Ticking Time Bomb

Login Form






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Home
Deep sea mining for energy
User Rating: / 1
As the great research ship Chikyu left Shimizu in January to mine the explosive ice beneath the Philippine Sea, chances are good that not one of the scientists aboard realized they might be closing the door on Winston Churchill’s world. Their lack of knowledge is unsurprising; beyond the ranks of petroleum-industry historians, Churchill’s outsize role in the history of energy is insufficiently appreciated.

Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911. With characteristic vigor and verve, he set about modernizing the Royal Navy, jewel of the empire. The revamped fleet, he proclaimed, should be fueled with oil, rather than coal—a decision that continues to reverberate in the present. Burning a pound of fuel oil produces about twice as much energy as burning a pound of coal. Because of this greater energy density, oil could push ships faster and farther than coal could.

Churchill’s proposal led to emphatic dispute. The United Kingdom had lots of coal but next to no oil. At the time, the United States produced almost two-thirds of the world’s petroleum; Russia produced another fifth. Both were allies of Great Britain. Nonetheless, Whitehall was uneasy about the prospect of the Navy’s falling under the thumb of foreign entities, even if friendly. The solution, Churchill told Parliament in 1913, was for Britons to become “the owners, or at any rate, the controllers at the source of at least a proportion of the supply of natural oil which we require.” Spurred by the Admiralty, the U.K. soon bought 51 percent of what is now British Petroleum, which had rights to oil “at the source”: Iran (then known as Persia). The concessions’ terms were so unpopular in Iran that they helped spark a revolution. London worked to suppress it. Then, to prevent further disruptions, Britain enmeshed itself ever more deeply in the Middle East, working to install new shahs in Iran and carve Iraq out of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.

Churchill fired the starting gun, but all of the Western powers joined the race to control Middle Eastern oil. Britain clawed past France, Germany, and the Netherlands, only to be overtaken by the United States, which secured oil concessions in Turkey, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. The struggle created a long-lasting intercontinental snarl of need and resentment. Even as oil-consuming nations intervened in the affairs of oil-producing nations, they seethed at their powerlessness; oil producers exacted huge sums from oil consumers but chafed at having to submit to them. Decades of turmoil—oil shocks in 1973 and 1979, failed programs for “energy independence,” two wars in Iraq—have left unchanged this fundamental, Churchillian dynamic, a toxic mash of anger and dependence that often seems as basic to global relations as the rotation of the sun.

All of this was called into question by the voyage of the Chikyu (“Earth”), a $540 million Japanese deep-sea drilling vessel that looks like a billionaire’s yacht with a 30-story oil derrick screwed into its back. The Chikyu, a floating barrage of superlatives, is the biggest, glitziest, most sophisticated research vessel ever constructed, and surely the only one with a landing pad for a 30-person helicopter. The central derrick houses an enormous floating drill with a six-mile “string” that has let the Chikyu delve deeper beneath the ocean floor than any other ship.

The Chikyu, which first set out in 2005, was initially intended to probe earthquake-generating zones in the planet’s mantle, a subject of obvious interest to seismically unstable Japan. Its present undertaking was, if possible, of even greater importance: trying to develop an energy source that could free not just Japan but much of the world from the dependence on Middle Eastern oil that has bedeviled politicians since Churchill’s day.

In the 1970s, geologists discovered crystalline natural gas—methane hydrate, in the jargon—beneath the seafloor. Stored mostly in broad, shallow layers on continental margins, methane hydrate exists in immense quantities; by some estimates, it is twice as abundant as all other fossil fuels combined. Despite its plenitude, gas hydrate was long subject to petroleum-industry skepticism. These deposits—water molecules laced into frigid cages that trap “guest molecules” of natural gas—are strikingly unlike conventional energy reserves. Ice you can set on fire! Who could take it seriously? But as petroleum prices soared, undersea-drilling technology improved, and geological surveys accumulated, interest rose around the world. The U.S. Department of Energy has been funding a methane-hydrate research program since 1982.

  

Nowhere has the interest been more serious than Japan. Unlike Britain and the United States, the Japanese failed to become “the owners, or at any rate, the controllers” of any significant amount of oil. (Not that Tokyo didn’t try: it bombed Pearl Harbor mainly to prevent the U.S. from blocking its attempted conquest of the oil-rich Dutch East Indies.) Today, Churchill’s nightmare has come true for Japan: it is a military and industrial power almost wholly dependent on foreign energy. It is the world’s third-biggest net importer of crude oil, the second-biggest importer of coal, and the biggest importer of liquefied natural gas. Not once has a Japanese politician expressed happiness at this state of affairs.

