Share
Jason Ford
News editor
Renewable hopes and concerns
As the world’s leaders prepare to meet in Rio at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development this week, closer to home there are several events looking at specific ways to address the issue of how to meet our energy needs without causing irreparable damage to the planet.
Advocates of biomass believe the raw material is suitable as a replacement for fossil fuels, but it is not sufficient for all applications and ranks in priority after food and feed.
These and other issues will be discussed at The European Biomass Conference and Exhibition thatkicks off today in Milan.
The week-long conference is billed as the world’s leading science-to-science, business-to-business and science-to-industry events for the biomass sector.
Day one sees the launch of the first World Forum on Fuel, Food and the Environment: The Bioenergy Challenge.
The organisers say the main purpose of the World Forum is to stimulate open discussion from all stakeholders on the future of bioenergy and biofuels, and specifically, how policy makers can steer a sustainable course through the many complex issues within the biofuel debate.
Issues to be debated by experts include: steps towards worldwide governance of biofuels; factors effecting the impact of biofuel production on food, environment and green house gas emissions; and regulatory approaches to reduce Indirect Land Use Changes effects on the environment.
Renewable, decentralised energy and the export opportunities it presents for UK companies is on the agenda at an event taking place tomorrow in Germany.
Decentralised Energy Solutions in Great Britain and Germany (Renewable Energy) has been organized by UKTI Germany, which says the event is a unique networking opportunity for British manufacturers of small and microgeneration technologies interested in the German market.
The UK and Germany have set ambitious emissions targets but both need to ensure a secure, stable and affordable energy supply. Decentralised generation solutions could play an important role on the road to achieving this goal.
Delegates will convene in Düsseldorf to look at PV, solar thermal, ground and air source heat pumps, wind turbines and hydro, and their respective roles in a decentralised energy system.
The workshop will explore these by looking at British and German frameworks and incentive schemes to support small and micro-generation technologies as well as market entry strategies.
Meanwhile in the UK itself, the Geological Society of London is holding a discussion on shale gas fracking. Research published earlier this year showed that there was a minimal probability that hydraulic fracturing for shale gas would contaminate shallow aquifers.
The paper’s lead author, Prof Richard Davies from Durham University, will speak as part of an public briefing where policy makers, industry representatives, scientists and the public can discuss the potential for shale gas as a UK resource and its safe extraction.
North of the border, Aberdeen is set to host Innovate with Aberdeen – A Funding Guide tomorrow, where Scottish technology companies are expected to gather to learn about access European funding.
Hosted by Aberdeen University and Scotland Europa, the event will see representatives from Scottish SMEs take part in round-table discussions on a range of funding-related themes including European funding, knowledge transfer partnerships and innovation vouchers.
Finally, the rumble of heavy army land systems will be heard around Millbrook in Bedfordshire this week as companies gather to show off their military hardware.
Taking place on the 20 and 21st, the organisers of DVD2012 say the event brings together the acquisition and support community with military stakeholders and industry organisations for two days of informal discussion, briefings, demonstrations and displays.
Readers' comments (13)
Anonymous | 18 Jun 2012 2:36 pm
Surely biomass is just short-term fossil-fuel consumption? Instead of focusing on one solution let's look at a proper prioritised fuel mix chart for a sustainable growth. This may be Nuclear baseload; Gas &/or Coal second tier; Biomass &/or Tidal third tier; Wind & Solar fourth (top-up) tier. The percentage mix at each level needs to form the basis of investment strategy, which should be government funded at its core. It's no use pretending that wind and biomass are the saviours of the earth. If we only had those as an option we might as well shut up shop now.
If government can now fund multi-million development of nuclear reactors for the Trident replacement, why not for the more urgent commercial generation of electricity for the grid?
The climate change fantasists have a lot to answer for.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim H. White | 18 Jun 2012 3:10 pm
The first priority for energy supply should always be energy efficiency since it usually continues to supply long after the original investment (efficient devices and systems are often of higher quality as well). We often have no idea how little energy or power we require to perform needed or desired tasks and high-quality research into this basic background for all of the supply after that is just not getting done. Too bad Amory Lovins is not speaking to the assembled group.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 18 Jun 2012 3:44 pm
Of course the talk should be about the various forms of energy, biomass cannot fulfill all the requirements nor can wind or solar, gas is also finite.
However if we are talking nuclear we must get into the research of the thorium nuclear alterative, this is wear the future will lie, a much more efficient inherently safe and clean system that could even help to reduce the high level waste we’re struggling with today.
If the Americans and China think it worthwhile pursuing then we should surely be looking at it to, or do we just do nothing as usual and buy the systems from China? If you want to check out the fantasy of the current nuclear system go to Japan or Russia or any number of failing plants in the America!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adrian Musgrove | 18 Jun 2012 3:47 pm
I prefer the approach of self determination and responsibility. Households and some factories generate their own power. Then the end users will also jhave an appreciation of how much is used and many will conserve accordingly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18 Jun 2012 4:34 pm
Energy Efficiency, important though it is, is in no way a supply of energy, just a way of using any supply more slowly. If we had only efficiency the lights would go out. So design with efficiency in mind, but don't believe the Green hype - it doesn't create any energy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Orhan Uestün | 18 Jun 2012 4:40 pm
Momentan die beste Kompromislösung ist die Kombination von Solar- und Biomasseenergie. In der Zukunft werden wir nur mit Solarenergie auskommen können. Ich arbeite momentan an meiner Erfindungslösung, die in Zukunft alleine nur mit Solarenergie die Massenherstellung vom Wasserstoff (keine Elektrolyse, Methan etc.) ermöglichen wird. Ein bischen mehr Hoffnung für Frustrierte und Andere!
