An Unfortunate Shift in Our Thinking on Climate Change
As shown in the video below, it wasn’t that long ago that both political parties in the U.S. accepted the science surrounding climate change and saw the imperative to take steps to mitigate it.
Now all that’s changed—but what kind of force was brought to bear upon one of the parties, causing it to change its position completely?
While this doesn’t exactly explain anything, it’s clear that a significant segment of the U.S. population is on a regressionist course—running full-speed away from tolerance and acceptance into the days of suspicion, hatred, and bigotry, and, more to the point, away from the light of science and reason, back into the era of superstition.
Now, for a great many, ignorance is a kind of virtue; for the first time in the last hundred years or so, it’s acceptable for people to express sincere beliefs on scientific matters that fly directly into the teeth of science itself.
Why? I’m compelled by the reasoning that many people offer: all of these disturbing characteristics had never left our society; they simply lay dormant until they were awakened with the “Make America Great Again” us-versus-them scapegoat mantra.
Of even greater concern is this: After the Trump candidacy falls into the recesses of history, all that hatred and ignorance will need a new place to go. I call this the “conservation of hatred,” i.e., hatred cannot be created or destroyed; it just changes forms, like mass and energy.
Of course, optimists dispute this; people who hold a high opinion of humankind believe that our civilization is on a path towards reason and compassion. Maybe they’re right.
Craig climate change is a global issue not an American issue, and it is real.
The way forward might be as simple as mobilising the best and brightest in the global technology development sector collectively, to work towards the development and commercialising of ‘enduring new clean technologies’ that result in a permanent and substantial reversal of the worsening negative trends relating to greenhouse gas emissions. There you have it, mission accomplished.
Drilling down on this point, the major greenhouse negative contributor has been of course: The burning/combustion of fossil fuels and oil, along with forests for all sorts of energy related human activities, such as electricity generation and powering internal combustion engines.
The key point to take away here is ‘energy production’ is the foundation to our very existence and this will not change. The world is very much underpowered at this time, and estimations have been mooted that globally we need at least six times the amount of power we currently produce to power the energy intensive technologies of the future, and move forward globally as one. My calculations show that six times is a very conservative estimate.
There is a lot of confusion about the pathway to mitigate and reverse greenhouse gas emissions permanently and forever, and Governments of all countries have been palpably responsible for this confusion over the last 10 years. They have failed collectively to develop a philosophy about global energy; human advancement and prosperity, and articulate the case for the future energy needs of the world’s peoples and mobilise the technology sectors to strive to meet these global imperatives through ‘enduring energy dense clean technologies’ that we can rely on effectively forever.
So why are we all log-jammed about the global energy imperative that must be met, which is: ‘low cost and abundant power for all people’?
Maybe because everyone it seems from Governments to the ordinary person have been hijacked by the over-emphasis and extraordinary polarised rhetoric about the current crop of renewable energy technologies we see around (such as wind power and solar PV) as the total solution to worsening climate change trends. Governments the world over are now wringing their hands over how to unwind the renewable energy policies put in place this last decade that have now spiralled out of control with no tangible net gains realised.
This is absurd thinking akin to brainwashing.
The real debate Craig that people must take up is to move beyond simply discussing the virtues of wind power and solar PV and the like, or we are all simply jogging on the spot and getting nowhere. These technologies have done absolutely nothing to the global demands for fossil fuels in 10 years, and they are not the technologies that we should be focussing on and over-emphasising.
Forums like yours would be a good place to introduce discussions on the next generation of ‘enduring energy dense clean technologies’ Craig that will satisfy the global energy imperative of ‘low cost and abundant power for all people”.
Lawrence Coomber
Totally agree with your comments here. With regard to energy density that you mention, Frank Shu talks about it in the following video after his talk (go to 2:10:12) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTnBdleS98Y
Lawrence,
You estimate that energy usage will have to increase by about SIX TIMES! You may be right, but the highest figures I’ve seen are about four times. In any case, there will have to be a dramatic increase in energy usage to lift poor nations out of poverty while also greatly increasing sea water desalination and air conditioning. Except for niche situations, 100% that power will have to come from nuclear sources and burning fossil fuels will have to be practically eliminated.
“Solar” power systems which also depend on fossil fuels, cannot do the job since they do not eliminate the use of fossil fuels. For more information, do a google search on “Ivanpah gas” to get more information on a huge concentrated solar power system in California which uses natural gas. Although it is reported that it generates less than 5% of its power from natural gas, we must get that down to ZERO. Also, not all solar system can be located in such a favorable situation and therefore would use more gas. It should also be noted that wind and solar systems use from five to ten times as much concrete and steel as nuclear systems. The following web site provides figures for the amount of concrete and steel required for wind, solar, and nuclear power:
https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
Our current most advanced nuclear technology can do the job, i.e., the European Pressurized Reactor and the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. We should expand that as quickly as possible, on a global basis, realizing that the dangers of global warming greatly exceed the risks of nuclear power. And, as better nuclear technologies and fuel cycles become available, we can implement them. At least some of them will be able to use our current “waste” as fuel. Small modular nuclear reactors will make nuclear power practical where it is not now practical and will expedite expanding nuclear power.
As for running out of uranium, we already have the technology to deal with that. Thorium, which is about four times as abundant as uranium, can be used along with uranium in slightly modified current reactor designs and is one of several ways to prevent ever running out of nuclear fuel.
It is way too late to prevent serious global warming, but we can at least limit it to some degree. In theory, I believe that we could deal with the amount of global warming which can no longer be prevented, but it would take an unprecedented degree of global coöperation which I see as unlikely to occur. There will be millions, perhaps even billions, of climate refugees which the world’s political systems cannot deal with. In fact, we have not even adequately dealt with the few million refugees we have now.
I greatly fear that because of lack of good planning and coöperation, there is a high risk that civilization as we know it will collapse.
To Craig , Lawrence and Breath on the Wind
Excellent question you pose Craig, the weak political system has so called leaders trapped in a vicious circle that Lawrence articulated quite well.
Sound Energy policy is in conflict with HYper Political positions. Energy policy Solutions are long term in nature while Politics suffers under extreme short term pressures , tainted with CASH that cause erratic positions and weakened policy. Factor in a dumbed down citizenry and great or false expectations as well as political rhetoric that undermines sound logical and critical thinking and the complex prescriptive solutions and its a tough mix.
As Craig said it is now politically attractive to reject science , facts and the like. People celebrate being dumb and feel free to be dumb its a Badge of Honor now. Energy / Economic Experts get rejected and called Elitist with an agenda . etc., etc. etc.,
Perhaps its mutually Exclusive ??don’t know ? Perhaps?
So Maybe its the flawed human condition too !
Well said Lawrence.
Some of my closest colleagues in energy & environmental sector share the same discussion among-st ourselves more and more the past few years as we see perhaps the limits of solar and wind given current formats. We Still believe in them, etc and want more rapid expansion but open to a robust mixture of energy sources that don’t pollute like the legacy systems do.
We all have many megawatts of both under our belts as well as many years of energy efficiency, and design for the built market.
We see reductions in CO 2 and demand for power has been reduced in the US so some positive impact has happened go talk to Utility Executives . But some of these reductions in power demand is due to the exporting off shore of energy intensive manufacturing and reduced economic activity that is energy intensive due to the hallowing out of our US economy. However, Nationally in US demand growth is mostly slightly negative around .7 % with some geographical exceptions Been that way for 6 years in a row.
But perhaps Lawrence is looking at the developing world and nations like India, Brazil and many others where incomes are rising , middle class lifestyles are being sought and one things stands out is the foretasted increase in A / C usage.
A colleague in HVAC sector a Geo Thermal promoter and Energy Efficiency professional was at a local ASHRAE training session and a speaker from ASHRAE said global demand for a/C in the developing world was going to be 700,000,000 new AC units.
Blew me away , if that number is real then we NEED some Major power plants for sure.
The comments were made that parallel what Lawrence said , all the conservation aside and solar aside all the gains are going to be wiped out or off set by this new A/C loads in the coming 20 years .
