Edexcel A2 Geography
1 (a) The potential of renewable energy sources is determined largely by physical factors.
However, improvements in technology can sometimes mean that physical factors can be expanded, for example second-generation biomass fuels such as Jatropha can be grown on poor land, and in the case of third-generation biofuels, large ponds are needed for the algae to breed — so the issue of land becomes less contentious than it is for bioethanol and biodiesel (first-generation fuels).
Solar power is the largest circle on the diagram — basically, with improved technology there is potential for certain types of energy such as photovoltaics across most of the planet. Some places such as the Sahara desert (an ideal location) are being seen by countries such as Spain as having potential for outsourcing power installations.
Wind power also has widespread potential, especially in the westerly wind belts such as the Atlantic and the North Sea for the UK or ‘Roaring Forties’. Again, improving wind turbine technology combined with more efficient storage means that many more locations could become viable. Wind farms for Denmark, or the UK, or California USA have huge potential to make a significant contribution to their countries’ energy security.
The improved technology for turbine anchorage has opened up many deeper-water offshore areas, which is probably where the future lies.
Biomass is a controversial potential source, as currently biofuels come from crops such as soya beans, sugar cane, palm oil, maize — these crops for fuel compete with the same land that produces food crops, and also can involve acres of forest being cut down — so far this is why the potential of biofuels is currently limited.
The other three sources are more localised and therefore have less potential — for example, geothermal power is linked to the decay of hot rocks as in Iceland, where it forms a highly significant local source. Tidal power is currently restricted to certain estuaries, often of outstanding ecological value, which have a strong tidal range, such as the Bay of Fundy or the Severn Estuary. HEP’s low energy potential is perhaps a little surprising, but one explanation may be that many of the most suitable sites have been used up, with many potential sites being highly controversial, such as those in National
Parks. It is possible too that climate change has the potential to diminish the reliability of
HEP, for example in New Zealand a recent drought has led to a supply shortage.
(b) There are three major fossil fuels, namely oil, gas and coal. Currently fossil fuels contribute 85% of global energy supply (coal 25%, oil 37% and gas 23% respectively) but there are a number of issues that mean that fossil fuels may have a diminished role in future energy security. In the first place fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, but to a lesser extent gas, make a major contribution to greenhouse gases and the problem of climate change so there is environmental controversy about their future.
Hodder Education © 2013 1

A second consideration is that fossil fuels, especially oil, are declining in supply — many people argue that we have actually reached peak oil, and that peak gas is perhaps only 50 years away. Coal reserves will probably last for around 200 years at current use rates, but coal is less energy dense than oil or gas, more costly to transport and dirtier — especially in terms of acid rain caused by sulphur dioxide.
A third consideration is that the geographical occurrence of both oil and gas, even with new discoveries, and the use of more unconventional oil supplies such has the Athabasca tar sands, lead to remarkable concentration, especially in the Middle East and Russia
(gas). Therefore geopolitical considerations impact on the security of supply — hence the concern when Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in 2008, and Belarus in 2009, having an impact on security of supply for countries such as Slovakia in Eastern Europe.
Moreover many of the pathways along which fossil fuels are moved are currently insecure.
A fourth consideration is that even with a global recession in 2008–2010 economic growth especially in China and India is likely to lead to rising demand for fossil fuels —
China in particular is contributing to the development of new oil supplies in both Latin
America and Africa in order to secure supplies. Demand has a major impact on the price of a barrel of oil — high prices for oil mean that alternative sources, including unconventional oil, nuclear power and renewables, all become much more economically viable to develop.
A fifth consideration is the role of technology — carbon capture could revolutionise how coal is viewed environmentally, although there will still be issues of mining costs and environmental damage. Technology could also lead to the development of alternatives to the internal combustion engine.
The statement cannot only be considered globally, but also with reference to a number of different groups of countries. If we look at the BRICS for example, it is highly likely that
Russia, China and India will continue to rely substantially on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future to overcome energy security issues. Brazil is unusual in that in response to a lack of major supplies of fossil fuels it has become a lead developer of biofuel from soya beans and sugar cane, with disastrous impacts on forest biodiversity.
