Issue 3 | December 2017
P.15 Off-grid Solar in Africa P.22 Real Cost of Batteries P.24 Energy of Bitcoin
Content
5 Editorial Decentralisation in Energy Provision: How is the Sharing Economy Driving Change? 26
6-7 News 8 Energy Industry: Transformations in a Nutshell
Solar Energy: The Revolution is Now, and it’s Solar 28
10 SMR Technology in the UK: Re-revolutionising Nuclear Power?
Comparative Energy Development: A Tale of Two Islands 30
12 Shale Gas: Barriers to the Last Fossil Fuel 14 LNG in China: A Market Overview
Power from the People: Where Next for Community Energy in the UK? 32
15 Off-grid Solar: Sunshine in Sub-Saharan Africa
Eco-Cities: Case Studies in Urban Development 34
18 Biomimicry in Energy: Save the World by learning from it 20 Smart Grids: The Future is Virtual
Guest Article: A New Era for Aviation? 38
22 Obstacles to Electric Vehicles: The Real Cost of Batteries
Bibliography & References 40-42 Contributors 43
24 Energy Economics: Bitcoin Mining
3
Opportunities at the Energy Journal Join our Facebook page to learn more https://www.facebook.com/EnergyJournal/
Join the Community The Energy Journal promises to make your ideas heard. We accept all pro-actively ambitious students that share a fascination with energy and are determined to deliver good work. The aim is to create quality through cross-disciplinary professionalism. The hope is to form a community of like-minded individuals. The Energy Journal offers the liberty to delve into any source of energy, in any market, whether your interest lies in academia, business or public policy. Please refer to our Editorial Principles for more information for guidance on writing. Authors have a lot of discretion. Commitments are low. Socials are included.
Join the Team The goal is to distribute the next edition both tangibly and online to students across London, the UK, and Europe. For that, the Energy Journal team must grow. Director of Online Content Unique opportunity to build the Energy Journal’s website and app – from scratch Director of Social Media Learn and deploy Facebook & Instagram tactics necessary to gain a global following Director of Graphic Design Merge art and articles to design the Energy Journal. Opportunity to work on cover Director of External Relations The opportunity to reach out to, and meet, energy private and public sector leaders Editor for the LSE Contribute to creating the next edition of the Energy Journal by managing students Editor for ICL Contribute to creating the next edition of the Energy Journal by managing students G3 Energy Summit Representative Become our ambassador to the G3 Energy Summit and build partnerships with others Please note that it is possible (and encouraged) to hold one of the above positions as well as contribute to articles.
4
Editorial Dear Reader,
wind speed and sunlight – now plague obsolete national grids. Private and public-sector innovations, from smart grids in developed economies (see p.26) to off-the-grid solutions in emerging economies (see p.15), are putting an end to the post-war status quo in utilities.
You may have missed it. For the first time in human history, growth in solar power capacity has overtaken that of coal. Coal, the hegemonic source of energy ever since the Industrial Revolution erupted on the British Isles, is being decimated. Breakthroughs in technology (see p.18), innovations in efficiency, and new business models have caused prices of both wind and solar energy to plummet. The demise of coal and the rise of renewables is happening at a faster rate than projected.
Ever since humans mastered fire, energy has powered human progress. Societies, their economies, and their foreign policies are all, in part, based on the extraction and use of energy recourses. Today’s transformation in energy is therefore revolutionary. The energy revolution offers unique opportunities to better human lives, boost prosperity, and reduce global emissions.
Other established conventional sources of energy are also facing fierce competition from renewable sources of energy. Nuclear is facing a meltdown: the two industry leaders historically, France’s Areva and America’s Westinghouse (a subsidiary of Japan’s Toshiba), are respectively being bailed-out and defaulting. Oil is being redefined. The shale revolution (see p.12) has propelled the United States from a heavy importer of oil to become the world’s largest oil producer. Saudi Arabia’s dominance in oil through OPEC has been broken.
I would like to personally thank all the writers for the time they’ve dedicated to the Energy Journal’s third issue. Their enthusiasm to write for you meant that not all articles were selected, although the effort invested did not go unnoticed. I would also like to thank the Executive Committee. The team worked tirelessly to deliver to you this overhauled edition. In its second year, the Energy Journal has been rebranded and redesigned. We’ve also welcomed the Imperial College London Energy Society. Merging the two preeminent universities’ different backgrounds offers complementary and inter-disciplinary diversity to our publication. We have introduced a variety of material to the Energy Journal to encourage you to learn more about the opportunities in energy.
These changes are occurring against the backdrop of humanity’s greatest peril: climate change. Although the Paris Climate Accord offers hope in both international diplomacy and policy-making solutions, the causes of the transition away from carbon lie in economics. Installing and operating renewable power plants is emerging as an increasingly profitable alternative to conventional energy. The ‘invisible hand’ of free markets is tearing down incumbent sources of energy.
Last but not least, I want to thank you – the reader – on behalf of the entire team for your interest in the Energy Journal.
This economic rationale is now toppling centralised electricity grid monopolies. The problem of intermittence of wind and solar – where stable energy generation becomes volatile due to variations in
Your Chief Editor, Egor Nevsky
Raison d’Être of the Energy Journal: The Energy Journal is a biannual magazine focused on current energy affairs, published by the LSE and Imperial Energy Societies. The Energy Journal exists to raise awareness of the opportunities in energy, as the industry is currently being up-ended by technological innovation, climate action and market forces. All editions of the Journal are accessible to all students, to help learn more about the leaps in technology which are helping to define our future. We hope that the Journal will help pro-active, ambitious students to join the Energy Community to help to form that future. 5
Last Six Months Politics Trump withdrew the United States from the international and UNsponsored, but voluntary, Paris Climate Accord. The United States is now the only non-signatory state to the Paris Agreement, with Nicaragua and (even) Syria joining recently. The rest of the world – led by China, India and the EU – convened at the UN COP23 climate summit in Bonn. Implementation of climate action targets have met headwinds. Chinese greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 3.5% this year. As the world’s second largest polluter (after the US), China’s accelerated economic growth has pushed world emissions to a record high. This follows three years of almost flat increases in emissions. Hopes of a global turning point in emissions, led by China, have been dashed. Having promised 175 GW of new renewable energy capacity by 2022, India may now be facing a bubble in the solar sector. Intense competition for solar has pushed solar prices down 75% in five years. Yet costs have since risen, primarily due to increasing prices for Chinese PV (photovoltaic) modules and the introduction of a new G&S tax. Continued coal-burning power stations have led to disastrous record levels of pollution in Delhi. The COP23 saw the founding of the Powering Past Coal Alliance. Twenty states, led by Britain and Canada, but not Germany, joined the pact to phase out coal from electricity generation before 2030. It was revealed that the COP23’s host, Germany, and its energiewende policy to transition towards renewable energy (by shuttingdown its fleet of nuclear power plants), has instead exacerbated greenhouse gas emissions. Without reliable electricity from nuclear, Germany burns particularly inefficient brown lignite coal instead (it is by far the world’s largest consumer of lignite).
France, on the other hand, made a U-turn when Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced that nuclear will not, after all, be phased-out. In a country where 75% of electricity needs are met through nuclear, France’s desire to cut nuclear energy by a third would have endangered its power supply, raised electricity prices, and increased its CO2 emissions. France has emerged as a climate leader under Macron. It’s rare good news for the nuclear industry. The British government faces intense criticism vis-à-vis the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant. Professor Dieter Helm reported on consumer energy prices, a highly politicized issue, stating that “complex and expensive” policies prevent households to benefit from falling renewable energy prices. On April 21, 2017, National Grid confirmed that the United Kingdom had its first ‘coal-free’ day since the Industrial Revolution. For 24 hours, no coal was burnt to generate electricity. The UK Government has expressed interest in closing all coal-fired power stations by 2025. Coal now supplies just 2% of the UK’s power needs, down from 40% five years ago. After a record result in 2015, Costa Rica has generated fossil-fuel free electricity for over 300 days this year, beating its previous record. The Central American country has a large amount of hydropower. Renewables account for over 99% of Costa Rica’s electricity. Tensions between Ethiopia and Egypt continue to escalate over the construction of Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam. Set to become Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant, Ethiopia plans to produce 6 MW of electricity in a country where a quarter of people do not have electricity. Egypt is wary of the damming of the Blue Nile. Conflict resumed in previouslyheld Daesh territory as Iraq’s Shia government annexed the Kirkuk oil 6
field from the Kurdistan Regional Government. Without this vital source of income, an independent Kurdistan would fail to finance itself. Iraqis in Kurdistan had earlier attempted to declare independence through a referendum. Consequences of Brexit, another referendum with questionable success, have become tangible in the energy industry. The European Parliament passed a bill, 601 to 69, to void all permits to pollute issued by a member-state leaving the EU. The EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) is currently the world’s largest carbon cap-and-trade scheme. The EU has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 23% in the last 25 years. Lithuania accepted its first shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG) from the US at its recently opened floating LNG terminal. This marks the end of Russia’s Gazprom in the Baltic states. Alarmed by Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the EU aims to diversify away from Russia’s geopolitical use of natural gas exports. Separately, the European Commission reported that integration of European energy markets is on track. Saudi King Salman visited Moscow in October to urge Putin to prolong oil production cuts. Russia (third largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and the US) has become crucial for Saudi Arabian-led OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) to limit oil output and hence raise oil prices. Saudi Arabia’s influence in the oil cartel has waned since the shale revolution started in the US. President Trump’s nominee for the Chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality struggled to answer questions during her confirmation hearing. Kathleen White claimed (rather convincingly) not to have even a “layman’s understanding” of climate change.
Last Six Months Markets The IPO (initial public offering) of Saudi Aramco remains on track for late 2018. The listing of 5% of the world’s largest national oil company is expected to become the world’s largest IPO. Saudi Aramco holds a fifth of the world’s oil reserves and is the source of 90% of the kingdom’s revenues. No stock exchange has yet to be selected: hosting abroad would invite unprecedented scrutiny of the royal family and its oil reserves. Listing on the New York Stock Exchange may attract lawsuits while the London Stock Exchange is mired within Brexit. A more recent alternative to shelve an international listing in favour of a local one on the Tadawul stock exchange, where the government could limit disclosures of its company, would limit investor appeal. Investor demand, and a targeted $2 trillion valuation, remain essential. Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman hopes to employ the IPO’s proceeds to finance his Vision 2030 strategy to diversify from oil finance government spending. JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and HSBC are the lead underwriters for the IPO. The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) announced its intention to publicly list more than 10% of its distribution unit. The IPO of the UAE’s leading fuel distributor could raise up to $2 billion for the government. The local Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange was selected to boost foreign investment. Citigroup is the lead underwriter. Statoil, Norway’s national oil company, became the first to connect battery storage systems to floating wind farms. Floating wind farms are a speciality for Statoil, and follows its strategy to deploy previously oil-related offshore technologies into wind, as it diversifies away from fossil fuels. The Norwegian Pension Fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund with $1 trillion in assets,
announced it may divest the fossil fuel stocks it owns. The $1 billion investment by French oil major Total to develop Iran’s largest gas field are at risk following Trump’s decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal framework. Total has positioned itself as a leader in natural gas, acquiring Maersk’s oil and gas business for $7.45 billion in the North Sea and Engie’s LNG business for $1.5 billion this year. Total also owns SunPower, a leading PV panel manufacturer.
4%
7%
3%
33% 24% 28%
World energy mix, June 2017 Oil
Coal
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Hydroelectricity
Other Renewables Source: BP Statstical Review
Tesla’s subsidiary SolarCity began large-scale production of the Solar Roof for customers. The first solar tiles have been fitted onto houses to generate electricity. With four designs, Tesla aims to render solar panels more aesthetically attractive to buyers. Tesla unveiled the Tesla Semi, a smart, autopilot-enabled electric delivery truck capable of 500 miles on a single charge. This announced the first major diversification of electric vehicles (EVs) away from cars. Elon Musk also unveiled the Roadster, a new EV supercar. It is advertised to be the fastest production car in the world. He called it a “hardcore smackdown to gas-powered cars”. The US International Trade Commission issued a non-binding recommendation to impose a 30% tariff on imported solar modules. 7
Two bankrupt solar manufacturers are seeking trade protection against imports, accusing China of unfair trade practices. A tariff would raise price of solar, limiting its adoption. The White House is to evaluate how to implement said tariff. Prices of wind energy have dropped internationally. Danish company Orsted, a leader in wind energy, has secured two new wind farms in the German North Sea after placing zero-bids. It is a symbolic moment for an increasingly cost-competitive offshore wind sector. The new wind farms require just two-thirds of the subsidy offered to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. Toshiba Corp., the parent company of nuclear plant producer Westinghouse, agreed to sell its high-performing semiconductor division for $18 billion to a consortium of firms led by Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Toshiba, one of Japan’s national champions, struggled to remain listed on Japan’s stock exchange following the bankruptcy of its nuclear unit Westinghouse. The nuclear energy industry is in crisis as it produces systematically behindschedule, over-budget projects unable to compete with renewables. Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, spun-off Dandelion, a geothermal start-up, from its moonshot accelerator X. Dandelion uses geothermal pumps to both heat and cool buildings using geothermal energy. It secured $2 million in seed funding to expand its technology in the US. Researchers at ETH Zurich have discovered a new, greener way to make hydrogen. The novel technique is based on thermochemical splitting of H2O and CO2 into hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Currently, hydrogen is produced by steam reforming, which splits hydrocarbons (usually from crude oil/ natural gas). Thermochemical splitting may be a massive change in the industry.
Articles companies need to find greener ways to meet this rise in global energy demand. Energy companies are finally starting to succumb to this moral duty and a lot of them are expanding their horizons to include renewable energy– a field increasingly dependent on innovation and technology. For example, Statoil, Norway’s oil monopoly, already has several offshore wind farms and is testing a floating wind turbine called HyWind [5]. Ultimately, it will be a fine balance between profits and environmental responsibility that will drive this transition to green energy. According to the World Energy Council, as of 2015, coal is the largest source of energy production at 40%, with oil falling behind at 33% and natural gas at 22% [6]. Coal production has already started to decline as the industry transitions to cleaner forms of energy and faces competition from the renewables sector. McKinsey's research predicts that by 2050, coal usage will be down to just 16% [7] and natural gas will dominate the fossil fuels market. The biggest change in the industry will be brought by the renewable sector.
The Energy Industry:
Transformations in a Nutshell Muhammad Waabis – Imperial College London
We are currently amidst the largest energy revolution since the Industrial Age. With volatile oil prices, and given the potential disruption from renewables, the future brings uncertainty for the energy companies and a great pressure to innovate. The global population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050, [1] and with improved living standards in emerging countries such as India, the demand for energy is set to reach an all-time high. The energy industry has historically been conservative and slow to adapt to the market forces. However, it is now facing the reality of crucial changes and challenges from ongoing environmental sensitivity.
The New Renewables Wind power is a rapidly growing industry in almost every part of the world. The European Union is particularly well-positioned, mainly due to its assertive policy on developing renewable energies. Wind power accounts for almost 10% of the EU’s power demand with high penetration levels in several countries such as Denmark, Spain, Germany, and UK [9]. Wind energy offers a clean, renewable and a relatively cheap way of producing energy. However, wind power is still more expensive than fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and therefore needs to be subsidised, mainly in the form of preferential feed-in tariffs. Furthermore, wind patterns are unpredictable and uncontrollable, and this leads to swings in output and even shutdowns. One solution to this problem could be setting up interconnected groups of wind turbines over extended areas to leverage their combined energy and ensure a guaranteed minimum amount of power [10]. Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom are focusing heavily on offshore wind farm development as the winds are stronger and more reliable offshore. To reduce initial investment costs, companies are exploring the possibility of using existing offshore oil fields that are near the end of their life cycle, to house wind turbines. An example of such project is the use of wind turbines in the Beatrice oil field [11], which proved the commercial viability of using the site for a wind farm development.
Global Electricity capacity additions, 2016[8] The energy industry is in dire need of a transformation, a big industry-wide change with the potential to change the trajectory of an industry. A true transformation is disruptive. It doesn’t work with the existing processes and technology, but instead introduces new challenges and creates the constant need for innovation. And we need transformation now. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is at an all-time high at 405 ppm [2] and is expected to reach almost 800 ppm by 2100[3]. This will directly lead to a rise in global surface temperature by almost 5°C by 2100[4]. If no preventative measures are taken, we can expect other side effects, including rising sea levels, ocean acidification and extreme weather events, as the recent Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma have shown. We as humans have a moral obligation to keep our impact on the environment as low as possible.
Solar energy, meanwhile, forms only 1% of power generated globally [12]. Most modern solar panels have an efficiency of less than 20% [13] The cost of solar has, however, plummeted by over 90% in the last decade. There are two main solar energy technologies: photovoltaic (PV) technology and concentrated solar power (CSP). Photovoltaic (PV) is the dominant technology and is mostly seen in rooftop solar panels.
