507 private links
To note that our modern society is energy-hungry is not only a massive understatement but an exercise in belaboring the obvious. Everything about our modern technological lifestyle requires energy and plenty of it, and cheap, reliable energy is one of the best (along with free markets) guarantors of a prosperous society. While "green energy" advocates still shout for the need for wind and solar power, the most reliable, efficient, and yes, cheapest energy in the United States is generated by fossil fuels - coal and natural gas - and by nuclear power. //
But given advancements in coal-burning technology, and also given that the United States is sitting on mountains of coal, there are good arguments for the continued use of coal. //
the U.S. led early with a leadoff home run. It invented, developed and perfected the first ultra-super critical (USC) coal-powered plant.
Coming online in 2012, the 600-megawatt (MW) John W. Turk Jr. Coal Plant in Arkansas employed new technology, most notably, an advance in metallurgy that allowed pipes and boilers to operate for extended periods at extremely elevated temperature and pressure.
This higher temperature allows efficiency of 40%, instead of the more usual 33%. Also, Turk had the best pollution controls, its emissions being mostly carbon dioxide and water vapor. Power Magazine was so impressed that it gave the plant its highest honor in 2013. //
Having improved on USC technology, Chinese plant efficiency is around 44%. The new 1,350 MW Pingshan Phase II plant achieves 49% efficiency! The best Chinese coal plant is now cleaner and 22 % more efficient than its American counterpart.
Since 2010, India has constructed more than 90 super critical and ultra-super critical coal plants.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/energy/budget-2024-25-ntpc-bhel-to-set-up-a-hi-tech-coal-power-plant-how-will-it-work
mopani Ed in North Texas
6 minutes ago
The only reason I am not a fan of coal for electric power is that it takes 100 rail cars per day to feed a 1GW power plant. Half the rail traffic in the USA is coal. If we could cut half the rail traffic it would save a lot of lives lost at rail crossings. Its simple statistics: in a lot of areas in the Midwest, there's an at-grade crossing nearly every mile.
A similar size pressurized water nuclear power plant only needs 35 tons of uranium per YEAR, and requires mining about 200 tons of uranium ore to produce. And the used nuclear fuel is the only waste product that gets safer with time, unlike every other pollutant.
https://www.daretothink.org/how-big-is-that-thorium-ball/
If we would build the molten salt reactor that Jimmy "I pretend to be a nuclear engineer" Carter killed, or the breeder reactor that Bill "sold to the highest bidder" Clinton killed so thoroughly, Nuclear power would only need 1 ton of fuel per YEAR. Versus 100 rail cars per DAY for coal.
I would rather build coal than depend on "sunshine, summer breezes, fumaroles, and chicken manure" for reliable electricity (Petr Beckman), but nuclear is better.
While active, the natural reactor generated fission waste byproducts similar to those produced by modern nuclear reactors at power plants. This provided some useful evidence for the scientists, who found that the radioactive waste products created by this natural process, including those with million year half lives, have decayed away. The byproducts have also barely moved - according to the US Department of Energy, the plutonium “has moved less than 10 feet from where it was formed almost two billion years ago.”
This means that when the Oklo reactor was discovered in 1972, the fission products had been harmlessly lying in the same place for around a billion years.
Also, in the hundreds of thousands of years it has operated as a nuclear reactor, Oklo has never had a meltdown or explosion. Scientists found that “the combination of aluminium phosphate grains to trap radioactive materials and the groundwater to regulate the reaction allowed for an extremely safe reactor.” Mother Nature knows best.
So next time someone tells you that solar and wind are the only ‘natural’ forms of energy generation, tell them about the natural reactors in Gabon. I’ve yet to hear about solar panels and wind turbines sprouting up naturally and generating electricity without human intervention anywhere in the world in the history of our planet. The blunt truth is that nature created fission well before humans were capable of building nuclear reactors. If that isn’t a clear definition of ‘natural’ energy, I don’t know what is.
The REPOWER plan rests on four pillars:
1) Replacing all subsidies and mandates with a CO2 fee, which shall be set by Congress.
2) A grid of ratepayer owned coops which provide local power distribution and backup power.
3) Coops or consortia of coops contracting with merchant providers for the bulk of their power, or possibly building their own base load plants.
