Natural gas suppliers have no doubts about climate change
After receiving an email asking me to participate in a poll for the American Nuclear Society, I asked the following question of my Twitter followers.
Would the American Natural Gas Society poll its members to find out if they should stop marketing the “low-carbon” aspect of their product?
— Rod Adams (@Atomicrod) August 8, 2013
Coincidentally, I found a new ad produced by the Shell Oil Company that provides clear evidence that the natural gas industry has no internal conflicts about marketing their product as a solution to climate change. They have no fear of emphasizing the fact that it has lower carbon than coal. They also like pointing out that natural gas fired power plants can be built faster, with a lower capital investment than coal, nuclear, and onshore wind.
Aside: I was amused by the way that Shell dismissed offshore wind with the following words about their capital costs – “not to mention offshore wind” plants. End Aside.
Not surprisingly, Shell’s ad is careful to refer to natural gas as the “cleanest fossil fuel”.
The ad also avoids mentioning the enormous capital investment and lengthy construction time frame required to add new fuel supply infrastructure. Both long distance pipelines and liquified natural gas (LNG) processing facilities require tens of billions of dollars and decades worth of lead time to arrange all of the required permits and rights of way.
Nothing about the short commercial lifespan of shale wells, or the human toll of the boom towns once they go bust.
Meanwhile, reactors just keep cranking out the watts year in and year out.
E-P,
You should have at least gone with Megawatts, if not Giga for your last sentence there.
Rod,
I received the same ANS survey request. I need to remember to fil that out sometime this weekend.
Don’t get between a dry-witted poet and his understatement.
Nicely understated then, E-P.
The gas magnates only have to hold off the Nuclear Renaissance until interest rates start rising, as they inevitably will as soon as the Fed stops squirting $65 billion/month in Boy Scout water on the economic fire.
The high cost of capital will then be cited as the rationale for avoiding multi-billion dollar energy projects which have many regulators and lawyered-up opponents, but few government patrons.
This “could” change with the stroke of a pen, but the electorate seems to keep handing Bics to the wrong people.
A bit off topic here but I just heard that the UK has ‘opened’ the second largest off shore wind farm in the world.
Then I learn in the same article, the the biggest off shore wind farm in the world is again a creation of the UK.
How are things going. We know Germany is sinking with renewables and the Denmark has big issues with wind.
I mean off the coast of England …
You can follow the UK energy market at the following link (hint wind is not a very large player):
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php
And the US seems to have a big problem of its own repealing State Renewable energy laws as conflict of interests seem to make it hard to reverse the status quo.
Renewable subsidies will increase the cost of electricity because of some vested interests that want to keep making money off the scam. Caught in a loop ? I hate to say so.
Here is the article :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/08/state-renewable-energy-laws-turn-out-to-be-really-hard-to-repeal/
We still dont have a solid answer on leakage rates. Even the NG we are using could be worse than coal for GGs.
@John T Tucker
To be fair, coal mining also releases methane. In fact, coal bed methane was the unconventional natural gas that was the rage in the 1990s.
I made exactly that point at the roundtable after the local showing of “Pandora’s Promise”.
true. and now we have both.
Let’s see what a key climate scientist Richard Muller thinks about the use of natural gas (methane) in our modern societies. There are some good and some bad aspects, but on the whole he concludes:
“A switch from coal to natural gas, even if substantial amounts of the gas leak (even above 10%), still offers to slow the long--term greenhouse warming by a factor of order 2. Of course, even greater benefit occurs if the leakage is lower.”
A recent EPA report says that there is only 1.7% gas leakage.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/fugitive-methane-and-greenhouse-warming.pdf
http://berkeleyearth.org/memos
@jaagu
I’m getting the impression that you favor natural gas over nuclear. Is that a correct interpretation of your comments here?
@ Rod
Yes based on economics natural gas makes more sense than nuclear for at least the next 30 years or unless new nuclear plants can compete with natural gas.
@jaagu
Can you honestly look at the history of natural gas prices and confidently predict prices over next 30 years?
