YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Aquamarine]

Obviously, there is always the risk of a serious accident. But the new generations of plants will have greatly reduced risks:

The greatest departure from second-generation designs is that many incorporate passive or inherent safety features* which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and may rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures.
* Traditional reactor safety systems are 'active' in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety depends only on physical phenomena such as convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm

But even today, the risk associated with realistic alternatives like coal are much greater than for nuclear. Both in the form of increased diseases like cancer and effects like global warming.

And to not find replacements for oil and gas means the starvation and death for most of humanity.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Those new technologies are less speculative than those required for a hydrogen economy or for other power sources. There have already been functioning breeder and thorium reactors.

And in contrast to oil, uranium is ubiquitous in nature. There will not be a sudden decrease as when large oil fields deplete. Just a slow conversion to minerals with lower concentration of uranium.

Regarding uranium price, if it increases, it will greatly increase available resources without have a large effect on final energy price.

Are less speculative? I would say the speculation is likely the same. I am aware of the new technology for new nuclear reactors but the technology to provide a constant supply of uranium for a very good amount of time is highly speculative. What would be the point to search for an alternative to oil if the resources for the alternative presented ends around the same time oil ends. But let me clarify, I'm not excluding nuclear energy here, what i said already is to make sure there are wider sources of energy available.

Now, economists predict the price will go up, nevertheless, and i'll repeat again what i said, it's not linear or automatic that the new technology will appear if the prices go up, this is a wrong assumption, i already mentionated a concrete example. You actually have a contradiction here, if before you assumed that the uranium price will go up, now you're saying IF it goes up.

And it's also wrong to assume that the final energy price won't suffer a large effect, I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying you are, again, assuming. Economy can be very complex but it follows simple rules and there are many impredictable factors that we cannot prevent, but don't confuse me with a negativist, this is just what many specialists say, not to mention this is merely common sense.

But back to the uranium availability. Sure that uranium is ubiquitous on nature, but that doesn't mean it is possible to make use of all of the mineral. Even the site you provided doesn't make a direct connection. Uranium reserves are well localized, not to mention that there isn't the necessity of many uranium processing facilities as there are for oil refining.


The question would be, in my opinion, with the available uranium we have and the capacity to recycle spent fuel (for a maximum of an estimated number of cycles with spent fuel), with other energy sources and other measures already discussed in this thread, how can we reach a more well equally balanced energetic system?


Rui.

 

[Aquamarine]

Regarding oil exploration, you are wrong. It is increasing due to higher prices:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041031/BUSINESS/410310305/1046

If you accept breeder technology as you say, using only today's totaly certain and economically usable resources gives 50x60 = 3000 year of uranium. Adding thorium and much more uranium with slightly higher prices and more exploration gives much higher numbers.

I agree that we should certainly look at all alternatives, all the way from hydrogen to tides to helium on the moon. But if peak oil is happening this decade, or have already happened, coal and nuclear are the only technology already realistically available. With biodiesel making a contribution as transportation fuel.

Actually, since I am a libertarian, I am not advocating any state intervention. Stop excessive regulatiions of the energy sector, stop subsidaries, stop unequal taxes. Let the best alternative(s) win and let the market decide.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Regarding oil exploration, you are wrong. It is increasing due to higher prices:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/ap.../410310305/1046

If you accept breeder technology as you say, using only today's totaly certain and economically usable resources gives 50x60 = 3000 year of uranium. Adding thorium and much more uranium with slightly higher prices and more exploration gives much higher numbers.

You're either not well informed or you just took a quick look at what i have been writing. The site you provided shows that new oil wells are being drilled, but some posts ago i said "other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources" not the traditional and familiar oil wells, on these un-familiar oil resources it's included the bituminous sands (i don't know if that's the correct name in english) - which Canada has a high level of proven reserves or the freezen gas contained in the bottom of the sea at very long depths, and this types of resources require a new type of technology which is estimated to be of a very high cost.

And this not to mention that the article doesn't make a direct relation or any relation at all that the new technology appeared because of the high oil price. They say that a conjugation of factors, in which are included the high price, new technologies and tax incentives provide a boost in profits, they never say that the high price caused all that, they clearly say that the high price directly and obviously improves profits.
Of course that there is new technology, it evolves every year, but there isn't available any technology capable to extract other forms of reserves, this technology costs a lot of money, it's not profitable.
And this is what happens with the estimated uranium reserves for which most of them would become only available if a high cost technology is developded, and what I'm trying to say here is that uranium reserves to last thousands of years are for the moment irrealistic and that the technology necessary to make use of those reserves don't automatically appear if the price goes up.

Regarding the breeder reactors i said i was not ignoring them but i also said that the site in which you are basing what you're saying is very speculative (not to say biased). But let me repeat one thing, what i said is that the limitation for the use of nuclear plants is the physical available uranium (and this has to do with the technology which i already discussed) and the economical limitation of the mineral, and not, if the new types of reactors can have a more effecient energy production, but let's not be fooled, this higher efficience doesn't make wonders, even BNFL admits that.

Let me also add that if the country where i live presented a project to implent a nuclear central i would support it. We don't have any nuclear central, there was a plan to build one about 30 years ago but unfortunally the activits had a very big impact in the public.


Rui.

 

[russ_watters]

The NRC and all nuclear facilities are suppossed to have learned from the mistakes made and implemented changes to make things safer. But 3MI and Chernobyl are separated only be severity and luck in the historic TV shows I've seen and this show shocked me at how close we came to a meltdown.

What they don't tell you on those shows is that not only did all of those things need to go wrong in order for the situation to have gone as far as it did (an extrodinarily unlikely string of concurrent failures), but the design differences between Chernobyl and TMI (such as a concrete reactor building) made what happened at Chernobyl utterly impossible at TMI.

Essentially, they had about everything that could go wrong go wrong and still there was no significant release of radiation. That's why I think it validates the safety of American nuclear reactors.

 

[Chronos]

US reactor designs are extremely safe. Add up all the years of operation compared to 'disasters' [think TMI]. NASA would be more than proud to have such a safety record. The politics of nuclear power are a greater threat to public safety than the technology.

 

[Cliff_J]

Funny thing about watching some of these TV shows about historic failure is the "lesson" to be learned from the incident(s). Some things have the string of concurrent failures and some have single points of weakness. Hindsight may be 20/20 but the shows really don't stretch things too much to make parallels between failures.

The TMI show depicted a place designed and operated with the arrogance that no more than one failure mode would occur. I wouldn't expect redundancy on a safety valve or other items involved but lack of monitoring and training/communication on how to read the remaining indicators is frightening. The same shows on the space shuttle disasters need not search to find previously silenced people who were concenered about the particular failure modes before they occured.

I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant about the exact workings of a nuclear power reactor and the failure modes of each piece and how that translates to a catastrophic event. But my faith that all efforts are made to keep things safe is most definitely tempered by the actions of the people involved. For TMI, what if Carter had been overseas? In 15 hours at least one shift change would have been scheduled to occur, an operator couldn't have gone to a nearby phone in a non-stop attempt to reach the designers?

And I'm not saying that the top would have blown off the reactor like Chernobyl at TMI, but according to the show once the China Syndrome is reached at 5000 degrees that the core would melt its way through the containment structures and into the Earth below it. My understanding is that Chernobyl did this and its effects are still measureable in rivers miles away. That's much more sinister than reading Feynman's arguements about the amount of radioactive particles in the air, that nuclear pollution would enter the food supply and would need to be monitored very closely. We can't even agree if genetically enhanced grains or growth hormone feed livestock are totally safe. Or maybe I read too much chaos theory stuff.

Sure the nuclear power industry might pass a Six Sigma test, but man did they group plenty of failures into one incident. I agree that about everything that could go wrong at TMI did and with about as long a time between action/inaction as would ever be imaginable. And how that the control rods did their job (learned from that early army reactor failure?) which was a huge design asset, the containment building minimized leaks and risks so its another asset, and so on. But the human factor scared me the most with the outright lies given by the power company and the lack of urgent action. There are plenty of examples where an designer/engineer would "...go down with the ship..." but TMI is an example to me of an incident where if the engineers had been on-site from the beginning reactor #2 would still be operational.

The best design can be messed up by poor decisions by the wrong people and NASA has unfortunately become its own case-study in this phenomenon. And in short that is my concern, not that 8 inches of high-carbon steel was used here or other design considerations, but that the people running the show need to be as good as the design.

 

[tumor]

Big changes demand small steps from each of us:

 

[russ_watters]

Big changes demand small steps from each of us:

I'm a big fan of compact-fluorescents - 10x the life and a quarter of the energy use.

 

[CharlesP]

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today. My take on the two articles is two sentences: There is no possible solution to the energy crisis. The only way to avoid large scale loss of life is to immediately implement a strong population reversal program world wide (especially in the USA). (That means possibly the Chinese, one child per family, method.)

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.

 

[hitssquad]

Albert Bartlett's campaign

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today.

Page 53, Albert Bartlett. Were there two articles?

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.

Nuclear fission was ruled out in terms of maintaining a worldwide hedonic pact at present population growth rates; or nuclear was ruled out in terms of being able to power individual diverse http://www.efn.org/~callen/ToC.htm groups? The former sounds plausible.

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

 

[Aquamarine]

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today. My take on the two articles is two sentences: There is no possible solution to the energy crisis. The only way to avoid large scale loss of life is to immediately implement a strong population reversal program world wide (especially in the USA). (That means possibly the Chinese, one child per family, method.)

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.

Many responses here:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p12.html

For example,

Paul Weisz's article on long−term energy supplies (Physics Today, July 2004, page 47) states that uranium resources with breeder reactors could provide the world's energy needs for "hundreds of years." That is a gross underestimate. The world's energy needs could be provided by uranium−fueled breeder reactors for the full billion years that life on Earth will be sustainable, without the price of electricity increasing by more than a small fraction of 1% due to raw fuel costs.1

The error in Weisz's calculation is that he is referring to uranium available at its present price, $10−20 per pound. But in breeder reactors, 100 times as much energy is derived from a pound of uranium as in present−day light water reactors, so we could afford to use uranium that is 100 times as expensive.

The cost of extracting uranium from its most plentiful source, seawater, is about $250 per pound—the energy equivalent of gasoline at 0.13 cent per gallon! The uranium now in the oceans could provide the world's current electricity usage for 7 million years. But seawater uranium levels are constantly being replenished, by rivers that carry uranium dissolved out of rock, at a rate sufficient to provide 20 times the world's current total electricity usage. In view of the geological cycles of erosion, subduction, and land uplift, this process could continue for a billion years with no appreciable reduction of the uranium concentration in seawater and hence no increase in extraction costs.


Reference
1. B. L. Cohen, Am. J. Phys. 51, 75 (1983).

Not that we need that many years. We need only enough time to get into space and really start using the greatest fusion reactor, the Sun.

 

[urbsurfer]

There are a few fundamentals to energy usage and how to effectively supply more energy demand while the source of energy is reducing as in oil and becoming increasingly toxic and costly such as nuclear production and waste.

So breaking down the utiliation of energy into transportation, manufacturing, and lifestyle; what are the alternatives?

The alternatives for electrical requirements are soon coming to market. See production ready devices such as www.blacklightpower.com[/url], perendev magnetic motor/generator, and Beardens MEG motionless electromagnetic generator. Look at all of J Naudins work and tests and working devices from people all over the globe. [url]http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm[/URL]. Join the free energy yahoo group.

The alternatives for transportation are near as well. The disclosure project, the searle effect generator and offshoot technologies, impulse drive technology, propellentless propulsion devices, flash hydrogen generators.

The lifestyle of using energy in our daily lives is something that will only grow over time. So we must enact these pioneering technologies now to perfect them and reduce the costs for the masses to adopt.
Imagine the possibility that within the next ten years you will be able to use a magnet only motor to propel a vehicle 300mph at altitude and have the same magnetic motor provide the electricity needed onboard without having to stop running for 25 years.
The state of CA spends billions and billions on fixing and adding asphalt to our state. If they routed just 20% of those funds to technologies mentioned above, we could be in an energy surplus in 10 years.
Take a look at the flash hydrogen generator from [url]www.emergingtec.com[/url]. Runs your car on water or seawater and the only byproduct is purified water. I have mine on order when they start production.
I am crafting a inertial drive mechanism for propellantless propulsion which runs on electricity. Combine that with a free energy magnetic motor = unlimited range, unlimited direction, unlimited exterior conditions (undersea, air, space). Any body want one?

 

[CharlesP]

Page 53, Albert Bartlett. Were there two articles?

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Biomass/alcohol is insufficient land area. Photovoltaic is too expensive. Coal is forbidden because of greenhouse. Wind energy is only local because of infrastructure. It has been a forgone conclusion since the 70's that humanity will be greatly diminished when this is all over.

 

[hitssquad]

Paul B Weisz in the July Physics Today on long-term energy

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today.

Page 53, Albert Bartlett. Were there two articles?

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

It got lost? The July 2004 Physics Today is right http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/contents.html , and it says there are two articles on long-term energy. One is by Albert Bartlett, and the other is by Paul B. Weisz. The only issue with regard to nuclear fission mentioned by Weisz is finite uranium resources. He ignores the uranium resources present in the oceans and incorrectly states that breeder technology would be required in order to extend uranium supplies beyond a few decades' worth.

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time.

This is solvable via mass production and possibly by routing around, via free enterprise, government red tape.

Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

One way to deal with radionuclide fear might be to desensitize the public with regular radionuclide releases at randomly-selected spots around the country. Since easily-obtainable chemicals exist that protect against radiation-induced biological damage, this would not necessarily harm anyone.

