The Situation with Coal-fired Power Plants in Asia Is Urgent
Below is a graphic that I borrowed from my friends at Energy and Capital (Hi, Jeff Siegel!) illustrating the real problem we face vis-a’-vis coal on the international scene.
I’m reminded of an interview I did for a consultant in Germany, who was looking for tips on how his country could drive investment in clean energy. At the conclusion I said:
I have every respect for what Germany has done here, and the fact that they’ve sent you to conduct this interview is further indication of your country’s commitment to renewables. But I urge you to consider that, just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, our environment is only as healthy as its largest polluters. That’s China, and, to a lesser degree, India. If we can’t find a way to support the large Asian nations to knock off their dependence on fossil fuels, especially coal, all the cleantech in the world coming out of Germany won’t avert the catastrophe we all face.
I have a friend who lives in Bejing and in Inner Mongolia. She needs to put a damp cloth around her face on many days because of the pollution from coal fired power plants. The problem is equally bad in Mongolian cities as it is in Bejing.
So what do we do about as U.S. citizens? Not much other than continue to put information on the free press internet about the hazzards of air pollution. Stories about Pittsburg and how we transferred our pollution to the skies of China would strike a chord with many who are suffering from that decision.
I don’t think we will ever get them to shut down their power plants to clean the air if it means turning out the lights. Their cities are modern and the addiction to power is strong.
The solution is to sell them on clean coal. Scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, pre cleaned coal slurries, sulfuric acid production from effluents and fly ash recyling can possibly clean their air and buy time for their massive commitment to wind and solar generation to expand and begin to replace the coal fired installations.
The enormity of scale demands solutions that are tailored to China’s insatiable drive for 1st world status. There are no quick easy solutions to this problem.
I agree that there are no quick easy solutions to this problem. Having said that, as you know, I’m a big proponent of cleantech R&D funded in the public sector, and government-sponsored jobs in energy efficiency. At no point in history has the need been more urgent.
Larry,
Your suggestions would go a long way towards removing the irritating portions of the smoke, which of course is desirable, but would not reduce the CO2 emissions. Actually, they would somewhat increase the CO2 emissions.
I am reminded of how I read Pittsburgh was in the 19th century. The air pollution from steel making and coke making was so extreme that clothing hung outside to dry became covered with soot.
China has decided to reduce its commitment to wind and solar and instead, put the emphasis on nuclear power. China is also doing R & D work on other types of reactors, including the liquid fluoride thorium reactor( LFTR) because in their opinion, wind and solar are not capable of providing for the energy needs. India is also doing R & D work on nuclear reactors, but they plan to use thorium in a solid from, in fuel rods, instead of using it as thorium tetrafluoride. Probably that is a mistake, but at least it will reduce their use of fossil fuels.
http://www.learningaboutenergy.com/2012/04/china-to-drop-solar-wind-to-focus-on-nuclear-power.html
I was remiss in ignoring the important contribution that nuclear will be making in Asia. My only excuse is that nuclear has been dismissed by Craig so often that I didn’t want to re-till that ground.
Next generation Thorium reactors solve many of the problems associated with BWR and PWR actively cooled systems. Even in a carbon free generation world the storage issues must be laid to rest. We and they will need the base load capacity provided by nuclear.
Being green does not exempt folks from the laws of physics.
The anti development critics who would like to see global energy demand level off or decrease do not live in the third world. They are going to increase their own and the total world consumption of energy whether we like it or not. The best we can do is support their choices of cleaner sources for the good of the whole planet. Nuclear power is a no-brainer IMO.
Please don’t feel intimidated by my concerns about nuclear. Obviously, to the degree it’s safe, both in terms of its operations and waste disposal, it’s a viable candidate — that then needs to compete on costs.
Craig,
That’s very encouraging. I hope that you will push for more research on improved nuclear technologies. If wind and solar prove impractical, as I expect, it would be a mistake not to have done more research on improved nuclear technologies.
The new Westinghouse AP1000 seems to be a far better nuclear system than current systems, but it is not a new technology; it is simply a modification of our currently popular nuclear technology.
Although the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) to me seems to be the most promising, I think that it would be premature to rule out other possibilities. However, I do have extreme reservations about our current pressurized water thermal uranium reactor technology. It can be made adequately safe and the waste problem can be mitigated by waste reprocessing, but the very concept is such that multiple redundant methods and add-ons must be used to ensure adequate safety. I’d much prefer a nuclear concept that is inherently safer and requires fewer add-on safety measures.
