OXFORD (Reuters) - Waste products make a better biofuel than traditional British crops such as rapeseed and grain because of the energy it takes to grow them, a former chairman of Shell Trading and Transport said on Thursday.

"The attractive thing about waste is that it represents a problem," Lord Oxburgh told reporters at the annual Oxford Farming Conference.

He said rapeseed and grain required fertiliser inputs, effectively negating much of the savings they might otherwise provide when changed into biofuels.

"You really have got to think very hard about the amount the energy that goes into producing your biofuel," he said.

"I think if they (British farmers) grow the same crops in the same way, it probably won't work," he told reporters.

Lord Oxburgh pointed to the production of ethanol from waste straw in Canada as one example of a project which was energy efficient and had environmental benefits.

By way of contrast, he said the most expensive method was being employed in the United States using maize, which consumes an enormous amount of energy before being turned into fuel.

"You put in nearly as much energy into producing energy as you get out of it. It doesn't actually make a lot of sense," he said.

Britain announced late last year plans to increase use of biofuels over the next few years and British farmers hope that domestic rapeseed oil will be used to produce biodiesel and surplus wheat to make bioethanol.

Lord Oxburgh said if Britain imported biofuels from palm oil produced in recently cleared rainforests in southeast Asia there could be adverse environmental impacts.

"There isn't one solution for the whole world," he said.

France to cut oil use by 2020 with new reactor

On November 21, 2006, the seven participants formally agreed to fund the project.^[1] The program is anticipated to last for 30 years—10 years for construction, and 20 years of operation—and cost approximately €10 billion (US$12.1 billion), making it the third most expensive scientific megaproject project after the Manhattan Project and the International Space Station. It will be based in Cadarache, France. It is technically ready to start construction and the first plasma operation is expected in 2016.

ITER is designed to produce approximately 500 MW (500,000,000 watts) of fusion power sustained for up to 500 seconds (compared to JET's peak of 16 MW for less than a second). A future fusion power plant would generate about 3000-4000 MW of thermal power. Although ITER will produce net power in the form of heat, the generated heat will not be used to generate any electricity.

HiPER is a proposed European High Power laser Energy
Research facility dedicated to demonstrating the feasibility of laser driven fusion as a future energy source. HiPER is being designed to enable a broad array of new science including extreme material studies, astrophysics in the laboratory, miniaturised particle accelerators and a wide range of fundamental physics research.

Fusion energy is an attractive, environmentally clean power source using sea water as its principal source of fuel. No greenhouse gases and long-lived radioactive waste are produced. Demonstration of the scientific proof of principle is expected between 2010 and 2012 as part of an ongoing international program. What is now needed is to move from the scientific proof of principle stage to a commercial reactor. HiPER provides the critical next step along this route.

• Robin McKie, science editor
• The Observer
• Sunday December 2 2007

Solar panels like these near Munich could capture heat in areas of the Mediterranean under the plan proposed by Prince Hassan bin Talal. Photograph: Alamy Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of northern Africa and the Middle East.

More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European Union member nations, including Britain.

Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time, the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.

Last week Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan presented details of the scheme - named Desertec - to the European Parliament. 'Countries with deserts, countries with high energy demand, and countries with technology competence must co-operate,' he told MEPs.

The project has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Corporation and is supported by engineers and politicians in Europe as well as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and other nations in the Middle East and Africa.

Europe would provide initial funds for developing the solar technology that will be needed to run plants as well as money for constructing prototype stations. After that, banks and financial institutions, as well as national governments, would take over the construction programme, which could cost more than £200bn over the next 30 years.

'We don't make enough use of deserts,' said physicist Gerhard Knies, co-founder of the scheme. 'The sun beats down on them mercilessly during the day and heats the ground to tremendous temperatures. Then at night that heat is radiated back into the atmosphere. In other words, it is completely wasted. We need to stop that waste and exploit the vast amounts of energy that the sun beams down to us.'

Scientists estimate that sunlight could provide 10,000 times the amount of energy needed to fulfil humanity's current energy needs. Transforming that solar radiation into a form to be exploited by humanity is difficult, however.

One solution proposed by the scheme's engineers is to use large areas of land on which to construct their solar plants. In Europe, land is costly. But in nations such as Morocco, Algeria, and Libya it is cheap, mainly because they are scorched by the sun. The project aims to exploit that cheap land by use of a technique known as 'concentrating solar power'.

A CSP station consists of banks of several hundred giant mirrors that cover large areas of land, around a square kilometre. Each mirror's position can be carefully controlled to focus the sun's rays onto a central metal pillar that is filled with water. Prototype stations using this technique have already been tested in Spain and Algeria.