How do you feel about nuclear versus gas in places like Japan and Western Europe?
Do you discount the quality advantage of nuclear versus gas for electricity production?
Joe Romm of all people questions whether gas is better than coal.
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/258771/bridge-or-gangplank-study-finds-methane-leakage-gas-fields-high-enough-gut-climate
It’s like a cow telling us that field greens might be no better tasting than steak.
I shouldn’t want to spoil the plot, but prepare for the obvious conclusion: So long as they only blow out 2% of the methane into the atmosphere as ground seeped production waste, all is rosy for natch gas production.
For me, it lends a great deal of credibility that the water table can indeed be spoiled at least for a time from fracked natural gas production.
And let’s not worry about the risk of earthquakes that fracking brings about … We’ll get there when we’ll get there …
@ Bill Hannahan
Joe Romm did not read the Richard Muller memo where he shows gas is better than coal.
Well, this coming Thursday on the Military Channel(!) a show at 10:00 called “Zero Hour” is featuring a story called “Meltdown,” so it’d be interesting just how accurately and calmly (cough) the producers portray Doomsday — I mean the incident, and coyly indict all nuclear plants around the world as barely in-control bulging radioactive balloons that just can’t wait to _inevitably_ blow. (I’m just guessing that’ll be the subtle message, but then I could be wrong. Should I hold my breath?).
James Greenidge
Queens NY
I was a bit confused by your message, because I remember that the Zero Hour documentary on Chernobyl was pretty good (certainly, the Depleted Cranium blog linked to it once). I now realize you’re referring to a different Zero Hour series — I think the one you’re referring to is a conspiracy thriller series, rather than the documentary series which started in 2004.
The European natural gas experiment (specifically Germany) seems to still be going ever further off the rails. We have had a rather mild and wet summer here in the Eastern US when compared to the last few years. Not so in Germany. A recent heat wave in July sent energy prices soring and after some unusual cold early on in the year their energy use is actually up while their electricity use is down. They are still backtracking to coal due to high natural gas prices.
Platts: European Power Prices Rose Nearly 20% in July on Heatwave ( http://www.platts.com/pressreleases/2013/080613/no )
ANALYSIS: German 4 GW new coal plants in testing after first fire ( http://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/london/analysis-german-4-gw-new-coal-plants-in-testing-26170384 )
German H1 primary energy use up 4% as gas gains, power drops ( http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/german-h1-primary-energy-use-up-4-as-gas-gains-26153846 )
The whole European energy mess looks to me to be fostering more pollution and and economic hardship.
So Im assuming electric power is used for AC in Germany and the heatwave will increase electric consumption in later reports? That slight increase in use wont be related to increased economic activity. Of course. It will be an additional expense.
The real disaster in the European thing is despite the increases in intermittent capacity and a decreases in electricity use electric bills are still going up drastically. (Britain and Germany) Germany has been granting exemptions to certain industries and its getting quite expensive (and controversial).
Germans grow skeptical over shift to renewables
In 2013, the price of electricity is expected to rise as surcharge exceptions granted by the state exceed 7 billion euros ($9.3 billion) for the first time in a year, the International Economic Forum for Renewable Energies calculated. ( http://www.dw.de/germans-grow-skeptical-over-shift-to-renewables/a-17013961 )
A bit OT, but on the subject of Germany, the most recent IEA Monthly Electricity Stats shows electricity generation from wind, solar, geo, other to be down 13.6% in the period Jan-Apr 2013 as compared to the corresponding period in 2012. That is despite more installed capacity.
http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/mes.pdf
This year on year variation seems to attract little attention, but seems quite real. The notion that long term storage (possibly except pumped hydro if resources were available) is ever going to deal with this seems fanciful.
That is odd. Weather? I never really understood why but solar also suffers a significant loss in capacity after the first year. Wind generally needs a complete overhaul after 10.
Their hydro is having a good year.
