Energy - The Future and The Environment

An Overview Energy Yesterday, Today, & Tomorrow
William K.G. Palmer - Jan 2010

Life without control of energy
• Control of energy is what permits civilization to flourish • Without control of energy, the environment rules • While this might sound like freedom … think again

Pago Pago Oct. 2007 A Little bit of Paradise?

But, without control of Energy, Paradise can be Misery Pago Pago, Sept ‘09 After Tsunami

In less temperate climates, our expectations are even higher

Few of us would be happy living out doors all year.

To progress, man needed to control energy flow
• We progressed from warming ourselves by the sun (good in summer daytime) • To warming
ourselves by a controlled fire

• It even permitted
cooking food

A significant development the chimney & fireplace
• Living with campfires outside had it’s own drawbacks, and building campfires inside homes filled the dwelling with smoke • The chimney and fireplace were a great step forward to having control of our environment

Doing Work - Up to Middle Ages
• Doing work mean “manual” labour, literally • Tools were simple hand tools • Only after time, did man domesticate animals to help with work, plowing or grinding

• Getting from “a” to “b” meant walking, or possibly travel by boat, poled, paddled or driven by the wind • Domesticated animals added to transportation ease, first ridden, then adding wheels to drag carriers made the trip a lot easier

Wind and water power
• The wind was harnessed to drive mills, to grind grain, and to pump water - if the wind blew • Waterwheels, derived from windmills, again used for milling • With storage control dams, they had the advantage of being more reliable than the wind

• Rounding out the quiver for the middle ages man, was the control of energy in explosives, derived from gunpowder which originated in China, made from charcoal, sulphur, and potassium nitrate

Status - Pre Industrial Rev
• Transportation by boat, animal, or foot • Work by hand, wind, or water • Controlled explosives in gunpowder • What more could be needed? • Mankind started to flourish.

James Watt starts the Industrial Revolution with his steam engine 1769

Population Growth - in Years Before Present

Population & Progress Influence Demand

8 Billion 7 Billion 6 Billion 5 Billion 4 Billion 3 Billion 2 Billion 1 Billion 900 Million 800 Million 700 Million 600 Million 500 Million 400 Million 300 Million 200 Million 100 Million

World Population Growth over Time
x x x x x x

x x x

Note Change in Population Scale

Note Change in Population Scale
x x


Note Change in Date Scale

x x x x

1769 Watt Steam Engine Ignitiates Industrial Revolution

1850 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1800 1900

1950 1960

1970 1980

1990 2000


Year AD

Developing vs Developed Population
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Year 1990 Developed Nations Year 2000 Year 2005 Developing Nations Population in Millions

EarthTrends ( Searchable Database

Country Population Growth Rate

Human population growth rate in percent per year, with the variables of births, deaths, immigration, and emigration, as listed on CIA factbook (2006 estimate). (Wikipedia Commons)

Developing vs Developed Energy Use
12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2005 Developed Countries Developing Countries
EarthTrends ( Searchable Database

Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent

What Injustice, you say?
• How can developing countries dare increase their energy demands by (for example) 68% (India) to 99% (China) from 1990 to 2005? • In the same period of time, Europe decreased their total energy consumption by 6% • Is not that the way we should be going?

Pause for a Reality Check
• Nearly 2.7 billion people are living on less than two dollars a day. • Most women in the developing world walk more than 5 kilometers everyday in search of water and firewood. • Every year, 6 million children, mostly under the age of 5, die from diseases that are completely preventable. • Worldwide, more than 114 million children do not get even a basic education.

And We Ask about Injustice?

Necessary Conversions
• 1 Million Tonnes of Oil = 11,628 kWh Or = 39.69 Million BTU • 1 Quadrillion BTU = 293 TWh Or = 25 Million Tonnes of Oil • We are going to convert most data to _Wh from this point on

Necessary Prefixes
• • • • • • • • • Quadrillion 1 x 10 15 Peta P Trillion 1 x 10 12 Terra T Billion 1 x 10 9 Giga G Million 1 x 10 6 MegaM Thousand 1 x 10 3 kilo k One 1 none Thousandth 1 x 10 -3 milli m Millionth 1 x 10 -6 micro µ Billionth 1 x 10 -9 nano n

