out to be more effective in delivering sustainable power than the finely nuanced sociotechnical policy prescriptions emerging from the Western aid agencies and programmes. Equally though it will be devastating if projects go ahead that are poorly thought out in social and environmental terms.  Local involvement in selection, planning and deployment is clearly needed and, once again, that requires the development of local technical expertise. 

Current development policies do usually emphasise ‘capacity building’ in terms of technical and business skills, and clearly that is that something that will be vital if local enterprise is to thrive. However, the current emphasis on private sector led projects, and the drive towards privatization, may diminish a valuable existing source of technical capacity, the state owned utilities. They are not all hopelessly unwieldy and backward looking, and represent a significant technical resource, in Africa especially. Along with the national governments and civil society groups, they may also offer a locally based bulwark against commercial ‘short-termist’ pressure from profit-seeking foreign companies, and hold out for ‘local content’ in projects. That seems especially needed in the African context, but most developing countries need to find a way to resist exploitation by rich and powerful overseas interests, often backed, unwittingly or otherwise, by large aid agencies and/or their contracted-out consultants. 

Getting access to capital will always be an issue for poor developing countries, especially for large infrastructure projects, as attempts are made to expand and integrate the use of renewables. Trade may well replace aid to some extent, as proposed by Germany in its ‘Marshal Plan for Africa’, which aims to help create new markets and local enterprise: see my recent Renew Your Energy post: http://blog.environmentalresearchweb.org/2018/03/31/development-aid-and-renewables-from-aid-to-trade/

Although there may be issues with that, it may help with smaller local projects. However, it may not yield sufficient capital for major grid-link/infrastructure projects for some while. To get the large scale funding needed for that will still involve and require major investment from overseas. So some big questions remain: what sort of trade, what sort of investment, how much residual aid, and who will benefit most from it and from trade.

So what is the overall prognosis? As the book explores, there are various agendas.  Climate change is only one, and it is not always seen as central in many African countries: they have more urgent economic and health problems, as well as rapid population growth and rising demand for energy. To deal with all this they want economic growth, even it means using fossil fuel, although the renewable options are beginning to look increasingly attractive as a way to create growth.  Meanwhile, the EU is increasingly looking to aid and trade as way to create and sustain employment in Africa, so as to reduce immigration. In the energy context, renewables are usually seen as the best bet in that regard. 

So there may be an agenda confluence, although also some potential for conflict, not least given sometimes strong residual, and in some cases expanding, commitments to fossil fuel and interest in some quarters in nuclear power.  The latter may not be too significant given its high cost, but for those countries in Africa heavily reliant on fossil fuel use and export, significant diversification may not yet be high on the agenda. However, that may change, given the shifts in global fossil fuel markets, and, given the falling cost of renewables, their use may expand to meet rising energy demand in Africa.

There are clearly many uncertainties, but renewables are spreading in most of Africa, and, hopefully, by exploring what has happened so far in some key areas, and the options available for the future, this book will help to move the debate on as attempts are made to spread the use of renewables globally.  The potential is certainly there. For example, IRENA says Africa could get 50% of its electricity from renewables by 2030, and the new scenarios from the German Energy Watch Group and Finland’s LUT include one for Africa with over 92% of its electricity coming from renewable by 2050: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320758165_Global_100_RE_System_Sub-Saharan_Africa

*Interesting, although President Trump has called for major cuts to USAID, he has decided to continue with Obama’s $7bn Power Africa programme, evidently since it mostly involves US private sector investment. But he may also be worried about China’s increasing role: http://sweetcrudereports.com/2017/09/20/donald-trump-set-to-continue-obamas-power-africa-program-official/  For a very different take on development options in Africa see: http://aidc.org.za/download/climate-change/OMCJ-booklet-AIDC-electronic-version.pdf

Nuclear fusion

Fusion seem like the ultimate technical fix for energy, supplying vast amounts of energy from fusing isotopes of hydrogen at very high temperatures -100 million degrees or so.  That’s what happens in the sun, but on earth, artificial fusion always seems to be decades away. And that may still be the case even if the current high-cost test programmes work. Here is a good simple up-tempo introduction: https://www.facebook.com/ScienceNaturePage/videos/1255401644592091/

Oddly it doesn’t mention ITER- the largest project, a giant Tokomak with magnetic firing and containment of the hot plasma. Construction is underway in France, but it won’t be ready until the late 2020s. It is claimed that 10 times more energy will be produced than consumed - it’s rated at 500MW. However, that will only be for 1-hour maximum runs: its not designed to be power plant, just to do better than the previous smaller JET test rig at Culham in the UK, which managed 16MW in 30-40 second bursts. Moreover, there is some doubt as to the claim of ‘10 times more out than in’ for the complete ITER system: it may not even reach 1.6 times: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2017/12/11/evidence-of-the-iter-power-deception/ And there are a host of other issues: https://thebulletin.org/iter-showcase-drawbacks-fusion-energy11512

Ten years on from the start of testing ITER with tritium fuel and maybe we might have some results and answers, and, if all goes well, proposals for another much larger, but still very pre-commercial, DEMO prototype, to be built maybe in the 2040s or even later: 2050 seem to be the current best guess: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40558758. It’s always possible there will be break throughs there or elsewhere- the USA’s laser-fired pellet compression ‘ignition’ system has its fans and the UK’s MAST spherical Tokomak and ST40 derivative may yet come up with something, and there are several others including in China and Russia- see below.  