Doing a bit of catch-up came across this. Its weird as the Durham University study was billed in the headlines at least, as somewhat absolving of fracking. TMI wasn’t all that we know here, yet a major EQ in or near a populated area very well could be. Anyway here are the relevant articles (note the headline as opposed to the statement in print of the second one ) :
What Shale Oil and Gas Can Learn from Nuclear
If fracking could, as the Durham study suggests, lead to a major earthquake, that event would be as catastrophic for shale oil and gas recovery as Three Mile Island was for nuclear power. And if the public comes to believe that earthquakes are triggered by fracking, then the hope of energy independence will be doomed and the 1970s could be replayed. ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/What-Shale-Oil-and-Gas-Can-Learn-from-Nuclear.html )
Fracking Doesn’t Cause Significant Earthquakes, Study Says
The Durham study of hundreds of thousands of fracking operations since 1929 found the process has the potential to reactivate dormant faults, the university said. ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/fracking-doesn-t-cause-significant-quakes-university-study-says.html )
This is the relevant manuscript I believe :
Induced Seismicity and Hydraulic Fracturing for the Recovery
of Hydrocarbons ( http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/refine/InducedSeismicityfull.pdf )
The disturbing conclusions seemed to be pretty much ignored in the popular press (At least i haven’t seen much coverage)
– Hydraulic fracturing is not an important mechanism for
causing felt earthquakes
– Fault reactivation due to hydraulic fracturing is well known and readily detected
– Hydraulic fracturing will probably induce felt seismicity in the future
Thats kinda worrisome and the preemptive opinion article I linked above on public perception over at oilprice makes it even more so.
The induced seismicity was the death-knell of a geothermic project in Basel, in Switzerland a few years ago ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity_in_Basel
And a new project is at risk of meeting the same fate since last month :
http://strangesounds.org/2013/07/man-made-earthquake-in-switzerland-geothermal-drilling-triggers-a-magnitude-3-6-earthquake-near-st-gallen.html
Cameco Investor Relation:
After posting their last results, Cameco had a lengthy discussion with investors. One point they did not address was if China had resumed construction on their inland reactors, which they now have according to Cameco. (we know the costal reactors were given the go ahead a while ago)
Also Japan has 2 reactors that were not finished prior to Fukushima. They are now forging ahead (and a while ago it would seem)
Note: At the time Rod was dubitative as to why inland reactors in China were still being put on hold and coastal reactors were moving ahead. Rod did not see the risk of Tsunami on inland reactors. But the reason the inland reactors were stopped was because of a worry in sourcing water to cool the reactors in case of a mishaps.
A few days ago I agreed NG was low carbon. But now I think that was ignorance on my part. Burning NG is a efficient way of making CO2. A primary result is CO2. Its not “low carbon” – its more efficient than other fuels at making energy and CO2 perhaps but has its own issues as well.
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O –> or whatever component you burn the result will always be CO2.
@ Rod
Can you honestly look at the history of natural gas prices and confidently predict prices over next 30 years?
Reply: I do not look at the future in the rear view mirror. Shale gas is currently being discovered in China, Russia, Argentina, Algeria, Mexico, UK and many others places.
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
How do you feel about nuclear versus gas in places like Japan and Western Europe?
Reply: In the short term they are struggling without some nuclear power plants. This will be settled when they tap into great shale gas revolution, develop more wind and solar, and take another look at small nuclear reactors in about a decade.
Do you discount the quality advantage of nuclear versus gas for electricity production?
Reply: I am not aware of quality advantage terminology. Please explain.
@jaagu
Shale gas exists, but it is not cheap. Shale gas production, in combination with a devastating recession, has been sufficient to temporarily drive down the market price of gas IN NORTH AMERICA low enough to fool some people, but not everyone.
My point about Western Europe and Japan is that gas there is not “cheap”; current prices are 3-5 times the US price, making new nuclear plants economic winners, even without capital cost improvement.
Electricity quality is measured by characteristics like reliability, frequency & voltage stability, cost predictability, and volume of the associated waste products. Nuclear electricity wins over gas on several of those measures.
