139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Although most people are aware of the value of developing new energy technologies, the importance of assessing such technologies is only just beginning to be recognized in full. This book, illustrated by real-life examples, fulfils two main objectives. Firstly, it provides an in-depth summary of energy system evaluation methods, the result of decades of work in this area, for the use of researchers, engineers and anybody else interested in the energy sector. Secondly, the vicious cycle of neglect towards in situ evaluation is broken. This neglect is due to its unjust reputation for being "thankless work": longwinded, expensive, difficult to exploit and undervalued. By scientifically organizing experience acquired over more than 30 years, Energy Transition highlights the considerable usefulness of the approach, not only economically, but also from a human standpoint.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 367
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Part 1: The Context of Case Study Feedback (CSF)
1 Energy Transition
1.1. The global energy system and its evolution
1.2. The necessary transformation of the global energy system
1.3. The three concordances
2 Energy Systems and Technological Systems
2.1. Transformers and concordances
2.2. From the transformer to the energy system
2.3. Effectiveness of resources and effectiveness of results
3 The Innovation Process
3.1. A well-defined process
3.2. Limit of these curves in the context of energy systems
3.3. Operation and use
4 Case Study Feedback, the Basis of Learning by Using
4.1. Innovation in energy systems
4.2. Case study feedback
Part 2: CSF Tools: Operation and Envisaged Uses
5 The Human Context
5.1. Why the human aspects?
5.2. Who are the actors involved and how are they involved?
5.3. How to take into account human aspects in CSF
6 The Energy Context and the Sankey Diagram
6.1. A drawing is better than a long speech
6.2. Design, development and operation
6.3. Uses
7 From System to Experimental Concept
7.1. The importance and difficulties of a quantitative quality assessment
7.2. From the energy system to be evaluated to the measurement concept
7.3. Link to other phases of the evaluation
8 Data Observation and Global Indicators
8.1. Observing and feeling
8.2. Energy indicators
9 Input/Output and Signature Relationships: the Operation in Use
9.1. Convenient visualization of an expected relationship
9.2. Search for a global relationship
9.3. Signatures as simple management tools
9.4. The signature as the basis for adjustment
9.5. The signature as the basis for a standard
10 Modeling
10.1. Why model?
10.2. Analytical and systemic approaches
10.3. Modeling and approximate knowledge
10.4. Modeling in the context of approximate knowledge of CSF
10.5. The steps of the modeling and the necessary validation
10.6. Some component modeling carried out in CSF
10.7. Simulation of energy systems
11 Conducting the Evaluation
11.1. Publication
11.2. Summary of the CSF process
Part 3: The Practice of CSF
12 Challenges of Innovation: Summer Overheating in an Administrative Building
12.1. Background information
12.2. Description of the building
12.3. The measurement concept and initial findings
12.4. Overheating indicators: strict application of the standard
12.5. Building consensus
12.6. Conclusions
13 Audits or Implementation of Knowledge: Transformation of Valère Castle to a Museum
13.1. The context of the study
13.2. The Aymon CSF
13.3. Return to Valère
13.4. Modeling and scenarios: proposal of the concept based on the “Aymon system”
13.5. Implementation of the concept and commissioning by the Valais engineering school (now HES-SO Valais)
13.6. Conclusion
14 CSF to Evaluate and Improve the Appropriation of Innovation: the Case of Buildings
14.1. Context: from the catalogue of solutions to real practice
14.2. Increased complexity of construction and systems techniques well-highlighted by the Sankey diagram
14.3. The importance of use and human aspects that are difficult to quantify
14.4. The problem of the “performance gap”: modeling to account for the difference in performance
14.5. A surprising invariant in the functioning of the “building” system: the relevance of I/O relationships and signatures
Part 4: Towards Involved Research?
15 CSF and Learning Through Use
15.1. Expertise or contested innovation
15.2. Auditing or putting innovation into practice
15.3. Feedback:
in situ
evaluation of the appropriation of an innovation
15.4. Big Data and CSF
15.5. The different learning experiences
15.6. CSF and learning by use
16 CSF, Energy Transition and Involved Research
16.1. Current limitations and potential of CSF
16.2. Feedback and energy transition: towards involved research?
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1. World primary energy in 2015, according to [INT 16]
Chapter 4
Table 4.1. Attempt to classify the different CSFs
Chapter 7
Table 7.1. List of probes
Table 7.2. Secondary quantities from Table 7.1. Cpfluid: specific heat of fluid ...
