Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon-Neutral Energy Sources

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Liberating Energy from Carbon: Introduction to Decarbonization

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Energy ((LNEN,volume 22))

Abstract

Among the main approaches to decarbonizing global economy, the switching to carbon-neutral energy sources such as nuclear and renewables (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) is mentioned most often. Nuclear energy is considered an important carbon mitigation option; despite the recent Fukushima accident, the majority of countries with nuclear power remain committed to its use. Renewables are no longer regarded immature technology; while the cost of some renewables has dropped significantly over the last decades (e.g., onshore wind, solar photovoltaic), the competition with fossil incumbents is still an uphill battle. There are a number of daunting technical and economic challenges and pitfalls associated with the expansion of the carbon-neutral energy sources in the energy market. This chapter analyzes the latest scientific, technological, and commercial developments in the area of carbon-neutral energy sources and fuels, as well as their carbon mitigation potential and outlook in the light of current technological trends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficiency is defined as a ratio of chemical energy of a product (biomass) to energy of incident solar irradiation.

References

  1. Schultz K, Gorensek M, Herring J et al (2012) Nuclear power for production of carbon-free energy and fuels. In: Muradov N, Veziroglu V (eds) Carbon-neutral fuels and energy carriers. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 203–289

    Google Scholar 

  2. International Energy Agency (2012) Energy technology perspectives. Pathways to a clean energy system. IEA/OECD, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  3. Percopo B (2008) US nuclear power’s time has come-again. Power 1 Jan 2008. http://www.powermag.com/u-s-nuclear-powers-time-has-comeagain/. Accessed 8 Mar 2009

  4. Murray R (2009) Nuclear energy: an introduction to the concepts, systems and applications of nuclear processes. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, ISBN: 978-0-12-370547-1, p 513

    Google Scholar 

  5. Makhijani A (2007) Carbon-free and nuclear-free. A Roadmap for US energy policy. IEER, MD, USA

    Google Scholar 

  6. International Energy Agency (2013) Tracking clean energy progress. IEA input to the Clean Energy Ministerial, IEA, Paris. www.iea.org/publications/TCEP_web.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2013

  7. Jacoby M (2009) Coming back to nuclear energy. Chem Eng News 87:14–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson J (2012) Snap-together nuclear power. Chem Eng News 90:42

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nuclear Energy Agency (2012) The role of nuclear energy in a low-carbon energy future. OECD/NEA, Paris. www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/reports/2012/nea6887-role-nuclear-low-carbon.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2013

  10. National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering (2004) The hydrogen economy: opportunities, costs, barriers and R&D needs. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hoffert M, Caldeira K, Benford G et al (2002) Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: energy for the greenhouse planet. Science 298:981–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2007) Intermittent renewable energy: the only future source of hydrogen? Int J Hydrogen Energ 32:1616–1624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobson M (2009) Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution and energy security. Energ Environ Sci 2:148–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cowan G (2010) Letter to editor. Chem Eng News 88:7

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sobolev I (2011) Pursuing nuclear power. Chem Eng News 89:2

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lenzen M (2008) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy. Energ Convers Manag 49:2178–2199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawton E (2011) Saying no to nuclear. Chem Eng News 89:4

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hvistendahl M (2007) Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Sci Am. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste. Accessed 12 Jul 2012

  19. Science Daily (2013) Chernobyl follow-up study finds high survival rate among young thyroid cancer patients. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424132630.htm. Accessed 12 Jul 2013

  20. Baum R (2011) Nuclear power. Chem Eng News 89:5

    Google Scholar 

  21. Feinendegen L (2005) Evidence for beneficial low-level radiation effects and radiation hormesis. Br J Radiol 78(925):3–7. doi:10.1259/bjr/63353075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Allison W (2009) Radiation and reason: the impact of science on a culture of fear. York Publishing Services, York. ISBN 0-9562756-1-3

    Google Scholar 

  23. Luckey T (2011) Much more on nuclear power. Chem Eng News 89:6

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chen W, Luan Y, Shieh M (2004) Is chronic radiation an effective prophylaxis against cancer? J Am Phys Surg 9(1):6–10

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Baetz J (2011) Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022, Associated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110530/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_germany_nuclear_power. Accessed 31 May 2011