With ever-increasing pressure to meet the carbon emission targets and the expected growth of global economy and population, it doesn’t come as a surprise that 8
With Tesla introducing the ‘Solar Roof’, we can expect this technology to capture an even larger market share of the roof-top solar panel industry. On the other hand, CSP uses a large array of mirrors to concentrate a large area of sunlight onto a small area. This concentrated light is converted to heat, which can be used to generate electricity. CSPs have geographic limitations as they are only suitable for regions without frequent clouds and haze. Both technologies are expected to grow in the near future, with countries like China leading the deployment of photovoltaics technology [14].
and are likely to fail, ensuring less time is wasted and less down-time is required to repair machinery, lowering costs. These are just some of the ways digitisation can help improve efficiency within the energy industry. Carbon Capture The shift to clean renewable energy is not enough to combat climate change. Oil and natural gas are here to stay for the next few decades, and it is imperative that measures are taken to control the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one technology that can help companies to reduce their carbon footprint. The main hurdle faced by carbon capture technologies is cost. Currently, it is more profitable for companies to buy emission allowances under the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which cost approximately €3 per tonne of CO2. The price of CCS is approximately €30-100 per tonne of CO2 [18]. Companies need more economic incentives to use this technology. One good example of this is the oil and gas industry. Many offshore oil platforms use carbon capture technology by injecting the captured CO2 into the oil reservoir, to extract more oil and gas. This is known as Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery. The price of CCS technology nonetheless implies heavy government regulations, and in the future, we can expect stricter CO2 emission targets to be imposed, encouraging companies to further exploit this technology.
Nuclear Nuclear energy offers the most efficient alternative to carbon-based fuels, but it still has a long way to go, mainly due to the negative connotations associated with it. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima have caused the world public opinion of nuclear power to plunge for the worse, and to this day, people question the safety of nuclear power. According to a recent poll by Gallup, 54% of the Americans still oppose nuclear energy [15]. Modern reactor designs have a very low probability of failure, but the construction and operational practices could be improved. The biggest area of development for nuclear energy is waste management and recycling. Isolating and storing radioactive waste deep inside a suitable rock volume is known as geological waste disposal. This technology is technically feasible, but it is yet to be demonstrated. What’s more interesting is the recycling of nuclear waste to harness the remaining 95% of uranium atoms that are not utilised in the fission process. General Electric-Hitachi completed design work on a Gen-IV reactor called PRISM (Power Reactor Innovative Small Module) [16] that can convert nuclear waste into power. This reactor can also process spent materials to reduce their half-life to three hundred years instead of thousands of years. Nuclear energy has a bright future once public stigma has been overcome, but until then the safety concerns must be addressed. Digitisation Increased use of renewables and sustainability concerns are just a few of the factors that power the industry’s transformation - and digitisation is an enabler of that change. Recent developments in the Internet of Things (IoT) have provided us with the ability to monitor and manage every industrial asset. This technology is in no way near fully implemented, as currently only 2% of the data is captured in the energy sector [17]. What is captured is rarely done through automation.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) illustration [19]
Transformations for the Future The shift to renewable energy is inevitable. But, how long will it take for the renewables to dominate the global energy production? Intermittence of solar and wind power may be constraining. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is too expensive and complex commercially.
Increased automation of today’s power plants could not only make them smarter but also improve efficiency, both in terms of cost and capacity. This can also help cut costs involved with field service and maintenance, which are two of the biggest cost overheads in keeping assets running. The sensors can monitor burners and generators in real time, sending data back to a cloud-based IT system, from where the data can be processed using a specialist software. This allows the field service teams to know in advance which parts of machinery are underperforming
What we know for certain is that the future global energy leaders will be those who accomplish two key objectives: from a technology standpoint, their assets must be able to benefit from digital innovation such as the Internet of Things (IoT), and from a technical engineering standpoint, their infrastructures must have the necessary flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing energy industry. Once in place, the world must rise up against fossil fuels by investing into a green future. 9
SMR Technology in the UK
Re-Revolutionising Nuclear Power Kathryn Jaitly – Imperial College London
Once upon a time, Britain was at the forefront of nuclear power. Not only did the UK build the “first commercial nuclear reactor on an industrial scale”, it was also building reactor after reactor in the Sixties and Seventies[1]. Chernobyl and subsequent public worries about nuclear power ground Britain’s nuclear programme to a halt. As other countries continued to invest in nuclear, Britain lost its place at the forefront of the technology. Today, plans for Hinkley Point C (see image) are plagued by worries over high expenditure[2]. With reliable (but CO2-emitting) natural gas and clean (but intermittent) renewable energy, Britain needs a new solution.
Midway through construction at the Hinkley Point C site
But SMRs have a problem: the economics. SMRs are appealing because they are cheaper than traditional nuclear power and are believed to be a competitor in our future energy mix. However, a recent technology assessment by EY, a consultancy firm, shows that SMRs are not cost-effective – at least not for the UK. Whilst the report has not been published at time of writing, several who have seen the report said that it will be “damning for the industry”[8]. Renewables can be cheap. When you consider wind and solar power, the payback times are relatively small. Even if the nuclear reactor is small, it is going to cost money. Rolls-Royce have stated that financing will be limited to £2.5B[5] (which, although less than traditional nuclear, is more than wind/solar).
That solution may be the SMR, the Small Modular Reactor. An SMR is a small nuclear fission reactor. Because it is a theoretical concept, the reactors have not been physically produced. As a result, there are a variety of design ideas which could potentially pave the way forward in SMR technology. Generally, the beauty of an SMR is in its size. Guidelines state that SMRs produce a maximum power of 300 MW[3], meaning that reactors produce less energy in comparison to conventional nuclear power stations[4]. Their smaller size enables them to utilise load-following designs, to vary the amount of electricity produced[6]. Larger reactors can only provide a baseload, due to safety constraints. This means that SMRs are more competitive than their more conventional counterparts.
Energy mix – the proportional amounts of each energy source used for power generation.
So, why talk about SMRs now? Talks are beginning to heat up regarding SMR technology in the UK. These talks began in 2014, when the Nuclear National Laboratory (NNL) issued an economic feasibility study into SMRs. They reached three significant conclusions. Firstly, there were four reactor designs which could be feasibly implemented in the next ten years. Secondly, there was a potential market for SMRs. Finally, the risk was deemed too great to implement the technology without backing from the government in some form[9]. This led the thenChancellor, George Osborne, to set up a competition to find a selection of innovative SMR designs, each with differing applications within industry. The prize is a share of funding to develop the design[10]. Currently, this UK competition is still ongoing – even in the face of the EY assessment.
Load-following power plants Power plants that operate with varying output. Since electricity demands fluctuate, conventional nuclear reactors and other base-load power plants (where output remains constant) cannot cope with changing fluctuations because of safety concerns and must always stay on. As a result, these plants are massively inefficient and there is a waste of potential energy. To combat this, load-following power plants can, increasing the efficiency of the plant.
The reactors are smaller in size, meaning that they could each be manufactured at a single plant, transported to different locations and assembled on-site (in a similar way to flat-pack furniture). Conventional reactors have to be built on-site from scratch, increasing costs. We can extend this further. The ability to produce SMRs on larger scales would benefit from ‘economies of scale’[7], leading to lower prices for consumers. All of this combines to produce an energy source which could potentially compete with the plummeting prices of renewables.
To win a share of the prize money, several companies are working together to try and find the best solution. One of the major players is a Rolls-Royce-led consortium of UK companies. Although Rolls-Royce focuses on nuclear power, this is their first foray into the civilian nuclear sector. Their argument focuses around its manufacturing prowess, plus their great knowledge of the (defence) 10
nuclear sector – they have access to the highest number of nuclear engineers within Britain. Whilst there are several other designs in the frame (such as designs by Westinghouse and NuScale), it appears that the RollsRoyce design is the most cost-effective[13]. Rolls-Royce has, however, remained vague about the design itself, merely hinting through their own website[11] and through speaking at conferences[12]. This has led to intense talks between the UK Government and Rolls-Royce over the past few months.
process of building a prototype SMR, expecting it to be completed in 2018[15]. In total, four SMR reactors are currently being built by three nations[3]. Whilst Argentina is building, Britain is only talking about its plans, further bringing Britain’s role in SMR technology into question. Other nations are already questioning Britain, with Brexit. This is another way of nations questioning Britain’s role in the world. After all, there is massive transformation in the energy industry, and in nuclear technology. We have reached a point where SMR technology may replace ‘conventional’ nuclear power… provided there is funding from governments. This could be a perfect opportunity for the UK, even though there are doubts surrounding its viability here. Meanwhile, other countries are pursuing the technology. It will be an interesting situation to see who pioneers the technology first. After all, whichever country can pioneer this technology will likely have a stranglehold on the nuclear industry for years to come.
So what has caused the intensity of discussions to increase? In a word, Brexit. Britain is in upheaval, and in future years the UK will need a steady source of income. SMRs may be the ticket. It appears that the UK Government is eager to utilise SMR technology, through its talks with Rolls-Royce amongst others, in spite of EY. Meanwhile, the UK are not alone in considering SMR technology. The US are planning to issue a “multi-year cost-shared funding opportunity”, with a focus on developing SMR technology[14]. Argentina is in the
Credits: Shutterstock
11
Shale Gas
Barriers to the Last Fossil Fuel Humera Ansari - Imperial College London
The impact of shale gas on the world is certainly well known. The chance to gain global energy independence from OPEC is fairly enticing in itself, but add in the success shale gas has seen in the USA[1] and you have countries clamouring for a piece of the pie. The boom in shale gas production is largely due to technological advancement in the gas extraction process. Fracking has opened the doors to vast amounts of cheap natural gas, and countries are ready to exploit this.
Shale gas and general natural gas production in various countries in 2015 and 2040 (projected) in billion cubic feet per day (bcf/day)[7,11,12]
fluid is water. Typical US formations require 10-15 millions of litres of water for hydraulic fracturing. This leads to two main issues. Firstly, it may be problematic to produce shale gas where there is a scarcity of water, as cost of transporting water to the site might be huge, and so the local water supply will be stressed[16]. Secondly, water quality in the surrounding areas might be reduced, if there are leaks due to poor well integrity or the waste from the extraction process is not properly disposed of.
It seemingly came out of nowhere, but shale gas has had a tremendous effect on North America. It has revitalised the USA’s energy policy, allowing the country to export the relatively cheap natural gas as LNG[2], a first for the contiguous US[3]. It has impacted gas prices, the economy and trade[4], but it has also had more widespread consequences such as increasing fertility rates due to the social implications attached to increase in job numbers[5]. And its growth shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, with the mounting emphasis on battling climate change, natural gas is gaining prominence as the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. BP’s Outlook[6] shows that shale gas will account for 25% of natural gas production by 2035, and for the USA, shale gas and another unconventional resource called tight oil, will represent 69% of total natural gas production in 2040[7].
Another leaking-related concern is related to fugitive emissions of methane emissions that occur invariably during the shale gas extraction process[17]. Estimates of fugitive emissions project 2% of total natural gas extracted from shale to be lost. Besides reducing efficiency, they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, shale gas extraction is a contributing factor to increased seismicity[15]. According to a review by Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering [13], the two types of seismicity related to fracking are microseismic events and large seismic events. Microseismic events arise during hydraulic fracturing as the fractures increase in size, and are fairly routine. Large seismic events, which are rare, can occur due to the presence of a pre-stressed fault[13].
The EIA estimates that the total global risked shale resources are about 35,800 trillion cubic feet and the total risked technically recoverable gas is 7,800 trillion cubic feet[8]. The United States has led the charge, with shale gas production exploding Risked estimates account from 28 billion cubic for uncertainty with regards metres in 2004 to 379 to the level of geological billion cubic metres in information for a specific formation 2014 the last decade[10] (see chart below).
For instance, two seismic tremors (of magnitudes 2.3 and 1.5) occurred in Blackpool, UK, in 2011 due to exploratory drilling, which was the cause of massive public concern. As a result of this, a temporary suspension on shale gas was placed in the UK[14]. After some investigation, it was apparent that the two events were caused by the reactivation of pre-stressed fault. The fault could have been either crossed by the well or been reactivated due to pressure changes induced by hydraulic fracturing[13]. Induced seismicity is a serious concern, one that can only be combatted with careful study and process design.
Areas of Concern The technical issues related to fracking cannot be ignored. They are the subject of great research in the scientific community, but continuous improvements in the technology is necessary to prevent any further incidents. The gravest issue of shale gas extraction is groundwater contamination by fracturing fluid. Large volumes of chemicals harmful to human health and the environment are consumed during fracking. Around 40-80% of the fracturing fluid is returned to the well surface, and the rest is leaked. Besides chemicals, the major component of the
The technical issues highlighted pale in comparison to issues with public perception. Based on the events in Blackpool, the public concluded that fracking was an 12
infringement upon their safety and security. Huge antifracking campaigns now exist in the UK and elsewhere. This has had the tangible effect of slowing down projects. However, heavily politicised public outcry over fracking is, nevertheless, overstated.
The Shale Gas Extraction Process There are three stages involved in shale gas extraction: Exploration, Production, and Abandonment. Exploration involves drilling test wells in a potential field to ascertain whether there is shale gas present and if production can be economic. The formation’s properties are characterised, and the propagation or spread of fractures is examined. Once the shale is deemed viable, production commences. Horizontal drilling is required to supplement the extraction process. As shale rocks are very ‘tight’, shale gas does not naturally flow into a well. The rock has to be stimulated, typically through a process called hydraulic fracturing (or ‘fracking’). This process involves drilling a well, casing it (using a large pipe), passing electrical charges to perforate holes along the well and pumping fracturing fluids so that fractures are created within the rock and existing fractures can open even more. Pressure is maintained through pumping additional fluid into the well. Consequently, the well produces shale gas. Once extraction is no longer practical or economic, the well is cemented over in order to trap residual gas, and a cap is welded on top [13]. The abandonment process includes utilising remaining gas and closing off the well.
Evidence of public misinformation was reinforced in a recent online survey of 1,500 people from the UK. It demonstrated that people were generally unsure and ambivalent about shale gas. Most of the participants were more aware of the risks rather than benefits of shale gas extraction. Yet when given more information about the economics of the process and its impact on replacing dirtier fossil fuels, people did become more positive. The results imply that education and awareness is key to garner public support on which policy relies. Shale gas’s place in the future is crucial. As intermittent renewables come to dominate electricity production, sources of energy that do not vary with sunlight or winds will become increasingly necessary. Shale gas remains cheaper than nuclear and cleaner than other fossil fuels. It is also transportable as LNG, and therefore accessible to all parts of the world. Misconceptions about fracking by media gurus and TV pundits, coupled with under-appreciation of pragmatic concerns to reduce carbon emissions, represent a strong blockade facing the ‘frackers’ worldwide. When it is not banned, as Scotland and France recently did, fracking receives the full attention of the media, environmentalists and social campaigners. Although shale gas has revolutionised the US energy mix, it has a substantial number of barriers to overcome before its success can be replicated elsewhere. As technology progresses and new regulations improve safety, the technical pitfalls will eventually be resolved. In the court of public opinion however, shale gas has a long way to go.
The process of shale gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. 2012: UK)
13
LNG in China
nearly doubled in five years. China has built 21,400 km of new gas pipelines and nine additional regasification terminals. At the end of 2015, the Chinese natural gas pipeline network was composed of 43,000 km of pipelines that covered all provinces except for Tibet, providing energy to 330 million people. (NDRC, 2017).
A Market Overview Max Tang – London School of Economics
Amid China’s infamous smog caused primarily by coalpowered plants, the country aims at diversifying its sources of energy and reducing its reliance on dirtier fossil fuels. The ‘War on Pollution’ is made harder as the relentless expansion of urban development to house China’s burgeoning urban population continues.
For the next five years, China is planning to continue expanding its natural gas industry. By 2020, China will grow its pipeline network to 104,000 km, and expand its underground storage facilities for a total working capacity of 14.8 Bcm (an increase of 142% and 169% respectively vis-à-vis the country’s 2015 figures). Due to the high demand of LNG in the Bohai Economic Rim, the Yangtze River Delta Economic Zone, and the South-Eastern Coastal Areas, China will prioritize enlarging the existing regasification centers as opposed to constructing new LNG receiving terminals. Considering the high environmental protection requirement in sensitive coastal zones, China will also begin its trials of floating LNG receiving terminals on the South China Sea (NDRC, 2017).
An important solution to coal, besides renewables, has been imported natural gas. Between 2011 and 2015, China imported 250 Bcm (billion cubic meters) of natural gas, an increase of 720% compared to the previous five years. Imported gas enters China through two channels: just under half came through pipelines predominantly from central Asia; the rest was in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG) predominantly from Qatar, Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia. In 2014, during the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, China and Russia signed a thirty-year agreement for importing 38 Bcm of natural gas per year through the Altai gas pipeline from Eastern Siberia to the border of NorthEast China. At a reported value of around $400bn, Russia is expected to fulfill 25% of the Chinese total natural gas demand. The country is now the world’s third largest importer of LNG, behind Japan and South Korea.