There is new solar and wind , battery efficiency that is entering the market plus more in the lab research process so Renewable energy is going to get stronger but meeting the future loads is a legitimate question. Its no time for Amateur Hour Players either !
Last but not least part of my response to Craig’s question is that the GOMER party is mostly responsible for the Blow and Push back to the Green Energy . Those who want to dispute get the voting records out and the media coverage makes a convincing case the sources of the political opposition. Follow the money also!
Breath on the Wind ,you inquired about word Gomer. Granted the word Gomer may not resonate as Good Queen’s English or what ever your issue is with it but my circle of professionals all wanted a slang term to describe political stupidity or dumb policy. One of our group a Master degree plus person came up with the dumb soldier Gomer Pyle TV show from our youth. So we adopted it and have used it for over 6 years or so. We get no complaints even from some Gomers themselves they giggle sorta!
Back in Texas some of us use to use the slang word GOOBER to allude to stupid people , rednecks etc. We had grown tired of Redneck word. Lots of Goober tales floating across the vast expanses but we needed a new word so wee came up w GOMER.
Gomer party (GOP) has been owned by fossil fuels and coal for decades and done more than their share of bidding and compromising. It is only in recent years that coal ash ponds which are toxic have come under proper regulation and mitigation. And many a gomer wants to roll back progressive coal ash ponds regulations. So they got lots of explaining to do for the continued bad practices but they just seem to get away with it.
Maybe the Millennial Generation will call them out perhaps.
The owners are all crying to the bank and their gomer political leaders for relief , fill their election coffers with cash , so of course there will be Pushback, its a vicious cycle.
Terms like American Energy, Real Americans, Energy Voter and the like all are divisive and show lines of demarcation being drawn between those advocating a green energy future and those who want to have the status quo. So just when real progress is being made perhaps in America the political process goes into regression mode.Seems to be happening in UK also.
Hopefully others will join in as this subject is deep and wide.
Maybe the energy dense nuclear crowd with new formats will finally advance beyond theory and lab proof into viable deploy-able power sources that can be cost effectively deployed at scale. But Not With All the Cost Failures of the current generation of this technology etc. Time will tell??
Yes Craig there are real challenges to green clean progress. Thanks
Have you read Jane Meyers’ Dark Money?
I am doubling down on carbon soil sequestration.
john wick says we can cover 1/10 of california with compost and in 10 years be carbon negative..google “Marin carbon project”….
The Soil Story is my favorite succinct and short. also in Spanish and French.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ponam53-mYE
Something more detailed and scientific;
http://www.nofamass.org/carbon
http://www.ted.com/talks/marla_spivak_why_bees_are_disappearing
The Carbon soil cowboys show how they did it:
http://www.carbonnationmovie.com/about/clips/225-new-video-soil-carbon-cowboys
Sentient life starts responding to carbon dioxide poisoning at 100ppm, we are at 400ppm This IS affecting the bees..what about you & me?
I really can’t see future energy demands being > 10 times more than current demand. The developed world largely has as much energy as it needs, has a stable population, and can easily support economic growth by improved energy efficiency. The developed world is around 1 in 7 of us.
China too has high energy consumption, but is approaching population stability, and making rapid strides in reducing the carbon intensity of its economy so that in the last 2 years, coal use has stabilised and begun to fall – too soon to know if this is a permanent reduction, but there are hopeful signs.
The EU is rapidly moving towards building regulations requiring all new buildings to be constructed to or very near to Passivehaus / energy neutral standard in terms of heating, cooling, and hot water.
Vehicle standards worldwide are likewise demanding ever improving fuel efficiency, and with a shift to electric vehicles charged primarily by renewable and or nuclear energy will see a drop in primary energy consumption.
Industrial processes are becoming more efficient as is the “circular economy” in which products are recycled and their materials re-used at the end of product life.
Whilst I can see some need for growth in energy production in the developing world, it seems to me that by combining population control through education and the worldwide easy availability of VOLUNTARY contraception with improved energy efficiency and decarbonisation of the energy system, that the need for (currently unmet) energy services can be met with at most 2 to 3 times today’s energy consumption whilst still beginning to reduce the quantity of CO2 reaching the atmosphere.
I agree completely, but I would add that India is on its way to becoming the global pariah in the emissions arena.
India is more aware of climate change than most countries if only due to its vulnerability to even a minor rise in temperatures. Access to water is becoming a matter of intense concern with rivers running way below historic levels, decades of over extraction, and the added stress of a warming climate occasionally hitting levels which are even now, just barely survivable for a person outside in the shade.
India has a policy of developing 100 GW of solar power by 2022 together with a major expansion of wind power, the banning from sale of incandescent light bulbs, and other measures to reduce carbon intensity and boost efficiency. These are not the actions of a country trying to evade its responsibilities in regards to the climate.
I read somewhere that they’re heavily dedicated to coal. If that’s incorrect, I certainly am glad to hear it.
Gary,
You wrote that the developed world already has about as much energy as it needs. Probably that is true now. However, changes which have already been set in motion will require that we use more energy in the future.
Aquifers are already being depleted. No doubt we could use water somewhat more efficiently, but it is unlikely that without sea water desalination, which is very energy intensive, we could end aquifer depletion. Aquifer depletion is a problem here in New Mexico, U.S.A., and it is questionable whether desalinated sea water could be piped this far. That means that some agriculture would have to be moved, probably to California, which would make sea water desalination even more necessary in California. Increasing temperatures will increase the need for air conditioning.
In poor countries, considerable increases in energy use are needed to lift people out of poverty. Global warming will greatly increase the required energy use.
The area of the world suitable for farming will shift and may decrease. It may be necessary to do farming in high-rise multi-story farms using artificial lighting thereby further increasing energy requirements.
There are proposals to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Whether that will be practical I don’t know, but there are qualified scientists working on it. A google search on “atmospheric CO2 removal” will bring up many hits.
There is reason to fear that if CO2 increases beyond a certain point, ocean O2 levels will drop too low to support life and H2S will bubble out of the ocean resulting in mass extinctions. It has happened before. See this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
Craig,
It’s encouraging to see you are at last becoming to realize the danger about which I have been warning environmentalists for last few years, is coming to fruition !
The over-excitable, wildly dramatic, exaggerated claims by Global Warming/climate change extremist advocates, is producing an angry backlash.
Not from “vested interests” or some conspiracy cabal of James Bond styled villains, but a increasing numbers of ordinary folk.
These people are tired of being preached at by sanctimonious, patronizing, hypocritical know-it-alls.Ordinary people have grown suspicious and resentful of being sneered at by tax-payer funded “experts”, turning concern for the environment into a sort of religion, equipped with Inquisitors and the burning of heretics.
Ordinary folk have gained the impression that most “green advocates” are like watermelons. A thin layer of green on the outside, hiding a “red” agenda all the way through !
The vehemence of language, intolerance and arrogance by extreme advocates has created legacy mistrust and resistance. That’s the problem with ” Crusaders ” , they are not interested in compromise, tolerance and understanding.
Crusaders often lose sight of the original objective. The new objective of winning, and converting or destroying heretics becomes the driving passion.
But “revolutions” always devour their own children first ! Inevitably, from the chaos a strong leader emerges who institutes a period of repression.
This is why I have always advocated a moderate, inclusive, flexible, rational approach to environmental progress. Most battles are best won with careful preparation, ensuring majority support, and allowing even enemies to surrender without too much loss of face.
As Martin Luther King, Jr, observed “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that “
I suppose that’s one, if bizarre, way to look at it. The more straightforward is to recognize that here in the United States, we have an entire party that’s abandoned science and proposes policy that our scientists say will turn our planet into ruins.
Craig,
Bizarre ? Not really. Your explanation seems to be that millions of people, for some inexplicable reason, have decided to change their collective minds.
You offer no plausible explanation except to conclude that all these otherwise responsible people, have suddenly on a whim, decided to ” abandoned science and propose policy that “our” scientists say will turn our planet into ruins”.
I emphasized the word “our”, to illustrate that your statement is an excellent example of what I mean. When you speak of
“our “, you really mean scientists who agree with you.
Of course your next step will be to claim that the entire Republican party, and millions of supporters have all become puppets of a secret cabal of oil companies and other minions.