 

[CharlesP]

The July 2004 Physics Today is right http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/contents.html , and it says there are two articles on long-term energy. One is by Albert Bartlett, and the other is by Paul B. Weisz. The only issue with regard to nuclear fission mentioned by Weisz is finite uranium resources. He ignores the uranium resources present in the oceans and incorrectly states that breeder technology would be required in order to extend uranium supplies beyond a few decades' worth.

That comeback is not helpful because Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Thanks for the URL. I notice they hid Bartlett. I am getting tired of all this APS members stuff.

This is solvable via mass production and possibly by routing around, via free enterprise, government red tape.

Don't start with that "free enterprise, government red tape". I just got finished bashing a bunch of Republican/Libertarians and I will tell you the best thing for them is for folks like me to take a hike and watch 10 years down the road as the lynch mob gets them. It is the corruption of folks like them that causes all the "red tape." There are basic physical reasons why enough reactors cannot be built in time.

Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

One way to deal with radionuclide fear might be to desensitize the public with regular radionuclide releases at randomly-selected spots around the country. Since easily-obtainable chemicals exist that protect against radiation-induced biological damage, this would not necessarily harm anyone.

You better speak softly, I feel a lynch mob coming near. If the problems of the National Radioactive Depository in Yucka Mountain are not solved soon, there is going to be a horrible radioactive mess scattered all over the country.
And there is no way the mob will let you build another nuke.

 

[Aquamarine]

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Biomass/alcohol is insufficient land area. Photovoltaic is too expensive. Coal is forbidden because of greenhouse. Wind energy is only local because of infrastructure. It has been a forgone conclusion since the 70's that humanity will be greatly diminished when this is all over.

You actually think that most people prefer to die rather than to build out nuclear power? Or die rather than use coal, even if this means global warming?

If energy prices increase to very high levels and significantly starts threatening people, then there will be no more opposition to nuclear. And time for approval and construction will be very short if it is a matter of life or death.

But oil will not suddenly end. There will be a gradual decline with gradual increasing prices. Long enough to notice when the peaks takes place, for higher prices to change attitudes and to build new plants. If necessary using more coal for a while.

You are wrong regarding biomass. Biodiesel produced from algae require much smaller land area than previously. See earlier in this thread. Fuel prices will not rise higher than the cost of producing biodiesel.

And there is no way the mob will let you build another nuke.

The only mobs will be those chasing "environmentalists".

 

[CharlesP]

You actually think that most people prefer to die rather than to build out nuclear power? Or die rather than use coal, even if this means global warming? If energy prices increase to very high levels and significantly starts threatening people, then there will be no more opposition to nuclear. And time for approval and construction will be very short if it is a matter of life or death.

You are wrong about lead time. It takes five to ten years to build a plant and we have ten years at the most. Meanwhile we are nearly guaranteed to waste the first five.

But oil will not suddenly end. There will be a gradual decline with gradual increasing prices. Long enough to notice when the peaks takes place, for higher prices to change attitudes and to build new plants. If necessary using more coal for a while.

In five years oil prices will be much higher, essentially making gasoline unavailable for many folks. The Europeans are already mad at us for failing to adhere to the Koyoto limits. You say more coal? Coal is soon to be forbidden.

You are wrong regarding biomass. Biodiesel produced from algae require much smaller land area than previously. See earlier in this thread. Fuel prices will not rise higher than the cost of producing biodiesel.

Let me state categorically that no useful amount of fuel can be produced by biological means without decreasing available food. All such processes are extremely inefficient and expensive. You can't pay $10 for $1 worth of bio anything.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists jacked the price of freon up a hundred times and starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl. We just stopped the National Nuclear Repository dead in its tracks.

 

[Aquamarine]

You are wrong about lead time. It takes five to ten years to build a plant and we have ten years at the most. Meanwhile we are nearly guaranteed to waste the first five.

In five years oil prices will be much higher, essentially making gasoline unavailable for many folks. The Europeans are already mad at us for failing to adhere to the Koyoto limits. You say more coal? Coal is soon to be forbidden.

Let me state categorically that no useful amount of fuel can be produced by biological means without decreasing available food. All such processes are extremely inefficient and expensive. You can't pay $10 for $1 worth of bio anything.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists jacked the price of freon up a hundred times and starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl. We just stopped the National Nuclear Repository dead in its tracks.

At least honesty.

 

[CharlesP]

It seems the internet is permeated by the same right wing cult which has overtaken American society. This cult is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh. Most of what he believes and says is lies. Since his nonsense on such subjects as environmentalism, global warming and the energy (actually population) crisis is widely believed, we now have a populace which is in poor condition to think rationally based on historical and physical fact. I was hoping that I would not find such ilk on this message board but apparently they are dominant. I think discussion should be confined to folk who are educated in physics and share the same recognition of facts as the mainline physics community. The articles in Physics today indicate what is accepted truth in the physics community. If you are so dishonest that you choose to ignore facts and push an ideology no matter what the cost then you should identify yourself as such a person. If you want to see reliable scientific reports on these and more issues read Scientific American and visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website ucsusa.org.
I am interested in talking engineering numbers about specific technologies. There have been hundreds of reports about breakthroughs in recent years that have not panned out. Therefore a healthy skepticism is warrented.

 

[russ_watters]

Two things before I am forced to throw a leash (choke chain) around my own thread:

urbsurfer, the things you cited are a combination of hoaxes and conspiracy theories. If you just weren't aware of this, that's fine (and I'd be more than happy to explain any of them), but if you're advocating them, we'll have a problem.

CharlesP, your opinions are just not scientifically sound and your hostile rhetoric/attitude is most unwelcome in the engineering section.

"Peak oil," for example, is not widely accepted by the scientific community. I remember being told in elementary school that we had 20 years of oil left and it wasn't true then either (about 20 years ago). Saying a 10-year lead time (actually, its probably more like 20) is a deal-breaker for nuclear plants is invalid for two reasons: first, the vast majority of that lead-time is political-based red-tape. If we entered a real energy crisis, we'd be much better motivated to build nuclear plants faster. There is no technical reason a plant can't go from drawing board to power-up in 5 years.

Regarding the rhetoric - consider who you are talking to: most of us here are scientists and engineers. Don't you think we should know what we are talking about? I'm not saying this to be insulting, but it seems your opinions and what you consider facts are clouded by your preconceptions.

For example, you say we have "10 years at the most" (before a cataclysmic energy crisis) after citing an article that says we have at least 20. Also, "Peak Oil" isn't even being characterized by its proponents as a cataclysm: its not a sudden running-out of oil, but the peak (as the name implies) of our production.

If you're smart enough to understand what those articles (only the first was free...) are saying, you're smart enough to see that they do not support your position. So which of us is lying? Ignorance doesn't bother me: lying and personal attacks do. Consider carefully, your next post here.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists... starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl.

You do realize you're talking about ecoterrorism, right? Its only a small step from there to ELF.

 

[Locrian]

You better speak softly, I feel a lynch mob coming near.

No, it isn't.

I think you'll find cheap scare tactics do not elicit results in these forums.

 

[hitssquad]

The final oil shock and the futures-market soft landing

For example, you say we have "10 years at the most" (before a cataclysmic energy crisis) after citing an article that says we have at least 20. Also, "Peak Oil" isn't even being characterized by its proponents as a cataclysm: its not a sudden running-out of oil, but the peak (as the name implies) of our production.

Peak oil may very well be real and the consequences may be great. Individual automobile owners are not the only users of oil. America's shipping sector has been relying on cheap oil. Moving past the peak of oil production, as it appears that the world is doing right now (and even as China is getting set to dominate world oil consumption) may precipitate dramatic economic shocks.

One way to soften these shocks is for futures markets to raise the current price of oil by speculating on future scarcity/high-demand and high production prices. The benefit of artificially raising current oil prices would be a relatively gentle-but-firm economic pressure encouraging the development of technologies useful for surviving oil scarcity. Futures markets may not be adequately doing that job (i.e., taking future oil scarcity and demand into account, the per-barrel price today should perhaps be several hundred dollars).

 

[CharlesP]

I was just in a "frying pan" group that met all my sorry expectations so you can see where I am coming from. You folks look a bit more professional which is a relief. Still there are many bad signals on the horizon, many are on the ucsusa website.
For oil the turning point criteria is the world wide available oil per capita figure which has peaked long ago, I believe around 1980. In recent years demand and price have risen rapidly. This is already having an adverse impact on the US economy. Similarly heating costs have risen rapidly. If this continues, and there is every reason to believe the pace is quickening, then many folk will see a serious degradation of their living standard. For oil, "runout day" is defined as the time when demand rises faster than supply, and prices rise rapidly. This will be years before the consumption peak.
Although some developments like conservation, hybrid cars, white light LEDs, have had a miniscule effect, I see no development that will interrupt the ominous trend. Further, I can find no cost effective devices available today which I can buy to prepare for the inevitable energy shortage.
Compounding this is the waste problem just one part of which is carbon dioxide. There is a worldwide call for reduction of CO2 emissions because of global warming. The scientific community prevailed on the issue of freon and ozone, and there is no reason to think that they will not prevail in restricting CO2 emissions. That will impact coal. There is an enormous amount of money for anyone who can really impact these problems. I don't see anything happening.

 

[Aquamarine]

It is simply ridiculous to assume that people will prefer to die rather than use coal or nuclear power. Assume that very worst scenarios are proven right, like that coal produces an immediate increase in global temperature or there is a nuclear power plant accident or that nuclear waste must contaminate the environment. Even so, if the alternative is the extinction of most of humanity and dramatically reduced living standards, people will choose nuclear or coal.

And increasing prices of energy will automatically reduces use. People will drive less, stay at home during holidays and buy smaller cars. Not to mention possibilities like reducing air conditioning. The industry will avoid transporting by air and trucks and instead use railroads and ships. Flying will become a luxury for those most rich. Better insulation, more efficient lamps and household machinery will reduce home use. Substitutes will be found for the most energy demanding processes and materials in industry. Luxury goods from far away lands like coffee, tee, tropical fruits, chocolate and teak may become rare.
Things like this can greatly reduce energy use without greatly affecting the health of people. And this will happen automatically with higher prices.

It is true that energy demand from the third world is growing. But these countries, like China and India, are also those countries that are right now building out nuclear power. And countries can function perfectly well using mostly nuclear power. France is one example. These countries will gain greatly in the future if those opposed to nuclear manage to slow development in the US or Germany.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm

It is also true that that oil is today necessary for transportation and in agriculture. But it is in transportation that some of the easiest conservations can be made. And biodiesel is rapidly growing and has the potential to handle all the US transportation fuel needs on a very small area. Another possibility is converting coal to transportation fuel:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/fischer.pdf

 

[CharlesP]

It is simply ridiculous to assume that people will prefer to die rather than use coal or nuclear power. Assume that very worst scenarios are proven right, like that coal produces an immediate increase in global temperature or there is a nuclear power plant accident or that nuclear waste must contaminate the environment. Even so, if the alternative is the extinction of most of humanity and dramatically reduced living standards, people will choose nuclear or coal.

Global warming has already happened. Living standards have already fallen. It is going to get a lot worse. There are lists of civilian nuclear accidents and near misses too long to read. By the time the energy suffering overcomes the hatred of nukes it will be too late.

And increasing prices of energy will automatically reduces use. People will drive less, stay at home during holidays and buy smaller cars. Not to mention possibilities like reducing air conditioning. The industry will avoid transporting by air and trucks and instead use railroads and ships. Flying will become a luxury for those most rich. Better insulation, more efficient lamps and household machinery will reduce home use. Substitutes will be found for the most energy demanding processes and materials in industry. Luxury goods from far away lands like coffee, tee, tropical fruits, chocolate and teak may become rare.
Things like this can greatly reduce energy use without greatly affecting the health of people. And this will happen automatically with higher prices.

This is the most productive field. There is a long way to go.

It is true that energy demand from the third world is growing. But these countries, like China and India, are also those countries that are right now building out nuclear power. And countries can function perfectly well using mostly nuclear power. France is one example. These countries will gain greatly in the future if those opposed to nuclear manage to slow development in the US or Germany.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm

China is building cars rapidly.

It is also true that that oil is today necessary for transportation and in agriculture. But it is in transportation that some of the easiest conservations can be made. And biodiesel is rapidly growing and has the potential to handle all the US transportation fuel needs on a very small area. Another possibility is converting coal to transportation fuel:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/fischer.pdf

Biodiesel suffers from enormous startup costs and very low productivity. I won't believe it until it becomes a large profitable business. Government research is the start of such effort not the finish line. Many biologists have said that no such method will work with today's technology.

 

[Aquamarine]

Living standards are increasing worldwide. The percentage of people in poverty living under 1$ per day (PPI adjusted) have halved since 1980.
http://www.worldbank.org/research/povmonitor/

Regarding China and cars, they are at present mostly a luxury. If oil prices raises rapidly as you predict, they will simply remain a luxury for the rich. Similar in other third world countries. Their society is not organized with the assumption that everybody has a car, like the US, and thus that people can live a long distance from work and stores without mass transportation.

Regarding startup costs for biodesel:

In "The Controlled Eutrophication process: Using Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agircultural Fertilizer Recycling"3, the authors estimated a cost per hectare of $40,000 for algal ponds. In their model, the algal ponds would be built around the Salton Sea (in the Sonora desert) feeding off of the agircultural waste streams that normally pollute the Salton Sea with over 10,000 tons of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers each year. The estimate is based on fairly large ponds, 8 hectares in size each. To be conservative (since their estimate is fairly optimistic), we'll arbitrarily increase the cost per hectare by 100% as a margin of safety. That brings the cost per hectare to $80,000. Ponds equivalent to their design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources. We found that at NREL's yield rates, 15,000 square miles (3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $308 billion to build the farms.

The operating costs (including power consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) worked out to $12,000 per hectare. That would equate to $46.2 billion per year for all the algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the entire country. Compare that to the $100-150 billion the US spends each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all of that money leaving the US economy.

I am unsure what you mean with productivity, but read this:

What is the energy efficiency for producing biodiesel? Based on a report by the US DOE and USDA entitled "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus"5, biodiesel produced from soy has an energy balance of 3.2:1. That means that for each unit of energy put into growing the soybeans and turning the soy oil into biodiesel, we get back 3.2 units of energy in the form of biodiesel. That works out to an energy efficiency of 320% (when only looking at fossil energy input - input from the sun, for example, is not included). The reason for the energy efficiency being greater than 100% is that the growing soybeans turn energy from the sun into chemical energy (oil). Current generation diesel engines are 43% efficient (HCCI diesel engines under development, and heavy duty diesel engines have higher efficiencies approaching 55% (better than fuel cells), but for the moment we'll just use current car-sized diesel engine technology). That 3.2 energy balance is for biodiesel made from soybean oil - a rather inefficient crop for the purpose. Other feedstocks such as algaes can yield substantially higher energy balances, as can using thermochemical processes for processing wastes into biofuels (such as the thermal depolymerization process pioneered by Changing World Technologies). Such approaches can yield EROI values ranging from 5-10, potentially even higher.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

And you are ignoring that fact that coal can be converted to transportation fuel at only slightly higher cost than oil in the ground. The technology for this is already available and in use, see the link in my previous post. Germany used this successfully during WWII to produce most of its transportation fuel at the end of the war. The western world has large coal reserves. If all else should fail and time is of essence, this will be used until other technologies become available or built out.

 

[CharlesP]

I moved out to Denver at the time of the big coal to gasoline scene. Housing was booming. Shortly after I left the whole thing went bust and housing busted too. They are not going to try anything like that again for a long time.

Those figures didn't look all that inviting to me so I am waiting for someone to go into the business and make it work before I believe.

 

[Astronuc]

Clearly conservation must be part of the strategy.

For example, more efficient use of lighting and heating can contribute to less electrical demand.

More efficient vehicles, especially personal transportation, should be encouraged. It seems that automobile companies would rather build profitable SUV's than cars with more fuel efficiency, because that's what the market demands. On the other hand, the IRS has been offering a $35,000 rebate on Hummers (which cost $106,000) for "business" use - but then one can use them for personal use before and after working hours. The rebates for hybrid cars have been on the order of $1000-$2000. (source: Graydon Carter, "What We've Lost", p. 155-156, 2004).

An increase of 3 miles/gal (mpg) in fuel efficiency could save the US on the order of $25 billion and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 155 million tons. (source: Graydon Carter, "What We've Lost", p. 156, 2004).

To deal with CO2 - plant trees - lots of trees. For every tree I remove from my property (I have to cull diseased trees that were planted too close), I plant one or more. I see a lot of open space that could use some trees. The shade of trees can actually reduce energy costs in the summer time, and provide wind breaks which cut heating costs in winter.

Reforestation in parts of the world, particularly Africa, could significantly reduce CO2 burden, reduce global temperatures, and even increase rainfall in Sahel, Sahara and Arabian Peninsula.

As for nuclear power - new reactor and plants designs are ready to go.

BNFL/Westinghouse
AP-600: http://www.ap600.westinghousenuclear.com/
AP-1000: http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/

The AP600 received its final design approval from the U.S. NRC in September 1998, and the design certification in December 1999. The AP-1000 just received its final design approval (FDA) from NRC on Set. 13, 2004

AREVA (Framatome/Siemens) - EPR (European Pressurized water reactor). EdF has announced plans to build the first EPR (a 1600 MWe unit) at Flamanville, in the Basse Normandie region of northern France. Construction would begin in 2007 and would last 5 years with the unit on-line in 2012. TVO has selected the EPR for the third unit at Olkiluoto (http://www.tvo.fi/362.htm)

GE has the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) - The ABWR is the proud recipient of U.S. Standard Design Certification #1, issued on May 2, 1997.
http://npj.goinfo.com/NPJMain.nsf/0/5e5a077946dd6292862569f40079c3cd?OpenDocument
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/abwr/abwr.html
Two units, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 and 7, are operating in Japan since 1996 and 1997 respectively, and two units are under construction in Lungmen, Taiwan. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lungmen/

 

[hitssquad]

Ocean seeding and CO2 sequestration

To deal with CO2 - plant trees

CO2 is reduced mainly by ocean life, not trees. This is why ocean seeding has been explored:
http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+ocean+iron


For dealing with CO2 production from coal plants, Richard Garwin suggests that sequestration might be profitable:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...f=pd_sim_dp_3/+garwin+sequestration+co2&hl=en

• The authors first consider the bridging contribution of coal, arguing (p. 232) that CO2 sequestration is certainly feasible at the cost of reducing power-plant net energy output by 30-50%. Coupled with oil+gas decline, sequestration would reduce anthropogenic CO2 generation to levels well below the lowest 2100 projection of the IPCC

The shade of trees can actually reduce energy costs in the summer time, and provide wind breaks which cut heating costs in winter.

