Fuel cells and hydrogen storage

From previous ramblings + Bill's speech - I think that a commercial approach to solving the problem is the only way to go. Awareness raising etc is of course necessary - but the world works around money - so making a successful commercial venture that helps solve the problem is a clear winner.

Next question is what is the venture?

I think energy storage is a strong candidate. e.g. electrolysis of hydrogen and then recombination in a fuel cell or other such technologies.

Two reasons:
1. Many renewable energy sources are non-continuous. based on current planning - it doesn't really work if 20% of the UK's energy is generated by wind (for instance) as there has to be conventional back up in case of windless days
2. The motor vehicle problem - bio fuels can't really work on world wide scales - so electric cars seem the obvious solution. Next issue is how to store the energy.

I've not done copious research - but I know battery storage of electricity is a no-go. Hydrogen does seem feasible. Fuel cells more efficient than burning H2.

Maybe micro generation is the way. e.g. My villages build x windmills. Link them to 1 small electrolysis plant (already available). Generate H2. Store locally. Car with H2 tank and fuel cell (already available). My question is - is it really scalable? Use fuel cells as smart batteries for homes and cars. Reduce waste and consumption. Helps with solar generation too - export liquid H2?

People are already doing this kind of thing - so not sure where we fit in - but ...

I'd really love to see a small scale 100% sustainable community set up. To prove it can be done without simply going to subsistence living. Then scale it.

Another big thing. The switch in attitude from consumerism to sustainability. Why does a car have to last only 5 years. It is short termist. No reason a more expensive car could not be made that lasts pretty much indefintiely - especially if electric. I have heard someone suggest that a lease model for end users would hide the upfront costs and if car companies owned the cars there would be incentive to make them maintainable (upholstry change after 5 years etc). Side effect it would get people to think about wasted journeys. Today you shell out tons for a car - then trips seem cheap compared to trains. Plus the more you use the car the cheaper it is. Go for a pay as you go method - and that doesn't happen...

Terrapower - a possible solution?

I've just been pointed to a TED talk by Bill Gates on a possible solution to the global warming problem. See http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html. Its well worth a look as it sets out the problem very clearly. TED talks are great by the way - type TED into youtube. The amount of CO2 generated (and hence amount of global warming that will occur) is proportional to:

• The number of people on the planet
• The amount of services (light, heat, transport etc) each person uses
• How efficient each of these services is (how much energy each one requires)
• How much CO2 is generated per unit of energy

As Bill puts it - the first 3 items will never be zero. The only way to stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere (from human burning of fossil fuels) is to go after the fourth point. Hence you have the drive for renewable energy.

Clearly this requirement is perfectly aligned with the higher level sustainability requirements - although note having renewable energy does not mean we have a totally sustainable way of life (e.g. think about land usage pressures, threats to biodiversity etc).

So how do we get sustainable energy for the planet. Well I suppose that's the biggy. Bill is urging us to look for as many solutions as possible. He favours the high density energy production (e.g. Terrapower) as opposed to diffuse production (wind, solar, biofuels) just because it seems more economically viable. Diffuse sources gobble up land. On the plus side they don't require as much distribution, but then they do not give an uninterpretable supply. I'd tend to agree - high density solutions seem more realistic without subsidy. If it is economically viable - market forces will make it happen. If not - it requires sheer will power and political will power at that  - making it much less likely to happen.

Terrapower (not maybe the best name?) - also called a travelling wave reactor - is the conversion of Uranium 238 to energy. Uranium 238 is 96% of enriched uranium. The uranium 235 gets "burnt" in the reactor to create nuclear power. The 238 is not "burned" and becomes the waste. So not only is this very efficient - it runs off current nuclear waste! Sounds too good to be true. The main downer on it is that is hasn't been demonstrated yet - so who knows - maybe that is the solution.

Bill's other point is to back as many horses as possible as Terrapower may not work out. If 50 years is the time horizon where we must have a solution - else "something very bad" - then it is clearly the 1st problem to solve to get to a fully sustainable system

The story of stuff - the political angle

A few weeks back we got to thinking about how to show people what was going on in the world. Take a step back - see the big picture. It sounded quite exciting - come up with some cool video - people watch it - job done.

Since then I've been looking about at what others have been doing and have found some good stuff. A good example is The Story of Stuff - fronted again by a Greenpeace linked organization. It essentially sets out the way the Consumer society works. I have some problems with the video. Mainly that it does not stick to the key point - but instead throws in multiple pejorative points. The use of the word poison is way overdone. However - the core message is sound. For me - the key point is that the "Consumer Way of Life" is fundamentally non-sustainable. The Capitalist free market works as a consumer system and hence requires constant growth and consumerism.