Once the sun's rays are focused on the pillar, temperatures inside start to soar to 800C. The water inside the pillar is vaporised into superhot steam which is channelled off and used to drive turbines which in turn generate electricity. 'It is proven technology,' added Knies. 'We have shown it works in our test plants.'

Only small stations have been tested, but soon plants capable of generating 100 megawatts of power could be built, enough to provide the needs of a town. The Desertec project envisages a ring of a thousand of these stations being built along the coast of northern Africa and round into the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East. In this way up to 100 billion watts of power could be generated: two thirds of it would be kept for local needs, the rest - around 30 billion watts - would be exported to Europe.

An idea of how much power this represents is revealed through Britain's electricity generating capacity, which totals 12 billion watts.

But there is an added twist to the system. The superheated steam, after it has driven the plant's turbines, would then be piped through tanks of sea water which would boil and evaporate. Steam from the sea water would piped away and condensed and stored as fresh water.

'Essentially you get electricity and fresh water,' said Knies. 'The latter is going to be crucial for developing countries round the southern Mediterranean and in north Africa. Their populations are rising rapidly, but they have limited supplies of fresh water. Our solar power plants will not only generate electricity that they can sell to Europe, they will supply drinkable water that will sustain their thirsty populations.'

There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15-20 eurocents (11 to 14p) a kilowatt-hour - almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar. 'Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels,' John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week.

However, Desertec's backers say improvements over the next decade should bring the cost of power from its plants to less than 10 eurocents a kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with traditionally generated power.

Other critics say the the plants would be built in several unstable states which could cut their supplies to Europe. Again, Knies dismisses the danger. 'It's not like oil. Solar power is gone once it hits your mirrors. It would simply be lost income.' The European Parliament has asked Desertec to propose short-term demonstration projects.

Nuclear 'is energy future'

Britain will become increasingly reliant on nuclear power for its energy needs over the next two decades, Business Secretary John Hutton said.

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said that he had been "very encouraged" by the response from investors to the Government's plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.

He said that as the new stations came on stream, he expected that they would supply "significantly" more than the 19% of Britain's energy which comes from nuclear sources.

"We need the maximum contribution from nuclear sources in the next 10 to 15 years," he said. "I'd be very disappointed if it's not significantly above the current level."

Mr Hutton said the Government was now keen to fast-track the replacement of the UK's 10 current nuclear power stations, all but one of which is due to close by 2023.

The first of the new plants could be operational in 2017, he said, a year ahead of the target set in the Government's energy white paper published in January.

"If we can accelerate the timescale we should. We've got to be completely serious about this. We should keep the foot down on the pedal," he said.

"I've been very encouraged by the reaction (from investors). It's completely confounded all those people who said it's not going to happen.

"It's going to happen and in a shorter timescale than our critics predicted."

Russia, U.S. to sign civilian nuclear pact: source

Power Set To Return After UK Blackouts

Electricity supplies should return to normal today after the countrywide blackouts, the National Grid has said.

Hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses across London, Cheshire, Merseyside and East Anglia were affected between 11am and 1pm on Tuesday.

The blackouts happened when the Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk and the Longanett coal-fired power station in Fife both went off-line within several minutes of each other.

In total, nine generating units across the country became unavailable.

Stuart Larque, spokesman for the National Grid, said: "We think it will be a case of business as usual.

"We have a very robust system in the UK. It rarely fails and that's why everybody is talking about it so much."

The blackouts were caused by the opposite of a power surge as the National Grid deactivated local stations to maintain the required 50hz frequency.

When demand is greater than generation, the system fails.

The Government has come under pressure from the largest independent energy consultancy, McKinnon Clarke, to build new power stations or face further power cuts.

David Hunter, energy analyst at McKinnon Clarke, said: "The Government's inability to make long-term energy security decisions over the last decade is coming home to roost.

"Since the 'dash for gas' in the 1990s, the lack of political will to make tough decisions has left Britain short of power."

$45 trillion urged in battling carbon emissions

By James Kanter

Published: June 6, 2008

BRUSSELS: In one of the strongest warnings so far about the world's thirst for energy, the International Energy Agency said Friday that investment totaling $45 trillion might be needed over the next half-century to prevent energy shortages and greenhouse gas emissions from undermining global economic growth.

The executive director of the agency, Nobuo Tanaka, called for "immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale." Tanaka said the world needed to "completely transform the way we produce and use energy."