Our best translation of this comment:
Currently the best compromise solution is the combination of solar and biomass energy. In the future we will be able to get by on solar energy. I'm working on my invention, the mass production of hydrogen by solar energy alone, (no electrolysis, methane, etc.). A little more hope for the frustrated!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Fulcher | 18 Jun 2012 6:15 pm
ref Peter's comments on thorium. As I understand it, it is a four stage process to get fissionable U-233 as an end result. It needs plutonium-239 to start the process, which uses that up. The thorium 233 is contaminated with isotopes which reduce its effectiveness, plus other drawbacks. Mainly that to use such a fairly common element to replace plutonium and uranium, these become part of the process, both of which are needed in other forms of generating power. Not entirely the panacea that it might appear at first glance. You just don't get something for nothing in this world. Reactors which have tried it, used only part thorium as a fuel
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Wilson | 18 Jun 2012 10:39 pm
Biomass combustion for energy production is known to degrade air quality adding £billions to both environmental and health costs. A DECC/Arup report confirms the need to import millions of tonnes of biomass to provide feedstock needs. The Environment Agency confirms the use of indigenous material such as straw can increase GHG creation by 35% compared with fossil fuel.
The hazardous fine particle air pollution created by biomass combustion has no minimum safe level of exposure therefore priority should be to minimise production. Where is the due diligence and duty of care in deliberate degradation of air quality when the UK is already under threat of EU fines for our failure to take action to improve air quality? The problem appears to be exacerbated by our “loose” combustion emissions control compared with Continental Countries such as Germany.
There are indigenous clean renewables. Biomass combustion for power production is known to be both dirty and an inefficient use of valuable resources plus feedstock competes with land use for food production
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
G Manser | 18 Jun 2012 11:51 pm
I have an engine design for sale, its been for sale for the last 5 years. No fuel, No emissions, No toxins, Can be used under ground or under water. will deliver constant torque to whatever load is required Public, Industrial, or domestic.
Its not cheap but it will break the carbon chain. I am sitll waiting for just one of these investors to deal, or is it just wind?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robin Stafford Allen | 19 Jun 2012 9:13 am
The ONLY renewable that makes sense is hydroelectric. We need a reliable continuously available energy source. Wind and solar are not that, so you need them in addition to a baseload generating capacity, not as part of the baseload.
I advocate Fusion research, partly becuse I am in it and see it as a gamble with almost certain success odds, but the amount of money going into it is just not enough for it to succeed in my lifetime. We need more than a single longterm experiment funded by more than half the worlds population (ITER). We need many experiments simultaneously. Then we could see energy with no carbon, almost limitless fuel, and no long-term waste disposal issue. So blindingly obvious that I am waiting for the world to wake up and smell the coffee... Old_Robin
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
stewart boyle | 20 Jun 2012 10:47 am
The only common thread about the comments on this thoughtful news piece prefacing Rio+20 is that lots of people have their own pet technological preferences and that they tend to denigrate those they don't like. So we have pro-Thorium reactor people, pro-hydro, pro Fusion (50 years of research and still dreaming!), pro solar, pro and anti-biomass, anti-wind, buy my wonder invention etc etc.
Anyone who even half believes the climate change problem will quickly realise that we are going to need an awful lot of improved energy efficiency as well as a wide range of renewable technologies to get even close to turning the trend of disastrous climatic change. Though I'm quite pro-biomass - mainly due to it's flexibility in providing heat, power, liquid fuels and bio-chemicals, I wouldn't propose to create the straw man that many of the comments do in trying to run the whole country or the world on biomass. That makes little sense. Wiser analysis suggests 20-40% of global energy could come from this bundle of technologies without endangering food supplies or biodiversity.
While Brian Wilson's comments on biomass are littered with basic scientific errors, the main point we all need to grasp is that we'd better start making decisions and shifting investment away from fossil fuels pretty quickly. Otherwise engineers will find their views sidelined.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 Jun 2012 3:48 pm
I agree with Stewarts comments and we need to stop bickering about which is best and just get on with all of it PDQ. We need investment now before we miss the boat. If we (UK), want to be self reliant on energy we must pull our finger out and do it, or else we will be left behind and be held to ransom by every one else who did get their act together!
With all the expert engineering know-how and R&D in this country, it would be particularly galling to have to source and buy all of our reactors, turbines, wave/tidal machinery, etc from abroad just because we were too busy arguing over who should put up the money for the future, all of our future.
What is the phrase? Use it or lose it, I believe. (Sheffield Forgemasters & Isle of Wight turbines spring to mind!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David | 25 Jun 2012 7:17 pm
The notion that this or any other western instrument of government is interested in true sustainability issues - and will actually do anything - is rapidly becoming obvious.
Indeed the only so called solutions to this entirely bogus energy crisis are those being innovated by small independent researchers and other organisations that would be able to implement solutions but for the megalithic bureaucracies and spaghetti bowls of red tape.
2,200 miles of waterways and no use of micro hydro
Instead literally billions of the public purse thrown down the vortex of studies, impact assessments, strategic analysis and of course regulation designed to favour the nephilim of global corps.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment