Guest post by David Archibald
Ira Glickstein’s post promoting clean coal has prompted me to offer a few slides from a presentation I had prepared. One of the things that gets me about clean coal is that the same people who are urging restraint are quite happy to halve the life of our coal reserves.
My thesis is that the rising oil price will drive inter-fuel substitution to the highest value markets, which are those transport applications that require a high-density liquid fuel with good storage characteristics – essentially diesel and jet fuel. Coal will be substituted for oil into the transport fuels market. That in turn will make it too valuable to burn for power generation, in which nuclear will substitute for coal. I am a thorium nut as well as a coal-to-liquids (CTL) proponent. The nuclear industry has financed a lot of the AGW hysteria, as they saw this as the only way they could sell nuclear plants against coal. They needn’t have bothered. At the current oil price and above, coal is diesel that is waiting to go through a CTL plant. At US$120 per barrel, it becomes worthwhile to close existing coal-fired power generation and replace it with nuclear, taking the hit on the capital charge of the idled coal plant.
Some people call for US energy independence but have no practical idea of how that could be achieved. Others, strangely, rail against the concept. So, here follows a plan for US energy independence by 2020. The technology exists and it is costed and affordable.
“here follows a plan for US energy independence by 2020. The technology exists and it is costed and affordable”: affordable by whom? Who will lend the insolvent USA the money to do this? (Or the insolvent Eurozone, Japan, UK, etc?)
I think the time scale 2020 as not feasible. It takes 10+ years to develop and certify a reactor design.
So why not stick for the time being with uranium. It has several certifed reator designs;
ABWR
AP1000
ESBWR(estimated certifaction 2011)
If you want use uranium more effectively the USA should not use the Once-through nuclear fuel cycle.
Also the use of CANDU reactor could enhance the efficiency.( DUPIC fuel cycle)
CTL is a proven technology and still being used in South Africa. It would be wise to build such a plant in USA even if it was at the moment economical to gain experience.
But there lots of alternatives to CTL.
Doesn’t Thorium need Uranium to make it fissile, except in a breeder reactor they haven’t developed commercially yet? How much will Uranium be at $120 oil, still “too cheap to meter”? I think not.
All these “such and such will be cost effective at $120 oil” scenarios fail to recognise what happens to the global economy at $120 oil.
I can’t see there being investment in anything, with the global economy on it’s arse and every government up to it’s eyeballs in debt, $120 oil means $40 oil is coming soon. Commodities will plummet as demand is eviscerated.
2011 – year of the margin call
Jack Simmons says:
January 1, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Sasol having been converting coal to oil for a long time
http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=38:innovation_bg&id=123:liquid-fuel-from-coal
http://www.southafrica.info/business/economy/sectors/energy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol
In the UK we are committed to EU directives regard CO2 reductions.
Nuclear is the only viable way of doing this.
Windmills sorry turbines and solar are merely window dressing.
Coal power plants can be quite thermally efficient some of the best modern plants are
45% or better. It would appear to me that big reductions in coal consumption could be achieved by upgrading plants that are only 30 to 35% efficient. The gains in Thermal efficiency appear to be from the use of higher temperatures and pressures.
One interesting fact about battery only electric cars is the drop in range when using the heater. The Nissan Leaf 100 mile range drops to 55 is you want to say warm. I think that they should have put a LPG tank on board to run the heater from.
jorgekafkazar and JDN,
Coal to liquids doesn’t have any strange requirements or metal problems. Sulfur could always be handled, and is now simply reduced to trivial levels with a fluidized bed and limestone additions, where the limestone reacts with the sulfur to make calcium sulfate (gypsum), which stays with the ash. The CO and H2 come off as gases, along with mercury which is most cheaply cleaned by passing the hot gas past molten tin (which stays hot because it’s in the furnace exhaust). The mercury combines with the tin for form an amalgam which is later processed back into tin and mercury. Other metals are going to stay with the ash, which is why coal ash is a good source of feedstock for thorium and other elements.
Much like burning wood, the ash contains all the essential trace elements like copper while the smoke consists of light hydrocarbons, nitrogens, carbon dioxide, and such. Kodak runs a major coal to liquids plant in Bristol Tennessee, making methanol, and such plants were in routine operation in Germany well into the postwar period until the Saudis dropped the price of oil so low in that coal conversion couldn’t compete.
The reason coal prices go up when oil goes up isn’t the production cost, it’s that the demand for coal goes up as competing fuels become more expensive. Electric companies go to great lengths to decrease oil usage and put all the load on coal fire plants, but most importantly the coal price goes up due to the law of “whatever the market will bear.” The only petroleum used in production would be in surface mining and transport. Coal to liquids plants don’t use any petroleum, other than what the employees use driving back and forth to work. All the energy they use comes directly from the coal.
Keep in mind that bituminous coal, on a BTU basis, is still ten times cheaper than propane and about five times cheaper than natural gas. Last month I bought a 60 pound bag (because the geology student downstairs had never seen it burn) and the yard wouldn’t even take a dollar for it because it wasn’t worth their trouble. The guy in front of me filled the bed of his pickup truck to overflowing and probably paid $40. When was the last time you went to a gas station, filled your tank, and they didn’t even bother ringing it up because gasoline was too cheap to meter in retail quantities?
cal says:
January 2, 2011 at 2:15 am
From http://theclimatefix.com/?p=4
@Brad says:
January 2, 2011 at 12:55 am
all good arguments until you state:
Electric cars are more likely than any other technology to lower demand – why? They are cheaper to build (although the parts are currently pricier) and the infrastructure is in place to deliver electricity.
The infrastructure is not in place to deliver sufficient electricity if everyone moved to using electric cars. Back of an envelope calculation will show you just how much energy (plus heat wastage) will be required to be transmitted to drive all those electric cars their range of say 60 miles per day. Most urban electrical supply lines would not support the drain.
Then the practicality problem – its cold and snowy and the 15 mile drive home that should have taken 20 minutes has taken 3 hours of stop go and wheel spinning driving (many have had that experience recently) – the car lights, wipers, demisters and heaters have necessarily been running all that time and your power runs out. Now what? You cannot walk to get a gallon of electricity, a good Samaritan cannot offer you some fuel. The only way is to be towed – and of course the snowy road is now littered with people with dead electric cars.
Its not as if these cars reduce pollution as the energy they use has been generated somewhere else – they are NIMBY cars.
Luís says:
January 2, 2011 at 1:58 am
This is amusing because the reason I offered this post up was that WUWT had had a post promoting “clean coal”, which is one of the most inane proposals on the planet. The same people who want to ban plastic shopping bags and incandescent light bulb to save minute amounts of fossil fuels are quite happy to double the amount of coal used to generate power, and thus halve the coal reserves we leave our children. Just insane.
I am well aware how much coal there is, and natural gas, and that is why we need to go nuclear as soon as possible. When oil goes through $200/bbl, you won’t be so choosy about where your liquid fuels come from, and you will even be grateful to have an electric bicycle.
Joshua Corning says:
January 2, 2011 at 3:48 am
The Germans effectively pay $260 per barrel at the pump because they have a lot of fuel tax. As a consequence, they drive smaller and more efficient vehicles. If the US vehicle fleet was as efficient as the German one, the US would be burning 12 million barrels per day instead of 20 million. My plan has the US producing or replacing its entire current requirement of 20 million barrels per day. If consumption became price constrained, as I expect it will, and fell to 12 million barrels per day, then the US could export 8 million barrels per day. The world will readily take that and be grateful, as non-OPEC production will start falling by 2 million barrels/day/year by mid-decade at the latest. So 8 million barrels per day will be only four years of world oil production decline.
By the way, China has installed or is in the process of building 600,000 barrels per day of CTL capacity. Who allowed the CTL gap with China?
I like it. I would add to the list a requirement for all new houses over a certain size (2000sq ft?) to have solar panels tied to grid that are sized at least 1watt/sqft (a 2000 sqft will have at least a 2kw panel)
Deekaman says:
January 1, 2011 at 7:39 pm
“I’m a big fan of all things nuclear, and I like your plan but I’d like evidence that the nuclear industry is financing (alleged) AGW hysteria”.
GE, Siemens just to mention a few.
Mustafa and his electric cars – funny. I saw the first tv ad for the Leaf the other night. Looked real slick – says your garage is your gas station. There was a camera shot of a man removing a charger plug from where the gas filler cap would be, and another shot of a sleek, laptop sized battery. How cool is that! So I decided to check on the internet, just for a laugh.
The laptop sized battery, it turns out, is but one of 48, which altogether weighs 300kg. Thats like carrying the weight of 2 adult male African lions in the trunk, if you’re interested. But that aside, how much would I need to pay for a new Leaf? In the UK the sticker price is £23,350 which includes a £5,000 tax payer subsidy. Out of this, the car is worth about £13,000 and the battery £15,000. That’s right, the battery costs more than the car, which once it becomes knackered in 5 to 7 years (depends on whether you buy in the US or the UK), renders the car useless. Imagine the depreciation on a battery that costs £15,000 with a useful life of 7 years? And then you have to add the depreciation of the car onto that.
The problem is, nobody really knows what the car will be worth after 3 or 4 years. This is uncharted territory. And then there’s the range – about 100 to 140 miles per charge. That immediately makes it a second car only. What sort of person will spend £23,350 on a second car? Oh, that’s right – a rich person. So we have the absurdity of tax payers forced to subsidise rich peoples second cars. Outrageous.
A rather long discussion of Thorium reactors.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971
The quickest and least bloody way to get this done is to suck Middle East wells dry as dead bones, and then move on to sustainable energy such as hydro and wood bio-waste incineration, and long term energy such as nuclear and coal.
The Middle East thinks they are the ones winning this war. Not while my rig is on the road and my 43oo square foot old mansion needs heat. Every mile I drive and every drop of heating oil I use is another nail in their coffin.