4) Unshackling nuclear from a regulatory system based on the Two Lies. Nuclear's remarkable energy density, combined with competition will drive the cost of nuclear down to its should-cost of less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The end result will be a largely nuclear grid, backed up by local fossil generation and supplemented in some areas by hydro, wind, or solar. //
The REPOWER plan has been criticized on the grounds it not only does not get rid of fossil fuel, it requires extensive expansion of fossil fuel capacity. The goal here is reducing CO2 emissions, not eliminating fossil fuel capacity. And we must reduce CO2 emissions in a way that uses the planet's resources efficiently. If we end up in a situation where we could have both less CO2 and less cost, we are being criminally stupid.
REPOWER will result in nuclear at a naive LCOE of less than 3 cents/kWh. That makes drastically reducing grid CO2 emissions so easy it's almost automatic. Figure 1 summarizes the results of a study of the German grid in which nuclear's overnight CAPEX was set at $2000/kW. (In the 1960's, we were building nuclear plants at less than $1000/kW in today's money.) //
Currently, the grid is producing about 25% of man-made CO2 emissions. If we cut that by a factor 20 with should-cost nuclear, we are down to about 1% of the total. At that point, we are far better off going after the other 99%, then expending resources on further reducing the 1%.
Takeaway
Unless we have cheap electricity, decarbonization in going nowhere. The Good News is we can have both very low grid emissions and cheap electricity. All we have to do is:
a) Put the ratepayer in charge of the grid.
b) Let the underwriters balance nuclear safety and cost.
As New York State Energy Planning Board charts our energy future to implement the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), it is essential that we consider daily/hourly/seasonal demand profiles for each consuming region. Such sober analysis would help identify what combination of generation technologies can reliably serve the electricity loads and avoid blackouts… all while being cost effective and environmentally sustainable.
The below chart illustrates the daily grid electric load for New York State. There is an orange dot for each day corresponding to the average load in megawatts (MWs). //
However, let’s focus on minimum daily load. The rectangle underneath the teal line represents New York’s grid electricity needs that is constant over 365 days of the year. Since the 2023 total demand was 16,785 MW, 79% of New York’s electricity consumption is constant — also known as “baseload demand.”
The below chart graphs minimum daily load (in gigawatt-hours, GWh) against total demand over the 7 years 2017-2023. The light teal box shows the range of baseload demand over the period. Over 3/4 of New York’s grid electric consumption is constant.
The likely cause is the plant is essentially fully-depreciated //
CGNP's key finding was obtained by dividing PG&E's DCPP net cost forecast of $418,407,000.00 by the number of megawatt-hours (46,519,200 MWh) the plant would be producing if it ran 100% the time during this period. (PG&E must supply the replacement power any time the plant is not producing power, such as during an outage.) The net result was $8.9858 / MWh. Since there are 1,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in a MWh, this corresponds to only 0.8958 net cents per kWh. This net cost is similar to the cost of running a large hydroelectric dam, the least-expensive means of grid-scale electric power production. //
Finally, DCPP's owners are not economically compensated for providing substantial synchronous grid inertia (SGI) to the California power grid. CGNP located a relevant 2018 filing from ERCOT, the Texas grid operator that underscores the economic value of nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants contribute substantial capacity and SGI. ERCOT considers SGI so important that they post the current SGI value at their overview dashboard. CAISO should emulate ERCOT in properly valuing DCPP for its abundant capacity and SGI contribution to stabilize the California grid.
Without sufficient synchronous grid inertia, the grid becomes unstable and a blackout occurs.
Inertia refers to a system’s capability to resist change. For a power grid, greater synchronous inertia confers greater ability to resist frequency changes. //
In contrast to gigantic 2,256 megawatt nuclear power plants such as Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) near San Luis Obispo, California which provide very large amounts of synchronous grid inertia, so-called inverter-based resources (IBRs) such as solar powered generators, wind power generators, and batteries supply negligible amounts of synchronous grid inertia. //
Prior to the introduction of significant penetrations of IBRs, each power grid's synchronous generators (coal and natural gas-fired generators, large hydroelectric dams, geothermal plants, and nuclear power plants) had sufficient synchronous grid inertia to assure power grid stability. The synchronous generators have a large amount of rotational inertia as a consequence of having massive rotating turbines and massive rotating generator rotors. (See photograph below.)
As a simplified example, each of the pair of DCPP’s generators have rotating components which weigh in excess of a million pounds (500 tons.) DCPP’s turbines rotate 30 times per second. The rotating magnetic field induces the 60 cycle per second (Hertz) AC voltage (25,000 Volts) and AC current (45,120 Amperes) in the stator windings of each unit. In response to perturbations in grid frequency, the rotational kinetic energy can be instantaneously converted to changes in the output power of the generator which tend to stabilize the generator’s output frequency and voltage.
The Biden administration has announced plans to reignite a shuttered Michigan nuclear power plant with a $1.5 billion loan that, combined with other nuclear announcements yesterday, suggests the US federal government is right now all in on nuclear energy.
The 800-megawatt Holtec Palisades plant, located on Michigan's southwest coast in a relatively low-populated area, shut down in 2022 mainly due to it struggling to afford to stay operational while competing against cheaper fossil fuels.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined
Robert Hargraves, Ralph Moir
American Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 4 (July-August 2010), pp. 304-313 (10 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27859537
By Robert F. Hargraves, Ralph Moir
An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined
What if we could turn back the clock to 1965 and have an energy do-over? In June of that year, the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) achieved criticality for the first time at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee.
The Swiss government said on Wednesday it plans to overturn a ban on building new power plants to strengthen local energy supply at a time of increased geopolitical tension.
Energy Minister Albert Roesti said the government would submit a proposal to amend nuclear legislation by the end of 2024 so it can be debated in parliament next year.
"Over the long term, new nuclear power plants are one possible way of making our supply more secure in a geopolitically uncertain time," Roesti told a press conference.
Failure to retain the option could be seen as a betrayal by future generations, Roesti argued.
Construction is underway on a new nuclear power plant in Tennessee – the first officially approved fourth-generation nuclear reactor in the U.S.
Kairos Power has begun building the Hermes Low-Power Demonstration Reactor in Oak Ridge, the first Gen IV reactor approved for construction by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Hermes reactor utilizes a fluoride salt-cooled, high-temperature reactor design, differing from conventional light-water reactors. //
The reactor is set to employ TRISO-coated particle fuel and high-purity fluoride salt coolant, known as FLiBe, a mixture of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride. This design is intended to produce affordable nuclear heat rather than electricity, showcasing the potential of a factory-built small modular reactor to revolutionize nuclear construction.
"Kairos will combine the molten salt coolant... with a novel form of nuclear fuel called TRISO, where the fuel is in tiny (<1 mm) particles coated in layers of graphite (both as a moderator and to give the fuel strength and structure)," said Peel.
Construction has started on the new facility in iconic Oak Ridge, Tennessee. //
According to Interesting Engineering, the new Hermes reactor will be the first one built in the United States in 50 years that won’t be cooled by light water. Instead, it will use a system of molten fluoride salt, and a TRISO (tri-structural isotropic particle) fuel pebble bed design will power the generator.
Molten fluoride salts have “excellent chemical stability and tremendous capacity for transferring heat,” per the report, meaning it stays cooler and dissipates heat much faster than the light water that has been used for so long in American reactors.
The fuel bed consists of hundreds of millimeter-sized particles of uranium encased in multiple layers of special ceramic, which allows each individual piece of fuel to have its own containment and pressure vessel, per Ultra Safe Nuclear. The ceramic casing is stronger and more resilient than the typical zirconium alloy, meaning it can withstand higher temperatures and neutron bombardment past the failure point of other types of fuel. //
To be classified as Generation IV, a system must meet, or at least have the ability to meet, the following criteria:
(1) it is much more fuel-efficient than current plants;
(2) it is designed in such a way that severe accidents are not possible, that is, plant failure or an external event (such as an earthquake) should not result in radioactive material release to the outside world;
[3] the fuel cycle is designed in such a way that uranium and plutonium are never separated (“diverged”) but only present in a mix and with other elements. This makes it more difficult to create nuclear weapons. //
The Swiss government said on Wednesday it plans to overturn a ban on building new power plants to strengthen local energy supply at a time of increased geopolitical tension.
"At last a book that comprehensively reveals the true facts about sustainable energy in a form that is both highly readable and entertaining."
Alaska is also rich in resources, not least of which are crude oil and natural gas, those two commodities that are so vital to our economy. Much of that gas and oil flows through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. This Alaska pipeline is a vital piece of American infrastructure. Running 800 miles across the Great Land, much of it through the wilderness, TAPS brings 450,000 barrels a day of crude oil to American consumers; that's about 3.5 percent of American production.
The Biden-Harris administration is considering further restricting oil development in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A), the nation’s largest swath of public land. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be soliciting public comment on whether to expand or designate new “special areas” in the 23-million-acre reserve. //
This June, these environmental groups filed a legal petition to the U.S. Department of Interior to phase-out and decommission TAPS: the Center for Biological Diversity; Pacific Environment; Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic; Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition; and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (also see here).
“[TAPS] is approaching the end of its useful life due to mounting climate change-driven damages to both the aging pipeline infrastructure and the entire Arctic ecosystem,” the six petitioners state, also citing “the imperative for the United States to rapidly transition away from fossil fuel-based energy.” //
This, in turn, conflicts with federal law by preventing the fulfillment of the Alaska’s statehood entitlement; economic development, including responsible resource development, to assure Alaska’s future prosperity; and the long-term settlement of land ownership across the state. //
anon-eoij
20 hours ago
Correction: the daily volume is 450,000 bpd, not 45,000. Best job in my life was as an engineer on TAPS from 1980-1995. A wonderful adventure for a young man.
Joe Swyers
2 hours ago edited
"the cost to Germans for being forced to rely on alternative energy sources is estimated to be $1 million per day."
Germans need to build over a hundred nuclear power plants to replace that 110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year of natural gas all four Nordstream pipelines could transport.
35,300 BTU per cubic meter
110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year
3,883,000,000,000,000 BTU per year
3,412 BTU per KWH
1,137,995,510,149 KWH
8,760 hours per year
129,908,163 KW
130 GW
1 GW average per nuclear power plant
130 Nuclear Power Plants needed by Germany.
France has 18 power plants with 56 operable reactors.
Germany will need ten times that number by the time they actually get them built and bring them online.
Better get cracking -- atoms, that is.
mopani Joe Swyers
3 minutes ago edited
If Germany had spent $580 billion on nuclear power instead of Energiewiend green energy they would have the cheapest, most reliable, lowest carbon footprint energy in the world.
With Nuclear Instead of Renewables, California and Germany Would Already Have 100 percent Clean Electricity
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/9/11/california-and-germany-decarbonization-with-alternative-energy-investments //
California and Germany could have mostly or completely decarbonized their electricity sectors had their investments in renewables been diverted instead to new nuclear, a new Environmental Progress analysis finds.
In 2017, Germany generated 37 percent of its electricity from non-carbon sources.[1] In pursuing the Energiewende, Germany will have invested $580 billion in renewable energy and storage by 2025.
If Germany had invested in nuclear instead, it could have built 46 1.6 GW EPR reactors at the $12.5 billion per reactor cost of the U.K.’s Hinkley Point C. German companies assisted with the design of the EPR and the reactor was explicitly planned to meet the strictest European regulations.
In this scenario, EP assumes that a Germany pursuing nuclear power would maintain the same level of nuclear generation as it produced annually before implementing its nuclear phase-out in 2011, about 133 TWh per year.
With 46 EPRs operating at 90 percent capacity factor, Germany could first eliminate all coal, gas, and biomass electricity, then make up for today’s 150 terawatt-hours per year of wind and solar from its renewables investment, all while exporting 100 terawatt-hours of electricity to its neighbors (double 2017’s actual exports). Finally, with the remaining 133 terawatt-hours, Germany could decarbonize its entire light vehicle fleet including all 45 million of its passenger vehicles.[2]
With resounding bipartisan, bicameral support that also achieved enthusiastic support of the Executive Branch, the US has enacted a new law announcing its support of nuclear energy. It has the potential to make an even larger impact on global atomic energy use than the combination of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program of international nuclear energy expansion.
Seventy years ago, that earlier combination of law and policy partially removed the blanket of tight security that had locked up fission energy in the years immediately following WWII. President Eisenhower’s clearly stated goal in enabling commercial atomic energy was to develop “the greatest of destructive forces” into a “great boon, for the benefit of all mankind.”
The “great boon” produced a wave of nuclear power plants that now produce the energy equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s oil production. That energy comes at a low marginal cost without air pollution or greenhouse gases, but nuclear power’s contribution to world energy production leveled off at roughly 2600 TWh/yr 20 years ago.
A growing fraction of the world’s science, engineering, environmental and political leaders agree that the situation needs to be changed. In November 2023, the United States led a coalition of two dozen nations in a promise to take action to triple world nuclear energy production by 2050.
Even before the U.S. signed that declaration of intent, House and Senate Republicans and Democrats began holding hearings, listening to constituents, debating with colleagues and engaging in what used to be considered the normal order of business to produce the ADVANCE Act of 2024. ///
Does this change anything about ALARA or LNT guiding regulations? Then I don't see it as anything more than a response to strong criticism of both. Changing the "mission" of the NRC without changing either of those is just more of the same, just "better". Which is not better for energy availability.
The mission of the NRC is still "avoid accidents", not balancing the tradeoff of "energy is dangerous, lets make sure its both available and safe."
Joe Swyers
2 hours ago edited
"the cost to Germans for being forced to rely on alternative energy sources is estimated to be $1 million per day."