World Energy Contributions2006
• • • • Petroleum 168.8 quads (quadrillion Btu) = 49.5 PWh Coal 128.5 quads = 37.7 PWh Natural Gas 107.2 quads = 31.4 PWh Net Renewables 37.1 quads = 10.8 PWh
– – – – – Hydraulic Biomass & Waste Wind (used 2008 data) Geothermal Solar, Tidal, Wave 29.7 quads = 8.7 PWh 5.0 quads = 1.5 PWh 1.9 quads = 0.6 PWh 0.5 quads = 0.1 PWh 0.01 quads = 0.0 PWh

• Net Nuclear

27.8 quads = 8.1 PWh

World Energy Contributions 2006
Renewable - Solar, Wave, Tide Renewable - Geothermal Renewable - Wind Renewable- Biomass Renewable - Hydraulic Nuclear Natural Gas Coal Petroleum 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0


Energy Per Person - Canada & China
MWh per Person Year for Each Component
90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
R es id en ti C al om m er ci al In d u st Tr ri an al sp o rt El at ec io tr n ic al Lo ss es

Canada MWh/p-yr China MWh/p-yr

How Energy Used - Canada & China
Percentage of Total Use by Each Component
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
C o m m e rc ia l In d u st ri T a ra l n sp o rt a ti E o le n ct ri ca l L o ss e s ti a l R e si d e n

Canada China

Consider Growth Again
Fuel %/yr 20062030 0.9% 1.7% 1.6% 1. 5%

Oil Coal Gas Nuclear

What Known Reserves Exist?
Fuel Known Reserve 1342 Billion barrels 930 Billion short tons Lasts x yrs Lasts y yrs @ @ current projected rate rate 44 138 60 50 (no additional recycling) 37 71 42 38 (no recycling) to 100’s (with recycling)

Petroleum Coal

Natural Gas 6254 Trillion cu ft Nuclear 3.3 Million Tons

Who Has Known Reserves?
Fuel Countries With Top 60% of Reserves Petroleum Saudi Arabia 19.9%, Canada 13.3%, Iran 10.1%, Iraq 8.6%, Kuwait 7.7%, Venezuela 7.4% Coal Natural Gas Nuclear USA 28.3%, Russia 18.6%, 13.6% Russia 26.9%, Iran 15.9%, 14.3%, Saudi Arabia 4.1% China Qatar

Australia 22%, Kazakhstan 11%, Canada 10%, USA 10%, South Africa 8%

160 140 120 Years Reserve 100 80 60 40 20 0

Years Reserve

With With recycling recycling ,, uranium uranium supplies supplies predicte predicte d to last d to last 100’s of 100’s of years years

930,423 Short Tons Coal

6254.364 Trillion 1342.207 Billion Cu ft Barrels Natural Gas Petroleum

3.3 Million Tonnes Uranium

Fuel Type and Current Reserve Years Reserve @Current Rate Years Reserve @ Projected Rate

A Little Quick Decision Analysis
• From information provided, can we justify the goal of replacing all coal generation with natural gas? (as Ontario is doing) • Today - coal supplies 36 GWH, Natural Gas 32 GWh (not considering increases) • Coal lasts 138 years, natural gas 60 years • As a test - if all coal is replaced by gas, how long will it last? • (32 GWh x 60 years) / (32 + 36 GWh) = ?

Greenhouse Effect

Indicators of Global Warming

Changes in Solar Radiation

Example of Opposing Factors
• Forests reflect less sunlight than crop land (albedo of ~15% for forest, ~25% for cropland) • So, cutting rainforest for crops means more sunshine is reflected into the atmosphere, so the planet warms less ... • It also means less CO2 is stored by the trees, so is available as a greenhouse gas to trap received sunlight, so the planet warms more …

No Opposition Here Though
• Converting from farmland to parking lot or highway, reduces the reflection of sunlight (albedo) from 20- 25% to maybe 5- 10% and warms the planet • Wasting scarce resources is unjustifiable • Any plan which sees burning all of our known fossil resources within 35 to 75 years (1 more human lifetime) gives heartburn

First Step to Correct the Situation
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted at United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992) – stabilize greenhouse levels in atmosphere influenced by human behavior to prevent climate change – Recognizes all counties have impact, but industrialized ones should take the lead – Developed nations (annex 1) should reduce emissions to 1990 levels (but set no deadline) – Set no targets for developing nations

Second Step
• Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC (Dec 1997)
– Regulates six greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4). nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – Developed countries to reduce aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012, but set individual targets for each country, some up, some down, some frozen – Set 5 requisites for Annex 1 countries to meet 2012 targets