It’s much easier to call those who don’t agree with you, fools, knaves and even evil, than recognize that maybe, just maybe, it was your own behavior and style of communication that so alienated those with whom you disagree.
Maybe, that’s a more plausible explanation,..eh!
Craig, sometimes we have to be a little more humble, take stock, realize our own failure to adequately sell our message and change tactics ! Perhaps less bombast, and more subtle persuasion, what d’ya reckon, eh?
‘Course you can continue yelling, hysterically demonstrating, shouting abuse, and persist with a campaigning style that created such a negative counter-productive reaction. It’s a way of prove how morally and ideologically pure you are.
As as the numbers of supporters dwindle, and opposition increases you can always delude yourself it confirms your moral and ideological purity ! You can bask in the knowledge that they’ll all be sorry when doomsday arrives.
(I’m using the term “you” as a description of a type of extreme environmental activist, not you personally.)
By “our” climate scientists, I mean the vast majority of all such professionals worldwide who subscribe to the AGW theory. I happen to know some of these people personally, and I’m completely convinced by what they tell me. Moreover, I bet that if you were to spend some time with them, you’d feel the same way.
Craig,
Okay, that was the answer I expected. However, I invite you to consider what your reply entails in the context of your original proposition.
Like most environmentalists, dedicated to advocating climate change policies when meeting growing resentment and resistance,it seems to me you have three options:
A) Shout louder and demand coercive measures for others to conform to your beliefs.
B) Assume you know what’s ‘wrong’ with the thinking of others and continue to preach to the converted.
C) Step back, really listen with an open mind to the opposition, until you learn(not presume to know)their true fears and objections. Armed with that knowledge it may be possible to devise a more subtle, and effective, sales message that allays those fears and objections and maybe allows compromise and progress.
But then, that’s just my opinion.The choice is yours 🙂
Why do you you presume I am not acquainted with any scientists who actively support AWG/CC ? Moreover, why do you assume simply knowing someone and believing they are sincere and honest, requires an instant conversion to their beliefs ?
It’s possible to know, admire and respect intelligent sincere scientists, thinkers, writers, advocates, or even politicians with very differing points of view, without necessarily choosing sides.
As far as my explanation is concerned, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Republican Party here in the US is supported in large part by the fossil fuel industry and that the Republicans are working they’re hardest to remove environmental regulations and promote the notion that climate change is a hoax. The vast majority Republicans blindly follow this doctrine.
Fortunately, it’s not true of all; my mother, for instance, has been voting Republican for the last 70 years and tends to believe me and the scientists over the puppet politicians when it comes to climate change.
Craig,
Again, I anticipated your explanation. Of course it must be that the entire party and the millions who support them are all seduced by an evil cabal of oil companies.
That’s the problem with wanting to ‘win’ an argument.
Such claims may find acceptance with your own congregation of the converted, but only increase resentment and alienation with opponents, while those in the middle remain skeptical of both sides.
In the words of one of my favorite musicians from my youth, Phil Orchs, “Well I know you’re set on fightin’, but what are you fightin’ for?”
Donald Trump, Brexit, have all proved that a huge number of people have lost faith in the ” expert elite” who seem more interested in internecine warfare, and irrelevant point scoring than actually listening and responding to the needs and concerns of the average voter.
People have become angry with listening to condescending sermonizing from a self appointed sanctimonious elite.
The old bogeymen of bloated capitalists and oil company conspirators may still resonate with the young (especially student) and dedicated leftists, but the vast majority aren’t buying it anymore !
Shouting louder, and repeating ineffective mantra, just increases the support for the rise of populists. (they may not have the answer, but they know how to sell the message).
Unfortunately the Heinlein character’s quote may become true. Lazarus Long said, “the price of stupidity is death!”
@ Craig
Right on Craig – that party well that is why my circle calls and labels them GOMERS
Their short sided cannibalistic energy / environmental positions reek of stupidity and are laced with GREED from their Funding Masters it is that plain and not enough people are willing or strong enough to Stand Up and CALL Them Out
There should be no green back lash tho some greenies are arrogant phonies like Marco Polo says lots of Bad Actors in the World False Prophets and Self Centered Charlatans multiply all the Time
For those of us who care for the right reasons – we must not lose sight of the Good Prize , Positive change and Transform our way of life and economic growth into one that works for all and is sustainable
It can be done and we work towards that end and overcome the Walls of Ignorance that lay before us!
@ Gary
Thanks for updated info on good change in India. They like China are big ships like the Titanic and changing the course of a big boat is slow but they have started.
I wish the Gomers in US would realize that the two biggest coal markets are not going to grow like years before and it is market and environmental reasons they are not going to grow.
Both India and China are RAMPING Wind, solar, end use efficiency and some new nuclear technologies. Both Nations Governments have MORE Serious people running things than we do in America. Well on one side of the aisle that is.
These countries are Not Playing PRETEND TO THE END like the raw nativism of many Americans who just don’t get the seriousness of the issues.
India water issues has gotten them motivated it appears.
Thanks for pointing these trends out.
@ Marco Polo and Craig
Marco you point out some facts in your reply to Craig and you are not attacking him.
We find common ground in that often the enemy of our desired program lies within.
Many leaders of the Green movement and techno charge have lost touch with the common man and as a result the gulf widens and class and tribalism enters into and now we have this Big Backlash and it is in the political arena.
I agree that not all GOP are bad Gomers my label. But more often than not they have adopted those positions and fought against reform in the energy and environmental arenas since 1980 when the Grade B movie actor took over. Pied Piper of Folly I call him .
Before that time the Republican party had reasonable balanced people in the fold. They started the EPA. Passed clean water and Air laws , started protecting Species etc., The Senate worked together w DEMs to pass ACID Rain regulations to address Acid rain from Coal plants in NE America.
It all worked well until the quest for new sources of oil , gas etc required the industry players to venture into more sensitive areas to extract more resources.
conflicts between clean water and people with the industry desire for profits at any price created a political tug of war that Rages Now .
The Record is the Record and a very casual examination and a review of policy supported or obstructed , loopholes and dark votes and YES DARK MONEY have cast a long shadow over all of us . Both those of us who are Reasonable and those who are Unreasonable.
I have been counting these things since 1977 when I entered energy / environmental sector. I stopped long ago found it pointless and depressing ,
So I dont think Craig is over blaming one party Its their BAD RECORD Bad Resume It is What It Is! Inconvenient Reality ! for those still in some Stage of Denial.
PUTTING Lipstick on Pigs is the Rage. It sells in america big time.
A root cause analysis would see Strong Correlations to our problems that also had its Origins in the news media that shifted from being a news and fact based institution whose Mission was to follow the Journalist code of getting to the facts or truth . Granted news media thru history has gotten it wrong and under reported things.Not blind to that.
But now it is Corporate Profit driven with emphasis on ratings to SELL ADS and the people who buy those ADS don’t want the American People to be informed let alone hear or see the Truth. The medias purpose is not to present real news or the cause of the news , like why are there refugees they just show titillating video and gloss over the rest. Then repeat it over and over and never educate what is happening. then they rush off to the next media event they do everything injustice.
That is why MEDIA don’t expose the lies of endless wars, certain pipelines which feature $ 95 per barrel oil when the World Price of oil is at $ 35 a barrel thereby making the pipeline project UN Economic by Market based rules. They call soldiers Warriors to make a faux patriotic spell of indoctrination the same has happened w the environmental movement. Media has under reported the good things Renewable energy has done the jobs it has created over 200,000 soalr jobs in barely 10 years in the US.
No the Media keeps the issue political , superficial and sells Us All very very short! What a Scam.
A great Journalist was kicked off CBS because he was exposing the lies of dopey w bush boy over Iraq and the AWOL activities of the bush boy during the Vietnam war. The Journalist had the truth the facts but the military industrial complex had a different Agenda and bush boy was their Boy. Journalist was fired. The rest is history. Tragic and now I and everyone else have to watch sobbing mothers of dead soldiers cry on TV and deflecting their Blame on the Wrong targets for the cause of their Tragic grief.
