Global Energy Perspectives By Dr. H. Ramesh

Global Energy Perspectives

Dr. H. Ramesh, M.Tech., Ph.D. Dept. Of Civil Engineering,

Nagarjuna College of Engineering and Technology Bangalore

Global Energy Perspective •Scheme of Presentation • •Present Energy Perspective • Future Constraints Imposed by Sustainability • Challenges in Exploiting Carbon-Neutral Energy Sources Economically on the Needed Scale •Global Energy perspectives •Conclusions

Perspective “Energy is the single most important challenge facing humanity today.” Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley, April 2004, Testimony to U.S. Senate ”..energy is the single most important scientific and technological challenge facing humanity in the 21st century..”: Chemical and Engineering News, August 22, 2005. “What should be the centerpiece of a policy of American renewal is blindingly obvious: making a quest for energy independence the moon shot of our generation“, Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, Sept. 23, 2005. “The time for progress is now. .. it is our responsibility to lead in this mission”, Susan Hockfield, on energy, in her MIT Inauguration speech.

Global Energy Consumption, 2001 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 TW 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

4.66

2.89

2.98

1.24 0.285 Oil

Gas

Coal

Total: 13.2 TW

0.92 0.286

Hydro Biomass Renew Nuclear

U.S.: 3.2 TW (96 Quads)

Energy  Costs

$0.05/kW-hr

14 12

6

Brazil

$/GJ

8 4

Europe

10

2 0

Coal

Oil

Biomass

Elect

www.undp.org/seed/eap/activities/wea

Energy From Renewables, 2001 1

2E-1 7E-2

0.1

TW

1E-2 0.01

6E-3

5E-3

0.001

1E-4 1E-4 0.0001

10

7E-5

­5

Elec       Heat      EtOH      Wind      Sol PV   SolTh   LowT Sol  Hydro    Geoth    Marine Elect Heat EtOH Wind Solar PVSolar Th. Low T Sol HtHydro Geoth Marine

Biomass

Global Energy Consumption

Energy Reserves and  Resources

180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 (Exa)J 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

Rsv=Reserves Res=Resources

Unconv Conv

Oil Rsv

Oil Res

Reserves/(1998 Consumption/yr)

Oil Gas Coal

40-78 68-176 224

Gas Rsv

Gas Res

Coal Rsv

Coal Res

Resource Base/(1998 Consumption/yr)

51-151 207-590 2160

Oil Supply Curves WEO est. required total need to 2030

Population Growth to  10 ­ 11 Billion People  in 2050

Per Capita GDP Growth at 1.6% yr­1 Energy consumption per Unit of GDP declines at 1.0% yr ­1

Energy Consumption vs GDP

GJ/capita-yr

•“It’s hard to make

predictions, especially about the future”. (M. I. Hoffert et. al., Nature, 1998)

CO2 Emissions vs CO2(atm) 500 ppmv

400 ppmv 382 ppmv

Data from Vostok Ice Core

Greenland Ice Sheet

 

Permafrost

Projected Carbon­Free Primary Power

2005 usage: 14 TW

Sources of Carbon­Free Power • Nuclear (fission and fusion) • 10 TW = 10,000 new 1 GW reactors

• i.e., a new reactor every other day for the next 50 years → 2.3 million tonnes proven reserves; 1 TW-hr requires 22 tonnes of U → Hence at 10 TW provides 1 year of energy → Terrestrial resource base provides 10 years of energy → Would need to mine U from seawater (700 x terrestrial resource base; so needs 3000 Niagra Falls or breeders)

• Carbon sequestration • Renewables

Carbon Sequestration

Potential of Renewable Energy • Hydroelectric • Geothermal • Ocean/Tides • Wind • Biomass • Solar

Hydroelectric Energy Potential Globally • Gross theoretical potential • Technically feasible potential

4.6 TW 1.5 TW

• Economically feasible potential 0.9 TW • Installed capacity in 1997 0.6 TW • Production in 1997

0.3 TW

(can get to 80% capacity in some cases) Source: WEA 2000

Geothermal Energy

1.3 GW capacity in 1985 Hydrothermal systems Hot dry rock (igneous systems) Normal geothermal heat (200 C at 10 km depth)

Geothermal Energy Potential • Mean terrestrial geothermal flux at earth’s surface • Total continental geothermal energy potential • Oceanic geothermal energy potential

• • • •

0.057 W/m2 11.6 TW 30 TW

Wells “run out of steam” in 5 years Power from a good geothermal well (pair) 5 MW Power from typical Saudi oil well 500 MW Needs drilling technology breakthrough (from exponential $/m to linear $/m) to become economical)

Ocean Energy Potential

Isaacs, J.D, Schmitt, W.R., Science, 207 (1980) 265-273

Global Potential of Terrestrial Wind • Top-down: Downward kinetic energy flux: 2 W/m2 Total land area: 1.5x1014 m2 Hence total available energy = 300 TW Extract <10%, 30% of land, 30% generation efficiency: 2-4 TW electrical generation potential • Bottom-Up: Theoretical: 27% of earth’s land surface is class 3 (250-300 W/m2 at 50 m) or greater If use entire area, electricity generation potential of 50 TW Practical: 2 TW electrical generation potential (4% utilization of ≥class 3 land area, IPCC 2001) Off-shore potential is larger but must be close to grid to be interesting; (no installation > 20 km offshore now)

