Because America's energy crisis is adversely impacting our economy and national security, it is critical to take a realistic look at the energy solutions currently being proposed by politicians, industry, and the media.
Architecture 2030 in its latest E-News Bulletin illustrates that the centerpiece of America's proposed "Bold Energy Plan," consisting of 45 new nuclear plants and offshore drilling, would supply a meager three percent of the 118 QBtu of energy that the Energy Information Administration projects America will consume in 2030. The other proposed big idea is "clean coal" technology, which is at best 15 to 20 years out, if it can be proven technologically feasible and economically competitive.
The inadequacy of offshore drilling and nuclear plants to make any significant contribution to America's energy needs is made abundantly clear in the following charts (click to enlarge):
As dismal as this finding is, it's not the final word. There are other solutions, real solutions, that are not only much more effective but much more cost effective. For example, simply updating the national energy conservation code standard to meet the 2030 Challenge targets would produce five times the amount of energy as the proposed offshore drilling and nuclear plants combined. And, as a recent report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows, the energy efficient buildings resulting from the updated code would actually save consumers money in reduced energy bills.
The 2030 Challenge is not a new idea; it has already been widely adopted and many cities, states, architecture firms, and businesses are working to implement it. The federal government has adopted the 2030 Challenge targets for all new and renovated federal buildings, and California recently completed a plan to implement the targets statewide.
These and other initiatives, such as providing incentives for using energy efficient equipment and appliances, community building via smart growth coupled with public transportation, driving fuel-efficient cars, and using renewable energy, are the real solutions. These practical, effective ideas are not as catchy as "drill, baby, drill," but maybe that's only because we haven't really tried to put it into a sexy slogan. How about, "Live, Baby, Live"?
A new report, titled "Implementing the 2030 Blueprint: A Comprehensive Plan to Address Energy Independence, Climate Change and the US Economy," will be released by Architecture 2030 in November. Stay tuned.
Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Comments
View as Flat
Pangolin Posted 10:48 am
18 Oct 2008
Most importantly geothermal heat used in the Northeast and rural areas where oil heat is the norm will save significant carbon emissions as much of the load could be carried by rooftop solar panels or small wind turbines.
Politically it's a no-brainer as it would be very hard for the Republicans to refuse to fund an energy saving system that's been installed on George Bush's Crawford Texas house. Since these systems have a payoff time under ten years all that is needed is a financial vehicle that funnels the payments and the financing through the buildings utility bills allowing the system to be paid off by whomever occupies that building.
The only nasty part is that we would have to fight fossil fuel industries that would watch their profits disappear into a hole in the ground with each installation.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Borzio Posted 1:38 pm
18 Oct 2008
I believe that we currently have about 104 operational nuclear reactors in the US. These reactors supply close to 20% of our electricity. So if 104 supply almost 20, how can an additional 45 only supply an additional 2% of our electric needs. Is this new math? I would think that these 45 new reactors would probably be bigger and that they would produce more power that the old generation of reactors. But let's call it a draw for now. So let's build 208 new reactors by 2030 and we will have almost 60% of our electrical energy from nuclear. Not as good as the French, but we can keep working on it.
The offshore drilling thing is also absurd. The bill that congress wants would still keep 80% of our offshore oil off limits, and it would keep Anwar off limits. If we go after all of the available oil, including shale oil, we can bridge our way with oil and gas for the next 50 to 60 years and we can build enough nuclear reactors in that time to supply all of our needs.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 pm
18 Oct 2008
Make backup biogas energy for a renewable grid (rooftop solar and wind farm), that powers the ground source heating/cooling systems and plugin hybrids.