As they cover these events the Sultans of the media never clarify the record or how these tragic events happened. They allow more confusion. The guilty are protected it beyond nods and winks.
they do the same with the Environmental movement . the impression is given that your american way of life waste etc is at Risk you will lose out if you buy into the green movement its just for the rich etc.
So people are divided cause they been misled. They turn to a Serial Master of Fraud and Abuse of others for leadership as they are scared , more Tragic consequences in play.
In fairness to this Master of Fraud he did have the Courage or Audacity to speak the truth on stage at a GOMER debate and said Iraq war was biggest mistake for America ever. So even he has moments of Clarity or perhaps a conscience perhaps somewhere!\\
The aggregated Impact of these Truths and developments have become the challenge to the Environmental Green Energy Social Progress movement. To overcome negativity the public must be properly educated and brought along and do so in a manner as Marco P says it must be done sincerely and can not be a Elitist message.
So our dumbed down population that is confused over global warming all related issues now can lay extensive Blame at the Corporate media in addition to the Fools who are Slaves to Dark Money and enslave all of us in the process!. If one was counting the gomers get the majority of the check marks its the Record !!!!. peace to all
@ Frank
Your sober assessment and facts pointed out make sense. Many of my colleagues are drifting into the collapse reality at some point in the future . Our political systems are not strong enough to marshall the type of leadership needed to navigate thru the ice bergs and heat bergs of our world future with all the collateral damages The mass migrations created by global warming will over whelm political and social constructs and lead to anarchy.
I share some of your enthusiasm for advanced nuclear but remain sorta skeptic but the case you make is Strong and full of inconvenient truths about some of the limitations of solar etc.
FYI CSP solar is now down to 10.5 cents LCOE Kwhr in Peru and So Africa. Morocco is planning on a 2,000 meg awatt plant for both domestic usage and export to Spain via under water cables. These plants feature 18 hr w storage so they are almost the new base-load and run firm power so they are dispatch able units A Leap forwards!
So location location is a external driver. There is no natural gas in Morocco and the other sites. So the CSP blows away diesel fuel / oil for power plants.
The storage media may shift from Molten salts to some sort of Calcium mixture which retains more heat we shall see.
I will take issue on the exorbitant cost of the AP 1000 and similar Arreva type new generation as the ones being built right now are Billions over cost etc.
bBack to big Nukes
Check out Vogtle, GA., and Sumter SC., AP 1000 units 4 of them under construction struggling along with massive cost over runs , and completion delays so nothing has changed since the 1970’s.
Those utilities are counting their Stars for low interest rates for financing or these projects would have collapsed by now.
Dominion Power in Virginia is getting Strong Blowback to their proposed 2 units with a $19 Billion price tag when the renewable and energy efficiency option is much more cost effective. ??? It is doubtful the legislature will approve them.
In the UK the estimated price for the Hinckley Point nukes from Arreva / EDF French co is staggering and this project to build UK new units is now at Risk. Again other options including SMR may come to play.
So the nuclear genie while a attractive option for reasons you cite still struggles with economic realities that create political resistance besides consumer resistance needless to say banking under writing resistance. So it is easy to wave the Wand but the Wand needs some Juice in it!
The joint multi nation 10 plus year R & D project in France trying to perfect Fusion well it also is still a work in progress and countless Billions over cost so the beat goes on…And that project has the best and the brightest from over 12 nations or more I forgot.
Frank the nuclear format that seems to make sense is the SMR you mentioned. They claim $ 5,000 to $ 4,500 per KW overnite costs which is much much better than the AP 1000 that seem to be coming in at close to $ 8,000 KW. Or More!
If the nuclear genie is going to be a factor it may be in this format . NU Scale hopefully will get their shot at the Idaho Nat lab project soon much positives could result. SMR’s don’t require much fuel so the uranium issue supply is a non issue.
Another positive development is that it appears PNW Lab and Argonne Labs has finalized a system to harvest uranium from the oceans. They estimate 10,000 years of supply . So that is good news.
So yes there are some Positive developments in nuclear arena but it cant be Business as Usual.
What is going on w Thorium is just talk or is there real movement , In India perhaps??
Solar and Wind have their limitations but they have a strong role in the future and should not be discounted. Same with Tidal Wave energy .
Hopefully some combination of technologies prevent the Collapse you allude to but you are being very Sober and many would agree with you. You definitely are not Pretending to the End!
@ Silent,
You site cost as one of the problems with nuclear power. However, it need not be a problem. There are basically two reasons for the excessive cost: 1) A failure to have a unified design. The number of variations increases production costs and licensing costs. 2) The anti-nuclear crowd has succeeded in escalating costs by creating long delays in getting nuclear plants running. When a plant is almost ready to operate or actually ready to operate, most of the investment has been made. Delays in licensing cause the interest on the investment to pile up when there is no income from the plant. That greatly increases costs.
As you know, there is work being done on smaller modular reactors which can be completely factory built then shipped to the installation site. Although larger systems are usually cheaper on a per unit basis, it looks as though the economies of building reactors in a factory may exceed the economies of larger reactors. Also, it would make licensing easier. It remains to be seen how that will work out, but it looks promising and I expect it to succeed.
Pricing solar is less easy than one may suppose. A solar system with no storage may have an availability factor of perhaps 20%; obviously it varies by location. If the cost were perhaps 10 cents per nameplate KWH, that would increase to 50 cents KWH to get the availability factor up to 100%, assuming adequate free storage was added. But only concentrated solar systems can use heat storage and, unlike PV systems, they will not work without direct sunlight. That means that even light cloudiness will halt the heat collection. There is no place where completely clear skies can be guaranteed at all times during daylight hours.
On the other hand, in remote areas where connecting to the grid is impractical, solar may be the best choice, but that would be PV solar with battery and Diesel backup.
Perhaps research on fusion should continue in case there is a breakthrough, in which case we would be most fortunate, but it would be a mistake to count on it.
There is more than one possible thorium technology. The technology India is pursuing is reactors similar to our pressurized water thermal reactors but using a combination of thorium and uranium. That should not be difficult to do, but its ONLY advantage is to reduce uranium requirements by substituting thorium for part of the fuel. However, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) has the advantage that the fuel is liquid thereby making it easier to do the reprocessing on site. Also, the LFTR operates at atmospheric pressure and therefore does not require a pressure vessel, is safer, and can use a much smaller and less expensive containment structure.
A local friend just called my attention to this video on thorium:
https://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/156159f0fd607088?projector=1
The video was made in Copenhagen.
@ Frank
Thanks for the new info . I am with you on the safety issue the excessive gold plating that could be avoided and still maintain safety.
I focus on costs as RE has come down tremendously so the cost of needed redundancy capacity has come down. Single tracker solar is now going in the ground 50 megs and above for $1.60 watt w 35 % capacity factor. so back it up with some Integrated Flex Run CCGAS T which burn at 61.5 % Fuel Efficiency and heading to 65 % Efficiency and you got a flex plant. w none of the nuclear baggage.
First solar target price in 2018 is $1.00 per watt for same so this is nothing to ignore out. O & M marginal costs are negligible too.
The SMRs if they get to the $ 3,000 to $ 2,500 kw range with a high capacity factor can compete very well Lets see if the Idaho Nat Lab project moves forward. I dont understand the NRC dragging their collective feet so much. ?? There should be a sense of Urgency given all the External Facts that various posters have stated on the rising energy issue.
I enjoyed reviewing that site you shared Thank you . Deep Thinkers but I dont think the world w need that much power as we become more efficient. HERs ratings on Homes where I am where cowboy builders have built sloppy for years is now getting down to 40 which makes a big difference from the old average of 75 to 90 HER rating that is home energy rating. the lower the number the more efficient. They can get below 20 with more improvements and marginal cost is not a biggie.
One thing that stands out is that if we are going to build all the number of big nukes in that Study – going to need lots of metallurical coal and oil or gas to make the steel an concrete. Does the world have the concrete raw materials for the massive buildout ???
I see CPS solar being a big part of mix once gas prices rise in the US.
I just drove thru NM and Albq and though the river had more water than the recent past the area is DRY very Dry. I went to places I used to visit in the 1990’s when I lived in Beautiful Albq. Hold on to water !
