This is a parody gone mad. Green advocates howl about the issues of nuclear waste storage, arguing that nuclear energy becomes impractical due to the need for long term safe storage, in some cases tens of thousands to millions of years, or as the EPA puts it “25,000 generations”. The Yucca Mountain project was shut down in April 2010 because nobody seems to have the will to actually store nuclear waste below ground. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry stockpiles used fuel rods near major cities in holding pools, and they are running out of room. Are we safer this way? I think not. Thanks Obama.
It seems that ‘Carbon storage’ faces the same dilemma. Can it be safely stored for thousands of years? Or will it turn into a tree killing zone like this one below?
Tree Kill Zone, near Mammoth Mountain CA
More here from USGS on the Mammoth Lakes CO2 leak.
CO2 sequestration illustrated below, relies upon putting CO2 directly into underground storage. Ironically, using salt domes, just like Yucca mountain, and even less secure coal mines.
‘Carbon storage’ faces leak dilemma: Study
CCS supporters say the sequestered carbon would slow the pace of man-made warming. It would buy time for politicians to forge an effective treaty on greenhouse gases and wean the global economy off cheap but dirty fossil fuels.
Critics say CCS could be dangerous if the stored gas returns to the atmosphere. They also argue that its financial cost, still unknown, could be far greater than tackling the source of the problem itself.
The new research, published by the journal Nature Geoscience, wades into the debate with an estimate of capturing enough carbon to help limit warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the figure set in last December’s Copenhagen Accord.
…
The gas will have to be stored for tens of thousands of years to avoid becoming a threat to future generations, a scenario similar to that for nuclear waste, it says.
This means less than one percent of the stored volume can be allowed to leak from the chamber per 1,000 years.
===============================
Gee, where have we heard this before?
Roger,
I am well aware of the LNG facilities along our coasts. The fact is we import very little gas into the US as LNG. You can show “everyone else” this data from the Dept of Energy, it is for the 4th Quarter of 2009.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/publications/4th09ng.pdf
Quote: “Natural gas is bubbling up in Europe’s energy debate, emerging as the likely main potential energy source in the medium to long term. It’s benefiting from a mix of investment uncertainty, political opportunity and economic interests.” [emphasis added]
http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2010/07/02/natural-gas-europes-destiny/
Roger Sowell says:
July 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm
“Quote: “Natural gas is bubbling up in Europe’s energy debate, emerging as the likely main potential energy source in the medium to long term.”
Thanks for the link. Now they only need to start cutting down the feed in tariff for solar severely – in line with the capacity growth of 50% a year, otherwise the cost eats us alive – and we might avoid a collapse of the grid in Europe. I expect a long, painful and very expensive process.
Roger,
You seem to think the fact that CO2 has little or nothing to do with climate change matters a jot. It only matters if there is a transformational change at the ballot box this November. That is what I’m praying for: A transformational change in November and an even bigger one two years hence.
Sounds an awful lot like someone is trying to drum up the next price bubble in natural gas. People make a bundle in the commodities market by doing that. Us ratepayers take it in the shorts, though.
Mike G says:
July 2, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“Sounds an awful lot like someone is trying to drum up the next price bubble in natural gas. ”
Given the volume of the trade, that’s like accusing someone mentioning “peak oil” on a forum of trying to talk up the price of oil.
“Sounds an awful lot like someone is trying to drum up the next price bubble in natural gas. People make a bundle in the commodities market by doing that. Us ratepayers take it in the shorts, though.”
Mike G,
I presume you mean me. First, I think you overestimate the importance of this blog on the financial markets. Second, I can assure you my only point was that fueling all future generation plants with nat gas based on an assumption that it’s price will not change significantly for the next 20 years (or 50 years) is financially irresponsible.
@Badgero
Nope, Roger.
I didn’t mean to imply that he will be succesful. The next bubble will come regardless of all his arm waving. I’m just really tired of paying $50 to $70 a month fuel adjustment from the last bubble. The folks in GA are, too. That’s why they approved Vogtle 3 and 4, which I expect to go on line in 2016 on time and on budget.
Sorry about that. I hope, and believe, you will be right about Vogtle. Just to be clear also. I believe the best approach is a mix of fuel types. Nukes should never be asked to load follow that is a job for nat gas and coal, especially nat gas. Nukes cost too much to build to sit idle. I am not sure people realize it but there are plants that only operate a few days a year to handle peak heating and cooling loads, given current available technologies these should be nat gas.
Nukes should definitely have a role in baseload power though. A bigger one than they have now IMHO.
Regards,
Doug
A fairly current map showing LNG receiving terminals in Europe. Dozens of them. Representing investments of many billions of Euros. Looks like somebody with serious money and outlook knows that Europe will be depending on natural gas for a good long while.
http://www.gie.eu.com/maps_data/downloads/GLE_LNG_June2010.pdf
Maybe, in Europe, they’re tired of being held hostage by the Russians. They’re still wacky in the head about CO2. So, the reason for the LNG might be the Russians, instead of a buildup of CO2 burning assets. Just pondering on my part. I haven’t looked into their plans.
If you could read anything noble into what T Boone Pickens was trying to do a while back, it was to spare the wasting of natural gas fueling power plants because it could be much better used fueling our transportation.
I don’t think there was anything noble about his plans, though. He appeared simply to be trying to influence national policy for his personal benefit.