Energy post (long)

[billvon 3,120]

In another thread the discussion drifted from space travel to energy, so rather than continue derailing that thread, I decided to start a new one.

Energy is important nowadays. We're becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources of energy, and that means we are developing an ecomonic (and thus political) interest in controlling those sources; we can see where that's gotten us. Relying more on local sources is important, I think, if world peace is a long term goal.

In addition, electrical power generation and transportation cause most of our pollution. In many places pollution is getting better, but we're far from there yet. Particulate pollution kills thousands every year, as reported by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and by ABT associates , contracted by the EPA to esimate deaths caused by coal fired power plants. Most of this pollution comes from coal power plants and diesel engines. Just two power plants in Massachusetts kill 159 people a year, according to the Harvard School of Public Health.

That number of deaths bothers me, because we don't need to put that much crap in the air to generate power. Even assuming 99.5% efficient scrubbers and precipitators, a single coal power plant puts 300 pounds of arsenic, 1200 pounds of lead, 60 pounds of uranium and 120 pounds of thorium (a radioactive decay product of uranium) in the air every year. The rest, including some 12 tons of thorium and 120 tons of lead, get dumped on the ground in unlined pits.

Transportation is important, and we have a lot of alternatives. Reducing our oil usage can come via more efficient cars (like bybrids) different fossil fuels (natural gas) renewable fuels (biodiesel) or even non-carbon fuels (hydrogen, pure electrics.) For now, though, I will concentrate on electrical power generation - which, BTW, becomes a transportation issue if we do go with electric or hydrogen cars.

Right now here in the US we generate most of our electric power with coal - 56%. 10% is gas, 3.5% is oil, 21% is nuclear, 9.5% is hydro. A tiny fraction (less than 1%) is renewable. In some places, like California, the numbers are a little better - 11% for coal, 12% renewable, 50% natural gas, 16% nuclear. And of course in the Northwest it's primarily hydro.

Another issue is global warming. Burning coal means putting as much CO2 in the air as possible; coal is basically carbon that you burn. Natural gas also puts CO2 into the air, but since the stuff you burn (CH4) is mainly hydrogen the primary exhaust is water. Even the Bush administration just committed to reducing CO2 emissions within a few years.

So the question becomes - how do we fix this? As much as it would be cool to go to all-solar or all-wind, it's just not practical. Both are essentially intermittent sources; we still need baseline power plants that generate power all the time. For this, in order of desirability, we have:

-Geothermal
-Large hydroelectric
-Natural gas
-Nuclear


Geothermal is a great source; CA gets 5% of its power from geothermal sources. The only environmental impacts are land used and gases that have to be vented from the source (hydrogen sulfide is a common problem.) There aren't that many great geothermal sites though; I think fully 50% of the good sites in California have been used.

Large scale hydro is also pretty good, but the potential to muck up rivers, and destroy river ecosystems (including the fish runs that fishermen rely on to make a living) is there. Creative design is necessary to prevent this from happening. One nice thing about large scale hydro is that it's very throttleable and you can "store" energy (in the form of water) for when you need it.

Natural gas isn't too bad; it's by far the cleanest fossil fuel power we have. A study on a massive power plant in Metcalfe, using the same criteria as the HSPH study, showed less than one death a year, on average, due to its operation. Natural gas is also 99% from North America, which is nice in terms of avoiding foreign relations messes.

Nuclear, while not perfect, is still miles better than coal. Even when you factor in the spent fuel, it puts out less radioactive waste than a coal power plant. The difference, of course, is that the coal plant just puts the stuff in the air, while nuclear waste is stored essentially forever (or at least until it's needed for reprocessing.)

The two arguments I've heard against nuclear almost always come down to three mile island and chernobyl. The chernobyl argument isn't really valid; we don't have any reactors of that type because they're too dangerous to operate. You might as well call skydiving unsafe because 60 year old silk parachutes fail sometimes. The three mile island (TMI) issue is a lot more germane, and since it's used so often, I'll go into that in detail. Here's what happened there:

A maintenance mistake caused a turbine "trip," and that reactor automatically shut itself down. When that happens, secondary cooling water takes over for the turbines/cooling towers to cool down the core. Even when it's been shut down the reactor generates a little heat. For some reason, the operators had closed the block valves that allow the cooling water in. (mistake 2.) Still no problem; there are backup cooling systems.

The pressure and temperature began rising in the core, and a valve opened to relieve the pressure. It never closed because of a mechanical failure. The coolant began draining out of the core. Still no problem; the backup cooling systems can more than make up for that.

The operators noticed all this going on, but didn't notice the closed block valves or the open relief valve. Had they noticed they could have closed a backup relief valve or just opened the block valves. Two serious mistakes, but there was still no issue; the system is designed to handle some mistakes. Then they noticed the HPI pumps (the emergency cooling pumps) start running, an indication that the core is getting warmer. They then manually shut off the HPI pumps! They essentially disconnected the three methods (one primary, two backup) they could have used to cool the core. With the relief valve still open, the core started to drain.