Our present nuclear technology is horribly inefficient. To enrich natural uranium from 0.7% U235 to from 2% to 5% U235, it is necessary to treat most of the U238 as waste; that in itself is horribly inefficient. Then, when the enriched uranium is put into a reactor, the reactor is able to extract only about 1% of the available energy from it, with the rest treated as waste. So, the total efficiency is somewhere about 0.02%. That doesn’t even consider the thermodynamic losses which are increased because the reactor operates at a much lower temperature than coal-burning systems. Anyway one looks at it, it is a bad nuclear technology.
As I have stated in several posts, I am not completely ruling out renewable systems, i.e., wind and solar. I do believe that they have an important place, but not as a major source of power for large prosperous countries. Even if they could be made to work on a technical basis, the costs of making them reliable would result in their being politically unacceptable. Probably Germany is about to find that out; it looks as though their decision to eschew nuclear will quickly result in a 40% increase in the already high cost of electricity, with further increases to follow. And, according to what I’ve read, wind power requires 10 times as much steel and 30 times as much concrete as nuclear (sources do vary somewhat), so it’s difficult to see how costs could ever be reasonable.
Public opinion is fickle. In it’s early stages, the Vietnam War was widely supported, but now it is difficult to find anyone who will admit ever having supported it. That’s only one example of fickle public opinion. Those who unconditionally eschew nuclear power will change their minds in response to how their bank accounts are affected.
Larry,
Your comments on the Third World are right on. In some parts of the Third World (think India), the population density is so high that there would be insufficient space for renewable systems. I haven’t seen consistent figures on how much global demand for energy will increase, but I’d guess that it will be by at least five times as India, China, Africa, and other areas increase their demand for energy to lift their people out of poverty. So the amount of the world’s energy to come from non-CO2 emitting sources will probably have to be AT LEAST 80% to prevent excessive global warming. That cannot be done if wind and solar rely on fossil fuels for back-up.
Thank you Frank and Larry for your balanced support for nuclear energy. Who knows, we might make a nukie out of Craig yet. Of course he would have to stop listening to the likes of Amory Lovins 🙂
I agree that coal isn’t going away any time soon. That’s the trouble with global warming. It’s global, not national, We here in the USA could stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, but that would not avert impending climate change as long as China and India keep using coal the way they are.
It seems as if it is our unfortunate duty to continue to pursue clean coal technology here at home and try to sell it to China and India.
I think a way out of this is to have a tariff here and in Europe on goods imported into these areas made with dirty coal. Whether it would pass muster with the WTO would be a question, however.
One of the big slams against nuclear is its cost. For an interesting take on why nuclear energy development got this way, see http://www.atomicengines.com/Atomic_Socialism.html
Ha!
I don’t think ANYONE would remain anti-nuclear if they could be convinced that the technology is both safe and cost-effective. The problem for its supporters is, I think, that we’re a long way from both these items.
Btw, you’re absolutely correct that the ultimate game here is to provide, somehow, India and China with renewable energy technologies.
Anonymous is Tim Kingston. I don’t know why my name didn’t show up properly.
Anon,
You have made very good points. However, there is one point in the linked-to article that should be expanded
The amount of nuclear waste is generally stated by weight rather than by volume. The waste is extremely dense so although the amount in weight seems huge, in terms of volume it is quite small. Without doing some searching, I cannot quantify the actual volume of waste, but perhaps someone else will. And, until we are prepared to reprocess the waste, it should be stored in such a way that reprocessing it later would be practical.
One thing I keep emphasizing is that on a global bases, it makes little difference what our energy source is here in the U.S. since we are only about 315 million people and the population of the world is more than seven billion. Of course we should be addressing the CO2 problem here, but we should also be playing an active rôle in helping poor nations implement energy systems that don’t emit CO2. In many situations that has to be nuclear power, but in some areas, including small island nations and remote villages that cannot be connected to the grid yet, nuclear power would be inappropriate so renewables backed up with batteries or Diesel power would seem to be the energy source of choice.
I just found this Forbes article on what may happen in Deutchland as a result of their deciding to eschew nuclear power:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/10/17/anti-nuclear-plan-cutting-into-germanys-families/?ss=business:energy
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.