Yesterday, the National Academy of Sciences released a Congressionally mandated report on coal-related R&D challenges. Coal-state senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) requested a report on possible impediments to future coal production, and areas that need to be researched to keep the coal coming.
Given that essentially coal-positive mandate, naturally NAS introduced the resultant report in its press release thusly:
Because coal will continue to provide a substantial portion of U.S. energy for at least the next several decades, a major increase in federal support for research and development is needed to ensure that this natural resource is extracted efficiently, safely, and in an environmentally responsible manner ...
However, even if one follows Specter and Byrd and assumes we're going to keep relying on coal rather than trying to determine if we should, the report is a pretty grim read. (NB: I've read the brief [PDF] and closely skimmed the full report [PDF].) Here are the basic conclusions:
Our coal reserve and location estimates are scandalously bad, based on data and methodology not updated since the early 1970s. We don't have a good idea how much recoverable coal we have to work with. It's highly likely, however, that the "250 year supply" talking point deployed by coal boosters is, um, horsepoop:
It is clear that there is enough coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030, and probably enough for 100 years, the committee said. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply for the next 250 years.
We have no idea how much coal we'll be using in 10 years, and even less of an idea about 20 years out:
Forecasts suggest that demand for coal over the next 10-15 years is likely to range from 25 percent above to 15 percent below 2004 levels. Further into the future, forecasts range from 70 percent above to 50 percent below 2004 levels.
Most of the easy coal has been mined out, so getting to the remaining coal is going to be less safe ...
The coal mines of the future will encounter a range of new or more difficult mining and processing challenges as more easily accessed coal seams are depleted and the industry turns to less accessible. ... There are major knowledge gaps and technology needs in the areas of survival, escape, communications systems, and emergency preparedness and rescue.
... and dirtier:
As mining activities extract coal from deeper and operationally more difficult seams, a range of existing environmental issues and concerns will be exacerbated and new concerns are likely to arise, particularly related to greater disturbance of hydrologic systems, ground subsidence, and waste management at mines and processing plants.
And finally, we're still mining old-school, so we need to dump a bunch of money into advanced mining techniques; our coal transport network is large, fragile, and poorly understood, so we need to figure that out; and if we're really serious about sequestering massive amounts of CO2, we should start determining where it's possible geologically.
I guess if you're a coal-state senator, you read this and think, OK, time to open the federal coffers and pour some money on these problems.
But if you're not -- if you see another century of coal as an option rather than a necessity -- the only sane reaction is: frack, this ain't worth it!
Why would we want to keep ourselves lashed to a fossil fuel that's increasingly dirty and dangerous to get at? Why would we want to spend millions, possibly billions on new research and infrastructure around coal when we don't know a) whether it will last for even 100 years, and b) how much we'll want to use even a few years from now? Does that sound like a wise long-term investment?
In other news, the sun will shine and the wind will blow for hundreds of centuries into the future. We know for a fact that 100 years out we'll be wanting to use them as our primary source of power. They are clean, effectively inexhaustible, and increasingly easy to exploit.
Tough choice.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Threaded
Charles Barton Posted 2:02 am
21 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
eutopianow Posted 2:04 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:11 am
21 Jun 2007
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:17 am
21 Jun 2007
Solar Thermal is actually quite reasonably priced. Cheaper than nukes.
The best option right now is GeoThermal. Not only is it cheaper than Nuclear, but it's uptime performance is higher too.
Arguing for Nuclear on a cost basis is a pretty weak arguement. Nuclear gets more subsidies than all Renewable and Effeciency programs combined. And it's still quite pricey after all that.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:26 am
21 Jun 2007
What is that price, and how many gigawatts of it are being installed this year -- either in the United States or the world?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:28 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:33 am
21 Jun 2007
GreyFlcn wrote: Solar Thermal is actually quite reasonably priced.
What is that price, and how many gigawatts of it are being installed this year -- either in the United States or the world?
Wouldn't the more appropriate question be how much would be installed in the next 5-8 years?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:39 am
21 Jun 2007
What makes you say that?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:40 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:09 am
21 Jun 2007
You said that solar thermal is "cheaper than nukes". Now, you seem to be saying that none of it is being installed, despite the fact that coal is now over $2,000/KW. What is the price of solar thermal, such that it is "cheaper than nukes", but apparently noncompetitive against coal?