El Paso is going on a 130 mile pipeline project for future water at a real high cost of over $ 300,000 Million or more. Plus $ 50 million for the water rights. Progress is no Longer a Comfortable disease
Thanks and Cheers
Silent,
You wrote, “One thing that stands out is that if we are going to build all the number of big nukes in that Study – going to need lots of metallurical coal and oil or gas to make the steel an concrete.”
Actually, wind and solar take considerably more concrete and steel than nuclear power requires. I posted a link to the source on another thread here. A google search on “renewables vs nuclear concrete and steel” will provide the information. It’s worth checking out several of the websites.
@ Frank
Yes Frank I get it on wind and solar the needed steel volume, etc. I had heard this from many pro nuke Scientists in the early 2000’s. I meant to say it applies to all of the sources no matter so the volume of Raw Material is HUGE
So perhaps the answer is to REDUCE Demand period. Right ?? seems like one of the most Plausible component of the solutions.
The other web site you suggested a few posts back would not post in my google, it said it expired ??
The other one by the Barry person I had heard of very good info thank you Frank.
Lets see if NU Scale or one of the other gets into the End Zone w SMR’s they also use much less water than traditional Nukes a good thing too.
Perhaps I can shed some insight on how science deniers think.
Several decades ago, when I was a poor student, I shared an apartment with a man (I’ll call him Axel) who had graduated Phi Beta Kappa from a highly respected eastern liberal arts college. I had never before met anyone with his mode of thinking. His coworkers had a similar mode of thinking.
Axel assumed that people who are technically and scientifically inclined are basically materialistic, are more interested in things than people, and are inferior and unintellectual. Although he could speak French, was well versed in medieval history, and had studied philosophy, he had no practical knowledge. He actually asked my mother what the stock market was for.
When my brother was visiting and we were discussing something scientific, Axel asserted that it was rude to discuss something technical with a liberal arts major present because a liberal arts major could not be expected to understand anything scientific. My brother (correctly) replied that a person with no scientific knowledge could not claim to have a liberal education.
Axel had problems with his car, at least partly because he had no mechanical knowledge. Moreover, he took pride in having no mechanical knowledge because he thought that that meant that he had superior human values. When his car wouldn’t start, I asked him whether it turned over. He replied, “Well, it made a whirring noise.”. He expected me to help him with his car but refused to listen to any explanations since he was above such things, i.e., he was proud of his ignorance in that field. Understanding anything about cars was for people who were inferior to him.
Since then, I’ve met a few more people who have that mode of thinking. They are effete intellectual snobs and very arrogant. Getting through to them is impossible.
@ Silent Running
The reason so many environmentalist are turning to advanced nuclear technology, especially liquid fluoride thorium reactors, is the need to replace large scale industrial power generation with zero emission technology.
Solar and Wind lack the versatility and reliability to provide “power on demand” although the technologies initially seemed promising.
Once the old fears of Nuclear Power generation are removed, it becomes obvious that the technology is the only method of power generation that ticks all the boxes.
Unfortunately, nuclear remains unfashionable and attracts opposition from a misinformed, but activist group of opponents who determinedly cling to a perception of the technology as it existed more than 70 years ago !
Other opponents find it very difficult to revise their belief in the promise of Solar and Wind power technology.
Both China (PRC) and India pay lip service to renewable sources of energy while increasing coal fired capacity. The PRC in particular is widening and deepening rivers to facilitate access for the delivery of coal to more than 800 new coal fired power plants scheduled for construction of the next five years.
The PRC’s commitment to zero emission technology is sincere, but sincere in typically Chinese definition. PRC commitment to renewable energy only compliments not replaces the expansion of conventional power generation.
Only a more economic, more efficient, competing technology that “ticks all the boxes” by producing “power on demand” will persuade newly emerging industrial societies to abandon conventional power generation.
@ Marco
Your summation on resources makes sense due to the other facts you presented.
I said in my exchange with Frank and earlier w you that I see and accept the promise of the new nuclear formats. The lingering question that burns deep into the night thru my mind is – The Promise will this time the lil nuclear genie Perform!
The stage is waiting and SMR’s could back up and make solar and wind a stronger resource mix and they can be built in modular increments to meet growth in sizes needed and not be so large to disrupt the other resouirces or require huge redundant back up like the big units presently require.
That has been under reported underbelly of big nukes. When they go off line for refuleing every 16 to 18 months well a big or series of big coal or gas has to be deployed to fill the 1,100 to 1,300 megawatt gap. So it creates need for large redundancy so that is a negative economic reality.
So lets hope Modular units can get going and they can integrate with Wind and solar because we are not going to stop building them as their price is so attractive. Utility scale batteries when deployed in numbers is going to change how the utility load curve is met.
It all points to Modular sizing as the best way forward. So the upcoming Idaho test of SMR by Nu Scale will reveal much.
As for China and India yeah they are using coal still but they are cutting back where do you get that 800 coal plant number Marco it seems out dated. I realize china man plays games with press releases etc.
I think the new generation will be more accepting of clean nuclear units if the cost is reasonable etc. NRC needs to be updated.
What do you think about Hinckley Point in UK the projected cost ??
later on
Silent,
Somehow we manage to deal with the situation when huge coal-burning power plants go off-line. Exactly how often it occurs I don’t know, but they also require maintenance from time to time. Presumably when either nuclear or coal plants go off-line for regular maintenance it is easier to deal with than when it happens unexpectedly.
Recently I read a discussion on bravenewclimate.com about load following nuclear power plants. Many assume that they cannot do load following, but they can; the French have been doing it for a long time and have designed some of their nuclear power plants specifically to expedite load following. There are disadvantages to load following, but for obvious reasons some power plants must load follow. There are differences in how rapidly they can change their output.
Modular sizing may be the best way forward; it does look promising for multiple reasons and has several advantages. I suspect that there is room for multiple sizes depending on location and circumstances.
Operating a power grid is not an easy thing to do. Voltage and frequency must be maintained as loads vary and as power sources come on line and go off line. Regardless of what power technology is used, a certain amount of storage would be helpful to cushion the changes.
Watching the Republican National Convention this week was chilling. Republicans officially nominated a climate-denying racist for President and a puppet of the Koch brothers as his VP choice. They also introduced the most regressive, bigoted party platform this country has seen in decades, attacking most of what the climate movement has been working so hard to achieve.
Meanwhile this blog of Craig’s goes on and on and on adnauseam for months and months with nothing to show for it while all the time I’m sitting on the solution that can empower humanity to gain control of induced sudden and catastrophic global warming and no one seems to be able to get their minds around the out-of-the-box concept I propose that can power our energy needs on extraction of greenhouse gases already emitted into the earth’s atmosphere.
@ Frank
Yes Load following or tracking is a feature of the SMR’s as they are being designed to integrate with wind and solar etc. Be more flexible than traditional base load big nukes.
that is interesting that some of the French plants can do some load following to a degree. Forward thinking.
I shared that website you referenced to some colleagues everyone has been silent and they sent email saying very stimulating and deep discussions on the big picture about viability of various systems. thanks.
The bulk of big plants both nuke and coal lose operational efficiencies and are not designed to ramp up and down like gas turbines can. Most of the new Aero derivative Gas simple cycle turbines are FAST Ramp Zero to Full Load in 10 to 15 minutes , same with the new CC GT they can be at full load in a hour or so depends on size , Vast improvements . Reduces CO 2 issues. reduced water usage also.
Old Generation Base load plants tend to require a 60 % loading level to operate correctly so the SMR’s will be much more Flexible as they are designed to Integrate w Renewable’s. That is a plus for renewable s. It is a statement that the SMR manufactures are planning on operating in a world or market with a high level of renewable generation and they accept it rather than do the usual all nuke and nothing else counts. Discounting and Bashing of RE.
Further evidence that RE has a place in the market is the newer Flex Gen GAS CC turbines that all the majors now are deploying. These high performance Combined Cycle CCGT units can reach thermal efficiency levels of 61.5 % Frank. New lab test say 65 % in 3 years .
The term FLEX gen means they can Load follow and integrate with RE without losing operating Efficiency. Progress .
