Biden’s latest grand energy plan:

President Joe Biden is prepared to release more oil from the country’s strategic reserves if gas prices increase during the summer. //

The strategic petroleum reserve was set up for a purpose:

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world's largest supply of emergency crude oil was established primarily to reduce the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products and to carry out obligations of the United States under the international energy program. //

Dieter Schultz
6 hours ago edited

In a letter sent last month to energy secretary Jennifer Granholm, senior Republican politicians called on the administration to “ensure that the SPR is not abused for political purposes in this election year” and described Biden’s SPR release in 2022 as “a transparent attempt to influence the midterm elections”.

Discouraging the use of the SPR shouldn't be done by an appeal the the administration, it should be accomplished by law.

Sadly, I think we have too many laws but the use and abuse of the SPR by all administrations is one where Congress should be more specific about when the SPR can and can't be used as well as how to minimize the carrying costs by specifying firm requirements for buying on the cheap and selling when oil is dear.

Edit: Given that a few years ago we came very close to filling up US oil storage infrastructure, maybe we ought put a provision in the law to offer to let US oil producers use the SPR rather than building more of their own storage tanks.

Urenco is an international supplier of enrichment services and fuel cycle products for the civil nuclear industry, serving utility customers worldwide who provide low carbon electricity through nuclear generation. //

SWU stands for Separative Work Unit. It is the standard measure of the effort required to separate U235 and U238.

Choose your relevant calculator from the list below. Enter the known quantities before pressing the calculate button to see the result.

The US is still regulating some enriched uranium based on an analysis from the 1950s. //

High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) has been touted as the go-to fuel for powering next-gen nuclear reactors, which include the sodium-cooled TerraPower or the space-borne system powering Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO). That’s because it was supposed to offer higher efficiency while keeping uranium enrichment “well below the threshold needed for weapons-grade material,” according to the US Department of Energy.

This justified huge government investments in HALEU production in the US and UK, as well as relaxed security requirements for facilities using it as fuel. But now, a team of scientists has published an article in Science that argues that you can make a nuclear bomb using HALEU.

“I looked it up and DRACO space reactor will use around 300 kg of HALEU. This is marginal, but I would say you could make one a weapon with that much,” says Edwin Lyman, the director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of the paper. //

Material that’s under 10 percent uranium-235 is called low-enriched uranium (LEU) and is used in power reactors working today. Moving the enrichment level up to between 10 and 20 percent, we get HALEU; above 20 percent, we start talking about highly enriched uranium, which can reach over 90 percent enrichment for uses like nuclear weapons.

“Historically, 20 percent has been considered a threshold between highly enriched uranium and low enriched uranium and, over time, that’s been associated with the limit of what is usable in nuclear weapons and what isn’t. But the truth is that threshold is not really a limit of weapons usability,” says Lyman. And we knew that since long time ago. //

According to his team, an amount between 700–1,000 kg of HALEU is enough to build a bomb with a 15-kiloton yield—roughly as powerful as the Little Boy bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Building one of these bombs would be a matter of days or weeks for a rogue country or a terrorist group.

Somewhere along the way, we dropped the original Los Alamos fine print mentioning quantities and tied our security requirements to enrichment levels only. //

Lyman’s team proposes to get back to the Los Alamos study findings and simply classify HALEU as a Category I material in cases when it’s being used in an amount large enough to build a nuclear weapon. “The point of our article is to highlight that pretending HALEU is not weapons-usable could lead to very serious gaps in security if these reactors really become viable and exported to all sorts of places,” Lyman says. //

SFC Ars Centurion
14y
359
Subscriptor++
So you need 1,000Kg to build a bomb. Let's say an armed foreign adversary managed to attack one of these facilities. Exactly how long is it going to take them to both break into the area where the fissile material is being used, get it out of where it's at, and into something to transport it. That is roughly #2,200 lbs we're talking about. Could you do that with a normal moving van? Absolutely. But can you do it in under an hour, without killing everyone involved via radiation poisoning? I'm skeptical. //

GottaSaySomething Ars Scholae Palatinae
7y
1,342
Ed: I totally missed the point. The point of the article is selling it to "iffy" states where you can't control what happens to it. Not it being stolen from the producing country's reactors. //

Quisquis Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
12y
6,846
Heads up for the discussion:

1 ton of uranium is only about two cubic feet. //

Pueo Ars Scholae Palatinae
10y
1,005

jandrese said:
I think it's more of a case where terrorists also get centrifuges...