The 5 Kyoto Protocol Requisites
1. Development of national policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 2. May take credit for greenhouse gas sinks (eg. forests) 3. Can participate in emissions trading with other Annex 1 countries 4. Can create joint implementation programs with other Annex 1 countries and receive credit for programs to reduce emissions 5. May receive credit for lowering emissions in non-Annex 1 countries through a “clean development” mechanism there

But then the “Fiddling” Starts
• EU reduced emissions 2% by 2005, but will not meet 2012 targets of 8% • Will instead set 2020 targets to reduce by 20%, and to produce 20% of electricity from renewables • Targets partly met by shutting down industry and selling steel mills to China • Established “multilateral trading scheme for carbon dioxide emissions” covering more than 11,500 large installations • Issued more free credits to industry than they were using, charges of abuse

Did the Kyoto Protocol Become?
• An excuse for wealthy industrialized nations to “pay-off” developing nations to keep them from developing? Just? • A panacea for developers of “select” technology to profit? • An opportunity for huge profits to be made from carbon trading options? • An excuse, which resulted in no actual reduction of emissions?

Third Try - Copenhagen 2009
• After Kyoto, there were UN conferences in Bali (Indonesia) in 2007, and Poznan (Poland) in 2008, as lead up to Copenhagen in 2009 to set new binding protocols to replace the Kyoto Protocol • Copenhagen resulted in no binding agreement, and only a loose “accord” signed by some nations • The major item discussed was who would pay whom, how much.

Copenhagen Accord - Principles
• Financing for poor nations
– $10 Billion annually from 2010 to 2012, $100 Billion annually by 2020 – Help the most vulnerable nations (island & African) – Reduce, mitigate effects, & adapt to climate changes

• Forest protection - a credit for conserving forests • Temperature change - limit to 2°C
– But no long term goals to cut emissions – Future, separate programs for developed and voluntary pledges for developing nations to be established

• Verification program - all nations to monitor results, but to preserve national sovereignty • No Legally binding agreement - future development

A Brief Thought About the Money
• For $100 Billion in 2010, assume USA share becomes $40 Billion • Then Canada’s share is 10% or $4 Billion • Canada’s current international development is $4 Billion 0.35% of GDP focused on:
– Increasing food security – Stimulating sustainable development – Alleviating problems to youth and children

• We currently focus on 20 countries • To prevent increasing taxes, will we stop these direct aid programs and instead give the $4 Billion to aid companies like wind turbine manufacturers & earth movers? Is this Just?

That Other Resource - Money
• We need to make sure that we are doing the best we can with limited natural resources, but also with limited financial resources • We need to ask some questions about decisions, that are made without thinking through the evidence • World wide, national debt is a significant problem, and a ticking time bomb

Consider Canada - 2006 Emissions
Canada Greenhouse Gases 2006
9% 0% 8% 3% 16%

21% 26% 0% 6% 6% 0% 5%

Electricity and Heat Generation Manufacturing Industry Commercial & Institutional Agriculture & Forestry Industrial Proceses Agriculture

Total Fossil Industry Construction Residential Transportation Solvent & Other Product Waste

Canada’s 26.4% Transport Part
Transportation Contributors
21% 3% 4% 0% 20% 1% 0% 24% 3% 4% 20%

Civil Aviation 0% Light Duty Gas Trucks Motorcycles Light Duty Diesel Trucks Propane & Natural Gas Vehicles Navigation

Light Duty Gas Cars Heavy Duty Gas Trucks Light Duty Diesel Vehicles Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles Railways Other Transport

Ontario - 2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Percentage
5% 1% 1% 6% 2% 3% 4% 13% 3%

7% 9% 10% 11%


Coal - Electricity Road Transport Industrial Processes Commercial & Industrial Aviation Other Transport Fossil Fuel Industries

Natural Gas - Electricity Manufacturing Residential Agriculture Railways Waste Other

Adding Wind to the Mix
• Say we replace the 6000 MW of Ontario coal with 6000 MW of Natural Gas + 6000 MW of Wind generation • In year ending Dec 22, 2009, Ontario Wind Turbines produced 80% of capacity less than 3% of the time, less than 15% of capacity 40% of the time, and with an average capacity factor of 27.6% • Hence assume 72% of coal replacement is done by natural gas plants, not wind • Canada has an assured gas supply of 10 years, and Ontario decision increases provincial natural gas demand 40% • Hmmm … let’s look at how wind matches load