Regulation of the fossil fuel industry has, however, not kept up. Import licenses for petroleum and natural gas are only given to the ‘big three’ state-owned fossil fuel oligopolies: China National Petroleum Corporation, China National Offshore Oil Corporation Group, and Sinopec. To increase operational efficiency in the industry, and thus lower prices, the government hopes to accelerate reforms. It has already introduced a more market-based pricing reform for natural gas in 2011. State control and bureaucratic barriers are to be reduced and competition emphasized. To destroy the existing oligopoly, the government is encouraging dominant entities in other markets to enter its natural gas sector. For example, China Resource Gas, the biggest supplier of residential gas in China, is working with various private import/export firms to achieve vertical integration and diversify its upstream supply. China State Shipbuilding Corporation, a large defense group, is planning to construct floating liquefied natural gas terminals (FLNG) to enter the regasification segment currently monopolized by the Chinese national oil companies.
Source : http://www.lcnewsgroup.com/
The proportion of natural gas in China’s energy mix nevertheless remains below the international average of 23.8%. Shifting the balance of energy output toward natural gas could largely benefit the environment in terms of reducing smog. The Twelfth Five-Year Plan stated that shifting away from coal is an imminent one to reduce pollution (NDRC, 2013).
The Chinese natural gas sector’s potential for expansion could be described as “bottomless” for the next few years. Previous and existing Five-Year Plans show that the country has been rapidly expanding its natural gas inputs into its energy mix to reduce coal consumption. It will continue to do so. With supportive regulations and new players entering its energy sector, a window of opportunity has opened in China. Thus, the market conditions in China are extremely favorable for trading LNG.
Since then, natural gas consumption in proportion to the total energy consumption increased from 4.4% in 2010 to 5.9% in 2015. To achieve that, the length of the gas network
14
Off-grid Solar
comparison a “solar lamp” consisting of a solar panel and LED bulb (of order ~1 W) with a small battery can cost just $13[4]. In a study on Kenyan households by researchers from ETH Zurich[3], it was found that solar lamps amounted to nominal savings of $0.93 (~$2 PPP)/month on energy spending. Additionally, for households using off-grid solar products, charging of mobile phones and radios have often been made simpler, with long journeys otherwise needed to be taken for charging forgone[8].
Sunshine in Sub-Saharan Africa Han Yao Choong - Imperial College London There are still 1.2 billion people in the world without access to electricity. Around 95% of those people live in sub-Saharan Africa. It is therefore difficult to miss the underdevelopment of infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa when assessing the state of world electricity access. But despite decades of relative stagnation on the issue, the outlook for mass-electrification of Africa may be more optimistic than ever due to the rise of off-grid solar electrification solutions. Perennial problems in international development have been transformed into a commercial opportunity.
PPP-adjusted currency conversion considers disparities in the cost of living in different countries. It is preferable to nominal currency conversion based on market rates when discussing standards of living. But how did this industry develop itself from scratch to offer cost effective solutions that have long eluded offgrid households? This can be attributed to several ongoing trends, the two most important of which have been the fall in photovoltaic prices and the increase in East African mobile phone ownership. Firstly, the worldwide plunge of the cost of photovoltaics by 80% since 2010[2,9] has served to lower the cost of 200W PV panels to be within the affordability range of typical rural households[10]. The second factor has been the invention of new business models enabled by the spread of mobile phones. Only 6.2% of Rwandan households had at least one mobile phone a decade ago. The number today stands at 73% of Rwanda’s population. Through mobile cash transfer enabled by telecom providers, consumer banks and mobile money companies, solar providers have been able to receive cash transfers from customers daily. M-Pesa, a mobile payments service launched in Kenya ten years ago, now boasts over 18 million active cross-border users and over 6 billion transactions.
Share of population without grid access[2]
Facilitated by improvements in solar technology and network infrastructure, a new status quo is emerging in the domain of off-grid electrification. Combining with other technological ‘leapfrogs’ occurring in Africa, such as in mobile and internet, it is generating unprecedented ways in which technology has been used to improve lives and accelerate rural development. To appreciate this change, one can look no further than the fact that an industry barely existing a few years ago now consists of dozens of companies, which are thought to have electrified 600,000 households in Africa. With this rapid commercialisation, cheap lighting, mobile phones, radio and television have all been brought to off-grid customers at affordable prices. Hospitals previously reliant on unreliable national grids (if they reached their area that is) are now powered by solar.
Rwanda, a country of 11.5 million, is one of the smallest and most densely populated countries in Africa. Visited by the author, the developmental experience of off-grid solar in Rwanda has been an exemplary success. Although political repression by the regime persists, Rwanda nonetheless renowned is as a ‘donor darling’ due to its political stability, datadriven policymaking, and low corruption. Indeed, the landlocked country is ranked second only to Botswana, a stable democracy, regarding lack of corruption in continental Africa (Rwanda ranks ahead of both Italy and China in these rankings). Rwanda is popular as a testing ground for new technologies for rural development along with other aid programs.
Particularly prominent is the effect this has had on replacing traditional lighting such as kerosene lamps by LEDs, amounting to benefits through both financial savings and improvements in health. For rural households in Kenya, the cost of running a typical kerosene lamp can amount to up to $47-$54/year (PPP-adjusted)[3,4]. By 15
Access to mobile money services lifts households out of extreme poverty and enables them to afford electric lighting and heating. Its significance lies in the region’s negligible saving rates in the region as well as fluctuating agricultural incomes. Payment schemes involving regular payments of small sums rather than large lump sum payments are more preferred. This has naturally led to the introduction of ‘pay as you go’ (PAYG) schemes by solar companies for customers to make payments. It is from this experience that a key lesson can be drawn: that not all forms of cheapness can equate to affordability.
Rwanda’s policymaking reveals recognition for off-grid solutions. According to Rwanda Energy Group[14], the state utility company, the current nationwide electricity access rate amounted to 40.5%; with on-grid access representing 29.5% versus 11% for off-grid access. In the attempt to achieve 100% access rate by 2024, the government aims to raise on-grid and off-grid access to 52% and 48% respectively. The pioneering policy vision by Rwanda’s government clearly underscores the important position off-grid electrification occupies in electrification strategies. Through a range of initiatives such as public-private partnerships and regulatory work on distributed minigrids[19], the government is prepared to rethink and challenge previous notions of the role of the national grid in electrification. Rwanda is seeking to pursue an original and unprecedented strategy that is customised to the landlocked sub-Saharan country’s particular circumstances alongside the availability of new technologies in the 21st century, as shown by the high proportion of off-grid access it aims to achieve.
With novel models of off-grid electrification enabled by such recent trends, the resulting uptake of these off-grid solutions is further consolidated by factors pertaining to grid electricity. While it is generally acknowledged that competitively-priced grid electricity, when available, is more advantageous than solar home systems due to nonintermittency, security and high supply, it is important to note that connections are financed by expensive subsidies. For Rwanda, grid connections incur a nominal cost of $1000 per installation according to the Ministry of Infrastructure; with large parts of the subsidy financed by external aid.
Other East African economies such as Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are also seeing the active involvement of many of the same solar companies. The region may take the lead in further commercialisation of off-grid solar technologies given the relative political stability of the region. Beyond East Africa, the potential of solar markets in war-torn countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, and even Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, remains to be realised.
Moreover, for the poorest ‘under-grid’ households which cannot afford to make grid connections, ‘standalone’ solar products and solar lamps with capacity in the order of 10W represent options that help households avoid ‘all or nothing’ choices. Needless to say, for households far away from the grid in often hostile geographic environments, off-grid solar solutions may often be the only means for electrification.
Trends in technology will nonetheless continue to evolve off-grid solar as before. The continued potential for development of PV modules, energy storage, mobile technology and network infrastructure represent opportunities for foundations to be provided for even cheaper and improved products. The popularisation of ‘under $50 smartphones’ among the rural working class may offer new platforms and internet-based features.
‘Under-grid households’: Rural households which are in the vicinity of the national grid. Defined as households that are close enough to connect to a low-voltage line at a relatively low cost[17].
Just as they are being implemented in the developed world, initiatives are also taken by organisations to leverage embedded systems with customer analytics for a variety of applications such as predicting energy usage, customer credit ratings and predictive maintenance. With solutions thus far focused on electrification at the household level, there may also be scope to explore novel business models based on kilowatt-sized PV panels, facilitating new services such as electric bike sharing or automated launderettes. Schematic of a premium solar home system offered in East Africa.[19]
16
Off-grid solar electrification has the potential to provide much needed electricity access to the remote households and poor ‘under-grid’ households, which would boost save lives and living standards. Large amounts of cheaper and non-intermittent sources of energy are nevertheless required to provide energy for manufacturing and industry. The importance of building a robust national grid remains clear[15] for Rwanda and the region. That being said, it still remains to be seen how small scale primary sector activities such as mining and oil extraction leverage off-grid solar. The relationship between off-grid solar and the national grid calls for consideration in the long term.
constraints, could lessons be learnt from experiences in Africa that could contribute to resource-efficient innovation in the developed world? The rapid emergence of the off-grid electrification industry looks set to gather pace in the coming years, ushering in a new norm which will prompt review in the public perception of developmental economics and energy. In addition to consolidation in Africa’s emerging economies with the support of policymakers, untapped frontier markets remain for companies to expand. The diffusion of cheap solar power, in combination with diffusion of global innovations, continued improvements in analytics, internet of things (IoT), and the sharing economy look set to contribute to new solutions to serving and benefitting Africa’s desolate rural communities. Any persisting developmental challenge, no matter whether in the developed, emerging or frontier economies, can be addressed by sustainable, cost-effective and scalable technology-enabled solutions.
Will off-grid solar simply be remembered as a step towards achieving universal grid access, or will distributed generation remain a permanent feature? Regardless of the evolution of off-grid solar in the future, the technological ‘leapfrog’ of Africa is leveraging technologies in unprecedented ways. With new business and technical models developed under severe financial and resource
Source: http://igihe.com
17
opposite directions. In schools, individual fish take advantage of these currents, generated by their neighbours, to propel themselves forward, thereby saving energy while increasing speed. These swirling currents, known as “Shed Vortices”, were analysed by computer simulations and used as a blueprint for the arrangement of turbines in a hypothetical field. In this model, a fish was analogous to the wind passing through the field and turbines were placed in the same arrangement and, crucially, designed to spin in the same direction as the shed vortices.
Biomimicry in Energy
Save the World by learning from it Kunal Katarya – Imperial College London
A simple Google search for biomimicry, or biomimetics, would yield its definition - 'the imitation of models, systems, and elements of nature for the purpose of solving complex human problems'. This seemingly enigmatic concept is actually more ubiquitous in today’s world than one may initially assume. Japanese engineers drew inspiration from the beaks of Kingfishers to give their trains its distinct shape - now the defining feature of the Shinkansen (bullet train). Perhaps a more well-known example is that of Velcro - the small hooks found on its surface were inspired by burrs, minuscule needles that help seeds attach themselves onto animals for dispersal.
To take advantage of shed vortices, which spin on a vertical axis (parallel to the ground), a different variant of turbine had to be used. Vertical-Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTs), whose blades spin on a vertical axis rather than a horizontal one, are demonstrably less efficient and more expensive than a HAWT. However, when deployed to spin in opposite directions as in this model (with a few important optimisations), VAWTs were shown to produce a staggering ten times more electricity per square meter of land than most wind farms. In other words, turbulence was found to supplement energy generation rather than hinder it.
Taking inspiration from design and processes in nature may seem odd but actually makes a lot of sense. Natural selection means that animals and plants have had millions of years to perfect their solutions to issues relevant to their survival; those that could not adapt are extinct. As Jeffery Karp, a bioengineer based in MIT, puts it, “In essence, we are surrounded by solutions. Evolution is truly the best problem-solver.” Though we may not necessarily face the same issues, examining the structures and systems present in nature can be enlightening, particularly so in the context of renewable technologies.
More testing is required before this technology is ready for large-scale, real-world implementation. VAWT fields need to be exposed to a variety of conditions and then tweaked further; nevertheless, the study provides an interesting insight into a potential future of wind turbines.
Schooled by fish A well-documented issue with a farm of Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines (HAWTs) - the prevailing wind turbine technology - is the stream of slow-moving air that gets left in a single turbine’s wake. This limits the amount of power that turbines behind it can generate. HAWTs hence need to be spaced apart from each other - as far as five to ten rotor diameters apart.
Shed vortices due to fish movement, blueprint for arrangement of wind turbines (picture from article by Whittlesey et al)
A new take on chaos theory Some of the most fundamental challenges in solar energy have involved the structure of solar cells. The current generation of solar cells - Thin Film (TF) solar cells - can achieve 20% efficiency. Furthermore, these cells can be “pasted” onto many surfaces, transforming even buildings or windows into solar panels. These attributes of TF solar cells make them a cheaper and more attractive option than conventional silicon solar cells. When applied to traditional solar panels, however, TF solar cells are unable to mitigate the high cost of tracking the movement of the sun.
Aerodynamic interference at an offshore wind farm in Denmark, designed by Vattenfall (Source: Vattenfall)
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) sought to improve the way wind farms deal with air turbulence, and found their answer in a different fluid altogether: water. A fish swimming through water generates currents on either side of its wake, swirling in
A team of scientists from Caltech and the Karlaugh Institute of Technology (KIT) were researching means to reduce these costs when they turned their attention to the
18
“black butterfly” – a species of butterfly renowned in the scientific community for its light absorption properties. Prior studies conducted on the butterfly’s wings demonstrated their remarkable ability to efficiently absorb sunlight from almost all angles. If TF cells could be somehow modified to mimic this property, sunlighttracking costs could be reduced. When examined under an electron microscope, the butterfly’s wings revealed an extensive network of nanoholes, seemingly randomly distributed, which scattered the light that struck them and redirected it deeper into the structure, allowing for greater absorption.
In the bigger context Researchers working across the spectrum of renewable technologies have been mimicking nature to create better solutions. From Australia, where BioPower found a new way to harness the motion of the waves by observing seaweed, to Tunisia, where TYER Wind has created a new type of wind turbine with blades that mimic the movement of a hummingbird’s wings, biomimicry is slowly emerging as a proven technique for developing smarter renewables. Renewables, however, are just one cog in the massive wheel that is the energy transition. In her 2012 bestselling book, “This Changes Everything”, renowned climate change activist Naomi Klein calls for immediate action to bring about the technological and economic revolutions necessary to keep global warming below the 2°C mark agreed upon in the G20 summit. Her arguments are ever more relevant in today’s context; new research published in The Economist details the need to not only cut emissions, but also to “suck” carbon out of the atmosphere. These massive undertakings require scientists to think differently and create new solutions for a myriad of climate-related issues. This is where biomimicry can fit into the picture. Principles from nature need not only be applied to renewables; indeed, researchers are examining nature for ideas about ventilation, water storage, waste management and communication networks, just to name a few. Biomimicry can be the key to making existing technology more efficient, thereby reducing its carbon footprint, but also as a source of inspiration for new, “out of the box” solutions – something that is urgently needed.
A black butterfly’s wing, viewed under an electron microscope (Source: article by R.H Siddique et al) The researchers were able to replicate these structures for application in photovoltaic absorbers. These bio-inspired nanoholes on the fabricated absorbers allowed for absorption of light at unprecedented levels of efficiency; almost doubling absorption at a normal incident level of light. If deployed in the real world, this could potentially nullify the need for motion tracking hardware; in other words, solar cells would be able to harness more energy without needing constant re-alignment to the sun.
Of course, simply developing new technology will not suffice. Other factors to ensuring a successful energy transition are necessary. Economic incentives as well as an unprecedented degree of selflessness and collaboration on the part of policymakers and governments. The former is a whole new can of worms; but perhaps a study of ant behavior would be a good starting point for the latter.
The fabricated absorber, viewed under an electron microscope (picture from article by R.H Siddique et al)
19
be controlled remotely. The data is sent to be analysed in real time, allowing the operators of the grid to keep track of local generation and demand patterns more effectively. This simplifies the issue of balancing supply and demand.
Smart Grids
The Future is Virtual Catherine Hayes – Imperial College London
The development of the smart grid is inspiring the growth of new services. Virtual power plants (VPP), for instance, rely on the smart grid to work.
The smart grid is being rolled out at a breakneck pace: as of 2016, there were 700 million smart meters installed worldwide[1]. China is in the lead, with 350 million. Every house in the UK will be offered a smart meter by 2020. But what is driving the revolution?
Also known as aggregators, these are a way to integrate renewables into the wider grid. They create a network that links together homes which have storage or renewables installed. Once the network is large enough, a VPP can sell services from these tiny installations in the electricity wholesale market, competing with conventional power stations. Each VPP has one of two modes of operation: producing electricity, or reducing demand for electricity when the grid is under stress[5].