HALEU still poses more of a risk if we're worried about covert enrichment because by the time you're at 20% you've already done about 90% of the separative work necessary to reach weapons grade uranium. This means you have only 10% of the signal or 10% of the time available to catch the covert enrichment of HALEU vs the cover enrichment of natural uranium. //

Atterus Ars Tribunus Militum
6y
1,663
Time to end the technological dark ages caused by nuclear fears. Nearly every issue surrounding the tech is the result of government meddling and red tape along with lying about providing a place to store what little waste there COULD be if reprocessing was allowed. All due to unfounded fear mongering largely based on a shitty film, braindead communist planners in Russia, and a journalist that thought it was scandalous concrete had elevated radioactivity... decades of stagnation as a result. //

Nick31 Seniorius Lurkius
7y
6
I was interested in this, until I saw that the only source was from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the same group who specializes in fear-mongering and hysteria with their ridiculous "Doomsday Clock." In this case they seem to be using their hypothetical disaster scenarios to ask for the last thing the nuclear power industry needs: more government regulations.

Councilwoman Vickie Paladino @VickieforNYC
·
We must destroy the environment to save it!

Once every Joshua Tree is uprooted to make room for acres solar panels and the whales and birds are killed by windmills, and electricity is expensive and intermittent for all but the wealthiest, we’ll have saved the planet!

This is all much better than building a few modern nuclear plants.

John Solomon @jsolomonReports
Joshua trees growing for over 100 years will be cleared for solar farm in California https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/joshua-trees-growing-over-100-years-will-be-cleared-solar-farm-california
8:55 PM · Jun 7, 2024

As global governments push for a rapid transition to electric vehicles and to wind and solar power, they are creating a demand for copper that threatens to undermine the very goals they seek to achieve.

According to a recent International Energy Forum report, electrifying the global vehicle fleet would require the opening of 55% more new copper mines than are already needed, and twice the total amount of copper that has ever been mined throughout human history over the next three decades. //

Since copper is a core component in electronics, raising the cost of copper makes it far more difficult for developing areas of the world to access energy. Copper is a crucial component in electric vehicles. A typical EV requires nearly 200 pounds of copper, or about four times the amount needed for a combustion-engine vehicle. //

The energy industry is facing government mandates for wind and solar. A typical 3-megawatt wind turbine requires 9 tons of copper, more than the weight of a school bus. Wind power requires more than seven times the amount of copper to produce the same amount of energy that natural gas or coal does, and five times the copper as nuclear power. //

Policymakers pushing for a rapid shift to EVs and renewables are also responsible for the red tape in mining for critical minerals. Without more mining, the planned EVs won’t be built. Even Chinese critical materials won’t get America all the way to its EV targets.

Under the terms of the sale, Amazon not only acquired Cumulus' datacenter facilities and associated power infrastructure, but has direct — behind the meter — access to a sizable chunk of the energy generated by the nuclear plant's two reactors.

Over the course of its contract with Talen, Amazon expects to unlock upwards of 960 MW of power supply. However, we'll note that the cloud titan has the option to cap this at 480 MW if it doesn't actually need all of it.

We've now learned at least 15 new datacenters will be built adjacent and connected to the fission plant over the next ten years. As we've previously reported, an AWS campus with five buildings may take up 600,000 square feet, or around 13 acres, and capacity of between 50 and 60 megawatts. //

As generative AI has taken off, it's not uncommon to see clusters of 20,000 or more GPUs capable of consuming in excess of 25 megawatts of power, deployed.

40% of US need for lithium could be covered by Pennsylvania's fracking byproduct.

Last week, leading lights of the global fossil power industry gathered at a conference in Houston, Texas, for CERA, known in the sector as the “Davos of Energy”. They reportedly got the shock of their professional careers.