  26. Namasivayam D, Vandoorne S, Bittermann J et al. (2011) Explosion at French nuclear site kills one, CNN online, http://www.cnn.com/2011/world/europe/09/12/france.nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t2. Accessed 12 Sept 2011

  27. Glenn H (2011) Regulators deem US reactors safe. Chem Eng News 27:14

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hargreaves S (2012) First nuclear reactors OK’d in over 30 years, CNN News. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/nuclear_reactors/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3. Accessed 9 Feb 2012

  29. Patel S (2013) World energy outlook foresees distinct generation shift. Power 8–12. 1 Jan 2013. http://www.powermag.com/world-energy-outlook-foresees-distinct-generation-shift/. Accessed 5 Feb 2013

  30. Smith M, Ahlers M (2011) US calls for stepped-up safety at nuclear plants. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/13/nuclear.safety/index.html?hpt=hp_t2. Accessed 13 Jul 2011

  31. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2010) Spent fuel storage in pools and dry casks. Key points and questions and answers. www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html. Accessed 15 Jul 2011

  32. Macfarlane A (2011) The overlooked back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Science 333:1225–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alvarez R, Beyea J, Janberg K et al (2003) Reducing the hazards from stored spent power-reactor fuel in the United States. Sci Glob Secur 11:1–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Japan Atomic Energy Commission (2005) Framework for nuclear energy policy. AEC, Ibaraki, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  35. Goldfinger C (2011) Disaster preparedness and the ring of fire. www.pdxcityclub.org/content/risks-and-potential-nuclear-energy. Accessed 10 Oct 2011

  36. International Energy Agency (2012) Global carbon-dioxide emissions increase by 1.0Gt in 2011 to record high. http://iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html. Accessed 20 June 2012

  37. Covey S (1989) The 7 habits of highly effective people. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. US Department of Energy (2011) Blue Ribbon commission on America’s nuclear future. Disposal subcommittee report to the full commission. 1 June 2011. Washington, DC http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/draft_disposal_report_06-01-11.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2011

  39. World Nuclear association (2010) Storage and disposal options. www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04ap2.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2012

  40. US National Research Council (2003) One step at a time: the staged development of geologic repositories for high level radioactive waste. National Academic Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  41. US Department of Energy (2011) Letter from S. Chu, Secretary of Energy, to co chairs the Honorable B. Scowcroft and the Honorable L. Hamilton of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Washington, DC. 11 Feb 2011

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hess G (2011) Future unclear for Yucca mountain. Chem Eng News 89:24

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cho A, Malakoff D (2013) Chu’s legacy at DOE: some fields gain, others falter. Science 339:635–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Macfarlane A, Ewing R (2006) Uncertainty underground: Yucca mountain and the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  45. Moore E (2011) Much more on nuclear power. Chem Eng News 89:4

    Google Scholar 

  46. Norbeck E (2011) Much more on nuclear power. Chem Eng News 89:6

    Google Scholar 

  47. Read J (2011) (Much) more on nuclear power. Chem Eng News 89:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  48. Grimes R, Nuttall W (2010) Generating the option of a two-stage nuclear renaissance. Science 329:799–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering (2004) The hydrogen economy. Opportunities, costs, barriers and R&D needs. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lee S, Speight J, Loyalka S (2007) Handbook of alternative fuel technologies. CRC, Boca Raton, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. U.S. Department of Energy (2002) A technology road map for Generation IV nuclear reactor systems. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  52. Evans R (2007) Fueling our future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 180

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Jacoby M (2009) Reintroducing thorium. Chem Eng News 87:44–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wetzel J (2010) Letter to editor. Chem Eng News 88:6

    Google Scholar 

  55. Swanson J (2010) Letter to editor. Chem Eng News 88:6

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cooper E (2011) Thorium cycle hype. Chem Eng News 89:4–5

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cowley S (2013) Nuclear fusion is the “perfect energy source”. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/12/opinion/fusion-nuclear-energy-future/index.html?hpt=hp_c4. Accessed 10 Apr 2013

  58. Normile D (2010) Fusion “Consolation Prize” gears up for show time. Science 328:1464–1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Clery D (2010) Laser fusion energy poised to ignite. Science 328:808–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Clery D (2012) NIF report asks for more time to achieve ignition. Science 338:1519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Johnson J (2010) New jolt for nuclear power. Chem Eng News 88:31–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. US Department of Energy (2012) The transparent cost database. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/. Accessed 8 Aug 2012