Chapter 10
Table 10.1. Analytical and systemic modeling, according to [LEM 90]. By changing...
Table 10.2. Estimated model parameters [BRA 02] (* corresponds to the 245 liters...
Chapter 12
Table 12.1. Temperatures observed outside and in three offices, July 19, 2006
Chapter 14
Table 14.1. Parameters influencing heating demand and estimation of their impact...
Table 14.2. Contribution of a geothermal well (40 l/s) according to its exploita...
Chapter 15
Table 15.1. Different knowledges related to the stages of product development
Table 15.2. Learning factor for four definitions of the quality indicator, accor...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1. Evolution of world energy consumption, according to [MAR 03]
Figure 1.2. From global primary energy to final energy, 2015, according to [INT ...
Figure 1.3. Historical evolution of the global distribution between fossil fuels...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Basic energy system with a single transformer
Figure 2.2. Simplified photovoltaic system
Figure 2.3. Solar installation for domestic hot water (DHW) production
Figure 2.4. Decomposition of a solar thermal system into subsystems
Figure 2.5. Interweaving of different systems in a school
Figure 2.6. Transformer and energy system
Figure 2.7. Assessment of a simple energy system
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1. The innovation process, according to [ALT 10]
Figure 3.2. Experience curve for electrical energy storage [SCH 17]. For a color...
Figure 3.3. Learning curve of two photovoltaic panel technologies [IRE 12]. Pric...
Figure 3.4. Learning curve of the cost of the photovoltaic electricity produced,...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. Complete range of low-energy lighting based on wind electricity
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1. C. J. Minard’s diagram of Napoleon’s Russian campaign in the origina...
Figure 6.2. The Sankey diagram of Power-to-Gas-to-Power. For a color version of ...
Figure 6.3. Energy flow diagram for an installation of methanization treating ki...
Figure 6.4. Flow diagram of a bio-methanization installation in Geneva [AEB 10]....
Figure 6.5. Flow diagram of a refrigerator. For a color version of this figure, ...
Figure 6.6. Flow diagram of a refrigerator, “returned” version of that in Figure...
Figure 6.7. Incorrect flow diagram of a refrigerator. For a color version of thi...
Figure 6.8. Sankey diagram of a large administrative building in Geneva. The air...
Figure 6.9. Sankey diagram of a seasonal stock of solar energy, found on the Web...
Figure 6.10. Sankey diagram of the previous corrected figure. For a color versio...
Figure 6.11. Sankey diagram of a gas pump [PAH 93]
Figure 6.12. Sankey diagram of the Riehen network for 2013 [FAE 17]. The contrib...
Figure 6.13. Sankey diagram of the heat market in the canton of Geneva in 2035, ...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1. Simplified diagram of a solar preheating system for DHW
Figure 7.2. The five subsystems considered
Figure 7.3. Simplified flow diagram corresponding to the chosen decomposition in...
Figure 7.4. Process required to measure energy
Figure 7.5. Position of the measuring probes
Figure 7.6. Upper and lower heat values of wood according to its moisture conten...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1. Production of a photovoltaic system observed in Geneva, SIG installa...
Figure 8.2. Temperatures of nine offices on the west side of an administrative b...
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1. Schematic representation of an energy system
Figure 9.2. Schematic representation of the input/output relationship
Figure 9.3. Input/output relationship of the gas boiler. Time points, June 1997–...
Figure 9.4. I/O relationship of a solar thermal system with evacuated collectors...
Figure 9.5. I/O ratio of the solar preheating system [ZGR 10]
Figure 9.6. Schematic diagram of the energy signature of a building
Figure 9.7. Energy signature over 4 years of a building, daily values [ZGR 10]. ...
Figure 9.8. Heating curve
Figure 9.9. Summer comfort standard based on signature
Figure 9.10. Summer comfort standard for offices without air conditioning, SIA 3...
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1. Effect on the efficiency of the inlet temperature (low) and the var...
Figure 10.2. COP as a function of temperature according to the manufacturer’s te...
Figure 10.3. Comparison between the measured COPs and between the COPs given by ...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1. French press clippings from July 17, 1995, Tribune de Genève, at th...
