
In a new thesis from Uppsala University, Simon Davidsson shows that a rapid expansion of renewable energy technology is not necessarily sustainable. To find the best way forward in the coming transition towards renewable energy, we need to take account of the materials used and make sure the industries that emerge are sustainable.
A shift in the global energy supply is crucial to combating human climate impact. Large quantities of renewable energy technologies, such as solar cells and wind power, must be deployed globally to replace today's fossil-dominated energy supply. Solar and wind energy are growing rapidly, but while the energy is renewable every solar panel and wind turbine is largely made from non-renewable resources. These energy technologies also have a limited lifespan and the power plants we build today will need replacing in the future.
The thesis "Natural resources and sustainable energy," which is the first thesis in the new field of doctoral education 'Natural resources and sustainable development' at the Department of Earth Sciences, studies the industries and natural resource flows necessary for a continued rapid expansion of renewable energy. It also discusses how these technologies are to be replaced when they reach their end-of-life.
"Renewable energy technology can lead to reduced emission of greenhouse gases, but for a complete analysis we need to make sure the whole production chain is sustainable. For instance, it is not obvious that the production of wind turbines and solar cells is sustainable, that the materials have been sourced in a sustainable way, or that the industries are capable of recycling the technology in the future," says Simon Davidsson, new PhD at Uppsala University.
Energy technology is constantly being improved. In the future, entirely new technology and improvements of today's technology may play an important role. However, to save the climate, renewable energy needs to be scaled up quickly and current technology will have to make up a large part of the expansion. Depending on the technologies we choose, the demand for different materials and elements, which may come from more or less rare resources, will increase. The extraction of these resources creates environmental problems, usually in other parts of the world, and their future availability is often uncertain.
"To assess the feasibility and consequences of a global energy transition, we need to consider material flows and how sustainable emerging industries are with regard to aspects other than climate. Truly sustainable energy systems require the creation of sustainable industries, which not only can produce large amounts of renewable energy technology, but also maintain a working system on a longer time scale, and do so in a resource efficient way," says Simon Davidsson.
Explore further:
Solar is a rapidly growing energy source
More information:
Natural resources and sustainable energy: Growth rates and resource flows for low-carbon systems: uu.diva-portal.org/smash/recor … %3A955725&dswid=4560
antialias_physorg
Since all renewable powerplants have lifetimes in excess of 20 years let's worry first about getting them up and running and then about creating the infrastructure for large scale recycling.
I
t certainly is important to think about these things, but slowing down the deployment of renewables is, in the current situation, not an option.
Eikka
Everything is recyclable in theory, given enough energy and time, but we lack practical means to e.g. recycle reinforced concrete or glass fiber and other composites. We can only "downcycle" it into less valuable products like road beds. Old wind turbine blades and towers are simply chopped and shredded and buried in a landfill - you can't even burn it for energy because it creates tons of mineral slag and noxious gasses.
Nuclear power is actually more recyclable than things like wind turbines, because all the metals are recyclable and old reactor parts are recycled as we speak, and 96% of the fuel is re-usable. It uses several orders of magnitude less materials per kWh produced.
Most countries have simply made it illegal to recycle metals from nuclear reactors, and there exists double standards in the US/EU for radiation limits between nuclear and other industries.
Eikka
Again, in theory. Reality is different. Wind farm output declines markedly in use after 10-15 years:
http://www.offgri...turbines
WillieWard
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed a worrying threshold"
https://www.techn...reshold/
"Other countries that have tried to go nuclear-free, most recently Germany, have faced increased fossil fuel use and rising emissions."
"Ministers say there's little chance of Europe's top economy switching off its coal plants for next two decades, despite raft of green policies"
http://www.reuter...CN12Q1IN
RichManJoe
optical
Oct 31, 2016optical
Oct 31, 2016optical
Oct 31, 2016gkam
And there are other batteries which do not use lithium. The larger ones may use flow technologies.
optical
Oct 31, 2016enteroctopus
WillieWard
https://scontent-...36_o.jpg
humy
well, the next world war will at least solve the problem of how we can reduce the population to sustainable levels.
That just leaves us with only the other two problems.
syndicate_51
Use AFR's, Advanced Fast Reactors for transition. Also it takes more energy to make a wind turbine (it's various physical constituent parts) than it will ever produce over it's lifetime IIRC.
Fast reactors. Learn about them. Then you will see why they are the immediate answer.
Even so, can it be scaled fast enough.
Also all solar plants and wind plants are really hybrid plants. When the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowin'. The LNG's fire up....
If man simply says no because of stigma in spite of facts, then we deserve extinction no?
humy
This would be one of the most expensive options in the short term. This may change in the future but, right now, wind is generally the cheapest source of power and nuclear the most expensive. (I have nothing in principle against nuclear )
antialias_physorg
These things are barely out of the study phase. The first prototype for study hasn't even been built. Never mind the second, improved prototype after that...and all the engineering work AFTER that to get this to a viable, commercial design, after which one could think about some reactors built by one company...and THEN one can think about a next generation ramp-up.
By the time these are up and running in any significant numbers the world could have transitioned to a full solar/wind/wave power infrastructure several times over.
