Thank you

The results from my poll show that most people think either nuclear or solar will be the largest source of electricity in 2050. Something tells me that perhaps the sample size was a little too small to draw any meaningful conclusions (I am aware that under my previous 'dynamic' template people were having difficulty finding the pole, apologies. I've now reverted to a 'simple' layout!)

My time blogging is unfortunately coming to an end. Although sceptical at first I've actually really enjoyed it, and I hope anyone that's read my posts has found equal enjoyment, and even better perhaps learnt something!

Source

Sir David Attenborough x President Obama

Now that's a collaboration. Two men in awe of each other for quite different reasons. 

I remember watching this documentary when it was released this summer. They cover a huge range of issues in this short twenty a minute interview (and I'm never quite sure who's interviewing who), but one of the main points they make is having the ability to store electricity. Our ability to do such is incredibly poor. If we can find a way of storing electricity, then many renewable electricity sources suddenly become much more viable. The issue with renewable electricity is you can't turn then on or off, up or down, when you want. It's there, and if you don't use it it's wasted, and if you want more you can't get it. 

I'd encourage anyone to watch this interview from two of the best and most significant voices of our generation.

Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear

A form of energy I haven't touched on yet, symbolic of many states opinion of it: nuclear energy. Nuclear electricity production has long had a bad name, but is it justified?

Nuclear got off to a bad start. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents were the first many had heard of producing energy from nuclear reactions. However, nuclear power uptake was significant post-World War II. The Three Mile Island accident of 1979 followed by the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 where the nails in nuclear's coffin. The US atomic bombs were deliberate attempts at mass destruction. However, these two accidents highlighted to the public the dangerous potential of nuclear cells when uncontrolled, resulting in it falling out of favour.

Since the 1990s the UK has not built a nuclear power plant, and currently has no plans to replace any of the current eight. These eight still provide 18% of our electricity, but most will be retired by 2023. The UK is aiming to construct more plants before 2030, but planning and construction requires years, and with no new plant switched on since 1995 it's perhaps looking unlikely. More recently, the 2011 Fukushima disaster will have further disheartened nuclear power to the general public. Furthermore, nuclear waste produces the infamous byproduct of nuclear waste. Disposal of this is a controversial issue, and one that anti-nuclear campaigners regularly voice their opinion on.

Source

So with such a blotted history, what part can nuclear power play our drive for more sustainable electricity production?

Currently, 11% of the world's electricity production is nuclear. The biggest producers of nuclear electricity are presented below by the International Energy Agency on page 17 of their document Key World Energy Statistics 2014:

While the US leads the way in absolute production, France produces a mammoth 76.1% of it's electricity from nuclear power. Although the UK hasn't had a new nuclear power station in over 20years, it still is the 5th highest in the world regarding % of electricity produced by nuclear. This is likely due to the level of scientific prowess required to harness nuclear energy; only a few countries have the technological capability. 

Having laid out the negatives of nuclear energy, and then shown that it makes up a significant proportion of many developed countries energy mix, the question is why?

Source

Adamantiadesa and Kessides discuss how the ever-increasing volatility of oil prices has meant renewed interest in nuclear power. New-age nuclear reactors are safer and simplier than their predessecors. The development of such technology addresses 'many of the public health and safety risks that plagued the industry since the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl', and as such 'these reactors may help break the current deadlock over nuclear power'. Whitfield et al. take this further suggesting that the negative view of nuclear energy is a product of percieved risk, and as this is high, explains the continued ambivalence towards nuclear energy. It seems as if technological progress in what is much safe is being held back by values and out-dated beliefs. 

Fukishima however indicates the risks still involved when operating nuclear power stations. Should nuclear power stations be built on major plate boundaries? Probably not.