How many green jobs would that make? As many as economic recovery dictates, as fast as subsidies and government contracts (for millions of these devices) are enacted.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:56 am
19 Oct 2008
That said, your math on nuke isn't right either, since 20% of US electricity use isn't equal to 20% of US total energy use, from whence their 118 quads is derived. (The latter also includes energy for transportation and heating uses.) On a primary energy basis, electricity is aobut 35% of total energy use, so nuclear at 20% of total electric is something like 7% of total US energy. (I've not checked those numbers, but directionally they should be about right.) On this measure, 45 plants getting us another 2% of our energy is about right - but with the caveats above that we're comparing raw fuel to generated electricity at the busbar.
As an interesting aside, the most interesting number from a planning perspective is the number that is never calculated: total useful delivered energy. It's not calculated because it's so hard to calculate, but it is the measure that equates to standard of living. You need a fixed number of lumens in your home, not a fixed number of kWh (or, God forbid, a fixed amount of coal consumption at an upstream power plant). So too with transportation energy and warmth. Supply-side solutions always presume that the conversion efficiency from primary energy to useful energy is fixed. And they are always wrong.
Your oil calc's don't make any sense. Our offshore oil & gas reserves truly are trivial, and are in no way part of any long-term energy plan, even of the bridging variety. And in no cases do they compete with nuclear, since transportation markets and electric markets are almost wholly separate.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:47 am
19 Oct 2008
But, by showing us total "energy released" instead of the usual "energy delivered" the author is trying to drive home the importance of energy efficiency.
The electricity chart shows 49.3 QBtu total energy released in 2030 from fossil and nuclear fuels. about 2/3 of that energy is lost at the turbine that spins the generator and in the transmission lines. That lost energy is in black.
The main thrust of this article is that conserving energy inside buildings is incredibly efficient compared to generating more energy.
Essentially there are no losses, only gains.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 am
19 Oct 2008
Making paper mills cogeneration plants. The biogas provoding electricity for the grid as well as process heat for paper making. I'm checking into this.
It would seem the only way to keep our paper industry from being exported to Brazil. Paper mill/power plants.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:27 am
19 Oct 2008
Paper mills are second only to the chemicals industry in terms of total existing cogen potential. (12,000 MW as of 2004, as compared to 27,000 MW in the chemical sector and >80,000 overall.) Moreover, when you look at the net energy use of the paper industry in the US as compared to Europe, it looks like they could still do much better (about 65% of internal energy loads at a US mill are met with process waste, as compared to nearly 100% in Europe.)
So yes - not only a huge potential, but a huge existing resource. That said, it's not really a biogas play. In an integrated pulp & paper plant, the fiber (cellulose) is separated from the wood chip to make paper and the high-Btu resin (lignin) is left behind as so-called "black liquor". (Some in the bio-energy industry refer to this lignin as "young coal" because of it's high btu content). Conceivably, one could digest this, but typically it is just burned in situ as boiler fuel. There are some emissions issues associated with burning, especially in sulfite pulping processes, but from an energetic basis, I'm pretty sure this is considerably more efficient than first digesting the gas, since there's one less step in the fuel chain and one less "parasitic" carbon load. (e.g., carbon diverted by the bacteria in the fermenter = carbon that can no longer release energy through combustion)
In stand-alone paper mills (e.g., those without integrated pulping operations, which often run on recycled paper input rather than virgin wood pulp), there is a smaller byproduct load comprised of the short fibers that have been recycled too many times to be of any continuing use. This so-called "paper sludge" does have some residual energy content, and is usually pretty wet. I'm aware of plants that burn this for energy and while it could concievably be digested as well, my guess is that this is difficult due to the fact that it also concentrates the inks and dies in the recycled stream that are potentially toxic in a digester.
Bottom line is that yes, there is an cogen potential, but it may or may not necessarily include a solids --> biogas conversion step.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:15 am
19 Oct 2008
But why would we want to take a very expensive route to get to that end when we could solve the problem much faster for far less money?
Permalink
Borzio Posted 8:20 am
19 Oct 2008
No, I'm completely right. Did you notice where I said:
"These reactors supply close to 20% of our electricity."
I didn't say that they supplied 20% of our total energy. So explain to me why you have to debate with things that I did not say in order to win an argument?