Biomass Energy Potential Global: Top Down • Requires Large Areas Because Inefficient (0.3%) • 3 TW requires ≈ 600 million hectares = 6x1012 m2 • 20 TW requires ≈ 4x1013 m2 • Total land area of earth: 1.3x1014 m2 • Hence requires 4/13 = 31% of total land area

Solar Energy Potential • Theoretical: 1.2x105 TW solar energy potential (1.76 x105 TW striking Earth; 0.30 Global mean albedo) •Energy in 1 hr of sunlight ↔ 14 TW for a year • Practical: ≈ 600 TW solar energy potential (50 TW - 1500 TW depending on land fraction etc.; WEA 2000) Onshore electricity generation potential of ≈60 TW (10% conversion efficiency): • Photosynthesis: 90 TW

Solar Land Area Requirements

6 Boxes at 3.3 TW Each

Primary energy production (quadrillion Btu) •Oil •Coal •Gas •Hydro •Nuclear •Others

37% 27% 23% 6% 6% 1%

World Energy Information

World energy consumption (quadrillion Btu) •US •China •Russia •Japan •India •Germany

22% 15% 7% 5% 4% 3%

Per capita consumption (selected countries)(million Btu) •US •Russia •Germany •Japan •Chain

341 212 176 177 54

Nuclear share of electricity (selected countries) •France •Germany •Japan •UK •US

79% 27% 27% 20% 19%

Energy-related CO2 emissions (MM tonnes carbon dioxide) •US •Europe •China •Russia •Japan •India

21% 17% 19% 6% 5% 4%

Crude oil production (million bbls/day)(2007) •US •OPEC •Persian Gulf

7% 44% 28%

Electricity generation (trillion kilowatthours) •US •Europe •China •Japan •Russia

23% 20% 14% 6% 5%

Share of world nuclear electricity generation (6 largest)(2005) •US •France •Japan •Germany •Russia

30% 16% 11% 6% 5% 5%

World Energy Perspective Projection: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the World Energy Council (WEC, 1993)

A

B

C

High growth

Middle course

Ecologically driven

Population, billion 1990

5.3

5.3

5.3

2050

10.1

10.1

10.1

2100

11.7

11.7

11.7

Global primary energy intensity improvement, percent per year Medium

Low

High

1990 to 2050

0.9

0.8

1.4

1990 to 2100

1.0

0.8

1.4

Primary energy demand, Gtoe 1990

9

9

9

2050

25

20

14

2100

45

35

21

Resource availability Fossil

High

Medium

Low

Non-fossil

High

Medium

High

Technology costs Fossil

Low

Medium

High

Non-fossil

Low

Medium

Low

Contd..

Technology dynamics Fossil

High

Medium

Medium

Non-fossil

High

Medium

High

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Environmental taxes CO2 emission constraint No Net carbon emissions, GtC 1990

6

6

6

2050

9-15

10

5

2100

6-20

11

2

3

1

2

Number of scenarios

Summary • Need for Additional Primary Energy is Apparent • Case for Significant (Daunting?) Carbon-Free Energy Seems Plausible (Imperative?) Scientific/Technological Challenges • Energy efficiency: energy security and environmental security • Coal/sequestration; nuclear/breeders; Cheap Solar Fuel Inexpensive conversion systems, effective storage systems Policy Challenges • Is Failure an Option? • Will there be the needed commitment? In the remaining time?

Observations of Climate Change Evaporation & rainfall are increasing; •

More of the rainfall is occurring in downpours

•

Corals are bleaching

•

Glaciers are retreating

•

Sea ice is shrinking

•

Sea level is rising

•

Wildfires are increasing

•

Storm & flood damages are much larger

Primary vs. Secondary  Power

Transportation Power

Primary Power

• Hybrid Gasoline/Electric • Hybrid Direct Methanol Fuel Cell/Electric

• Wind, Solar, Nuclear; Bio. • CH4 to CH3OH

• Hydrogen Fuel Cell/Electric?

• “Disruptive” Solar CH3OH + (1/2) O2 • CO2 • H2O

H2 + (1/2) O2

Challenges for the Chemical Sciences CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATIONS • Methane Activation to Methanol: CH4 + (1/2)O2 = CH3OH • Direct Methanol Fuel Cell: CH3OH + H2O = CO2 + 6H+ + 6e• CO2 (Photo)reduction to Methanol: CO2 + 6H+ +6e- = CH3OH • H2/O2 Fuel Cell:

H2 = 2H+ + 2e-; O2 + 4 H+ + 4e- = 2H2O

• (Photo)chemical Water Splitting: 2H+ + 2e- = H2; 2H2O = O2 + 4H+ + 4e• Improved Oxygen Cathode; O2 + 4H+ + 4e- = 2H2O