Ooops - big problem. Sounds like if we want to get to our sustainable society we have to tackle Consumerism. Problem is that we are all consumers - and the alternative is generally held as unthinkable.

So we have economics tangled into the sustainability issue - and now politics. Again - the Little Action approach of "do as I do" is not going to stand up to the economic and political weight of the West.

The counter to this video  The story of stuff - the Critique gives a strongly Conservative view. The general thrust is that resources are plentiful (I'd be interested to know what resources really are available in the mantle of the earth - I'd guess the same as in magma = limited..?), technology will save us and this Commie Greenpeace bitch is talking balls. I'd agree on the odd point that the original video is OTT and hysterical. However - the main thrust again is clear and I don't believe the Critique gives any riposte to it. The Consumer society is not sustainable. Our current society, including economic and political systems are set up to be built on Consumerism. Consumerism is the antithesis of sustainability. Hence there needs to be some changes to the political and economics systems.

I don't believe this means a rush to Communism or Marxism - but we will have to fundamentally change things. Free markets - yes, continuous growth - no, unfettered wealth for 1% of the population - probably not

Sustainability - economics

Starting from the premise of - the only long term solution is to live totally sustainably - I keep coming back to how that could be achieved. There's a difference in opinion between whether big actions or little actions work. The little action approach is that it is only really possible to change people one at a time. Lead by example, tell the world what you are doing.

The strength of the little actions approach is that you can actually get some real results. The general idea is also that the little action is a pyramid type scheme. If every person you "convert" can change another 5 - within a few layers we have got everyone on board.

My problem is that I am beginning to believe that the little action approach is naive. It assumes that a convert can apply their free will to change their behaviour and once changed, it will stay changed. I think that this neglects the environment that we all live in - i.e. the capitalist free market. I think the point is beautifully illustrated by the Greenpeace sponsored video "The story of bottled water". OK - they may over do the point slightly - but the fact that remains is the capitalist free market requires that companies generate need for their product. When hit with constant advertising it is no wonder that people's thinking is altered. In converting the world to sustainable thinking - we have to work against the background push of consumer advertising. This background erodes the good work of word of mouth conversions.

My feeling is that you may convert a few people on all fronts. Some people on some issues - but to get a good majority of people on sufficient issues to really sway the way the world works - nah. I just can't see it. I could imagine public pressure being built up to get rid of bottled water - in the end it is mad. However bigger issues such as transport, the right to as many children as you wish and the holy of holies - the Consumer Way of Life - will be a much bigger issue.

This leads us to "big actions". OK - there can be few big actions without the general public agreeing - i.e. otherwise riots - but I am beginning to believe that economics and politics play a big big role in the solution - not just being a greeny

Its not me - its you

One of the most common excuses for doing nothing about the issue of sustainability is that "its not me - its them".


China and India are often cited as being the major cause of pollution / climate change etc due to their very large populations and increasing demand for resources.


Of course this is quite true - but there is another interesting way of slicing the cake. James Hansen is a climatologist working for Nasa - see link and has published a lot of data on the subject. In terms of responsibility it is possible to look at how many resources an individual in any one country takes today

The curve makes those of us living in Europe feel quite smug. Especially in my native UK.


Before we go back to our everyday existence safe in the knowledge its not us - its them - it is worth looking at how many resources you use individually. i.e how many resources per person are used?

All of a sudden it is not so comfortable reading for those of us in the west.


However - the historical picture - from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to today tells a different and interesting story. So we Brits should feel some extra responsibility for leading the way  - as our current standard of living is a result of chewing our way through a hell of a lot of fossil fuels through the years. So maybe we should take the lead after all...?

Journey to the sinking lands

Ever heard of the Carterets Islands? Me neither - until tonight that is. I just returned from a really excellent talk by a BBC journalist Dan Box who won a Royal Geographical Society travel award to go on a journey of a lifetime and report back. Check out his blog here

The Cartarets (near Papua New Guinea) are becoming famous as the "poster island" for rising sea levels - being the first place where an entire population is going to be evacuated because the island is disappearing / sinking. 

The talk was interesting and informative - but best of all - free from soap box preaching or unsubstantiated fact. It really was balanced.


The picture here of the island beach tells the story well

The tree stump in the sea should not be there - trees do not grow in salt water. Locals report the sea level has reduced the width of their island by 30 m to only 200 m within a generation. Interestingly that's about 400 mm. Natural sinking of the atol accounts for approx 50 mm and global warming (mainly expansion of the ocean) accounts for maybe another 100 mm. The difference is thought to be due to erosion of the land by increased storm activity.


