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.
Thorium is a no-brainer when compared to any other current energy technology out there. It is also a comfort when considering the future of the human race to know that this technology can supply us with energy at below today’s energy cost for many thousands of years. The only hurdle is the regulatory environment – politics. In a sane world we’d already be running our economy on thorium.
Having said that, though, I’m betting on our energy future being dominated by Blacklight Power’s recently announced CIHT (Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition) technology. http://www.blacklightpower.com/ With capital costs projected at $25 per kW of capacity, and fuel costs essentially zero, this technology will blow away every other energy technology as soon as Blacklight Power gets it perfected and into production. I’ve followed Blacklight for ten years. They are for real, and they are steadily and surely advancing their technology.
While this type of energy arrives, why not trying the following at your backyard:
Free Energy, by Nikola Tesla:
http://www.giurfa.com/00685957.pdf
http://www.giurfa.com/tesla_685957.pdf
Joshua Corning says:
January 2, 2011 at 3:48 am
Some people call for US energy independence but have no practical idea of how that could be achieved. Others, strangely, rail against the concept.
======================================================
Yeah cuz free trade is a bad thing and only an odd person with strange ideas would oppose trade protectionism.
Go [snip ~ language! ~jove, mod]].
======================================================
Oh yeh, well, our version of free trade has worked out soo well for us. Goes to show that free and fair are not synonymous. The way “free” trade is operated these days, is to let cheap labor manufacture goods. In other words, if fully practiced, the wages must be held low or the jobs go away. You know, jobs, those thingys that allow the common man to feed and house his family. In the U.S., we’ve “free traded” ourselves out of producing much of anything with intrinsic value. We’ve gone from the world’s largest industrialized work force in the free world to a bunch of office dwellers that do very little and produce nothing. There is no currency or economy that can sustain this course. Care to venture why the U.S. has sustained near 10% unemployment? Because the employers have nothing for the workforce to do.
Free trade; go buy an American made HP computer. Or a pair of Levis trousers. (There’s thousands of other examples) We don’t even make the steel that goes into the whirligigs that was suppose to be part of all of the “green” jobs we made. Your “free” trade has had an enormous cost to all nations that aren’t in the developing stage. Worse, as the labor force moves to other country, our lunatic leaders decided we should be a service industry worked by educated peoples. Sounds nice, except, there are people that simply lack the ability to apply the knowledge gained to anything useful. But we hand out diplomas and degrees like they were printed for the Sunday morning newspaper.(Mostly paid for at taxpayer expense.) We’ve managed to produce millions of sophomoric managers, scientists, engineers, and general “skilled” workers. Its a small wonder why most of the hyperbole surrounding our climate comes from developed nations. The twits don’t have anything else to do and are too stupid to understand the harm they are creating.
If “protectionism” means to be able to see the disastrous effects on our economy and by extension to the people of this nation, of such insidious machinations like NAFTA, or the WTO, and understand that none of it was necessary. Then, I’m probably and proudly a protectionist. What is a nation, but the whole of its people?
An illustration. There is a nation of hunters that gather hides and meats. They’ll trade the hides to a nation of sewers for the finished product of clothes. Of course, the finished product is more expensive than the raw, so they also have to kick in some meat. But if the nation of hunters were also a nation of sewers, what sense does it make to send the hides and meat to the other nation? Especially considering when the sewers in hunter/sewer nation is our own sons and daughters and brothers and sisters?
Prosperity isn’t some happenstance occurrence. It is worked for and earned. And like all things worked for and earned, it should be jealously kept. History is laden with examples of societies, economies and nations that failed to do so. Trade with other nations should be encouraged, but only when it is a benefit to this nation.
Maybe you should “go [snip]”.
For those believing this rant was particular to the U.S., it was, but you can simply substitute the places where I used “U.S.” and “American” for the nation or nationality of your choice. I can name several off the top of my head. Strangely, they are the same countries that generated the CAGW scare. On a almost related note, I wondered out-loud years ago what would happen with the marriage of Hong Kong and China. Now I know.
There is, of course, volumes to say on this subject, but I’ll leave it there for now. BBL.
Pamela Gray says:
Maybe so Pamela. Maybe it is a strategy our government is using. Pooh! They don’t seem that smart.