Source

The major global benefit of nuclear power is the greenhouse gas output. It should not be assumed that because nuclear power doesn't burn fossil fuels it doesn't release greenhouse gases, I'd refer to my post on Hydroelectric power for evidence of that. Thankfully for nuclear supporters, Warner and Heath summarise that 'life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are a fraction of traditional fossil sources'.

Adamantiadesa and Kessides therefore conclude that nuclear power could play a large role in the battle to reduce greenhouse gases, but concede that safe disposal of waste and the potential for the technology to be convereted into nuclear weapons are sticking points that hold back nuclear energy, and aren't likely to disappear. A global solution of where to put nuclear waste and building of trust regarding nuclear weapons are sticking points, as well as safety concerns regarding their location, are in the way, but nuclear power certainly has the potential to become a large power in electrcity production.

Source

The Tate Modern

A couple of weeks ago in the Tate Modern was an exhibition entitled Energy and Process. The exhibit focuses on "artists’ interest in transformation and natural forces". One piece I found particularly striking, and relevant to my blog. 

Roger Hiorns: a British Artist nominated for the Turner Prize in 2009. In 2006 he created Untitled. 

The Tate Modern summarises the sculpture as:

A BMW car engine covered in bright blue copper sulphate crystals, held aloft on top of two steel poles that rise vertically from a three-sided steel pedestal. Between two steel shelves within the pedestal lies a smaller, detached segment of the engine, which is also covered in blue crystals. Hiorns created the crystals by placing the engine parts inside a tank filled with copper sulphate solution to initiate a chemical reaction that produced the brilliant blue surface accretion. Over time the colour will lose its saturation as the crystals dehydrate. 

I think the sculpture is an interesting twist on the relationship we have with nature. Global environmental change has occurred over the past few hundred years on a massive scale. This has led us to engulf and transform natural processes and alter the world we live in. Here, I think Hiorns has reversed this process. Hiorns has grown crystals to engulf, and make unusable, a car engine; an object symbolic of humans dominance over our planet. 

Hiorns reversal of what we are doing to the planet, whether he intended for me to interpret it as I have or not, is brilliant. 

This work directly relates to future electricity supply. In providing electricity supply we have dominated the physical environment we live in and are now morphing it at catastrophic rates. The slowing of this process is vital to prevent Earth from becoming unusual and completely engulfed, as this engine has been. Over time, the crystals will begin to lose their colour, which could relate to the potential for us to reverse the damage we have caused.

Following the 'Symphony' regime I spoke about previously in my blog can achieve electricity production without destroying the Earth, the reverse (Jazz) could have serious consequences.

The Tate Modern (Source)

Guardian Quiz

Here's a quiz I found on the Guardian about COP21: 'The Hardest Climate Change Quiz Ever'.

Although it's happened, I thought it would still be fun to post to test your knowledge post-negotiations.

With a couple of lucky guesses, I managed to fluke 7/10.

Source

Happy New Year

Bit of a late one from me, I was fortunate enough to have been in Tignes since New Years Day with the UCL Ski Trip. 

When we first arrived I was greeted with the classic 'You do geography, how can global warming me true with these temperatures?'. Having laughed it off, I hope that statement was meant as seriously as I took it. 

But, having skied a couple of days the conservation switched to 'You do geography, is global warming the cause of such bad snow?'. The snow this year across the Alps has been terrible, we were lucky it chucked it down during our week because it was incredibly thin on the ground, especially for the start of January (I'm going off what I've been told here, I'm not an experienced skier). Note that the top photo you can actually see the grass in the foreground.

One year and one observation is obviously no bearing and cannot be presented as evidence. But it is interesting to hear experienced skiers talk about how bad the snow was, and makes you wonder what effect we're having on the world. Our electricity production methods, and transport, are at the heart of global warming and potentially driving a change which we are seeing on the ground. Again, it should be noted there is also annual variation so one year is not evidence.

On a happier note, 2015 has seen a hugely successful COP compared to other years and hopefully we will have snow to ski on for many years to come, Happy New Year.