Now, go back to the chart that says US Electricity Consumption. Notice that the total in that chart is close to 50 QBtu. And the portion that is attributed to those extra 45 new nuclear power plants is 1 QBtu. That means that according that chart we would get only 2% of our ELECTRICITY GENERATION out of those 45 new power plants. Since we are currently getting almost 20% of our ELECTRICTIY GENERATION out of 104 operational nuclear reactors, we can certainly expect to get another 8 to 9% out of the extra 45 nuclear reactors. So if 8 to 9% is the answer, then the chart is obviously a lie. The 45 new nuclear reactors is also a straw man number being used in this case to make a straw man argument. I know that it is McCain's proposed number, but who cares, the reality is that we can produce as many as we like. So why not shoot for 200 by 2030, adding 40% to our nuclear generation, and thereby generating 60% of our ELECTRICITY through nuclear. After 2030 we can keep building them util we meet all of our electric needs through nuclear.
I didn't address the other chart at all - that one being US Crude Oil Consumption. But let's go there. It's obviously another straw man. It attributes 200,000 new barrels a day due to new offshore drilling. According to the chart, we will use about 16 million barrels a day. I have heard that we currently use about 20 million barrels a day so I'm not sure where the discrepancy is, but to be conservative, let's use 20 million a day. That means the extra 200,000 barrels would give us an extra 1%. Not much. Problem is, what backside did they pull that 200,000 barrels from. Is this the amount that we would get if we used Nancy Pelosi's offshore drilling proposal. Of course Pelosi designed that proposal to fail. She heard the anger of the voters and came up with a phony proposal designed to make them believe that she was doing something when her real intention was to do nothing. We know that Pelosi's proposal will leave 80% of the offshore oil untouched. So let's get realistic for 5 seconds and assume that we will go after all of the offshore oil that we can. I think 1 million barrels a day of extra production would be a very conservative number for new offshore production capablility. That would give us a 5% increase on the oil equation side. Of course there is no reason to limit ourselves to offshore oil. Anwar has lots of oil. Given what we now know about Anwar, and given our improvements in extraction capabilities, we can reasonably expect to get another 1 million barrels per day out of Anwar for the next 50 years. So now we are up to a 10% increase.
And last but not least, we are sitting on more shale oil than all of the ME has oil. That shale oil by itself can supply the US with all of the oil that it needs for the next 100 years.
This article is obviously a phony artice where the objective was to throw together a few strawman numbers with the express intent of demonstarting that we cannot come even close to meeting our energy needs without 100 million rooftop solar systems and without 100 thousand new noise making, bird and bat killing, sceenery blighting windmills that only work when the wind is blowing. The ecology movement is stuck on their way of doing things, and they don't care about reality, truth or integrity. Like spoiled children they will stick their fingers in their ears and bawl until they get it their way. If it wasn't for the ecologists we would have at least twice as many nuclear reactors by now and we would be getting 40% of our ELECTRICITY from nuclear today. Of course allowing nuclear to solve our problem now only highlights that the ecologists were fools to oppose it all along. And with their gigantic egoes, that is something that they simply cannot accept.
Permalink
Borzio Posted 8:23 am
19 Oct 2008
Because the "much faster for far less money" argument is as untrue as the entire article that this thread is based upon.
Permalink
Borzio Posted 8:36 am
19 Oct 2008
Well, we could just open a few thousand buggy whip factories and solve the employment problem. The objective is not to see how many "green jobs" we can produce. The objective is to see how many useful jobs we can produce. If we need more jobs to build windmills, maintain windmill, build solar panels, and maintain solar panels than we are currently using to supply our energy needs, then the extra jobs will be wasted - and having to pay those extra people will insure that energy prices go up. Driving energy prices up will make marginal businesses fail, giving us a net loss. What we want is to use less jobs to achieve the same results, so that we can free that labor to do something else that would be useful to society.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 9:27 am
19 Oct 2008
In other words, it is true that nuclear alone won't have a big impact on primary fuel consumption, even though nuclear is at present about a fifth of our electric needs, simply because electric fuel needs are roughly a third of our primary fuel is for electric. This observation is frankly true for any approach that focuses only on one sector to address primary energy use, for rather straightforward mathematical reasons.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:04 am
19 Oct 2008
Stick to the issues. More ranting and character assassination of this variety will get you banned.