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:19 am
21 Jun 2007
This does not establish that the legions of economists, policy analysts, and according to Roberts, scientists and engineers are crazy. If they are happy with their oil and gas tax income, or dividend income, and see solar power as a pleasantly by-and-by, theoretical threat to those revenues, not like you-know-what, and lie and say it's the other way round, then what they are is evil.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:24 am
21 Jun 2007
NucBuddy
You said that solar thermal is "cheaper than nukes". Now, you seem to be saying that none of it is being installed, despite the fact that coal is now over $2,000/KW. What is the price of solar thermal, such that it is "cheaper than nukes", but apparently noncompetitive against coal?
Here's some stuff from a recent June 12 2007 report for California specifically.
$4000/KW : Small Scale Hydropower
$3900/KW : Parabolic Trough Solar Thermal
$3000/KW : Geothermal - Binary Steam
$2750/KW : Geothermal - Dual Flash
$2500/KW : Biomass Combustion Boiler
$2400/KW : Nuclear
$2050/KW : Coal IGCC
$1500/KW : In-Conduit Hydropower
$1900/KW : Utility Wind
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/documents/2007 ...
And you have Luz II claiming 55% the cost of parabolic trough tech.
Which would peg them at around $2145/KW
http://www.luz2.com/apage/12219.php
Above Coal, Below Nuclear.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:41 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:46 am
21 Jun 2007
$2145/KW is below the $2250/KW cost of the latest Duke Energy coal-venture in North Carolina.
newsobserver.com/business/story/584903.html
Permalink
berning Posted 7:12 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:22 am
21 Jun 2007
US coal-miners volunteer for their jobs. Perhaps one reason they volunteer is the fact that coal-mining is so safe:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Safer_times_in_modern_mining
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, coal mining is not even among the top 10 most dangerous occupations in America per capita. Pilots, truck and taxi drivers, loggers, fishermen, roofers and other occupations face greater on the job risks than coal miners.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 8:36 am
21 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:18 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 9:19 am
21 Jun 2007
It may come as a shock to you to hear this, but the legions of scientists, engineers, economists, and policy analysts who advocate for renewable energy are aware of the fact that the sun goes down at night. Heck, some of them have even factored that into their thinking! And yet they still support renewable energy. Crazy."
David, I am sure that this is so. But on Grist we get kw hour expenses quoted, as if the wind blew 24 hours a day, and the sun shown all night. We do not get estimates of the real costs of fixing intermittency using current technology. Unlike the dream fixes for renewable power, effective and safe nuclear technology exists today, and we can begin replacing outdated and CO2 generating fossil fuel power plants with Nuks now. Plants ordered today can be online in under 5 years. You self styled, and I might add bvery self rightous, environmentalist resist nuclear power, and offer only unproven technology. I am concerned that in ten years no practical solution will be found to the the problem of wind and solar, and that CO2 emissions will be worse than today. You ought to read Pogp: "We have meet the enemy, and he is us."
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:26 am
21 Jun 2007
That said, thats nothing.
Southern California Edison (SCE) announced 2006 renewable energy purchases and deliveries led the nation with 7.5 billion kWh of Geothermal energy, which is over three 3 times the energy delivered by SCE from wind sources and over 12 times the amount from solar sources.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 9:32 am
21 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:10 am
21 Jun 2007
Why do we need to get all of our energy from 1 source, only?
Geothermal for baseload,
Solar for daytime,
And Biogas, Hydro and other Storage for peaking.
(Wind powered pumped hydro for instance)
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:18 am
21 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 11:00 am
21 Jun 2007
Solar for daytime,
And Biogas, Hydro and other Storage for peaking.
(Wind powered pumped hydro for instance) - GreyFlcn
GreyFlcn, I would like to try some of what ever it is that you have been smoking.
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:21 am
21 Jun 2007
Pumped Hydropower and Wind Power are legit long standing technologies.
Whenever we need a lot of electricity in a hurry, Large Scale Hydropower just can't be beat.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:45 am
21 Jun 2007
Nuclear only provides 85% uptime
Geothermal has better baseload performance than Nuclear.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 11:47 am
21 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 12:41 pm
21 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:16 pm
21 Jun 2007
Roberts posted a thoughtful piece some time back noting that he was NOT anti-nuclear, but that seems to have been ignored by the recent gang of pro-nuke advocates who post here without ever quite stating what it is that readers here are supposed to do other than sing the praises of nukes.
So let me ask you, Charles: Given that a blog discussion thread is the cyber equivalent of the barstools in any corner bar of any city in America, what precisely is it that you seek? Last I checked, approval of the people drinking at the gristmill saloon was not important to doing anything having to do with building a power plant of any kind.