Dug
Everyone agrees we need to get off fossil fuels, but they ignore the lack of alternative energy source that available now. Additionally, they don't get the economic relationships including the loss of economy-of-scales that shutting down the petroleum industry would cause (without equivalent economic petrochemical subsidies) - which supports the current prices of petro-chemicals - food prices that both 95% of global food production - as well pharmaceutical and many other petrochemical related production processes are absolutely dependent upon.
Additionally, assuming reaching sustainability without lowering our 6.5x human overpopulation simultaneously makes any sustainability outcome an impossible task to start with.
antialias_physorg
That loss would only be an issue if the infrastructure for the petroleum industry didn't exist. But it exists (in copious amounts). If anything the stuff will get cheaper because of massive overproduction as demand drops. The cost of pumping this stuff up, transporting, refining and distributing is so low that even with massive cutbacks in demand it is still very profitable.
Whydening Gyre
A tank of saltwater can be a battery. Solar heat it during the day. Stirling engines collect the heat overnight...
howhot3
But the core of a nuclear plant consists of highly radioactive shit from it's years of exposure to neutron bombardment that it needs containment for 10000's of years under tons of rock, never to be exposed to surface life. The comment is just Eikka comment is just fallacy expressed by a pro-nuke wonk.
MarsBars
Laudable sentiments, RMJ, but what method/s do you propose that we use to expeditiously reduce the planet's human population (and thus consumption) to around one-third of its present level? A severe nuclear winter or a highly virulent global pandemic may achieve that goal, but neither would be a popular choice for most of the 7.46 billion people alive today.
optical
Nov 01, 2016optical
Nov 01, 2016WillieWard
https://scontent-...58A42811
https://scontent-...28_o.jpg
https://scontent-...79_o.png
http://s1.ibtimes...0529.jpg
https://scontent-...5860B0DB
https://scontent-...50_o.png
WillieWard
http://dotearth.b...gy/?_r=0
"Other countries that have tried to go nuclear-free, most recently Germany, have faced increased fossil fuel use and rising emissions."
http://www.reuter...CN12Q1IN
Electricity in Germany remains 6x more carbon-intensive than in France.
https://scontent-...36_o.jpg
gkam
http://www.power-...rs.html?
This does not include the ones scheduled to shut down and those hanging on the possibility of more SUBSIDIES to cover their operating costs.
antigoracle
The "Green" energy scams continues...
https://ontario-w...ractors/
gkam
Is he related to Trump?
WillieWard
"US Nuclear Retirements Largely Replaced by Fossil Fuels" - October 31, 2016
https://www.green...il-fuels
https://scontent-...58990BDC
https://scontent-...5895B8A1
https://pbs.twimg...qHeW.jpg
WillieWard
https://scontent-...36_o.jpg
optical
Nov 01, 2016gkam
Uncle Ira
Cher for the electrical engineer, you sure are pretty slow. The grid was the load and the fluctuations in the supply/demand caused parts of the grid to get overloaded (turned into heat) and breakdown.
That.
antialias_physorg
It is also interesting to note that nuclear (at least in germany) was only viewed as a bridge technology until renewables came up to speed. Even before their accelerated shutdown (due to Fukushima) nuclear was never considered as a long term solution to energy production.
Nuclear powerplants always are situated on prime farmland, because nuclear power requires access to a lot of water. This means it has to be situated close to rivers. In the current climate conditions nuclear powerplants grow ever less efficient because their efficiency is based on the difference in temperature between river water and surrounding air. In warm summers and during times of low river levels nuclear powerplants have had to be shut down or their warm runoff water would have started killing all the fish (do you care about fish, Willie?).
gkam
Their problem, it it exists, is with control, not too much power which somehow gets "wasted".
Uncle Ira
If you got a problem with control, you got a problem with your system, and the system is for power, so yeah, they had the problem with too much power. That was the problem, the windmill system was hard to control because they tried for too much capacity without taking into proper consideration the wild fluctuations of output. It was a scale thing. Windmills are okay for small, city sized systems, but not suited for huge industrial grids.
WillieWard
People who are pro-renewable do not believe in global warming.
"Energiewende has proven to be a complete fiasco with 6 times more CO2 emissions and far more expensive energy bills in comparison to nuclear-based France...Renewables are in reality fossil corporation's sanctuaries since they obligatorily require 80% conventional stable energy baseload conversely out of fossil fuels (mostly fracking gas, oil or coal)..."
optical
Nov 01, 2016antigoracle
Uh huh and yet False "Profit" Al, burns 24 time the electricity as the average US home, flies private jets and joy rides around in the biggest gas guzzling SUVs and Limos.
antigoracle
I bet this jackass burns electricity the way he does gasoline and only trolls this forum to bray at the heretics to appease his hypocrisy.
gkam
------------------------------------
Anyone who calls wind turbines windmills is ignorant of the technology.
WillieWard
https://www.youtu...dSmPbdLg
Uncle Ira
Are you saying they aren't windmills? Is this another one of your "rocket powered cars are not cars" things?
TheGhostofOtto1923
Do you think that being stupid twice will make you appear smarter? Or do you think you appear smart no matter what stupid things you say here?
