Rio+20 summit is only days away, and hopefully we will see a way forward in the form of a joined-up, global agreement on emissions. However, I was reading about the reluctance of Asian countries to accept the EU’s air-traffic carbon emissions charges and was reminded of the same tired old arguments.

Why should countries that are less developed take orders now from countries that started polluting the world with such intensity since the Industrial Revolution? Especially now too, as much of the developing world like Brazil, China, India and the Middle East is showing the Western countries the way forward for economic growth

And the arguments go on and on like this till we all breathe a collective sigh. Perhaps, from some angles, it is hypocritical, but that doesn’t mean that the argument doesn’t stack up and it is the right thing to do for the world as a whole.

The EU has come up with an emissions law (2012) where airlines are charged for their carbon emissions. January 2012 was the first instance where all airlines that use EU airports had come under the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This has been called a ‘deal breaker’ by the Indian environmental secretary, a view shared by many Asian countries. From here, we have an example of the old chestnut, mentioned at the top of the article. The West had its industrial revolution, profited and polluted the world. Who are they to lecture the developed countries, who, after all, want to emulate them and their success? Is it a form of tacit colonialism?

However, it is my firm belief that if an action is the right one, then it is right, regardless of who said it. Environmental action is needed urgently and this tit for tat argument isn’t very helpful to anyone. When William Wilberforce helped end slavery in Britain he didn’t countenance the argument that the Egyptians and Vikings had done it before. In the days of the industrial revolution we simply didn’t know the affects of our actions. We woke up to the fact, late, but better late than never.

Collectively we have made progress, if you look at the Kyoto protocol; there was a very real sense of the world, as a whole, acting for the common good. Although the treaty on its own was not a panacea, it was nevertheless significant. Let’s hope we can drag that spirit with us into Rio+20. It would be a real shame if that progress was stunted at such a crucial time. I would, however, concede that the West has yet to fully shed its polluting ways. The US, for instance, is still environmentally sinning and if Mitt Romney was to become victorious, may renege on the positive overtures it has made so far. However the current Obama administration at times has shunned green policies to the back pages of its legislative programme.

Britain too, is all too inert when it comes to green issues, despite all the right noises coming out of Number 10 (‘greenest government ever’). If one is to take a fine tooth comb to the draft energy bill, it would not be too difficult to find fault with it. For instance, there has been no date set for switching from gas and coal for renewables. Renewable energy is something the UK is still to get to grips with, woefully lagging behind the European average. And with the current economic crisis in Europe, the last thing the EU will be looking to enact is more regulation and taxes, environmental or otherwise.

We now see pollution, carbon emissions and such like as a crime. In effect those who do nothing about it are breaking nature’s laws. If two people rob a bank and only one is caught, is the person who is caught any less of a criminal? Thus, just because western countries got away with polluting heavily in the past it doesn’t follow that it is morally permissible for developing countries to do the same.

Now of course, we should try to make the whole idea more appealing. A possible solution to any impasse is to strive for a global agreement on carbon pricing. Why not introduce a system where a country could trade it like we trade things like gold and silver. Thus, more investors would take notice of countries in the developing world and importantly there would be incentives for reducing emissions and becoming more energy efficient.

Apart from the moral imperative, there is also a practical one. If you like these environmental measures be assured that they work both on a deontological and a teleological level. As time goes by, more and more of the developing world is becoming uninhabitable, there are more floods (however see what happened to Wales this week) in these areas and a lack of suitable living space. It is in the interests of the very countries opposing these measures that we take them.

Also from a practical viewpoint, many refugees will be created by these environmental changes. So it would be much better for the West to nip these problems in the bud and solve or go to some way of solving these problems rather than dealing with the consequences. Prevention is better than cure. It’s pro-active rather than reactive.

There’s one world not three so let’s adjust our environmental policies to that. Yes, the West was the first of the big polluters, and yes, it realised the impact it had a bit late in the day, but that doesn’t change the fact that environmental measures like those mentioned above are right. They are right from both a practical and moral point of view, so let’s forget the tit for tat and get down to it.

Imagine life without electricity

Well, first off you wouldn’t be reading this; in fact the internet wouldn’t exist at all. Business systems would fail, emergency services would become futile, there would be limited transport, limited communication, and most of the modern conveniences that you take for granted would simply disappear.

Everything that makes life so straightforward (relatively!!) would simply not exist.

Fortunately as of May 2012, I have not really suffered from this problem; the odd power cut has resulted in reading by candlelight, but even that had a romantic charm to it.

With demand continuing to increase and supply not reacting fast enough to plug this energy gap the world is coming up with an ingenious way to help.

Development of the Electric Grid We Use Today

The electricity grid that we know and rely on today was first created in the 1890’s, when Nikola Tesla highlighted the advantages of using alternating current to transport electricity. Initially, in the early 20th century, the grid started out as lots of local grids but by the 1960’s these local grids had developed and become so interlinked that it appeared as if there was one massive grid in the UK, with thousands of power generating plants to produce the electricity needed.

At this time, the majority of power stations were gas, oil and coal powered, but as time went on and demand increased, nuclear power plants began to be built (near large sources of water required for cooling) along with large hydroelectric developments.

It was not until the end of the 20th Century that electricity demand patterns were established.

Electricity currently cannot be stored effectively unfortunately, and each type of power station takes time to switch on and off. Nuclear power is the slowest to turn on and off, so nowadays this provides a large percentage of the base electricity in the grid. However, electricity derived from gas turbines can be turned on and off relatively quickly, so this type of power generation was initially used to help mirror electricity demand.

Forward wind another 20 years or so to 2012

Admittedly we still rely on coal, gas and nuclear electricity to power most of the country, but there a number of other electricity sources that have since been added to the electricity mix (although these produce intermittent power when the sun is shining, when the wind is blowing etc). Demand in the UK has also continued to increase, and pressure is forever mounting to drive us get our electricity from cleaner sources. The final issue though, is that demand for electricity is due to outstrip supply as nuclear plants are decommissioned over the coming years and there is nothing (currently) in the pipeline to take up the slack.

So where does that leave us? Well not in great shape admittedly!! However all is not lost. We are holding an ace card, we have information. Lots of it. At the tip of our fingertips.

If I am out and about, I can now see how far my bus is from the bus stop. If I see a product in a shop, I can scan the barcode and check where in my local area I can get the same product at a cheaper price. I can use the internet to book a flight, do all of my shopping, video call my friends across the world. The internet has transformed the way we live, and it has only been about for the last 15 years or so (in the form that we know it now).

The Smart Grid

So we have increasing electricity demand as populations grow, business expands and people are living more energy intensive lives. There is also now more risk to the electric grid than ever before, it is getting old, it is more difficult to continue scaling it up, and it is under constant threat from terrorists.

The smart grid is the term used to describe the overhaul of the electric grid. Governments and businesses are investing lots of capital to make the grid more reactive to supply and demand, and this is being driven by 4 interrelated functions.

• Power Generation
• Monitoring
• Control
• Applications

As I have mentioned previously we are moving away from the large centralized energy generating power plants to smaller distributed sources of renewable energy. This has both benefits and drawbacks. The major drawback is that the electricity from these sources tends to be made intermittently, so for solar PV, only when the sun shines, or for wind turbines when the wind blows. However, you can build these smaller power sources closer to where the electricity is needed, reducing the transmission losses associated with the older centralised plants, in fact houses across the globe are now creating their own electricity and selling it back to the grid (effectively acting as tiny power stations). In addition, the electricity produced from these sources is less polluting, which may help in some way our fight against global warming.

Monitoring has increased dramatically; it is not simply now that once a quarter your energy company reads your meter, sees that it has has clocked an additional 1000 kWh and sends out the bil. If advanced metering infrastructure is installed, these utility companies can get an instantaneous view of information including voltage profile (both maximum and minimum), instantaneous current, kWh used per day, the load profile etc. In addition the utility companies can get instant feedback on the health of their electricity transmission gear, for example transformers in sub-stations, so problems can be identified and rectified quicker than ever before.

In the early 1900’s, the energy grid appeared to be a series of local grids, and actually it appears that we may once again be headed back to that situation. It seems that our end goal is to see an increase in smaller electricity producing power plants that adapt to meet the needs to small local communities, and therefore we need better control than ever to match the supply and demand, known as micro grid control. It is almost as if the grid is now alive, underutilized components can be put to work, easing the stress of overworked parts of the grid, while it can easily adapt to incoming power fluctuations, outages and so forth.

Finally, we need standardised intelligent applications across all of these micro grids. With more information being delivered across the internet to suppliers, they have the ability to use this information to become more efficient in the way they supply electricity.

What Is Holding Mass Adoption Of The Smart Grid Back

As I mentioned previously at the beginning of this post, it is almost unthinkable to get by without electricity. The smart grid, despite working well on small scale tests areas is yet to be tested on a really grand scale, and unfortunately the people at the top are unwilling to work with ‘potentially’ life changing technology. Keeping the lights on is the key priority of all leaders in Government, and while at the moment that is the case, it may not be for that much longer.

Utility companies have based their revenue models on dated regulatory and rate-making frameworks, so they are in no way incentivised to adopt smart grid technologies.

The equipment to produce a large scale Smart grid is expensive; there are high upfront capital costs associated with building a smart grid, and despite there being massive potential efficiency savings so the technology would pay back quickly, companies are unwilling in this turbulent world economy to stick their neck out.