In a smart grid, electricity and information can flow both ways between utility companies and customers. This is done by integrating computers and other technologies into the grid. In the old grid, electricity was generated in large power stations and transmitted across a network before reaching consumers’ homes. Its structure was hierarchical, controlled from the top down, and its flows were wellunderstood. Most of the energy came from coal-fired or nuclear generation.
The individual units in the VPP can be any of a host of technologies that create or store energy, from solar panels to storage heaters[6] . Combined heat and power (CHP) plants, which are often used to provide energy to industrial sites, can also be integrated into a VPP[7] The units themselves do not need to be smart, and the gadgets required to connect an isolated unit to the aggregator are cheap[8].
The arrival of renewable energy has upset this pattern. Unlike other sources of electricity, wind and solar energy are intermittent. The amount joining the system changes with the weather and the seasons. As they become a larger part of our energy supply, the amount of power in the grid is growing harder to predict[3]. Renewables are especially disruptive because they can generate electricity at a domestic level. The grid was designed to deliver electricity from power plants to homes and businesses, and safety features prevent domestic electricity from flowing back up the chain. The production of electricity by multiple sources is causing significant disruption of the centralised electricity grid. By making the grid smart, we can adapt it for the future. In theory, every building would monitor its own consumption and generation via a smart meter, which can
The Grid[b]
Aggregators benefit consumers, who earn money for giving up control of their asset. They make better use of resources, because they can adjust their customers’ consumption to take advantage of low electricity prices[5]. Virtual power plants also act as a reservoir for the grid. They are useful for load balancing: they help to smooth peaks in electricity use at a regional or national level. The grid is built to handle peak load, the maximum amount of electricity we ever need at one time. Most of the year, we use only part of its capacity, and some of our generators lie idle. Because they can make the peak load smaller,
UK Electricity Generation (2006 & 2016)[a]
20
The grid cannot store electricity, so the amount we generate must always match the amount we consume[3] . We make sure this is the case by load balancing.
A distributed system has a group of generators spread around an area. An example would be rooftop solar panels installed on different buildings in a town.
aggregators reduce the number of conventional power stations we need to build.
If an aggregator fails to meet its obligations too frequently, it will go bankrupt[15].
Aggregators are a semi-commercial concept: while they are not yet widespread, several companies exist. Tiko, for instance, is a Swiss aggregator founded in 2012, which has several thousand customers. They originally offered heating demand regulation, but have branched out into battery and solar VPPs[8].
Trouble can arise from the use of technology. Smart meters are often reliant on mobile 3G signal to function[8]. In many areas, this signal is of dubious quality, forcing the meters to go ‘dumb’. Aggregators need a reliable network of assets, or the whole concept falls apart. The social effects of widespread participation in VPPs are also worth considering. Consumers who are confused by the smart grid, or who are unable to optimise their electricity consumption, could be at a real disadvantage. VPPs are a source of profit for highly motivated consumers, and not for the parts of the population who would benefit most from reduced electricity bills.
In a typical arrangement, the customer installs a small gadget on each heater in their home. These connect wirelessly to a communicator, which uses the internet to link with the aggregator. The home’s heating is switched on and off remotely, according to fluctuations in the price of electricity[8]. Customers are compensated through savings in their energy bills, as the Tiko system also tracks and optimises their electricity consumption. Tiko is able to offer valuable fast frequency response services to the Swiss grid[9].
The whole smart grid is dogged by the question of security. In December 2015, a cyberattack on Ukraine brought down the power grid, causing widespread blackouts[16]. As the grid grows more connected, it may grow more vulnerable. Thorough security on the ‘grid edge’ devices found in homes could ruin their performance. Many consumers are also wary of the extensive data collection inherent in a VPP arrangement, fearing that their privacy could be affected[17].
The VPP concept can show great flexibility. OVO Energy and Nissan are trialling an electric vehicle aggregator, which uses the batteries in Nissan Leaf cars during charging[13]. As electric cars are predicted to become much more common in the future, they are increasingly straining the grid. The electrical capacity of these vehicles is expected to be immense: up to 200 GW in the UK alone, more than double the capacity of the grid[13,14].
The smart grid will change the way we use energy in our lives. The advent of domestic renewables, such as rooftop solar, has shifted power into the hands of consumers. Virtual power plants are a natural product of this evolution. They show enormous potential to support the grid at a time when electricity supply is becoming more complex.
Aggregators are a bright idea, but they are hard to implement. The available energy in a distributed system is incredibly hard to monitor. For both demand response and generation, the aggregator must predict how much electricity they can offer to the grid, hours or days in advance. If these predictions are wrong, they will be fined.
21
Obstacles to Electric Vehicles
reserves out of the three countries, suffers from a weak regulatory environment and a lack of suitable infrastructure[6] to accommodate for an increased demand, and Chile’s production has been restricted by the government quotas[7]. Other lithium-rich countries, such as the US, China and Australia, present an attractive opportunity for investors as metal prices have almost doubled over the last year alone[8]. However, it might be difficult to get to the resources quickly as new mines, refineries and infrastructure to serve them will take years to build. A former Tesla engineer has estimated that to fulfil expanding market needs, the rate of lithium extraction and processing needs to be expanded by a factor of 17 from its current level of 182,000 tonnes per year[9]. Considering the above factors, rapid expansion of operations might be difficult to achieve in the short-term.
Real Cost of Batteries Zivile Venslaviciute – Imperial College London In July 2017, the UK government pledged to prohibit diesel and petrol car sales by 2040[1]. Similar trends have been observed all over the world with China looking into banning combustion engine cars between 2025 and 2040[2] and India promising to sell only electric cars by 2030[3]. The most conservative scenario derived by the International Energy Agency predicts that the Electric Vehicle (EV) fleet is expected to reach at least 40M cars by 2025 from 2M currently (graph below). The combination of both improvements in the battery technology leading to lower prices and pledges from governments to transition away from the combustion engine are welcomed news. Whether EVs will lead to a decarbonisation or not, and at what cost, nevertheless remain a subject of a continuing debate.
Nickel, another battery mineral, faces similar supply shortages. Glencore and BHP, two mining companies, are currently investing in upgrading their extraction and processing capacities. Nonetheless, even such investments might not be enough to meet the increased demand for nickel as the content mass of the metal in batteries is expected to rise from a third currently to 80% in 2020[10]. To accommodate for changes in technology in addition to the growing demand for EVs, significantly more investment may be required to ramp up the production. Supply-side bottlenecks may be a threat as constrained supply of metals coupled with ever-increasing demand. Higher prices would ensue, generating downward pressure on growth of EVs.
Supply chain considerations Lithium is one of the key metals used in the lithium-ion battery and contributes around 13-14%[5] to its content. With the demand for vehicles set to increase dramatically there may be issues with supply matching demand. Resources of lithium are mostly confined to the so-called “lithium triangle” consisting of Argentina, Chile and Bolivia[5]. Bolivia, despite holding the largest lithium
Deployment scenarios for the stock of electric cars to 2030[4] Notes: The RTS incorporates technology improvements in energy efficiency and modal choices that support the achievement of policies that have been announced or are under consideration. The 2DS is consistent with a 50% probability of limiting the expected global average temperature increase to 2°C. The B2DS falls within the Paris Agreement range of ambition, corresponding to an average increase in the global temperature by 1.75°C.
22
Another major component in the production of lithiumion batteries is cobalt[5]. The metal is sourced from the politically-unstable and conflict-prone Democratic Republic of Congo[5]. For any manufacturer wishing to procure its cobalt from the DRC, the security of the physical supply should be considered together with risks of human rights violations and conflict sponsorship through the supply chain. Most recently, Amnesty International raised concerns on potential use of child labour and artisan mining in extraction of cobalt, blaming automobile manufacturers for not doing enough to address these issues[11]. Although Tesla is known to be exploring new resources in North America, it would be tricky given that cobalt has not been mined in the US for the last 40 years[5]. Another major player in the EV revolution – China – relies heavily on supplies from the DRC[12]. EV manufacturers should really pay attention to the supply chain due diligence in order to avoid reputational damages stemming from unsound practices of suppliers and minimise reliance on such suppliers.
be examined to determine whether switching to EVs will eliminate greenhouse gas emissions[19]. Investments into renewables are set to dominate the energy market in the future, and coal’s contribution to the mix has been decreasing. Nevertheless, the International Energy Agency estimates that coal will still contribute a quarter to the world’s electricity mix[23] in 2040 (see graph below). Thus, moving to EVs will not eliminate indirect emissions associated with the electricity generation – at least not in the short term - as coal remains firmly in the mix.
Grid problems Projected world electricity generation from 2012 to 2040, by energy source (in trillion kilowatt hours)[21]
Besides the supply chain considerations necessary to implement the electric vehicle revolution, significant investments in the infrastructure will also be required. Major car manufacturers have recently urged the EU to accelerate the construction of the EV infrastructure (including charging points and their connection to the grid) with half of the member countries still lagging behind to submit their plans[13].
Conclusion In conclusion, the EV revolution may face counterrevolutionary pressures. There is certainly an incentive for growth fuelled by the public demand and pledges from some governments to phase out the combustion engine aimed at reducing carbon emissions. However, considering the current and forecasted global electricity mix, it is unlikely that the EV car fleet will be solely powered by the renewable energy until after the middle of the century. In the more immediate future, supply of key battery elements may be at risk due to physical and political limitations associated with the expansion of production as well as potential human rights violations within the supply chains.
Sluggish responses from governments have encouraged the manufacturers to take matters into their own hands. Ford, BMW and VW promised to install 400 charging stations across Europe by 2020[15]. The oil & gas giant Shell has recently bought a charge point supplier with 30,000 existing charging points to continue financing new ones[16,17,18]. The rapid deployment of charging grid might help to spread the EV revolution faster. The final consideration is the contribution of EVs to climate action. The current global electricity mix should
23
Energy Economics
network to reap in potential profits of newly minted bitcoins with diminishing improvements. According to estimates by Vice, one bitcoin transaction consumes more than 5,000 times the energy consumed by a Visa credit card transaction.
Bitcoin Mining Torin Rittenberg – London School of Economics
The geography of some of the world’s largest bitcoin mines plays a large role in their source of energy. Over half the world’s major bitcoin mining pools (mines that collaborate and share the profits) are centrally located in China, which control around 80% of the bitcoin network’s total hash power. Most draw their electricity from coal-fired power plants for a cheap, price-stable coal-powered electricity. Renewable energy for mining does exist, notably in southern provinces of Yunnan and Sichuan where hydroelectricity is cheap and plentiful (often around £0.03 per kWh). Its reliance on hydroelectric dams that freeze in the winter limits its appeal.
A single bitcoin transaction requires 240 kilowatt-hours of electricity – the equivalent to an American household’s consumption for one week. At any given moment, the electricity consumption power of the bitcoin network could power about 2.4 million U.S. households. What’s more, the amount of energy used to power the cryptocurrency only increase as it becomes more lucrative, which raises the plaguing concern of the (un)sustainability of bitcoin’s growth–especially when its value has meteorically risen to over $11,000 (although it since declined).
Bitcoin
Furthermore, the uncertainty around the Chinese government’s policies on cryptocurrencies makes for a risky environment to operate or invest in bitcoin mines. Earlier this year, China banned fundraising efforts through initial coin offerings (ICOs) and all digital currency exchanges. The expensive capital costs of setting up a bitcoin mining operation are now an even greater deterrent if the country could potentially outlaw mining sometime in the future.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer digital currency based on a distributed ledger system called the ‘blockchain’. When a person goes to send bitcoin to someone else, the transaction is verified by the network of users, not by any central bank or institution, and can be viewed by anyone. Valid transactions are collected together into a block that doesn’t become linked to the blockchain until dedicated hardware, through brute computational force, perform calculations (hashes) to find a value that links the block to previous blocks. The ‘proofs of work’ process of solving these equations (hashing) and finding the right value is called mining – miners verify the calculation is correct. Mining is both computationally complex and capital-intensive. As an incentive, miners are rewarded for every hash result they solve/every block they add to the blockchain, receiving 12.5 bitcoins as well as transaction fees.
Although most bitcoin trading activity is now leaving China for countries such as Japan following the government’s ban on fundraising efforts through ICOs (initial coin offerings) as well as all digital currency exchanges, the country nevertheless remains the central hub for the minting of new bitcoins. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency to operate on a proofs of work system for digital mining, but it certainly is the largest. While many other industries are known to consume copious amounts of electricity, it is useful to think in terms of how much energy is consumed on a pertransaction basis for mining. Thinking about it this way–240 kWh of electricity per transaction–can put in perspective how much value society is getting out of the network’s power demand. Only a small percentage of people use bitcoin for practical transactions, such as feeless remittances across borders. It is no doubt that the potential for bitcoin applications remains tremendous, but most users right now are holding it in hopes it increases in value so they can turn a quick profit, not because they are utilizing it for practical use.
Mining blocks (see box) becomes more attractive as the value of bitcoin rises. One block is generated every ten minutes and about 300,000 transactions are verified every day, as tracked by the all-things-bitcoin database, blockchain.info. Miners have increased their processing power to increase their chances of successfully hashing an equation and obtaining the profits that come with it. According to estimates by Digiconomist, a cryptocurrency news platform, the entire process now consumes about 25 TWh of electricity annually; more than the consumption of Nigeria. The problem, though, is that efficiency gains are beginning to slow while the value of bitcoin continues to hit new highs. That means more racks of processors are joining the
24
The upside is that technology usually follows a trend of inefficient systems getting displaced for more efficient and effective solutions. Just as how the harmful emissions of diesel engines are giving rise to a new era of electric vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries, the capital and environmental drawbacks of bitcoin mining are spurring new alternative methods of operating cryptocurrencies. For instance, Chia Network, a recently launched company, promises to replace bitcoin’s energy-intensive proofs of work through proofs of time and storage. Chia Network hopes to harness unused storage space on hard drives across its network to verify its blockchain, rather than performing expensive computer calculations to solve each block.
Proofs of stake look to solve both issues by ‘virtualizing’ the mining process. Instead of using electricity and solving mathematical puzzles, users will wager a certain value of their ether on a block. When that block gets added to the chain, the person with the ‘best block,’ essentially the most valid transactions, gets chosen to verify it. The creator of a new block is thus determined by the amount of ether (the coin that powers the ethereum network) they hold, or their total ‘stake,’ and the strength of their block, rather than by their total processing power. Blockchain technology doesn’t have to be a power-sucking platform that is used in the same way as the bitcoin network. Many other digital currencies are sidestepping the problem of the costs and energy demand by innovating new methods of operation. The historical structure of bitcoin nevertheless offers little hope for a shift in its proofs of work system. The very characteristics of the cryptocurrency that have made it so revolutionary and popular – decentralization and anonymity – have also become its drawbacks. Without founders, executive teams, or governing international bodies; no regulations exist for mines and where they draw their power from. The system transcends borders, with essentially one dictating profit-maximizing rule that reigns over the mining community: go where energy is cheap. And often, that means depending on unsustainable dirty sources of energy for what hopes to be a sustainable digital currency revolution.
Ether, the cryptocurrency behind the ethereum network that is second in market capitalization to bitcoin, is also on a proofs of work system but has plans to phase out in favor of a proofs of stake process. Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin is planning on transitioning because of two main reasons. The first is to lower the tremendous use of energy, as previously discussed. Then, since current mining operations tend to be located where electricity is cheapest, it hurts the decentralization ambitions of cryptocurrencies by concentrating it in a select number of places.
Blockchain explained
Source: Blockgeeks
25
which would create uncertainty in the payoffs to those installing solar plants, would negatively impact this trend.
Decentralisation in Energy Provision
How is the Sharing Economy Driving Change?
On the continuum of property rights arrangements, which vary from open source to fully privatized assets, there also exists a range of possible outcomes. According to the theory, clear and comprehensive private property rights will lead to investment and infrastructure improvement, because the benefits thereof will accrue to those incurring the cost. Conversely, uncertainty in property rights, whether changing regimes or uncomprehensive coverage, tends to lead to underinvestment and poor maintenance of assets.
Emily van der Merwe – London School of Economics
There was a time when electricity provision was a textbook example of a natural monopoly: an industry where high capital and infrastructure costs created barriers to entry, and economies of scale determined that the most effective provision can be done by one firm only. The potential of natural monopolies to subsequently exploit its market power was also the leading justification for nationalization and regulation of energy utilities.
Uncertain policy, frequent changes and unsatisfactory rates (particularly prevalent when there is only one buyer, in this case the national grid operator, who can effectively set prices) deter many potential investors from engaging in private electricity provision. The most worrying consequence of this is the artificial maintenance of a renewable energy cost per unit that is well above the true costs, had a free market been allowed to determine investment and production. As pointed out in a recent report on the UK’s “broken energy market” by Dieter Helm, this unnecessarily high cost not only burdens households, but undermines a democratic move to lowcarbon.