Having been in the military in the post-Vietnam era and in the nuclear industry, what I find most odd and disturbing is a common mindset in both camps: just as there were a handful of diehards who liked to blame the media for our Vietnam experience, the nuclear industry has more than a few people who, their rhetoric suggests, have absolutely no understanding of why the US stopped building nukes. They appear to believe that environmentalists had something to do with it, and that the only way to revive the industry is to take the Cortez approach to environmentalists: they must all be converted or killed.
But, as Lovins and many others have shown, it was not enviros who stopped nuclear construction in this country at all. It was utility managers, ratepayers, and shareholders.
Americans are like cats; nuclear power is a pill. It may be a pill we need---positions vary on that question. But I guarantee you that trying to shove the pill down the cats' throats will not get you where you want to go; you'll find the pill on the floor even as you're bandaging your arms. You might get one down that way, tops.
I have heard people whose rhetoric reminds me of yours (and that of CRL Cowan, FHF, and nucbuddy) argue that we'll just have to make it impossible for Americans to stop nukes, "for their own good." That's where I get off--any technology that requires dismantling democracy is not one I want anything to do with.
So knock yourself out--go where nuclear is welcome and build some nukes. But if you're not in a position to do that ... if, instead of being able to carry out these grandiose plans, you actually have to persuade people, then I suggest you are not helping yourself much with your tactics.
Just my $0.02.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:47 pm
21 Jun 2007
I think the US stopped building nukes because they became, quite suddenly, a major oil tax revenue canceller in 1974, the year when, according to Charles E. Till, there were about 40 reactor orders in the USA. It wasn't 'enviros', and it wasn't utility managers, ratepayers, and shareholders; it was government.
Where else are you going to hear that interpretation? Just being able to make it heard is somehow pleasing to me. I don't know if industry people understand it, nor if any post here.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:27 pm
21 Jun 2007
In fact, in PURPA, Congress OUTLAWED use of natural gas to make electricity, and the oil share of the electric market was nearly nil.
The actual relationship between oil and the decline of nuclear power is that the 73 and 79/80 oil shocks caused such sharp recessions that economic growth plunged in the US, and Congress created significant subsidies for conservation and efficiency (including CAFE standards). Between the bad economy and the sharp uptick in efficiency overall, the price of oil soon collapsed back under $10.
The side effect was that the demand growth projections (which had been averaging 7% a year) were destroyed too, and suddenly you had a bunch of plants where the owners couldn't see a way to recover their costs, even as interest rates shot up through the roof, making delays prohibitively costly. Thus, the owners were left holding very costly bags that they couldn't afford to keep holding or to drop.
The weird regulatory gyrations on natural gas (which culminated in the partially deregulated system we have now, where FERC regulates pipelines but otherwise it's an open market) didn't help nuclear at all either; once Congress reversed the ban on using natural gas for electric production (after having driven the price for new gas down to the floor) suddenly owners of big, partially built nukes had a very attractive way to add (relatively) small lumps of supply in a hurry (under 2 years) for a lot less capital outlay. It seemed that gas was going to be cheap forever, and that there was an abundance of it.
Carter's pick for Fed boss, Paul Volcker, accepting the mission to stop inflation for real, hiked interest rates enough to really hurt, setting Carter up to be un-elected while, at the same time, further driving economic activity down throughout 81/82, further depressing prices (and jobs). More pressure on energy prices, more pain for utilities caught with expensive projects in various stages of gestation.
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 9:18 pm
21 Jun 2007
I grew up as an observer of the nuclear industry, my father helped to develop the atomic submarine. Later he worked on Environmental issues. He also wrote the book on handling radio active materials in the laboratory. ORNL where my father worked, was very much focused of reactor safety. In my blog I tell the story of how ORNL Director Alvin Weinberg was fired, after a clash with congressman Chet Hollifield over reactor safety. ORNL had a Health Physics Devision, which studied the effects of radiation of living organisms, and an environmental studies Devision. ORNL was on of the firt big employers of ecologists.
I worked at ORNL for a year from 1970 to 1971. I first heard of the CO2 problem, and the possibility of global warming then. With this awareness i watched with dismay as the anti-Nuclear movement took hold, in the 1970's. I saw Coal fired steam plant after plant being built, and knew where it was leading. We have created quite a mess during the last generation. We have a chance to clean it up now. I believe that nothing short of drastic action is going to head off what will surely be a major disaster. I have argued in Grist for the rapid replacement of fossil fuel powered electrical generating plants with reactors. We have a mature reactor industry in the United States that provides around 20% of our electrical power. We have the potential to replace all fossil fuel generating plants within less than two generations if we go to nuclear power. It is inexcusible if we don"t start doing it now. Commenters in Grist do not seemed gripped by a sense of urgancy. Nuclear power is an option that can be used. It is quite possible to start construction of 100 reactors in the united States in the next five years and have them on line within 10 years, if we as a society decide to do it. It would be easily possible to build 500 ractors in the decade after that. By that time reliable base load alternative energy sources might be beginning to come on line.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 11:04 pm
21 Jun 2007
I would like to see Long term a switch to breeder technology. In 1967 Alvin Weinberg estimated that Molten Salt breeder power reactors could be built for a little over 100 Million dollars per MW. That would translatate into something like a half billion in todays money. Molten Salt reactors went through 3 generations at ORNL, and thus must be consider a proven technology. A crash program to design a 1000 MW molten Salt breeder that can be mass produced would yield a viable design within 10 years. After that we could build as many as needed, until all carbon based power plants are eliminated, or until alternative Energy sorces, offer a truly better and more cost effective alternative.
Charles Barton
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:43 am
22 Jun 2007
The best tools in the box include making carbon much more expensive and/or creating substantial energy surplus with efficiency and conservation.
The Holy Grail is energy less expensive than cheap coal.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 2:10 am
22 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:58 am
22 Jun 2007
In other words, use lots less energy, and make lots, lots less greenhouse gases with the energy we do make.
So, yes, I think I understand what you want. My question was not that, it was why are you sitting here at the gristmill bar berating the other folks bellied up to the bar for their failure to appreciate nuclear power as much as you do? Do you think it is helpful to your cause? In what way?
I suggest that your approach to selling nuclear as a response to climate change is about as effective as it would have been for Tom Sawyer to demand that others want to help him paint the fence.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 6:31 am
22 Jun 2007
I am making a case study of TVA, because I have a long familiarity with the organization - my father went to work for them in 1934. TVA currently receives 29% of its power from Nuks, but has opened up a reconstructed reactor, and is in the process of completing a long delayed, partially complete reactor. In addition TVA has an AP-1000 on order and an option for another. TVA also has two more incomplete units, one which is 88% complete, and a second which is 58% complete.
At most TVA would need ten more AP-1000s to replace coal. If TVA decided to buy 12 AP-1000's they could use mass production, lowering pre-unit construction costs to no more that a billion a MW. TVA could easily finish the conversion by 2030, with no compromise on power production. We are going to need a lot of electricity to power plug-in hybreds. TVA has maxed out its hydro potential, wind is not really an option. Tennessee has a lot of cloudy days. It is not optimal for solar. I suspect that TVA has looked at geothermal, and decided that it is not a realistic option. That leaves the nuclear option or stick with coal.
I am glad you see the logic of this situation. The solution then is get a bill before Congress mandating the TVA switch to nuclear, and waving TVA's debt limit, although it might be possible for TVA to build new nuks without busting its present cap.
Oh, compensate the coal mine owners and the miners for their loss of contracts and wages, and for putting them out of business. This is a compromise that would make the whole business easier. You can't solve big problems without greasing a few palms.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:50 am
22 Jun 2007
Nuclear only provides 85% uptime
Geothermal has better baseload performance than Nuclear.
world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html
US nuclear power plant [...] average load factor now stands at around 90%
[...]
Another measure is unplanned capability loss, which in the USA has for the last few years been below 2%.
Nuclear power-plants go offline for refueling and maintenance when they are not needed -- in the spring and the fall. In December, January, July and August, they run at 98% or better capacity-factor. Here is a visual-aid showing this:
nei.org/documents/NuclearPerformanceMonthly.pdf
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:44 am
23 Jun 2007
Please quote an appropriate example of Nucbuddy's rhetoric.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:23 am
25 Jun 2007
topics.energycentral.com/centers/gentech/view/detail.cfm?aid=1254
2.24.07
David Walters
As a power plant operator in a conventional gas fired plant, I wanted to add a few comments. These will be disjointed some, but, points needed to be made.
1. I've worked Geothermal. It's rare to be able to build it because there are so few sites in th world. Secondly, after tapping the steam, the steam flow tends to decrease over time, even with water injection of waste water from the turbine condenser. Thus, in Calorinia's geo-thermal plants at the Geysers, megatt output has dropped by almost half, from over 2,000 MW down to 1,000.
1.2 Geothermal stinks. It is heavily polluted, lots of sulpher, lots of CO2 that escapes.
1.3 It can be used for base-load and is easily dispatchible, since we are talking a conventional steam turbine (with Earth as the boiler).
1.4 Because there are all low pressure steam supplies from the Earth, building turbines is expensive as they have to have larger, and longer turbine blades.
1.5 Waste abatement is a pain in the butt because each unit produces tons of chemical waste.
Permalink