The long term future for the islands is pretty much certain - they're a goner. Dan presents the story as a "lessons learnt" excercise. There are currently 8000 people who will eventually need to be evacuated. This started with a government program - but the funds appear to have disappeared in corruption. Now the families themselves have taken matters into their own hands and have sent 5 fathers to the mainland to set up home and eventually bring the first families over. The issue is not just that the land mass is decreasing. These people live (sustainably) by fishing and growing fruit and vegetables. These gardens are increasingly diminishing as they are being poisoned by sea water in tidal floods and ground water contamination.

A few things I took from the talk

• The Carterets are far from being the only ones. Evacuations have already started elsewhere
• Despite 8000 people being a relatively small number - it is incredibly difficult to move them even though it is within their own country. Why?
• the place they want to go to already has people - they do not want 8000 extra mouths to feed
• the migration must be slow and sustainable to avoid a refugee type situation
• the islanders live a cash free existence - so they have no money to set up
• there is a large culture shock as they will have to quickly change from subsistence living to getting jobs

• This is on the easy end of the Spectrum. Imagine what it will be like when the numbers increase to tens and hundreds of thousands 

What was not clear from the talk is - what can be done to help the islanders in their evacuation and on the world stage - what can be done. 


Again it seems clear that the first step is education and changing attitudes - as without this - nothing can change

 

3 cartoons to sustainability enlightenment

The following three cartoons are the reason I decided to start this blog. They explain very simply the fundamental issue. Unless we change what we are doing - the human race can not be sustained.

 

The earth is a very simple, yet very elegant machine. It has been operating for many millions of years. The natural cycle is represented above. Low density energy from the sun is converted indirectly into plants. These are eaten by creatures in the food chain. The waste products of the food chain (including the creatures themselves) eventually are converted back into plant matter. Organic material from excess dead plants and animals is stored as high density energy over millions of years in the form of coal, oil and gas. The cycle is sustainable when the amount of plants, creatures, nutrients etc are in balance. A key step to focus on is that the waste products of the creatures are recycled into nutrients and hence food for the creatures. The recycling takes time and requires a low density of waste.

Human beings lived in the above way (replace the bunny) for many many thousands of years (until 300 or so years ago). This subsistence living meant hunting and foraging. Populations densities were low. Populations increased when farming methods were developed and captive creatures were farmed. However, fundamentally - the same pattern held. Waste products used in building and living were mostly degradable and hence formed part of the cycle.

The industrial revolution - for the first time - saw the stored energy (coal, oil, gas) being dug up for a ready source of high density energy.

Today, and for the last two hundred years humans have been augmenting the low density energy received from the sun with stored energy from fossil fuels. Regarding the food cycle, humans have used the high density stored energy to create food more efficiently. In addition, other finite resources such as minerals have been mined using the coal and oil to further increase crop yields. This has allowed the population to increase dramatically compared to the levels that could be sustained without fossil fuels. Note, however, that the cycle is no longer balanced as the waste from the larger population can not be converted back into fossil fuels at the same rate as they are being extracted. At this stage it does not seem to be a huge problem.

The last cartoon points out that the same cycle applies to everything we do (not just food) and (for me at least) shows the problem in a clearer way. 

Not only are fossil fuels and stores of minerals being used to help grow food, they are used for everything else that goes with modern life. The fossil fuels are so energy rich, it has been possible to manufacture all sorts of goods. When we are finished with these goods, they are being dumped as waste. In principle these could be converted back into stored fuel. But not at the rate they are being dug up. The cycle is broken.

A final point is that despite the huge efficiencies in modern farming utilizing fossil fuels and mineral deposits, it has still been necessary to turn almost all of the earth's land surface over to supplying food for the human race. Ironically, in doing that, humans are reducing the capacity of the earth to turn waste material back into food as the delicate mechanism of the cycles are being destroyed. We are heading for a downwards spiral. 

Sustainability is the capacity to endure. If the human race is to endure, it will have to work out how to balance the cycle again. That means being able to live off the low density energy of the sun without dependence on stored fossil fuels. We do not know when the finite resources of fossil fuels and minerals will run out. But run out they must - one day. It would be comforting to think that a technological solution will allow future waste products to be recycled for fuel. If not, there is always the age old fall back of using the earth and its biological recycling to do the job for us. We will just have to be mindful that it is not designed to recycle the fossil fuel generated waste from many billions of people, and it has to be healthy to do so.