It would be equally true to say that OPEC countries will continue to rely on their oil and gas supplies for the foreseeable future as they have high security.
However, energy security has many facets and also can change over time. While the
USA has many supplies of indigenous fossil fuels, for geopolitical reasons it is increasingly developing new supplies in environmentally sensitive locations such as the
ANWR and north Alaska, and the recent environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has put into question drilling for oil in deep under-sea locations. For this reason the USA has made a massive move towards biofuels. Recently the whole picture of gas security in the USA has completely changed with the discovery of vast supplies of shale gas in states such as Pennsylvania.
Other countries with lower energy security, such as Britain post North Sea, or France, are looking to diversify their energy mix considerably and for these countries it may well be that fossil fuels will play a much diminished role in future energy security. France for instance has invested heavily in nuclear power, whereas in the UK there has been a huge
Hodder Education © 2013 2

investment in wind power, and also moves have been made to secure LPG supplies from
‘friendly’ states such as Qatar.
In conclusion, therefore, globally it would be possible to state that fossil fuels will play a very important part in future energy security for the foreseeable future, but that in certain countries, for a variety of reasons there is a move to develop energy strategies that are less fossil fuel dependent.
2 (a) The first two predictions are concerned with the trends in oil demand and the rising impacts this will have on supplies and the price per barrel. The rising demand is estimated at around 25% greater than it is today, largely because of the rise of the BRICs.
In the case of China especially this has led to numerous ‘deals’ with new oil-producing countries in Africa in order to become oil secure and fuel the huge demands it has from
1.3 billion people, with rising living standards and economic growth at 10% per annum.
Another implication is that rising demand will hasten the problems caused by peak oil estimated by many authorities such as IEA to be 2020, a situation whereby the rate of discovery of supplies of new oil will not replace the rate at which it is used.
It is always difficult to estimate oil prices per barrel as, in spite of OPEC cartel’s efforts to manage oil prices, there have been many fluctuations linked to wars in the Middle
East, problems at choke points or even speculation on world stock markets. The implications of a price rise to $200 — almost a 100% increase on current prices — are enormous. It will not only make all unconventional sources such as Tar Sands in Canada or oil shales in the Green River area in Colorado USA extremely viable but even the extremely expensive conversion processes from coal (SASOL) or gas. All these sources have major environmental impacts as they actually use large amounts of energy and water to extract them and they also have a major impact on ecosystems.
The attempts to meet demand for oil and the rising prices have led to the exploitation of extreme oil, of deep water oil, in areas such as the fragile rainforests of Ecuador or the
Arctic Wilderness of ANWR. There are even attempts currently to deep water drill off the coast of Greenland where an oil spill just as Deep Water Horizon (2010) would have a disastrous impact on the cold, ecologically rich Arctic waters which all have major environmental implications.
The real implication however is to either find alternatives to oil, and its products, or to develop sustainable strategies to produce more energy-efficient technologies, and ways of attitudinal fix to conserve supplies. The electric cars such as Nissan Leaf or the fuelefficient Boeing Dreamliners are just two examples.
The other side of the coin is that the extensive use of fossil fuels has had huge implications for global greenhouse gas emissions currently at 380 ppm. Coal is by far the dirtiest of these fossil fuels, with its wide availability and relative cheapness, especially when open cast is still very heavily used above all to generate electricity. The implications are very clear: even with numerous post-Kyoto and Copenhagen discussions to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and other emissions, the world has made limited progress. In particular many large emitters such as the USA (for political reasons) or
China and India (for economic reasons) are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The result is that the rise in global temperatures may be as high as 6°C by 2100 which is beyond the tipping point with disastrous environmental and subsequently socio-economic consequences.