Matching Supply and Demand Oil (liquid) Gas (gas) Coal (solid)

Pump it around

Move to user

Conv to e-

Transportation

Home/Light Industry

Manufacturing

Currently end use well-matched to physical properties of resources

Matching Supply and Demand Oil (liquid) Gas (gas) Coal (solid)

Pump it around

Move to user

Conv to e-

Transportation

Home/Light Industry

Manufacturing

If deplete oil (or national security issue for oil), then liquify gas,coal

Matching Supply and Demand Oil (liquid) Gas (gas) Coal (solid)

Pump it around

Move to user

Conv to e-CO2

Transportation

Home/Light Industry

Manufacturing

If carbon constraint to 550 ppm and sequestration works

Matching Supply and Demand Oil (liquid) Gas (gas) Coal (solid)

Pump it around

Move to user as H2

Transportation

Home/Light Industry

-CO2 Conv to e-CO2

Manufacturing

If carbon constraint to <550 ppm and sequestration works

Matching Supply and Demand Oil (liquid)

Pump it around

Transportation

Gas (gas)

Home/Light Industry

Coal (solid)

Manufacturing

Nuclear Solar

? ?

If carbon constraint to 550 ppm and sequestration does not work

Solar Electricity, 2001 •Production is Currently Capacity Limited (100 MW mean power output manufactured in 2001) •but, subsidized industry (Japan biggest market) •High Growth •but, off of a small base (0.01% of 1%) •Cost-favorable/competitive in off-grid installations •but, cost structures up-front vs amortization of grid-lines disfavorable •Demands a systems solution: Electricity, heat, storage

Powering the Planet Solar → Electric GaInP2 hν = 1.9eV GaAs hν = 1.42eV InGaAsP hν = 1.05eV InGaAs hν = 0.72eV

Si Substrate

Extreme efficiency at moderate cost

Solar paint: grain boundary passivation

Chemical → Electric

Solar → Chemical H3O+

CB

__S*

e

½H2 + H2O

H

−

Pt

TiO2 VB

hν = 2.5 eV

__S+

S

½O2 + H2O

O

OH−

Inorganic electrolytes: bare proton transport

S__

Photoelectrolysis: integrated energy conversion and fuel generation

Catalysis: ultra high surface area, nanoporous materials Bio-inspired fuel generation

100 nm

Synergies: Catalysis, materials discovery, materials processing

Hydrogen vs Hydrocarbons • By essentially all measures, H2 is an inferior transportation fuel relative to liquid hydrocarbons •So, why? • Local air quality: 90% of the benefits can be obtained from clean diesel without a gross change in distribution and end-use infrastructure; no compelling need for H2 • Large scale CO2 sequestration: Must distribute either electrons or protons; compels H2 be the distributed fuel-based energy carrier • Renewable (sustainable) power: no compelling need for H2 to end user, e.g.: CO2+ H2 CH3OH DME other liquids

Biomass Energy Potential Global: Bottom Up • Land with Crop Production Potential, 1990: 2.45x1013 m2 • Cultivated Land, 1990: 0.897 x1013 m2 • Additional Land needed to support 9 billion people in 2050: 0.416x1013 m2 • Remaining land available for biomass energy: 1.28x1013 m2 • At 8.5-15 oven dry tonnes/hectare/year and 20 GJ higher heating value per dry tonne, energy potential is 7-12 TW • Perhaps 5-7 TW by 2050 through biomass (recall: $1.5-4/GJ) • Possible/likely that this is water resource limited • Challenges for chemists: cellulose to ethanol; ethanol fuel cells

Conclusions: • • • • • • • • • •

World energy needs will increase Energy intensities will improve significantly Resource availability will not be a major global constraint Technological change will be critical for future energy systems Rates of change in global energy systems will remain slow Interconnectivity will enhance cooperation, systems flexibility, and resilience Capital requirements will present major challenges for all energy strategies Regional differences will persist in global energy systems Local environmental impacts will take precedence over global change Decarbonization will improve the environment at local, regional, and global levels

Conclusions •  Abundant, Inexpensive Resource Base of Fossil Fuels •  Renewables will not play a large role in primary power generation     unless/until: –technological/cost breakthroughs are achieved, or –unpriced externalities are introduced (e.g., environmentally ­driven carbon taxes)

Hoffert et al.’s Conclusions

• “These results underscore the pitfalls of “wait and see”.” • Without policy incentives to overcome socioeconomic inertia, development of needed technologies will likely not occur soon enough to allow capitalization on a 10-30 TW scale by 2050 • “Researching, developing, and commercializing carbon-free primary power technologies capable of 10-30 TW by the mid-21st century could require efforts, perhaps international, pursued with the urgency of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Space Program.”

Lewis’ Conclusions

• If we need such large amounts of carbon-free power, then: • current pricing is not the driver for year 2050 primary energy supply • Hence, • Examine energy potential of various forms of renewable energy • Examine technologies and costs of various renewables • Examine impact on secondary power infrastructure and energy utilization

• Thank You