They had invited the most senior executives from the biggest network owner (Chine State Grid Corp) in the biggest energy market in the world (China). The organisers fully expected their Chinese guest to endorse the “all of the above” marketing pitch, which is underpinning the “keep coal” campaign.

No such luck. Despite prodding by leading oil industry commentator Daniel Yergin, the chairman of State Grid Liu Zhenya reportedly said the “fundamental solution was to accelerate clean energy, with the aim of replacing coal and oil.”

As the network operator builds out its clean power sources, they noted, coal-fired generators could only serve as “reserve power” to supplement renewables.

“The only hurdle to overcome is ‘mindset’,” Liu said. “There’s no technical challenge at all.” //

New data bears this out. In China, thermal power plant utilisation rates (capacity factors) declined from 56.2 per cent on average in 2014 to a record low of just 50.9 per cent in 2015.

“This highlights coal is not ‘base load’, even in China,” Buckley says. “It is the marginal source of supply. Coal-fired power plants aren’t designed to run only half the time, but that is what is happening in China, and increasingly that is occurring in India as well.” //

Indeed, CLP, the Hong Kong-based owner of the Yallourn and Mt Piper coal-fired power stations in Australia, revealed this week that its “flagship” Jhajjar coal plant in India ran at a capacity factor of just 49.9 per cent in 2015.

In Australia, it was even worse. The 1,400MW Mt Piper power station near Lithgow in NSW operated at just 45 per cent of its capacity, even after its neighbouring Wallerawang coal plant had been shut down.

Other black coal generators have been similarly afflicted, so much so that the Northern power station in South Australia is to shut permanently in May. //

A study by energy consultant Energeia suggests that wind energy will become the default “base load” generation in South Australia, and dispatchable power sources – which previously dominated the grid, the markets and the business models – will have to fill in the gaps left by wind and solar. //

The gaps would be filled by flexible plant such as solar towers, or battery storage, or from gas – as long as it can compete with the new technologies.

It costs less energy to get fossil fuels, but we can't use them as efficiently.

It doesn't take a lot of energy to dig up coal or pump oil from the ground. In contrast, most renewable sources of energy involve obtaining and refining resources, sophisticated manufacturing, and installation. So, at first glance, when it comes to the energy used to get more energy—the energy return on investment—fossil fuels seem like a clear winner. That has led some to argue that transitioning to renewables will create an overall drop in net energy production, which nobody is interested in seeing.

A new study by researchers at the UK's University of Leeds, however, suggests that this isn't a concern at all—in most countries, renewables already produce more net energy than the fossil fuels they're displacing. The key to understanding why is that it's much easier to do useful things with electricity than it is with a hunk of coal or a glob of crude oil. //

Focusing on utility makes a substantial difference. Using the 2020 data, the final, delivered-to-end-user EROI of fossil fuels is quite good, at approximately 8.5, meaning you get about 8.5 units of energy out for every one you invest. (This is averaged across all fuels and uses.) Once you try to do something useful with it, however, it drops dramatically so that the useful-stage EROI is only about 3.5. Which, to be clear, is bad—you want to be getting as much useful energy as possible for every unit of energy you put into things.

Different fuels have very different profiles, however. Natural gas has the highest useful-stage EROI at 9.5, coal is at 7.2, and oil products are only 2, meaning we only get about twice as much energy out of gasoline as we put into producing and using it. Most of these values have been largely unchanged for the past 50 years except for natural gas, which has seen a dramatic drop in the EROI of getting it ready to use (possibly due to the energy costs of fracking—the trend is most notable in the 1980s), and a smaller drop in useful-stage EROI.

A large contributor to these values is how these fuels are put to use. For example, the useful-stage EROI for natural gas in heating buildings is about 12, meaning it can be used reasonably efficiently. The value for heating with oil products is only about 5. Oil products used in road and rail propulsion are also terrible, being just above 2 for rail travel and under 2 for roads.