That time is no longer. The sharing economy has disrupted the traditional structure of the energy sector, and anyone can now be an electricity provider thanks to renewable energy and (relatively) affordable infrastructure. Furthermore, private electricity providers, who install and generate off-the-grid sources of energy, can sell excess electricity to other users by feeding it into the national grid. The revolution of the grid has arrived, but why does it have so few followers? Owning up The question might be new, but the underlying determinants are reminiscent of the Property Rights Theory by Harold Demsetz. The slow uptake of private energy provision despite declining costs of infrastructure, as seen across the world and particularly in many developing countries, may have something to do with existing property rights regime.
Property Rights Theory Demsetz’s Property Rights Theory is an economic theory which first emerged in the 1960s following his seminal paper in the American Economic Review, a leading publication. It states that “a primary function of property rights is that of guiding incentives to achieve greater internalisation of externalities.”
Mitigated adoption of decentralization, given the availability of solar roofs and other sources, may be because the national energy grid often belongs to the public electricity provider, i.e. the original monopolist. Thus, despite the decentralisation of electricity creation, electricity distribution is still firmly nationalised and monopolised, and fails to create incentives for infrastructure investment.
What are the externalities that require internalising? In the case of electricity, it is the social cost of carbon (in terms of pollution, health and climate change), which are obscured by the subsidies most developing country governments pay to keep coal-fuelled power stations up and running.
One particularly high-profile illustration of this disparity is the ongoing battle between SolarCity and NV Energy, Nevada’s largest utility company. Although NV Energy is in fact not state-owned, the same principle applies (NV Energy is in fact owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet’s investment company. This unlikely match has earned the court battle the title of a “battle of billionaires”, referring to Musk and Buffet’s rivalry). Partly due to SolarCity’s solar rooftop products, and the rapidlydeclining cost of photovoltaic cells, electricity generation has become profitable to households while causing panic among utility companies, who are forced to buy back electricity into the grid at a predetermined price.
Property rights matter for private electricity provision precisely because of this incentive-steering quality. According to Property Rights Theory, ownership of resources (in this case by the state) directs incentives because it allocates decision-making authority. Decision-making is in turn guided by reward structures, which determine that those who own a particular resource will get returns from investment on that resource. Thus no one would rationally decide to invest in new assets if they do not own the means of making money from that investment.
Just as regulation enabled the decentralisation of electricity creation – by forcing utilities to pay rebates to private generators – such changes to energy regulation,
26
A property rights-based solution? Faced with antiquated and often creaking national energy grids, independent energy producers are constrained to three options: either generate only the amount of electricity required for consumption, sell excess electricity to the central authority for distribution through the national grid, or buy batteries for storing electricity. Each has its disadvantages. Generating only for consumption leads to leakage when conditions are good, and otherwise shortages. Selling excess electricity to the grid is only allowed at the predetermined price, which skews the bargaining advantage towards to national energy provider. Buying batteries, meanwhile, remain the most expensive part of a typical electricity layout, and without offering much protection against weak conditions. The last option, however, holds potential to change the current paradigm. With advancements in the storage capacity of battery cells come new possibilities of using and distributing electricity, complemented with the advent of smart, decentralised grids and other digital technologies that link producers and consumers of electricity directly, without the need for the national grid. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that we might soon see a lightweight, transportable electricity storage battery which would allow small electricity generators to exchange (or sell) their electricity. This will also reduce variability and instability in renewable energy provision by sharing risks between producers.
Vesting property rights firmly in the hands of private electricity producers removes the substantial uncertainties associated with having to sell electricity to the central authority. This would lead to more competitive pricesetting, a more transparent market and possibly a quicker transition to a zero-carbon economy. The sharing economy has already transformed hospitality, transport and retail sectors by expanding supply and driving prices down for consumers. As technology advances and becomes increasingly accessible, we are bound to see its impact in the energy sector, where the phrase “power to the people� may soon have a whole new meaning.
Pioneered by Tesla with its household Powerwall and utility Powerpack energy storage systems, the battery industry is witnessing a timely boom. A host of battery producers including Panasonic, LG and Samsung, are aiming to triple battery storage capacity by 2020. Meanwhile the cost is rapidly declining, as shown by the figure below (The Economist, 12 August 2017).
27
doubling in installed solar capacity[3]. Recent data by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) suggests that Swanson’s Law may even be too conservative, with an average rate of 24-28% to be more accurate[4] .
Solar Energy
The Revolution is Now, and it’s Solar Nathan Murray – Imperial College London
The learning curve chart in Figure 2 describes a recent trend in the solar manufacturing industry. From 2003 – 2008, a shortage in polysilicon - the fundamental component for manufacturing silicon wafers - drove up polysilicon prices and slowed down the learning curve[5]. New polysilicon capacity was added to the supply chain after a lag of high polysilicon prices. The resulting glut in polysilicon contributed to the solar price crash from 2008 – 2015.
The world is becoming more electrified. With the advent of electric car and heat pump adoption, the ways in which we receive, and use energy will need to be re-evaluated. Specifically, electrical grids across Europe will need to be reinforced and perhaps even grown to accommodate this trend. National Grid has modeled future electric vehicle use and found that switching from petrol to electricity could contribute to an 8GW increase in peak demand, or 3x Hinkley Point C power stations, by 2030[1]. The lowest cost solution to add capacity varies by region. In the US, this has been Natural Gas. In Asia, coal. But, what will happen when the lowest cost choice to reinforce the grid is solar?
The unexpectedly steep fall in costs actually led to the collapse of many manufacturers, particularly in the US and Europe. The political reaction to these events led to the US and EU initiating a trade war with China in an attempt to raise import prices on low-cost crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules[7]. Only recently, in October 2017, has the EU started to relax its “minimum import price” agreement with China[8].
In the US, utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) power plants are able to now produce electricity at $1.03 prices have fallen from $4.57/W-DC in 2010 to $1.03/W-DC in 2017[2]. Much of the cost reduction has been driven by economies of scale as solar manufacturers learn more efficient processes and procure at lower prices. Recently, “soft costs” such as labor, overhead, and taxes have taken a greater share of installation costs for PV systems. Installers should see this as an opportunity to differentiate themselves and resist the temptation to rely on falling hardware prices alone. They should depend more on clever installation designs, disruptive business models, and increasing worker productivity.
Not just cheap panels, but better panels will also drive cost reduction. More efficient solar panels can help drive down “soft costs” by reducing the number of modules per installation[9]. Specifically, “soft costs” are the costs not associated with the physical hardware such as financing, labor, taxes, and other transaction costs. Fewer modules also lead to lower “balance-of-system” costs such as wiring and physical mounting hardware. A typical solar installation in 2017 uses panels with efficiencies of 1618%. Crystalline silicon solar manufacturers continue to refine their processes as they race toward more efficient panels. Recently, Jinko Solar, a Chinese solar manufacturing firm, set a mono-crystalline silicon efficiency record of 23.45%[10]. Compared to the Shockley-Queisser limit of 30% for solar panel efficiency, solar modules demonstrated enormous progress in the past, and demonstrate enormous potential in the future. In the coming years, clever technology will play a more important role. Solar tracking typically uses small, geared motors to maintain a normal level of incidence with the sun to allow the system to collect more energy for a longer part of the day. Single or dual-axis solar tracking systems are not a new idea, but each axis of motion adds additional complexity, maintenance, and cost. As the efficiency of solar modules increases, the productivity gain from a solar tracking system helps to justify the additional cost because fewer trackers are required.
The Solar Power Learning Curve from 1976 to 2017[4] The fall in costs is related to a phenomenon not unique to solar but common across the diffusion of innovation in other fields: Learning Curves. A good analogy for a learning curve is the infamous Moore’s law in computing, which states that the number of transistors in a computer chip (and hence processing power) doubles every 18 months. Swanson’s law, named after Richard Swanson, a Stanford researcher and co-founder of mono-crystalline silicon manufacturer SunPower, has been credited with determining that solar module costs fall 20% for every
Recent data from the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that singleaxis tracking systems provide an 8% premium in installation cost per watt, but, levelized over the lifetime of the project, reduce the cost of harvesting a kilowatt hour by up to 12%[2]. Already, 80% of new utility-scale solar projects in the US had some type of tracking system.
28
can be converted by solar panel efficiently. Expensive demonstration samples have shown photoelectric conversion efficiency of 46%, but the theoretical limit is much higher[12].
Shockley-Queisser Limit The Shockley-Queisser limit considers, among other factors, that the sun emits light in a range of frequencies [11]. Electrons (that constitute electricity) that absorb light energy ‘jump’ to higher electron shells around atoms. The light energy absorbed by electrons on the valence shell (the outer-most electron shell around an atom) are freed, creating electric and heat energy in the process. Photovoltaic cells use single-junction semiconductors with various bandgaps, the difference between the initial and final states is the band-gap, to efficiently convert the electrical energy from light energy. The band-gap for semiconductors is very narrow, between 1.3eV and 1.4eV.
BNEF predicts that a tipping point in utility-scale energy will occur in the next decade. New solar installations will be competitive, not just with the fixed capital costs, but with the marginal costs of running existing coal and gas turbines. BNEF notes that guidance by intergovernmental organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) has consistently underestimated the adoption of both solar and wind technology year-afteryear since 2004. For Michael Liebreich, the founder of BNEF, the levelized cost of energy, a generation-neutral energy comparison price, of 2 U.S. cents per kilowatthour (“kWh”)[4] is needed to reach the tipping point.
Redder light at lower frequencies and higher wavelengths doesn’t have enough energy to excite electrons past the semiconductor’s band-gap and therefore fail to generate any electricity. Light at higher energies with higher frequencies and lower wavelengths (i.e. bluer) than the semiconductor’s band-gap do generate more energy, but only the same amount of electricity with extra energy lost as heat. As the sun emits a range of frequencies, very low frequency light fails to generate electricity and high frequency light is inefficiently converted to both electricity and heat.
The solar industry in developed economies is getting closer to the two-cent mark. Utility-scale projects in the U.S. have reached an unsubsidized price of 4-6 cents per kWh in 2016, down from 23-30 cents per kWh just seven years ago[2]. Emerging economies are also coming to terms with the new energy landscape. In 2016, the center of gravity in solar shifted when Asia surpassed Europe as the global solar capacity leader with 139 GW installed[15]. China deployed as much power in one year as the United States had in cumulative operation. In India, nearly 14 GW of planned coal capacity was cancelled in May 2017[16]. Bids for a 500 MW solar auction came in 30% below the cost of new coal capacity. Even existing solar bids are currently being reevaluated to make room for radically lower solar prices.
The narrow band-gaps explain why PV modules are blue. The theoretical limit for single-junction solar cells therefore suggests a hard cap for single-junction silicon at around 30%. Concentrated solar power may achieve efficiency closer to 40% given the higher concentration of energy.
With the bulk of the world’s emerging middle class, China and India are electrifying at an unprecedented rate. Future module prices will be dictated by how fast Asia decides to produce and install photovoltaic technology. Developed countries will focus on lowering “soft costs” and choosing to install more efficient panels. Developing ones may be able to continue to ride the falling cost curve. It’s fair to consider whether in the developing world the tipping point is coming, or if it has already arrived.
More innovative ideas to get around the ShockleyQueisser limit for single-junction solar cell efficiency exist. Multi-junction semiconductors seek to combine materials with different band-gaps to extend the light spectrum that
Cost per installed Watt DC in the USA from 2011 to 2017[2]
29
a situation mirroring that of the Soviet Union and the founding of OPEC 50 years ago. Understandably, Russian officials are diverting resources and attention to maintain its current position, while focusing less on environmental damage or divesting slowly to renewables. Other matters to worry about include the power balance between foreign stakeholders – while ExxonMobil and Sakhalin run Sakhalin 1 and 2 respectively now, how will future projects from Sakhalin 3 to 9 be divided amongst these companies? Should more firms be encouraged to bid for these projects to lessen monopolistic hold and encourage innovation? And is it finally time to privatise more of Gazprom’s shares to boost competitiveness? These are pressing questions that the Kremlin has to answer while coping with the changing tastes of other countries.
Comparative Energy Development
A Tale of Two Islands Shermaine Si – London School of Economics
Two islands, nestled closely in the Sea of Okhotsk, awaken every spring to the fluting call of the red-crowned crane and the emergence of the hibernating brown bear. Both are home to several indigenous communities, powerhouse industries that rake in the dough for their respective countries’ GDP, and detailed energy strategies up to 2020. On closer look, however, one is noticeably speckled with hundreds of offshore oil platforms and the other, wind turbines. These are the first tell-tale signs that Sakhalin of Russia and Hokkaido of Japan have always been – and will always be – headed towards vastly different energy goals. Sakhalin from USSR to Russia Since its early days, Soviet Russia had always depended on its rich natural energy resources such as oil, gas and coal for self-subsistence and global exports. The centrally-led Politburo implemented policies to bring electricity to the doorstep of its constituent republics and beyond through rapid expansion of infrastructure. Growth of the energy sector peaked in the mid-20th century where supply from mainland rigs rose to satisfy international demands. By the 1970s, production techniques began to fray due to lack of precise long-term planning and the monopolistic lack of incentive to invest in research. The government had to absorb all losses from its divisional firms as oil and coal production levels plateaued.
Sakhalin as part of the Russian oil and gas network (Source: Gazprom)
Then in 1976, luck swooped down in the form of the littleknown Sakhalin Island, an island reclaimed by the USSR from Japan after the Russo-Japanese War, whose onshore oil deposits were running out. North-east of the island 36 hydrocarbon deposits were discovered offshore, and this led to 9 ‘shelf projects’ (aptly titled Sakhalin 1 to 9), each serving a different customer.
Hokkaido, Leader in Generating Alternative Power Like Sakhalin, Hokkaido is a prefecture whose energy policies are largely decided by the central Diet in Tokyo. Unlike Russia, however, Japan has no fuel reserves to power its economy and relies on import deals settled through the Japan Petroleum Development Corporation. While Russian energy policy focused on improving competitiveness of export deals, the Japanese government had long been investing in research for alternative power since the 1970s’ oil crises. It managed to depopulate coastal inhabitants and build necessary infrastructure for nuclear power through subsidies and awareness, such as Hokkaido’s Tomari nuclear plant (in Sakhalin, construction of facilities was easy because their locations were largely uninhabited, and locals supported the generation of more jobs).
The USSR, however, was still heading down a path of dissolution and no amount of gas or oil profits would change that. In 1992, a year into the post-Cold War era, the newly established Kremlin redefined its energy strategy to address the faulted nationalization of all energy companies and introduction of international players to its market. By 1995, the plan was up and running. Sakhalin would be Russia’s pioneering project: the profits of its 14 billion barrels of oil and 96 trillion cubic feet of gas would be divided amongst the state-owned firms and multinational oil corporations such as Shell and ExxonMobil.
After the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Tomari’s Number 3 reactor was the first nuclear reactor restarted, only to be closed again in 2012. Despite mixed responses, the reactor has remained closed till present; and the regional government has redirected its attention to the Hokkaido
Today, although Russia has remained the dominant supplier of oil and gas to European markets, it has recently been threatened by the discovery of American shale gas deposits, 30
Energy Changes 100 Network, which has laid down an ambitious ‘Roadmap to 100% Renewable Energy of Hokkaido’s Electricity’. This plan has set its sights on revamping public equipment and subsidising energyefficient products in households. The goal is to reduce current electricity usage by 40% by 2030, including the estimated population decrease. By 2050, not only will 60% of current electricity usage be reduced, but the entire island will also be supplied by alternative power sources such as wind power and biomass.
Goals for 2020 In 2000, the Kremlin set a new energy policy lasting till 2020, in hopes of improving fuel and energy quality while pushing for Russia’s competitive edge in the global market through energy effectiveness and reduction in ecological harm. Meanwhile, Hokkaido’s roadmap aims to achieve a temporary transfer from nuclear to thermal power by 2020 – and beyond that, the exponential growth of wind and hydroelectric power to replace thermal power fully. Despite their geographical proximity, the energy policies of Sakhalin and Hokkaido today have been a calculated work in progress – a cumulation of people, politics and power in the context of a land’s outlook. Sakhalin reflects Russian policy and mindset as much as Hokkaido reflects that of Japan’s. This explains the distinct lack of a relationship between these two islands – be it competitive, friendly or symbiotic – simply because they are heading down economic paths that will never intersect. Both islands’ energy outputs lie in different arenas, meaning this balance will be sustained for as long as the powers-that-be in both countries have no incentive to introduce energy policy change.
According to an August 2017 analysis by Japan’s Natural Resources and Energy Agency, Hokkaido is now the leading prefecture in Japan in alternative power generation – sufficiently providing for the annual consumption of 9.5 million households. Energy production is evenly distributed amongst these sources so there is no overreliance on a single sector. It can be seen that the Diet’s framework of Energy Security, Economic Efficiency and Environment Suitability places ecological sustainability and long-term safety on equal footing with absolute profit earnt, in contrast to the Kremlin’s streamlined gazed on pure economic value for Sakhalin. For example, Hokkaido’s largest industry is tourism, so there is an emphasis on maintaining a ‘clean and natural’ image. Conversely, Sakhalin’s eight universities all house engineering departments that are heavily funded by Moscow, and whose most popular degree is fuel and energy engineering. One may seemingly conclude that Hokkaido (as with the rest of Japan) has no choice but to commit to renewable energy because of its lack of natural resources. Looking deeper, this is not entirely the case. At the turn of the 20th century, oil and gas deposits were discovered to the south of Hokkaido, and these were eventually developed into the Yufutsu oil and gas fields. Even so, Hokkaido still pushed on with its renewable energy roadmap.