The final factor that I think holds back mass adoption of the smart grid is security. It is correct to assume that by implementing this technology we potentially could adapt to power outages resulting from terrorist action, by rerouting electricity from other areas. The security issue here is actually to do with the data; as we have seen over the last 10 years or so, the internet is a haven for worms and viruses that can bring down computer systems. Security needs to be at a sufficient level to ensure that the electric grid is not at risk, or at least the risk is managed, because as I have suggested earlier, I’d imagine the romance of reading by candle light would quickly fade!!

Why I Would Love To See the Implementation of The Smart Grid

1. A smart grid would act as an intelligent, self-healing grid that anticipates and prevents disruptions and dramatically reduces costly blackouts and power disturbances.

2. The smart Grid would also be much more economical, ensuring that supply accurately met demand, so no electricity is wasted (expensive), but there would always be a sufficient volume (to prevent outages). In addition the potential that the electricity you are using is being produced on your neighbour’s house means that transmission wastage will be limited.

3. Finally the smart grid would be cleaner, and it would be easy to bring on line more renewable energy sources that simply plugged into the grid. It would be a psyche change from big centralised polluting power stations, to small cleaner tech generating stations.

What is Fracking?

I came across the term Fracking only fairly recently, in someone’s tweet on Twitter. I had no idea what it meant at the time, but have since learnt that the US are lapping it up, with the UK expected to follow sharpish.

So what is it? And should the Brits be quite so quick to follow yet another trend from across the pond?

Fracking is short for Hydraulic Fracturing, and is the term used to describe the extraction of gas from shale rock formations. The richest shale deposits tend to be at a depth of 1.5 – 6km underground and at these depths, the high pressure reduces the number of naturally occurring fractures.

These are the beds targeted by fracking; bore holes are drilled vertically down to reach the shale beds (which tend to be less than 100m thick), and then the bore holes turn 90⁰, aligned horizontally along the length of the shale bed, which can go on for kilometres.

Once the bore hole has been drilled, very high pressure water is then forced down into the shale rock which causes lots of miniature explosions, cracking the shale and releasing the gas trapped inside the bed. To prevent the cracks settling back down, sand is then pumped down which props up these artificial fractures.

What are the (potential) problems with Fracking?

Well, while I mentioned that it was water that was fired down the bore hole, that does make the vast majority (98.5% of the fracking fluid), but other chemicals are also sent down such as lubricants and anti corrosion chemicals. When the sand is fired down to act as the propping agent, chemicals are needed to ensure that the sand finds its ways into all the fractures, and this process is fulfilled by lubricants and suspension agents. In addition anti corrosion chemicals are also sent down to stop the bore hole pipes corroding.

This in itself wouldn’t be an issue if 100% the fracking fluid was collected, however there have been some suggestions that this fracking liquid finds its way into water that we eventually drink, which obviously wouldn’t be ideal. Even on a simpler level, if the water were to find its way into the oceans and sea it could be detrimental to the local environment, causing adverse affects on wildlife.

There are also dramatic reports (I have no scientific proof to shape my view on this) of water coming out of the tap with a high volume methane, so if you were to have a open flame in the vicinity, the gas would burst into flames, giving the appearance of burning water.

In the UK, during April and May 2011, two small earthquakes hit the Blackpool area (these were literally tiny – 1.5 & 2.2 magnitude) which were confirmed to be the direct result of fracking activity in theUK. Now anything less than 2 on the Richter scale is described as a Micro earthquake, and therefore not felt. It appears though that Blackpool residents are light sleepers as 10 people called the police station regarding the earthquake when the felt the ‘tremors’ in the very early hours.

I guess for me, it is the last potential issue with fracking that causes me the biggest problem. Fracking produces natural gas, which despite being the cleanest of the fossil fuel family, when burnt produces CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. Relying on natural gas is essentially taking a backward step in trying to cut emissions, and make our society greener.

In the USA recently, fracking has led to an abundance of cheap fossil fuel gas and this has made Renewables battling to make headway amongst more established fossil fuel competitors more uneconomical and unattractive as investment potential.

Also on a slight aside, a further factor making fracking such a popular activity in the USA is that unlike the UK, where any gas found on your property belongs to the crown, any reserves found on properties in the USA belongs to the property owner, potentially creating overnight millionaires.

Barack Obama, in his state to union address said ‘the development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.’ Well Mr Obama, I disagree. It is another sticky plaster that may help us through the next 50 years or so. Agreed that it might not matter to you or I, but surely that is pretty selfish with regard to future generations.

So coming back to the UK, where the practise of fracking is still in its infancy, a report came out on 16^th April 2012, highlighting the promise of fracking to bridge our electricity generating needs to the Government, and with very large deposits thought to exist under Wales, it surely is a matter of time until sadly this becomes common practise in the UK too.

What do you think? Do you think we should focus on fracking to power the UK?

For more insight into fracking – visit https://www.dangersoffracking.com/

A bit about me!