This is essentially the worst thing you can do to a reactor - run it full power, shut it down suddenly, raise the temperature, and drain the coolant. The core was exposed and the fuel started to melt. There was an explosion inside the containment vessel, and several systems were damaged. Essentially the worst possible accident had happened, the one that we had all heard about so much.

And the end result? No injuries, no loss of life. Cooling was eventually restored and the reactor did basically what it was supposed to during shutdown - nothing. No china syndrome, no fallout, no fuel released into the environment. Only releases were radioactive steam and hydrogen, which dissipated much like coal power plant smoke dissipates.

This, to me, indicates the relative levels of risk people perceive with nuclear power. 159 people a year die in Massachusetts due to normal operation of just two coal power plants, and their license to operate is renewed. It barely makes the paper. No one is killed in the worst US nuclear accident ever, and it's all anyone talks about for years.

In an ideal world, we'd generate most of our baseline power with geothermal and hydro. We'd get our peaking loads (and opportunistic loads) from solar, wind and, if they're not available, natural gas. When we have too much wind we'd use it to pump water back into reservoirs to 'store' the energy. That won't happen anytime soon, although in some places (like CA) it's happening faster than others. In the interim, closing coal power plants, and replacing them with nuclear plants, will do a lot to save americans' lives and reduce pollution. That's why I've become such an anti-coal person; it's not just a dirty but cheap source of power. It kills a lot of people.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

We're becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources of energy, and that means we are developing an ecomonic (and thus political) interest in controlling those sources; we can see where that's gotten us. Relying more on local sources is important, I think, if world peace is a long term goal.

i agree with everything you've just stated, but i might add we are dependandt on foreign oil because we want to be...we don't have to be, i've screamed from the rooftops about this for years, but no one will listen. no one wants to destroy our environment by drilling for our own oil, so we knowingly and intentionally choose to drill in foreign countries, and import foreign oil. it's time to stop the madness.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Deuce 1]

Holy Cow, Bill, what an essay.

How about small-scale hydroelectric? Lots of smaller dams, smaller lakes, but a large volume of plants?

I'm very pro-nuclear, don't Japan and France generate almost all their power that way, and with a great safety record? I recall reading that one of the problems with US plants is the variety of designs, as opposed to the standardized plants that Japan and France use. I remeber in 1982 or 1983 Hawaii got nailed by a huge storm, and they hooked up a couple of aircraft carriers to their grid.

Those Navy nuclear powerplants would seem to be a fairly easy off-the-shelf solution.

[billvon 3,120]

>How about small-scale hydroelectric?

Good for small scale power, but when you look at the number of people who live near streams who could do this, it's not that practical as a significant source of US power.

>I'm very pro-nuclear, don't Japan and France generate almost all
> their power that way, and with a great safety record? I

France yes, and if we were to standardize on newer designs (like the PBMR) we'd see an even greater increase in safety.

>Those Navy nuclear powerplants would seem to be a fairly easy off
>-the-shelf solution.

Very scary in terms of proliferation, though. At least the designs I've seen use highly enriched uranium, so they don't have to reload them as often. You can use the fuel for nuclear weapons as-is. Heck, you can even get the reactor, during normal operation, to go way supercritical - not quite a nuclear bomb, but close.

[BoobieCootie 0]

From the mouth of my favorite governor, Jesse Ventura:

Until someone figures out a way to put a meter on the sun, we will not get cheap or free solar power. but true.

[riddler 0]

Although I consider myself an environmentalist, I often rail against the environmentalist agenda because they use psuedo-science arguments for trying to push agendas that have more to do with how they feel than any real evidence.

Most environmentalists I know are against nuclear power because it doesn't "feel" right to them - probably a stigma associated with nuclear weapons. Scientific environmentalists know that nuclear energy is the best possible source of energy for ourselves and our environment.

Here are some nuclear energy fun statistics from:
http://mikelietz.org/works/oldschool/nuclearpb.shtml

1. The LLE of living in the immediate neighborhood of a nuclear power plant is 0.4 days. This is the equivalent to a smoker having one extra cigarette every 15 years, or raising the speed limit from 55 mph to 55.006 mph (Rhodes 98). In addition, a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated the LLE of a full national nuclear power program of 1.5 days, hardly more than the LLE for eating one tablespoon of peanut butter every day for a year of 1.1 days.

2. Therefore a person is exposed to the same amount of radiation from *accidents* due to the nuclear power industry as he does from his environment every four days.

3. a 1000 Megawatt coal burning plant will cause 35.5 deaths per year ... However, the operation of a 1000-MW nuclear plant will cause only 0.8 deaths in a year:

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[PhreeZone 20]

I'm all for nuclear power. I personally want to convert my home (when ever I get one) to be as renewable as possible. Toss a small wind turbine in the back lawn, solar panels on the roof, geothermal for the heating.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Yeah..there's a lot of misinformed people out there regarding nuclear power. My brother-in-law and sister are nuclear engineers (my sis was the first female, civilian trained nuc engineer in the country.) My father was the foreman in charge of building the plant that they work in. I've been around and educated about nuclear power my whole life. I still remember from when I was a little kid that there was a protest about the plant being built. One of the signs read something to the effect of, "I don't want radiation blowing on my head everytime I use my hairdryer." I think I was about 12 when I saw that and immediately tried to figure out what kind of idiot would think nuclear radiation is being transmitted through the electric lines into her hair dryer. I've found there are a whole multitude of different kinds.

[bobsled92 0]

I agree with you view on it.
I live in the area between Limerick and TMI (and just North of Peach Bottom). Our DZ take-off path is over the TMI cooling towers.
The facts: "good and bad" are what I have been presented with and/or have seen for myself.
I admit to some fears but, I have resentment for most all protestors too (I hate strike duty for that reason).
The steel mill here gives out more contamination than TMI does. I do know casualties of those who worked inside(66 of a 68 member crew from my company. 2 worked phone cable at roadside off the island)
People that follow the stampede to protest has little to NO info, let alone any facts. They then act upon what they were "told" or saw in a "MOVIE", which has been hazardous in itself.

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[SpeedRacer 1]

In my own field (molecular biology) there was a lot of protesting when MIT & others began to work with DNA back in the late 70s & early 80s...one of the quotes from a protester: "They're tryin' to bring DNA into my neigborhood!!"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[PhillyKev 0]

Along the lines of strange protest signs...one that I saw from the anti-war rally in Washington on the news was "War Is Bush". Huh??? I hate having stupid people on my side.

[miked10270 0]

Hi there,

OK, got the soapbox, got the source material... Here goes...

You all hold the answer to SUVs, renewable power, endless fuel etc... etc... in your hands, or at least in your fryers.

One of the most versatile fuels available is Diesel fuel / Kerosene / Jet fuel (let's get our turbine Otter priorities right)... In short, Fuel Oil / Mazut / Diesel, call it what you will...

Believe it or not, what follows is not "Snake-Oil".

Diesle Fuel CAN be grown. It's called Biodiesel and can be made from a whole variety of crops.

The mechanics of it is that loads of millions of years ago, trees & stuff grew, fell down, was buried under silt, was compressed, and turned into fossil oil which is now pulled out of the ground, most significantly in Iraq & Texas. The excess CO2 (greenhouse gas) produced today is bacause we're taking CO2 which was sucked out of the atmosphere milions of years ago by the trees which have turned into fossil oil and we're releasing it into the atmosphere NOW.

The solution? Oil Palm (Elaesis Guineesis) when harvested produces 4,585lbs of usable fuel oil per acre/crop. Over 2 tons of fuel oil per acre, and in the tropics it can be harvested twice a year!! Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) produces 2,070lbs of fuel per acre/crop (and let's be blunt, those things even grow on the West coast of Scotland!). Jatropha (Jatropha Curcas) - common in Central America produces 1,460lbs per acre/crop and even Rapeseed/Canola produces 915lbs oil/crop (and that stuff grows EVERYWHERE - like it or not).

All of this stuff can be easily processed into fuel oil suitable for use in oil fired power stations, with a small further modification it can even run standard diesel engines without discernible loss of power.

It can even power our planes!!! Right now there's a King-Air running on 80% Avtur/20% Biodiesel - the fuel is called "B-20". The only difference to the plane is that the wings no longer get sooty from the jet exhaust!

Bio diesel does not produce greenhouse gas! Ok, technically it produces CO2 like fossil fuel, the diference is that the CO2 released into the atmosphere as the fuel is burned is what the crop producing plant has absorbed FROM the atmosphere 3-6 months ago, NOT what was absorbed umpteen millions of years ago. Thus, balance is maintained and there is no further "greenhouse effect".

There is another source of the raw material for biodiesel. This "crop" can be found at the back of any McDonalds, 'cos you can even make Biodiesel out os USED Vegetable Oil. You can make the plant to do this for under $300 and the cost of the chemicals to do this come out at about $0.25 per litre. $1 per gallon of Diesel Fuel.

(Of course, then you have to pay your state taxes. In the UK the total cost of the fuel "in the tank comes out at about $2 per imperial gallon - Weep Brits, I run my Landrovers on wholly legal fuel (DERV) which costs me 37p/litre - Think of ME next time you're standing at the pumps fuelling your vehicles ).