@ Rod
Shale gas and conventional gas are predicted to be abundant and cheap for at least 25 to 30 years by EIA, IEA and gas companies. The utility companies and gas turbine manufacturers are proceeding accordingly.
Here is the EIA projection:
World natural gas consumption increases by 64 percent in the Reference case, from 113 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 185 trillion cubic feet in 2040. Although the global recession resulted in an estimated decline of 3.6 trillion cubic feet in natural gas use in 2009, robust demand returned in 2010 with an increase of 7.7 trillion cubic feet, or 4 percent higher than demand in 2008, before the downturn. Natural gas continues to be the fuel of choice for the electric power and industrial sectors in many of the world’s regions, in part because of its lower carbon intensity compared with coal and oil, which makes it an attractive fuel source in countries where governments are implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, it is an attractive alternative fuel for new power generation plants because of relatively low capital costs and the favorable heat rates for natural gas generation. The industrial and electric power sectors together account for 77 percent of the total projected world increase in natural gas consumption.
An outlook for strong growth in reserves and production contributes to the strong competitive position of natural gas among other energy sources. Significant changes in natural gas supplies and global markets continue. The largest production increases from 2010 to 2040 in the Reference case (Figure 4) occur in non-OECD Europe and Eurasia (18.9 trillion cubic feet), the OECD Americas (15.9 trillion cubic feet), and the Middle East (15.6 trillion cubic feet). The United States and Russia each increase natural gas production by around 12 trillion cubic feet, together accounting for nearly one-third of the total increase in world gas production. Russia’s production growth is supported mainly by increasing exploitation of the country’s resources in the Arctic and eastern parts of the country. U.S. production growth comes mainly from shale resources.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/more_highlights.cfm
————————
Western Europe and Japan are not investing in natural gas imports as much as they are investing in coal imports. They are mainly building coal fired plants until they find shale, conserve more energy and get more wind energy production. In the short term coal is cheaper than nuclear in Western Europe and Japan.
———————–
Reliability: nuclear is same as combined cycle natural gas
Frequency & voltage stability: nuclear is same as combined cycle natural gas
Cost predictability: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Volume of associated waste products: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Here are some more:
Fuel costs: nuclear is better than combined cycle natural gas
Decommissioning costs: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Hazardous waste: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Capital costs: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Rapid load following: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Construction schedule: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Maintenance costs: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Security costs: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
Cooling water impact: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas
@jaagu
The Energy Information Agency (EIA) is a great source for historical data. They have good processes for gathering facts and good statisticians that competently analyze those facts.
However, their record for accuracy in projecting the future is less than stellar. It is not easy to find their old reports on line, but if you go to a library, you can find that they once projected that there would be 1000 large nuclear plants in the US by 2000. In the 1990s, they were predicting that nearly all operating nuclear plants would be decommissioned at the end of their 40 year initial license.
Not too long ago, they issued reports in which a recalculation of shale reservoirs dropped by 45% or more. A number of documents exist that show that many analysts within the agency question the official projections.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-5.html
In other words, I do not believe the projections.
How can you expect me to take you seriously when you make the following statement?
“Volume of associated waste products: nuclear is worse than combined cycle natural gas”
Even if you include low level waste products, nuclear plants produce a TINY volume of waste that is stored in just a couple of licensed sites in the entire country. Burning natural gas produces at least 400 grams of waste for every single kilowatt hour produced and that waste is in the form of a gas that has to be dumped into our shared atmosphere because it is virtually impossible to capture and store in any kind of economical way.
Rod – Anyone who has followed the “energy outlook” publications over the years and who is familiar with their (poor) track record would agree with you. The EIA’s projections are nearly worthless as predictions.
To be fair to the EIA, however, they’re not really meant to be real predictions, since the uncertainties in their assumptions are too large for that. Their projections are really just a wild guess that they can use as a “Reference Case” for sensitivity analyses of their assumptions, which is the real value in these reports.
Unfortunately, someone who never reads beyond the “highlights” will not understand this.