Renewable energy, in this analysis, is focused on things like wind and solar, which deliver electrons to the grid (things like renewable production of methane are pretty minor at this point). Those can be used for things like heating, rail and road transit, and other uses performed by fossil fuels. Many of these uses are extremely efficient—things like heat pumps and electric motors are much better at turning energy into utility than their fossil fuel equivalents. //

chekk Smack-Fu Master, in training
4y
47
A bit confused by the "Energy efficiency and utility" section:

final-stage EROIs, which tracked the energy used to get a unit of energy to where it's ready for use—so, all the energetic costs of extraction, processing, and delivery
and:
The one thing this doesn't include is the energy cost of the infrastructure needed to extract fossil fuels

What about the energy cost of the infrastructures for processing and delivery? Are those included or not?
To put it a different way, what does "all the energetic costs" actually mean? //

SnoopCatt Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
7m
524
Subscriptor
While the energetic cost of getting energy in the hands of people in a form that's ready for use is a "useful" metric, I think we also need to consider the cost of being able to use energy when we need to. For renewables, this means factoring the cost of batteries or other energy storage mechanisms. //

kevbo Seniorius Lurkius
5y
6
Subscriptor++
I'm looking at the paper: I'm not seeing anything about end-of-life disposal costs. That's one of the "renewable feels like it is more expensive" points: turbine blades and toxic solar panels and batteries need to be disposed of. Of course, it doesn't seem to account for disposing traditional power plants either. I don't know what that end of life cost does to this kind of calculation. I wish it was covered. //

jdbosma Seniorius Lurkius
13y
12
Subscriptor++
It's not clear that this study correctly accounts for the difference between work and heat.
Fossil fuels produce heat. Solar-thermal renewables do too, but photovoltaics and wind produce work (electricity).
Heat is energy that moves from one location to another only under the influence of a termperature difference. Work is energy that can (theoretically) be converted to lifting a weight in a gravitational field, among other useful tasks.
Both work and and heat are energy, i.e. measured in Joules. To convert heat to work is possible, using a heat engine, but under typical conditions no more than about 40% of the heat can be converted to work. The theoretical upper limit on heat engine efficiency is provided by the Carnot relation - achievable implementations always fall short of the maximum.
Direct generation of work energy, as performed by photovoltaics and wind power, is more flexible and in most cases preferable to generation of heat. For one thing, work as electrical power is readily transported over long distances by wire. Work can readily be converted to heat with no loss of energy. When the desired output involves moving heat, a unit of work can sometimes move several times its energy value of heat - this principle is applied in heat pumps for space heating.
It does not make sense to compare the EROI for the heating value of fossil fuels against the electrical value of wind power, since a Joule of work is worth roughly 3x a Joule of heat in some applications, and a Joule of work can always be converted to a Joule of heat when that is desired.
To be most useful, the study should separately compare the EROIs for processes where the output is heat vs. work. //

pete.d Ars Centurion
6y
259
Subscriptor
The article doesn't mention nuclear at all. Did the researchers even consider that energy source, or were they strictly comparing fossil fuels with renewables?

There has been a lot of debate, especially lately, regarding whether nuclear energy is in fact cost-competitive with renewables, even ignoring the lengthy construction times involved. It would've been really interesting to see where nuclear fit into this analysis.

Toronto-based Hydrostor Inc. is one of the businesses developing long-duration energy storage that has moved beyond lab scale and is now focusing on building big things. The company makes systems that store energy underground in the form of compressed air, which can be released to produce electricity for eight hours or longer. //

Unlike some other long-duration storage companies, Hydrostor has proven its technology. The company has operated a small, 1.75-megawatt plant in Goderich, Ontario, since 2019, which can run for about six hours at a time. Compressed-air storage existed before Hydrostor—plants in Germany and Alabama have been around for decades and use variations on this approach.

Hydrostor’s system uses a supersize air compressor that ideally would run on renewable electricity. The system draws air from the environment, compressing it and moving it through a pipe into a cavern more than 1,000 feet underground. The process of compressing the air produces heat, and the system extracts heat from the air and stores it above ground for reuse. As the air goes underground, it displaces water from the cavern up a shaft into a reservoir.

When it’s time to discharge energy, the system releases water into the cavern, forcing the air to the surface. The air then mixes with heat that the plant stored when the air was compressing, and this hot, dense air passes through a turbine to make electricity.

