Climate technology change - part 2

Will technical innovation be enough?

Photo by Jason Blackeye on Unsplash

Last week I introduced the thoughts of four journalists from The Economist and their live discussion about climate change and the role of technology. One of the key questions explored was how to bridge our dependence on fossil fuels, recently brought into stark reality with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and cleaning up our carbon-free act while doing so.

The conclusion for the oil industry was to innovate and implement thoughtfully, with a mindset switch away from 40 year infrastructure projects to maximise revenues and profits. Carbon needs to be captured and stored while we wean ourselves away from natural gas. Examples of this happening already were given in Aberdeen, giving rise to some hope that a trend might be starting.

The human contribution was limited to buying an electric vehicle and replacing the next boiler with a heat pump. They didn’t tackle the thornier non-technical issues of personal choice, such as flying less, easy on the beef, buy local and vote for a government with at least one eye on a zero carbon future and a plan of how to get there.

Given that the US is historically responsible for a quarter of all the carbon in the atmosphere, this week we explore what their take on a greener future looks like? Judging by the US Supreme Court’s decision to side with Republican-led states to limit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how greenhouse gases are regulated from the energy sector, it’s business as usual.

Finally, what about that missing piece of the jigsaw. For renewables to really win the day we need longterm energy storage, not the current 4-6 hours provided by lithium ion batteries.

The good old US of A

The ruling recently was unusual because it was based on the Clean Power Plan, an Obama strategy to cut coal-fired power plant emissions which never came into effect. Utility companies have already been meeting their goals without any specific regulation in place. The importance of the ruling, centres less on any investment plans the utility companies may have and more on the government’s ability to accelerate investment through regulation. This explains why to date, there has been no real congressional action to speed through any big climate legislation.

Even though there has been a surge in clean energy technology over the last 7 years with utilities and car manufacturers especially, not just Tesla, but GM and Ford as well, it is nowhere near at the pace needed to stay within the Paris Climate change agreement guidelines.

The spend in 2021 was estimated to be $755 billion, a record year, but still about a third of the total investment required. This is where the problem lies with the Supreme Court’s decision. If you can’t rely on private innovation on its own to deliver, how do you ramp up further when regulation has effectively been removed as a viable tool?

What about nuclear?

Nuclear power provides a firm base load for the national grid. Once generating electricity, there is a calm, consistent supply, unlike wind which bobs up and down dependent on conditions. Nuclear plant failing, like Chernobyl and Fukushima has had governments searching for alternative sources of energy, ignoring a lot of the positives. Aside from constant supply, plants are highly regulated and all the nuclear waste ever produced would fit onto one football pitch, 6 feet deep. The tailings (ash) from coal fired power stations, causes a far bigger problem and is likely to be as radioactive.

Despite being safer than fossil fuel power generation, the west has also lost the ability to build nuclear plants, which means building one now, is a slow, expensive process. A good example is the Finnish nuclear power plant started in 2005. It still isn’t producing electricity.

The missing piece of the puzzle

Decarbonisation of the grid is essential. Now that wind and solar is cheaper than fossil fuels in many parts of the world, this would appear to be a very real possibility. Denmark has run its entire power grid on wind alone before and on 3rd April, 97% of California’s power came from wind and solar.

But for renewables to totally succeed, they need long term energy storage, weeks and months, not just a few hours. Much higher capacity is also needed. It’s called long term energy storage (LDES), a term we’re likely to become familiar with in the future. It is LDES which allows the grid to shift from 60-70% renewables to 100%.

Storage systems are measured in the power they deliver - expressed as a multiple of watts, and the amount of energy they can store - watt-hours. A good example is pumped-storage hydropower, which I’ve talked about before.

When electricity is plentiful and cheap, water is pumped to the reservoir at the mountain top. When scarce, it’s run down to the bottom, spinning a turbine on route. The system is rated by the size of the turbine and the water level difference between top and bottom.

4 approaches to storage

Storage techniques can be divided into mechanical, electrochemical, thermal and chemical.

Mechanical is largely hydropower, but there are other options. Gas stored under pressure, or lifting big heavy blocks in the air with cranes as Energy Vault are testing in Switzerland.

Electrochemical batteries which use the voltage difference between metals and chemicals have been used for a long time. They don’t have to be contained like the batteries we expect. Flow batteries store chemicals in external tanks, pumped through the battery as it charges and discharges. Bigger tanks means more energy, hopeless for a laptop or car, perfect if the installation sits on the grid.

One example is made from iron and salt. Charging the salts converts them to iron deposits. On discharge, the iron dissolves and the stored chemical energy is converted to electricity.

Thermal includes heating up blocks of carbon to 2,000°C. The stored energy heats water or air in pipes and the glow from the blocks can be directed at photovoltaic cells to generate even more electricity.

How about using electricity to make a chemical which can later be used in a generator? The simplest solution is to use renewable energy to power an electrolyser that splits water into oxygen and hydrogen, which is then stored. The advantage is gas-storage sites can safely store hydrogen for a long time.

Many avenues are being explored by well financed start-ups, to try and ensure that renewable energy is feasible, 100% of the time.

What do you think?

When the journalists were asked to rate how optimistic they felt about the future, it wasn’t advances in technology which concerned them, it was governments not living up to their commitments. Evidence would suggest they’re right if the action of the politicians below was ever enforced.

Crazy but true

One of the tenets of modern American conservatism, is a gushing love for a free market, until of course, it doesn’t suit anymore?

A bunch of Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are hoping to introduce the Equitable Free Vehicle Fuelling Stations bill. If passed it will lead to the destruction of existing public EV charging stations, if local authorities refuse to provide free petrol and diesel pumps as well.

Yep - that oughta do it!