grist.org
Permalink
Borzio Posted 10:24 am
19 Oct 2008
No, it's true that only 45 nuclear reactors would only effect primary fuel consumption by 3 to 4 percent. But who says we only have to build 45 new reactors. There is no reason why we can't build two or three hundred. There is no reason why we cannot get all of that 35% of electric generating fuel consuption out of nuclear. Which means that his argument, as well as yours, that nuclear cannot have a big impact is completely false. Look at the French and the percentage of electric generation that it provides for them for christ sake. Why are you insisting on burying your head in the sand? There is zero reason why nuclear cannot provide 100% of our electricity.
"Now go back and look at the title of the article at the top of the page."
"Architecture 2030's challenge targets would provide five times the energy as offshore and nuclear"
This is simply a lie. When you say five times as much energy as offshore and nuclear, you can't make such a sweeping statement when you are putting severe limits on where we can get our oil and how many nuclear plants you can build.
I can say "Borsio's nuclear and oil plan for 2030 will produce five times as much energy as wind and solar", if I simply put an arbitray limitation on the number of windmills and solar panels you will be allowed to build and if I restrict them to certain areas where they will not be an eyesore.
Furthermore, beyond the nuclear issue, his oil numbers are also bogus, as I have shown above. And so when you are doing the "primary fuel consumption" comparsion, you have to do deal with my adjustments to both numbers. You don't just take my point on nuclear and compare it to all primary fuel.
Frankly, I think that our guest contributer should apologize for writing such an intentionally misleading article.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:06 am
19 Oct 2008
I'm wondering if a strain of digestion bacteria could break these chemical bonds, substituting for acid, pressure, and heat. Maybe it would take selective breeding or (gasp) GMO?
Another idea is to use waste wood unsuitable for paper making in digestion, along with waste (maybe the lignin) to cogenerate power for the plant.
Anyway Sean thanks for the analysis of cogeneration applied to paper making. I'm going to pass this on to paper company and utility people I know and see what they think.
This might help our local industry. I'll refer them to your company.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
thollandpe Posted 11:58 am
19 Oct 2008
You object to Architecture 2030's calculation that 45 new nukes = 3.0 QBtu per year, about 3% of the projected 118 QBtu total energy needs of the US in 2030. I approached that from a different direction . . .
Let's say those 45 new nuke plants average 2500 MW output. 2500 WM is pretty big, larger than the current fleet's average, yes? That's four times larger than the nuke nearest to me.
Assume 90% availability = 7884 hours per year at full-load output.
2500 MW * 7884 hours = 886,950,000 MWh
Converting to Btu's that's 3.0 * 10^15 = 3.0 Quadrillion Btu per year.
That checks their numbers, and it looks like old math to me. Unless I've made a mistake, so please point it out if I have. Otherwise the numbers seem to make "basic sense".
Toad the 12 sprocket
Permalink
Edward Mazria Posted 1:42 pm
19 Oct 2008
The EIA estimates that 1 QBtu of delivered energy is equal to the delivered energy of thirty-seven to forty 1000 MW (capacity) nuclear plants (actual number depends on the year).
There are 103 nuclear reactor units operating today in the US with an average unit capacity of 930 MW. Reactor units range from 476 MW to 1335 MW.
As of June 30, 2008 there were a total of nine new commercial nuclear license applications under review for fifteen reactor units - ten at 1117 MW, two at 1400MW, one at 1520MW and one at 1600MW. These applications were submitted before the current US credit crisis and economic meltdown.