Germans need to build over a hundred nuclear power plants to replace that 110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year of natural gas all four Nordstream pipelines could transport.
35,300 BTU per cubic meter
110,000,000,000 cubic meters per year
3,883,000,000,000,000 BTU per year
3,412 BTU per KWH
1,137,995,510,149 KWH
8,760 hours per year
129,908,163 KW
130 GW
1 GW average per nuclear power plant
130 Nuclear Power Plants needed by Germany.
France has 18 power plants with 56 operable reactors.
Germany will need ten times that number by the time they actually get them built and bring them online.
Better get cracking -- atoms, that is.
mopani Joe Swyers
3 minutes ago edited
If Germany had spent $580 billion on nuclear power instead of Energiewiend green energy they would have the cheapest, most reliable, lowest carbon footprint energy in the world.
With Nuclear Instead of Renewables, California and Germany Would Already Have 100 percent Clean Electricity
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/9/11/california-and-germany-decarbonization-with-alternative-energy-investments
Last November, Virgin Atlantic Airways made headlines for completing the world’s first transatlantic flight using “100 percent sustainable aviation fuel.”
This week, the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) of the U.K. banned a Virgin radio ad released prior to the flight, in which they touted their “unique flight mission.” While Virgin did use fuel that releases fewer emissions than traditional supplies, the regulatory agency deemed the company’s sustainability claim “misleading” because it failed to give a full picture of the adverse environmental and climate impacts of fuel.
Todd Lewis, a commenter on my previous article on PJ Media, put it succinctly. “It is a way for governments to advance totalitarian control of the populace, wreck the economy, and disempower the middle class.” His thesis is backed up in Joel Kotkin’s masterpiece "The Coming of Neo-Feudalism." Kotkin chronicles how the once-numerous and thriving middle class is relentlessly being phased out of existence by a power elite intent on re-medievalizing society while advancing their own social, political, and economic supremacy. Like the serf who lacked freedom of movement and was bound to the lord’s estate, the enfiefed EV owner for various reasons is tethered to a sort of manorial orbit.
The fact is that EV obsession has nothing to do with “saving the earth,” replacing fossil energy with presumably “clean” alternatives, or reducing across-the-board costs involving transportation and maintenance — all of which reasons are contra-indicated by the facts. They are delusions, mere fetishes, or outright lies that a modicum of sober research would render null and void. The real issue has to do with the ongoing battle between a market economy and a command economy, between a business-oriented system and a centripetal Marxist political organization, and between an individualistic political economy and oligarchic socialism.
The EV project is a major strategy in a political program that envisages replacing not simply fossil fuel propulsion with electrical power, which is neither feasible nor even conceivable, but swapping a free market economy, in which the law of supply and demand determines output and prices, for a centralized government authority that dictates production, prices, and distribution. Top-down control supersedes private enterprise.
In a command economy, the managerial class and state officials control the means of production, set prices, determine production goals, and limit or prohibit competition — as opposed to private individuals and joint-stock companies freely transacting business for personal profit or in the interest of stockholders, their decisions based on consumer demand. //
FrankD92
16 hours ago
“It is a way for governments to advance totalitarian control of the populace, wreck the economy, and disempower the middle class.”
These are exactly the purposes of the entire climate change hoax and associated "green new" scam.
While on the subject of Equinor, I would like to recommend a fabulous piece written by energy expert Robert Bryce. He noted that The NGOs have been shameless in their collusion with foreign corporations, including Equinor, which are collecting billions in federal tax credits to construct wind projects.
But more importantly, Bryce examines the green energy realities based on the science of physics:
…Big Wind is facing a crisis caused by simple physics. The turbines now being deployed onshore and offshore are failing far sooner than expected. Why? They have gotten too big.
Yes, bigger wind turbines are more efficient than their smaller cousins. But the larger the turbine, the more its components get hit by the stresses that come with their size and weight.
The GE Vernova Haliade-X wind turbine used at Vineyard Wind stands 260 meters high and sweeps an area of 38,000 square meters. That means the turbine captures wind energy over an area five times larger than a soccer pitch.
But here’s the critical part: its blades are 107 meters (351 feet) long and weigh 70 tons. In addition, the rotor of the massive machine spans 220 meters. For comparison, the wingspan of a Boeing 737 is 34 meters.
In other words, the turbines at Vineyard Wind are nearly as tall as the Eiffel Tower and each of their blades weighs more than a fully loaded 737. piece has an eye-opening piece on the physics associated with the massive wind projects that touches upon blade size.