With this in mind, the International Energy Outlook is not the most useful report, since it doesn’t include many of these sensitivity analyses. It’s useful as a snapshot of the worldwide energy picture today, but its projections need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
A much better resource is the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook, which contains sensitivity analyses on just about every topic. The analyses in the latest edition show that electricity generation from both nuclear and natural gas depend more on oil and gas prices than on what happens with nuclear relicensing and new builds. In addition, they show that pessimistic assumptions for nuclear power result in higher electricity prices and increased GHG emissions (both mostly due to natural gas), whereas optimistic assumptions for nuclear power result in the opposite.
@ Rod
Your concerns with EIA are over blown and old issues. Current information about natural gas reserves is solid. I only noted EIA as one source. Do you also reject IEA as being credible? There are many more sources I can reference if you are still concerned that natural gas will not be around as the lead fuel for power plants in the next 25 years.
@ Rod
Since you consider CO2 to be a pollutant and waste product, you are correct that combined cycle gas turbine plants generate a greater volume than nuclear power plants.
Considering all the other electrical quality items I mentioned for combined cycle gas turbines you must admit that they are superior to nuclear except for CO2 emissions and fuel costs.
@jaagu
I also consider NOX and CH4 to be pollutants and waste products.
Minimizing the importance of low, stable fuel prices and zero emissions certainly makes gas look more competitive. As you correctly have pointed out, your former employer has a lot more interest in building new gas plants than in building new nuclear plants.
I’m pretty certain that your retirement accounts include a substantial portion of stock in that company.
I’ll grant there are plenty of sources that agree with your assertion that gas can do it all. Would you care to make a public wager on the price of gas during the next three years?
@jaagu
One more thing:
Shale gas and conventional gas are predicted to be abundant and cheap for at least 25 to 30 years by EIA, IEA and gas companies. The utility companies and gas turbine manufacturers are proceeding accordingly.
In the 1990s, the EIA and the gas companies were publicly predicting that gas would remain abundant and cheap for decades. Independent power producers and gas turbine manufacturers proceeded accordingly. The result of that mass movement of lemmings was a number of high profile bankruptcies and a gas turbine market in which brand new machines were selling for 20-60 cents on the dollar because the company that ordered them could not afford to take delivery. (I have a couple of classmates who made their living buying cheap gas turbines and reselling them in overseas markets.)
The gas companies that made the predictions and encouraged everyone to build gas turbines and CCGTs to the exclusion of all other power systems laughed all the way to the bank. One big problem with combined cycle plants compared to boilers is that they have no fuel flexibility; the only option is to burn distillate fuel, which costs even more per unit of heat and which comes from the same suppliers as natural gas.
The blood letting for the gas burning IPPs and utilities did not end until 2008, when they were saved by a recession driven drop in gas demand that allowed our rather small storage volume to fill up, causing a price collapse.
Production has not increased anywhere near as much as some would have us believe.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010us2m.htm
@ Rod
I do not remember the 1990’s as a period of downturn for the gas turbine power industry. There was a major downturn in the 1980’s which was mainly caused by legislation which put limits on the use of natural gas for power generation from late 1970s to late 1980s.
In the late 1980’s when the natural gas usage restriction for power generation was rescinded, new gas turbines and combined cycle gas turbines were again brought into operation. In early 1990’s the first combined cycle power plants were reaching thermal efficiencies greater than 50%. Bechtel performed the design and construction for some of these early combined cycle gas turbine power plants. From the mid 1990’s to the present, combined cycle gas turbines have been on a steady growth curve.
In the late 1990’s combined cycle plants were reaching the 60% thermal efficiency barrier, and now the newest combined cycle plants are beyond 60% thermal efficiency.
@jaagu
Please reread my comment. I agreed that gas turbine sales were strong throughout the 1990s bandwagon market. A big factor in that herd behavior was the projection from the EIA and the gas companies that natural gas was abundant enough to keep prices constrained to a rate of increase lower than general inflation.
The bad time for gas turbine power plant sales and for the independent power producers was from 2000-2008.