However, we are probably not looking at anything that can help us with our urgent climate change, air pollution and energy security problems before the second half of the century at the earliest. And even if fusion ever works, and proves to be economic, there would still be radiation contamination and safety risks to deal with: http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016154.epdf  The neutron flux will irradiate the reactors internal equipment, materials and systems, which will affect operations and have to be regularly stripped out and stored somewhere for a century or so. So it’s not waste free. And there are accidental tritium escape risks…. as well as potential long-term shortages of lithium to make tritium- since we may well use a lot of it in Electric Vehicles and backup household/commercial Li Ion batteries. 

So fusion sounds like a long shot, with some risks. That’s not the impression you get from the gushy mainstream media coverage, e.g. the Independent ran an article with the headline ‘One giant leap for mankind: £13bn ITER project makes breakthrough in quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age of clean, unlimited energy’. That was in 2103 before work even started on it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-unlimited-energy-8590480.html   The Guardian, in 2016, when construction work had started, was a bit more measured: ‘After 60 years, is nuclear fusion finally poised to deliver’, but it was  still pretty gung ho: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60-years-is-nuclear-fusion-finally-poised-to-deliver The left has always had a soft spot for fusion, but right wing UK newspapers have of late also taken up the cause, with for example, the the Express fearing that, given China’s progress in the field, the UK could loose its Culham/JET lead: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/830474/Nuclear-fusion-China-Britain-clean-energy-Joint-European-Torus-Culham-Science-Centre

JET, the Joint European Torus, may survive as a test bed, even after the UK leaves the EU and Euratom, but UK national hopes rest with for the MAST project at Culham and derivatives like the ST40, said to be running by 2030: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/switch-flipped-on-uks-newest-tokamak-fusion-reactor/ and http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-the-made-in-chelsea-star-building-a-fusion-reactor There was also talk of the UK hosting the proposed EU ‘Hiper’ laser fired fusion project:  http://www.hiper-laser.org/ But that seems to have disappeared- and the UK is only one small player, with, in addition to the big international ITER programme, many other projects being underway around the world.

Some of them are evidently making progress e.g. in the USA, where an MIT Tokomak managed to sustain a plasma for a 2 second, although the project then ran out of money: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/17/reactor_breaks_fusion_record_then_shuts S.Korea has done better with a 70 second burn: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Korean-fusion-reactor-achieves-record-plasma-1412164.html  Germany also has a ‘stellarator’ system which some see as a better design than ITER: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/wibbly-wobbly-magnetic-fusion-stuff-the-return-of-the-stellarator/ It has reportedly managed to produce net power output: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/wendelstein-stellarator-begins-upgrades-after-fusion-success/  So has the big laser fusion system in the USA- at the Lawrence Livermore National Ignition Facility: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/56332  Some see its ‘inertial confinement’ approach, with tiny fuel pellets being compressed to fuse with multiple focused laser beams, as winning over Tokomak magnetic constriction plasma systems like ITER. We shall see, with Google even entering the field, offering advanced electronics: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/25/google-enters-race-for-nuclear-fusion-technology

Russia is also a significant player –it invented to Tokomak design. But China may yet beat them all: https://www.theworldweekly.com/reader/view/magazine/2016-02-11/nuclear-fusion-comes-two-steps-closer/6690

As can be seen it’s all still in flux, with many projects at various scales and stages of development, but as yet little idea if any of them will lead to economic, commercial scale plants. Although to try to improve the economic potential, some look to mini-fusion reactor designs: http://ioppublishing.org/news/small-scale-fusion-the-new-way-forward-according-to-new-scientific-paper/ and http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Compact-tokamaks-the-approach-to-bring-fusion-energy-within-reach-3105164.html In 2014, Lockheed even bravely said ‘Prototype in 5 years, defence products in 10, clean power for the world in 20 years’. www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

These ideas all seems long shots. But, in a even longer shot, some still hanker after cold fusion! http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/bubble-fusion-bubbles-up-again/ Meanwhile, as a shortcut, some look to fission-fusion hybrids: http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurefusion-fission-hybrids-nuclear-shortcut-or-pipe-dream-5893935/ And there could well be some cross-overs, with tritium fuel for fusion systems being produced in fission reactors, including old heavy water moderated plants: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15361055.2017.1290931 So while some see fusion plants as a replacement for fission plants, they may actually coexist..

The fusion field certainly attracts a wide range of views with some saying it could be done faster: http://euanmearns.com/imagining-fusion-power/ But for good or ill, this quote from the UK Atomic Energy Authority may put it all in perspective:  fusion ‘has the potential to supply 20% of the world’s electricity by the year 2100’. Renewables already supply more than that now globally, including hydro. We don’t need to wait for artificial fusion: renewables offer us a way to limit climate change now, using the fusion reactor we already have in the sky, supplying more energy to the earth than we could ever need. If artificial fusion ever does become viable, it might have a role in powering spacecraft or planetary bases far from the sun- to mine helium 3 or whatever, to run the fusion reactors! But maybe not on earth..

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/12/the-guardian-view-on-nuclear-fusion-a-moment-of-truth