Japan’s methane-hydrate program began in 1995. Its scientists quickly focused on the Nankai Trough, about 200 miles southwest of Tokyo, an undersea earthquake zone where two pieces of the Earth’s crust jostle each other. Step by step, year by year, a state-owned enterprise now called the Japan Oil, Gas, and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC) dug test wells, made measurements, and obtained samples of the hydrate deposits: 130-foot layers of sand and silt, loosely held together by methane-rich ice. The work was careful, slow, orderly, painstakingly analytical—the kind of process that seems intended to snuff out excited newspaper headlines. But it progressed with the same remorselessness that in the 1960s and ’70s had transformed offshore oil wells from Waterworld-style exoticisms to mainstays of the world economy.

In January, 18 years after the Japanese program began, the Chikyu left the Port of Shimizu, midway up the main island’s eastern coastline, to begin a “production” test—an attempt to harvest usefully large volumes of gas, rather than laboratory samples. Many questions remained to be answered, the project director, Koji Yamamoto, told me before the launch. JOGMEC hadn’t figured out the best way to mine hydrate, or how to ship the resultant natural gas to shore. Costs needed to be brought down. “It will not be ready for 10 years,” Yamamoto said. “But I believe it will be ready.” What would happen then, he allowed, would be “interesting.”

Already the petroleum industry has been convulsed by hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”—a technique for shooting water mixed with sand and chemicals into rock, splitting it open, and releasing previously inaccessible oil, referred to as “tight oil.” Still more important, fracking releases natural gas, which, when yielded from shale, is known as shale gas. (Petroleum is a grab-bag term for all nonsolid hydrocarbon resources—oil of various types, natural gas, propane, oil precursors, and so on—that companies draw from beneath the Earth’s surface. The stuff that catches fire around stove burners is known by a more precise term, natural gas, referring to methane, a colorless, odorless gas that has the same chemical makeup no matter what the source—ordinary petroleum wells, shale beds, or methane hydrate.) Fracking has been attacked as an environmental menace to underground water supplies, and may eventually be greatly restricted. But it has also unleashed so much petroleum in North America that the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based consortium of energy-consuming nations, predicted in November that by 2035, the United States will become “all but self-sufficient in net terms.” If the Chikyu researchers are successful, methane hydrate could have similar effects in Japan. And not just in Japan: China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Norway are looking to unlock these crystal cages, as are Canada and the United States.

Not everyone thinks JOGMEC will succeed. But methane hydrate is being developed in much the same methodical way that shale gas was developed before it, except by a bigger, more international group of researchers. Shale gas, too, was subject to skepticism wide and loud. The egg on naysayers’ faces suggests that it would be foolish to ignore the prospects for methane hydrate—and more foolish still not to consider the potential consequences.

If methane hydrate allows much of the world to switch from oil to gas, the conversion would undermine governments that depend on oil revenues, especially petro-autocracies like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Unless oil states are exceptionally well run, a gush of petroleum revenues can actually weaken their economies by crowding out other business. Worse, most oil nations are so corrupt that social scientists argue over whether there is an inherent bond—a “resource curse”—between big petroleum deposits and political malfeasance. It seems safe to say that few Americans would be upset if a plunge in demand eliminated these countries’ hold over the U.S. economy. But those same people might not relish the global instability—a belt of financial and political turmoil from Venezuela to Turkmenistan—that their collapse could well unleash.

 
Britains saviour could be the waves
User Rating: / 0

You could call it lunar power, and certainly it’s long been eclipsed by the sun and wind for renewable energy. Yet, after nearly 90 years of frustration, the time of tide – of which Britain has the greatest resources of any country on earth – might finally be about to arrive, and by an unexpected route.

A House of Commons select committee will produce yet another report on proposals for a tidal barrage across the Severn estuary that could generate 5 per cent of the country’s electricity. But it’s just possible that this much-touted solution – which has been unsuccessfully revived more than a dozen times since first proposed in 1925 – will be pipped to the post by a little-publicised scheme for a chain of lagoons around the estuary which, its promoters say, will produce more energy at about half the cost.

Overwhelmingly powered by the moon, tides rise and fall with metronomic predictability – a rare and invaluable attribute for a renewable source. The Severn has the second greatest tidal range in the world, after Canada’s Bay of Fundy, as Atlantic sea water accelerates on meeting the continental shelf, pushing a huge volume into a relatively shallow pool.