Or do you just forget you were stupid the first time because youre a stupid old psychopath whos usually stoned out of his gourd?
Pick one. Theyre all true you dumfuk.
TheGhostofOtto1923
gkam
Before that, by 1850 we had Francis turbines. Between the two, we built Western utilities.
Uncle Ira
So what did all those gold miners do with the electricity you send to them? Charge up their electric mules? To bad they had to wait for the Civil War to get over before they put up the solar panes.
gkam
I guess the history they teach in the Red States stops with them winning the Civil War.
Uncle Ira
What? The Civil War was won by the United States, but we are talking about before that. Are smoking the pot early today or what?
Cher, there were no electrifying going in 1850. Not even in California. That is just another one of those things you made up to try to sound like you were on to something. Cher, if you are going to try to get away with making up stuffs, you really need to try not to do it while you are smoking pot.
gkam
Uncle Ira
Well I am calling you the liar on you getting it 10 years before the Civil War. Choot, they did not invent the light bulb until 10 years after the Civil War. Only a person with a really bad mental condition would think he could get away with that lie.
gkam
Only someone with no knowledge would think this is Twitter.
Uncle Ira
Apparently. I think it has something to with all that pot you smoke.
Cher, any way you spin it, you are claiming that you generating electricity before the Civil War.
One town did, but not for electricity.
gkam
TheGhostofOtto1923
I guess you got confused 1) because wind turbines arent actually turbines, 2) your compulsion to pretend like you know something about the subject got the better of you as usual 3) youre a pothead (and proud of it) whos obviously stoned all the time.
But as usual as ira says you screwed up. But this time on 2 levels.
WillieWard
But "windmill" is suitable too because it "mills" (crushes/grinds) birds and bats in midair with its rotating wind blades.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Zum Beispeil
"20.000 Windmühlen in Betrieb; im Jahr 2007 liefen zum Vergleich 19.000 moderne Windenergieanlagen. Für die Niederlande waren im 17./ 18. Jahrhundert die 9.000 Windmühlen "Motor" des Wirtschaftsaufschwungs. Man hat sie zur Bodenentwässerung, in Sägefabriken und in Hammerwerken eingesetzt."
-und sofort
TheGhostofOtto1923
James Madison U
Office Address:
1401 Technology Drive, Suite 120
MSC 4905
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
As in amerkin
TheGhostofOtto1923
TheGhostofOtto1923
Captain Stumpy
@Otto
you both are correct
however, to make a point-
STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam isn't known for his accuracy, nor is he highly regarded for his links and references
put that into the mix with his propensity for intentional lies (or worse)
and what you get is that STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam want's to argue about the semantics of a singular point while ignoring the huge logical fallacies and holes left in his own arguments about everything else
just read this thread alone and you can see that for yourself!
if he refuses to call cattle, Rhino's, pigs, giraffe's and horses "ungulates" because the typical nomenclature for common use is acceptable (as in: horse, cattle, rhino, etc), then why the stupid argument to differentiate between wind turbine and windmill, especially considering the colloquial use all over the world (including America)???
just think on that a spell...
hawkingsbrother
Nov 04, 2016gkam
antialias_physorg
I'm not sure you're aware that things like copper, aluminium, steel and iridium can be recycled? Are you? If so then I must contradict you: this is EXACTLY how a sustainable evolution is supposed to look like.
Uncle Ira
https://www.youtu...xsGZDetk
WillieWard
Captain Stumpy
i LOVE Justin Wilson!
ROTFLMFAO
antigoracle
The horse is dead, so the jackass brays.
syndicate_51
Why?
Because when these sources are not producing power the LNG plants fire up to cover the gap in power.
Integral Fast Reactor.
It will be done, if not by the west it is already well underway in the east.
Beginning with the development of the BN-800.
Weep all you want, you can weep even more if you reside in the west when the east surpasses you because they embraced this form of energy. There's no way the west will be competitive if that's the case.
syndicate_51
Oh nothing compared to the number of panels and wind needed to make up the difference in power between solar and wind compared to what they actually put in today.
Far cheaper actually.
BUt then again if not by the west then the east fully intends to lead the way so it makes no difference in the end.
syndicate_51
Have you heard of EBR 2 even?
You need facts.
syndicate_51
Ya and France wants more.
It doesn't matter, Russia and China will move forward in this regard anyways.
syndicate_51
So why are they planing to open up a breeder?
gkam
------------------------------
Paid-off politicians.
WillieWard
real time comparison: France(nuclear) X Germany(solar&wind + coal):
https://electrici...mrow.co/
Notice how nuclear-powered countries like France and Switzerland are green while Germany is brown, lignite brown coal.
"wind and solar farms only produce 30 percent of their advertised power on average with the rest provided primarily by burning coal or natural gas, largely methane — and methane, a greenhouse gas, is initially 70 times worse than carbon dioxide."
"absurd claim that wind power has no fuel costs."
http://www.duluth...-economy
gkam
WillieWard
http://energyandc...-deaths/
https://blogs.sci...on-more/
http://d2ouvy59p0...port.pdf