Rod writes:
As you correctly have pointed out, your former employer has a lot more interest in building new gas plants than in building new nuclear plants.
Reply: Bechtel is in the business of making money. They are currently working on Watts Bar unit 2 completion, steam generator replacements, and operating plant services. Building new nuclear plants in the US is very limited with only two plants in construction. So Bechtel makes much more money in building natural gas fired power plants because the size of the market is so huge.
I’m pretty certain that your retirement accounts include a substantial portion of stock in that company.
Reply: Bechtel retirement accounts consist of 401K contributions. Upon retirement I converted the 401K to an IRA account. So I do not have any ties to Bechtel since my retirement.
I’ll grant there are plenty of sources that agree with your assertion that gas can do it all. Would you care to make a public wager on the price of gas during the next three years?
Reply: Sure I will. I say that Henry Hub natural gas prices will not rise above $6 per MMBTU from now until September 1, 2016, based on 1% inflation. The $6 is the highest Henry Hub price during the last 4 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natural_Gas_Price_Comparison.png
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/natural-gas/all/
@jaagu
Reply: Sure I will. I say that Henry Hub natural gas prices will not rise above $6 per MMBTU from now until September 1, 2016, based on 1% inflation. The $6 is the highest Henry Hub price during the last 4 years.
You’re on. I’ll wager any amount from $100-$1,000 that Henry Hub price will exceed $6 before September 1, 2016. You pick the amount.
Rod writes:
The blood letting for the gas burning IPPs and utilities did not end until 2008, when they were saved by a recession driven drop in gas demand that allowed our rather small storage volume to fill up, causing a price collapse.
Production has not increased anywhere near as much as some would have us believe.
—————–
Production has increased over 25% from 2006 to 2012.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010us2A.htm
@jaagu
You picked a fairly low base year for comparison. Natural gas production is within 25% of its 1970 level today. That’s not a huge growth story over time, and certainly does not support the narrative of the industry that gas can do it all and continue the production growth rate of 2006-2012 while keeping prices low.
Please understand my position. I think methane is a wonderful resource. I like the positive effect it has on the economy and on the lifestyle of lower and middle class people when prices are low. I want future generations, past my grandchildren to have access to abundant resources for important applications like plastics production, oil cracking, and space heat.
I think the best way to achieve my goals is to displace as much gas as possible out of the power generation business by continuing to operate every available nuclear plant, operating reasonably modern coal plants, and building a large number of new nuclear plants.
My goals conflict with the desires of a whole bunch of people for whom business is JUST about making money. (I’m hopelessly idealistic and believe there is more to life and business than maximizing short term profits.)
Rod writes: You’re on. I’ll wager any amount from $100-$1,000 that Henry Hub price will exceed $6 before September 1, 2016. You pick the amount.
——————–
Being in retirement on a fixed income requires me to be frugal. Therefore, I will go for $50. If I win you can donate $50 to the American Lung Association. If you win, I’ll mail it to you at any place you desire.
@jaagu
My favorite charity at the moment is the Nuclear Literacy Project (http://nuclearliteracy.org/). I expect they will be happy to recieve your donation.
Of course, they would be happier if you had been a little more prudent with your savings and investments during your distinguished career at Bechtel. Prudent savings might have enabled you to be willing to risk more than the cost of a single meal at a decent restaurant in support of your confidence that natural gas prices would remain constrained.
I think it is enlightening that you believe that it is logical for utilities to risk the future prosperity of the United States by putting all of their eggs into the natural gas basket, yet you are so restrained in your own willingness to take a risk on the future behavior of gas prices.
The game is on.
You are both under arrest.
@Rod
You are being snotty and making assumptions about my financial situation. You have no information about my financial situation and what major expenses I may have with family and health problems. It would be more professional to stick to the subject rather than delve in personal attacks. You should delete your post.
Sorry for making an assumption based on your claim to be retired and living “on a fixed income.”