31
own electricity. After the initial investment, renewable technologies generate more affordable energy and can offer insurance against potential future increases in prices, a particularly contentious issue in the UK. Community energy offers a way for people to take back control of their energy supply, especially as schemes have often used any income from sold energy to re-invest in projects which benefit the community. Furthermore, the strong environmental credentials of localized renewable power are clear incentives for many involved, particularly those that form the backbone of these projects.
Power from the People
Where next for Community Energy in the UK? Max Forshaw – London School of Economics
Local, community owned energy schemes have enjoyed significant growth in generation capacity over the past 20 years in the UK. These forms of non-profit and community benefit organisations have begun to reform the energy supply, disrupting the conventional, centralized energy system which relies on baseload power from fossil fuels and a national distribution network. However, it could be said that over the past few years the UK’s community sector has changed from disrupting, to being disrupted. Policy changes at the national level have pulled out the financial foundations of the main community energy business model. Nonetheless, the potential benefits of community energy, coupled with the ongoing major shifts in the energy system, mean that opportunities for the sector are far from being exhausted.
‘From disrupting to disrupted’ Community energy schemes both reflect and constitute a wider transition disrupting the UK energy system, with a growing trend of energy generation becoming more decentralised and low carbon. Although many energy analysts emphasize these trends as both inevitable and essential to understanding the future of the market, government policy has been ambiguous in its support for this shift at best, and undermined it at worst. The most significant policy upset for community energy occurred when the Feed-in Tariff payments were cut by over half. Further policy support has also been removed. This has included restricting the eligibility criterion on energy cooperatives from the Financial Conduct Authority, early closure of Renewable Obligation Certificates (another form of subsidy), planning constraints that cut off almost all new onshore wind potential in England, and a withdrawal of tax relief from community energy schemes. Compounded with lack of access to finance, the future is unclear for many community energy groups. A survey by Community Energy England, an industry association, found that 44 of the 144 community organisations surveyed had a project that is considered stalled or currently inactive, and 48% of those stated that Feed-in Tariff changes acted as a major barrier.
Community energy schemes hold considerable potential to produce affordable, sustainable and secure energy. They operate on renewable energy, reduce prices and even offer grid-wide benefits by better matching supply and demand, ultimately making the energy system more secure for everyone. New approaches are needed for the community energy sector to continue to grow in a ‘postsubsidy’ policy regime.
Community Energy Community energy schemes are energy projects run by local groups for their collective benefit. Some projects are governed as a cooperative – they are not-for-profit and have a democratic structure. Others operate as a community interest company – they are run by shareholders but must prove that they prioritise community benefits.
German Community Energy: setting an example? The contrast could not be starker in Germany. In many respects, the German case represents the potential for citizens to drive forward sustainable energy system changes with the corresponding political and legislative will. In Germany public support for an energy transition, known as Energiewende, is high. Citizen groups also have significant power over the renewable energy market, owning a much higher proportion of installed generation capacity than energy companies, and winning more than 90% of permits in the latest Government onshore wind auction scheme.
Projects themselves can include a wide range of activities. Renewable energy and heat generation are the most common, but many organisations also work on energy efficiency improvements or battery storage.
The Popularity of Community Energy In the UK, community projects began developing quickly after the introduction of the Feed-in Tariff, a policy which allows small-scale energy producers to sell their energy back to the grid. After this rapid onset of energy projects, the sector now has 121MW of generation capacity, with the vast majority coming from 900,000 PV installations.
The Energiewende has been given solid support by government policy. For example, the first Renewable Energy Act, 2000, guaranteed fixed feed-in-tariffs for a 20-year period. However, the shift has also been supported by the public ownership of energy assets, enabled through the development of local and regional citizens’ energy cooperatives. In this model, communities work together with municipalities, public energy providers
This growth has occurred because there are clear incentives for local groups to consider generating their 32
Paris Agreement and parallel international efforts to coordinate climate action, many businesses have subscribed to targets for reducing their environmental impact. For example, the RE100 is an agreement between large companies who have committed to transition to using 100% renewable energy. Being able to access local, low carbon power will help businesses meet these goals.
Decentralisation: how the UK and Germany generate their electricity (only >1 MW generation mapped) Source: Carbon Brief
There could be scope for community energy schemes to mobilize investment from businesses in return for a guarantee on providing some of the energy generated, and modern energy technology will help support this. On site, ‘behind the meter’ generation and ongoing improvements in energy storage will allow communities and business partners to reduce their energy expenses when compared to buying from the grid. Renewable heating schemes can also reduce heating costs and open new avenues for decarbonisation. Furthermore, established utility companies are increasingly looking for new opportunities as changes in the conventional energy system threaten their way of doing business. Working as a facilitator with community groups could be a low-risk strategy for them to expand their portfolio of renewable assets, whilst giving communities access to the expertise needed to develop new projects.
and private businesses to access advice and finance for developing new generation assets. These co-ops enable and encourage people to invest in renewable energy, offering dividends per year more attractive than a regular savings account. Where next for the UK? Legislative backing, highly robust institutional arrangements and public enthusiasm has enabled community energy in Germany to thrive. Borrowing the concept of partnership-based approaches for use in the UK could hold potential for more community energy projects to move forward with the absence of government support. Partnerships could allow community energy schemes to access support from larger organisations, such as local authorities or businesses, who may be able to provide expertise and finance needed for new projects. Local authorities have a shared public interest goal and are seen by many community energy professionals as the natural partner to their schemes, particularly after many councils have also pledged to run entirely on green energy by 2050. For communities, councils can provide credibility, access to finance at a lower cost and tools to increase public engagement to the scale necessary to make a wider range of energy generation options viable. Municipal energy companies are also becoming increasingly popular in the UK, as in Nottingham, Bristol and potentially soon in London. Robin Hood Energy has become one of the cheapest energy suppliers in the Midlands, with 1 in 10 people in Nottingham now buying energy from them. These companies are now enabling more local authorities to supply power – Robin Hood is now offering its services to councils in Derby, Islington, Leeds and Liverpool under the “white label” company model. This expansion of local energy companies could help to provide long term security to community groups by offering stable contracts and investment.
Although partnership approaches hold potential, there is no denying that the UK community energy sector is going through a challenging time. The scale and impact of the recent policy changes should not be underestimated, with even the most hardened activists being forced to abandon projects and many investors losing confidence in the future for community energy. Despite the UK government’s inability to provide a stable, coherent policy regime, the country – and the world – are nevertheless undergoing a fundamental shift in the way we generate and use energy. Customers’ frustration with rising bills and mistrust of conventional suppliers, combined with the growing environmental demands on businesses and councils, mean that community-owned renewable energy schemes have many possible allies. When considering the options, clearly ingenuity and dedication in the community energy sector will enable it to thrive ‘post-subsidy’. It is unfortunate that only in hindsight will many of today’s politicians recognize its capacity to create an energy system that is fair, clean and secure.
Furthermore, many private companies and community energy projects may now share objectives. Following the 33
Eco-Cities
Several existing cities such as Stockholm are taking their own measures towards being greener and more resilient to climate change through implementation of land-reuse policies and solar initiatives. New and alternative forms of living are also on the rise from eco-cities that currently do not exist. Cities are being constructed from scratch around the world, financed by ambitious governments and private businesses, that envisage what “cities of the future” could be.
Case Studies in Urban Development Aaron Mok – London School of Economics
What are eco-cities? Cities play a drastic role in the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, 67% of energy-related greenhouse gases in 2007 emanate from urban areas. It is predicted that by 2030, the percentage of energy-related greenhouse gases will increase up to 74% (World Bank, 2010; pg. 15). Factors such as rapid population growth, lowdensity land usage, and growth-oriented policies aggregately exacerbate cities impacts on climate change and perpetuate unsustainable urban planning practices. Cities in developed countries, especially, have a significant impact on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, where wealthier cities are often more energy intensive and wasteful relative to developing cities.
Essentially, urban planners and developers working on these projects strive towards technologically advanced, progressive cities that are energy efficient and socially equitable. The emergence of these highly advanced, technological eco-cities is revolutionizing the way we conceptualize sustainability, implementing ambitious urban planning strategies to combat climate change. Discussed below are current examples of eco-city development projects and the challenges they are facing. Masdar, U.A.E. Arguably one of the most ambitious green city planning efforts, the city of Masdar is shaping the way that sustainable urban spaces are understood. Inaugurated by the Abu Dhabi government in 2006, Masdar is a renewable energy business regime that aims to be a pioneer for urban sustainability. Incorporating higher education, commercialization, investment and research into the city’s model, Masdar seeks to diversify Abu Dhabi’s economy by moving away from an oil-based market towards one that is focused on renewable energy and clean-technology. With aspirations towards being “the world’s most sustainable low-carbon city”, Masdar is currently undertaking largescale efforts to construct a city that is not only carbon and waste free, but socially equitable as well. By 2025, Masdar seeks to house 40,000 individuals and 1500 companies (Design Build Network). Located in the middle of the desert, Masdar has been strategically designed to reduce its temperatures 15-20 degrees Celsius lower than the surrounding area. Spatially, Masdar is oriented north-east to southwest, and is slightly raised above the surrounding desert to retain cold night wind breezes, minimizing heat during the day. Likewise, a 45-meter-high wind tower has been constructed to suck in the cool air from higher altitudes so it can be distributed across the urban landscape. Solar canopies, as well, have been installed to aid in the reduction of surface temperatures while simultaneously generating energy.
Urban areas emit a lot more CO2 relative to non-urban areas Cities around the world are nevertheless taking the necessary means to become more energy efficient, shifting their vision towards introducing large-scale urban planning approaches grounded on the principles of sustainable development. Such ‘eco-cities’ seek to construct cities that function in harmony with the natural environment. In other words, eco-cities take on an ecological point of view to urban design, management strategies, and community building that preserves the environment while taking into consideration the present and future needs of our society. Strategies such as minimizing natural resource inputs, enhancing biodiversity, and encouraging more pedestrianfriendly neighborhoods are implemented by urban planners to design eco-cities.
Amidst the variety of technology projects that Masdar has proposed, the SHAMS-1 solar plant is the one that has set the narrative for the UAE’s penetration into alternative energy markets. The SHAMS-1 is a collaborative project between Masdar and Total, a global oil company that is designed to remove 175,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. Unlike solar panels (and other types of 34
photovoltaics) that directly use sunlight to generate electricity, concentrated solar plants are large technological systems that indirectly produce electricity by converting the sun’s heat into energy. Mirrors, and other forms of reflective materials absorb and concentrate the sun’s radiation, which heats up the system’s liquid substance and generates electricity once it has propelled the heat engine. Because these reflective devices collect heat throughout the day, CSPs are able to generate electricity at night, which cannot be done using a PV.
Tianjin, China Tianjin is an up and coming eco-city development that is being built in China. Also known as the Sino-Singapore Tianjin, Tianjin is an inter-governmental project between Singapore and China that began in 2007, when the Framework Agreement for Singapore and China was signed. Located 150 km away from Beijing’s city center, Tianjin is being built on land that was once an industrial dumping zone for hazardous wastes. Although cleanup costs were high, the Chinese and Singaporean government want to prove that contaminated land can be repurposed to be viable land that is suitable for life. Aiming to be the world’s largest eco-city, the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City Investment and Development Corporation (or the SSTEC), the company in charge of development, envisions Tianjin to house up to 350,000 people by 2020, encouraging residents in congested Chinese cities to escape the negative effects of rapid urbanisation.
Being the largest and most expensive concentrated solar plant in the world, the SHAMS-1 is proposed to supply 7% of Abu Dhabi’s electricity by 2020 (Masdar Clean Energy). Since its inception in 2009, SHAMS-1 has achieved many of its planned goals. As of March of 2013, when construction was finally completed, the massive solar plant has generated power for 20,000 homes, saved 200 million gallons of water, and has increased Emiratization (employment by the UAE government) by about 30% (SHAMS). So not only is Masdar itself an energy-efficient city, it is moving Abu Dhabi towards a more sustainable future. Economically, Masdar is an estimated US18-22 billiondollar project. Funded by the Abu Dhabi government, Masdar aims to facilitate economic growth by encouraging entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in the city’s projects. Firms such as GE Ecomagination and Lockheed Martin all play a role in Masdar’s development. Masdar is also developing schools and incubators to generate more opportunities for bright minds and local businesses looking to consult on environmental services and eco-friendly solutions. The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, for example, is a university focused on conducting advanced research on clean energy, green technology, and sustainable design. Being one of Masdar’s first major projects, the institute provides a further incentive for entrepreneurs to collaborate with students on potential energy projects to stimulate growth.
Tianjin is designed to be mixed-use and compact Unlike Masdar’ mission to create a carbon-free city, Tianjin will only generate 20% of its energy from renewable, emission-free sources. Due to the city’s large scale, the majority of electricity will be supplied by two combined heat and power (CHP) plants located within the national grid. As opposed to typical power plants, CHP plants produce energy while simultaneously capturing the excess heat that is usually emitted as waste. Using this waste, CHP plants are able to produce even more energy, and thus are more energy efficient than coal-fired plants. While conventional Source: Vietnamplants News generation are around 50% fuel efficient, CHP systems reach about 85% fuel efficiency (ENER-G). Likewise, because CHP plants are locally based, the efficiency losses that come with transmission and distribution of electricity within the national grid are averted.
Although this urban technological paradise sounds ideal in theory, many problems have risen since its inception. Even though the city was built upon the platform of being carbon-neutral, their endeavors for a fossil-fuel free city have been hindered by fiscal stresses. After the 2008 financial crisis, Abu Dhabi’s investments in clean technology were stagnated. Because Dubai World, Dubai’s state-owned investment company, accrued 59 billion dollars in debt, Abu Dhabi had to reallocate their funding towards paying off a large portion of the company’s debts (Wearden, 2009). As a result, less money was invested into Masdar, and large energy projects where construction was about to begin were put on hold. Because of this, the development of Masdar was temporarily halted. With only 5% of the town built since construction has begun, Masdar’s goals of becoming a zero-carbon city is ever more elusive.
Although the city’s main source of power will rely on coal, the SSTEC are implementing standards and various forms of energy-efficient technology intended to reduce Tianjin’s greenhouse gas emissions. The SSTEC requires, for example, that all buildings constructed in Tianjin are to meet 35
the Green Building Evaluation Standard (GBES), where energy usage in heating systems must be at least 65% lower than energy used in buildings constructed in the 1980s. Additionally, the GBES requires that 10% of the energy consumption in residential buildings should be powered by renewable resources (World Bank, 2009, pg.28).
to Tianjin have ceased to exist, critics believe that Tianjin, especially with a vision as grand as being “the largest ecocity in the world’, is impractical to implement. Dongtan, for example, was China’s first proposal of an eco-city that still hasn’t passed the planning stage due to a variety of factors such as disagreements between corporate funding, political turmoil, and a lack of consideration of local needs.
Likewise, wealthy technology corporations such as Hitachi are implementing solar-powered technology, as well as energy-efficient management systems and electric vehicles to save energy and to reach the city’s emission goals. Smartcontrolled buildings, for example, are being constructed, which will have automated windows that would raise and lower blinds to regulate light and temperature in the rooms. Other forms of technology such as municipal waste collection systems and self-driving electric cars are currently in the process of being implemented as well.
However, Tianjin has been making steady progress since construction has begun. Since the inception of the program 8 years ago, Tianjin has attracted over 70,000 residents and 4500 companies, and has generated around 200 billion RMB in capital. Additionally, many new schools, hospitals, and recreational areas have been developed. Pioneers Masdar and Tianjin are just a few examples of rising ecocities around the world. Although these two-cities are following different trajectories based on their own unique visions, they both share a common goal in creating urban systems that are more sustainable and energy-efficient. So, despite the implementation challenges that the cities are currently facing, their ambitious visions and master plans can serve as blueprints for future urban sustainability projects internationally.
While Tianjin doesn’t aim to be a completely carbonneutral, its main mission is to be socially inclusive, where 20% of housing will be subsidized for low-income workers and families. The SSTEC recognizes that living in a green, sustainable way shouldn’t be a privilege, but an essential right for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic class. Even though Tianjin has been attracting larger amounts of residents and new businesses every year, many urban critics have expressed concerns that the project will ultimately fail. Because other eco-cities that were proposed in China prior
36
Contributors This issue was made possible thanks to the work and dedication of numerous students from ICL and LSE. We would like to thank everyone for their contribution. Authors, both published and unpublished, for providing a variety of news summaries and highquality articles: From ICL: Humera Ansari, Filippo Colagrande, Han Yao Choong, Catherine Hayes, Kathryn Jaitly, Kunal Katarya, Nathan Murray, Rohan Sandhu, Zivile Venslaviciute, Muhammad Waabis. From LSE: M. Usama Azeem, Alaina Boyle, Lylah Davies, Sara Ellerman, India Emerick, Max Forshaw, Saumya Malhotra, Constanza Mayz, Aaaron Mok, Sunayna Nair, Torin Rittenberg, Lieke Rouwers, Katarina Salaj, Shermaine Si, Sam Stephenson, Jizhou Tang, Emily Van der Merwe, Article reviewers: Will Atkinson, Theodore Gheorghiu, Sara Hamilton, Nickil Shah, Ivan Taptygin for their feedback. Presidents of both Energy Societies, Moe Okazaki (ICL) and Damian Virchow (LSE), for their support.
Thank you,
Editor-in-Chief
Executive Publisher
Content Creator (LSE)
Content Creator (ICL)
Egor Nevsky
Theophile Letort
Elyas Helmke
Kathryn Jaitly
Guest Article
Electric, announced that they hoped to be flying a shorthaul battery electric passenger plane within a decade.
By Royal Dutch Shell
New Era for Aviation?
The concept illustration looks impressive, but is this really feasible? Battery energy density is a key determinant and it is moving rapidly in the right direction. The energy density difference between the traditional Lead-Acid battery, still the standard for starting most cars and the best lithium based batteries is nearing a factor of 10, but lithium based batteries are still a long way from Jet A1 fuel. The difference in energy density on a weight basis is around twenty times, in favour of Jet A1.
David Hone – Chief Climate Change Advisor for Shell
The pressure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the prospect of a world running largely on renewable electricity has sent research and development teams in every sector back to their respective drawing boards to look at options that might exist for electrification. Perhaps the most challenging sector is aviation, where liquid hydrocarbon fuels are the only form of energy carrier available (mainly of fossil origin, but with some bio-origin fuels now appearing). The dependency on hydrocarbons is due to their high energy density and the challenge with fuel to weight ratio that planes have. However, fuel costs can represent up to 70% of total costs for an airline, so the business model tends to focus on efficiency as a primary consideration. Efficiency isn’t just about the plane itself, but about maximising passenger load, minimising extraneous weight, limiting taxiing and air traffic delays, using electricity for power at departure gates and optimising routes.
Like an electric car, the efficiency of a battery electric aeroplane would be significantly higher than the combustion engine equivalent, although the starting point for a modern jet engine already exceeds that of vehicles. The chart below (IPCC Report on Aviation 1999, chart from 1991) shows that overall efficiency of jet aircraft falls in the range 20-40%, but significant improvements have been made since then. A modern Boeing 787 would show an overall efficiency approaching 50% on the same chart.
In the light of all the above, the idea of electrification in aviation is tantalizing, but there is little sight of this happening. At one end of the spectrum there is the prospect of single person electric drone taxis for short hops in cities, but after that there is nothing, until last week. EasyJet, in conjunction with the start-up, Wright
Even with near 100% efficiency for the battery electric aeroplane, the energy density of Jet A1 still gives that fuel a factor of ten advantage. As such, it will be distance that suffers, given there is a weight restriction for aeroplanes. I am a regular traveller out of London City Airport and often see the Embraer 190 plane, which is similar in size to the easyJet concept photograph distributed with their announcement. But the Embraer 190 has a range of over 4,500 km, so one tenth of this gets near to the 335-mile range goal mentioned by easyJet, ideal for the flight I often take from London City to Rotterdam. So, on paper, this would appear to work, but a plane with a range limit of a few hundred miles might significantly restrict the operational flexibility that airlines enjoy; for example, it couldn’t be swapped at short notice for a London City to Rome flight, should that be necessary. 38
Battery electric planes also bring with them a particular design change – apart from the obvious. Currently, planes land some 20% lighter than they take off, as they burn the fuel. With battery electric planes, they will land heavier than they take off, because the discharge of the battery means oxidation, meaning it gains mass. This will require very different landing gear.
The Wright Electric concept represents a revolutionary change in aircraft design and propulsion, so there is every chance that this may take longer than anticipated to get going. It will require extensive certification and testing by airlines, airports and the aviation authorities and may go through more than one design iteration, depending in part on the evolution of battery technology and the resultant changes in energy to weight and volume ratios. The story of the Mitsubishi Regional Jet is outlined here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Regional_Jet], and is a saga of changes and delays spanning 17 years. It is a conventional jet aircraft, but represents a first for Mitsubishi for a very long time.
Another facet of the EasyJet announcement is the desire to see these planes carrying passengers within 10 years. Given that the plane is concept only and doesn’t come from an existing family of similar planes, this may be ambitious. The 787 Dreamliner was announced in concept by Boeing in early 2003, finally receiving certification in late 2011. That’s nearly nine years for what is essentially a new version of an existing product, albeit with some significant changes such as the use of carbon fibre in the fuselage. But the 787 then had problems with its battery system for on-board electronics, leading to a temporary grounding and eventual regular flights from April 2013.The 787 was not Boeing’s first attempt at a new aircraft following the 777 series. In the late 1990s it started development of the Sonic Cruiser, releasing a concept proposal in March 2001. With aviation business models changing rapidly at that time, Boeing abandoned this concept and instead moved to the 787, but this evolutionary process still consumed valuable design years. At least from one perspective, it could be argued that the 787 took over 13 years to go from concept to regular use.
A further ambitious aspect of this project is the notion that a start-up can take on the likes of Boeing and Airbus and find the necessary investors to back what is typically a multi-billion dollar investment in design, engineering, prototype development, manufacturing, testing and certification of a new aeroplane. Behind all this is the pressing need for electrification across society, so this type of thinking and risk taking is essential. The question that remains though, is whether I will be able to ride in such a plane from London City Airport before 2030.
39
Bibilography & References PP. 8-9: Energy Industry : Transformations in a Nutshell, Muhammad Waabis (ICL)
1. Un.org. (2017). World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100 | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 2. CO2.Earth. (2017). Earth's CO2 Home Page. [online] Available at: https://www.co2.earth/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 3. User, S. (2017). 2100 Projections. [online] CO2.Earth. Available at: https://www.co2.earth/2100-projections [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 4. User, S. (2017). 2100 Projections. [online] CO2.Earth. Available at: https://www.co2.earth/2100-projections [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 5. Statoil.com. (2017). Statoil to build the world’s first floating wind farm: Hywind Scotland - statoil.com. [online] Available at: https://www.statoil.com/en/news/hywindscotland.html [Accessed 23 Nov. 2017]. 6. Worldenergy.org. (2017). Summary, Page 4-6. [online] Available at: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 7. McKinsey & Company. (2017). Energy 2050: Insights from the ground up. [online] Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/energy-2050-insights-from-the-ground-up [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 8. Iea.org. (2017). Renewables 2017 : Key Findings. [online] Available at: https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 9. WindEurope. (2017). Wind energy today | WindEurope. [online] Available at: https://windeurope.org/about-wind/wind-energy-today/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 10. Planète Énergies. (2017). The Future of Wind Power. [online] Available at: https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/future-wind-power [Accessed 23 Nov. 2017]. 11. McCulloch, S. (2017). Plans to decommission the Beatrice oil field in Moray Firth are being developed. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://www.insider.co.uk/news/plans-decommission-beatriceoil-field-10526546 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 12. Worldenergy.org. (2017). Key Findings, Page 4. [online] Available at: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 13. Harvey, C. and Harvey, C. (2017). This technology may be the future of solar energy. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energyenvironment/wp/2016/01/15/this-technology-may-be-the-future-of-solar-energy/?utm_term=.0daac88c9f21 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 14. Petroleum-economist.com. (2017). Solar PV growth outpaces all other fuels — and will continue to grow. [online] Available at: http://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/low-carbonenergy/renewables/2017/solar-pv-growth-outpaces-all-other-fuels-and-will-continue-to-grow [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 15. Gallup, I. (2017). For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy. [online] Gallup.com. Available at: http://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx [Accessed 23 Nov. 2017]. 16. Gehitachiprism.com. (2017). GE Hitachi PRISM | The Future of Nuclear Energy. [online] Available at: http://gehitachiprism.com/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 17. Homer, M. (2017). How digital transformation is reshaping the energy industry | Renewable Energy | Energy Digital. [online] Energydigital.com. Available at: http://www.energydigital.com/renewableenergy/how-digital-transformation-reshaping-energy-industry [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 18. Hermes, J. (2017). Carbon Capture and Storage: Is There a Future? - Environmental Leader. [online] Environmental Leader. Available at: https://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/07/carbon-captureand-storage-is-there-a-future/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. 19. Phys.org. (2017). Risk analysis for CO2 sequestration at enhanced oil recovery sites. [online] Available at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-analysis-co2-sequestration-oil-recovery.html [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].
PP. 10-11: Nuclear in the UK: Re-Revolutionising?, Kathryn Jaitly (ICL)
1. Starkey, Natalie and Aldred, Jessica. Nuclear Power in the UK: A History. www.theguardian.co.uk. [Online] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/nuclear-power-in-the-uk-a-history. 2. Gosden, Emily and Sage, Adam. Hinkley Point ‘will be years late and hugely over budget’. www.thetimes.co.uk. [Online] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hinkley-point-will-be-years-late-and-hugely-overbudget-ddbwztn35. 3. IAEA. Small and Medium Sized Reactors (SMRs) Development, Assessment and Deployment. www.iaea.org. [Online] https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/SMR/. 4. EDF Energy. Heysham 2 power station. www.edfenergy.com. [Online] https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-stations/heysham-2. 5. Rolls-Royce. A National Endeavour. www.rolls-royce.com. [Online] https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/nuclear/a-national-endeavour.pdf. 6. Load following with Small Modular Reactors: A real option analysis. Locatelli, Giorgio, et al. 2015, Energy, Vol. 80, pp. 41-54. 7. Harrabin, Roger. The nuclear industry: a small revolution. www.bbc.co.uk. [Online] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35863846. 8. Ward, Andrew and Hollinger, Peggy. Development of small nuclear power plants gathers pace. www.ft.com. [Online] https://www.ft.com/content/bddfda80-c314-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656. 9. NNL. Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Feasibility Study. namrc.co.uk. [Online] http://namrc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/smr-feasibility-study-december-2014.pdf. 10. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (UK). Small Modular Reactors competition: phase one (Guidance). www.gov.uk. [Online] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smallmodular-reactors-competition-phase-one. 11. Rolls-Royce. Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor. YouTube. [Online] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK8KGidUnpM. 12. World Nuclear News. Rolls-Royce elaborates on its SMR plans. www.world-nuclear-news.org. [Online] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Rolls-Royce-elaborates-on-its-SMR-plans-1306171.html. 13. Tovey, Alan. Designs for 'mini' nuclear power plants proposed by Rolls-Royce led group set to be given go-ahead. www.telegraph.co.uk. [Online] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/22/designsmini-nuclear-power-plants-proposed-rolls-royce-led-group/. 14. US Office of Nuclear Energy. Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). [Online] https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors. 15. Westall, Sylvia. Argentina to start building two new nuclear reactors in 2018. www.reuters.com. [Online] https://www.reuters.com/article/argentina-nuclearpower/argentina-to-start-building-two-newnuclear-reactors-in-2018-idUSL8N1N67EG.
PP. 12-13: Shale Gas: Barriers to the Last Fossil Fuel, Humera Ansari (ICL)
1. Stephenson, M.H., Shale gas in North America and Europe. Energy Science & Engineering, 2016. 4(1): p. 4-13. 2. Zeller, T., Jr., Does Anyone Really Know How Long the Shale Gas Boom Will Last?, in Forbes. 2015, Forbes. 3. Shauk, Z., U.S. Natural Gas Exports Will Fire Up in 2015, in Bloomberg. 2014, Bloomberg. 4. Brooks, D., Shale Gas Revolution, in The New York Times. 2011, The New York Times: New York. 5. The Economist, How fracking leads to babies, in The Economist 2017, The Economist 6. BP, BP Energy Outlook. 2017, BP: UK. 7. U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2016. 2016, U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC. 8. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States. 2013, U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC. 9. Speirs, J. Shale gas: What do the estimates mean? 2013 [cited 2017 9th May]; Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/analysis/shale-gas-what-do-estimates-mean. 10. International Energy Agency. United States Production. 2017 [cited 2017 3rd May]; Available from: https://www.iea.org/ugforum/ugd/united%20states/ 11. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Shale gas production drives world natural gas production growth, in Today in Energy. 2016, U.S. Energy Information Administration. 12. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2017. 2017, U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC. 14. Hammond, G.P. and Á. O’Grady, Indicative energy technology assessment of UK shale gas extraction. Applied Energy, 2017. 185, Part 2: p. 1907-1918. 15. Sovacool, B.K., Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014. 37: p. 249-264. 16. Kargbo, D.M., R.G. Wilhelm, and D.J. Campbell, Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010. 44(15): p. 5679-5684. 17. POST, Unconventional Gas, in POSTNOTE. 2011, Houses of Parliament: London. 18. Burnham, A., et al., Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Shale Gas, Natural Gas, Coal, and Petroleum. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012. 46(2): p. 619-627. 19. Vaughan, A., Slinging mud: inside (and outside) the UK's biggest fracking site, in The Guardian. 2017, The Guardian. 20. Whitmarsh, L., et al., UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Applied Energy, 2015. 160: p. 419430. 21. Kentish, B., Onshore fracking to begin in UK 'within weeks', in The Independent. 2017, The Independent. 22. Carrell, S., Scottish government bans fracking after public opposition, in The Guardian. 2017, The Guardian.
PP. 14: LNG in China: a Market overview, Max Tang (LSE)
Atradius. (2017). Natural gas prices have reached a turning point Retrieved from https://atradius.ca/documents/atradius_economic_research_gas_prices_jan_2017_ern01.pdf: Cassidy, N., & Kosev, M. (2015). Australia and the global LNG market. RBA Bulletin, March, 33-43. Chan, B. (2014). Asia LNG Value Chain - Chasing the New Gas Giants. Retrieved from https://www.jefferies.com/CMSFiles/Jefferies.com/files/Insights/AsiaLNGValue.pdf: Chen, M. (2014). The development of Chinese gas pricing: Drivers, challenges and implications for demand. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Kent, S., & Negishi, M. (2016). Panama Canal revamp eases U.S. LNG access to China. Retrieved from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panama-canal-revamp-eases-us-lng-access-to-china-2016-0825 MCPRC. (2015). 商务部关于原油加工企业申请非国营贸易进口资格有关工作的通知. http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/b/e/201507/20150701056066.shtml.