We do not buy crude oil to burn in our cars, trucks or airplanes, we buy a very technically specific product, gasoline, diesel fuel, or Jet-A. These products are made by breaking down the hydrocarbon molecules in a feedstock and reassembling them into the exact molecular configuration the final product needs to have.
The only thing that matters to the retail purchaser of these fuels in a free market is price. The ONLY thing. This is because when the market is allowed to operate, supply and demand will always be in balance at the free market price
When our great-great grand parents used hydrocarbon fuel to burn in their reading lamps, at one time the feedstock for the product’s refining process was the blubber of whales. At some point, this was replaced in the market by an oil made by refining coal. You can still find coal oil lamps in antique stores. Gradually this oil was replaced by a lighter hydrocarbon called kerosene made from crude oil. You can’t buy whale oil today and even if you could, who would want to burn it to read a book? Electricity has replaced all these hydrocarbons for this purpose. Even Coleman camping lanterns that burn a special form of gasoline, are being replaced by high efficiency LED lamps. And every one of these long-cycle transitions has been for the better, and most importantly were accomplished peacefully and without having to resort to government coercion, which always implies the credible use of deadly force. (sorry to mention that raw truth)
Our great-great grand parents didn’t worry about peak whale and we shouldn’t worry about peak oil. If the price of fuel made from refining crude oil gets higher than the price of fuel made by refining some other hydrocarbon feedstock like coal, switchgrass, sewage sludge, soybeans or algae, then the market will adopt to the new source as the economics indicate, that is if government does not intrude to forbid, coerce or distort. The free market will do it peacefully, too. How will the market know it should move to a new feedstock source? The price of the retail product is the only signal it needs.
If someone is still worried about where these hydrocarbons will come from to be used as feedstocks, the short answer is that the world is almost literally awash in hydrocarbons.
Dr. Theodore K. Barna published a study done for the Defense Department on the topic of where these hydrocarbons will come from. His conclusion? The US has over 2x the hydrocarbon resources as all of Arab OPEC combined. Here is the link to the presentation:
http://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/ppt/congressionalbrief.pdf
If you are still worried, then consider a future source of hydrcarbons: methane hydrates trapped under the sea floor.
The U.S. Geological Survey publised a summary about this energy source, Gas (Methane) Hydrates — A New Frontier. It stated:
“The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.”
see:
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
Still worried about energy? We have plenty of uranium to power our nuclear reactors, but if we ever run low, reactors can also be powered with thorium. Thorium is present in abundant deposits. Some estimates have stated there is enough thorium to power the entire world for a thousand years.
see:
http://www.adrianforbass.com/pages/policy/nuclear/policy_nuclear_thorium.htm
And speaking of powering vehicles, if you buy a Nissan Leaf or any other battery-powered vehicle, you should know that 52% of the electrity that will recharge its battery will come from burning coal.
If you are still worried about energy, maybe you need to really, really have a long talk with yourself about what the hell you are thinking.
James, I agree with some of what you have said. The soupy mix of imports, exports and free trade has to do with profits to the entity that exports things other countries (and their people) cannot make for themselves. Trouble is, that entity may not be the country the stuff gets exported from. Does it benefit the country OR the individual? It should, to be sustainable, benefit both.
The wrench has to do with stock holders. Companies that sell stock in their business stay afloat by enriching their stock holders. But where do these stock holders live? If they live in the same country that the product is produced, both are enriched.
But we live in a small, and ever smaller, world where people (and businesses) may profit from one country but live in another, thus denying that country a share in the profits.
One thing is a sure thing. If all a country has to profit from is cheap labor (IE the country has no other internal resources to export), that country will be a flash in the pan if that and forever live on the bottom rung of the world’s ladder. Any country wanting its sustained freedom and powerful place in the world must strike a balance between benefits accrued by its businesses who export from other countries, and that country’s own workers and exportable resources and products.
people call for US energy independence but have no practical idea of how that could be achieved
Please let’s not ask Nancy Pelosi
Lord Christopher Monckton. quoting Nancy Pelosi, 😉
It’s going to be hard to field a high-tech workforce, at least in the USA. Most teenagers feel they’re missing out on life if they’re not texting or facebooking 100% of their waking hours. So, they’re not learning what they need to know to become future hi tech workers.
jack morrow says:
January 2, 2011 at 8:44 am
Pamela Gray says:
Maybe so Pamela. Maybe it is a strategy our government is using. Pooh! They don’t seem that smart.