This blows away all other thermal generation including nuclear by a long margin. It will stretch out our gas supplies etc. The typical older regular CC GT were not Flexible and they reach 45 to 50 % efficiency levels. Slow loading also not load tracking.
Modular system building will meet the new load curves and the mix of generation assets that will prevent large rate increase impacts in the future . Let s see if they can deploy sooner than some say which is 2030. ??
Silent,
I’m not sure how soon SMRs can be ready to use; it could be sooner or later than 2030. Considering the consequences of global warming, everything possible without compromising safety should be done implement them as soon as possible. Also, what we do here in the U.S. will not much matter unless the rest of the world also works hard to curtain CO2 emissions as soon as possible. It is important for us, and other prosperous countries, to help the rest of the world move away for emitting CO2 as quickly as possible. That fact often receives inadequate attention.
Regarding renewables, it is clear that in remote areas where connecting to the grid is not practical they have an important rôle to play. The alternative in those areas is Diesel power which is expensive because of the high cost of Diesel fuel, the high cost of shipping Diesel fuel, and the high cost of maintaining the generators. In that situation, renewables with limited battery storage can significantly reduce costs by greatly limiting the use of Diesel power. Also, Diesel power can change out put very quickly, like going from zero power to 100 percent power in only a very few seconds providing that the engines are already running.
In other situations, it is unclear why there would be any reason to use renewables at all since nuclear power can to the entire job. The issue is not stretching gas supplies, but rather, completely eliminating using fossil fuels. Having renewables connected would simply permit the nuclear systems to run at less than full load when renewable power is available. That would do nothing but add to costs. Also, the amount of concrete, steel, and other materials is far greater for renewables than for nuclear, like several times greater.
Load management can to a considerable degree compensate for changes in supply and demand. For example, if one SMR unexpectedly goes off line and the power company can control customers’ air conditioning, they could simply take some of the air conditioning off line until other SMRs could be ramped up. If there is a sea water desalination plant connected, it could be temporarily disconnected. These adjustments, being of fairly short duration, would have minimal effect on power users; they might not even notice it.
Another thing that can happen is that a large load could unexpectedly be lost. That can be accommodated by dumping steam directly into a condenser or by connecting a dummy load until SMRs can be ramped down. Of course being able to do that requires design considerations.
It is true that both coal and nuclear plants lose efficiency when not running at full load. However, with nuclear systems, the cost of the fuel is very small compared with the interest on the investment. So, the efficiency loss at part load for a nuclear plant is not an issue although the loss of income when running at part load is an issue. On the other hand, for a coal plant, the coal is a significant part of the cost so the loss of efficiency at part load is a bigger issue.
I don’t see SMRs as replacing huge systems, but rather, supplementing them although it is impossible to know for certain. It would depend on economics and it will take some experience before all the answers can be known.
Back in the 1930s and 1940s, the railroads were considering changing from steam locomotives to Diesel locomotives. The many variables made cost calculations very difficult, so it took years for them to determine that Diesel locomotives were more economical than steam locomotives. There were some considerations which were not immediately obvious. For example, steam locomotives have considerable torque ripple with reduces traction whereas Diesel locomotives have very smooth torque. The result is that if a steam locomotive and a Diesel locomotive have the same weight, the Diesel locomotive can pull a heaver load because it is less likely to lose traction and spin its wheels. It would seem that deciding between steam and Diesel for locomotives would be much simpler than deciding what electrical power technologies to use, so it shouldn’t be surprising that we have only some of the answers for power generation.
@ Frank
You shared some points that align with my views and positions but we have some variances in positions too.
Over the last 4 years reviewing some of the performance of various renewable s and learning of some of the limitations in comparison to other energy supply system options has led me accept the concepts of SMR’s.
This is also because our nation and other developed nations will have a advantage in adopting to new technology and we are further along in de carbonizing electric supply with the closing of 75,000 Megs of dirty coal ( yeah they cleaned it up around 70 % since the 1970’s vintages) but its still polluting and putting too much carbon CO 2 in the environment. Our coal closing and those of other forward thinking countries is good but the rest of the world will be slower to phase out coal . It is sobering and sad etc but its wishful thinking to think the world can back off off the levels of coal burning currently going on. Need some Collaborative Efforts a New Marshall Plan perhaps .
These countries will need help or guidance. Per Platt’s Resources there are around 8,356 coal plants in use today. We re down to around 400 plus or minus. So unwinding these polluters is going to take time and I question how much time the earth has. The Tipping Point to decline may be in short sights !
The water usage for all these plants is around 18 Billion cubic meters – what ever a big number. And much of the coal usage is in countries that have water depletion issues and scarcity now. They need the water to grow food etc. So Dirty power is competing for precious water in these same countries
So hopefully SMR’s AND the Right Mix of Renewable’s can mitigate both the air pollution and the water issues. The SMR use much much less water and the Thorium type most likely none.
Frank I am enjoying this discussion and absorbing much new information but I don’t agree with your position that we concentrate on the nuclear option only and minimize renewable’s. I see that as a very High Risk plan, a repeat of the past Bigger is Better Systems of Systems Mentality that led us to where we are now at. !! In Addition it is highly Questionable the industry is even able to Meet the needed Build out rates to positively mitigate the growing global warming trends. Our concrete capacity in US is reduced now.
The nuclear industry lacks the Staff and engineering capacity to Ramp at the rates needed as the single source of new power.
I appreciate the negative CO 2 emission of gas ( its a issue) it is not 49 % cleaner than coal it is even less when field losses and emissions are factored in . Its around a net of 40 % based on new EPA data measuring losses in production, pipeline gathering lines , well leakages and transmission and final distribution losses.
The SMR launch dates as you said may not happen till 2030 I said the same earlier my self. So it is not realistic to think the Utility’s can hold off on adding gas units while they wait for SMR’s !?! they are closing coal units , retiring old stiff gas steam units and now some nukes are being forced off the market as they can’t compete with new gas and wind ! and need more flexible generation like the ones I described earlier posting. They can build all the gas they need or want for $ 850 to $ 1350 per KW and they know what they are getting, And When! Risk Management practices will drive this not our opinions. The grid integration issues with gas and wind / solar and battery systems are very manageable. The solar and wind prices are good and getting better. $ 1.00 per Watt for single tracking solar 2018. 36 % capacity factor covers 730 am to 7 pm daily load curve so that is when its needed.
These are some of the facts that influence my position. This mix is modular and that is how the concept of SMR’s are Modular. SMR’s need to put some Hep in their Step and GET GOING , Over Come the Analysis Paralysis that has hindered the nuclear industry forever it seems and Deliver. Lots of Catching up to do as I type this.
The big nukes are still a Iffy proposition and currently have 10 year maybe more completion cycles look at Vogtle, GA., and Sumter Sc plants right now and the same ol cost over runs. Same OL Song since the 1970’s . Google it.
As a nuclear Scientist colleague of mine from Los Alamos Lab said over Great Red wine a few years back, Nuclear is a Constipated Industry. needs new Blood. This person a MIT Grad said that he was concluding that Big nukes in the format they are in is just a expensive way to “Boil Water” so he worked on the SMR concept and says that is his Hope for future.
The economy, the capacity of the construction industry the engineering expertise is short short supply. More Constraint.
Internationally, ARREVA the Big French co and king of the nuke sector for years is in Bankruptcy !
These constraints are not just Opinions but are borne out by the lack of strong global demand for big Nukes. Only China, Russia and India and a couple of other countries have any real numbers in respect to future builds. The constraints are multiple including financing but most important are engineering expertise. Even the NRC struggles to find new staff members.
Another reason I believe in a well balanced MIX of Renewablees , and End use Efficiency and advanced OFF the Shelf Gas units ( BEAR IN MIND That they are deploying gas units at a rapid pace though not at the deployment level of wind and solar which are now number 1 Globally for last Two Years) so the Boats have Sailed and the Sails are Set and making good time) along with increased end use efficiency and thermal storage for A/C shifting to off peak times and Batteries as well.
Fuel and Generation Supply is like a Investment Portfolio – Risk Management and Diversification tends to be the best long term strategy to employ so we need all the Mix I have laid out and Yes I see the need for the SMR’s to fill the GAPs and be part of the mix.