Anyone smell a conspiracy by the oil companies protecting their drills and refineries?

Of course, YOU can produce Biodiesel at home! (OK, in you garden shed). All you need is a container (used oil drum), something to mix the stuff (we're talking big scale food processor here, nothing complex), vegetable oil (new or used), Methanol (100% pure), & Sodium Hydroxide (Lye / Red Devil Drain Cleaner).

The formula is to mix 3.5g of lye in 1litre of methanol which when added to 5 litres of unused vegatable oil (Canola) will produce 5.25lites of Biodiesel which can be poured straight into the fuel tank of any diesel engined vehicle. I know, I've done it, and the cars both run just fine on it
IF you decide to use "used" vegetable oil (like from the back of McDonalds or anywhere that uses vegatable oil in fryers, then there's a simple chemical test involving isporopanol & Ph paper to determine the amount of lye to be added, the amount of methanol remains the same.

There's even a formula that allows used animal fat to be processed into fuel, but it's not as efficient.

For the outright greenies, there's a formula that allows Ethanol (wood alcohol) to be used. Again, not as efficient/cost effective.

In short, YOU can make a difference as an individual IF you're willing to make a little more effort than standing at the gas station pouring fossil fuel into your car.

In the hope that this post fires some of you up, either PM me for further details, or do a Google search on "tickell" & "biodiesel"

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[PhillyKev 0]

That's very interesting. Too much work for me though...I'll just continue walking to work.

[smiles 0]

I live on the coast of B.C. Canada where our B.C. Hydro could be investing in "lighting up our world with ocean energy".......
The government certainly spent money studying it,..(dream on)


http://www.bluenergy.com

Smiles

[AggieDave 6]

Know what we need? Gerbils, lots and lots of freak'n gerbils, with their little wheels, but have those wheels hooked up to generators...sort of like that Honda you drive, Bill...


(hehe, I still think that is a sweet car, too bad they don't have those engines yet with the kind of power I like to have and tend to use).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Push 0]

Yet another wonderful alternative to the shit we're burning now. As if Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles weren't enough... I just might try this in the summer when I'm actually using my (parents) car a lot.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Push 0]

Nuclear power plants are safe. Period. I will not stop hoping that, by the time I have chlidren, the coal plants will no longer be used.

Apparently, an abnormal number of children born in Russia in the late 70s to early 80s have problems. A lot have respiratory problems. The rate of asthma in those children is abnormally high. Let me see, more than half of my friends and 2/3 of my previous gfs have asthma. I have asthma.

One day, we will all smarten up...

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Apparently, an abnormal number of children born in Russia in the late 70s to early 80s have problems.

The problems of children born in the Yukraine since Chernobyl goes FAR beyond a few having asthma problems.

Nuclear safety needs to be justified by the safety of Candu and American plants, not by watering down the damage of Chernobyl.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Know what we need? Gerbils, lots and lots of freak'n gerbils, with their little wheels, but have those wheels hooked up to generators...sort of like that Honda you drive, Bill...

How about genetically altered gerbils? Instead of nuke plants, gerbil generators? Gerbils the size of trucks. A 4,000 lb gerbil on a wheel the size of a ferris wheel, 60 feet in diameter. Ummm... of course, this is just a theory.

[AggieDave 6]

Dude, a Gerbil the size of a truck? Richard Gere is drooling over that one...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

How about genetically altered gerbils? Instead of nuke plants, gerbil generators? Gerbils the size of trucks. A 4,000 lb gerbil on a wheel the size of a ferris wheel, 60 feet in diameter. Ummm... of course, this is just a theory.

Sounds kinda like a bad Japanese horror flick...

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Push 0]

I am in no way watering down the damage of Chernobyl. And yes, modern western power plants are very different, thankfully. I also forgot to mention that this was about children born outside of the area of effect of Chernobyl.

Don't take this too seriously. AFAIK no conclusive, hardcore study was done here. These are observations collacted from a large group of doctors, but I don't think a statistical study was done. Regardless, it's very believable to me, especially because of my day-to-day observations.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Push 0]

Quote

How about genetically altered gerbils? Instead of nuke plants, gerbil generators? Gerbils the size of trucks. A 4,000 lb gerbil on a wheel the size of a ferris wheel, 60 feet in diameter. Ummm... of course, this is just a theory.

We actually discussed this over beer We found that the problem would be in feeding the gerbil, unless you recycle his droppings. A concious decision was made by the entire group not to go there

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>> A 4,000 lb gerbil on a wheel the size of a ferris wheel,
>>60 feet in diameter. Ummm... of course, this is just a theory.
>
>Sounds kinda like a bad Japanese horror flick...

Yeah, or a catastrophy movie from the 70's : "This is the power source of the future. Absolutely nothing can go wrong. There is no way the giant gerbil can escape the wheel.".