New nuclear reactor designs are now coming in all sizes from the the Toshiba 4S (10 to 50 MW capacity) to the Westinghouse PBMR (180 MW capacity), IRIS (360 MW), AP 600 (600 MW), AP 1000 (1100 MW) and AREVA NP EPR (1600 MW).
A new report from Standard and Poor's this week (10/15/08), "Construction Costs To Soar For New US Nuclear Power Plants", states that any new nuclear reactor contracts are not expected to have a fixed timeline or overall fixed construction cost, making it impossible to estimate the actual cost of a reactor. The cost to build a reactor has risen 173 percent since 2000.
The projected cost of building a new nuclear plant is staggering. From the Wall Street Journal May 12, 2008, "FPL Group, Juno Beach, Fla., estimates it will cost $6 billion to $9 billion to build each of two reactors (1100 MW each) at its Turkey Point nuclear site in southeast Florida. It has picked a reactor design by Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of Toshiba Corp., after concluding it could cost as much as $12 billion to build plants with reactors designed by General Electric Co." This was the cost in May 2008 (before the economic meltdown and tight credit) and does not include land costs, cost of new transmission lines, support facilities, nuclear waste storage and decommissioning.
Because of the US economic meltdown, tight credit and escalating nuclear facility construction cost, Architecture 2030 believes that new nuclear plant construction will eventually be built in the mid-range of capacity (if at all). Therefore, we used an average nuclear unit capacity of 820 MW to create the graph for US Electricity Consumption.
Even if one assumes an average new unit capacity of 1100 MW to create the graph, the total energy, i.e. primary energy (delivered energy plus losses), would be between 3.75 QBtu and 4.0 QBtu. (The delivered energy would be between 1.25 QBtu and 1.32 QBtu.) This is still a drop in the bucket compared to the 118 QBtu of total (primary) energy (85 QBtu delivered) that the EIA projects the US will consume in the year 2030.
The estimate of maximum production (in the year 2030) for offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf comes from the US Energy Information Administration.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:09 pm
19 Oct 2008
Now, look at the electricity chart. See that little red blip at the top? That's perfectly accurate, graphically and mathematically.
The same can be said for the oil chart.
As I said before, the gist of the article is that energy efficiency is by far the cheapest and cleanest way to deal with rising energy costs.
We can get by without those little red blips by simply increasing transportation mpg ratings with more efficient technology like diesel, hybrids, plug-in hybrids and by reducing building energy consumption via more efficient technology as well. What's not to like about that idea?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 8:57 pm
19 Oct 2008
Permalink
Borzio Posted 6:16 am
20 Oct 2008
How can it possibly make sense that we would be getting almost 20% of our electric generation from 104 Reactors and then we would only get 2% more (as chart 2 shows) from 45 new reactors?
Permalink
Borzio Posted 6:22 am
20 Oct 2008
Forget the total energy needs. Look at chart 2. How many times do I have to tell you people that I'm questioning their total percentage of the electricity generation. This is about the fifth time that I have pointed that out. Their chart shows that 45 new nuclear reactors will only provide 2% of the total ELECTRICITY generation requirements. That is a lie. Can you comprehend that.
Chart 2 - it's a lie.
Chart 2 - it's a lie.
Chart 2 - chart 2 - chart 2 - chart 2.
Permalink
Borzio Posted 6:50 am
20 Oct 2008
Actually, if you count it as a percentage of delivered energy, the chart shows about a 6% increase. But let's assume that we get the real number of 8 - 9%. Getting 8 - 9% increase in electricity generation from 45 new reactors is very good in my mind. So let's build 200 by 2030 and let's get closer to a 40% increase. Then we can keep building them and eventually have 100% nuclear electric generation.
As far as energy efficiency goes, you are not going to drop those electric line losses by diving a Prius. So I don't see how your argument is relevant to nuclear reactor construction.