The SMR co promotional material speak to this concept and are selling the concept that utilities can add 40 megawatt sizes in proportion to the level of load growth or needs that the utility has.
some will add two or three at a time and some one.
I am not sure if they will need to run at 90 % net Capacity Factor like the big units are slaves to in order to make them pay off. They may have more options I just dont know for sure.
The World has changed and the need for Big Big Base load units that our system currently runs on is ending. The economy cant afford it nor can the consumer. We can go to a modular world of a dynamic mix of resources integrated and optimized by geo graphical location and situation. One size fits all no longer works.
The amount of utility scale solar pv in the building pipeline – not concepts being built – is close to 14,000 megawatts so far this year , they think they w end with close to 20,000 Solar megawatts. Go to GTM Media.
So the so called conservative utility industry has included solar into its resource plan no longer as a Demo project but as a Available Resource.
The Southern Co in South a massive Utility Holding co now builds utility scale solar plants out West and retails solar in Georgia. Even Alabama Power is getting into it.
So respect must be given for these facts. In spite of them I agree with you we need a SMR type technology and get it deployed FAST.
Those book writers on Brave NEW something website said to save the world from global Warming by nuclear would require a build out of 2 Big Nukes every 3 days. 2,200 or so megs every 3 days. The world is in Dire need of Clean power but this may be beyond the Pale!
The capacity to do this is not in existence. It is fantasy talk. It rivals people who think RE alone ( unless there are new massive breakthroughs) can meet the Worlds needs.
It is going to take a Dynamic and Integrated Mix of various technologies.
Thanks again
@ Silent,
One thing which has not been given sufficient consideration is that some nuclear systems can replace the boilers at existing coal burning power plants thereby speeding up the transition to nuclear. Pressurized water reactors could do so but only with a loss of power because they operate at lower temperatures and pressures than coal-burning boilers, but there are nuclear reactor technologies that could replace coal burning boilers very well when they become available.
Unless SMRs are able to operate at much higher pressures and temperatures than current reactors and steam boilers, water cooling would still be required to get high efficiency and minimize cost. A heat engine operates on the difference between two temperatures. Both increasing the temperature of the high side and reducing the temperature of the low side increase efficiency and power; there is a simple formula to determine the maximum possible theoretical efficiency based on those two temperatures. If the high temperature side is increased, then the low temperature side can be a bit higher without sacrificing efficiency and power too greatly. Probably you can find the formula via a google search. Try using “carnot efficiency” for the search string; you will find plenty of interesting reading.
Renewable systems are more difficult to connect to the grid than nuclear plants because they generally cannot connect to the grid where the grid is designed to accept power. Therefore, renewables would generally require considerable grid modification and more new transmission lines. Also, renewables require considerably more concrete and steel than nuclear systems.
France, in only 15 years, went from zero nuclear to 80% nuclear. So, although it may be unrealistic to build nuclear systems as fast as some posters on bravenewclimate.com assert as necessary, nuclear system capacity can be expanded faster than renewables.
Of course there is no perfect solution, but I still see nuclear as the only reasonable source of power except where hydro is readily available and in remote areas where it would be impractical to connect to the grid. And you’re certainly right that other countries will need out help and guidance, probably on the scale of the Marshall plan or even greater. That fact seems to be widely ignored. CO2 emissions and global warming are not confined by national borders.
I’m sure that we’re all wrong on at least a few things and that over the years we will learn more. About all we can do is to try to do our best with the imperfect knowledge we have and realize that we will make mistakes, some of which will be expensive.
Regardless of what we do, it is probably way too late to prevent destructive global warming. All we can do is reduce the effect to some degree and learn to live with it. Perhaps I should be thankful that at my age it is unlikely that I will still be around when the problems of global warming become really serious. At least age is not totally without advantages!
@ Frank
Wonderful reply it is refreshing to have a robust Exchange of concepts and strategies. We must Thank Craig for creating this positive platform so that concerned folks can speak to the issues in a constructive manner.
Frank I really like the concept of retrofitting existing coal units.
That is out side the box thinking for sure. Beats converting to Gas
Sure there would be some cost in the integration of nukes to a coal plant but there would be significant cost savings as the owner could leverage existing infrastructure and the utility interconnection. Existing cooling towers and other components could be leveraged perhaps. Definitely worth an investigation.
My forecast for Shale oil and gas is not as Optimistic as the promoters all claim. I would not convert my auto to nat gas I will put it that way. So converting old coal plants to gas while it makes sense in some cases it has its own limits.
I see gas prices climbing in the 2027 to 2030 time frame.
The replacement of coal plants, the increased use of gas plants and the biggie is the expansion of pipeline exports into Mexico.
There are 3 big 36 inch and a 48 inch transmission line being constructed into Mexico from Texas. Another line from Deming NM is also being talked about.
There are 5 LNG terminals ramping up in the Texas Gulf coast for export markets of gas.
The industry wants to get drunk and go for 12 terminals but that is HUBRIS as stiff competition from Russia and Australia gas exports are going to sink some overly optimistic projections from US producers. Studies have shown the competition to sell to China , Japan, India and Europe others will be real stiff. Russia is not going to let their market be taken away easily. They got loads of conventional gas. right now the price in Europe is around $ 4 per MCF LNG conversion plants and shipping cartage and then destination reconvesion costs 4 5 to 6 $ per MCF so right now it is NOT In The Money it is over cost like Tar Sands Oil is .
Our shale gas wells have rapid depletion rates like 65 % after 4 years or so so the profits and revenue streams are not as great as the Hubris. All the current bankruptcies in US is going to reduce capacity and constraints will appear. But others say there is 75 good years left of supply so it depends on Exports ??when it impacts prices so we need SMR’s
Back to Solar I failed to note that there are around 4,000 megs in Texas now of Utility scale solar. There are 15,000 megs in the ERCOT planning QUE. over next 10 years. The typical solar plant can be up and running in less than 16 months in many cases. Gas is 2 to 2.5 years so the nuclear Genies must get into Over Drive.
Yes I am familiar with Carnot’s theorem . Water issues are driving many new gas plants to go to AIR to AIR condensing ( cooling ) so losses of efficiency and power are the trade off. They are doing this as Texas has told generators to reduce water usage due to coming water shortages etc.
Frank I sincerely hope that you have many many more Sunrises ahead.
However, I in the last year am beginning to conclude from my work and energy research that the World dallied too long in its collective response to global warming. The greed of money and false capitalism. The tendency of most so called Democracy Society governments to Allow them selves to become captives of Neo Liberalism Economics and politics. That is where the State serves the interests of money and rabid capitalism and allows the market to make all the rules and damn the consequences. So the environment was ignored it gets in the way and we cant have that here ! Think about it. In the process the needs of people the citizens and the environment have been hostage to the ever increasing demands of the Ruling Oligarchy class and these elites all think they can live in a gated community with their ill gotten gains from their Greed. Pay their Guards and import food etc. They dont need to be citizens they are Elite!
As a result I think we will go past the Tipping Point and the system of governments is too weak to correct course. I hope that I am wrong. The Sorrows of Empire are many and they have Real World Impacts and they are happening NOW All over.
Look at one of the candidates for Presidency – A Maniacal Oligarchical Narcissist who does not Honor his business obligations. Says Global warming is a HOAX ! Loves Coal will make it Great again BS time to sing Amazing Grace Perhaps !
Respectfully, You be Well
@ Silent,
Unfortunately I cannot take credit for the idea of replacing boilers with nuclear reactors but I cannot recall where I read the idea. It would be more complicated than one might suppose because modern steam plants run the steam through one turbine section then return it to a different section of the boiler to be reheated. That is done two or three times; I don’t know exactly how that would be done if a boiler were replaced with a nuclear reactor. It might take three or so small reactors to replace a big boiler.
In Sydney, Australia, the taxis are run on natural gas; it has been found to be more economical. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would be reasonable for private car owners to do it.
My knowledge of fracking is insufficient to know whether predictions are realistic. However, I do have doubts. Whether we should be exporting it I’m not sure, but I have doubts about that too. You seem to have researched that more than I have.
