In previous books (Smith, 2005, 2007), I have discussed the merits of distributed electricity generation by means of mini-grids, which, in government parlance, is called ‘islanding’. One of the benefits of such a grid system is that it would be much better at accommodating small-scale renewable technologies in the kilowatt range rather than the national grid dedicated to megawatt-scale generation. At the same time it would protect against catastrophic collapse in the event of a local failure of one of the components of a national grid. Now another argument has come to light supporting the case for changing to distributed generation via mini-grids that can either be networked or act independently. It is contained in a report issued by the US National Academy of Science (NAS).
The central theme of the report is that the world is getting perilously close to possible disaster, but this time from outer space. The reason for this verdict is that Western society has become increasingly reliant on technology for its smooth running, and, as such, it has ‘sown the seeds of its own destruction’, according to the report. Is this an extravagant claim? The answer lies in space.
The Aurora Borealis is a renowned spectacle seen mainly in northern latitudes, but it has a sinister side that can be lethal. This can be apparent when the sun ejects plasma-charged particles carried by solar winds that contain billion-tonne fireballs of plasma called a ‘coronal mass ejection’. This penetration of plasma into our atmosphere clashes with the Earth’s magnetic field causing it to undergo change. Why this matters is because the rapid economic growth in the West and now in the East has caused a significant increase in the demand for electricity that, in turn, has caused the grids to
handle higher voltages over ever larger distances. For example, China is installing a 1000 kilovolt grid – twice the voltage of the US’.These high- power grids act as antennae, or channels for a massive transfer of direct current (DC) from space into electricity grids not designed either for DC or the sudden increase in load.
The result is that an enormous DC is transmitted to local power transformers that are designed to convert power from its transport voltage to domestic level voltage. As a consequence the copper wires in the transformers soon melt, producing a cascade of power failures.The steady global rise in the demand for electricity is increasing the potential for such failures. The Chair of the NAS committee that produced this report has stated: ‘We’re moving closer and closer to the edge of a possible disaster’; According to John Kallenham,1 an adviser to NAS, the scale could be global: ‘A really large storm could be a planetary disaster’.
The NAS report warns that a ‘severe weather event’ could induce ground currents that would disable 300 key transformers in the US in less than two minutes.As a result, 130 million people would be without power. The knock-on effect would be a crash of almost all life-support systems including health care, water supplies, fuel and food distribution, heating and cooling. NAS estimates that it would take between four and ten years to recover from such an event.
A dedicated satellite can provide, at best, a 15 minute warning of incoming geomagnetic storms. However, a coronal mass ejection arrives faster that the time it takes for a satellite message to reach the Earth. The only guaranteed safeguard is a massive reconfiguration of electricity distribution by means of local, semi- independent grids that can support small-scale and intermittent generation and which can have fail-safe connections with the wider grid network, automatically severing the link as soon as an anomaly in the current is detected (data from Brooks, 2009).
This is another case of a win–win situation for the green lobby, except that, in this case, it is ‘win–win–win’. Small scale generation to a
system of mini-grids offers the following three benefits:
• distributed generation accommodating the range of renewables technologies is the route to drastic CO2emissions abatement; • energy security in the face of declining fossil
fuel reserves;
• protection against apocalyptic plasma invasions.
To restate the Nicholas Stern injunction, in this time of need it is more urgent than ever to take rapid precautionary action. After the event, the cost of remediation, according to the NAS, could be as much as $125 billion, and that is just for the US.
Considering the big picture, we have probably already lost Round One in the war against climate change. Round Two must be focused on immediate action to buy time in the hope that science will ultimately rise to the challenge of changing the Earth/atmosphere CO2balance in favour of humanity. This means that massive resources should be directed to: • adapting to the inevitabilities and
uncertainties of an increasingly turbulent climate, especially in terms of critical infrastructures and the built environment; • addressing the urgent problem of installing
ultra-low carbon energy systems as distributed generation for climate reasons, and to replace the diminishing reserves of fossil fuels, and to protect against geomagnetic storms.
We are probably already committed to irreversible climate change. Adaptation to an ultimate extremely hostile environment is a matter of highest priority and must begin now.
Note
1 John Kallenham is an analyst with the Metatech Corporation, California.
In 2006 it was estimated that global recoverable reserves of coal amounted to 905 billion tonnes (gigatonnes) according to the US Energy Information Administration 2008. The World Coal Institute estimates that this will last 147 years at current rates of consumption. According the Hermann Scheer, environmentalist member of the German Bundestag, when coal is substituted for gas and oil, reserves will be exhausted well before 2100 (Scheer, 2002, p100). Since he wrote his book, estimates of reserves have increased, but so also have the expectations for synthetic fuels. The organization World Energy Outlook has compiled a graph of coal reserves by region up to 2100. It suggests that peak coal will be reached by 2025. This may prove optimistic (Figure 13.1).
Coal accounts for 41 per cent of the world’s power supply. Of this total, 250 billion tonnes is located in the US. Consequently, nearly 50 per cent of its power comes from coal. At the same time India and China are forging ahead with coal fired generation. China has massive reserves that are powering its economic development which continues at 8 per cent per year despite, the world economic downturn. Until recently it was said to be constructing the equivalent of two 500MW coal-fired plants per week, each of which would produce 3 million tons (US) of CO2per year. Coal emits twice as much CO2as natural gas and globally at the time of writing it accounts for 37 per cent of all CO2 emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, this is set rise to 43 per cent by 2030, thanks mainly to expanding power generation in India and China.
New coal fired power stations are being constructed in the developed and developing world in the expectation that technology will render them environmentally benign. Governments are claiming that the future lies in clean technology and that future power stations will be ‘capture-ready’.
The UK Secretary of State for climate change, Ed Miliband, asserted in March 2009 that nuclear and coal-fired plants were central to the energy strategy. ‘Coal will remain part of the energy mix in this country certainly for some years to come but it needs to be clean coal’ (reported in the Guardian, 6 March 2009).
Will it be possible to have ‘clean coal’ or is it just a cynical oxymoron? There are two main methods of converting coal to energy without, allegedly, harming the planet. The first involves the use of conventional coal fired steam turbines but includes carbon capture and storage (CCS). In the second case, coal is converted to liquid fuels.
In the first category there are three principle types of CCS:
• Pre-combustion capture. Pulverized coal
particles are mixed with steam, which produces hydrogen and CO2. The hydrogen is burnt to generate electricity and the CO2 buried. This system has to be incorporated into the design of power plants and is therefore not suitable for CCS retrofitting. • Post-combustion capture. Coal is burnt in the
normal way and the CO2 produced is captured and buried. It involves scrubbing the exhaust gases from the flue. The appeal