Ontario Winter Week

Ontario Summer Week

Ontario Fall Week

Ontario Christmas Week

Percent of Year





6 11 16 to % to 15 % 10 to %








Ontario In Service Wind Turbine Output - 2009

Percent Output

21 20 % t 26 o 2 to 5% 31 30 to % 36 35 % t 41 o 4 to 0% 46 45 to % 51 50 to % 56 55 to % 61 60 to % 66 65 to % 71 70 to % 76 75 to % 81 80 to % 86 85 to % 91 90 t % 96 o 9 to 5 % 10 0%

Average Hourly Demand and Turbine Capacity Factor

The Need for Storage
• Some generating techniques need storage of energy to be able to use it when demanded
– Solar – Wind

• Need to cost in the future costs of fixed price contracts and capital writeoff

Premium Price Paid - Wind
• In 2009 (Dec 30, 2008 to Dec 29, 2009) assuming $135 a MWh for wind, the premium paid to Ontario wind turbine operators was $242,589,404.61 above the the hourly Ontario Electricity Price of $67,014,664.85 (market price) for a total of $309,604,069.46 • If we had 6000 MW of turbines, the premium would be $1.6 Billion a year, plus the taxes lost on depreciation of about $4 Billion a year • This is for power available not when wanted but when the wind is blowing. • None of this costs in storage needs

Need To Consider Public Risk
• Ontario has had two cases of wind turbine blades falling to the ground in ~ 1200 turbine years in service, for a failure rate of 1700 x 106 failures per turbine year. • For other generating plants, we are concerned if the failure rate is 1 x 10-6 failures per operating year. • In the 2 years of 2008 and 2009 there have been 34 known cases of wind turbine blades falling in world experience, for a failure rate of 212 x 10-6 failures per turbine year • This means setback from turbines needs to be carefully assessed to address risk

Let’s Look at the Future
• Up to now, we have focused on actual historical experience and known facts • There are large energy demands, which will continue to rise as developing nations use more to provide necessities of life to billions • There is a limited availability of conventional resources, based on projected consumption • There is evidence climate is changing, but whether this is caused by energy use or not may not be the most critical factor - after we consume all available resources, civilization will suffer - What options have we?

Ontario Energy Demand 2004

37.2% of Total

29.3% of Total



2004 Ontario Energy Demand by Type (excluding chemical feeds)
• Natural Gas 935.6 PJ = 259 TWh • Petroleum 1013.2 PJ = 280 TWh • Electricity 1468.4 PJ = 492.1 PJ e = 137 TWh e (del)
• • • • • • 334.1 PJ Coal (Fall to 219.3 in 2005) = 93 TWh (27.6 TWh e) 95.8 PJ Natural Gas (Rise to 133.1 in 2005) = 26 TWh (7.9 TWh e) 9.3 PJ Petroleum (Fall to 2 in 2005) = 3 TWh (0.8 TWh e) 882.3 PJ Nuclear (Rise to 955.4 in 2005) = 245 TWh (76 TWh e) 146.8 PJ Renewables (Rise to 152.1 in 2005) = 38 TWh e Own Use and Losses = 15 TWh e

• Coal & Coke 116.8 PJ = 34.2 TWh • Total sourced by Natural Gas, Petroleum, Coal, and Coke 2505 PJ = 695 TWh

Ontario Energy Demand

Ontario Demand 695 TWh

Consider Energy Density and Proximity to Load
• Energy sources are best if near where used • Pickering NGS, on a site of 12 km2, supplied 4000 MWh per hour, (~ 30 TWh per year) within 50 km of users • To produce 30 TWh from solar PV collectors, the array would be ~ 340 km2 in area, roughly half the area of Toronto.
• The calculation - the TRI-LEA-EM solar collectors, 4.5 m2 in area, produce 550 watts peak, but receive full sun 4 hours per day on average, half of the days of the year, for 0.4 MWh per year. Even with storage, to produce 3 TWh, the collector would be 30 x 10+12 / 0.4 x 10+6 / 4.5 m2) = 340 km2