Don’t kill a watt… Megawatt
I meant to say “Don’t kill a watt, Mega (clean)Watt…
@Jaagu, I feel compelled to offer my two cents… You say “I am not aware of quality advantage terminology” (about electricity from NG or nuclear). Yes, the difference is that electricity that is produced by FF’s is increasing excess CO2 which have been proven to impose physical and chemical adverse effects, not on just a single locale, but upon the air and oceans of an entire planet. By that, I mean the actual observed evidence of increased pH balance of the oceans, the observed excess in the air, and the known fact that it is an infrared absorber.
There should be no reason, other than BAU, that a complete global installation of nuclear (whatever best design that may be) is not complete within ten years…
I do, however, agree that coal plants should be swapped to NG ASAP in the immediate meantime (because it is cleaner)!
Robert Bernal writes:
There should be no reason, other than BAU, that a complete global installation of nuclear (whatever best design that may be) is not complete within ten years…
================
There is not enough high quality equipment/materials and engineering/construction talent to accomplish this in 10 years. There are not enough operators to run the plants. There is not enough uranium to supply these plants.
There is more than enough fissionable material to run those plants.
Especially if thorium is included in the fuel supply. The Shippingport reactor ran 5 years on its final U/Th fuel load, and was only shut down because the operators wanted to get the results of their light-water breeder experiment.
Imagine running 5 years or more without interruption for refueling, with the potential to recover more fissile material from the “spent” fuel than you started with.
@Engineer-Poet
Imagine running 5 years or more without interruption for refueling, with the potential to recover more fissile material from the “spent” fuel than you started with.
Unfortunately, it took about 5 years to conduct the destructive (physical) analysis of the Light Water Breeder Reactor experiment.
However, in September 1987 Westinghouse completed a draft report number WAPD-TM-1612, Proof of Breeding in the Light Water Breeder Reactor. The bottom line of that detailed technical report was that there was 1.4% MORE fissile material in the core after five years of operating at an average capacity factor of about 66% (more than 29,000 effective full power hours) than there was in the initial fuel load.
Breeding was not just a possibility; it was a proven reality. By 1987, however, few people remembered or cared about the experiment and the results were not well-publicized. A paper copy of the report is available on the NTIS web site for the bargain price of $60.00.
http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=DE88005093
Or, for about $.50/page, you can get this:
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Goes–Line-Contributions/dp/0313272441/
Looks more like an economic/political study than technical.
I’m aware of that. Whether or not it’s recoverable at a reasonable price is another matter. On the other hand, with Lightbridge developing all-metal fuel with a heavy Zircaloy cladding, maybe electrorefining of even LWR fuel is a possibility and the recovery of fissile material and nearly-complete Pu removal will end both uranium scarcity and the nuclear waste “problem” once and for all.
Speaking of voltage stability, how does one adjust vars (inductive-capacitive reactance) on a grid overwhelmed by generators that are randomly cycling up and down with no correlation to system demand? I don’t envy future grid operators if this technology continues to be rammed down their throats.
Unstable reactive load is something I have not heard much discussed in regard to intermittant and variable generatuon. As someone who has actually had to synch gigawatt-sized generators to a real grid, it will be amusing to hear the opinions of those who never have.
I’ll just refer to where I answered that very question over on Yes Vermont Yankee.
DC-excited synchronous generators can make VARs at will by raising the excitation, up to the limits of generator voltage and current.
From Willem Post on VTdigger:
“The $10.5 million, ISO-NE-required, synchronous-condenser plant, on line end 2013, which will reduce curtailments, may bring the actual production CF to about 0.25, similar to Maine, greater than New York State: 19 facilities; 2009, 0.189; 2010, 0.227; 2011, 0.236; 2012, 0.235. The S-C plant will reduce Lowell’s output by about 3% and has its own levelized (Owning+O&M) costs. http://www.windaction.org/documents/38237. – See more at:
http://vtdigger.org/2013/08/15/advocates-howl-as-more-utilities-stop-or-reduce-projects-eligible-for-renewable-energy-credits/#sthash.GXxdp2I7.dpuf “