As far as the trasportation fuel side of the equation, I'm perfectly happy to drive a hybrid. But I'm not going to be happy driving an underpowered tin can. And I will only buy the hybrid when the fuel efficiency offsets the additional cost of the vehicle. Build the better product and you will not have to force it on people against their will - as environmentalists are always trying to do.
Permalink
Borzio Posted 7:03 am
20 Oct 2008
No, the reason is that they knew that they would have to fight eco activists the whole way and that it wasn't worth that fight. It's the same reason we haven't built any refineries in 30 years.
"because there are vastly cheaper and more economically rewarding ways to meet load.""
Possibly, but it's certainly not wind and solar. Because if those were the better solutions, all kinds of companies would be doing it instead of having people like you have the government force us to do it.
If the primary concern that you people have is CO2 in the atmosphere and pollutants that are emitted by other forms of power, you would think that you would welcome a solution that deals with those problems for you. The majority of the opponents of your plans for cap and trade, carbon taxation, etc, are willing to go to nuclear. So why not go with them? Why insist on your way or the highway? You would be getting the primary things that you want for the environment. Probably the answer is that you are not really environmentally motivated. Your are politically and idealogically motivated. It really is a fact the green is the new red. I suppose that's why you have people speaking fondly of Marx, together with spirituality, together with the green revelution all in the same breath on this site.
Permalink
stinkycheese Posted 7:06 am
20 Oct 2008
Also, regarding Borzio, I just spent some time on the EIA site (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html)
"In the AEO2008 reference case, nuclear capacity grows from 100.2 gigawatts in 2006 to 114.9 gigawatts in 2030, including 2.7 gigawatts of expansion at existing plants, 16.6 gigawatts of new capacity, and 4.5 gigawatts of retirements."
16.6 GW of new capacity is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the 45 plants that McCain is talking about.
From the same EIA link:
"With capacity additions and improvements in performance at existing nuclear facilities, nuclear generation also increases; however, the nuclear share of total generation falls slightly, from 19 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2030."
So, even when nuclear power increases its capacity in the next 22 years, it drops in terms of its "share" of generation due to increase in electricity sales. Tripling the planned "new capacity" from 16.6GW to ~50GW means that nuclear capacity will increase by about 50%.
Today:
nuclear produces 19% of 3659 TWh -> ~700 TWh/yr
with 100GW capacity
2030:
nuclear capacity increases by 50%, so yearly production increases to (700 * 150%) 1050 TWh/yr, which is 22% of the 4705 TWh electricity sales predicted by the EIA.
So Borzio, where am I wrong?
If it helps in your reply, my mom just called, complaining that she smells of elderberries. You seem to enjoy the angry ad hominems.
Permalink
Edward Mazria Posted 7:11 am
20 Oct 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:17 am
20 Oct 2008
EL = energy lost. This is the black area. You lose about 2/3 of the energy released from a lump of coal or nuclear fuel rod when you pass the steam it generated through a turbine and send the power along transmission lines.
TEC = total energy consumed. This is the sum of the black and grey areas. TEV = EU + EL
~104 reactors provide ~20% EU. They account for ~6.3% TEC in 2006.
45 reactors would provide ~8.65% EU. They would account for ~2.2% of the TEC in 2030.
Why talk about TEC instead of just EU? Because that wasted energy was paid for in dollars and in ecological and environmental damage. If you can drive or stay warm without wasting that energy, as the architects are suggesting, you end up with the most cost effective solution. That should sound familiar by now.
How about an analogy? If you build houses with holes in the walls you can compensate for the energy being lost through those holes by building more power plants or you can cover the holes with glass and call them windows. Which option would be cheaper?
How about a picture?
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/nuclear12.gif
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Borzio Posted 1:17 pm
20 Oct 2008
"So Borzio, where am I wrong?"