How true Jack. The current government says “Greenhouse gases are pollution.” Boy, if we could only get all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere!
Lisa Jackson, EPA head, says, “Greenhouse gases are pollution”.
JDN: Yes, the South African government began to produce oil from coal back in the early 1970s and eventually built three huge plants which I believe currrently supply about 10% of that countries fuel. The Sasol Plants are all located near large coal deposits and mines and also produce around 40% of the countries electricity. The “coke” produced is then supplied to and used by the ISCOR plants to produce steel… As that country has about a 3,000 year supply of coal, it has long made sense to them to use the stuff as efficiently as they can. Their mines also produce a huge slice of the world’s richest Uranium – a by product of the gold mines. Their offshore gas reserves are also quite large and come ashore at Mossel Bay where there is another large plant that converts it to liquid fuels. All of this is a legacy of the Sanctions imposed by the UN in the 1970s.
I’m a believer in nuclear for large scale generation and I believe that the money currently expended on wind farms and other “renewable” technologies should be spent on working out newer and safer ways of dealing with nuclear waste. I learned recently that Greenpeace draws a very large slice of its funding from companies currently supplying materials or equipment for the alternatives Greenpeace and its ignoramus supporters prefer to nuclear. Not many realise that the nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed and 95% of the material is reused. The 5% that is lost in the process is the really nasty stuff and that is what we should find a solution for.
One of the biggest problems facing the nuclear industry is the image created of it as a dangerous cowboy run operation as portrayed in the Simpsons. Unfortunately most Simpsons fans do think this is how nuclear material is handled…
Thorium may well provide an alternative to Uranium 235 and 238, but the big question is how to kick into touch the “Risk Averse” culture that is stifling development of any new technology? Unless this can be ejected from the present western “mass psyche” we will wind up kowtowing to China, India and probably even Tehran. We need to move fast, before things like the UK’s new Environment Act destroy all alternatives to the accursed “wind farms” and other Greenpeace claptrap.
@David W
Can you say ponzi scheme?
It is nice to see the economic illiterates out in force.
Questions:
1. Who decides what is “fair” trade?
2. How is it decided that the trade is now “fair”?
3. How are these not subjective?
4. Will import tariffs increase the cost of goods?
5. How does increasing the cost of goods benefit the consumer?
5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit (The Washington Post)
Am I the only one here who reads any books on Energy?
Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
While it is very interesting to propose a whole new direction in energy production, would it not be more practical to modestly improve the existing system? For example, would it not be advantageous to add “buffering” to the power grid to make wind and solar power effective, to reduce the requirement of “spinning reserves” and to scavenge the overproduction inherent in the existing system?
I am not an expert on the existing grid (someone with knowledge, please speak up) but, there seem to be many approaches to solving these problems that are relatively simple. Maybe a less complicated structure dependant on local power generation where natural gas is used io drive high efficiency turbines is the answer.
I don’t have the expertise to answer these questions but, I do know that converting corn to ETOH and constructing a huge infrastructure based on unreliable energy sources is not the answer.
Sasol is the world leader in CTL technology and also as GTL technology in Qatar. Shell is also developing a 140,000 bbl/day GTL plant in Qatar and has 20 years experience operating such plants. But the real opportunities in the US are for CTL plants using iron technology that can convert the low H2/CO ratio syngas into ultra-clean fuels such as diesel and jet fuel, both of which are “drop-in” fuels requiring no engine modifications. These fuels have been thoroughly researched by DOE (see Ultra-Clean Fuels programs under NETL and NREL). These fuels both reduce engine emissions and provide operational benefits without detriments found with biodiesel fuels from soy oils and the like.
The only big drawback to CTL is the permitting and construction costs. But Carbon Capture will reduce the carbon footprint of CTL to that of conventional fuels, and the CO2 captured, when used with enhanced oil recovery, will yield 2 bbl additional crude for each bbl of CTL produced.
