Avoiding the guilty pleasures

Henry said
I am pretty sure all of this reasoning wrong.
You see, water (vapor) is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Nuclear power generates a lot of heat, which has to be led off by cooling with water, usually from the oceans.
When all of that water vapor (from the process) condenses, the heat is released in the atmosphere. I assume 50% goes to space and the other 50% is directed back to earth.
Mike Helfrich wrote
That may be true for the Uranium fueled Nuclear power plant. There was a competing fuel source in the early Nuclear industry called Thorium. But because the military wanted fissionable material, Uranium won. The reactor design called LFTR (pronounced Lifter) is a liquid salt Thorium reactor that is self regulating and does not require vast amounts of cooling water. I’ve read that a power plant can even be located in desert areas with no issues. One benefit of Thorium reactors is that it can eat nuclear waste from Uranium fuels plants, plus it’s waste has a short half life. I’m no expert on Thorium reactors, but it looks like a good road to take. But because it has the word Nuclear in it’s name, it’s looked in the same light as our current reactor population.
Regards..
Henry wrote
Interesting indeed. Why have I never heard of such an energy making process?
However, even on the grander scale of things: I doubt if nuclear energy would make any difference on global warming, if ever global warming is or does become a problem.
I did a simple experiment with my 50 m2 swimming pool here and came to some staggering results: 2500 liters of water evaporated in one week (no clouds, 31-34 C outside max during day, temp of water 25-26C). Now try and work out how much (shallow) water must be kept in store for every person on the planet, both for consumption and for irrigation for food, and remember that the heat that comes free when one mole of water (18g) condenses is 40.7 kJ…

Jim Cripwell,
Shell Oil bought a controlling interest in Iogen a few years back. They are looking for something they can patent. I don’t believe Shell has any interest in producing ethanol in “commercial” quantities at this time (or the near future.) Range went, in my opinion, the wrong direction. They went the “Thermal” route, and that process is looking problematic (expensive) when compared to the “Enzymatic” processes.
Keep an eye on Fiberight, Poet, and Inbicon (also, the Univ of Tennessee project down at Vonore, Tn.) They use enzymes from Novozymes, and Dupont Danisco (among others.) Poet is a very well-run company, and the world’s largest producer of ethanol. They’re hoping to begin construction on their first “commercial-scale” facility by the end of the year, and are looking to be profitable, sans any subsidies, at about $2.00/gal. I wouldn’t bet against them. They’ve been working on this for several years, and they know the business. They will utilize corn cobs, and part, about 1/3 of the “stover” (husks, leaves, stalks, etc.) As I said, this is a solid, superbly-run company, and they have the knowledge, and contacts to be successfu. They’ve never, as far as I’m aware, made any projections that they couldn’t accomplish.
Fiberight is composed of executives from the waste management, and brewing industries. They make ethanol out of Municipal Waste. They expect to hit max production in their first facility in 2011. They’re projecting profitability at $1.60/gal. – also, w/o any subsidies along the way.
Note: often overlooked in discussions of “Cellulosic” Ethanol is the great amount of lignin left over from the process, even after providing power for the plant, itself. It’s becoming accepted, now, that virtually all cellulosic plants will be co-located with (or built in conjunction with) Electricity Power Stations. This is Not a small thing.
Considering that about 5% of the average county planted in switchgrass would replace All of the “Imported” oil used in that county, and that you get as many btus for electricity generation from lignin as you get in btus from ethanol I would surmise, although I haven’t run the numbers yet, that you would replace a Large percentage of the fossil fuel-generated electricity for that region.
Of course, the neat thing about switchgrass, miscanthus, etc is you only have to replant every nine or ten years, they don’t require irrigation, and you only use nitrogen fertilizer the first one, or two years (you don’t have to do that, but it will increase the yields.)
Hope that helped a little.

Thomas,
I appreciate your perspectives. I understand your point that energy demand and production continues to escalate, as the less developed portions of the planet strive for higher living standards. I don’t share as much concern about continued use of coal for energy production however.
Back in the ’80s, I regularly flew into LA from St. Louis. Each time we would descend for landing, we would descend into the orange brown cloud of pollution that was always hanging over LA then. My eyes would burn and my sinuses itch for the duration of my LA stay, from the irritation. On the ground, you couldn’t see the mountains just 20-30 miles away, the air was so opaque! As the 90’s rolled into 2000, energy consumption continued to increase…. but the LA air became cleaner and clearer. Today, when I visit LA, total energy use is higher than ever and yet there is little indication of air pollution, at least to one who has seen the full progression from its worst!
My point is this. Suitable applications of regulation and technology developments have proven effective at dramatically improving air quality there and elsewhere, even as total energy consumption has continued to rise. The LA basin is proof of that fact. With +200 years of proven coal reserves within the contiguous US, at 2007 energy consumption rates, our national energy independence is readily at hand. Proven gasification and catalysis methods for converting coal to nearly any synthetic form of fuel (gasoline, diesel/jet fuel, lubricants, natural gas, etc) at a cost ‘break even’ equivalent less than current oil price ($US/bbl) are being tested in progressively larger scale plants today. As such, coal is and should be one of our primary energy sources for the next 100 years!
With sizable additions of efficient nuclear power, reasonable regulation, and ever improving combustion, catalytic, and scrubber technologies, we already have a viable plan for US national energy independence with a cleaner environment to boot!