Right now, our ability to build large nuclear plants quickly would be limited by our no longer having the ability to forge large reactor vessels. Only Japan can do that now and their capacity is limited. We’d first have to build more forging plants and that also takes time.
Reactors that can operate at higher temperatures would make water cooling less important so air cooling would be acceptable. That would be one of the advantages of the LFTR using the Brayton cycle.
Actually, I’m not supposed to be able to understand all this since my degree is in business administration. However, that degree includes two years of physics and one year of chemistry which probably is not typical. I’m glad I had those years of science because they make energy issues less difficult to understand.
I do not support laissez fare capitalism. I do support capitalism, but there have to be regulations to avoid the demonstrated problems which would otherwise occur. In particular, companies must pay for negative externalities and possibly paid for positive externalities else there are economic distortions. Not long ago I undertook to read the biographies of the Captains of Industry (robber barons) who were active roughly from the end of the Civil War until the early 1900s. I learned things that were not covered in my economics classes. Reading those biographies made it inescapably clear that laissez fare is not acceptable.
Being a reasonable and thinking person, I agree with you 100% about Trump. I find it shocking that he has as much support as he does. I’d like to be sure that he cannot win, but I’m less sure than I’d like to be. Whatever deficiencies Mrs. Clinton may have, I see no choice but to vote for here. It may be that the email issue was the result of her being rather naïve. I think that some federal agency should continually monitor communications usage to make sure that information does not get into the wrong hands.
Regarding the number of sunrises I have left, a male relative of mine recently died on his 99th birthday so I could live that long. However, although I could be mistaken, I don’t expect the worst effects of global warming to occur until slightly after my 99th birthday, but who knows?
I’m composing using Microsoft Word and according to it, I’ve already exceeded 500 words so I shall now stop. At least it’s been an interesting discussion.
@ Frank
Excellent Summary Frank you opened up more and your understanding parallels my position that we lack the infrastructure capacity to RAMP Nukes as fast as needed etc.
I like your disclosure on what you have been reading it expands the mind and Broadens one Horizons I have found. Pathways to Truth and Enlightenment come from good reading material
We need a mixed economy with proper incentives and also brakes and guidelines. That is the Way forward.
Things went too far to the right extreme after the 1980 election and the world economy and our domestic economy has reaped a NEGATIVE Harvest that undermines our fragile systems today.
One can use the State of California which is the World’s 6th largest economy and levels of poverty and suffering are rising rising, some colleagues shared a 2 page summary and it is shocking yet they have the Worlds 6 th Largest Economy – and despite all the economic activity they have rising misery Indexes ! thank god they got some solar and efficiency jobs.
Hopefully the masses of people will awaken become Un confused and maybe the compromised media will shed some of its advertisers talking points and LIES and Distortions and then perhaps the masses of Americans will de program themselves from the Neo Liberalism Lies and other ultra conservative PABLUM that have placed us into harsh economic and negative social contructs.
We are at a Tipping Point. When I lived in Albq thru the 1990’s , my best friend now deceased and I refused to vote for Billy Boy C for his second term. We both became Independents though I vote Dem most of the time when I vote. But I never joined the Gomer party because I knew by my energy / environmental work what the story behind the story was in respect as to who is the Real Bogeyman
and who wants to perpetuate the Un & Non sustainable practices of business and industry and energy policy etc., ETC.
My travels thru the Heartland of America 44 states and engaging all sorts of people created a clear understanding of the Linkage between good policy and bad policy and who the victims are and who the party of the Mean Whip was. No Hood winking pulled over my Eyes!
Watching the money change hands in the corn growing Heartland so that gomer farmers, agri business and other players all could have a new Fuel called Ethanol that was packaged to make us delude ourselves that is more environmental cleaner fuel blah blah LOL LOL when it created Industrial scale farming that is destructive on many levels and the collateral damage finds its way into your food at the grocery store.
All these people claimed to fiscally responsible , worship at the altar s of illusionary free markets and on and on , I could cite Hundreds of other examples thru my Journey with Energy and Environmental – my regret is not tape recording and videoing so I could make Truth busting and Illuminating documentaries. Exposing all this to the confused Americans. would have been a better career choice perhaps.
You and the other posters and myself examine real approaches , balanced with technical realities to chart a better greener way forward while the BAU crowd rushes off to cash in their gaming chips from their destructive policies.
They been CON NED like republiCON ed and the battle and Fog of War sucked in many of the DEMs into trying to be Con lite to compete and remain relevant etc. etc. Winner Take All Politics engulfed us and thru all this negativity the Need for stronger more enlightened Energy and Environmental Policy became more Important .
We now are at the Edge of the Tipping Point – which way we go is Critical now- This where we are at.
Sanders lost to clinton in the Rigged Primary system but HE Won more as most of his ideas were adopted by the DNC despite the overt an covert corruption. So he can hold his head high and his legions will start new candidate campaigns all over America. He will do more good in Senate. Do despite the media and DNC bias he WON in the End. pretty cool and I am just an Observer.
I laugh off this Email revelation by wiki leaks most of us were already clued into this dastardly deviousness by the Elite s in Party. We sarcastically call HRC the Anointed One and if her arrogance does not get in her way she should win she picked a good man decent guy as a mate.
I may vote Green if they are on the Texas ballot as I divorced the clinton machine in 1996. Principles , my vote in Texas will not make a real difference.
Hopefully americas flirtation with fascism and ugliness and anti humanity and ANTI ENVIRONMENT falsehoods will crash and burn on the rocks and shores of American s of Good Will and Good Sense.
Keep reading and feeding your head. I did alot of work helping to clean up the waste from the many closed Uranium Mines in Central and Western NM The Legacy of the nuclear genie is not all wholesome INDEED !
Yes the conversion from coal to nuke would be a case by case basis.
We need a MIX there is NO One SINGLE SILVER BULLET !
Carry On
@ Silent,
I see the inability to ramp up nuclear fast enough as a temporary problem which can be solved. The problem may not exist with SMRs but for large PWRs, surely the capacity to build pressure vessels could be increased. These links provide more information about the challenges of manufacturing large PWR nuclear power plants:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/heavy-manufacturing-of-power-plants.aspx
http://forgingmagazine.com/feature/us-cedes-capability-largest-nuclear-forgings
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3mzltj/a_nuclear_reactor_being_forged/
Regarding SMRs, the one’s I’ve read about use uranium enriched to 20% U235 instead of the 3% to 5% U235 used by large PWRs. That could increase the demand for natural uranium. There are proposals to use SMRs for ship propulsion power; those who favor doing so assert that ships sunk with reactors are no problem because just leaving them there will do no harm. That makes me uneasy but I have not thoroughly studied the matter.
The problem of the gap between rich and poor is not new; it was even worse in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Corruption was far worse than now without even any attempt to conceal bribery. When enough people got tired of it, corrective action was taken; I expect that to happen again.
Years ago I noticed that the high tax states were more prosperous and spent more on education. I’m not saying that the correlation between the money spent on education and the quality of education is unity, but the correlation does seem to be significant. I think that to reduce poverty one of the things that has to be done is to improve education and reduce high school drop out rates.
Ethanol has been a disaster which is no surprise to many of us. It was entirely predictable. Too many decisions are based on emotion rather than sound data. The idea of studying something before making decisions seems foreign to the way some people think.
Sanders was, in my opinion, right on many things although sometimes he went a bit far. His influence may result in some necessary changes. As bad as Trump is, he has at least exposed widespread dissatisfaction the effect of which may be positive.
Except for areas which would be impractical to connect to the grid, and for hydro power, unless there are significant changes in technology, I do believe that we will need to get practically all of our power from nuclear sources. However, the exceptions are significant. Fiji and some other places get part of their power by burning vegetable matter which is otherwise useless. In sugar cane growing areas, bagasse can provide significant power. In lumber milling areas, scrap lumber and sawdust can. Changes in agriculture need to be made. The challenge is to get CO2 emissions as low as possible even though it is already too late to keep global warming down to acceptable levels.
It is really frustrating to see too little effort made to solve serious problems but until the public awakens, too little will be done.