Under the new plan, however, all such habitats would be categorically off-limits as soon as it is discovered that the land is occupied by a listed species. Any potential impacts to endangered species habitats that are discovered in the course of site surveys (usually after millions of dollars have already been expended on the project application) would kill the project entirely.

The permitting risk, already prohibitive for many new projects, could put whole states beyond the reach of all but the most hardy (or foolish) developers. The solar energy areas under the new solar plan overlap substantially with areas containing multiple endangered and threatened species. This endangered species exclusion alone would eliminate virtually all new solar development in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, which lead the nation in solar capacity per acre. //

Even for the 14% of BLM land left available for solar project development after all these exclusions, the new plan imposes onerous permitting requirements. These include some 600 mandatory design elements.

Some of these verge on the comical. BLM proposes a blanket prohibition on “grading” (leveling out land), which is indispensable for access roads, utility-scale batteries, transmission poles, and construction staging. The plan also prohibits development within 200 feet of ephemeral streams (those that come into existence, for example, after heavy rainfall, and then go away) and requires 75% residual vegetation around the development.

These requirements will be impossible to meet economically for many projects, and even where possible, would significantly expand the amount of land required per unit of electricity, thus defeating the goal of conservation. //

Most surprisingly, the new plan does not address any of the major problems that years of experience have revealed in the permitting process for solar and other energy projects on BLM land. On the contrary, it makes the permitting challenges even worse for existing projects applications, which are not “grandfathered” in any respect. Many solar project applications already in process will have to start over, and many of those applicants will prefer to cut their losses instead.

Many projects’ applications have been pending for years, and companies have already negotiated operational and power-purchase agreements of various kinds and would be bankrupted by having to start over.

This demonstrates a problem with heavily regulated sectors: Officials feel all too free to “move the goal posts” with little concern for the enormous losses they are causing developers and investors and little understanding that these are social losses that impact everybody.

For Americans to avoid a prolonged period of energy scarcity in the high-demand decade ahead, the nation will require a significant expansion in electricity generation. The bulk of that will need to come from nuclear and fossil sources, which are significantly more abundant, “energy dense,” and reliable than renewable sources like solar and wind. //

The new solar plan is being promoted as a partial solution, but even a brief review shows clearly that it will only make those problems worse. The plan is a clear sellout to left-wing environmentalists. And it shows that while those environmentalists hate fossil fuels, they don’t particularly love renewable energy—or energy of any kind.

They mean to save the planet for what they think is the planet’s sake, not for our sake. And if in the process they plunge the world into energy scarcity—a much grimmer fate than all the doomsday climate scenarios put together—in their minds, that’s just too bad for us.

In more than 20 countries, with 40 Powerships, Karpowership has with more than 6,000 MW installed capacity. With our fleet composed of Powerships, FSRUs, LNG Carriers, Support Ships we provide universal access to power for people and communities on 4 continents around the world.

in 2020 a third addendum was signed to increase the capacity to 65 MW. Karpowership is operational in the country since 2018 and has been supplying 80% of Sierra Leone’s total electricity needs. ///

LNG

Billionaire Elon Musk said this month that while the development of AI had been “chip constrained” last year, the latest bottleneck to the cutting-edge technology was “electricity supply.” Those comments followed a warning by Amazon chief Andy Jassy this year that there was “not enough energy right now” to run new generative AI services. //

“One of the limitations of deploying [chips] in the new AI economy is going to be ... where do we build the data centers and how do we get the power,” said Daniel Golding, chief technology officer at Appleby Strategy Group and a former data center executive at Google. “At some point the reality of the [electricity] grid is going to get in the way of AI.” //

Such growth would require huge amounts of electricity, even if systems become more efficient. According to the International Energy Agency, the electricity consumed by data centers globally will more than double by 2026 to more than 1,000 terawatt hours, an amount roughly equivalent to what Japan consumes annually.

In 2023, China really knocked the wind out of the sails (hah) of the renewable-energy crowd. In that year, China built some new coal-fired electrical generation facilities. In fact, they built a lot of coal-fired electrical plants — as in...more than twice that of the rest of the world combined.

China ramped up coal power capacity last year, according to new analysis, despite a pledge to "strictly control" the dirtiest fossil fuel.