mkelly says:
October 8, 2010 at 1:13 pm
“I pointed out that Newton was by thier definition a creationist so do they deny F=ma. ”
Reminds me of the Pakistani school kid that asked his teacher whether Muhammad’s parents were Muslim.

Mr. Fuller you worry too much. Especially about things that are out of your control.
You are correct that nuclear power has been stymied unnecessarily and that further developed over the next thirty years it could provide a cornucopia of electricity.
You are too starry eyed about combined heat and power because the efficiency of modern plant means you have to sacrifice electric power for heat as well as balance the demand for the two in the short term and seasonally. It is inefficient and uneconomic to turn a third of your electric generation into about three to four times as much heat half of which is likely to lost in the steam heating line distribution. Thus it is impractical except for small scale applications or the colder reaches of the Northern hemisphere towards the Arctic circle.
It is notable that district heating in the UK vanished very quickly once the national natural gas grid was completed in the 1970’s, it is much cheaper and more efficient to pipe the gas and burn it on site where and when heat is wanted and leave electric generation to look after itself. For comparison in the UK coal fired district heat and power would increase electric costs by fifty percent, the district heating cost would be between two and three times the cost of burning gas directly, the CO2 output per unit of total useable energy delivered would be about one and a half times and the capital cost of the plant also about one and half times: these figures would be even worse for the modern gas/steam combined cycle generating stations.
Politicians and commentators either forget or do not know that all these solutions have been tried and tested and there is no universal panacea, local circumstance dictate what solution will be best in terms of cost and efficiency: and that gains are incremental over decades not instant at the snap of the fingers.
Thus except for small local uses wind is useless and solar power could be useful as a bit player in sunnier parts of the world especially for hot water. Major hydroelectric plant and pumped storage are efficient and useful but many rivers also need to supply irrigation. Small scale hydroelectric can also be handy but there is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a small river especially in winter for fear of freezing it up.
Tidal power is proven in terms of practicality if not economics, I note again the Severn barrage has been canceled, must be the fifth time since it was first proposed in the 1920’s: and at least tidal power is predictable. Wave power has possibilities because in effect it is collecting wind over a vast area of sea and is predictable to some extent but again remains to be proven. Geothermal power is fine if you live close to a volcano but not my choice: I prefer my local volcano extinct.
Nor do I think your projections of likely fuel consumption realistic. Much of the current economic development is in warmer climes where the demand for space heating is low: whilst there will be demand for cooling this needs much less power by a factor of at least five to one. Likewise development is occurring in very densely populated areas where demand for transport is much less than the USA.
Moreover I do not see why you should be frightened about the use of fossil fuels. If it is an idea that they will run out perhaps they will but not for several hundred years yet and who knows where we shall be by then? Extraction companies don’t bother to look beyond the medium term, one or two decades, because they don’t need to, sometimes governments try to but are hampered by not knowing what new technology will emerge to meet the need, and of course the reserves of coal and peat are not just vast so are those of oil and above all else natural gas. We shan’t be running out any time soon: it is just a question of the price and the ransom demanded by rapacious governments for producing and using them.
If it is CO2 well perhaps fossil fuel emissions affect the atmospheric levels and perhaps not. We shall find out in the next thirty years or so. Either way it does not much matter since we already know that the biosphere can easily cope with this: and it would almost certainly be beneficial. And we could do with a bit more warming if CO2 can do that: but I doubt it.
So Sir I repeat: you worry too much. It is all going to happen however much you might deplore it. The next few generations will take it all in their stride.
Kindest Regards.

Thank you for a thought-provoking post, Mr. Fuller!
Indeed, these are interesting times….China is putting one new coal-fired powerplant online every week or so, and these are technologically more advanced than our grandfathered-in coal burners:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html
The USA has proven that, when the population gets behind something because of sound science, we all push together and good things happen. Look at the Clean Air Act and banning leaded gasoline…the quality of our environment has improved greatly from this single policy, cars run even better than before, emissions are down, etc. This all happened in a very short time period if you recall (catalytic converters in all cars).
When we want to change history, we do exactly that. I’m an optimist, there are many fine choices on the energy-plate for the American citizens to chose from. I think we’ll do fine, and I wouldn’t want to live in China (notice their latest raucous protest against the government of Norway regarding the Nobel Peace Prize?)
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2724&Itemid=171

Phillip Bratby and others are right about coal. Untreated, its flue gases contain real pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and mercury. That’s why you see grey skies and dangerous smog in, for example, Chinese cities. But new and proven technologies – now being adopted in China and throughout the West – virtually eliminate all this, leaving non-polluting CO2 and steam. Coal is a plentiful resource. So the optimum solution is to replace and supplement old coal plants with new, high efficiency fluid bed technology plants equipped with latest flue gas cleanup systems. Instead – at least in the UK – we are phasing out our coal use and moving instead to “renewables” (especially wind) and – possibly – nuclear. It’s an absurd policy.

Dear Mr. Fuller,
I do like your writing style, honestly. Unfortunatelly, I can’t agree with your cause.
Let’s wait for the coming winter, let us endure ’em and let’s talk again next april.
Regards
KlausB

Diversion of plutonium from “spent” nuclear fuel (SNF) is a bogus issue. cf. Why Modern Used Nuclear Fuel Cannot Be Used to Make a Weapon, Why You Can’t Build a Bomb From Spent Fuel. We’d built a reprocessing plant and were about ready to start it up when then-President Carter killed with an executive order “in order to set an example”. Well, no one followed our example. We’ve now got thirty-plus years worth of SNF sitting in ponds.
But it doesn’t have to be buried, it can be used in Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), either as starter charges (LFTR) or fuel. The MSR was investigated by Oak Ridge back in the 1960s, the physics are proven, as is most of the technology. It would take some time and money to make it a commercial technology.
Non-Tokamak fusion reactor research is coming along, there are at least two or three projects with promise. The Polywell project is far enough along that we’ll know if it will be a viable power source within the next year or less. Dense Plasma Focus is being researched at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. If either of these pan out (and we’ll know within a couple of years) then commercial fusion power will be a reality in perhaps ten years. And that changes everything.

“It’s been a lovely fall in many parts of the world, and a less than lovely spring in many parts down South. But overall, be prepared for claims of the hottest month leading to the hottest year on record.”
===
Let them say what they will, I’ll listen to this voice for the moment:
“A little maple began it, flaming blood-red of a sudden where he stood against the dark green of a pine-belt. Next morning there was an answering signal from the swamp where the sumacs grow. Three days later, the hill-sides as fast as the eye could range were afire, and the roads paved, with crimson and gold. Then a wet wind blew, and ruined all the uniforms of that gorgeous army; and the oaks, who had held themselves in reserve, buckled on their dull and bronzed cuirasses and stood it out stiffly to the last blown leaf, till nothing remained but pencil-shadings of bare boughs, and one could see into the most private heart of the woods.”
~Mr. Kipling

Eli Rabett says:
October 8, 2010 at 1:06 pm
FWIW, the issue with reprocessing is potential diversion to weapons which is why the US does not favor it….

Eli, that is just another one of the many urban myths that surround nuclear power.
Not one nation that posesses nuclear weapons has ever used reprocessed nuclear waste from power reactors as source material for bombs.
There’s a simple reason for that:
For an uranium based bomb it is far cheaper and less problematic to use natural uranium. The U235 content of nuclear waste is about the same as that of natural uranium, but natural urananium does contain highly radioactive fission products and is therefore far easier to enrich. And natural uranium does exist almost everywhere on earth in sufficient quantities to produce nuclear bombs if a nation really wants it.
The plutonium in nuclear waste from power reactors has a far too low an isotopic purity to be used for plutonium based weapons. Current enrichment technology does not allow to process reactor grade Pu to bomb-usable almost pure Pu-239. It can’t be done, even with todays modern technology. All the plutonium for Pu-based nukes has always been produced by specialized Pu production reactors, which are actually simpler to build than power reactors, but require far different construction.
The real reason the US abandoned reprocessing under Carter is that the enrichment infrastructure would be far less needed. And that infrastructure can be used for U-enrichment to bombs too. See the controversy around Iran.
BTW, the prohibition against reprocessing in the US has ended a long time ago. The reason the US does not reprocess today has more to do with NIMBY, anti-nuclear activists, and because the current price of uranium is to low to make it very economical in the US.
The Koreans are pursuing a different strategy:
The used fuel from light water reactors can be re-shaped into different sized fuel rods and can be used, without reprocessing, in CANDU heavy water reactors to produce again the same amount of energy.
And breeder reactors, like the IFR program that was stopped under Clinton, can use 60-80% of the energy of the raw uranium or reprocessed waste without producing long half-life waste. Same for the Thorium reactors like the LFTR.