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.
MattN says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:34 am
“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”
Solar Insolation factors vary widely.
The amount of sunlight hitting a roof in Seattle is less then half the sunlight hitting a roof in Los Angeles.
Things that are ‘a little pricey’ in some areas of the country become ‘insanely pricey’ in other areas of the country.
Poptech says:
January 2, 2011 at 10:00 am
Yes of course more government energy planning!
Ho ho indeed.
France in the 1970-80s made a political strategic decision to go nuclear, now have 70-80% nuclear generation, they more or less have energy independence, and are making billions exporting nuclear power technology worldwide. The UK “left it to the market” and – typically – just muddled around and procrastinated any decision making – using arguments such as yours. Now the UK is purchasing nuclear power plants at full market price from France.
Which country – France or UK – looks in the stronger / sillier position new regarding power generation?
janama says:
January 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm
I don’t now what you mean by “unformatted in Firefox”, but I use Firefox and see no problem with formating. The format looks the same in Explorer and in Firefox.
Energy independence will require another election to sweep the political establishment (both dem and rinos) from office. Thorium reactors are feasible but will require a sea change in the way the politicos deal with lobbyists. The economy will be able to provide that if and only if the bureaucratic road blocks are removed.
I agree with Pamela, pump the middle east dry and only then exploit our energy resources. I have long thought in the back of my mind this was the real reason we were barred from exploring our own continental shelf and other know reserves.
In a way it even makes strategic sense, but as Jack Morrow says “They don’t seem that smart”.
Interesting info on the Thorium fuel. Needs more advertising and pushing, I feel, especially with the woodentops in parliament.
.
Archie, could you also do an analysis of hydrogen as a ‘fuel’. We have a mayor of London and several influential parliamentarians who think that hydrogen is the way forward. I have been trying to tell them for some time that:
a. Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a ‘battery’, an energy storage medium. And since the original fuel source is mostly coal and oil, hydrogen is effectively a fossil fuel.
b. Hydrogen is perhaps the most inefficient ‘battery’ we have. I estimate the losses being so great, that a hydrogen-fuelled car will do just 1/3 the mpg of a traditional fossil-fuelled car.
These truths need to be broadcast widely in the media, as there is a body of opinion that is pushing us towards hydrogen as a ‘fuel’. In reports recently I saw Boeing, GM and BMW all pushing the lie that hydrogen is ’100% clean, with only water from the exhaust’ – while quietly ignoring the fact that the electricity to create the hydrogen was fossil fuelled.
There is also a chemical process that generates hydrogen through a reduction process, but again the true fuel for this process is oil. But again the calculations that I made on this process – after you have liquified the hydrogen, stored it, and then passed it back through a fuel cell – showed that it was less than half as efficient as a diesel car or truck. In other words, the ‘clean hydrogen’ actually emits twice the CO2 and noxious gasses as a standard diesel car. Plus, the added complexities and equipment mean the fuel will be four times the cost.
Thanks.
(always helps if one puts the post into the right thread….! )
.
How would you call the activity of promoting windmills which do not work in winter time and, as a consequence, will cause the death of people by lack of heating?
One of the things that needs to change, IMHO, is the liability legislation around any form of nuclear reactors. That industrial process should be treated just like any other industrial process. The ideal of limiting liability of the operators and constructors of reactors is nonsense.
I’m all in favor of nuclear, but get the special legislation out of there and have the vastly stricter insurance industry supervising the processes. Chemical plants have insurance, despite the potential for huge losses. When Congress can cap losses (of the business) everyone loses.
Were the government not so deeply involved in nuclear, I suspect that power generation firms would have jumped on Thorium reactors years ago. There is no real reason for the close regulation of plants which, by their nature, can’t produce weapons. Disposal of the waste is far less of a problem as well.
Before everyone gets all exercised on “Energy Independence” ( in whatever form ) it might be wise to consider how such a strategy will impact international trade. I don’t believe that has been addressed ( at least not in depth ) as yet, and it is certainly an important consideration. It may have a negative impact on the US and Global economy that outweighs any perceived benefit. It would be nice to know.
all that was missing in the hype was “too cheap to meter”
Personally I think renewables are going to come of age this decade. I am especially optimistic we will learn to more efficiently capture and store solar energy through developing drought tolerant perennial grasses and use them as densified fuels to replace coal in thermal energy applications.
Will those promoting electric vehicles please each buy one, and then, after a years use in say, Fargo, North Dakota, as an only vehicle, report back on how great it is to drive one?
Being a DYI guy, I have several lithium battery tools. Such as a B&D GrassHog. I purchased it about 5 years ago. When new, it would run at full power for about 1/2 an hour. I have used it n o more than twice per month. As time went on, it ran for fewer minutes at a time until now it is good for about 5 minutes, and that with greatly reduced torque. It will cost me more to replace the lithium battery than it would to buy a new tool.
I guess that you folks who love the concept of electric cars like to drive in the dead of winter without running a heater.
These things might be fun, as a really expensive adult toy, but as a practical car for commuting to work and back, no possible way. An auto club can’t, when the battery runs out of juice, pour a few KWH into the battery in a minute or two.
It would seem that humans are no different from the Moties after all. Crazy Eddies en mass have risen to power, destruction of our civilization is nigh.
Note: For anything to be sustainable, it has to be affordable to the common working person. One would think that we should have learned at least something from the French Revolution. Perhaps it is time to get the guillotines polished up for use.
There is no shortage of petroleum in the US, there is a huge amount of minable coal, and huge amounts of natural gas in the United States. We only have to be allowed by government to extract and use it. Carbon Dioxide is not “dirty”.
And just where, exactly, will you get the electricity to charge them? Keep in mind that if these adult toys did get popular, soon there would be a road use tax on the electricity used for charging them. Roads have to be maintained, and those who drive on the roads are the ones who have to pay the fuel tax.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
These are excellent posts, reflecting the generally high calibre of WUWT readership. Most of you will be aware that the efficiency of a heat engine is defined by the ratio of the absolute temperatures of the source vs the sink. This is why coal, used to make steam used to make electricity for 97% efficient electric cars is less than 32% efficient overall. The helium-cooled HTGR a-la –Farrington Daniels, (US) inventor of the Pebble bed reactor, operates at these higher efficiencies and has spawned the VHTGR for even greater efficiencies.
I should point out that when it became obvious in 1944 that nuclear energy could be controlled, there was concern with a long term shortage of Uranium, and Admiral Rickover made the (fatal) decision to go with the heavier and possibly more robust PWR on ships, where weight is no concern.
The first US HTGR (Non Ft St Vain) was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peach_Bottom_Nuclear_Generating_Station.
Here is an excellent review of this advanced area https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/document/74488/module_2a_-_history_and_evolution_of_htgrs_pdf
With the need to upgrade condensate fuels such as kerosene to gasoline, there is a significant need for hydrogen, which may be provided some day by the sulfur-iodine cycle using HTGR heat. This would be a natural for upgrading bitumen in the oil sands. By the way, the “refinery gain,” some 2% increase in yield of gasoline over the heavier condensates, is inexplicablly charged to diesel, rather than gasoline, rendering diesel more expensive. If the need for this hydrogen was charged to gasoline, diesel, the obviously superior fuel, would be cheaper.
Even (some) Oak Ridge people, in on the chase at the first, reconhize the need to persue HTGRs http://www.discoveret.org/fornl/Syd_Ball's_June16,2010_presentation.pdf
Yet the overnment is currently diluting the U233 that could be used to ignite thorium fuel See http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/08/18/snyderu233/
Sometimes I wonder if we have a brain at all…
Washington Public Power Supply System Bond ( WPPSS aka Whoops ) is an example of bureaucrats, poor leadership, and political corruption, all too eager to line some pockets with public greenbacks. Not much has changed with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Lisa Jackson as examples of the American voters inability to produce ethical leadership.
All too bad. Nuclear power is needed to offset the dry seasons that can plague damn production, windless days shutting down wind generation, and long wintry days driving up demand.
Now there is “SMART GRID.” An attempt to maximize existing production.
According toUS Power Partners ( http://www.uspowerpartners.org/Topics/SECTION4Topic-SmartGrid.htm ):
The grid will be “self-healing.” Sophisticated grid monitors and controls will anticipate and instantly respond to system problems in order to avoid or mitigate power outages and power quality problems.
The grid will be more secure from physical and cyber threats. Deployment of new technology will allow better identification and response to manmade or natural disruptions.
The grid will support widespread use of distributed generation. Standardized power and communications interfaces will allow customers to interconnect fuel cells, renewable generation, and other distributed generation on a simple “plug and play” basis.
The grid will enable consumers to better control the appliances and equipment in their homes and businesses. The grid will interconnect with energy management systems in smart buildings to enable customers to manage their energy use and reduce their energy costs.
The grid will achieve greater throughput, thus lowering power costs. Grid upgrades that increase the throughput of the transmission grid and optimize power flows will reduce waste and maximize use of the lowest-cost generation resources. Better harmonization of the distribution and local load servicing functions with interregional energy flows and transmission traffic will also improve utilization of the existing system assets.
I assume a part of is to add additional local power generation with a percentage being new “green” power. Some of the new generation of power needs to be nuclear, such as David has so kindly pointed out.
This adds up, and would really mean a considerable reduction to the CO2 emissions.
It should be implemented by all advanced economies in the world.
In addition to emission reduction, it would mean a considerable better trade balance in the world and improved energy safety for the most advanced economies.
But I think it’s more realistic to say 2030 or 2040 than 2020, which is only nine years away.
Nice to see the estimates for CLT and Thorium reactors and such things are definitely going to go because they will be driven naturally by economics. We should take a leaf from France’s energy book. The French are a contrary lot in the ways of world affairs but it serves them well in just ignoring their own noisy Dr Know-litttles of the anti nuclear lobby – they probably went ahead BECAUSE of such resistance. I think the time is right now that the green-anti-civilization, self-hating types have disgraced themselves with all the lies, deceipts, data twisting etc. that they have been caught out on over the past year, helped along by a cooling climate. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a conservationist in heart and in my work and life and the abilities we have for detecting parts per trillion pollutants and using remedial actions could only have been born of advanced economic and technical development -I’m just quaintly (these days) an honest and practical environmentalist. Lets get the rest of the world to advanced tech and ec development and the pop explosion will stop and all can afford maintenance of a clean environmment.
I do agree with a number of others: Mike, …. there is no way, with all green lights and doors open that this can be effected in 9 yrs. It will take that much time for feasibility studies, permitting, etc to get some drawings done. Look for 2030 for these project to begin.
Doug in Seattle – I learned in a class that I took in high school (70’s) that the US was holding much of its oil in reserve , hence the lack of production . Of course , we had the “oil Crisis” a few years later , and domestic production boomed . I well remember the economic chaos that some of the petroleum producing states suffered after the Mid East reopened the pipelines . However , stifling domestic production appears to be pandering to the greenies these days .
Oh and look for the plantetary defence army to raise the “nuclear ain’t economic” arguments that their own misguided economists cooked up – essentially they were showing that it wasn’t economic because we have have cheap coal energy – surely they weren’t comparing it with solar and wind power.
The USA has about 30% of the world’s recoverable coal. Coal to liquid transport fuel, according to a 2010 UT study done for CANADA, can be converted to transport fuels for under $30 a barrel oil equivalent. Can someone explain why we can’t do this?
And besides drilling, why can’t we build modular, factory built nuclear power plants, just like American companies are doing in China. I smell something rotten in the fish tank. It’s the same stink that liberals and the energy independence crowd has been stinking up our country for 40 years.
Ever since Jimmy Carter pronounced the world would be out of oil, not one drop left he said, by the year 2000.
I also note my free solar rooftop heaters, bought and paid for by the federal government, have been removed from our roof by the new owners. They only heated the hot tube anyway.
I suggest the liberals don’t want the non-sense to end. Do people realize how many birds are killed by these dumb windmills? We can all freeze in the dark.
Good article, as far as it goes.
Mr. Archibald,
Americans are great at sloganeering “Energy Independence by 2020”, but look at the historical record. How long did it take to move coal from 1 to 10 percent of consumption, how long did it take oil to move from 1 to 10 percent, how long it took to move natural gas from 1 to 10 percent and then how long did it take to move nuclear based on uranium from 1 to 7 percent. Note that we are not at 10 percent yet.
The answer is about 40 years. Next consider that the above were percentages. Next note that consumption of all fuels have increased many fold over the last hundred years. So what are the prospects today to increase a new energy source to 10 percent, let alone sufficiently for US to become energy independent.
Look how much we accomplished during the last decade. We went backward rapidly, squandering money in wars and pockets of those who run the financial sector. In the history of the world all countries where financial capitalism took hold were in the twilight of their eminence.
P. Walker re Doug in Seattle
I read that it was to get the dollar spread internationally, it’s now described as “oil backed currency”. Saddam Hussein sent US into a tizzy fit when he decided to change that to EU currency and China wants to see dollar lose its status as the global currency.
I’m eagerly awaiting the details of the power generation turbines which operate at atmospheric pressure.
Another strong earthquake (7.1) in Chile
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0000y49.php
This is nonsense.
We get only two percent of our electricity from oil. Driving that to zero percent is peanuts.
Most of the oil is used for transportation. No way can we use electricity from thorium, or anything else, to change that very much, not in 1o years.
Interesting discussion! Here’s an interesting read about the state of coal in the USA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123104110.html
When I worked for a very large energy think-tank, some of us used to call coal “the fuel that won’t go away.” Looks like that is exactly what some folks are pushing for!
Happy New Year, all!
The problem with this approach is that using the present USA average coal quality as feed stock, we would have to more than double coal production to replace 1/3 of our petroleum, (about 27 quads of coal to replace 13 quads of oil). We would have to build 100 large liquefaction plants and greatly increase the mining infrastructure. By 2020? Never happen.