The country added 47.4 Gigawatts (GW) of new coal power in 2023, more than double the amount added by the rest of the world combined.

The 23 million-acre petroleum reserve on the North Slope was set aside as an emergency oil supply, originally for the U.S. Navy, by President Warren Harding.

In 1976, in accordance with the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, administration of the reserve was transferred to the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and renamed the NPR-A.

President Joe Biden is on the verge of locking down half of it, making it unavailable for oil and gas development. He intends to do so with a new rule that is proposed by the Biden Administration through the Bureau of Land Management, a division of the Department of Interior.

Glistening in the dry expanses of the Nevada desert is an unusual kind of power plant that harnesses energy not from the sun or wind, but from the Earth itself.

Known as Project Red, it pumps water [8000] feet into the ground, down where rocks are hot enough to roast a turkey [380F]. Around the clock, the plant sucks the heated water back up to power generators [3.5 MW]. Since last November, this carbon-free, Earth-borne power has been flowing onto a local grid in Nevada. //

But geothermal enthusiasts have dreamed of sourcing Earth power in places without such specific geological conditions—like Project Red’s Nevada site, developed by energy startup Fervo Energy.

Such next-generation geothermal systems have been in the works for decades, but they’ve proved expensive and technologically difficult, and have sometimes even triggered earthquakes. Some experts hope that newer efforts like Project Red may now, finally, signal a turning point, by leveraging techniques that were honed in oil and gas extraction to improve reliability and cost-efficiency.

The advances have garnered hopes that with enough time and money, geothermal power—which currently generates less than 1 percent of the world’s electricity, and 0.4 percent of electricity in the United States—could become a mainstream energy source. Some posit that geothermal could be a valuable tool in transitioning the energy system off of fossil fuels, because it can provide a continuous backup to intermittent energy sources like solar and wind.

A new energy bill passed by the Florida legislature, which DeSantis is certain to sign, bans offshore wind turbines and prioritizes reliable, affordable electricity over utopian renewable fantasies. According to experts at the Energy Research Institute, this bold move represents a reasoned pushback against the climate activist agenda that has destabilized power grids across America. //

Institute for Energy Research
@IERenergy
·
Follow
Texas and California produce more renewable energy than all other states, but they also lead the nation in power outages.
instituteforenergyresearch.org
https://t.co/2c8kn8dGX8
As Renewable Energy Increases in the Generation Mix, Power Outages Grow
3:10 PM · Mar 25, 2024

A microgrid is a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid. It can connect and disconnect from the grid to operate in grid-connected or island mode. Microgrids can improve customer reliability and resilience to grid disturbances.

Advanced microgrids enable local power generation assets—including traditional generators, renewables, and storage—to keep the local grid running even when the larger grid experiences interruptions or, for remote areas, where there is no connection to the larger grid. In addition, advanced microgrids allow local assets to work together to save costs, extend duration of energy supplies, and produce revenue via market participation.

RNC Research @RNCResearch
·
In 2022, Biden claimed he had "a plan to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve" after draining it to its lowest level in four decades.

Today, they cancelled that plan because oil is too expensive.

10:51 AM · Apr 3, 2024 //

Not only are they paying more after they drained it, but they left it at its lowest point in 40 years, endangering our security for political reasons. It currently holds about 363 million barrels, down almost 600 million from the beginning of 2022. //

Brianna Lyman @briannalyman2
·
Donald Trump wanted to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in March of 2020 when oil was $24 a barrel.

Schumer called it a big oil bailout.

Biden will now pay about TRIPLE to fill the reserves after draining them to keep gas prices artificially ‘low’ for votes.

5:06 PM · Oct 19, 2022 //

//

Viscount Montgomery of Arkansi
10 hours ago
“Nearly 1 million barrels of oil from the most recent sale, which was announced on June 14 2022, went to Unipec America, Inc. Unipec is a Houston-based subsidiary of Sinopec, an oil company owned by the Chinese government.”

DonR Viscount Montgomery of Arkansi
10 hours ago
Virtually 100% of the oil they bought wound up in China's SPR, because they understand why having a bunch of oil handy is a good idea. As far as why, well 10% for the big guy comes to mind.