Using Wind Generators
• Ontario’s 625 wind generators tracked by IESO (rated at 1085 MW), located at preferred sites, produced 2.3 TWh in 2009. To produce 31 TWh as Pickering did, would need ~ 8400 turbines + storage and collection infrastructure • The Enbridge array with 110 turbines in an area of 168 km2, so 8400 turbines would need an area of about 13,000 km2, or ALL of rural Bruce, Grey, Simcoe, and Huron County at the same high density (which is causing problems) • The infrastructure to collect and send the energy to users would be a problem

If All Energy Had to Come From Renewables - Wind
• To supply 695 TWh now supplied by fossil, would need ~ 190,000 wind turbines in Ontario
– Suppose Southern Ontario, with area 139,000 km2, had turbine density equal to that of the Enbridge array of 0.65 turbines per km2 (it would actually have to be less, due to the need to locate no turbines within 550 m of any home) - Southern Ontario might have 90,000 turbines (47%) yet has 94% of the population – It leaves Northern Ontario with only 6% of the population, and area of 802,000 km2 with 100,000 turbines (53%), but remote from the load – Line losses and infrastructure for transmission and storage/conversion would be high as the majority of turbines would be over 500 km from the load centres.

If All Energy Had to Come From Renewables - Solar PV
• To supply 695 TWh now supplied by fossil, would need some 8000 km2 covered by solar PV panels, roughly 10 times the area of Toronto • Infrastructure to store converted electricity to some from of retrievable energy (battery / hydrogen / pressurized air / hydraulic pumped storage) would be a significant additional cost

If All Energy Had to Come From Renewables - Others
• Solar Thermal
– Hot Water. Relatively low cost ~ $4000 per home might supply perhaps half of hot water, reducing residential load 1.5 MWh per person per year, or up to 7 TWh (1% of total) per year if 30% of homes converted – Home heating. More difficult due to challenge of storage of low grade heat.

• Geothermal - mostly limited to large lots • Biomass - used by forest industry now, little excess, and transportation would be a factor • Biofuels - drive food price up, for limited return compared to energy inputs, just?

Nuclear Reprocessing Option
• Recycling used nuclear fuel would extend fuel reserve from 38 years or so to hundreds of years
– as available fissile atoms in reactor capture a neutron, they split and give off heat and more neutrons that continue the reaction. BUT, the splitting produces new elements that absorb neutrons. – Within about a year the fuel is replaced as these new neutron absorbers prevent a continuing chain reaction – Most of the original fissile material still exists in the discharged fuel, as well as new fissile material produced in the reactor - “used” not “waste” resource – “Reprocessing” removes the neutron absorbing materials to allow the fuel to be re-used - as done now in France and Japan - but not US or Canada

There’s No Free Ride
• Every choice has cost and risk impacts:
– Consider impacts on environment for people near any generating source, public safety, noise, pollution – Consider impact of substitution choices, does focusing generation using scarce resources like natural gas make sense? What do we do when it runs out? Cost impacts of increasing demand? – Are we focusing on the biggest contributors to the problem? If Natural gas and petrochemicals have the biggest demands, using 41% of energy each, and have the shortest life, why does the major Ontario initiative focus on coal generation, when it demands only 13%, and has perhaps twice the reserve life? – Why is the debate on nuclear about long term “waste disposal” without consideration of “reprocessing?”

Pulling the Threads Together
• Our present path leads to problems, increasing greenhouse gases, but will be worse soon as:
– Conventional fuel resources have very limited reserves in the order of 1 human lifetime – Demands are increasing, largely as developing nations use more energy, mostly producing goods for the developed world, but also providing a better life at home – Renewable options are possible but will be very costly due to the infrastructure to capture low grade energy and to store received energy for use when needed - tell it all – Why burn fossil fuels? We need them for many uses lubricants and chemical feed stock - plastics & fertilizer – Recycling nuclear fuel give an option of delaying some cost increases for storage options

• Environment Canada, National Inventory Report, 1990-2006, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada – Website – Natural Resources Canada, Canada’s Energy Outlook, The Reference Case 2006 •

United States, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2006
– Website -

United States, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2009
– Website –

Population Growth over Human History


References - continued
• EarthTrends Searchable Database Provided by the World Resources Institute Sustainable Energy — without the hot air, David JC MacKay, UIT Cambridge, England, 2009 Independent Electrical System Operator of Ontario – Wind Farm Output

Independent Electrical System Operator of Ontario – Ontario Electrical Demand

Global Warming – Encyclopaedia Britannica


Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.