I studied Zoology at University, much to the amusement of my friends; the reasons for this area of study were twofold, firstly I had a fantastic biology teacher at school and secondly because I had a genuine interest in the environment and how humans and other animals co-habit the planet.

Since leaving university I have worked primarily in finance, which has bought a distinct sense of economic perspective to my thinking and this is based loosely on, amongst other things, the three ideas below.

• Supply and Demand drive the price of any consumer item.
• If multiple products are available that fulfil the same need and are of the same quality, the consumer will 9/10 times choose the cheaper alternative.
• As a new commercial manufacturer there are barriers to entry in terms of competitors and higher production costs until economies of scale can be taken advantage of.

So how does a degree in Animal Science and a finance qualification shape my view of the Green Economy? I have attempted to articulate my thoughts below, making the simple assumption that Cleantech vs traditional power sources is an analogy for the wider greener Economy. I apologise now for this oversimplification.

Would I pay more (especially in these austerity driven times) for electricity that comes out of my plug socket, just because it was sourced from ‘Cleantech’ rather than from Didcot coal power station? The electricity is fundamentally identical – I can’t see it – yet from either source, I would have the power to be able to make a cup of tea in the morning.

Wallet sadly over heart

My heart says yes, I would do the responsible thing, unfortunately my rather lightweight wallet appears to be less excited, and therein lies the problem – the proposition only becomes practical and workable if the price of electricity derived from Cleantech is equal or lower than the price of electricity derived from coal.

Fortunately that is only half the story, there are other artificially created and natural factors at work helping Cleantech put up a fight. For one, OPEC, those financial geniuses who live in countries sat upon the black stuff, can restrict flow at any moment. Single handedly they can drive the price of oil up, or bring it down by controlling supply. Rather cleverly by restricting supply they are driving the price up, and even I who has only been driving for 10 years or so has seen the petrol price almost double since I first got behind the wheel.

Why is this clever? because of our complete dependence on them – we have to pay, we have no choice.

Our dependance on oil – a finite source

This brings up two points; firstly our dependence on a finite source, as the world economy continues to grow, oil will be used up quicker and quicker further driving up prices (supply / demand) that unfortunately will be reflected in your normal utility bills.

In addition our dependence is quite worrying simply due to the unrest in the Middle East, the process of weaning ourselves off this staple to our daily lives has to begin at some point, so why not now? Why not make this a gradual process as opposed to enforced cold turkey?

Thus far I have touched upon why I feel the price of fuel can only go up, but what about the other side of the coin, reducing the price of electricity sourced from ‘Cleantech’. Well as seen with solar panels, not only has the technology improved driving efficiency up, but also the price of solar PV has decreased, halving over the last two years, bringing it down closer to the tipping point where a kWh of electricity produced from Cleantech is equal or less than from more traditional methods.

The UK government is also having a part of play, as are other governments around the world. At the time of writing the Feed-in Tariff  for domestic solar PV is still 43.3pence for every kWh of electricity produced. This certainly makes any of the Cleantech technologies applicable for the subsidies a very attractive proposition, however does the government acting as an artificial market maker actually help? The argument is certainly there for giving newer technologies the leg up in the same way the Nuclear, Coal, Oil plants had their helping hand back when they were new and exciting technologies. However when everyone else is pulling in their belts, even the Government now accepts that this subsidy is too generous and will decrease significantly from April 2012. On the plus side this is helping drive limited economies of scale throughout Cleantech industries, which will continue to bring the prices down in the long term.

The Deal maker – putting a value on environmental consciousness

The final point in the equation is environmental consciousness, and the value people assign to that. Obviously it is impossible to assign a monetary value to a feeling, and in also the size of feeling is different for everyone, but this could be the tipping point that could swing the balance.

If the feeling became more embedded in society, this environmental consciousness could be the real difference maker. I for one am a big believer in green technologies; I really do believe they are the future. We cannot keep going on in the same way that we currently do, our current economic activity consumes more biomass than the Earth can generate on a sustainable basis. Things have to change.

I have a feeling the process will be slow, but all the while the price of electricity derived from traditional power stations is rising, while the price of electricity derived from cleantech is decreasing, so the difference is decreasing on a daily basis. When the difference will become small enough for the social consciousness to be able to sufficiently bridge the gap – unfortunately I can’t predict. However we are getting there. Companies are becoming more focused on sustainability, and the companies that are getting it right are making strides forwards compared to their direct competitors that are failing to embrace it. This illustrates to me that it is becoming intertwined into our everyday lives. Children nowadays all know about global warming and are being educated on it from a very young age.

We are in a very exciting time, where we have the potential technologies to change the world we live in for the better, however until this tipping point is reached the economies of scale on these technologies will not be reached. When it finally does, the flood gates will open and nothing will stop it!

Author: James Alcock