Other exceptional sites stud our coasts – including Liverpool and Morecambe Bays, the Solway Firth and the Wash – most of them conveniently close to towns and cities that can use the power. Indeed, the UK has half the tidal power resources of the whole of Europe.

The Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee will assess the latest barrage scheme, an 11-mile dam, containing 1,026 underwater turbines, stretching from Lavernock Point, near Cardiff, to Brean, near Weston-super-Mare. It is designed to have the capacity of more than three nuclear power stations, or more than 3,000 wind turbines, and to save the emission of 7.1 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

But it is expensive, at £25 billion and, at best, would not be fully functioning until 2025. The Port of Bristol fears ruin, because it will obstruct ships and make the water shallower. It will disrupt migration routes to a quarter of Britain’s salmon habitats – says the RSPB – and could seriously affect 96 internationally protected sites for birds, largely by altering water levels. Indeed, it would have to get round an EU directive, a lengthy process even if it succeeded.

Its promoters – who include the former Labour minister Peter Hain – say that it is nevertheless the only way “to harness the full power of the Severn”. Mark Shorrock begs to differ. A 43‑year-old entrepreneur – who worked in films before turning to building “out of sight” wind farms and solar installations in Britain and Spain – he has invested £2 million of his own money in investigating tidal lagoons and will apply for planning permission for the first of its kind in the world, in Swansea Bay this autumn.

Plans for lagoons have been kicking around for years, but Shorrock applied a businessman’s rigour, spending the past two years “throwing darts at the project and seeing if we can kill it”. Failing to do so, he teamed up with major companies such as Atkins, Costain, marine engineers Van Oord and turbine makers Alstom and Voith, and says he can produce more power than the barrage from a chain of six lagoons round the estuary for a comparatively modest £13.5 billion.

He also reckons that he could get half of them going in the Severn, and add two at Fleetwood and Colwyn Bay, to exceed the barrage’s planned output by 2023, two years before its completion. In all, he says, lagoons could provide a quarter of Britain’s domestic power.

Enclosed by breakwaters, stretching like giant harbour walls out from the coast, they come with turbines to generate power as the tides flow in and out.

Since they do not block the estuary, they do not harm ports, change migration routes or do much to affect bird habitat.

And whereas the barrage is a one-off project, building successive lagoons would make it possible to improve designs and lower costs – and the technology could be exported to similar sites around the world, creating a new British industry.

He will start selling 12,500 shares in his company to local people, and has already held 240 meetings with residents and interest groups around Swansea – a sharp contrast to the attitude of most of the wind industry. And he plans to turn the lagoons into popular centres for triathlons and water sports.

It is a longish shot, but ministers who believe that the barrage’s figures still “aren’t in the place they would need to be” are increasingly open to “affordable” lagoons. They could yet turn out to catch the tide.

 
Cheap coal becoming popular
User Rating: / 0

Coal on the global market is so cheap that it threatens government attempts to tackle climate change, the chairman of the Environment Agency has warned.

Lord Smith says the UK’s share of electricity generated by coal is up to 40% – the highest since 1996.

Unless this trend is curbed, he says, the UK will miss its targets on curbing climate change and sulphur pollution.

The price of coal has been driven down by the dash for shale gas in the US.

Gas is much less polluting than coal, so carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have fallen in the US. But European power generators have gobbled up the resulting cheap coal, driving carbon emissions up in several nations.

The EU's statistical agency Eurostat estimates that from 2011 to 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 3.9% in the UK. The rise is most likely to be due to increased coal burning.

UK emissions of sulphur, which is damaging to health, have risen when they are supposed to be falling.

Lord Smith urges the government to commit to long-term targets to remove almost all carbon pollution from electricity generation by 2030. MPs are due to vote on this issue next week.

He also urges ministers to resist any attempts by power generators to keep open old coal stations which are due to close under an EU directive on air pollution.

Lord Smith said “There’s lots of talk about a dash for gas but in effect we’re in a dash for coal that’s completely unsustainable. The government must ensure it doesn’t continue.”

Lord Smith says it is important the UK develops its own reserves of shale gas, so long as gas power stations are able to store the resulting CO2 emissions in the future.

"If we lock ourselves into gas generation for the next 40 years without capturing the CO2 emissions, we will never meet our targets on climate change,” he said.

"At the current rate of progress we will miss our future carbon budgets."

A government spokesman said measures were in place to ensure new coal power stations could not be built unless they captured their carbon emissions.

There were no plans, he said, to extend the life of old coal power stations

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 25 - 28 of 195

Polls

What's your preferred energy generation options?
 
© 2017 The Environmentalist
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.