The IEA report said that the combination of growing demand for energy, especially in countries like China and India, the dangers of climate change and the scarcity of resources was going to require huge shifts in the way the global economy was organized. To meet those challenges, it said, nations would have to overcome objections to building nuclear power plants and storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground or beneath the ocean floor.

"I am very pleased the International Energy Agency has put such a high figure on the cost of making this transition," said Pierre Noël, an energy expert and senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. "It is high time we got rid of the myth that we can decarbonize our economies on the cheap," he said.

In its report, the IEA, which gives advice on energy policy to its 27 member nations, which include the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and most of Europe, described emissions-cutting measures that broadly match the advice of some leading scientists, who have recommended cutting emissions in half by 2050 as a way of avoiding devastating climate change. Environment ministers from the Group of 8 have backed this target, and they have said governments should officially endorse the goal at a G-8 summit meeting in July in Japan.

The report did not say how such large sums of money should be raised. The IEA said member nations of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or Unfccc, the parent treaty of the Kyoto Protocol, must negotiate ways of encouraging governments and businesses to lower emissions.

John Hay, a spokesman for the convention, said markets operating under the Kyoto treaty that put a price on carbon pollution, like Europe's Emissions Trading System, were already playing an important role in driving investment, but could not be solely relied on to raise the sums described by the IEA. Two years ago, Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the Unfccc, estimated that carbon trading could generate investments in climate-friendly technology in the developing world worth about $100 billion annually - a fraction of the amounts the IEA said was required.

The IEA report foresees "a dramatic transformation of the energy industry, and how that level of investment can be achieved is a major question," said Robert LaCount, head of climate change and clean energy research at Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Governments at all levels will need to help and support the emergence of new technologies so that they can reach commercialization," he said.

Among the energy agency's chief messages is that current energy policies are unsustainable, with emissions of carbon dioxide expected to climb 130 percent and demand for oil to rise by 70 percent by 2050. Tanaka warned that oil demand could be five times the current production of Saudi Arabia by that time, and that carbon emissions of such a magnitude could raise global average temperatures by 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), changing all aspects of life and creating irreversible changes in the natural environment.

A major problem for the planet is that the rising cost of oil and natural gas is prompting a switch to coal, particularly in India and China. Coal is inexpensive and plentiful but highly polluting, and its increasing use is contributing to the accelerating growth in emissions of carbon dioxide. But Noël, of the foreign relations council, said the rising cost of fossil fuels should be a cause for optimism, because they would be the main factor driving large-scale investments.

"It's not primarily a global agreement between heads of state that will make technologies like nuclear power or like carbon capture reach take off," Noël said. "It's primarily expectations about energy prices," he said.

The IEA recommended taking measures now that would ensure that carbon emissions were down to at least present-day levels by mid-century by using technologies that already exist, including steps for improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions from power generation. Such measures would cost $17 trillion between now and 2050, or 0.4 percent of global output, costing about $400 billion a year.

The agency also mapped out a second, more ambitious plan aimed at reducing emissions to half their current levels by mid-century by emphasizing technologies and strategies for "weaning the world off oil." The agency estimated the cost of that process at $45 trillion, or 1.1 percent of annual global output, over the period to 2050. Investments of $100 billion to $200 billion would be needed each year over the next 10 years, rising to $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year in the coming decades.

To reach the goal of halving emissions, the agency said, among the most important measures would be equipping more than 50 natural gas and coal power plants each year with equipment to capture and sequester carbon dioxide. Such measures would double the generating costs of a coal power station not equipped with capture and storage, and many plants that could not be converted to the new technology would have to close before the end of their useful lives.

"It is recognized that this will be a large step for countries heavily reliant on coal, but a necessary step requiring careful management," the report said.

There would also be a need for 32 new nuclear plants each year, while the number of wind turbines would need to increase by 17,500 annually. Other strategies included accelerating the development of solar electricity and so-called second-generation biofuels, made from sources that do not compete with food for farmland.

The report acknowledged that numerous objections to these technologies would need to be overcome, in particular local opposition to building new nuclear power stations and to long-term nuclear waste repositories. Geologically stable sites also would need to be found for storing carbon dioxide.

But the most difficult and costly step, it said, would be reducing carbon emissions from transportation at a time when the use of cars, airplanes and ships would still be growing rapidly but few technologies would exist to limit emissions from those sources.

Independent.co.uk

Talks which would have seen eight of the UK's nuclear power stations sold to a French state-owned energy firm have broken down without agreement.

EDF had been expected to announce a £12bn deal to buy British Energy.