Figure 11.2. Diagram of the CSF process
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1. Eastern office temperatures during a hot week, July 2006. For a col...
Figure 12.2. Effect on the comfort of the occupant on a hot day. For a color ver...
Figure 12.3. Extract from SIA V382/3, definition of the summer comfort standard
Figure 12.4. Comparison of simulation/measurements in offices on the east side o...
Figure 12.5. Ventilation rate measurement
Figure 12.6. Ventilation rate measured as a function of the indoor/outdoor tempe...
Figure 12.7. Calculated effects of double ventilation and absence of false ceili...
Figure 12.8. Photo of the false ceiling
Chapter 13
Figure 13.1. Exterior photos of Valère (Vs, CH) and section of a building
Figure 13.2. “Aymon” building: view of the building and diagram of the air/groun...
Figure 13.3. Three-level temperatures in an office from August 6 to 19, 1990, wi...
Figure 13.4. Comparison of the classified temperatures of an office before (1989...
Figure 13.5. Input/output relationship of the cooling of outside air passing thr...
Figure 13.6. Air heating in the ventilation system
Figure 13.7. Thermal diagram of the desktop model
Figure 13.8. Simulation measurement comparison, period from August 6 to 19, 1990
Figure 13.9. Simulation measurement comparison, classified temperatures, period ...
Figure 13.10. Complete model of the Aymon system
Figure 13.11. Interrelationships between the different factors involved in the p...
Figure 13.12. Experimental device for measuring the thermal and water response o...
Figure 13.13. Responses of the indoor climate of the wooded room F18 to thermal ...
Figure 13.14. Responses of the indoor climate of the non-wooded room F21 to ther...
Figure 13.15. Simulation results
Figure 13.16. Realization, Valère Museum, Sion. Top left: the ventilation princi...
Figure 13.17. Interior climate of the Valère Museum, summer 2011. Top: temperatu...
Chapter 14
Figure 14.1. Solutions to reduce a building’s thermal consumption
Figure 14.2. Renovated (left) and unrenovated (right) building [KHO 14]
Figure 14.3. Sankey diagram of a renovated building (top) and an unrenovated bui...
Figure 14.4. Ventilation system, PLO
Figure 14.5. Average daily air temperatures at different points of the ventilati...
Figure 14.6. Sankey diagram of energy flows of ventilation air, buildings 3–4–5
Figure 14.7. Energy flow diagram of ventilation air, buildings 6–7
Figure 14.8. Photograph of the facade
Figure 14.9. Analysis of the photography by spreadsheet
Figure 14.10. Variation of the effective collection area (top) and the rate of o...
Figure 14.11. Relationship between CAD request and sunlight [QUI 17]
Figure 14.12. Description of the “Pommiers” building, based on [ZGR 10]
Figure 14.13. Distribution of heat flows according to the balance sheet of the c...
Figure 14.14. Hourly heat demand of an assembly of 20,000 apartments. For a colo...
Figure 14.15. Power demand per 20,000 dwellings as a function of outdoor tempera...
Figure 14.16. Energy signatures of several districts’ heating of different sizes...
Figure 14.17. Classified curve of the hourly power use of different district hea...
Figure 14.18. Relative energy versus relative power for different district heati...
Figure 14.19a. Exploitation of a geothermal well (90°C, 40 l/s) for two sizes of...
Figure 14.19b. Exploitation of a geothermal well (90°C, 40 l/s) for two sizes of...
Chapter 15
Figure 15.1. Learning through design of an object, according to [AND 04]
Figure 15.2. Learning through design and manufacturing of an object, according t...
Figure 15.3. Learning through the design, the manufacture and use of an object a...
Figure 15.4. Learning in an energy technical system
Figure 15.5. Learning from the CSF of an energy system during the different stag...
Chapter 16
Figure 16.1. CSF, learning by use and deployment of innovation
Figure 16.2. The GLN network [VIQ 12]. For a color version of this figure, see: ...
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
v
iii
iv
xi
xii
xiii
xv
xvi
xvii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
217
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
253
254
255
256
257
Series EditorAlain Dollet
Energy Transition
Bernard Lachal
First published 2019 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2019
The rights of Bernard Lachal to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019937032
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-211-3
Foreword
“Energy transition is certainly one of the most important challenges of our time, but it already started many years ago”. This quote from Bernard Lachal in his final lesson illustrates the added value of the studies his group has carried out on the reality of energy systems for more than 30 years. These studies are designed to evaluate innovative energy systems, but carried out in the traditional organization of construction and energy infrastructure, they allow all stakeholders to take a step forward and better understand the context in which their actions must take place. They also produce accurate data and analyses that lead to the optimization of the energy systems they have set up. This learning through use is essential in order to reproduce and improve the innovations needed to achieve energy transition.
The University Centre for the Study of Energy Problems (CUEPE) of the University of Geneva was created in 1978 by Professors O. Guisan, F. Carlevaro and B. Giovannini, at the end of the first oil crisis, to initiate interdisciplinary research in the field of energy. In this context of concerns regarding the sustainability of energy supply, CUEPE quickly became interested in the potential for energy savings and renewable energies. It is worth noting the relevance of these pioneers’ vision, which has now become of primary importance, as concerns about energy resources have been replaced by the environmental effects of energy consumption, particularly the greenhouse effect. CUEPE disappeared in 2006, but a large part of the activities have continued within the new Energy Systems Group.
Energy transition is therefore underway. Per capita consumption in Switzerland is declining for both electricity and fuels, with the exception of air transport. However, this progress is not sufficient because the climate emergency requires us not only to think about a gradual reduction in the consumption of petroleum products, but also to imagine a solution without CO2 emissions, i.e. without fossil fuels, in the most immediate future.
Technologies are already at a level that makes this image credible, but the political consensus formalized in Paris at the COP 21 is unfortunately not reflected in national public policies that would allow these technological advances to be implemented. Politicians in many countries consider energy transition primarily as an additional cost factor that would affect the competitiveness of companies in the context of international competition.
However, energy transition is already a source of value creation, as demonstrated by the eco21 program of the Services industriels de Genève (SIG) (Industrial services of Geneva). In this energy efficiency program, launched in 2007, SIG invested 86 million francs in 10 years, more than half of which in direct financial incentives to consumers. They were then able to invest some 193 million francs in goods and services, mainly with local companies. And these consumers were able to reduce their energy bills by more than CHF 290 million, generating a net profit of CHF 140 million. The energy targets were exceeded, jobs were created and consumers spent less, making this a perfect example of value creation, which unfortunately could not be easily replicated in other cantons due to a lack of political involvement.
This is the case for many other local initiatives, here as elsewhere. Unfortunately, these best practices have not been studied enough to understand how they have become successful, often overcoming many obstacles. The documentation of this learning through use would thus enable other actors to benefit from these innovations. This is why the analysis of experience feedback is essential and why this approach, initiated by the pioneers of CUEPE and developed by Bernard Lachal and his group, is so important. Let us take a concrete example: the 20-MW GLN lake deep-water network, which was commissioned in Geneva’s international organizations district in 2009. Five years of measurements and analyses carried out by the Energy Systems Group as part of a European project – and the subject of a doctoral thesis – have enabled SIG to improve energy and economic performance in a substantial way, making it possible to exceed the initial objectives of the project and making its replication possible. The GeniLac project was thus launched, targeting a territory more than 10 times larger than GLN’s.
These 40 years of CUEPE’s experience, from 1978 to the present day, are offered to you by Bernard Lachal in this reference book, which will certainly convince you that research made by involved scholars is essential in the field of energy transition.
Gilles GARAZI
Energy Transition Director
Services industriels de Genève
April 2019
Marcel RUEGG
Institutional Relations Director
Services industriels de Genève
April 2019
Preface
“I don’t think we can know everything simply through science. It is too accurate and too hard an instrument. The world has a thousand different ways in which it can be experienced in order to understand the sum of its parts… In other words, only the sailor knows the archipelago” [GIO 74].
While everyone is aware of the crucial importance of the development of new energy technologies, particularly those oriented towards renewable energies or the rational use of energy, the importance of their evaluation is only now beginning to be fully recognized. However, assessing the effective interest of these innovations is fundamental to enable them to be truly useful. However, a systematic analysis of methods for evaluating the performance after installation of the various non-conventional energy systems is still lacking. Our current practice and our permanent contacts with stakeholders in the field have also shown us that the way in which the energy efficiency of these new technologies is currently assessed suffers from this lack of a synthetic tool.
This book, Energy Transition, therefore has two objectives. The first one is to provide researchers, engineers and anyone working in the energy sector with a summary of methods for evaluating energy systems, the result of several decades of work in this field. The book, based on examples from real cases, is intended to be both synthetic and concrete, presenting as exhaustive a view of the field as possible while at the same time providing a tool that can be easily used by the target audience. The second objective is to break the vicious cycle that still leaves in situ evaluation somewhat neglected today, because it is sometimes considered as a long, apparently expensive, difficult to value and low value work. By attempting to scientifically organize the experience gained over more than 30 years, Energy Transition hopes to convince the reader of the considerable usefulness of the approach, both economically and humanely.
This book is organized into four parts.
The first one provides a general overview to situate the context in which the types of CSF (case study feedback) that will interest us evolve. After a reminder of some concepts related to energy, its transformation and its consumption, it is necessary to clarify the concepts of systems (energy and technological), innovation, learning through use and finally feedback (CSF).
The second part presents the relevant tools of CSF and sets some milestones for their use. In particular, it revisits the notion of measurement, presents different types of models for understanding a system in a quantitative way and also discusses the integration of human aspects.
The third part illustrates the practice of evaluation by analyzing some real cases representative of various situations. It situates the use of the tools presented in the previous section in the CSF process.
The fourth part is a reflection on the scientific nature of CSF. It is a question of asking how this approach is truly original, of presenting the particular type of knowledge it provides and of situating it in relation to other more recognized approaches such as Big Data. Neither is it fundamental research too far in advance of concrete problems, nor is it applied research too limited to its immediate objectives; feedback should be considered as “involved” research.
Bernard LACHAL
March 2019
Acknowledgments
This book is the result of more than three and a half decades of collaboration with a large number of players in the energy sector, within the stimulating framework of the University of Geneva. It is therefore impossible to try to thank all those who have, in one way or another, contributed to it. May those whose names I do not explicitly mention not resent me too much.
I would like to express my gratitude in the first place to all the owners, project managers, engineers, architects, tenants and users of energy systems who have been scrutinized, the key players in energy transition, for their dynamism, patience and open-mindedness, and without whom REX, in vivo experiments, are simply not possible. Then I thank T. Seal and J. Faessler for the many discussions on the book and their constant support, as well as all the reviewers, especially my colleagues C. Ançay, M. Bonvin, V. Schroeter, J.-M. Zgraggen, J. Khoury and L. Quiquerez as well as S. Schiano for her sharp eye. I have special thoughts for O. Guisan, W. Weber and P. Hollmuller, colleagues responsible at one time or another for the “Energy Systems” group, P. Ineichen, A. Mermoud and E. Pampaloni as well as for all the many other colleagues and students with whom I shared moments of work with, often combined with friendship. Without funding from the Cantonal Office of Energy and the Federal Office of Energy, many REXs would not have been possible. Many thanks also to M. Ruegg, G. Garazi and their colleagues at Services industriels de Genève for the many fruitful exchanges as part of the partnership with the university and for their unfailing financial support – including for this book.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Catherine Rosselet, my partner and wife, for her continued support and my affectionate thoughts for her, for our children and for our jovial grandchildren.
Part 1The Context of Case Study Feedback (CSF)
1Energy Transition
The human problem has always been not to create energy, but to transform in a more or less rational way the energy resources available for use. Unlike other natural resources, the Earth is an open system in terms of energy: it receives a permanent and enormous flow of solar energy. This incidental solar radiation is intrinsically a good quality source since it comes from a 6,000 K thermal source; it could therefore be transformed into energy that can be used for our various uses with high efficiency. However, natural annual yields (photosynthesis) are generally well below 1%, and are at most 2.5% for the best plants, such as maize.
At the biological level, human energy needs are covered exclusively by solar energy through photosynthesis – 2,500 kcal per day, or 10.5 MJ, which corresponds to an average power of about 120 W. The conversion efficiency of the human “machine”, despite being one of the highest in the animal kingdom, does not exceed 20%: a human therefore has relatively little power biologically and is constantly seeking additional energy (see Figure 1.1, the evolution of world energy consumption since 1800 [MAR 03]).
1.1. The global energy system and its evolution
Each year, humanity consumes nearly 15 billion tons of1 oil equivalent, a quantity contained in a cube of about 2.5 km of ridge. This represents approximately 1.8 tons per inhabitant or 2,000 W of continuous power. The price of energy, which has remained relatively stable over the past few decades, although things are beginning to change, can be described as low since heating oil has the same price as bottled mineral water, which is a renewable, abundant and regional resource. The inhabitants of the countries of the North therefore very easily have all the necessary energy at their disposal and do not deprive themselves of what is superfluous. For citizens who are unfamiliar with the realities of energy problems, this may seem to indicate a very high abundance of energy, while nearly 85% of the resources used are not renewable (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1.Evolution of world energy consumption, according to [MAR 03]
This first observation must be put into perspective by the deep inequalities between the consumption of individuals on different continents. Thus, an average American will consume 8 tons of fuel oil per year compared to 0.3 tons for the citizens of some African or Asian countries. This is an average; we should not compare the energy consumption of the richest 5% of the world with that of the poorest 25%. An estimated 2 billion people live without electricity.
The current trend in energy consumption is worrying: a headlong rush at a rate of about 2% per year of growth, i.e. a doubling of this consumption every 35 years and its multiplication by seven times every century. However, we must be careful not to extrapolate this observation too far into the future: in a finite world, growing exponentials also have an end!
Table 1.1 shows the world energy balance in 2015. The figures come from the International Energy Agency and have been adapted to account for hydropower in the same way as nuclear power.
Table 1.1.World primary energy in 2015, according to [INT 16]
Resources
Gtoe
%
Petroleum
4.38
30.3%
Coal
3.66
25.3%
Gas
3.21
22.2%
Fossils
11.21
77.8%
Nuclear power
0.59
4.1%
Hydro
0.91
6.3%
Other renewables
0.50
3.5%
Traditional biomass
1.20
8.3%
Renewable
2.62
18.1%
Total
14.45
100.0%
The energy sources are distributed as follows:
– fossil fuels provide nearly 80% of the world’s energy (30.5% oil, 25.5% coal and 22% gas);
– the nuclear sector (4%) only plays a modest role in global energy supply;
– the renewable total is approaching one-fifth (18%), hydropower (6.5%) and especially other renewable energy sources (3.5%) are slowly but surely emerging, while traditional biomass (8%) is largely managed as a non-renewable resource (desertification problem).
1.2. The necessary transformation of the global energy system
Several elements show that the current energy system is not sustainable in the long term and that it must evolve.
1.2.1. Fossil fuels: planned scarcity upstream and environmental problem downstream
Fossil fuels have exceptional qualities: low extraction prices, ease of exploitation, very easy storage, very easy transport for oil and gas (which does not prevent bad practices, which can be disastrous for the environment). They have major shortcomings (non-renewable resources, emission of various pollutants), but they have been and still are ideal energies for many countries for economic take-off. Their exhaustion will therefore pose problems that must be anticipated at all costs.
On the available reserves, controversies are raging. For the pessimist, there are still enough fossil fuels to disturb the climate but never enough to satisfy all the desires of the inhabitants of this planet. For the optimist, and provided we also believe that we are collectively reasonable, there are plenty of them for basic needs and to develop a sustainable energy system, while limiting climate disruptions. The truth is probably in between.
In addition to the problem of climate change, following the emission of greenhouse gases, a limitation of fossil fuel consumption can only be beneficial in view of other problems such as urban pollution, the geopolitical risks associated with the depletion of oil resources outside the Middle East or the economic consequences of high energy prices for developing countries.
1.2.2. Nuclear energy: environmental and accessibility issues
With regard to uranium reserves, we must be very cautious about the figures for the following reasons [FIN 98]:
– these are highly diluted deposits (< 1%), with poorly defined formation conditions;
– uranium is a highly strategic raw material and reserve data is often considered a military secret;
– many actors are inclined to underestimate these figures: those who are anti-nuclear in order to devalue the entire supply chain, and some pro-nuclear to promote other supply chains (breeder reactors that use 70 times more uranium than conventional reactors, thorium reactors or fusion).
Nevertheless, with current technology, uranium resources are a definite limitation to a significant increase in the number of power plants. Several constraints weigh on the development of nuclear energy:
– social acceptability. The specific nature of nuclear risks – very low probability but very high consequence accident risk, long-lived waste management risk spread over an intergenerational period, risk of military proliferation – makes collective preference formation difficult and scientific consensus impossible. However, these two conditions are necessary for a technology to develop;
– economic constraints. These include the inadequacy of nuclear technology with the competitive organization of the electricity industries, competition from combined cycle gas turbines and financing constraints in emerging countries.
1.2.3. An overall inefficient system
One-third of primary energy is degraded during successive transformations mainly due to electricity production via heat (two-thirds of the losses), the other major losses being the transformers’ own energy consumption and losses during transport and storage. All of these losses will end up as heat.
Final energy is often grouped into three uses: mobility (about 30%), electricity (just under 20%) and heat (a good 50%). It should also be noted that the heat lost during the transformations is approximately equivalent to the amount of heat used.
Figure 1.2.From global primary energy to final energy, 2015, according to [INT 16]
1.2.4. A productive and simple-energy vision
Figure 1.3 shows the evolution since the industrial revolution of the distribution of primary energy consumed annually into three main types of resources: fossil, renewable and nuclear. In this ternary representation, each axis of the equilateral triangle corresponds to a type of energy and the position of the point projection on this axis indicates its contribution. In 2002, fossil fuels accounted for about 80%, renewable fuels 15% and nuclear energy 5%.
Figure 1.3.Historical evolution of the global distribution between fossil fuels, renewable and nuclear energy. For a color version of this figure, see: www.iste.co.uk/lachal/energy.zip
In the past, we have always had a strong predominance of energy over the others: from almost entirely renewable to almost entirely coal during the industrial revolution, joined by oil since World War II. In the 1970s, the heated debate was about which energy would dominate the upcoming energy scene: the nuclear newcomer or a return to solar energy? This productivist and mono-energetic vision has not been realized, far from it: today, the fossil has remained predominant, as in 1970, even though we know its limits and impacts well.
One observation emerges from this image: a strong inertia of the system, due to the numerous and heavy energy infrastructures that have been developed. They have had a profound and lasting impact on the landscape, structured land use planning and the global economy. In addition, the dominant energies are still abundant, cheap and practical, and can be based on very well-proven sectors.
A change in our energy vision is necessary: we must take the problem also on the consumption side to limit total primary consumption and accept that the transition to almost all renewable energy will take some time. Limiting the total amount of carbon emitted can be achieved by reducing the contribution of fossil fuels (substitution), reducing the total amount consumed (sobriety), or reducing losses between final energy and primary energy (efficiency).
1.2.5. Energy transition
This transition sets the objective of a more rational use of energy, with the following three pillars:
– efficiency: better transforming energy, i.e. the slow but stubborn reduction in energy intensity
2
, based on energy efficiency throughout the energy chain, from the resource to the end use;
– substitution: decarbonizing and denuclearizing the energy system, which involves the gradual and rational substitution of fossil and fissile energies by renewable sources, based on the exceptional qualities of the former;
– sobriety: to be more energetically sober, which certainly implies in the
end
a questioning of certain values on the basis of our domination – necessarily temporal – of nature such as individualism, excessive competition or the use of violence to settle conflicts.
These three approaches are necessary, none is sufficient. Efficiency, because it is based on the existing; substitution because the existing is quantitatively important, easy to use and cheap; sobriety, because even as we reduce our consumption, we will have to produce energy. There is also a need to address the transfer of scarcity between energy and raw materials, as new technologies can consume large amounts of certain materials; this issue is the subject of much controversy [VID 18].
Like all human activities, the energy system has already suffered and will continue to suffer the repercussions of technological revolutions such as electronic, digital, material and nanomaterial revolutions, not to mention biotechnology. Some believe in a technological revolution that would solve problems related to energy consumption and production, for example hydrogen, others believe in a clear break in behavior following an energy crisis and more generally raw materials or the impacts of climate change. While such events may occur, they will only result from much more subtle fund movements, which should be encouraged above all and which are based on the slow development of innovations.
This approach is related to the silent transformations [JUL 09], which involve:
“[…] to get rid of the reactivity to events as well as to the jolts of the news in order to respond to changes, they are barely emerging, in order to prevent their danger, as long as it is not embryonic and easy to reduce, or to encourage their deployment over time, in the long term, when it turns to the common advantage. In other words, in both cases, to intervene discreetly upstream, at the level of conditions, to influence the situation in the desired direction; and not downstream, in the spectacular nature of the action and the urgency of the repair”.
