Nuclear power won't fix the energy problem

[Ivan Seeking]

In the midst of the debate about the price of oil, constantly we hear the reference to nuclear power as a solution. This is a fallacious argument that I have probably heard referenced at least 50 times, here, and in the news media.

As is evident from McCain's suggestion of a 300 million dollar prize for the company that can develop an effective battery for electric automobiles, which is silly because there is already incentive enough, we don't have practical electric cars. Indeed, it has never been shown that a practical electric car can ever be made that would compete with the performance of traditional transportation technologies, much less at a competitive price. Nor can industry use electric power for shipping, trucking, aviation, etc. Nor do we have the infrastructure to support a nation of electric cars and trucks.

We can certainly fill little nitches in the transportation needs of the average person with electric vehicles, but in the grand scheme of things, the only option to oil is to use alternative fuels. Don't be fooled by the red herring of nuclear power as an option to oil. We wouldn't be able to use it.

[russ_watters]

Odd, but except for the title, I don't see anything in that post that has anything to do with nuclear power. The point of the post seems to be that electric cars aren't viable. Agreed. So what does that have to do with nuclear power?

[Ivan Seeking]

Nuclear power is often discussed within the context of the oil crisis. It is a misleading and fruitless discussion because we don't have viable electric cars.

For one, we saw this here in the thread about $139 a barrel oil.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=239058

And also in the thread about genetically modified organisms
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=241122

I agree that the electric grid is another issue of concern, but it has little to nothing to do with the price of oil.

[Distortion]

But...if we use nuclear power instead of coal we can use the steam powered engine again! America has enough coal lol.

[Ivan Seeking]

But...if we use nuclear power instead of coal we can use the steam powered engine again! America has enough coal lol.

Yes, on that point one has to consider whether it is cheaper to produce clean energy from coal, or cheaper to make the nuclear industry failsafe; including against the unintended proliferation of nuclear materials, as well as against terrorist attacks and sabotage. Since I don't believe anything can be made failsafe... And in fact a viable alternative fuel could replace coal.

[Distortion]

I was making a joke, sry if it was transparent.

It is obvious that we will not be taking around portable nuclear cars. No one will disagree with you on that point. However, I have heard it discussed that in the next ten years or earlier we will need more power plants for daily use power. Nuclear power is very clean, produces little waste, and more importantly produces a lot of power!

[vanesch]

In the midst of the debate about the price of oil, constantly we hear the reference to nuclear power as a solution. This is a fallacious argument that I have probably heard referenced at least 50 times, here, and in the news media.


I think you are right in the middle term that no form of electricity production can do something seriously about transportation, but then one should also say the same about solar and wind power. I have to say that I was against biofuels on land for different reasons (low - or negative ? - efficiency etc....) but I have to say that your algae look promising.

The main reason to switch to nuclear is to get rid of the massive use of fossil fuels, and especially coal, mainly for their CO2 production and the possibility of AGW and the danger they represent to public health. Also, the US has serious coal reserves, but not all nations have that. Nuclear is much healthier than coal - contrary to all propaganda against it.

In the long term, I'm not sure whether electric, or hydrogen cars are not a possibility. If in the mean time algae come up big time, then I guess the market will decide (with a serious advantage for biofuels, which requires the minimal change in infrastructure and technology).

In that case, we have two solutions for the transport problem, both which get rid of CO2 production and of oil. So that's going to be ok.

But there are contradictions in the "green" discourse - simply because they hate for ideological reasons - nuclear. It's the basis of their trade. Why do they annoy people with "reducing energy consumption" which they put equal to electricity consumption ? Why do they promote wind and solar ? Also to "solve the oil crisis" ? No, the only effect this can have is to reduce electricity production by coal, and that is something that contributes to less CO2 exhaust, and less pollution (public health) ; however, nuclear does so too, and in "unlimited" quantities, for a reasonable price.

In other words, as you correctly point out, there's no link yet between "oil consumption" and "electricity consumption". If we only have a problem with oil, then people shouldn't be annoyed to switch off their TV sets instead of holding them in standby, and they shouldn't be showing off "I have low-consumption light bulbs"...
It is only because coal pollutes and produces CO2 that turning down electricity production, produced with coal, is beneficial. The other solution would be to produce electricity with a clean technology, such as nuclear (brrrrr!) or wind and solar....

However, wind and solar face a serious problem (apart from being gigantic and expensive): they don't produce electricity when we need it! As long as it is a minority contribution, the other means of production can adapt and buffer, but as of now we don't know any technology that could run a country electrically on, say, 70% solar and wind. And the reason why is exactly the same as with electric cars (but scaled up!): we have no way to store electricity. True, there are pumping stations, but they should be monstrous to take over base load.

So in order for solar and wind to be potentially a majority source of electricity in a country, we have to solve the same problem as what is used as an argument against electric cars: good "batteries" of one or other kind. So in as much as, without this, nuclear (or wind, or solar) is not going to be a replacement for cars (and oil consumption), in the same way, wind and solar are not going to replace coal for electricity production. Nuclear can without problems.

So one is mixing a lot of technologies and what is presented as an unsurmountable difficulty for one point (to serve one's agenda) is going to be a non-problem for another (again, to serve one's agenda).

In summary: nuclear is a good, clean, and working replacement for electricity production with coal. It kills much less people through pollution, and it doesn't produce CO2. Solar and wind cannot yet come close until we have a good way to store electricity.
No source of electricity production can solve the transport problem until we have a good way to store electricity, or run on hydrogen. So it won't replace oil consumption. However, biofuels can in principle, as long as they don't use land agricultural surface.

[vanesch]

or cheaper to make the nuclear industry failsafe; including against the unintended proliferation of nuclear materials, as well as against terrorist attacks and sabotage. Since I don't believe anything can be made failsafe... And in fact a viable alternative fuel could replace coal.

The nuclear industry (in the west) is already "failsafe" for ages. That doesn't mean that nothing can happen, but it means that on the long term, it generates on average much less victims than most other human activities - which should be the criterium for "failsafe". I'm not sure that one can call the oil industry "failsafe" either. What we have to see, is what is the risk (the probability that an average person will die of it), and how that risk compares to other risks that are accepted. No matter how you do that, it turns out that nuclear is at least 4 or 5 orders of magnitude safer than driving cars. Not many industrial activities can claim that.

As to nuclear proliferation and terrorism, I think you guys have been fed too much terror-propaganda. The terrorist making a nuke in its basement is mostly a fantasy, and the only material with which it would be thinkable is going to be HEU, something that is not present in the civil nuclear industry. Making a plutonium bomb is much harder, and needs serious infrastructure, so the help of a nation, which makes them subject to retaliation. Also, the civil nuclear fuel cycle of a country is not the only way to get nuclear material. I would think that by far the best way would be laser isotope separation, making HEU.

Finally, even a nuclear terrorist attack, serious as it might be, won't stop the world to turn. Terrorists don't want to kill loads of people, they want to induce politicians to take stupid decisions that serve their agenda. The best way to counter terrorists is not to take into account their actions. If one would have done that after 9/11, OBL would be seriously pissed off. If the imaginary threat of nuclear terrorism would induce countries to put their economy, public health, and who knows, maybe earth's climate in danger by refusing to use the technology that can help them solve their problems, then they have already won!

[Ivan Seeking]

I completely agree that at this time, neither solar or wind can replace coal or nuclear power. It does appear that very promising solar technologies may change this equation with innovations such as paint-on solar cells, but as is often the case, this is still pie in the sky. As for wind, there just isn't enough of it - unless perhaps we go to flying tethered wind turbines that utilize the airstream near the 30,000 foot level, which might be doable. At that altitude, we find wind speeds of between 100 and 200 mph, which could provide enough energy density to be practical. But again, this is a virgin technology [which, interestingly, was predicted in HG Well's 1933 novel "The Shape of Things to Come".]

As for terrorism, I don't think this problem is exaggerated. In fact, it is predicted by intelligence experts that there is a 50% change of a terrorist nuclear attack on the US within ten years. And beyond that, dirty bombs are the most credible risk. This in itself is not such as concern if we are talking about one or two isolated incidents, but it is also possible that with the mass proliferation of nuclear materials, dirty bombs could be a standard mode of attack.

It isn't the people with a little common sense and grudge that worry me. What worries me are the maniacs. The world has always had maniacs. And even in the US we find people who WANT the world to end as a part of God's plan. In fact, they want to help it along. Interstingly, they support John McCain.

The world has never experienced a dramatic loss of population due to a meteor strike in recorded history, yet our changes of dying from a meteor are greater than the chances of dying in an airline disaster. Why? Because WHEN it happens, millions or billions will die. IMO, nuclear energy poses the same problem. The numbers may not be as large as for a meteoric event, but one event will change the measured risk to benefit ratio dramatically, and future generations will wonder how we could have been so short-sighted.

It is also a fact that, terrorists and security concerns aside, coal power is much cheaper than nuclear power. I will dig up the reference when I am back in my office, but historically, coal cost something like five cents per kw-hr, and nuclear cost something closer to seven or eight cents. And it is my understanding this cost does not include decomissioning, which is tremendously expensive. So before we even consider security, we have room to work to make coal cleaner. In fact, by using algae as a CO2 scrubber, in part we can fix two problems at once.

[Ivan Seeking]

But we agree on the most important point: Electric power cannot presently solve the oil problem.

[DaleSpam]

I think I disagree.

But first, how about defining some terms. What is "the oil problem"? IMO, it is that the transportation sector relies almost entirely on petroleum. In that sense it is a question of diversification.

Nuclear power would be an important part of that diversification. We should be able to choose between nuclear, coal, wind, hydroelectric, biofuels, and petroleum for a significant portion of our transportation needs. That will prevent fluctuations in the price of a single commodity from impacting the overall economy so dramatically.

[Chi Meson]

I think we should stop using terms such as "replacement." What we ought to be moving toward is an increase in Nuclear production to take it from 10% to 30% of the grid demand (I'm using extremely rounded figures). Wind and solar (solar furnace and photovoltaic) should go from "trace amounts" to at least 20% in the near future and expand from there. Hydroelectric provides 20%. That leaves 30% to be provided by coal and NG.

On top of that, we should expect a reduction in demand from this grid as people move toward point-of-use energy generators (rooftop collectors, PVs, small wind turbines, small hydro-generators) where possible. These generators, when inter-tied with the grid need no batteries. Energy is pushed into the grid when not needed at the source point (your meter runs backwards), then energy is taken from the grid when the sun is out.

Fluctuation of demand and supply through daily and seasonal cycles is easily predicted and adaptable. Vast storage units will not be necessary.

The price of all fossil fuels is still to cheap to force this vision to come true. But give it a week or two.

[vanesch]

I completely agree that at this time, neither solar or wind can replace coal or nuclear power. It does appear that very promising solar technologies may change this equation with innovations such as paint-on solar cells, but as is often the case, this is still pie in the sky. As for wind, there just isn't enough of it - unless perhaps we go to flying tethered wind turbines that utilize the airstream near the 30,000 foot level, which might be doable. At that altitude, we find wind speeds of between 100 and 200 mph, which could provide enough energy density to be practical. But again, this is a virgin technology [which, interestingly, was predicted in HG Well's 1933 novel "The Shape of Things to Come".]


Ok, we're trying to solve real world problems, so we should consider working technologies: technologies that have demonstrated their technical and economical viability on large scale. It is IMO erroneous to include in a real-world planning any future research and development. When the results are there, we can talk about it. All the rest is "unobtainium" to me.

The fundamental problem with wind and with solar is electricity storage. On top of that come problems like price, size of the installation and all that. But these can be eventually taken into the balance. Electricity storage can't. If it isn't there, your installation doesn't work. Period.


As for terrorism, I don't think this problem is exaggerated. In fact, it is predicted by intelligence experts that there is a 50% change of a terrorist nuclear attack on the US within ten years.


When did they state that ? 7 years ago ? It depends of course what you call "a nuclear terrorist attack". In fact, it already took place. The victim was a single person, he got a polonium injection. It happened in the UK. With some rhetoric, we can call it a nuclear terrorist attack. There. But then, it doesn't represent anything serious. To me, a nuclear terrorist attack is the detonation of a nuclear weapon, period.


And beyond that, dirty bombs are the most credible risk. This in itself is not such as concern if we are talking about one or two isolated incidents, but it is also possible that with the mass proliferation of nuclear materials, dirty bombs could be a standard mode of attack.


Well, by the time it becomes a standard mode of attack, we can think of how to tackle the problem. In fact, it is true that a dirty bomb is the ideal terrorist weapon: it doesn't do much harm, and it scares the hell out of the targeted nation. But a dirty bomb, you can make it with any industrial or medical source of radiation. It is much easier to obtain and much easier to handle than, say, nuclear waste. So I think that if there is to be a lot of dirty bombs, the main culprit is going to be all those Cobalt sources in industry and in the medical world. It is not going to be nuclear power.


It isn't the people with a little common sense and grudge that worry me. What worries me are the maniacs. The world has always had maniacs. And even in the US we find people who WANT the world to end as a part of God's plan. In fact, they want to help it along. Interstingly, they support John McCain.


Biological weapons seem to me a much more realistic way to kill off humanity. And that CAN be done in a basement. You just need to put together the perfect virus.


The world has never experienced a dramatic loss of population due to a meteor strike in recorded history, yet our changes of dying from a meteor are greater than the chances of dying in an airline disaster. Why? Because WHEN it happens, millions or billions will die. IMO, nuclear energy poses the same problem. The numbers may not be as large as for a meteoric event, but one event will change the measured risk to benefit ratio dramatically, and future generations will wonder how we could have been so short-sighted.


I think you are off. Let us assume that every century, we have 200 Chernobyl disasters, and 50 Hiroshima-like bomb explosions by terrorists. Admit that I'm being generous here.

Now, although there is some polemic about it, we can safely assume that Chernobyl didn't cause more than 10 000 victims. So 200 Chernobyls mean 2 000 000 people. Hiroshima meant about 100 000 dead. 50 Hiroshimas means 5 000 000 people dead.

So that "terrible disaster" brought to us by nuclear power, but also by terrorism and so on, in - admit it - very generous estimations on my side, will have caused, during ONE CENTURY, 7 million dead.

Now, car traffic alone causes about 1.2 million dead worldwide A YEAR. So that terrible technology, the reason why we can't have it, has killed as many people in one century than car driving does regularly in 6 years. And the nuclear victim numbers are, again, extremely generous. I don't think we will have 200 Chernobyls and 50 Hiroshimas in the 21st century, unless of course we go to war over some oil.

So no matter all propaganda, nuclear technology and even nuclear terrorism isn't that destructive.


It is also a fact that, terrorists and security concerns aside, coal power is much cheaper than nuclear power. I will dig up the reference when I am back in my office, but historically, coal cost something like five cents per kw-hr, and nuclear cost something closer to seven or eight cents. And it is my understanding this cost does not include decomissioning, which is tremendously expensive. So before we even consider security, we have room to work to make coal cleaner. In fact, by using algae as a CO2 scrubber, in part we can fix two problems at once.

I have seen analysis that show that nuclear and coal are on par. I guess it depends on the context. In France, for instance, there is a percentage of the price of nuclear power which is set aside for decommissioning. Then one may argue over whether it is sufficient. Now, tell me, I never understood why one should decommission an old nuclear power plant. Of course one has to remove the core, but why shouldn't we just keep the low-activity material (pressure vessel and so on) within the very strong containment building, which is a much stronger protection than anything that will ever contain that low activity material in a waste dump ? It can't be for the acre of land it uses, can it ? That wouldn't be cost-effective at all. So why is there a need to decommission nuclear power plants ? What's the rational view behind it ? The fear that the "whole country will soon be full of old nuclear power plants" ? That's not reasonable. The US has 104 nuclear power plants. With 400 of them, it could produce ALL of its electricity from nuclear. Assuming a life time of 60 years, that means on average the loss of 7 plant surfaces a year (for the whole US). You can run many millions of years that way. USA land surface: 10 million square km. Land use of a nuclear power plant (of the nuclear building): about 1000 square meters, or about 0.001 square kilometer. So you could fill up the USA with 10 billion nuclear power plants. The USA would be full of power plants after about 1.2 billion years at the rate of 7 plants a year. For the first millennia, that wouldn't be a problem, would it ?
So if it is not a matter of the puny amount of space it takes up, why would one want to destroy an extremely strong containment building, that contains some very low active material, just to cut it to pieces, and put it somewhere else, where it takes up also some place, and is much less confined now ?

Now, some time ago on PF, with mshelep, we did a calculation, and we found out that wind power uses actually orders of magnitude more steel than does nuclear. So I wonder if the decommissioning of wind mills is included in the price of wind energy.

Another argument concerning the price of nuclear power: how come that France sells a lot of electricity to Germany then ? If nuclear electricity were more expensive than coal (of which the Germans have a lot), then they would not buy their electricity in France, right ?

Moreover, the electricity price in Germany and in Italy for an industrial user is around 9 Eurocent per KWhr, while in France this is around 6 Eurocent per KWhr.
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/Files/KEMAReport.pdf

[vanesch]

I think we should stop using terms such as "replacement." What we ought to be moving toward is an increase in Nuclear production to take it from 10% to 30% of the grid demand (I'm using extremely rounded figures). Wind and solar (solar furnace and photovoltaic) should go from "trace amounts" to at least 20% in the near future and expand from there. Hydroelectric provides 20%. That leaves 30% to be provided by coal and NG.

On top of that, we should expect a reduction in demand from this grid as people move toward point-of-use energy generators (rooftop collectors, PVs, small wind turbines, small hydro-generators) where possible. These generators, when inter-tied with the grid need no batteries. Energy is pushed into the grid when not needed at the source point (your meter runs backwards), then energy is taken from the grid when the sun is out.

Fluctuation of demand and supply through daily and seasonal cycles is easily predicted and adaptable. Vast storage units will not be necessary.


The problem with 20% of wind and solar is that you've strained the buffer capacity of your grid to the extreme. Ask the Danes. It is as if you added 20% of variation to the already existing variation in demand. Wind and solar don't take into account the demand profile of the user.

"Energy is pushed into the grid" (and where does it go ?) by home installations. They put an even bigger and unpredictable burden on the regulation capacity of the grid. A cloud comes over a big town: suddenly all those solar panels, which were generously providing electricity, drop their contribution. At the same time, people get inside, switch on light, TV, cooking...

You've just increased seriously the fluctuations in demand. Moreover, wind is very very variable. You can be a week without wind. So you have to have the full backup capacity somewhere else. Solar doesn't work at night. In winter, it gets dark exactly when there is peak demand, in the early evening. So you also have to have full backup capacity.

In other words, if you don't add storage, you have to have a fully working grid without solar and wind, that can cope with the full load, but moreover, you have to add extra regulation capacity, equal at least to the amount of wind and solar that you have in your grid, as this can turn on and off at any moment. So concerning grid investment, you have to have a better grid and provision WITH than without solar and wind. This is why may experts think that until we have a radical change in technology, 20% is about the reasonable maximum of solar/wind one can have in a grid.

[vanesch]

I would like to add that I don't mind other technologies replacing nuclear! I'm not an all-nuclear buff, although I may sound like one. However, one still has to show me a working example of something that works on a large scale. Apart from fossil fuels, the only thing I know, I've seen etc... is nuclear. When I compare both, I prefer nuclear by far.

But if one day, we have demonstrated that solar, wind, algae .... whatever is really working out, can provide 70% of a country with electricity (without the need to limit one's consumption and so on), economically and reliably, with growth potential and without introducing another serious problem, then I'm all for it. Then I think it is time to stop with nuclear too. But show me first.

[vociferous]

In terms of energy for the twenty first century, nuclear power is our best option, as I see it. Nuclear fission is the only source of power that can be quickly and readily added to the power grid to replace coal, gas, and oil plants. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power emits no pollution nor greenhouse gasses (with the exception of water vapor).

As far as alternative energy production, solar energy is the only one that has any significant potential. Other sources of alternative energy are simply not viable for large scale implementation. Solar power is probably the best source of energy available now, but actually implementing a solar power energy solution is going to take fifty years or more, and require a very expensive and time-consuming investment in infrastructure.

In the meantime, nuclear power can get fossil fuel plants shut down right now. Solar power requires a complete revamp of the national electric grid.

[russ_watters]

Nuclear power is often discussed within the context of the oil crisis. It is a misleading and fruitless discussion because we don't have viable electric cars.

For one, we saw this here in the thread about $139 a barrel oil.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=239058

And also in the thread about genetically modified organisms
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=241122

I agree that the electric grid is another issue of concern, but it has little to nothing to do with the price of oil. Ok, that makes more sense. You weren't very specific in the OP: "The energy problem" is a pretty broad thing. If you were talking only about gas for cars, yes, I agree. Nuclear power can't help much with that energy problem unless there is a vast improvement in battery technology or hydrogen "fuel" technology.

Btw, the first thread there expanded to discuss pretty much everything having to do with "The energy problem" (and you made the first reference to global warming in that thread, which is where nuclear power comes in) - the second makes no mention of nuclear power at all.

[vociferous]

I should add that nuclear power can be used to produce hydrogen, which, in some form, is likely to be the fuel which replaces petrol as a source of energy in automobiles.

[DaleSpam]

A nuclear power plant even emits less radiation than a coal power plant. (approx .009 mrem/yr vs. .03 mrem/yr)

[russ_watters]

Yes, on that point one has to consider whether it is cheaper to produce clean energy from coal... Whoa, back up a step: first one has to determine if it is possible to produce clean energy from coal. The technology just plain doesn't exist yet. ....or cheaper to make the nuclear industry failsafe; including against the unintended proliferation of nuclear materials, as well as against terrorist attacks and sabotage. Since I don't believe anything can be made failsafe... So....nothing can be made failsafe, but we should require nuclear power to be? That's a rediculous, illogical, self-contradictory, horrendously biased thing to say.

Cars aren't failsafe, so we shouldn't have cars.

[russ_watters]

The world has never experienced a dramatic loss of population due to a meteor strike in recorded history, yet our changes of dying from a meteor are greater than the chances of dying in an airline disaster. Why? Because WHEN it happens, millions or billions will die. IMO, nuclear energy poses the same problem. The numbers may not be as large as for a meteoric event, but one event will change the measured risk to benefit ratio dramatically, and future generations will wonder how we could have been so short-sighted.[emphasis added] What would this "one event" look like? Near as I can tell, the only way a nuclear accident could kill enough people to register high enough on such a risk calculus to make a real difference is if the meteor that hits the power plant kills most of the people!

There just aren't any scenarios where it is even possible for a nuclear accident to be as bad as you are afraid of. It is also a fact that, terrorists and security concerns aside, coal power is much cheaper than nuclear power. I will dig up the reference when I am back in my office, but historically, coal cost something like five cents per kw-hr, and nuclear cost something closer to seven or eight cents. And it is my understanding this cost does not include decomissioning, which is tremendously expensive. So before we even consider security, we have room to work to make coal cleaner. In fact, by using algae as a CO2 scrubber, in part we can fix two problems at once. Yes, coal is cheaper than nuclear. But how much is this nonexistent "clean coal" technology going to cost? You seem to be assuming that it will be cheap. How can you possibly know that?

[russ_watters]

I have seen analysis that show that nuclear and coal are on par. I guess it depends on the context. In France, for instance.... It is worth noting that it varies by country. A country, like France, that did it right is likely to have much cheaper nuclear power than a country like the US, that does it wrong. But since Ivan is basing his energy problem analysis on things that don't exist, we can easily say that the political situation in the US can change to make nuclear power cost, say, half of what it does today. Is it really possible for the political situation to change? I think it is more likely that that will happen than it is that "clean coal" will ever happen.

[russ_watters]

Another argument concerning the price of nuclear power: how come that France sells a lot of electricity to Germany then ? If nuclear electricity were more expensive than coal (of which the Germans have a lot), then they would not buy their electricity in France, right ?

Moreover, the electricity price in Germany and in Italy for an industrial user is around 9 Eurocent per KWhr, while in France this is around 6 Eurocent per KWhr.
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/Files/KEMAReport.pdf
The issues in Germany are a harbinger of the coming economic disaster that radical environmentalism is pushing some countries to. I think it is likely Germany will just drop their rediculous energy policies, but if they don't, they will soon find themselves paying France and Denmark 30 cents a kWh because they are incapable of generating anywhere near enough of their own power. And that problem won't just be Germany's - if France can sell power to Germany for 30 cents, why would they not increase the rates for the French as well? The EU is a double-edged sword: if one nation drives themselves into the ground, it can take the rest of the EU with them.

[DaleSpam]

Nor do we have the infrastructure to support a nation of electric cars and trucks.

We can certainly fill little nitches in the transportation needs of the average person with electric vehicles, but in the grand scheme of things, the only option to oil is to use alternative fuels. While your point here is correct, we also don't have the infrastructure to support alternative fuels. Any change will imply some change to our vehicle fleet as well as our infrastructure. So it is a little silly to use that as an objection when it applies to all options (except petroleum).

A further point is that even "filling little nitches" can have dramatic benefits to the overall economy. For example, let's say that 5% of our transportation energy needs can be met by either electricity or petroleum or biofuels (e.g. with a fleet of flex-fuel plug-in hybrids). Then all three commodities are competing for the same market, if the price of oil goes up then the demand can drop instantly by 5% without any change in transportation usage. This marginal change in demand would have a huge impact on oil prices which currently are very inelastic.

[dlgoff]

This is kind of off topic. But since storage has been mentioned I though you might be interested in this method of Pumped storage hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity).

[vanesch]

The issues in Germany are a harbinger of the coming economic disaster that radical environmentalism is pushing some countries to. I think it is likely Germany will just drop their rediculous energy policies, but if they don't, they will soon find themselves paying France and Denmark 30 cents a kWh because they are incapable of generating anywhere near enough of their own power. And that problem won't just be Germany's - if France can sell power to Germany for 30 cents, why would they not increase the rates for the French as well? The EU is a double-edged sword: if one nation drives themselves into the ground, it can take the rest of the EU with them.

You've never seen the French on strike, have you ? :rofl:
No, I think that if this goes on, France will be western Europe's provider for electricity, unless (and that's not impossible) France get caught too by ecologitis. As of now, there's no danger, Sarkozy is promoting nuclear everywhere, but then the guy is doing also several stupid things, so the day that the left takes over in France, they'll need the votes of the Greens, exactly as did the German left (nuclear phase out) and the Belgian left (nuclear phase out) and then all silliness can happen. It's not the left itself, it is the left that needs that 5 or 10% of green votes and is willing to give in to that to be in power.

I think the real danger is technical. If the Germans don't take care of their grid, they will face more and more blackouts, which tend to propagate all over Europe.

[vanesch]

This is kind of off topic. But since storage has been mentioned I though you might be interested in this method of Pumped storage hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity).

Yes, yes, it is very good. There have already been discussions about that (too lazy to look up the threads). Pumping stations cost about $2,- per installed Watt, for about 6 hours of autonomy. So as buffer it is ok, but if you take it as a main source, you're in trouble, when you need to replace a wind farm for a week, or solar panels in winter. You have then a significant increase in price per watt. Also, you need the right geography. In Holland for instance, it's not easy to find the slope...

[vanesch]

While your point here is correct, we also don't have the infrastructure to support alternative fuels. Any change will imply some change to our vehicle fleet as well as our infrastructure. So it is a little silly to use that as an objection when it applies to all options (except petroleum).

A further point is that even "filling little nitches" can have dramatic benefits to the overall economy. For example, let's say that 5% of our transportation energy needs can be met by either electricity or petroleum or biofuels (e.g. with a fleet of flex-fuel plug-in hybrids). Then all three commodities are competing for the same market, if the price of oil goes up then the demand can drop instantly by 5% without any change in transportation usage. This marginal change in demand would have a huge impact on oil prices which currently are very inelastic.

This is a very good point I never thought about. One suffers (as in 1973) from the total inelasticity of oil consumption, which results in an almost monopoly position of the oil producers.

[Chi Meson]

The problem with 20% of wind and solar is that you've strained the buffer capacity of your grid to the extreme. Ask the Danes. It is as if you added 20% of variation to the already existing variation in demand. Wind and solar don't take into account the demand profile of the user.

"Energy is pushed into the grid" (and where does it go ?) by home installations. They put an even bigger and unpredictable burden on the regulation capacity of the grid. A cloud comes over a big town: suddenly all those solar panels, which were generously providing electricity, drop their contribution. At the same time, people get inside, switch on light, TV, cooking...

You've just increased seriously the fluctuations in demand. Moreover, wind is very very variable. You can be a week without wind. So you have to have the full backup capacity somewhere else. Solar doesn't work at night. In winter, it gets dark exactly when there is peak demand, in the early evening. So you also have to have full backup capacity.

In other words, if you don't add storage, you have to have a fully working grid without solar and wind, that can cope with the full load, but moreover, you have to add extra regulation capacity, equal at least to the amount of wind and solar that you have in your grid, as this can turn on and off at any moment. So concerning grid investment, you have to have a better grid and provision WITH than without solar and wind. This is why may experts think that until we have a radical change in technology, 20% is about the reasonable maximum of solar/wind one can have in a grid.

Not totally disagreeing here, but the highest peak demands are exactly when the PVs are cranking the most: sunny hot summer days, with ACs in office buildings working to capacity. I'd never recommend wind to any homeowner who doesn't live in a dependably windy location (I live on the Connecticut coast; our neighborhood is called "Windy Hill"; a week without wind is unheard of) and as of now small wind turbines are not as good an investment as PVs. So anyone with a turbine in a location that is subject to a lull is a loon.

If local PVs were installed in 100s of thousands of homes this year, the grid would have a hard time dealing with the fluctuations, but I'm thinking of the progress over decades. As the input of local PVs increases, the fluctuations will become more predictable, and the buffers and adjustments in output should become more flexible.

Lastly, I thought 30% nuclear generation was being optimistic. I'd love for it to be 50% or more. Based on current consumption, would anyone expect a greater nuclear contribution? (think realistically, 20 years from now).

Edit: what's the latest on coal gassification, and coal-based synthetic fuel? Is the net outcome of this process any cleaner than simply burning the coal?

[vociferous]

If I were in charge of energy policy, it would be something like this:

Step 1) Immediately start building nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel plants, with coal plants being shut down first, oil second, and gas third. As nuclear plants are brought online, fossil fuel plants will be shut down.

Step 2) Immediately begin encouraging the placement of photovoltaic cells on every building in the United States. Begin upgrading the national power grid to accomodate solar electricity generation. Begin building energy storage facilities to store solar power for nighttime and peak usage. Shut down nuclear plants as more solar capacity is constructed.

Step 3) Begin constructing hydrogen manufacturing facilities and create a network of electrical power/hydrogen delivery. The network will use pipes to deliver hydrogen across the nation for future automobiles and cool the major power grid backbone lines into superconductors.

Step 4) Solar and alternative energy will provide for our electrical needs until and if fusion becomes available.

[vanesch]

Not totally disagreeing here, but the highest peak demands are exactly when the PVs are cranking the most: sunny hot summer days, with ACs in office buildings working to capacity.


You are right that that is a summer day profile. Look at
http://www.rte-france.com/htm/fr/vie/telecharge/prevconsoelec.pdf

which gives some profiles of electricity consumption in France (sorry, it is the market I know best). On the first plot, p.1 you find the annual smoothed consumption profile: lowest in summer, highest in winter (we tend to have much less AC than in the US: matter of habit, living standard, and climate, I guess). Winter has about double consumption than summer.

Second plot on p1: profile for a few consecutive days in summer: indeed a peak around noon. But we are now at about 52 GW.

First plot on p2: a winter day: peak at 19 hr, at 82 GW. That's in winter, and after sun set, when solar doesn't work, and we are at the highest grid consumption over the year (peak in winter).