40
NDRC. (2013). 天然气发展 “十二五” 规划公布. http://zfxxgk.ndrc.gov.cn/Attachment/%E5%A4%A9%E7%84%B6%E6%B0%94%E5%8F%91%E5%B1%95%E2%80%9C%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E4%BA%94%E2%80%9D%E8%A7%84%E 5%88%92.pdf. NDRC. (2017). 天然气发展 “十三五” 规划公布. http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/zcfbghwb/201701/W020170119368974618068.pdf. Perlez, J. (2014). China and Russia Reach 30-Year Gas Deal. The New York times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/world/asia/china-russia-gas-deal.html?_r=0 Tang, T. (2014). China's Natural Gas Imports and Prospects. (Master of Public Policy), Duke University. Tao, W. (2014). Supplying LNG to China: Does Canada Have What It Takes? Retrieved from https://www.asiapacific.ca/sites/default/files/filefield/china_lng_spread.pdf: Zhang, D., & Paltsev, S. (2016). The Future of Natural Gas in China: Effects of Pricing Reform and Climate Policy. Climate Change Economics, 07(04), 1650012. doi:10.1142/s2010007816500123
PP. 15-17: Off-Grid Solar: Sunshine in Sub-Saharan Africa, Han Yao Choong (ICL)
1. PwC. Electricity beyond the grid: Accelerating access to sustainable power for all. (2016) [cited Nov 2017] https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/energy-utilities-resources/publications/electricitybeyond-grid.html 2. The Economist. Africa unplugged. (Oct 2016) [cited Nov 2017] https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21709297-small-scale-solar-power-surging-ahead-africa-unplugged 3. Rom A., Guenther I., Harrison K. The economic impact of solar lighting: Results from a randomised field experiment in rural Kenya. ETH NADEL Centre for Development and Cooperation. (Feb 2017) [cited Nov 2017] https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/nadeldam/documents/research/Solar%20Lighting/17.02.24_ETH%20report%20on%20economic%20impact%20of%20solar_summary_FINAL.pdf 4. Russell S. et al. Off-grid solar market trends report 2016. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. (2016) [cited Nov 2017] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/197271494913864880/Off-gridsolar-market-trends-report-2016 5. World Bank. International Comparison Program database. (2016) [cited Nov 2017] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP 6. Rwanda Development Board: Energy Overview. [cited Nov 2017] http://www.rdb.rw/rdb/energy.html 7. Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index. [cited Nov 2017] https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016#table 8. The Economist. Special Report: What technology can do for Africa. (Nov 2017) [cited Nov 2017] https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21731038-technology-africa- making-huge-advancessays-jonathan-rosenthal-its-full 9. International Renewable Energy Agency. [cited Nov 2017] http://www.irena.org/costs 10. Mobisol Rwanda [cited Nov 2017] http://www.mobisol.rw/rwanda/en/ 11. Twahirwa A. Rwanda’s mobile phone penetration rose over past 5 years. Rwanda National Institute of Statistics. [cited Nov 2017] http://statistics.gov.rw/node/756 12. Bizimungu J. Rwanda’s mobile phone penetration drops in April. The New Times Rwanda. (Jun 2017) [cited Nov 2017] http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/214709/ 13 Brand South Africa. M-Pesa at 10: How Africa became the leader in mobile money. (Mar 2017) [cited Nov 2017] https://www.brandsouthafrica.com/investments-immigration/africa-gateway/m-pesa-10africa-become-leader-mobile-money 14. Rwanda Development Board: Electricity Tariffs. [cited Nov 2017] http://www.rdb.rw/rdb/energy.html 15. Republic of Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure. Energy Sector Strategic Plan. (Mar 2015) [cited Nov 2017] http://mininfra.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/new_tender/Energy_Sector_Strategic_Plan.pdf 16. International Monetary Fund: World Economic Outlook Database. (Apr 2017) [cited Nov 2017] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2022&ssd=1&c=714&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP 17. Lee K et al. Electrification for ‘under-grid’ households in rural Kenya. Development Engineering V1 P26-35. (Jun 2016) [cited Nov 2017] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235272851530035X 18. Leonics. [cited Nov 2017] leonics.com 19. Republic of Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure. Rural Electrification Strategy. (Jun 2016) [cited Nov 2017] http://www.mininfra.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/aircraft/Rural_Electrification_Strategy.pdf 20. Aspire Africa. Mansoor Hamayun: Africa’s tremendous ability to leapfrog technology (Interview). (Jun 2017) [cited Nov 2017] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI7yyVl5zzQ 21. Azuri technologies. [cited Nov 2017] http://www.azuri-technologies.com/ 22. McKinsey & Co. Brighter Africa: The growth potential of the sub-Saharan electricity sector. (Feb 2015) [cited Nov 2017] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/ourinsights/powering-africa
PP.18-19: Biomimicry in Energy: Save the World by Learning from it, Kunal Katarya (ICL)
Siddique, R.H., Donie, Y.J., Gomard, G., Yalamanchili, S., Merdzhanova, T., Lemmer, U., Hlscher, H. (2017). Bioinspired phase-separated disordered nanostructures for thin photovoltaic absorbers. [online]. Available at: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/10/e1700232.full.pdf [Accessed 16 Nov 2017] Whittlesey, R. W., Liska, S., Dabiri, J. O. (2017). Fish schooling as a basis for vertical axis wind turbine farm design. [online] Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2250 [Accessed 16 Nov 2017] Guardian (2016). Mushrooms, whales and hurricanes: how bio-inspiration boosts energy efficiency. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/apr/24/biomimicrynature-environment-design-engineering-energy-efficiency [Accessed 16 Nov 2017] Guardian (2016). Inspired by nature: the thrilling new science that could transform medicine. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/25/bioinspiration-thrilling-new-sciencecould-transform-medicine [Accessed 23 Nov 2017] Economist (2017). What they don’t tell you about climate change. [online] Available at: https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731397-stopping-flow-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-not-enough-it-hasbe-sucked-out [Accessed 23 Nov 2017] Caltech (2017). Center for bioinspired engineering. [online] Available at: http://bioinspired.caltech.edu/windenergy/projects.html#fish [Accessed 16 Nov 2017] Vattenfall (2016). Vattenfall builds Denmark’s largest offshore windfarm. [online] Available at: https://corporate.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/press-releases/2016/vattenfall-builds-denmarks-largestoffshore-windfarm/ [Accessed 16 Nov 2017] Riley, A. (2016). Fish school us on wind power. [online] Available at: http://nautil.us/issue/37/currents/fish-school-us-on-wind-power-rp [Accessed 16 Nov 2017] Yirka, B. (2017). Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells. [online] Available at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-black-butterfly-wings-solar-cells.html [Accessed 16 Nov 2017]
PP. 20-21: Smart Grids: The Future is Virtual, Catherine Hayes (ICL)
Figures [a] data from electricinsights.co.uk (National Grid, Elexon, drax) [b] Icons by Freepik (generation, transmission) and Smashicons (distribution, consumption) from www.flaticon.com Text 1. M&SE, 2016. Global trends in smart metering https://www.metering.com/magazine_articles/global-trends-in-smart-metering/ 2. Navigant research, 2016. China Continued to Lead the Global Smart Electric Meter Market through 3Q 2016 with More than 348 Million Smart Meter Installations 3.National Grid, 2017. How we balance the electricity transmission system https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/about-grid/our-networks-and-assets/how-we-balance-electricity-transmission-system 4. Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ofgem, 2010. Impact Assessment of a GB-wide smart meter rollout for the domestic sector. 5. Saboori, Mohammadi & Taghe, 2011. Virtual Power Plant (VPP), Definition, Concept, Components and Types 6. Use of storage heaters: Darby, S.J., 2017. Smart electric storage heating and potential for residential demand response. 7. US EIA, 2012. Combined heat and power technology fills an important energy niche https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=8250 8. Tiko, 2017. www.tiko.ch 9. M&SE International, 2017. Swisscom’s tiko system wins at European Utility Week Awards. https://www.metering.com/features/swisscom-tiko-euw-awards/ 10. London Assembly, 2017. Energy supply. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/energy/energy-supply#Stub-80432 13. OVO Energy, 2017. Nissan and OVO announce a new collaboration to accelerate the adoption of home battery storage in the UK. 14. BEIS, July 2017. Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): electricity 15. Zurborg, A. 2010. Unlocking Customer Value: The Virtual Power Plant. 16. BBC, 2016. Hackers behind Ukraine power cuts, says US report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35667989 17. Friedman, S. 2017. NIST tackles smart grid framework update. https://gcn.com/Articles/2017/08/18/NIST-smart-grid-framework.aspx
PP. 22-23: Barriers to Electric Vehicles: The Real Cost of Batteries, Zivile Venslaviciute (ICL)
1. Swinfold S. Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040 unravels as 10 new power stations needed to cope with electric revolution. Jul 27, 2017 . Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/new-diesel-petrol-cars-banned-uk-roads-2040-government-unveils/ [Accessed 21 Nov, 2017]. 2. Clover C. Electric cars: China’s highly charged power play. FT.com. Oct 12, 2017 . Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/00b36a30-a4dd-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2 [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 3. Wattles J. India to sell only electric cars by 2030. CNN Wire Service. Jun 3, 2017 . Available from: http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/03/technology/future/india-electric-cars/index.html [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 4. IEA. Global EV Outlook, 2017: Two Million and Counting. 2017. Available from: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf. [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 5. Lambert F. Breakdown of raw materials in Tesla’s batteries and possible bottlenecks. Available from: https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla-batteries-possible-bottleneck/ [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 6. Jamasmie C. CHARTS: Lithium-rich countries risk missing the boat on electric batteries boom. Available from: http://www.mining.com/charts-lithium-rich-countries-risk-missing-boat-electric-batteriesboom/ [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 7. Sanderson H. Lithium: Chile's buried treasure. FT.com. Jul 7, 2016 . Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/cde8f984-43c7-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d [Accessed Nov 21, 2017].
41
8. Nasdaq. Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF Stock Chart. Available from: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/lit/stockchart?intraday=off&timeframe=2y&splits=off&earnings=off&movingaverage=None&lowerstudy=volume&comparison=off&index=&drilldown=off [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 9. Sanderson H. Electric car demand sparks lithium supply fears. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/90d65356-4a9d-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 10. Desjardins J. Nickel: The secret driver of the battery revolution. Available from: http://www.mining.com/web/nickel-secret-driver-battery-revolution/ [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 11. Sanderson H, Cornish C. Amnesty warns on use of child labour in cobalt mining. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/bec64762-c923-11e7-ab18-7a9fb7d6163e [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 12. Reuters. China urged to ease reliance on DRC for cobalt. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-metals-electric-vehicles/china-urged-to-ease-reliance-on-drc-for-cobaltidUSKBN1D70GT [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 13. Holder M. Tesla, Nissan, and Siemens sound alarm over Europe's EV infrastructure. Available from: https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3007294/tesla-nissan-and-siemens-sound-alarm-overeuropes-ev-infrastructure [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 14. Topham G. Treasury backs electric cars but makes limited moves on diesel. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/22/treasury-backs-electric-cars-but-makes-limitedmoves-on-diesel [Accessed Nov 23, 2017]. 15. Cuff M. Carmakers promise 400 fast-charging stations across Europe by 2020. Available from: https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3020361/carmakers-promise-400-fast-charging-stations-acrosseurope-by-2020 [Accessed Nov 21, 2017]. 16. BNEF. Shell Acquisition Shows EV Charging Market Consolidation. Available from: https://about.bnef.com/blog/shell-acquisition-shows-ev-charging-market-consolidation/ [Accessed Nov 21, 2017].
PP. 24-25: Energy Economics: Bitcoin Mining, Torin Rittenberg (LSE) The Blockchain explained, Source: Blockgeeks
PP. 26-27: Decentralisation in Energy Provision: How is the Sharing Economy Driving Change?, Emily van der Merwe (LSE) Graph: “Watt Next?”, The Economist, 12 August 2017
PP. 28-29: Solar Energy: The Revolution is Now, and it’s Solar, Nathan Murray (ICL)
1. Thomas N. Electric cars forecast to create extra 18GW demand for power in UK. Financial Times. July 13, 2017 . Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/11528c98-66fa-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614 [Accessed November 14, 2017]. 2. Fu R, Feldman D, Margolis R, Woodhouse Mand Ardani K. U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017. 2017. 3. The Economist. Sunny Uplands. 2012. 4. Liebreich M. Breaking Clean. Available from: https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/14/2017/09/BNEF-Summit-London-2017-Michael-Liebreich-State-of-the-Industry.pdf [Accessed November 15, 2017]. 5. Kinsey G. The Perils of PV Price Prediction. Available from: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-perils-of-pv-price-prediction#gs.Ga7HEMM [Accessed November 15, 2017]. 6. Bradsher K. U.S. Solar Panel Makers Say China Violated Trade Rules. New York Times. Oct 19, 2011 . Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/business/global/us-solar-manufacturers-toask-for-duties-on-imports.html [Accessed November 7th, 2017]. 7. Hughes L, Meckling J. Salient Green: Business Power and Trade Policy Responses to Chinese Solar Imports. Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy. 2015. 8. Eckhardt S. European Commission to reduce minimum import price quarterly. Available from: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/09/18/european-commission-to-reduce-minimum-import-pricequarterly/. 9. Rand BP, Meggers F, Witt WC, Gokhale M, Walter Sand Socolow R. Sunlight to Electricity: Navigating the Field. 2017. 10. Parnell J. Jinko beats its own mono PERC efficiency record. Available from: https://www.pv-tech.org/news/jinko-beats-its-own-mono-perc-efficiency-record [Accessed November 15, 2017]. 11. Rühle S. Tabulated values of the Shockley–Queisser limit for single junction solar cells. Solar Energy. 2016; 130 139-147. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X16001110#! . 12. Dimroth F. New world record for solar cell efficiency at 46% – French-German cooperation confirms competitive advantage of European photovoltaic industry. Available from: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2014/new-world-record-for-solar-cell-efficiency-at-46-percent.html [Accessed November 15, 2017]. 13. Vaughan A. UK's biggest solar farm planned for Kent coast. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/09/giant-solar-power-plant-uk-biggest-north-kent-coast-subsidy-freepower-station-faversham [Accessed November 15, 2017]. 16. Johnston I. India cancels plans for huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low. Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-solar-power-electricity-cancels-coalfired-power-stations-record-low-a7751916.html [Accessed November 15, 2017].
PP. 30-31: Comparative Energy Development: A Tale of Two Islands, Shermaine Si (LSE) http://www.japex.co.jp/english/business/ep_j/domesticfields.html http://gazpromquestions.ms1.ru/?id=7 http://uk.reuters.com/article/japan-japex/japex-finds-small-oil-gas-reserves-in-northern-japan-idUKL4E8D74LZ20120207 http://hokkaido.env.go.jp/post_52.html http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/1604/05/news023_2.html http://enechan100.com/roadmap/enechen100_en_ver2015.pdf https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/08/28/business/hokkaido-leads-nation-alternative-power-generation/#.WgJAfWi0M2z http://mpr.admsakhalin.ru/page.php?id=302 https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/past-present-and-future-russian-energy-strategy http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/brochures/pdf/japan_energy_2016.pdf http://www.hepco.co.jp/info/info2017/1214671_1724.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-lng/russia-acknowledges-threat-from-trumps-energy-policy-on-eu-gas-market-idUSKBN14X1SU http://www.sakhalinenergy.ru/media/user/libraryeng/socialstake/socialimpact/doc_38_sia_chp4.pdf
PP. 32-33: Power from the People: Where next for community energy in the UK?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/615869/Solar_photovoltaics_deployment_April_2017.xlsx http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/cc/news/government-cut-tax-relief-community-green-energy-schemes https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citizens-support-energiewende https://www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/WiseMinds_FinalReport_0.pdf https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/citizens-participation-energiewende https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/britain-cities-green-energy-pledge-2050-climate-change-paris-talks
PP. 34-37: Eco Cities: Case Studies in Urban Development
Design Build Network. (n.d.). Masdar City, Abu Dhabi. [online] Available at: http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/masdar-city/ [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Energ-group.com. (2017). What is CHP? - An Introduction. [online] Available at: http://www.energ-group.com/combined-heat-and-power/cogeneration/introduction-to-chp/ [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Energy, T. (2017). What is Combined Heat and Power? | Resources | The Association for Decentralised Energy. [online] The Association for Decentralised Energy. Available at: https://www.theade.co.uk/resources/what-is-combined-
heat-and-power [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Goldenberg, S. (2017). Masdar's zero-carbon dream could become world’s first green ghost town. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/16/masdars-zero-carbon-dream-could-becomeworlds-first-green-ghost-town [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Kaiman, J. (2017). China's 'eco-cities': empty of hospitals, shopping centres and people. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/apr/14/china-tianjin-eco-city-empty-hospitals-people [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Larson, C. (2009). "China’s Grand Plans for Eco-Cities Now Lie Abandoned." Yale E360. Yale Environment 360. Masdar.ae. (2017). Reflecting the Nation's Commitment. [online] Available at: http://www.masdar.ae/assets/downloads/content/230/shams_brochure.pdf [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. The World Bank, Part III: Cities Contribution to Climate Change. (2010). 10th ed. [ebook] The World Bank, p.15. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUWM/Resources/3402321205330656272/CitiesandClimateChange.pdf [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. The World Bank Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City: A Case Study of an Emerging Eco-City in China. (2009). The World Bank, p.28. Tianjinecocity.gov.sg. Eco-City Takes Shape. [online] Available at: https://www.tianjinecocity.gov.sg/news-articles/2017/201701.htm [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Todorova, V. (2017). 'Shams 1 is a signal that the UAE is in the vanguard of renewable energy'. [online] The National. Available at: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/environment/shams-1-is-a-signal-that-the-uae-is-in-the-vanguard-ofrenewable-energy-1.327541 [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Vince, G. (2012). China's eco-cities: Sustainable urban living in Tianjin. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120503-sustainable-cities-on-the-rise [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Wearden, G. (2017). We won't cover Dubai World debt, says country's government. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/30/abu-dhabi-stock-market [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017]. Wong, T. and Yuen, B. (2014.). Eco-city planning: Policies, Practice, and Design. Springer Science+Business Media.
42
Energy Journal Team for 2017/2018: Chief Editor of the Energy Journal: Egor Nevsky: g.nevsky@lse.ac.uk Executive Publisher of the Energy Journal: ThĂŠophile Letort: t.l.letort@lse.ac.uk Co-Director of Content Creation for the LSE authors: Elyas Hemke: e.f.helmke@lse.ac.uk Co-Director of Content Creation for Imperial College authors: Kathryn Jaitly: kj316@ic.ac.uk President of the LSESU Energy Society: Damian Virchow: d.p.virchow@lse.ac.uk President of the Imperial Energy Society: Moe Okazaki: mo1416@ic.ac.uk Join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/EnergyJournal Join us on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/11218378 We are actively recruiting new Editors, as well as members for Online Content, Social Media, Graphic Design, External Relations, G3 Summit Representatives. Please email the Chief Editor or contact us on Facebook if interested. Join our Facebook page to learn more https://www.facebook.com/EnergyJournal/
Cover illustration: Egor Nevsky