Three-foot-thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls might provide similar shading and wind-breaking capacity.

Reforestation in parts of the world, particularly Africa, could

...Provide perhaps a couple of years' worth of firewood for the local inhabitants.

 

[Aquamarine]

GE has the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) - The ABWR is the proud recipient of U.S. Standard Design Certification #1, issued on May 2, 1997.
http://npj.goinfo.com/NPJMain.nsf/0/5e5a077946dd6292862569f40079c3cd?OpenDocument

Interesting that the construction time has only been 3 years in completed units.

More on new reactor types:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm

Long term, especially the information on fast neutron reactor (=breeders) is interesting.

About 20 liquid metal-cooled FBRs have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supply electricity commercially. About 290 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated.

Natural uranium contains about 0.7 % U-235 and 99.3 % U-238. In any reactor the U-238 component is turned into several isotopes of plutonium during its operation. Two of these, Pu-239 and Pu-241, then undergo fission in the same way as U-235 to produce heat. In a fast neutron reactor this process is optimised so that it can 'breed' fuel, often using a depleted uranium blanket around the core. FBRs can utilise uranium at least 60 times more efficiently than a normal reactor. They are however expensive to build and could only be justified economically if uranium prices were to rise to pre-1980 values, about four times the current market price.

Even an increase in uranium price this large will probably affect final energy cost much less, since fuel cost is very small part of final cost. Approximately the fuel cost is 0.30 c/kWh today. 3/4 of that is from enrichment and not from the price of uranium itself. Breeders should make the uranium last 60x longer. And the plants and probably enrichment of tomorrow will be more efficient.

The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm

 

[Entropy]

You know what we need: Superconductors! If be can get the TC of superconductors up to near room temperature then we could drastically increase effecienty in almost everything involving electricity. Car's engines could be up to five times for effencient and several times more powerful. Turbines in dams and other power plants could generate much more power and no power would be loss through power lines!

 

[brewnog]

An increase of 3 gal/mile in fuel efficiency could save the US on the order of $25 billion and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 155 million tons.

Mmmm, I like the way that you have described fuel economy figures in terms of "gallons per mile", rather than the more traditional 'miles per gallon'.

I'm not sure if you intended this or not, but it's a good point well made. There is absolutely no excuse for the use of SUVs (or as they're known in the UK, 'Chelsea Tractors') in urban environments. Anyone who owns one without just cause (and no, having 3 kids is NOT an excuse, nor is favouring the driving position) should be truly ashamed of themselves.

I realize that they are by no means the largest producer of the gases we are trying to curb, but I think it has to be the first step to turning peoples' attitudes around.

/rant

 

[Astronuc]

brewnog, thanks for pointing out the error. The ratio has been corrected to an increase of 3 miles/gal rather than 3 gal/mile.

As for

Three-foot-thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls might provide similar shading and wind-breaking capacity.

it is much less expensive to plant trees than to erect a reinforced concrete wall three feet think. Imagine the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that one would have to to.

I maintain that trees are part of the solution. I had an oak tree that was growing at a phenomenal rate of about 1 foot/yr. After 10 years, it was putting on some mass, growing laterally as well as vertically. If that were multiplied by 2E9 trees over an area of 72,000 sq miles, that could handle perhaps anywhere from 10 million to 100 million tons of CO2/yr depending on growth rates. I am also being generous with 1000 sq ft/tree.

The dryland area of the US about 3,537,438.44 sq miles, but perhaps 1/2 is mountainous or urban/suburban so its use for trees would be limited.

The Sahel and Sahara areas have much larger areas that could be reforested. Assuming that increases rainfall those areas, then crops would be more successfully grown.

Use of trees for fuel is not necessary. Solar power (PV or solar dynamic systems) can be used for energy in the Sahel and Sahara, so inhabitants do not need to burn wood. Clearly Africa needs substantial improvements in energy sources and distribution.

 

[brewnog]

Aw, I thought it made quite a good point Astronuc, even if it was an error...