By using Nuclear power for electricity and CTL for fuels, we will be on our way to reduced dependence on foreign crude and imported fuels. The balance of payment improvement and huge increase in domestic jobs associated with starting a new CTL industry will be most beneficial for reducing our defecit.
One way to get started fast is to have the President (Congress might have to OK it also) order the post haste permitting and construction of Generation-III+ reactors on every military base in the country. They would supply the base plus feed the network on the existing power lines to the base.
Pushed hard enough, they could probably be online in five years.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Is a commercial design ready?
The Thorium high temperature reactor (THTR) is similar to the pebble bed designs generating power commercially as we speak in South Africa. India is forging ahead with creating a fleet of thorium reactors for power generation, with its vast thorium resources (such as the Monazite sands which make some beaches good places to get an ionizing tan – enough natural radiation to give your radiation-superstitious Westerner an involuntary bowel movement but in reality of no health consequence).
This “commercial readiness” argument is a red herring – the only ingredient needed – no – two ingredients – are (a) political will, and (b) populations re-educated out of their medieval-like superstitious fear of radiation.
This pebble bed concept was created in Germany but the deep superstition and political climate there gave a new nuclear technology the chances of success of a snowball in a reactor core.
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Has anyone else seen the article on making Oil form Plastic waste?
Now there is a Win Win deal.
David
Excellent and refreshing clear-headed thinking about a logical future for power generation.
What are your thoughts on how the thorium technology e.g. THTR lines up against the other 4th generation technologies (fast breeding, salt / sodium / lead cooled etc.) for the long term future?
Yes of course more government energy planning! That has worked out so well already. I cannot wait until the “smart” plan gets implemented. What do consumers and markets know? Government knows best!
Pamela,
I think the Middle East is winning.
They put such a scare into the U.S. that golden money streams are pumping for increased security.
This is unsustainable and the poor house is getting pretty full.
Can someone show me these “smart” guys who know best about the energy planning? We can surely do better than the Soviet Union, unlike them we have to have really “smart” government planning guys!
I know, I know, some of you are REALLY “smart” planners and can make it work this time. You might have even played a video game on it!
Government planning = energy independence! Yes, if only the Soviet Union thought of this first!
I remember-this was in the 70’s standing in the Airport terminal at the Richland, Wa.
Airport and listening to a DOE Nuke Engineer talk about the potential of Thorium, he said that they had an experimental reactor-whether it was at Hanford’s 300 area or not I can’t recall- may have been at Idaho Falls and the site there. He said that Pres. Carter
was cutting funding for it-just as they were getting ready to get it working..
I have no idea how true this is just what I heard…
James Sexton,
You sell the US short. But Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Exon, Ford, GM, Chrysler, GE, Heinz are all US companies. There are a lot more. If you want to see a country stripped of its manufacturing, visit the UK.
Some people would lose their bets:
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/university-of-east-anglia-cru-unit-major-researcher-for-the-last-four-ipcc-reports-wasis-funded-by-multi-national-companies-opec-countries-nuclear-groups-and-big-oil/
This is a well organised scam set up by very big money interests against coal, which is the cheaper fuel etc., it is very well-mixed organised crime, and CRU their love-child supported and protected by the cadre of all political parties, regime changes make no difference, and as was seen in the suppression of the e-mails scandal. CRU’s brief was to manipulate temperature records, New Zealand and the rest, and through control of IPCC.
These interests do not want cheaper, readily available fuel for the masses, thormium power from our back gardens isn’t going to happen as long as these interests wield the power and control of it.
Due to a severe shortage of antenna-reception channels (thanks a lot, digital transition), for background noise I had on a “children’s educational show” from a local ABC affiliate. The show was Eco Company.
They were examining charcoal-burning portable stoves, as for use in Haiti etc, looking for the most efficient design. They were really worried about the global warming potential of wasteful charcoal usage, since charcoal is a fossil fuel.
This was followed by Helpful Information about wonderful electric cars, the benefits of sustainable farming practices (versus disastrous modern industrialized farming), the dangers of plastic bags, etc.
Before we get to Energy Independence, we may have to spend some time promoting Energy Literacy.