You are right. As a percentage of the total, it would grow by 3.3 percent. But chart 2 shows only 2%. Also if you simply say that adding 50% nuclear capacity will only add 3% to our electric energy production you are trying to imply that building nuclear gives you little or nothing. But 50% nuclear increase actually gives you 9.5% more electrical energy than we are generating now. In today's terms, you would take your percentage from 19% to 28.5%. So you are simply hiding the power gain in the consumption growth. To give an accurate and fair representation on the chart you would show a band representing 19% of 3659 in 2008 moving apart to 22% of 4705 in 2030. That would give you a fair visual representation of the increase. But the idea is to give the illusion that 45 new reactor would yield almost nothing, and that is the illusion that you want to present. Now let's say that we build 200 nuclear reactors by 2030. Then your number becomes roughly 300% * 700 or 2100 TWH. Now you have about 45% nuclear energy for electric generation. A much nicer picture showing that nuclear can make a big difference. Of course as I have said before, we should continue to build them after 2030 until we have 100% nuclear electric generation.
And while you keep trying to give the illusion that you can't run a power grid on nuclear, the French have apparently achieved your impossibility.
Permalink
Borzio Posted 1:37 pm
20 Oct 2008
Depends on the efficiency of the home that you start with as well as the cost of increasing that efficiency. Sometimes it will pay, sometimes not. A lot of people are improving the insulation in their houses. I have done that. And I use compact flourecent bulbs. Of course I also run a 55 inch flat screen TV that generates a lot of heat and I don't care what ecologists think of that. If I can get a more efficient screen after this one wears out, I will do so. But I'm not going to a 21 inch screen to satisfy the irrational fears of the ecologists. Come up with truely better solutions and they will sell themselves. Come up with a lot of half baked solutions and you will have to take the standard ecologists approach of getting the government to force it on people. Of course you can make the claim that everyone will not act in their own economic interest. This is true, some people won't. But I also don't care about that, because their freedom is much more important to me that your agenda.
Permalink
stinkycheese Posted 11:22 pm
20 Oct 2008
Interestingly though, if Architecture 2030's goals ARE met, then instead of seeing an increase in electrical demand, we should see that drop substantially (and consequently, nuclear will have a larger share). So really, you should be busily promoting Architecture 2030's agenda rather than complaining about their math.
Also, I'm not sure why you feel the need to make "ecologist" a pejorative term, but I should point out that it's the minority on this site who would break into your house and take your 55" flat screen TV off to be recycled into 16 13" flat screen TVs, which would then be shared by 16 separate communes. I have a 42" LCD and don't feel especially bad about it. I'm also typing on a computer right now, instead of a pile of compost.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:11 am
21 Oct 2008
If 104 reactors provide 20%, 45 reactors would provide an additional 8.65%.
(20%x45)/104=8.65%
This is what the chart shows.
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/nuclear13.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/nuclear15.gif
The graph is perfectly reasonable as presented and makes the point about efficiency being preferable to hundreds of enormously expensive new power plants, as intended by the authors.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
thollandpe Posted 7:56 am
21 Oct 2008
The nuclear component of our 2007 power picture was only 8.4 QBtu. That sounds significant when you consider that end use accounts for only 13.3 QBtu, but not when you compare it to the massive 27.2 QBtu conversion losses.
Not to be confused with transmission & distribution losses, those are only 1.3 QBtu. You let your hand show with that Prius comment. But this is a lot of numbers so I'll recap. Where's the biggest target:
Energy used to generate electricity = 42.1 QBtu
Conversion Losses = 27.2 QBtu = 64%
End Use = 13.3 QBtu = 31%
Nuclear Energy Input = 8.4 QBtu = 20%
T&D Losses = 1.3 QBtu = 3%
And let's not bluff with the crap card that Carnot efficiency limits how much we can get out of the process, much of those conversion losses can be recovered as useful heat.
Just tell me why conservation and efficiency don't blow nukes out of the water when it comes to potential capacity, time to market, cost effectiveness, and environmental benefit. You may want to watch this first:
http://tinyurl.com/3c8vpf
Toad the 12 sprocket
Permalink