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.
From GARY KRAUSE on January 2, 2011 at 11:51 am:
Much of the talk about “smart grids” revolve around the use of “smart meters” which would be coupled with “smart appliances.” As in, when electricity supplies are low, the utilities will reduce your energy consumption for you, by cutting off your air conditioning, not letting you wash your clothes by turning off your electric washer, clothes dryer, even your electric water heater, etc.
Not exactly. Businesses are already conscious of their power consumption, as they want to minimize costs. Residential customers are getting better educated about their energy usage, and also want to minimize expenses. Both groups are capable of managing their energy usage themselves.
This is about encroaching bureaucratic control, letting others control your energy usage “for your own good.” Politicians pressured by Green groups have mandated more unreliable “renewable” electricity to be used, namely wind and solar. As this will result in “temporary” shortfalls in available electricity, the bureaucrats need to be able to throttle back demand as needed.
Otherwise, the current grid is rather stable, with decent efficiency. The major reason for modernization and expansion is to deliver more electricity better, the system is straining under the current load, which is expected to increase. But, we have a Green push to decrease usage, thus negating that major reason. So why do we need this “smart grid” with the “smart meters”?
Further bureaucratic control over the individual, more money to be sent to the large companies that’ll provide the equipment, bringing about the Green dreams of an “energy revolution” by warping reality to match… We don’t need this “smart grid,” they need it.
I also have been a long time fan of thorium reactors in the form of an LFTR. What most people don’t know is that the very first US power reactor at Shippingport was actually a Thorium reactor. One of the reasons Uranium won out as the reactor fuel of choice was military requirements. No, it’s not because Uranium reactors produce weaponizable waste. They don’t. It’s because they require an enrichment infrastructure which would be too expensive long term for military use alone.
Thorium reactors do NOT require enrichment. Because their “waste” consists only of fission products, it is small in quantity and short in half life. The “problem” with Uranium reactors is that the U238, which is the U isotope that provides 95-99% of the Uranium load of the reactor, is not fissionable, but is just along for the ride. But it does capture neutrons and gets converted into Plutonium and other higher, long lived actinides. They are what makes the waste long lived.
Now, Plutonium is of course a scare-word for the technically challenged greens because the Plutonium isotope Pu239 is fissionable and is used to build bombs. However, the Plutonium from power reactors consists of such a wild mix of Pu-isotopes that it cannot be sufficiently purified to weaponizable Plutonium.
With Thorium reactors there is no U-238 that converts to Pu and higher actinides in the reactor. Thorium converts by neutron capture into U233, which is a better reactor fuel than the U235 that drives Uranium reactors.
As a result, about 1 ton of Thorium per year would create about 1 GWattyear of electrical energy in an LFTR. Because thorium is so abundant in the earths crust, the thorium content of the earth moved when building a house would supply enough energy for that house for one generation.
Mr. Archibald:
This is regarding my “bet” that I asked you for earlier. Obviously I would not make it unless I KNEW I could “win”.
Now I will give you some reasons why I could “win”. This mythical creature, “THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY”…! Could we come up with what group represents this “Nuclear Industry”. Would it be the 30 utilities that own “nuclear power plants”, but who are completely INDEPENDENT of each other? Would it be the “national reactor labs” (AKA the Navy Nuclear system) in Idaho? Would it be the NRC? (Nuclear Regulatory Commision, specifically designated as a REGULATOR not a “promoter”.)
Would it be the “Department of (NO NEW, VIABLE) Energy”, who gave up on promoting Nuclear power in 1978?
Would it be “Westinghouse”, who clearly …although possesing a division which is promoting their AP1000 nuclear reactors, advertise themselves as an “energy technology” company, and make no special emphasis on nuclear.
Would it be the “ELECTRIC POWER RESEACH INSTITUTE”, a group that finances various research projects in ALL areas of electric generation and has no obligation or madate to promote nuclear power?
Would it be the remnant of Richover’s “nuclear navy”? (Shinking as we speak?)
WHO, exactly, would BE “THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY”. I hate to sound too plebian, but “riddle me this Batman”, and I’ll be impressed. I’ll send them my resume.
The answer is, of course, THERE IS NO CENTRALIZED BODY PROMOTING NUCLEAR POWER! Hasn’t been since Jimmy Carter broke the AEC into the NRC and the DOE back in 1978.
Thus, promotion of AWG is more aptly laid at the feet of the approximately 1.8 BILLION dollars allocated by the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (a definite “centralized body) for “Climate Research”. If there really is NOT a “crisis” with regard the “Climate” these monies are being “thrown to the wind”. But at the same time, I will accuse the recipients of the $1.8 Billion of having a VESTED INTEREST in promoting their agenda.
Pardon me for being Don Quixoti and “tilting at Windmills”!
Thank you David Archibald plus so many excellent comments.
How do we communicate with and convince our political masters that there are alternatives to the completely useless wind farms? Perhaps Richard North at EU Ref. is right and we need a peaceful revolution led by the scientifically literate.
What a strange thread. Reading the article and comments, I began to wonder if WUWT had been hacked, or taken over by aliens. The usually high standards seem to have fallen considerably this time around. We have conspiracy theories, calls for the government to mandate this or that, pick technology winners and back them with public money, pull up the drawbridge of trade, plus a number of plugs for people’s favourite potential energy source of the future.
As a couple of commenters have plaintively tried to say, there is a basic lack of understanding of economics permeating the discussion. While usually WUWT posters and commenters rightly deplore wasting public money on mandated and often inefficient energy regimes, this thread has brought out the rent seeking instincts of inventors everywhere – all of whom will tell us that if only the government would show ‘leadership’ (read, $$$ and/or regulation), their pet project would rescue the country/economy/world. The reality is that there are experimental projects all over the world to develop better energy production systems, and if any of them come out in the black financially, the market will beat a path to the door. But, most of them are not even close to the efficiency and effectiveness of the current systems.
All those who deplore the outsourcing of manufacturing to low cost countries need to consider whether Apple et al would be dominating world markets if their products were manufactured in the US. The answer is no. A Korean or Chinese competitor would be filling that space, or perhaps a Japanese or German company using outsourced manufacturing. The US made product would be too expensive. It is the price of prosperity.
I had a quick look at world coal reserves, and find that the US has (depending on the source) around 25-30% of known reserves. Why would you turn your back on that gift horse in favour of inferior and more expensive energy sources? At current rates of extraction, there is enough to last many decades, while the wrinkles are ironed out of other technologies.
The US fixation with ‘energy independence’ is really only about oil, as there are abundant supplies of all kinds of hydrocarbons in and around the US. Actually, it is only about the oil product used in cars and trucks. In the end, if the crunch comes, the US vehicle fleet could convert to LPG (gas) without too much trouble. It is a tried and tested technology which is already used all over the world.
As for the trade issue more generally, reprisals against US companies abroad (including Apple and the rest) would inevitably follow. I can’t see how that would help the US economy.
GARY KRAUSE says:
January 2, 2011 at 11:51 am
“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.”
Actually, what happened is that the expected aluminum demand didn’t materialize.
Boeing had a slump, folks decided maybe aluminum siding wasn’t so stylish after all and someone else decided that aluminum cans should be recycled.
Even today, the US Aluminum industry still consumes 1.2% of all the electric power produced in the US.
Bill Gates is advocating a traveling wave reactor. Innovating to Zero
See TerraPower
This board, filled with men as thoughtful as Al Gore but on the other side.
SIMPLY BECAUSE an argument supports your side does not mean it is not just as silly as Gore on the other…THINK.
Really? Powering cars with electricity is more insane than powering them with coal? Are you nuts? Do the math, and understand the grid, and then add the fact these cars are recaharged at night when current grid use is low. Oh ya, and then add these these (insane) thorium plants that are so trivial to add and how do not get to the electric car?
You guys, blame others for the mistakes you make daily…this is the problem.
One of the issues you are ignoring is that Oil is over $80 because the dollar is dropping. Even though the Dollar is the World’s primary Reserve Currency, our economy is so weak, for reasons we don’t need to discuss here, that the major countries are leaving it. As both the Euro, which is not backed by much in the way of oil and coal or other resources, and the dollar drops in value the cost of oil goes up.
We could produce our own oil at under $80 per barrel easily. There is no need for CTL at this point, although I agree we need thorium reactors!! The real problem here in the US, simply put, is that the political climate will not allow Free Enterprise to start dragging our STUPID rear ends out of this hole we have dug!!!
It is worth noting also that the St. Vrain HTGR design used thorium in its fuel mix, back in 1977. Being the first off commercial scale design it had some issue to work out, but it also proved some useful technology, before it was shut down.
It was almost 2x as fuel efficient as other reactor designs, and achieved thermal efficiency of 39-40%. It accomplished this by using thorium micro-spheres in the fuel mix, which made it a thorium breeder reactor. The thorium absorbing neutrons, and converting to U233 during operation and created new fuel as it consumed the original fissile material in the fuel load.
Newer reactor designs avoid the issues that the Ft. St. Vrain HTGR design helped sort out.
Larry
Pamela Gray rants
———-
The quickest and least bloody way to get this done is to suck Middle East wells dry as dead bones,
———
Last time I looked the USA is not at war with the middle east.
More blue sky thinking can be found in the book Prescription for the Planet, here:
http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Planet-Painless-Remedy-Environmental/dp/1419655825/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236568501&sr=1-1
Here’s a link to an article in the Jan. 2010 Wired, “Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke”:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
Has anyone come up with a decent solution for handling and storing for the long term, nuclear waste? I understood that there are old mines out west that have the capacity of storing waste. There are nuclear plants that were decommissioned, but having to store waste on site until a storage solution is made. These present a huge security and health risks in the event of a accident or loss of containment. Another one of the big problems is transporting it. Rail or by tractor trailer are the only two options available. Both have their security and health concerns related to it. Any thoughts?
The biggest challenge will be to sell a good plan like this to Mad, Stupid and Lunatic currently in the driver seat and execute the project before they hit the brick wall.
I’m a veteran of the Nuclear Navy and was qualified on 3 different power plants at the time and also a swimming pool type reactor at the my university after I got out of the Navy.
Molten salt, thorium based reactors are clearly the way to go from a safety standpoint, long lived radioactive byproduct standpoint and the fuel supply standpoint, there is 15 times as much thorium as uranium available, maybe more if we really start to look for it.
The problem is: Can we sell this idea to the Public after Chernobyl? As soon as you say “nuclear reactor” it is like bringing a live rattlesnake into the discussion. I think the public will have suffer extended blackouts, with all the pain that entails, before they will listen to reason.
Drill for oil here, Alaska, offshore, and in the Gulf, before the Chinese and Mexicans get it, and worry about the new stuff tomorrow. Period. We have hundreds of years of oil in an easily recoverable state. Since it is not “fossil fuel”, but produced abiogenically, this source is endless, as the Russians have found. Not to mention natural gas. Did I mention natural gas? Don’t mention it, and I won’t.
Thorium, fusion, it will come. But let’s not distract us from surviving for the next decade. These alternatives won’t help us if we are frozen while we fiddle.
Mustafa, the problem with full plug-in battery vehicles is battery life, which is why market leaders, Toyota have largely stuck with the hybrid car. Essentially-
“The Prius battery (and the battery-power management system) has been designed to maximize battery life. In part this is done by keeping the battery at an optimum charge level – never fully draining it and never fully recharging it. As a result, the Prius battery leads a pretty easy life. We have lab data showing the equivalent of 180,000 miles with no deterioration and expect it to last the life of the vehicle.”
In Australia, a couple of hybrid taxis have clocked 350000km and 500000km each and such stop start driving in heavy tarffic(Sydney) they make economic sense. For open road country motoring a hybrid offers no economic benefit whatsoever. To run full plug-in electric with full charge and discharge would see battery life plummet to the aforementioned power tool levels ie 2-3 years and wear that uneconomic replacement cost. Then there is the problem of massively increasing costs should all demand the resources used in such batteries when we need them for mobile comms , etc now.
If you are interested in the pitfalls of rechargeable battery choice, particularly the use of battery power tools, there’s no better place than batteryuniversity.com to discover why they shouldn’t be sold to the home handyman. Strictly for professionals only and Nicads are still the most robust and best bang for buck battery on the market PROVIDED you understand their particular requirements.
Pamela Gray says:
January 2, 2011 at 6:24 am
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.
Pamela-
If only life were as simple as you propose. How much energy do you think is available from alternative sources in a useful time frame?
*************
OIL FROM PLASTICS:
Have you done a study on the amount of plastic raw material that is available at a reasonable collection and transportation cost? I’ve read about the Pacific gyre of floating plastic, but I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of the available mass of plastic and how long it would feed a conversion plant.
IanM
Hi – have tried several times to comment and it didn’t come through. This time I saved the comment and sent it again – got a message saying – duplicate comment detected, looks like you’ve already said that. Is it in spam, and if not, any ideas what is happening? This has happened several times in the last couple of weeks.
Thanks – johanna
Vince Causey says:
January 2, 2011 at 10:18 am
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.
=======================================================
Yep, all great US companies. Though, of the companies you’ve listed, more and more of our auto are being made elsewhere. Many parts for the auto are made elsewhere. Does GE even have a manufacturing plant in the US anymore? Intel, Apple and MS are great tech companies, but I’m not sure how many manufacturing jobs they provide or how one measures the value of their products. Also, in my mind, they represent the other side of the labor coin. I’m currently in the tech field. Each year, at the behest of the above listed tech companies, we import over 100,000 workers directly into the tech field through a visa program that that doesn’t pass my smell test. But, yes, you’ve a valid point about the UK. At some point, both nations will have to pay the piper.
The United States of America is energy independent in the generation of electric power , now! It is generated by coal, nuclear, natural gas, and very little petroleum.
See this Wikipedia article on US Electricity Production .
We can build nuclear plants, but the extreme environmentalists in Green Peace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club will go to court to block any and all nuclear plant construction. The Obama Administration does not have the inclination or courage to do something sensible like advocate nuclear energy. You will be lucky to get lip service.
We don’t have an energy problem in this country with electric power production. The problem is that we are at a disadvantage in our ability to furnish oil for our transportation industry without buying from politically unreliable foreign sources.
A really big, and achievable solution is to convert as many trucks, buses, and cars to natural gas as possible. We have lots of that stuff, and there is no usable alternative fuel on the horizon for our cars, trucks, trains, and airplanes.
Mr Archibald believes strongly in nuclear energy, and I agree that if we can generate at the price of 4 cents per kilowatt hour, we are obliged to do it.
Paul
” Rail or by tractor trailer are the only two options available. Both have their security and health concerns related to it. Any thoughts?”
Paul, we spent gadjillions on a facility called Yucca mountain.
Full containment, 10,000 year construction, and major engineering on “casques”
to transport the waste by rail or truck in these practically indestructible casques.
Having invested all the money, done the construction, and engineered the casques, it was found that there was more than would fit, and environmentalists, worried about the safety of rocks in the desert, were getting louder.
So they trashed the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
You know….
If you take CO2 hysteria out of it, we have nothing to worry about……….
The REAL problem is that the eco-Hippies don’t want energy.
They want to return to the ‘simpler times’ of pre-1800 existence.
(Of course they tend to forget the misery and low life-spans of that time.)
They would do anything and everything to block anything with the word ‘nuclear’.
We already have fusion. We don’t need controlled fusion – just contained fusion, and it’s been done many times before.
Drill a deep enough hole, bury a thermonuclear device in it and plug it with concrete. Detonate the TND. Well practised old technology. There must be loads of TNDs just sitting around waiting to be decommissioned.
Then extract the heat. Drill some more nearby holes and pump water down, and pipe the steam off to make electricity, to heat cities, horticultural glasshouses etc. Well practised old technology, just like making coffee. Geothermal energy.
The trouble with geothermal energy is that it isn’t in the right places. Well, this way, it could be almost anywhere you want it as long as the geology is not too loose or otherwise impossible.
But there’s more. Immature petroleum strata could be turned into active oil and gas “kitchens” using the same type of underground heat sources. Adds a new meaning to the word “prospecting”.
When the heat dies down, just pop off another one to get things nice and hot again.
Oh, and no waste to handle, no wildlife to relocate, or old buildings to protect.