I'd never recommend wind to any homeowner who doesn't live in a dependably windy location (I live on the Connecticut coast; our neighborhood is called "Windy Hill"; a week without wind is unheard of) and as of now small wind turbines are not as good an investment as PVs. So anyone with a turbine in a location that is subject to a lull is a loon.


I really think that for the moment, PV on a large scale is excessively expensive. Hell, we are an order of magnitude above nuclear/coal! Wind is cheaper in that respect, although it is still a factor of 2 or 3 more expensive than coal.


If local PVs were installed in 100s of thousands of homes this year, the grid would have a hard time dealing with the fluctuations, but I'm thinking of the progress over decades. As the input of local PVs increases, the fluctuations will become more predictable, and the buffers and adjustments in output should become more flexible.


Yes, but you remain with the principal problem: highest consumption in winter, when it is dark. At least in France (and I think it is a typical consumption profile in Europe, which must even be worse in less sunny places like Northern Germany). I suppose that if you live in a warm place, where the main consumption is AC, then there is of course a strong correlation between consumption and solar irradiation, so there it might be a good idea.


Lastly, I thought 30% nuclear generation was being optimistic. I'd love for it to be 50% or more. Based on current consumption, would anyone expect a greater nuclear contribution? (think realistically, 20 years from now).


France went from about 1% nuclear to over 70% nuclear in 20 years, between 1977 and 1997. That shows that it is technologically, industrially and economically possible.
Belgium went from 0% to 55% in 11 years. (now these fools - I can say that, I'm Belgian - want to phase out by 2015, but I hope they will come to reason before they do damage).

If we want to make plans for 30 years ahead, I think that is risky. Technology might have changed. It is possible that solar is extremely competitive by then. That would be great. Maybe electricity storage will have a solution then. But one shouldn't wait 30 years for the miracle solution and do nothing right now. I agree with you that the best thing to do is to switch as much as possible from coal to nuclear right now. The technology exists and is operational. If 30 years from now, things are different, we can do different things then. Most nuclear power plants will then be halfway through their life anyway, and one should start thinking of their replacement, with whatever is the best technology at that point. Maybe in the mean time we've found out that AGW is not an issue. We can then use fossil fuels again. Maybe we find out that it IS an issue, and then we will be happy to have done something about it.

My idea is that the local investment that DOES really make sense, is not too expensive and is very efficient, is thermal solar, to make hot water. It is totally ridiculous that houses have an AC, and heat water in summer using electricity.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok, we're trying to solve real world problems, so we should consider working technologies: technologies that have demonstrated their technical and economical viability on large scale. It is IMO erroneous to include in a real-world planning any future research and development. When the results are there, we can talk about it. All the rest is "unobtainium" to me.


The fact is, as far as I could tell, until the algae option came along, there was no viable option to oil.

When did they state that ? 7 years ago ? It depends of course what you call "a nuclear terrorist attack". In fact, it already took place. The victim was a single person, he got a polonium injection. It happened in the UK. With some rhetoric, we can call it a nuclear terrorist attack. There. But then, it doesn't represent anything serious. To me, a nuclear terrorist attack is the detonation of a nuclear weapon, period.

We are talking about a nuclear detonation.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=208250

Well, by the time it becomes a standard mode of attack, we can think of how to tackle the problem.

In the US, we euphemistically refer to this as closing the barn door after the horse got out.

In fact, it is true that a dirty bomb is the ideal terrorist weapon: it doesn't do much harm, and it scares the hell out of the targeted nation. But a dirty bomb, you can make it with any industrial or medical source of radiation. It is much easier to obtain and much easier to handle than, say, nuclear waste. So I think that if there is to be a lot of dirty bombs, the main culprit is going to be all those Cobalt sources in industry and in the medical world. It is not going to be nuclear power.

However, wouldn't plutonium be much more effective, and wouldn't terrorists know this?

Biological weapons seem to me a much more realistic way to kill off humanity. And that CAN be done in a basement. You just need to put together the perfect virus.

Given access to Pu or U, isn't it far easier to make an effective dirty bomb, than it is to engineer the perfect virus? From what I understand, it is easy to play games with viruses, but to make a highly effective virus for biological warfare is far more difficult.

I think you are off. Let us assume that every century, we have 200 Chernobyl disasters, and 50 Hiroshima-like bomb explosions by terrorists. Admit that I'm being generous here.

Now, although there is some polemic about it, we can safely assume that Chernobyl didn't cause more than 10 000 victims. So 200 Chernobyls mean 2 000 000 people. Hiroshima meant about 100 000 dead. 50 Hiroshimas means 5 000 000 people dead.

So that "terrible disaster" brought to us by nuclear power, but also by terrorism and so on, in - admit it - very generous estimations on my side, will have caused, during ONE CENTURY, 7 million dead.

Now, car traffic alone causes about 1.2 million dead worldwide A YEAR. So that terrible technology, the reason why we can't have it, has killed as many people in one century than car driving does regularly in 6 years. And the nuclear victim numbers are, again, extremely generous. I don't think we will have 200 Chernobyls and 50 Hiroshimas in the 21st century, unless of course we go to war over some oil.

So no matter all propaganda, nuclear technology and even nuclear terrorism isn't that destructive.



I have seen analysis that show that nuclear and coal are on par. I guess it depends on the context. In France, for instance, there is a percentage of the price of nuclear power which is set aside for decommissioning. Then one may argue over whether it is sufficient. Now, tell me, I never understood why one should decommission an old nuclear power plant. Of course one has to remove the core, but why shouldn't we just keep the low-activity material (pressure vessel and so on) within the very strong containment building, which is a much stronger protection than anything that will ever contain that low activity material in a waste dump ? It can't be for the acre of land it uses, can it ? That wouldn't be cost-effective at all. So why is there a need to decommission nuclear power plants ? What's the rational view behind it ? The fear that the "whole country will soon be full of old nuclear power plants" ? That's not reasonable. The US has 104 nuclear power plants. With 400 of them, it could produce ALL of its electricity from nuclear. Assuming a life time of 60 years, that means on average the loss of 7 plant surfaces a year (for the whole US). You can run many millions of years that way. USA land surface: 10 million square km. Land use of a nuclear power plant (of the nuclear building): about 1000 square meters, or about 0.001 square kilometer. So you could fill up the USA with 10 billion nuclear power plants. The USA would be full of power plants after about 1.2 billion years at the rate of 7 plants a year. For the first millennia, that wouldn't be a problem, would it ?
So if it is not a matter of the puny amount of space it takes up, why would one want to destroy an extremely strong containment building, that contains some very low active material, just to cut it to pieces, and put it somewhere else, where it takes up also some place, and is much less confined now ?

Now, some time ago on PF, with mshelep, we did a calculation, and we found out that wind power uses actually orders of magnitude more steel than does nuclear. So I wonder if the decommissioning of wind mills is included in the price of wind energy.

Another argument concerning the price of nuclear power: how come that France sells a lot of electricity to Germany then ? If nuclear electricity were more expensive than coal (of which the Germans have a lot), then they would not buy their electricity in France, right ?

Moreover, the electricity price in Germany and in Italy for an industrial user is around 9 Eurocent per KWhr, while in France this is around 6 Eurocent per KWhr.
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/Files/KEMAReport.pdf

You make some good points and I will stew on this a bit . To me, risk to benefit analysis is the proper way to look at this. What is not clear to me is the scope of the risk. What about the loss of economic centers; the loss of commerce; the loss of strategic ports, cancer risks, birth defects... when a million people die in a million different places, speaking purely analytically about it, the effect on the general populous is insignificant, however I don't see this as being the case if we lose an entire city or cities, in one or a few catostrophic events. I don't think we can directly compare the two situations. But as I said, I need to think about that one to consider the distinctions.

As for the cost of power, this is the reference that I used. The link doesn't seem to be working right now but hopefully it will be.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter10.html

These are the numbers that I had cited from the report.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: Average lifetime Cost
Median [average] experience: 7.7 cents per KW-Hr
Best [theoretical] experience: 4.0 cents per KW-Hr

COAL POWER PLANTS:
[“Clean” upgrades not considered] 4.8 cents per KW-Hr

[Ivan Seeking]

What would this "one event" look like? Near as I can tell, the only way a nuclear accident could kill enough people to register high enough on such a risk calculus to make a real difference is if the meteor that hits the power plant kills most of the people!

There just aren't any scenarios where it is even possible for a nuclear accident to be as bad as you are afraid of.

You'll understand if I don't take your word for it.

Yes, coal is cheaper than nuclear. But how much is this nonexistent "clean coal" technology going to cost? You seem to be assuming that it will be cheap. How can you possibly know that?

Algae can be used to filter the flue gases and then to produce fuel.

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the argument of potential risk, this comes to mind: If you want to consider the social, ecomomic, and political consequences of a nuclear terrorist attack, or nuclear sabotage, consider what a dozen guys with box knives managed to accomplish, on 911.

Now, what order of magnitude shall we apply in order to anticipate the effects of a catastrophic nuclear event?

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is what I believe; as quoted in the thread linked about nuclear detonation.

When six [don't know why I said six here] guys with box cutters flew some planes into buildings, we started two wars; in one case we attacked the wrong country but any country would do; we trashed the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions; we implemented the use of torture and secret prisons; we allowed spying on US citizens without legal oversight; we threatened [tried] to use nuclear weapons for "conventional warfare", and we re-elected the people who did all of this.

==> Set off a nuke in a US city and the ME is a glass parking lot.

[vanesch]

The fact is, as far as I could tell, until the algae option came along, there was no viable option to oil.


You are right. In fact, I like a lot that algae thing. However, it is still in its infancy, and we have to see how it works out on large scale - if there aren't any serious problems with it (pollution?), what is its growth potential, etc...
In any case, the first sector to tackle will be transportation. That's already a big chunk. Once that's done, we'll have to see in what way it can still expand in the electricity sector.


In the US, we euphemistically refer to this as closing the barn door after the horse got out.


:smile: Right. The problem is that the barn has a lot of doors. It isn't clear that because the US for instance wouldn't go for nuclear, that others won't, and the material used for a nuke in the US might as well come from somewhere else. It could come from France, or from Russia, or from Japan, or from China or from.... Also, those materials have been around already for 50 years or more. There are tons and tons everywhere. So the risk, if risk there is, will be taken in any case - it is not clear in how much you seriously diminish the risk by not using nuclear power yourself. You pay the full price of refusing to use the technology, but you pay also a serious part of the price of the risk.
Finally, civil nuclear technology is not the only way, not even the main road, to nuclear weapons. Most nuclear states built their weapons independently from their civil nuclear technology. Israel doesn't have civil nuclear energy. The US and the former Soviet Union built nuclear weapons before they had civil nuclear energy, it was a spinoff. Pakistan used a research reactor ; so did North Korea. Iran was caught experimenting with laser enrichment, something which is relatively small scale, and unrelated to nuclear power.


However, wouldn't plutonium be much more effective, and wouldn't terrorists know this?


It would be extremely effective in scaring the hell out of people: gee, my town is under a cloud of plutonium !! However, in fact, plutonium is much less of a problem than, say, cobalt. Plutonium has two properties which make it not such a great radiation hazard: it is mainly an alpha emitter. That makes it very dangerous when ingested, but almost totally harmless as an external radiation source. And second, it binds very very quickly chemically to things like clay and most soils. So it quickly gets out of the air and the water. You simply don't have to inhale it, and you shouldn't eat too much of it either. But it doesn't spread easily. You have to consider it more like a poison than like a radiation source.
So if you want to kill people with stuff they have to ingest, I would really go for a biological agent. It is designed for it. Or with arsenic. Or with DDT. Or with dioxines.

The "best" dirty bomb stuff is hard gamma emitters. They irradiate stuff externally. This is not stuff you find mainly in nuclear fuels, but rather in industrial and medical applications.

Also, note that except for maybe a few unhappy bystanders, who get such a high dose that they suffer from acute radiation sickness (and are probably in any case killed by the blast), a dirty bomb won't kill many people on the spot. It will just slightly increase the risk of cancer for those most exposed.


Given access to Pu or U, isn't it far easier to make an effective dirty bomb, than it is to engineer the perfect virus? From what I understand, it is easy to play games with viruses, but to make a highly effective virus for biological warfare is far more difficult.


Again, Pu, or even better, U, is not much of a problem. Sure, it will contaminate surfaces, and depending on the place, this will mean an expensive cleanup, but it is acts just as a poison, not as an external radiation hazard. It will do much less damage than the same quantity of any virus or any other effective poison. But I agree that it will scare the hell out of people.

In fact, concerning U, we have continuously a "dirty bomb" going off in the US: it is called a coal fired power plant. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

For instance, at Chernobyl, the released uranium and plutonium are not the worrisome stuff. The most dangerous stuff was the immediate release of I-131, something that decays in a week's time (so it is not present in any "old" fuel), and of course the two nasty ones: Cs-137 and Sr-90, because of their 30 years half life, which makes them still pretty active, and on the other hand, still present for a long time. Moreover chemically, they tend to get absorbed by living creatures.


You make some good points and I will stew on this a bit . To me, risk to benefit analysis is the proper way to look at this. What is not clear to me is the scope of the risk. What about the loss of economic centers; the loss of commerce; the loss of strategic ports, cancer risks, birth defects... when a million people die in a million different places, speaking purely analytically about it, the effect on the general populous is insignificant, however I don't see this as being the case if we lose an entire city or cities, in one or a few catostrophic events. I don't think we can directly compare the two situations. But as I said, I need to think about that one to consider the distinctions.


Yes. That's why people are afraid of taking the airplane, but not the car. They don't like to die in groups :tongue:
As I said, a destruction of a lot of people cannot be the result of a dirty bomb. Some will maybe get a cancer, 30 years later, because of it. But people won't drop dead. A nuclear blast of course is something else. I agree that Manhattan partly destroyed by a nuclear blast would be a serious catastrophe. That said, is it really much worse than the tsunami which killed several hundred thousand and destroyed the coastline of southeast Asia a few years ago ?

I'm not saying that these are negligible events. But again, in what measure is not using nuclear power in the US going to diminish that risk, and what is going to be the price to pay for not using nuclear power, and relying on coal ?

(added by edit). Finally, there's something else. A nuclear blast of a Hiroshima-like bomb (already an achievement for a terrorist group!) is most effective when exploded at a certain altitude above ground zero. Most people in Hiroshima died/were burned from the flash of the explosion, and the altitude of explosion was optimized for maximum blast effect. If you set off a bomb on the ground, the effect is much, much smaller. It will still be a very destructive event, but I don't think it will destroy much beyond a 500 meter range. The Hiroshima bomb was exploded at 600 m altitude and had a destruction radius of 1.6 km.

There's something else I thought about. You wrote that algae could be used as a CO2 scrubber for coal plants. That doesn't work! They will release the CO2 upon burning the fuel you make out of it. Algae are only CO2 neutral if they take up CO2 and then release it again upon the use of the fuel, they are no storage of new CO2.

[vanesch]

As for the argument of potential risk, this comes to mind: If you want to consider the social, ecomomic, and political consequences of a nuclear terrorist attack, or nuclear sabotage, consider what a dozen guys with box knives managed to accomplish, on 911.

Now, what order of magnitude shall we apply in order to anticipate the effects of a catastrophic nuclear event?

Yes, but that is because the political reaction to 9/11 was totally misplaced. The best thing to do in case of a terrorist attack is to minimize it, and Dubya did exactly the opposite. One should have rebuild the WTC or something similar. The Japanese rebuild Hiroshima.

And, again, who tells you that the nuke made by the terrorists came from the US civil nuclear sector ?

[mheslep]

This is kind of off topic. But since storage has been mentioned I though you might be interested in this method of Pumped storage hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity).

Yes, yes, it is very good. There have already been discussions about that (too lazy to look up the threads). Pumping stations cost about $2,- per installed Watt, for about 6 hours of autonomy. So as buffer it is ok, but if you take it as a main source, you're in trouble, when you need to replace a wind farm for a week, or solar panels in winter. You have then a significant increase in price per watt. Also, you need the right geography. In Holland for instance, it's not easy to find the slope...
The PF thread diversion on pump storage started here and went on for a page or two:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1644146&postcount=70

Pumped storage goes as low as $0.80 / W at this 2800W facility, largest in the world:
http://www.dom.com/about/stations/hydro/bath.jsp

[mheslep]

... Iran was caught experimenting with laser enrichment, something which is relatively small scale, and unrelated to nuclear power....We've been there already, over here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1720012&postcount=173
and here
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1721430&postcount=188
Laser enrichment is a red herring, no rogue state is going to enrich enough material in this century to make a bomb from it, unless some unwise major technological powers invest to make it real.

[mheslep]

Earlier post on costs.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1723696&postcount=200
Nuclear Cost:
I like the 2003 MIT Report "The Future of Nuclear Power" for my gold standard. It is not without criticism, but everyone pro and con seems to use it as a baseline for discussion. They cost nuclear at 6.7cents/kW-hr as of 2002, no tax breaks included, with several suggestions that would take it down to 5 or 4 theoretically. On the other hand we have the very recently proposed 2.2GW Levi Florida project with a cost of $14B + $3B transmission, or ~$7/W; no chance of $0.06/kw-hr power coming from Levi at that cost.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml
No doubt the Levi cost of $17B is in part high because of unnecessary regulatory hurdles brought by anti-nuclear lobbies. None the less $17B for 2.2GW is the number currently on the table; its folly to dash on without streamlining the cost first.
Wind Cost:
UK BWEA report, 2005, with 2003 costs.
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/target-2005-small.pdf
Average onshore: $0.06 / kw-hr
Average offshore: $0.11 / kw-hr

US Dept. of Energy Cost report, 2006:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41435.pdf, page 10.
-Busbar price
-Reduced by/inludes the available US tax breaks - the federal 'PTC' which is $0.015 / kw-hr
-Reduced by/includes 'Renewable Energy Certs', RECs - unknown but only 10% of the 2006 installations got them.
Average: $0.036 / kw-hr over 5.6GW installed, one sigma range $0.023 /kw-hr to $0.049 / kw-hr
With the above caveats worse case should be $0.049+$0.015=$0.064 /kw-hr actual generation cost.

[vanesch]

Pumped storage goes as low as $0.80 / W at this 2800W facility, largest in the world:
http://www.dom.com/about/stations/hydro/bath.jsp

I remember.

However,
1) that thing is from 1985, so now it might be more expensive (shall we take nuclear plant prices from beginning of the 80ies ?)
2) it is 2100 MW generating, but only 420 MW pumping

so if they have to pump (day) as much as they consume (night), you only have 420 MW available, hence about $4,- per installed reversible watt.

[vanesch]

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml
No doubt the Levi cost of $17B is in part high because of unnecessary regulatory hurdles brought by anti-nuclear lobbies. None the less $17B for 2.2GW is the number currently on the table; its folly to dash on without streamlining the cost first.

I really find that cost crazily high. I guess the problem is that there is no plan to build, say, 30 power plants of the same design in a single project. That would give one a real idea of what is the actual "production" price of a power plant.

[Ivan Seeking]

So....nothing can be made failsafe, but we should require nuclear power to be? That's a rediculous, illogical, self-contradictory,

Come on Russ, keep up. That is my point.

[Ivan Seeking]

You are right. In fact, I like a lot that algae thing. However, it is still in its infancy, and we have to see how it works out on large scale - if there aren't any serious problems with it (pollution?), what is its growth potential, etc...
In any case, the first sector to tackle will be transportation. That's already a big chunk. Once that's done, we'll have to see in what way it can still expand in the electricity sector.

I see it this way: First of all, unlike the perfect battery or nuclear fusion, the problems remaining for algae are purely practical; not fundamental. So although I don't mean to minimize the difficulties in large-scale algae to fuel production, and there are plenty, I see nothing more than the typical sorts of engineering problems that I solve every day in order to make a living. What's more, at this time there are no other options, so we have no choice. We HAVE to make it work.

Navigation is easy when there is only one path to follow.

Just to restate the subject of the thread for late comers: Nuclear power cannot solve the oil problem.

[Ivan Seeking]

There's something else I thought about. You wrote that algae could be used as a CO2 scrubber for coal plants. That doesn't work! They will release the CO2 upon burning the fuel you make out of it. Algae are only CO2 neutral if they take up CO2 and then release it again upon the use of the fuel, they are no storage of new CO2.

Yes, this is an intermediate step, but it would allow for drastic reductions in CO2 emissions from coal plants [the car would be releasing CO2 no matter the source of the fuel, so this now considered to be an example of recycled carbon], while making a profit, which makes it doable. But these could eventuallly be closed systems that burn algae oil..or maybe even the entire biomass. Who needs coal? And who needs nuclear? [in principle, who even needs more than an initial charge of water at that point?]

Ultimately, we want all transportation fuel production to derive from ambient CO2.

[vanesch]

Laser enrichment is a red herring, no rogue state is going to enrich enough material in this century to make a bomb from it, unless some unwise major technological powers invest to make it real.

I really don't think so. Laser isotope separation IS working, only it isn't working profitably and on large scale for commercial operation and big volumes and it is difficult to put in place.

Look at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-laser.htm

They state indeed that:

Although LIS appears promising, the technology has proven to be extremely difficult to master and may be beyond the reach of even technically advanced states.


But that's not the point. The point is, can one do this in a country which wants to put all the means to it, in a hidden way. A diffusion, or even a centrifuge plant, is a very big system. You can see it on satelite pictures, you need LARGE quantities of materials etc...

Concerning the AVLIS development in the US, we have:

The U.S. Enrichment Corporation came to the conclusion that AVLIS would never be profitable. In June 1999, USEC announced that it was discontinuing its development of the AVLIS process. While USEC owns the AVLIS technology, the Department retains the right to utilize the intellectual property for government purposes. When USEC terminated development of the AVLIS technology, it argued that the rates of return were not sufficient to outweigh the risks and ongoing capital expenditures necessary to develop and construct an AVLIS production plant.


They didn't say that it didn't work. They said that they didn't think it was going to be commercially profitable - that is, for a big enrichment factory one has to count on.

We also have:

One advanced enrichment technology being evaluated is the laser-based technology developed by Silex Systems Ltd. of Australia. In 2001, the third-generation Silex /USEC Inc. project moved into the pilot engineering study phase, which includes the construction and testing of prototype equipment.


So that seems to work.

Moreover, when one looks at this: http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/266374/12/ARCHI/none/News/LASER-ISOTOPE-SEPARATION:-Fuel-enrichment-method-garners-GE-contrac

we have:

While the deal focuses on nuclear enrichment for peaceful purposes, relatively recent reports published by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warn of the potential of SILEX for significantly lowering logistical barriers to the international proliferation of nuclear weapons.


Now, given that Greenpeace is in there, that might be fear mongering as usual, but give it 20 or 30 years, and I wouldn't say that laser isotope separation isn't going to be THE proliferation issue.

[vanesch]

Yes, this is an intermediate step, but it would allow for drastic reductions in CO2 emissions from coal plants [the car would be releasing CO2 no matter the source of the fuel, so this now considered to be an example of recycled carbon], while making a profit, which makes it doable.

No, you don't seem to understand my point: in the total CO2 balance, not one single gram of CO2 is removed by the algae from the coal burning. Whether you put that coal burning CO2 directly to the atmosphere, or you first put it in algae and then to the atmosphere, it won't make a difference.

Of course, the use of the algae fuel (in a car for instance) will be CO2 neutral: what it absorbed during its growth, is released during the use of the fuel. If that replaces oil consumption, then you win. It is as if the car was working on solar. There's no discussion.
What happens here is that during growth, you remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and during use, you put it back.

But if you now make your algae grow in the CO2 from a coal fired plant, and not from atmospheric CO2, then you do NOT remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, but you will put it in the atmosphere when the algae fuel is burned. What you do then in the end is that you put the CO2 from the coal fired plant, in the atmosphere.

So making algae grow on coal fired CO2 doesn't do anything at diminishing the CO2 exhaust of a coal fired plant. That said, maybe it can stimulate its growth or anything, so if *in any case* that CO2 is going to go in the atmosphere, just as well use it one more time to do something useful. But you cannot say that algae are going to serve as a CO2 scrubber, implying that they would make coal burning clean of CO2 exhaust.

[vanesch]

Yes, this is an intermediate step, but it would allow for drastic reductions in CO2 emissions from coal plants [the car would be releasing CO2 no matter the source of the fuel, so this now considered to be an example of recycled carbon], while making a profit, which makes it doable. But these could eventuallly be closed systems that burn algae oil..or maybe even the entire biomass. Who needs coal? And who needs nuclear? [in principle, who even needs more than an initial charge of water at that point?]

Ultimately, we want all transportation fuel production to derive from ambient CO2.

Well, I thought that that was evident. The first step is to replace about all transport fuel by algae fuel. Let us already do that and see how it works out. As I said, if we are there (when ? Next year ? In 5 years ? In 15 years ? In 30 years ?), we can see how much remaining algae capacity there is to start replacing electricity production. I fully agree with you that at that point, if there are no major problems with the algae, and if they have replaced already all of the coal and gas fired power plants, I'm all for it to start replacing nuclear with it. But I first want to see it. I first want to see 90% of all transport run on algae fuel, I first want to see all coal replaced by algae fuel. At that point, we can think of it replacing nuclear, solar and wind.
I don't think that it will be done overnight, however, and in the mean time, I think it is a good idea to replace coal by nuclear (and a few percent of solar and wind, to remain politically correct).

BTW, as long as we can run with the open fuel cycle in nuclear, there is no "plutonium issue" of proliferation. As long as enrichment is done in some safe countries, there's no risk of HEU proliferation. And if it is just for one single more generation of nuclear power plants, there will be uranium enough to run on the open fuel cycle. So if, 30 years from now, everything is ready to run on algae, then that will be fine. If not, we might be happy that we haven't been waiting for it!
And if it does work out, then nuclear has just saved us 30 years of coal consumption, and moreover, of useless "economies in power consumption".

As I said, I like the algae thing. But so often, one has brilliant results on small scale, and real problems on large scale. Do you have an estimate of the needed surface and plant capacity and so on to replace world oil production ? And is there still room for world coal production too ? I hope we're not going to transform about all coast lines into one big stinking puddle of algae...

[Art]

Just to restate the subject of the thread for late comers: Nuclear power cannot solve the oil problem.It could but there are probably better ways.

One problem cited is transportation but this is only a problem if one accepts the current paradigm whereby cars and trucks carry an on-board supply of fuel. If maglev highways were created then a car would only need enough fuel to reach the electrified highways with the added advantage safeguards could be built in to dramatically the reduce the amount of road accidents. This and similar systems already works perfectly for trains and trams.

I'm not sure nuclear power is the only way or the best way to provide enough electricity to fulfil our requirements. Essentially the essence of useful energy production is heat and the Earth has plenty of that. I'd have thought we could make far greater use of geo-thermal energy than we currently do. Afterall it basically only requires we dig deep holes in the ground to tap into a practically unlimited heat source. There is also tidal power which is again under exploited despite the advantage of being a continuous source of power unlike solar and wind generation and then there is the potential for far greater use of hydro-electric power.

[Andre]

There are certainly many ways to generate energy, like sea water - fresh water differential (http://www.narcis.info/research/RecordID/OND1306769/Language/en;jsessionid=i3dgwwjv22z) for instance. But how about the feasibility of each method, the costs versus yield, sustainabililty also as function of maintainablility, the "bang for the buck", etc? Some solutions may prove to cost more than it would produce. I think that nuclear energy is one of the more efficient solutions but we would need hard figures.

Second element is what the systems produce, electricity is fine for many static appliances but it's less suitable for traffic and virtually worthless for aviation.

To remain flying, unless some magic thrust source is develloped, only high energy liquid fuels are usuable nowadays. This can be made from coal (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06229/714268-28.stm) using heat, which could be generated with nuclear means. However it can't be called sustainable as coal will deplete once.

So, considering the diversity of supply and demand, it seems that all feasible solutions should be used on the long term.

[vanesch]

It could but there are probably better ways.

One problem cited is transportation but this is only a problem if one accepts the current paradigm whereby cars and trucks carry an on-board supply of fuel. If maglev highways were created then a car would only need enough fuel to reach the electrified highways with the added advantage safeguards could be built in to dramatically the reduce the amount of road accidents. This and similar systems already works perfectly for trains and trams.


The problem is again that that is science fiction at this moment. We're not talking about solutions in 50 years from now, we're talking about energy policy in the 2 or 3 next decades. It is inconceivable to turn most of the roads into maglev highways, and most of the cars into maglev driven cars in 10 - 20 years time. I'd say that it is 100 times easier to put batteries in cars than to change cars into maglev things. That said, there already does exist a major transportation system that works (or can work) on electricity: trains.

There are 2 major energy problems:
- oil. It becomes expensive, it is in the hands of geopolitically unattractive players, it needs major military investment and interventions which is a source of a lot of terrorism etc... there are plenty of reasons to try to get rid of oil, or at least to have a competitive replacement for oil, so that it doesn't have a monopoly position in the market.
- CO2. In as much as we should take AGW seriously - and for the moment we can't exclude that possibility with any level of certainty - we should seriously cut back on the use of fossil fuels. There was oil of course, but there's mainly gas and coal.

Oil seems to be the major player for the transport sector, and coal and gas are the major players (well, essentially coal) for electricity.

If we do not take the CO2 problem seriously, there's no problem here. Coal can provide plenty of electricity, for hundreds of years to come. There IS a public health problem with coal: the emission of heavy metals, mercury, uranium, etc... but then, this wasn't a problem until now, so the killing of 500 000 people per year for electricity production is socially accepted, in the same way as killing 1 200 000 people per year for transport is socially accepted. (BTW, IMO when you see these numbers, all whining about the danger of nuclear power becomes moot)

The only EXISTING technology, today, which can claim to be able to replace coal and gas potentially ENTIRELY is nuclear. There is no developed country or large region in the world that has demonstrated getting the large majority of its electricity from anything else but coal, gas, or nuclear. Apart maybe from Sweden, which is 50-50 nuclear and hydro.

The only country that has had a major replacement for oil in transportation is Brazil, with its biofuel.


I'm not sure nuclear power is the only way or the best way to provide enough electricity to fulfil our requirements. Essentially the essence of useful energy production is heat and the Earth has plenty of that. I'd have thought we could make far greater use of geo-thermal energy than we currently do. Afterall it basically only requires we dig deep holes in the ground to tap into a practically unlimited heat source.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

You need adapted geology for that. It isn't sufficient to dig a hole in the ground to get out boiling water (you need boiling water, not hot water). I don't think it is going to be a major player in any case. There are of course a few special places on earth, like Iceland, where geothermal IS a very interesting majority source. But not everybody lives on a mid-ocean rig!


There is also tidal power which is again under exploited despite the advantage of being a continuous source of power unlike solar and wind generation and then there is the potential for far greater use of hydro-electric power.

Although tidal power can be expanded (there is not much of it), I also seriously doubt that this is a serious player, because you need special geography for it. There are only so many coastal areas where the tides are strong enough to allow for a useful tidal plant. You're not going to get hundreds of gigawatts out of that.

Hydro, on the other hand, is almost already completely exploited where possible. I don't think it is possible to double hydro power worldwide.

With both of these techniques, there is a non-negligible ecological impact if done on large scale.

Wind and solar have the IMO extremely difficult problem of intermittency.

In any case, the only non-CO2 technology that has already shown its merit for electricity production is nuclear, and the only practical replacement for oil in the transport has been shown to be biofuel.

Nothing stops us of course from experimenting, and trying out other technologies. But they cannot claim, as of yet, such a success that they can be used as an argument against those technologies that HAVE shown to work. You can't hope to bring to 70% in a few decades a technology that hasn't yet passed somewhere the 30%, and that has worldwide less than a few %.

Things can be different 30 years from now, but in the coming decades, we can't count on any sci-fi to solve the issues ; we have to make plans with something that has already shown its utility. Then maybe, we don't have to. If AGW turns out to be false, and if ~500 000 dead per year remain socially acceptable, then coal can be used for electricity generation. If the oil price continues to rise, then the market will automatically find a solution to that problem. But one can't on one hand, use a public policy worldwide that acts upon the hypothesis of AGW, wants to incite people to use less electricity, bring out penalties for inefficient appliances and cars, and then deny a full and rapid development of the only technology that has shown to be able to replace coal and gas.

[vanesch]

However it can't be called sustainable as coal will deplete once.


"Sustainable" doesn't mean: "must have the potential to work indefinitely". The UN definition of sustainable is:

Believing that sustainable development, which implies meeting the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs, should become a central guiding principle of the United
Nations,...


from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm

This is a very sensible definition. We don't have to solve the transport and electricity production for 100 years from now, and certainly not 500 years from now. That would be like putting the burden of transportation and electricity (what ?) production of our times in the hands of the people living 100 or 500 years ago. We don't have to solve the problems of the future generations: we have to solve our own. Only, in doing so, we mustn't make such a mess that the problems of the future generations are more involved and their ability to solve them, compromised.

So we may use coal. We may not deplete it. We should think of another solution to what coal is doing for us before we deplete it. As there is still enough for more than 1000 years of coal, we still have time. Oil can be different. We might be depleting it right now.

And of course, if AGW has something to it, we may not take a major risk with the future generations.

[mheslep]

I remember.

However,
1) that thing is from 1985, so now it might be more expensive (shall we take nuclear plant prices from beginning of the 80ies ?)
2) it is 2100 MW generating, but only 420 MW pumping
2800 now. They upgraded the '85 turbines a couple years ago - pulled the blades, shipped them back to GE, when they came back - 700MW upgrade.

so if they have to pump (day) as much as they consume (night), you only have 420 MW available, hence about $4,- per installed reversible watt.That is only for your chosen duty cycle. If you want to look at duty cycle then you'd measure a storage facility by kWh, not W. Regardless of how long the system generates its power rating is still 2800MW.

[Andre]

And of course, if AGW has something to it, we may not take a major risk with the future generations.

You are daring me, Vanesch.

I'll get back to that, strongly, but later. A lot of distraction now.

[mheslep]

I really don't think so. Laser isotope separation IS working, only it isn't working profitably and on large scale for commercial operation and big volumes and it is difficult to put in place.

Look at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-laser.htm

They state indeed that:
"Although LIS appears promising, the technology has proven to be extremely difficult to master and may be beyond the reach of even technically advanced states."
But that's not the point. The point is, can one do this in a country which wants to put all the means to it, in a hidden way. A diffusion, or even a centrifuge plant, is a very big system. You can see it on satellite pictures, you need LARGE quantities of materials etc...No that is exactly the point. LIS can only produce micrograms of enriched material. To attempt to scale it up to weapons level with the current state of the art would not just be unprofitable it would be impractical to the point of impossibility. Heck, multiplying an LIS setup a million fold might just make it bigger than a centrifuge enrichment facility.
So that seems to work.In the lab! It is useless as a path to a weapon at the current state of the art.

Now, given that Greenpeace is in there, that might be fear mongering as usual, but give it 20 or 30 years, and I wouldn't say that laser isotope separation isn't going to be THE proliferation issue.That was my original point. LIF is no bother at present as a proliferation issue and it will likely stay that way unless a technically highly competent, but foolish, state pushes it hard.

[mheslep]

I see it this way: First of all, unlike the perfect battery or nuclear fusion, the problems remaining for algae are purely practical; not fundamental. So although I don't mean to minimize the difficulties in large-scale algae to fuel production, and there are plenty, I see nothing more than the typical sorts of engineering problems that I solve every day in order to make a living. What's more, at this time there are no other options, so we have no choice. We HAVE to make it work. I hope algae-oil works out, it appears to be perhaps the most promising bet. But I have not seen even an attempt made at an argument to defend the claim that there is no other choice.
Just to restate the subject of the thread for late comers: Nuclear power cannot solve the oil problem.So you claim, and it may be true, but I have not seen a good argument here for that thesis. Saying we don't have viable electric cars is specious. We don't have the required capacity today of algae oil, ethanol, nuclear, fossil oil reserves or any other source, to meet the predicted demand 10 years hence. And nuclear need not replace all fossil oil to solve the oil problem; just replacing imports would relieve the price pressure and availability issues. If you have a good technical argument as to why nuclear/E cars nor anything else but algae will work then I am all eyes.

[mheslep]

...Second element is what the systems produce, electricity is fine for many static appliances but it's less suitable for traffic and virtually worthless for aviation.

To remain flying, unless some magic thrust source is develloped, only high energy liquid fuels are usuable nowadays. This can be made from coal (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06229/714268-28.stm) using heat, which could be generated with nuclear means. However it can't be called sustainable as coal will deplete once.

So, considering the diversity of supply and demand, it seems that all feasible solutions should be used on the long term.Just so we know which function needs how much:
US Oil for transportation, yr 2007:
69% (and rising as oil is no longer preferred for E power generation)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/diagram2.html

Transportation breakdown, yr 2002:
light duty vehicles - 61%
commercial light trucks - 2%
heavy trucks - 14%
airplanes - 10%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/pdf/appa.pdf , table A7

So solve the cars and light trucks problem, possibly w/ plug-in hybrids, and then you'll ample left over for air transport.

[Ivan Seeking]

No, you don't seem to understand my point: in the total CO2 balance, not one single gram of CO2 is removed by the algae from the coal burning. Whether you put that coal burning CO2 directly to the atmosphere, or you first put it in algae and then to the atmosphere, it won't make a difference.

Of course, the use of the algae fuel (in a car for instance) will be CO2 neutral: what it absorbed during its growth, is released during the use of the fuel. If that replaces oil consumption, then you win. It is as if the car was working on solar. There's no discussion.
What happens here is that during growth, you remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and during use, you put it back.

But if you now make your algae grow in the CO2 from a coal fired plant, and not from atmospheric CO2, then you do NOT remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, but you will put it in the atmosphere when the algae fuel is burned. What you do then in the end is that you put the CO2 from the coal fired plant, in the atmosphere.

So making algae grow on coal fired CO2 doesn't do anything at diminishing the CO2 exhaust of a coal fired plant. That said, maybe it can stimulate its growth or anything, so if *in any case* that CO2 is going to go in the atmosphere, just as well use it one more time to do something useful. But you cannot say that algae are going to serve as a CO2 scrubber, implying that they would make coal burning clean of CO2 exhaust.

What I am saying is that if we grow algae with coal, we recycle the carbon for use as fuel. So rather than releasing the CO2 from coal directly, it is released when the autos burn the fuel. But it used twice and released once, so in effect we have either eliminated the emissions from coal, or we have eliminated the emissions from autos, but not both.

Close systems would allow for power generation without any emissions whatsoever, but that would not allow for the production of transportation fuels. However, if algae can be made practical for fuel production, the replacement of coal power with closed algae sytems is just a step away.

Algae from coal may be a practical intermediate step to an algae energy base. I know it isn't ideal, but it may be needed for economic reasons until the algae market is well established. When we have solved the fuel problem, we can start converting the coal plants to closed algae power systems.

[Ivan Seeking]

Algae can be used to remove CO2 from the global system if it is allowed to sink to the ocean floor or is otherwise sequestered. One company was trying to do this with open ocean blooms. In return they hoped to get carbon credits.

[GTrax]

What I am saying is that if we grow algae with coal, we recycle the carbon for use as fuel. So rather than releasing the CO2 from coal directly, it is released when the autos burn the fuel. But it used twice and released once, so in effect we have either eliminated the emissions from coal, or we have eliminated the emissions from autos, but not both.


Er.. "recycle the carbon for use as fuel" ? OK - I maybe just don't understand enough about the algae process energy balance. At what stage in the process did the algae contrive to put hydrogen back with the carbon to result in anything we might call "fuel"?

I am happier in thinking that the worlds best, most evolved, sun-seeking, space sharing, self propagating solar energy collectors with a built-in CO2 collection and long-term storage mechanisms are anything with leaves! If we ferment them after, and burn the product, we are at least neutral, but we should strive to repair some of the last two centuries worth of damage.

Could diverting some energy to desalination, and desert reclamation be a positive thing?

[Ivan Seeking]

Er.. "recycle the carbon for use as fuel" ? OK - I maybe just don't understand enough about the algae process energy balance. At what stage in the process did the algae contrive to put hydrogen back with the carbon to result in anything we might call "fuel"?

That is just about all that algae does. It absorbs CO2 and water to make a high quality fuel, using the energy from sunlight. It can be used to make ethanol, biodiesel, or hydrogen, but for now biodiesel is the best option.

[vanesch]

What I am saying is that if we grow algae with coal, we recycle the carbon for use as fuel. So rather than releasing the CO2 from coal directly, it is released when the autos burn the fuel. But it used twice and released once, so in effect we have either eliminated the emissions from coal, or we have eliminated the emissions from autos, but not both.


Again, you didn't "use it twice". You made biofuel for cars. So the cars are not going to emit a net amount of CO2, that's true. I thought that was the whole business: make biofuels for cars.

What doesn't make a difference at all, is whether those algae have been grown in the atmosphere, or in the exhaust of a coal fired plant. The coal fired plant puts, at the end of the day, a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Close systems would allow for power generation without any emissions whatsoever, but that would not allow for the production of transportation fuels. However, if algae can be made practical for fuel production, the replacement of coal power with closed algae sytems is just a step away.


Yes, that's using biofuel to make electricity. But I don't see what coal has to do with that ?


Algae from coal may be a practical intermediate step to an algae energy base. I know it isn't ideal, but it may be needed for economic reasons until the algae market is well established. When we have solved the fuel problem, we can start converting the coal plants to closed algae power systems.

Really, I don't see why you call that "algae from coal". They would grow just as well without the coal, no ? Algae make biofuel. With that biofuel, you can drive cars, or drive a biofuel power plant. All that is CO2-neutral in the long run. If you burn coal, you add CO2 to the atmosphere, irreversibly. The quantity of coal you've burned, will end up in the atmosphere.

[B. Elliott]

I've been following this thread from the beginning and just want to make sure i'm seeing the overall picture correctly; The algae would just be a way of harnessing the CO2 to use later?

Wouldn't progressing towards power production which (either now or eventually) emits no CO2 whatsoever, be the better approach?

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, you didn't "use it twice". You made biofuel for cars. So the cars are not going to emit a net amount of CO2, that's true. I thought that was the whole business: make biofuels for cars.

What doesn't make a difference at all, is whether those algae have been grown in the atmosphere, or in the exhaust of a coal fired plant. The coal fired plant puts, at the end of the day, a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The point is to make fuel for autos. But first: We did use the carbon twice, didn't we? Once to generate electricity from coal, and once to power a car?

The motivation for this is that it is easier to grow algae at the required rates if we provide supplemental CO2. Ideally this would all come from natural sources, but we can certainly use the CO2 from coal plants to get a jump start. Again, my thinking is that the sooner we can become profitable making fuel from algae, the better, and using coal fire exhuast is an excellent means to that end. But again, this would only be an intermediate step, because as you have shown, it doesn't solve the carbon problem entirely - we are still releasing the carbon from the coal. But we would not be releasing the carbon that would otherwise come from petroleum, so it is a net gain if we look at both the autos and the coal plant.

Yes, that's using biofuel to make electricity. But I don't see what coal has to do with that ?

Given the above motivation to use the CO2 from coal fire to quickly grow algae for biodiesel production, we are left with a coal plant exhausting into a field of semi-closed algae bioreactors. As soon as the algae industry evolves enough to produce fuel economically from ambient or natural sources of CO2, and in order to avoid releasing any more carbon from coal by making fuel for cars, we now replace the coal with algae biomass, or algae oil, and completely close the system. In principle, nothing goes into or out of the system except the end product of electrical power. The logic for this is that not only do we already have a bioreactor system next to the coal plant, but also that the plant can likely be converted to run on substitute fuel sources. So I am really just thinking of the economics here.


Really, I don't see why you call that "algae from coal". They would grow just as well without the coal, no ?

So the answer here is no. Algae can be grown without additional CO2, but it can be grown much more quickly and profitably if we have a source of CO2 beyond the ambient levels.

Algae make biofuel. With that biofuel, you can drive cars, or drive a biofuel power plant. All that is CO2-neutral in the long run. If you burn coal, you add CO2 to the atmosphere, irreversibly. The quantity of coal you've burned, will end up in the atmosphere.

Yes, we do agree, but looking at this with an eye to the economics, using coal exhaust may help to move things along more quickly as the industry struggles to take hold. Presumably, carbon taxes will eventually make coal power obsolete, and we can run everything on pure algae power derived from ambient, or would-be ambient CO2, such as from decaying biomass.

[Ivan Seeking]

I've been following this thread from the beginning and just want to make sure i'm seeing the overall picture correctly; The algae would just be a way of harnessing the CO2 to use later?

Wouldn't progressing towards power production which (either now or eventually) emits no CO2 whatsoever, be the better approach?

Hopefully I have explained my thinking in the post above. We don't have to have additional CO2 [beyond ambient] to grow algae, but it may help to get the industry started by making it more economical. Ultimately, if we can produce cost competitive fuels from algae using only ambient CO2, the fuel becomes carbon neutral - we only release into the atmosphere the carbon that was absorbed from it in order to grow the algae. So at that point we are not releasing any "new" CO2.

It is also possible that with a little more innovation, we will find that the incident solar flux and the ambient temperatures are the only limiting factors for algae growth, and we won't need the additonal CO2 to be profitable. But right now the struggle is to make algae based fuels profitable as quickly as possible. If we can do this while only solving part of the carbon problem initially, IMO we are still way ahead of where we are today.

Again, it appears that we have no other options to oil. And we won't make the change until the economics work. Ultimately, energy markets are driven by price and not by what makes sense, or by what we SHOULD do, so we have to be competitive in order to have any chance at all of success.

Eventually the price of fuel may be high enough that this will all be moot. Even the worst bioreactor designs appear to be profitable at $15 to $20 a gallon for oil.

We want to solve the carbon problem; there is no argument from me on that one. But we also have to think beyond carbon. If we don't solve the oil supply problem, and soon, carbon may be the least of our concerns. Already we have seen rioting and mass protests because of the price of oil, and India and China are coming online quickly; in the case of China, more quickly than we had hoped.

[Ivan Seeking]

The coal plants will be there whether or not we start building nuclear plants.

[vanesch]

T
The motivation for this is that it is easier to grow algae at the required rates if we provide supplemental CO2. Ideally this would all come from natural sources, but we can certainly use the CO2 from coal plants to get a jump start.


Ah, I didn't understand that it was somehow easier to grow algae with extra CO2.
A bit like plant growth in an aquarium, then ?

So your reasoning is: given that there will be still for some time coal fired or gas fired plants that *in any case* will put out a flow of CO2, let us just make use of it in the beginning to get the algae grow quicker. That makes sense.

Of course, there's a minor danger there on two levels: first of all, coal fired plants usually don't reside at the seaside (or do they ?), and second, one might concentrate on a species of algae (natural or bio-engineered) which are optimized to work in high-CO2 environments, which might not be adapted to atmospheric conditions. But I agree that these are minor considerations.


Given the above motivation to use the CO2 from coal fire to quickly grow algae for biodiesel production, we are left with a coal plant exhausting into a field of semi-closed algae bioreactors. As soon as the algae industry evolves enough to produce fuel economically from ambient or natural sources of CO2, and in order to avoid releasing any more carbon from coal by making fuel for cars, we now replace the coal with algae biomass, or algae oil, and completely close the system. In principle, nothing goes into or out of the system except the end product of electrical power. The logic for this is that not only do we already have a bioreactor system next to the coal plant, but also that the plant can likely be converted to run on substitute fuel sources. So I am really just thinking of the economics here.


That makes sense. But I think one should first concentrate on replacing oil for transport, before replacing coal for electricity. Now, if the boom is so quick that one can do it "all at once", then I don't mind. However, if growth is slow, I'd give preference to replacement for oil for transport, simply because there are no genuine alternatives available at this moment, while there is nuclear available for electricity (technology-wise).

In summary, if it takes you 10 years to switch everything (electricity + transport) to algae biofuel, then go ahead. If it takes you 40-50 years, then I'd give preference to algae for transport, and nuclear for electricity, because otherwise we will still have 3 or 4 decades of coal ahead.


So the answer here is no. Algae can be grown without additional CO2, but it can be grown much more quickly and profitably if we have a source of CO2 beyond the ambient levels.


This is what I hadn't figured out.

[NeoDevin]

Isn't algae oil basically just an efficient `battery' for solar power?

Which is more energy efficient, algae or solar cells?

[vanesch]

Isn't algae oil basically just an efficient `battery' for solar power?
Which is more energy efficient, algae or solar cells?

You are right that algae are a kind of battery for solar energy (just as fossil fuels are, in fact).
Solar cells aren't a battery for solar energy, they are an immediate conversion. I guess they are way more efficient still than the cycle: sunshine - algea growth - oil production - oil burning - electricity, but algae have the big advantage of producing oil when you can use it.

[NeoDevin]

Solar cells aren't a battery for solar energy, they are an immediate conversion. I guess they are way more efficient still than the cycle: sunshine - algea growth - oil production - oil burning - electricity, but algae have the big advantage of producing oil when you can use it.

I know solar cells aren't a battery. I meant to ask which was more efficient at converting solar energy to a useable form (electricity/chemical), which you answered anyways. (Has an actual comparison been done though?)

[GTrax]

Thanks Ivan
(I didn't know much about the algae)
That is just about all that algae does. It absorbs CO2 and water to make a high quality fuel, using the energy from sunlight. It can be used to make ethanol, biodiesel, or hydrogen, but for now biodiesel is the best option.

The key thing there is that at some stage, the algae receives energy from sunlight., and does something convenient.

So OK, we can expose algae farms to sunlight to do something convenient (take up CO2 put out by all the worlds naughty furnace burners and power stations and transport, and leave stuff that can be changed to fuel.). That is admirably logical, but I cannot shake off my emotional attachment to trees, and grasses, and crops, and teeming bio-diversity of pests and insects and little animals all presumably unfeasible in our brave new world of "let's grow our fuel"

[mheslep]

I know solar cells aren't a battery. I meant to ask which was more efficient at converting solar energy to a useable form (electricity/chemical), which you answered anyways. (Has an actual comparison been done though?)
Yes. Maximum possible efficiency of chemical energy capture via photosynthesis is 20-25%, I suspect Algae is the only player that can come anywhere close to that. Then note that energy is conveniently stored chemically until you need it, though when you do use the energy it will be via some heat engine and you will waste half at that time. Photovoltaic efficiency has been at ~12% for many years, and is just now commonly commercially available at 22%. Much more expensive (6 figures for a couple M^2) multi-band PVs such as the ones used on the Mars rovers pull >40%. And, there is research ongoing now using quantum dots that should achieve 60%. Solar is not 'stored', as has been stated many times here, unless its fed into a battery or other such device. However, if you do store the power in a battery you'll only waste 10-15% when using it later in a battery-electric motor system such as for a vehicle, vs 50% when burning fuel in a combustion engine.

[vanesch]

Yes. Maximum possible efficiency of chemical energy capture via photosynthesis is 20-25%, I suspect Algae is the only player that can come anywhere close to that.

I have no clue, but I'm amazed by that figure. So I googled a bit and I found this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRV-4S9R4K5-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d5765c1c54a03be6b821c39433029323

Abstract:

Photosynthesis is the source of our food and fiber. Increasing world population, economic development, and diminishing land resources forecast that a doubling of productivity is critical in meeting agricultural demand before the end of this century. A starting point for evaluating the global potential to meet this goal is establishing the maximum efficiency of photosynthetic solar energy conversion. The potential efficiency of each step of the photosynthetic process from light capture to carbohydrate synthesis is examined. This reveals the maximum conversion efficiency of solar energy to biomass is 4.6% for C3 photosynthesis at 30 °C and today's 380 ppm atmospheric [CO2], but 6% for C4 photosynthesis. This advantage over C3 will disappear as atmospheric [CO2] nears 700 ppm.


and:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm#1.2.1%20photosynthetic%20efficiency


The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation.


Adding a factor of about 1/3 for the Rankine cycle (steam cycle), we obtain finally of the order of 1 - 2 % solar efficiency. (1/2 is very optimistic, it is only reached in combined gas turbine - steam cycle plants)

[B. Elliott]

Hopefully I have explained my thinking in the post above. We don't have to have additional CO2 [beyond ambient] to grow algae, but it may help to get the industry started by making it more economical. Ultimately, if we can produce cost competitive fuels from algae using only ambient CO2, the fuel becomes carbon neutral - we only release into the atmosphere the carbon that was absorbed from it in order to grow the algae. So at that point we are not releasing any "new" CO2.

How much algae would be required, acreage-wise, to be a sufficient amount which could be used to produce power for cities and automobiles to drive off of? How quick is the return? ie