However, it is understood that shareholders argued that the soaring price of energy meant they should be able to command a higher offer.

The rejection is a major setback to the UK's plans to cut greenhouse gases by relying more on nuclear energy.

Solar Power Breakthrough Stores Energy for Later Use

"This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, senior author of a paper describing the simple, inexpensive, and efficient process for storing solar energy in the July 31 issue of the journal "Science."

"Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon," Nocera said.

Making ice while the sun shines

This is quite nifty. A team of scientists from San Jose University have worked out a way to make ice with zero carbon footprint and no moving parts. There's no electricity involved either. All you've got to do is keep the machine clean.

Here's the science: A big mirror focuses the sun's rays on a tube of coolant. The coolant evaporates and travels through pipes into a chamber where it's absorbed by an unnamed material. When the sun goes down, this material slowly cools until it hits 40°C. At that point, the coolant turns to a liquid and due to pressure differences, it rapidly cools to below 0°C. You then put some water next to it, and voila, it'll freeze. The next day, you just do exactly the same thing all over again.

This could be incredibly useful in tropical countries, or in places where the electricity supply is iffy, like war zones. The ice produced could be crucial for medical uses, or even for food storage and refrigeration. The whole system is completely sealed too, so if it doesn't leak then you'll never need to top it up.

The scientists reckon it can make 14 pounds of ice each day - but obviously, the bigger you make the machine, the more ice you'll be able to get out. I'm sure that time will also produce more efficient models. You can't get it yet because it's just a prototype, but based on the brief science description above and a bit of knowledge of coolants, you might be able to put your own version together. If you do give it a shot, then be sure to let us know.

University of San Jose (via DVice)

Related posts: IFA 2008: Portable Solar Panels from Onlink | Turning roads into solar collectors - why has no-one thought of this before?

French energy firm EDF is expected to announce a £12.4bn deal to buy British Energy, the firm which operates the UK's eight nuclear power plants.

In addition, Centrica, which owns British Gas, will take 25% of all power generated by British Energy once it is in French hands, the BBC has learnt.

It will also take a 25% stake in all new nuclear plants built by EDF.

The deal with EDF is seen by Centrica as vital to reducing its dependence on imported gas.

US breakthrough promises "solar panels" that work in the dark

Research team predicts commercially available products within five to 10 years

James Murray, BusinessGreen, 13 Aug 2008

NOVEMBER 10th 2009
At last the government has approved 10 sites for new nuclear power stations. Objectors are now concentrating on economic arguments and waste disposal. They base both on past experience, on the assumption that we cannot learn and improve. They could be proved right, and they could be proved wrong. Of course many of them will try to ensure they are proved right by adding to the cost through their actions. As for safety, it is not necessary to bury the waste from new nuclear until an agreed place and method is found. It can be safely stored above ground and may well remain there is there is not a better solution. Once again it is illogical to assume we need make the same mistakes as last time that rendered the waste unmanageable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349715.stm

It has been said that it would only take one more nuclear accident, anywhere, that caused fall-out or deaths to yet scupper the UK nuclear plans. Why? When an airline crashes a time-expired plane piloted by poor pilots, we don't stop UK commercial aviation. What is required is the employment of well trained and selected personnel to build and run new nuclear stations that are not necessarily the cutting edge of new technology but based on the best and using genuine fail-safe design. Fully fail-safe design is not possible in aviation. For a nuclear power station, it can be, up to a point where a significant failure would require circumstances that would render the failure itself not the main problem or cause for concern. Ensuring a good, clean power supply is part of the means of avoiding such circumstances. Those who are still puzzled by the chicken-and-egg riddle will not understand this of course. There are still some around.

I used the BBC calculator to work out how a mix of nuclear, fossil and renewables could enable us to meet the targets we are committed to to mitigate carbon emissions. Unless the BBC calculator is wrong, it looks possible. This is assuming no success in reducing demand through insulation and other sensible methods. 2020 is only a check-point. This process will continue and sophisticated energy storage systems must be developed to allow demand and supply to have a big buffer.

The growing global demand for natural resources risks undermining Europe's economy, a report has warned.

The outlook, produced by the European Environment Agency, said the increases were driven by a need to satisfy changes in global consumption patterns.

The agency said there were no "quick fixes" but called on businesses, individuals and policymakers to work together to become more efficient.

It added that Europe had made progress on emissions, but more had to be done.

"We are consuming more natural resources than is ecologically stable," said EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade ahead of the formal launch of the fourth Environment State and Outlook Report (SOER 2010).