As far as energy is concerned, it is therefore a question of encouraging the long-term deployment of everything that has a common advantage. The term “common advantage” applies unambiguously to actions for the rational use of energy and the development of new renewable energies. It is the slow but fundamental reduction in energy intensity that must be targeted at all costs. The result is a double advantage: you gain in kWh/€ (efficiency) and you can still double the bet by sobriety (less €). Similarly, for new renewable energies, all the experience acquired by the pioneers must be disseminated in the community; not only the development of the transformers themselves but also the energy concepts that will make it possible to exploit them to the full and, in the long term, to generalize their use.
We must develop a real “silent transformation”, radically changing the energy situation of the future. This transformation is now called the “energy transition”.
1.3. The three concordances
Energy is a concept defined by physicists in the 18th Century as “what must be supplied or removed from a material system to transform or move it”.
The physical constraints to which the transformation and development of energy resources are subject are linked to three concordances that must be ensured simultaneously: form, time and place.
The purpose here is not to cover the whole concept of energy in physics, but to briefly explain its key elements.
1.3.1. Form concordance
Energy exists in different forms which can be expressed under the first principle in a common unit (the joule in the international system), but are not equivalent:
– heat;
– mechanical energy;
– electricity;
– chemical energy (related to the binding energies between the nucleus and electrons);
– nuclear energy (related to the binding energies of the nucleus particles);
– energy electromagnetic radiation (such as light).
From its “primary” state, an energy resource undergoes a series of transformations of its form in order to be finally used and provide the desired service.
We generally distinguish between:
–
primary energy
, linked to a source available in nature (Sun, water, wind, biomass, geothermal energy, oil, gas, coal, uranium);
–
secondary
or
intermediate energy
, resulting from one or more transformations (petroleum products, hydrogen, electricity);
–
final energy
, as delivered to the consumer (gasoline, firewood, heat distributed in the district heating, electricity at the socket);
–
useful energy
, as used during the service (electricity for the operation of machines, movement for transport, light for lighting, heat for heating).
Through its tools and machines, humans have developed over the course of history many transformers that have enabled us to satisfy our needs and desires: sailboats, water and wind mills, powder, steam engines, combustion engines, gas turbines, electric generators, photovoltaic cells, nuclear power plants, etc.
Energy is governed by two main principles – known as “thermodynamics”: energy conservation (the energy of an isolated system is constant) and entropy increase (the quality of energy degrades spontaneously, any increase in the quality of part of the energy results in a greater degradation of the rest of the energy).
The second principle imposes a hierarchy in transformations: heat is a degraded form of energy and its quality is directly related to its temperature. This principle indicates that heat spontaneously passes from hot to cold and imposes a maximum efficiency when heat is transformed into another form of energy; the maximum physically possible efficiency (called Carnot efficiency) is directly related to the temperature of the heat source.
1.3.2. Place concordance
A second physical constraint must be solved: the energy must be available at the place of its use. Energy transport has always been a limiting factor until the industrial revolution, which allowed an efficient transport system to develop (oil all over the world, electricity on an entire continent, etc.) with the notable exception of heat, whose transport does not exceed some tens of kilometers in fact.
Behind this constraint, there are huge infrastructures (oil and gas pipelines, electricity networks, gas networks, petrol stations, etc.), in terms of size and investments, which give the energy system a significant inertia.
1.3.3. Time concordance
Energy must be available at the right time. For uses that depend on seasons such as heating, temporary energy storage seems to be the most appropriate response; it is difficult to imagine today’s energy demand being subject to the vagaries of the climate. Energy storage generally requires investment and causes additional energy losses. For some forms of energy such as electricity, there is not yet a large storage capacity. It should be noted that the time agreement can also be partly resolved by transport for spatial and temporal mutualization.
1.3.4. Economic, social and environmental constraints
At the economic level, we will recall that it is not primary energy itself that has a cost, but the various stages of its exploitation, extraction, transformation, transport, storage and distribution. Thus, contrary to what is often heard, solar energy is no freer than coal, oil or uranium. The cost of a solar kWh produced to heat water includes the cost of extraction (solar collectors), transport (pumps, piping, and electricity) and storage (solar storage). It is also necessary to note the difference between costs and prices; for example, the cost of a barrel of oil (159 liters) is, on average, between about $10 and $20 while its selling price is currently five times higher; the difference between prices and costs being the oil rent. It currently amounts to more than $1.5 trillion per year, the equivalent of all the world’s military budgets.
