Is Natural Gas The Answer? Chinese Scientists Have Announced That They Have a Better One.
Sometimes holiday periods can interfere with keeping up with all of the news and opinions issued about an important topic like energy. On December 20. 2010, the National Journal asked 16 experts to provide commentary on the following question Is natural gas the answer? Unfortunately for the United States, there are apparently some influential people who believe that the answer is yes. If read with a proper understanding of the institutional biases of the people who wrote them, the views are not all that surprising, but the scary thing is that some of these views are making their way into the main stream of government policy.
Here is one example quote that gives me grave concerns about the kind of irrational exuberance that often occurs just before a bubble pops:
Does natural gas represent the answer to all questions surrounding America’s energy future? As a rifle-shot reply, probably not. But the very fact that a question like that is being asked in a forum like this suggests the landscape has changed dramatically, and for the better, since the days of antiquity (circa 2007) when everyone was certain we were running out of the stuff.
Thanks to the combination of two proven technologies (hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling) and the application of those technologies to tight formations deep underground, those folks look pretty silly today. According to an assessment released last year by the Potential Gas Committee, the United States could have as much as 3.22 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas potential within its borders – as much natural gas as Saudi Arabia has oil from an energy content perspective. Times two. EIA’s updated 2011 annual energy outlook paints a similar picture. Last year, the AEO suggested a future haul for shale of 347 trillion cubic feet. Twelve months later, that same report updated its shale estimates to 827 trillion cubic feet. But hey, what’s 500 trillion cubic feet among friends?
David Holt
President, Consumer Energy Alliance
I recently sent an email to the Energy Information Agency asking for an explanation of the assumptions and models that they use in developing the Annual Energy Outlook. Here is an excerpt from the reply that I received from a senior energy analyst with the EIA.
Namely, the reference case in our AEO projections is essentially based on current laws, regulations, and policies. That is, our reference case projects what will happen over the next 25 years IF NOTHING CHANGES. We assume that there are no new laws made relating to energy, no new Climate Change legislation, no new carbon controls, no new environmental policies on shale gas exploitation, etc. for the next 25 years. Can you imagine a situation in which Congress makes no new laws for the next 25 years? I can’t. Here at EIA, we all know that something is likely to be done with Climate Change and carbon controls. So our reference case is not really a forecast, so to speak. Rather, it’s a projection of what the USA will look like if no new laws and policies are made.
In other words, if you think that 3.22 quadrillion cubic feet is an incomprehensibly large number, you should understand a couple of things. First of all, annual US consumption of natural gas is already running at about 0.023 quadrillion (23 trillion) cubic feet per year. Even if all of the 3.22 quadrillion cubic feet that makes David Holt so giddy were accessible and even if we did NOT increase our rate of consumption, that resource would last only 140 years. What might happen if utilities decide that doubling their gas consumption is the right way to keep the lights on with increased restrictions on coal combustion? What will happen as that 140 years of resources shrinks rapidly with increasing annual consumption? Unrealistic romantics dream of a future powered just by the wind, water, and sun, but no one anywhere has figured out how to make any of those sources perform on command.
As the EIA analyst points out, the 140 year shale gas resource is accessible ONLY if there are NO additional restrictions put on hydraulic fracturing – I find that difficult to imagine given the very real negative impacts that the continuous drilling requires.
In a contrasting story, a group of Chinese scientists and engineers working at number 404 factory in the Gobi Desert announced on Monday, January 3, 2010 that they had proven to themselves that they had mastered used nuclear fuel recycling technology. By investing in continued development of that technology, they expect that they will be able to extract 60 times as much energy out of every kilogram of uranium as they do today.
That announcement was not about some kind of miraculous scientific breakthrough; it was about learning how to do something that many others have known how to do for several decades. The big difference is that the Chinese fully intend to use and improve their techniques to make what some observers have called a 50-70 year supply of uranium last as long as 3000-4200 years. That is an achievement that comes very close to qualifying as a response to a follow to the question that the National Journal asked.
If the answer to the National Journal’s question “Is natural gas the answer?” is a resounding No – as it is for me – then the next question that should follow is “Then what is?” My response is that the answer is uranium and thorium, which produce massive quantities of controllable heat that can be used for human needs and wants. The already discovered resource will last for thousands of years (not barely 100) and it will provide that energy without any emissions (not half as many units of CO2 per unit of heat as coal or oil.)
“…they expect that they will be able to extract 60 times as much energy out of every kilogram of uranium as they do today.” What? Where is this number coming from? What reprocessing cycle yields this sort of net gain? Not PUREX. or one of its modifications.
“What reprocessing cycle yields this sort of net gain? Not PUREX. or one of its modifications.”
Well, they’re obviously talking about breeding from the U-238.
(short answer) If they are reprocessing, they don’t have to manage fuel for higher burn-ups; reducing the need for burnable neutron poisons in the fresh fuel. More neutrons will now be available to go and breed additional fuel.
China was using Russian expertise to launch a small research reactor in summer 2010, the course is on a closed fuel cycle (I think). Russian research reactors, rather, indicates 70 times the energy output. Most exciting, I think it is the Indian three-stage nuclear power program. Already this year we will see if they succeed in a large reactor with what they managed to do since April 2008 in research reactors. This makes nuclear power as almost free in countries like the U.S. and Sweden with large funds for final disposal, the fuel will have a high negative price. Gas power can not compete with ‘free’ ..
Sweden can convert their waste to the country’s entire need for electrical and chemical energy in nearly 500 years, start paying with waste funds.
I am sure that today’s waste is tomorrow’s resources.
Yours sincerely Gunnar Littmarck
How can reprocessing get 60 times the energy?
What I can see you have to burn almost every thing for that number.
I will son know, this kind of news will likely come out soon.
*** I am sure that today’s waste is tomorrow’s resources
You and several thousands smart people from the nuclear industry around the world… The trouble is that countries like France and Russia which are willing to be paid to “take care of the waste” are not willing to manifest the real value of this resource …
Making electricity is a team sport and Rod is not a team player. Rod likes to get upset by things so he go looking for things to get upset about. Here is the question from the National Journal.
That last post was mine.
There are reports of a deal with Russia by China for two BN800 reactors. Russia has 30 years of experience with the BN 600. There are claims that it proved to be the most reliable in their fleet. The BN 800 is reported to be rated at between 800 and 900 mWh. The first BN 800 is expected to become operational this year. Too bad that olur government got cold feet on the IFR. The real shame is that oor DOE has such a small R&D budget. We appear to be doomed to be bested by several other nations when it comes to energy innovation. We unfortlunately have been sidetracked subsidizing expensive, diffuse and intemittent wind energy.
It’s probably worth pointing out that the uranium reserves in question (by themselves) wouldn’t really represent a 3000 – 4000 year supply. It’s hard to say for sure, but it’s likely that if nuclear breeder reactor technology really takes off in a big way, we’ll start using more and more nuclear power (doing things like synthesizing fuels, desalinating water on large scales, new industrial processes that use more electrical power in lieu of coal or gas, powering networks of electric rail through more of the world than we currently do, charging electric vehicles, etc), so, because of increased consumption, that 3000-4000 might conceivably drop down to as “little” as 1000 years supply.
However, of course, as most of you know, there are other sources of Uranium (phosphates, seawater extraction) as well as the Thorium that Rod mentions, so even at very high levels of consumption, if they’re breeding the fuel, they will definitely be able to power their country for many thousands of years – just *maybe* not on the ‘current’ supplies.
The answer is right under our feet. It is the hydrogen fusion that produces heavy helium in volcanic vents. This “Contolled Fusion” is discrete and spread over the entire earth mantile in cavitation inplosions involving Borax and water. Sound like a Chinese plot or Russian for that matter? Well, if imitation of natural processes is a plot then Rod should jump on this and get to the source of the matter. It is application of this process to produce direct conversion of fusion energy to electricity or even using it’s thermal qualities to drive a Carnot Rankine axial flow conbined cycle green steam machine to produce electricity in a more conventional manner. Hey, it is down there and Congress is certain it will take more time to develope the resource….like when Hell freezes over!
Judging from the article, the natural gas people have certainly gotten their ducks in a row, though the controversy over fracking may throw a kink into their plans.
Unfortunately, the casualties of a switch to gas for power generation will likely be US heavy industry, as gas is an essential feedstock for the chemical industry, at the least, and as prices go up, jobs will be lost. So much for full employment.
Burnable neutron poisons are necessary regardless in most LWR cores, and reprocessing is not a substitute for proper in-core fuel management.
Seems like low burn-up fuel would reduce the shielding requirement (and cost) for reprocessing of the fuel. Of course that might make diversion easier though.
Burnup is one of the key factors determining the isotopic composition of spent nuclear fuel, the others being its initial composition and the neutron spectrum of the reactor. Low fuel burnup is essential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons, in order to produce plutonium that is predominantly 239Pu with the smallest possible proportion of 240Pu and 242Pu. That is not consistent with higher utilization, or lower reactivity (reducing the shielding requirement.) IMHO this is a case of typically poor reportage, rather than anything revolutionary.