  63. Asmus P (2013) All renewables, all the time. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch/2013/05/16/all-renewables-all-the-time/?goback=.gde_77156_member_242495376. Accessed 1 Jul 2013

  64. Kirschenbaum E (2012) Germany sets new solar power record, institute says. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526. Accessed 12 June 2012

  65. Jacobson M, Delucchi M (2009) A path to sustainable energy by 2030. Sci Am. p 58–65. Nov 2009 Issue. http://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2009/11-01/. Accessed 10 Jan 2011

  66. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2011) Rise and fall of the carbon civilisation. Springer, London, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Harvey F (2011) Natural gas is no climate change 'panacea', warns IEA. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/natural-gas-climate-change-no-panacea. Accessed 20 June 2012

  68. US Department of Energy (2013) ARPA-E. DE-FOA-0000949: Full spectrum optimized conversion and utilization of sunlight (Focus). https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/#FoaIdfca200cc-bf46–4789-a8c1-e2be7e41509e. Accessed 20 Sept 2013

  69. US Department of Energy (2005) Basic research needs for solar energy utilization, Report of the U.S. DOE basic energy sciences workshop on solar energy utilization, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL

    Google Scholar 

  70. Licht S (2001) Multiple bandgap semiconductor/electrolyte solar energy conversion. J Phys Chem B 105:6281–6294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013) Annual energy outlook. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  72. Mills A, Wiser R (2012) Changes in the economic value of variable generation at high penetration levels: a pilot case study of California. US Department of Energy, Technical report: LBNL-5445E

    Google Scholar 

  73. Burger B (2013) Electricity production from solar and wind in Germany in 2012. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2013) Will Germany’s energy storage subsidy spur investment? Bloomberg New Energy Finance, London, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  75. Bomgardner M (2012) US solar firms try China. Chem Eng News 90:22

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bomgardner M (2013) Odds narrow for thin-film solar. Chem Eng News 91:20–21

    Google Scholar 

  77. Patel S (2013) Floating solar on water. Power 8–12. http://www.powermag.com/floating-solaron-water/. Accessed 5 Mar 2013

  78. Kolb G, Ho C, Mancini T et al. (2011) Power tower technology roadmap and cost reduction plan. US Department of Energy. Technical report SAND2011–2419

    Google Scholar 

  79. US Department of Energy (2013) ARPA-E GRIDS Funding opportunity announcement. https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/FileContent.aspx?FileID=98c6222e-471c-4216-a377-024dbdb45549

    Google Scholar 

  80. Olivier J, Janssens-Maenhaut G, Peters J et al (2011) Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions. European Commission’s Joint Research Center, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  81. Rifkin J (2002) The hydrogen economy. J Ptarcher/Putnam, NY

    Google Scholar 

  82. Evans-Pritchard A (2008) Spain’s gain from wind power is plain to see. www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/07/ccwind107.xml. Accessed 12 Nov 2008

  83. Powell E (2012) Earth, wind and water. Discover 11:50–53

    Google Scholar 

  84. Cable News Network (2010) Wire staff. World’s largest offshore wind farm opens in UK. http://www.cnn.com/2010/world/europe/09/23/uk.largest.wind.farm/index.html?hpt=c2. Accessed 23 Sept 2010

  85. Tester J, Drake E, Driscoll M et al (2005) Sustainable energy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 846pp

    Google Scholar 

  86. National Commission on Energy Policy (2004) Ending the energy stalemate. Report of the National commission on energy policy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  87. Pollack H, Hurter S, Johnson J (1993) Heat-flow from the Earth’s interior: analysis of the global data set. Rev Geophys 31(3):267–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Tester J, Murphy H, Grigsby C et al. (2006) The future of geothermal energy: impact of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st century, Mass. Inst. of Technology. Report INL/EXT-06–11746, MIT, Cambridge. p 372

    Google Scholar 

  89. CO2 storage with geothermal energy production (2012) Carbon Capture J. http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=973&PHPSESSID=up5ge1lr524iq0ita9tgcok406. Accessed 1 Aug 2012