Hodder Education © 2013 3

The big problem is that even if the world can agree on strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions at all scales from local to global, there is a lag time before these actions will have an impact. Sustainable strategies include using alternative fuels: this includes nuclear power, biomas and a range of renewables such as wind and solar. The rising prices of oil will favour the development of renewables as the technologies will become increasingly viable. The implications for use of alternatives are environmentally complex, with concerns expressed about the safety of nuclear power (Japan tsunami nuclear power plant meltdown and leaks in 2011) and the environmental credentials of biofuels (issues of threats to food supplies and ecosystems). The major implication is that all countries in the world will have to pay higher prices for energy and electricity that could impact on the global economy, especially on the poorest countries in the world.
The only real solution to the oil crunch scenario shown is for radical action to conserve energy and to change to a more sustainable energy mix.
(b) The green energy revolution is usually defined as a change towards a more environmentally sustainable energy mix. Environmentally friendly energy sources are either recyclable (i.e. sustainable such as biomass or renewable, such as solar or wind).
Also these services are low carbon or zero carbon and contribute minimal amounts of carbon dioxide towards the greenhouse gases. As such they are alternatives to fossil fuels
(coal, oil, gas). Although nuclear is not as such renewable, it is an alternative fuel.
Nuclear power currently contributes around 18% of the world’s electricity, where it is particularly suitable for providing base load. It probably causes the most arguments between environmentalists — some like George Monbiot see nuclear as the cornerstone of any green energy revolution as it makes minimal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. However there are major concerns about issues of radioactive leakage and safety, and nuclear waste disposal. Moreover areas around nuclear power stations have by some researchers been associated with leukaemia and other cancer clusters. Therefore many environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth are opposed to nuclear power, largely on environmental grounds. Before Fukijima’s meltdown, because of the
Japanese tsunami, there was widespread discussion on a ‘nuclear renaissance’ with many countries such as the USA, UK and Italy planning new or replacement nuclear power stations to bridge an electricity supply gap between fossil fuels and renewables.
Another recyclable resource is biomass/or biogas, which can be used to develop biofuels.
Bioethanol and biodiesel are the main ones. In terms of greenhouse gas credentials these fuels are certainly low carbon — some writers claim they are zero carbon but fuel is used in transporting the fuel source to the factory. However there are many environmental issues associated with these fuels, which cast some doubt as to whether these fuels are truly part of a green energy revolution. Firstly, to grow biofuels, high quality ecosystems such as rainforest in Brazil and Indonesia have to be chopped down in order to grow soybeans, sugar cane or palm oil. Secondly the land that biofuel crops are grown on, such as maize for ethanol in the USA, could have been used to grow food crops. The knock-on effect has been to push up the world prices of food.
The renewable fuels too also have their controversies. All of the fuels conserve resources for the future (Brundtland) and contribute minimal greenhouse gases, except at ‘set-up’.
However many of them are only providers of electricity and are high cost when compared to fossil fuels, largely because they produce intermittent supplies of electricity and rely on technological developments to make them economically viable. Micro-
Hodder Education © 2013 4

generation using microhydro, solar panels and mini wind turbines has provided sustainable power to many small rural communities, thus involving them in bottom-up developments.
The big discussion point when assessing their contribution to a green energy revolution is their degree of environmental impacts on the environment such as the flooding of huge hectares of farmland and disruption of river ecosystems. Equally the visual impacts of both wind farms and solar PV installations are very marked, especially as they are often set up in wilderness areas of outstanding beauty. Noise from turbines and damage to bird life are also issues, so many large turbines are now located offshore such as the large
‘wind farms’ in the North Sea at the expense of marine ecosystems.
In conclusion therefore a range of recyclables and renewables have been briefly evaluated as alternatives to fossil fuels. In this aspect they will all contribute less to greenhouse gases and their impact on climate change, as well as achieving less destruction of finite resources. Nevertheless there are environmental drawbacks for all the fuels ranging from local issues for wind to major international issues for nuclear.
Perhaps the real contribution to the green energy revolution should be increased energy efficiency and conservation. The exact contribution the various fuels can make will inevitably depend on commercial factors such as comparative costs, as well as government policies for the precise fuel mix. It is also possible that technological development for instance Carbon Capture and Storage may permit fossil fuels to contribute to the green energy revolution.
Hodder Education © 2013 5