The DOE can always use more money, after all, energy security in domestic sources of supply is real “homeland security”.
You’re incomprehensible.
Try again.
Natural gas does look like its going to be the fuel of the decade. But in the long run nothing can overcome nuclear’s inherent advantages.
Not just reprocessing by itself. Recycling from LWRs and operation of fast spectrum reactors. It is a multi-stage technology effort.
They are also using the DUPIC cycle where by LWR spent fuel is reburned in their CANDUs without reprocessing.
<blockquote>Burnable neutron poisons are necessary regardless in most LWR cores, and reprocessing is not a substitute for proper in-core fuel management.</blockquote>
Use thorium instead of poisons. There’s no reason to throw neutrons away when you can make fuel with them; Shippingport showed that.
OT, Rod, but necessary:
I wish you’d get rid of js-kit comments. They have no preview, no list of allowed HTML, no comment perma-links, and no back-link to the originating blog post. The one level of threading you get isn’t worth the gross deficiencies; Blogger comments are arguably better on the merits.
Engineer-Poet – good points for consideration. I am not terribly satisfied with the current choices either.
Increasing fuel utilization allows pricier uranium resource for the same cost. With breeders we may as well extract uranium from the seas, and have billions years worth of supply.
See: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
Fracking has “insignificant environmental impact”? Or is this to be a joke?
Dan Yurman writing for Fuel Cycle Week makes some sense of this story
@Guest: Yes that’s true. But this article is, I believe, referring to a fixed/static amount of fuel, and saying the “current” supply of 50-70 years *worth of energy* can be extended to produce 60 times as much energy. The problem with the “years worth of energy” as a unit of comparison or estimation is that the number of years of energy you get is determined by how rapidly you use that energy up.
Perhaps the range of 50-70 years already includes within that range the necessary room for possible future growth in energy consumption – I’m not sure how that range was come upon.
It just appears to me that the ‘range’ of years is so ‘tight’ that the estimates must be based upon current consumption levels, *and* current reserves. You’re correct that as price rises, more reserves will likely be discovered, and yes, we can *probably* harvest uranium from the oceans pretty much forever.
Of course, as long as we make our current reserves last long *enough* it might be that down the road, terrestrial fusion power will become a reality, then we have an even *more* inexhaustible energy supply than even uranium + thorium can provide. That’s why, I’m personally not worried whether or not we have 5 Billion years’ supply of uranium and thorium – just using fission for a century or two until we bring fusion online seems like it would be sufficient, *probably*. Even if you’re really pessimistic and don’t think we’ll have fusion power within the next hundred years, it seems like it will happen *eventually*, as long as we have enough power for our civilization to last until then, and nuclear can *easily* provide that power for thousands of years with known reserves.
In truth, we probably shouldn’t mine any more uranium (we probably will, just because it’s cheaper). We already have enough fuel supplies with breeding to last thousands of years, as this article discusses, so personally, I think it’s time to shut down the Uranium mines (or at least, begin to plan to shut them down within a few decades’ time). That’s not going to happen right away, but that’s my opinion on what would be best.
On the main Atomic Insights page there are various articles (about Yucca Mountain and about LMFBRs, for instance) that have the tagline “Right Answer, Wrong Question”.
The same is true of natural gas — it IS the answer, to the question “How do I get sufficient campaign contributions to be re-elected?”
Mr. Adams is correct in pointing out that there are many variables — from new regulations to increased consumption — that will influence our decisions on energy production and could make the United States’ large reserves of natural gas look less large years from now. That is precisely why CEA believes that the United States must tap a broad range of energy sources in order to achieve a more secure energy future. In the face of rapidly growing demand, we will have to produce both traditional and alternative sources of energy: oil and wind, solar and nuclear, and natural gas. Of course, we don’t believe that natural gas is the sole answer to our energy future. We understand that the U.S. energy market is massive and complex and constantly changing. But natural gas must be an important part of the mix going forward. No matter how you measure it, 3.22 quadrillion cubic feet is nothing to sneeze at. As we see it, a national energy strategy based on a broad range of resouces makes a lot more sense than Mr. Adams’ assertion that “uranium and thorium” are, as he says, the answer to all of our future energy challenges.
Strangely enough I don’t see any nuclear power companies in your list of affiliates Mindy-Lee, but many from the fossil fuel sector.
I have nothing against using moderate amounts of coal, oil or gas. I just do not believe that our consumption rate of any of those limited resources should increase. We need to leave as much as possible of those valuable and difficult to replace fossil fuels for the use of many future generations.