Countries that can make money on exports can wage winnable wars. If you suck a country’s exports dry, the money they need to wage winnable wars dries up. They may make a great initial splash, but it is only a flash in the pan. They can’t sustain their effort. This may sound harsh, but that’s the way it is.
In reply to A Jones.
Kindly note that SASOL is now a privatised company and has a listing on the NYSE.
Granted that like Canadian Tar Sands, sponsored by the Canadian Federal Government, SASOL received government funding to expand. Last I looked it produced about 45% of South Africa’s requirements; which doesn’t say much, as it is in Africa.
For the Tar Sands operations to break-even, only covering operational costs, you need a price of about US$15-00 per barrel. For SASOL to break-even, you need a somewhat higher price. For capital payback you obviously need a higher price.
The latest SASOL technology produces Diesel and petrol (petrol is what we use in the commonwealth to power our cars; we heat our homes with gas) from gas, which comes from Mozambique. The diesel from this process is amazingly pure with an extremely low sulpher content.
The danger to the SASOL and Canadian Tar Sands operations , as perceived by the financial gurus that advise investors, is the fact that the Saudis could swamp the world with their low cost US$2-50 per barrel reserves. And this is not going to happen, real soon.
So we give away oil for use by our enemy while purchasing a high percentage of goods from China and the rest of the third world and manufacturing and selling little.
They become powerful with the technology of the West and the West ceases to exist.
David,
You will NEVER see a Thorium reactor built.
This is a “free-market” system where profits matter more than good technology.
I have had personal dealing with Siemens and the technology of a high effiecient turbine. 18 less turbines is quite a profit to loose in the manufacturing business.
I don’t know about the authenticity or practicality of this but it looks promising:
http://www.flixxy.com/convert-plastic-to-oil.htm
Brad says:
January 2, 2011 at 12:44 am
” but it makes little sense in the real world where politicians cannot deal with opening a national location to store nuclear waste”
The nuclear waste issue is a bit of a straw man argument. Even mining Uranium hasn’t been particularly profitable since Reagan and Gorbachov agreed to cut our nuclear arsenals. All those nuke bombs ended up being recycled as nuclear reactor fuel.
Once we are done recycling nuclear bombs, and once mining Uranium becomes profitable again, recycling nuclear waste from power plants will become financially interesting.
Why spend money burying something that we will want to dig back up in a few years?
Natural gas is the not even mentioned in the article.
The biggest news in energy in the last five years has been the development of shale gas. Domestic reserves and production have soared, and gas prices have stayed low. The technology has hardly been used outside of the US, but the potential for shale gas exists in many places. Total of France has bought into some US projects to gain expertise, and activity is starting up in Poland. India is already running many trucks and buses on CNG.
We won’t be messing with thorium with $4.50 gas available.
Dear Mr. Archibald…
Ditto the comment on the “Nuclear Industry” financing AWG hysteria.
I’ll make a $100 wager right now that you can find NO evidence of this. Prima facia,
not second hand.
I worked in Nuclear power for 20 years. The so called “nuclear industry” is VERY fragmented and has NO centralized “control”. Maybe in Russia or France, but not in the USA.
Please RETRACT that comment. (This is a sincere request for you to do that.)
Yours,
Max
The real question to plan any future development is: What kind of energy facilities would work in every climate and in every possible situation?
MattN says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:34 am
I like it. I would add to the list a requirement for all new houses over a certain size (2000sq ft?) to have solar panels tied to grid that are sized at least 1watt/sqft (a 2000 sqft will have at least a 2kw panel)
Are YOU going to pay people to do this? If not, who appointed you dictator?
Interesting, thought-provoking, and timely guest post by Mr. Archibald.
A few comments:
1.. Nuclear is indeed the rational path to effective energy self-sufficiency (note I didn’t say complete energy independence, which would be difficult and may not even be desirable). For those who have not made the trip, highly recommend the following links at Idaho National Laboratory (INL):
http://www.nextgenerationnuclearplant.com/
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/nuclear_energy/277
See especially lower-level ”fact sheets” and ”papers/presentations” menus in last above for a huge amount of pertinent info.
2.. Thorium-cycle reactors are very interesting and deserve serious and expanded attention, BUT: As noted in other comments solving the technical, financial, regulatory, and large-scale production issues associated with that new technology is not something that will happen quickly. See for example even current discussion on home page of:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Meanwhile:
The Generation-III+ reactor designs are essentially ready to go; we need to start building those now (yesterday, actually). See again above INL link on NGNP.
3.. Have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Archibald if he is suggesting that effective U.S. energy indepence can actually be achieved by 2020: IMO a long list of technical, political, and financial real-world impediments make that impractical, even with a max effort.
BUT:
The sooner we get serious and start, the sooner it will happen. I would suggest that a 2030-2035 time-frame is more realistic. And in fact even if it takes 20-25 years, with careful planning and proper leadership at the national level to set priorities and achieve the most important goals ASAP I think it will work (we’re probably not going to run out of oil quite as soon as some people claim; see recent major plausible additions to world reserves). But we can’t dawdle and waste another 30 years like we did after the 1970s-era ”oil shock” either, or the whole world is in BIG trouble. . . .