  90. O’Bockris J, Veziroglu N (2007) Estimates of the price of hydrogen as a medium for wind and solar resources. Int J Hydrogen Energ 32:1605–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H et al. (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  92. Forsberg C (2009) Meeting US liquid transport fuel needs with a nuclear hydrogen biomass system. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34:4227–4236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. International Energy Agency (2002) IEA GHG. Building the cost curves for CO2 storage, part 1: sources of CO2, PH4/9, p 48

    Google Scholar 

  94. Dornburg V, Faaij A (2001) Efficiency and economy of wood-fired biomass energy systems in relation to scale regarding heat and power generation using combustion and gasification technologies. Biomass and Biomass Energy 21:91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. C&EN Concentrates (2009) Chem Eng News 87: 32. 10.1021/cen-v087n049.p032

  96. IEA Statistics (2009) International Energy Agency Statistics. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, 2009th edn. IEA, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  97. Johnson J (2009) Fossil-fuel costs. Chem Eng News 87:6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Bomgardner M (2012) DSM joints Poet in biofuels push. Chem Eng News 90:11

    Google Scholar 

  99. Bomgardner M (2012) Advancing ethanol. Chem Eng News 90:10

    Google Scholar 

  100. McCoy M (2012) US guarantees loans for cellulosic fuels. Chem Eng News 90:28

    Google Scholar 

  101. Raizen M (2012) Iogen target cellulosic ethanol. Chem Eng News 90:22

    Google Scholar 

  102. Scott A (2012) Cellulosic collaboration. Chem Eng News 90:10

    Google Scholar 

  103. Kintisch E (2008) The greening of synfuels. Science 320:306–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Schaub G, Pabst K (2012) Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from Lignocellulosic biomass. In: Muradov N, Veziroglu TN (eds) Carbon-neutral fuels and energy carriers. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 465–490

    Google Scholar 

  105. US Department of Energy (2010) EERE. Biomass. www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/ibr_arra_uop.pdf. Accessed 2 Jul 2010

  106. Manzanera M (2012) Biofuels from Oily Biomass. In: Muradov N, Veziroglu TN (eds) Carbon-neutral fuels and energy carriers. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 637–666

    Google Scholar 

  107. Alternative energy flourishes (2009) Chem Eng News 87: 28

    Google Scholar 

  108. Reisch M (2009) Chemicals from biorefineries. Chem Eng News 87:28–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. U.S. National Research Council (2011) Renewable fuel standard: Potential economic and environmental effects of US biofuel policy, National Academies Press, ISBN 978-0-309-18751-0. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13105. Accessed 5 Dec 2011

  110. Ng Y (2012) Natural gas key to a renewable energy future. Power Eng 116:84–86

    Google Scholar 

  111. Cheung B (2012) Storing energy. Mech Eng 38–41

    Google Scholar 

  112. Hoffmann P (2011) Electric energy giant Siemens launches big electrolyzers for utility scale H2 storage. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Lett 26:4

    Google Scholar 

  113. Huggins R (2010) Energy storage. Springer, New York, p 406. ISBN 978-1-4419-1023-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  114. International Energy Agency (2013) Renewables to surpass gas by 2016 in the global power mix. Medium-term renewable energy market report 2013 – market trends and projections to 2018, p 217, ISBN 978-92-64-19118-1

    Google Scholar 

  115. Johnson J (2012) The new Saudi Arabia. Chem Eng News 90:30–31

    Google Scholar 

  116. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2012) Renewable electricity futures study. In: Hand M et al. (eds) NREL/TP-6A20-52409. Golden, CO. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/. Accessed 5 June 2012

  117. Hart E, Jacobson M (2011) A Monte Carlo approach to generator portfolio planning and carbon emissions assessments of systems with large penetrations of variable renewables. Renew Energy 36:2278–2286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Shinnar R, Citro F (2006) A roadmap to US decarbonization. Science 313:1243–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Johnes O (2013) Germans revolt against once-promising wind energy. Big Think. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/Germans-revolt-against-once-promising-wind-energy. Accessed 25 Jul 2013

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Solar Energy Center, University of Central Florida, Cocoa, FL, USA

    Nazim Muradov

Authors
  1. Nazim Muradov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Muradov, N. (2014). Carbon-Neutral Energy Sources. In: Liberating Energy from Carbon: Introduction to Decarbonization. Lecture Notes in Energy, vol 22. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0545-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0545-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0544-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0545-4

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation