Usable electricity doesn't just appear, but is generated from a pre-existing or primary energy; one of the great decisions of the 21st century will be how we choose to generate electricity. We have established that there are under consideration three main carbon-reduced or carbon neutral "clean" primary energies for electricity: renewable energy, nuclear energy, and coal with carbon sequestration. While electricity itself is "flex-fuel," meaning any and all of these methods can be used to generate electricity, we will need to arrive at a differentiation of, if not a prioritization of, which methods are going to be the most sustainable and ultimately the main driver of the new electron economy, post-coal and post-oil. To guide policy and investment, we can create a "loading order" for these resources, though a multi-track approach is also probable if not desirable.
Third place: the coal/CCS electron economy
Is coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) the primary energy source for the Electron Economy? Of the three alternatives, coal generation with CCS is the least promising and has some major strikes against. However, it does have advantages as well.
Pro:
- Taps into a still vast energy store (coal deposits) so can be called upon when needed independent of weather conditions and in response to electric demand.
- Provides jobs and revenue for existing industries and communities (coal mining and coal transport)
Con:
- Uses an unsustainable fuel -- coal will run out
- Coal mining is often very destructive to the landscape and to coal miners.
- Mass carbon dioxide release from underground is considered unlikely but potentially lethal for people and wildlife as well as defeating the purpose of CCS.
- CCS may not reduce or eliminate the other pollutants associated with coal combustion including mercury emissions, SOx and NOx.
- There are still no functioning plants/it is an experimental technology.
- CCS plants will be much more expensive than existing coal plants, removing one of the prime selling points of coal, i.e. that it is cheap.
- CCS or "clean coal" has been used as a public relations "cover" to justify the building of new coal generating plants without adding the "optional" CCS facilities.
Coal with CCS may have a role in a transition to a more sustainable energy system but it is by design a stop-gap solution.
Soil carbon—a blind spot in the debate on carbon
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 9:03 am
24 Aug 2008
Might as well have Cold Fusion in the running for 4th place.
_
My personal 3 top technologies are
High Altitude Wind (With rotating Blimps tethered to the ground etc, unlikely, but if they get it to work, that could be pretty impressive)
EGS Geothermal, (i.e. Drill 2-4x as deep, and supply your own water in a closed loop)
SolarThermal w/ Heat Storage (i.e. Heat up molten salt, and then run that heat to make steam whenever)
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:04 am
24 Aug 2008
from Argentina a new element arrives to the discussion, as members of the Catalytic Processes Laboratory (LPC) of University of Buenos Aires (UBA) has found a new way to get highly pure hydrogen from ethanol.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 12:01 pm
24 Aug 2008
This is a serialization of a longer piece. I've classified the electron economies into three broad categories related to their primary energies: Coal CSS, Nuclear and Renewable. It's not my list of "favorite technologies". I classify the favorites you list as "Renewable"
Jabailo,
The question is why would you want to extract the hydrogen from the ethanol? Hydrogen is more difficult to store...you lower your energy yield... You are showing signs of the unfortunate hydrogen obsession that is becoming less and less fashionable all the time. In the context of a solid oxide fuel cell you could generate electricity from the ethanol in which hydrogen was extracted as a brief intermediate product before being emitted as water (and C02). But in that (efficient) usage there would be no use of hydrogen as an energy carrier or storage medium. It just doesn't pencil out as an alternative despite all the hype that you've heard.
Permalink
ids Posted 12:08 pm
24 Aug 2008
So if burying the shit as in clean coal is as carbon neutral as nuclear, admitting the risk, it seems clean coal is at the same time an argument for nuclear. That's why ComEd in IL is giving clearance to clean coal.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30229
Provides jobs and revenue for existing industries and communities (coal mining and coal transport)
A little overblown, considering the jobs are in the $20/hour range, and among the most dangerous on the planet.
Basically, first, you had the Illinois Sierra Club demanding CCS, as in their July 9, 2007 press release "Despite Promises New Coal Plant Falls Short on Global Warming", and last month, sponsored by a black Chicago dem sen (hmm, sound familiar), is a bill mandating Illinois utlilities to pay 5% of its production to coal sequestering 50% of its carbon (passed house, going to senate). sb1987 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/SB/09500SB1987ham004.h ... Now their choice for Pres could get in office.
And where's the H2O in this?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:32 pm
24 Aug 2008
The Ciarra Club aside, we need New Nukes to generate hydrogen:
A 2005 energy bill signed by President Bush gave the OK for building a new type of nuclear reactor that, in theory, will reach temperatures high enough to make hydrogen production more efficient.
[...]
The current problem is that today's reactors can reach temperatures of only about 572 F. That's more than enough to cook your steak, but can be grossly inefficient for producing hydrogen.
The next-generation nuclear plant should be able to reach temperatures of 1,292 F to 1,652 F.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYG8SUnUOR9NfNAI-ZFekX ...
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 3:08 pm
24 Aug 2008
Phasing out coal is going to cause pain, there's no getting around that. It's worth it to transition away from coal but that doesn't mean that it won't cause disruption to communities and people who have made their livings from coal, including coal miners, who unlike some Americans, have been able to raise families on their wages.
So, the world is not lining up neatly into black and white....sorry!
Jabailo,
I don't know if it is worth responding to you as you seem to unthinkingly post as if producing hydrogen were an end in itself. You need to update your reading list...naive pro-hydrogen boosterism can hardly be found even at companies that have sunk millions of dollars into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Many of those companies are now putting more money into hybrid, battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle research and development.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:30 pm
24 Aug 2008
Oil and gas industry experts? They are the only ones with experience in this technology.
And what about slow leaks, that render this method worthless? The inmdustry insiders just don't care if it leaks when used for oil recovery, and now they have a reason to lie about it.
It would take resting to prove it Michael, long term testing. Experimental projects would have to run for 5 to 10 years at least before billions are put into new plants relying on this technology.
Of course wind, solar, wave, ocean current power, and biogas from waste are ready right now.
I think the other technologies all need testing before they are mass produced. Allegedly safer waste recycling nuclear, coal CCS, and cellulosic ethanol, these are unproven. let the experiments continue, but move to massive roll out of already proven renewables now.
And of course conservation, plugin hybrids, ground source heat pumps, and smart grid technology.
I suspect your series will prove this is the best path. But the compromise to let the other (almost certain to fail) technologies proceed experimentally is important for political purposes. It would let these industries and their lobbyists save face and get them out of the way of real progress.
Pork barrel politicians have accepted a lot of bribes from these lobbyists, it would let them vote for real renewable energy without getting their legs broken, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:08 pm
24 Aug 2008
Amazing at its humble best again :) The reason why we need to have a multi-pronged approach for alternative energies is not about compromise. It is about common sense.
Each of the renewable technologies have limits to scalability. There is only a limited amount of wind, geothermal or solar energy that can be tapped on earth. No greyflcn, don't show the foolish picture of how much solar energy falls on the surface of the earth. We have to calculate the potential of any energy based on the amount of land, water and other environmental resources. Likewise there are limits on the amount of energy that can be conserved. Ignoring these limits will be suicidal for the environmentalist movement. If our energy demand is higher than the energy that can be generated within these limits, it means the gaps will be filled by the dirtiest coal possible.
Lumping all the technologies that you don't like such as "clean coal, nuclear, cellulosic ethanol" into one sentence might make you feel good. But it doesn't make any sense. Each of these technologies is different and has to be evaluated differently. For example, coal CCS sucks and nuclear power rocks.
No technology will have infinite growth and replace coal/oil within a day. If we think about long term future, we should allow for the growth of all these technologies lest we find ourselves in deep trouble after 20 years. Particularly, as pointed out by nuclear critics, nuclear plants take too long to build. So if we wish to have fall back on nuclear energy to avoid burning more coal in the future, it is wise to allow for a reasonable growth in the nuclear industry right now.
The world is not run by a single government, and there will be several countries which will not play by the rules. There will be several countries which will keep burning coal. In that case, it will be wise to develop carbon sequestration technology (and make it cheap) so that we can atleast minimize the damage by fitting the coal plants of the future with CCS.
You can have a list of favorite technologies and ignore the rest. But, each technology will have its niche capabilities. Some technologies will work best for densely populated countries with limited land resources (nuclear breeder reactors). Some other technologies will work best for countries with a lot of waterfalls and hydro-electric capacity (hydro-electric). Some technologies will work best for countries with a lot of wind (denmark, USA), with geothermal (iceland) and so on.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 10:38 pm
24 Aug 2008
Looking forward to silver and gold.
My bet:
Silver - concentrating solar power and wind, coupled to some energy storage technology.
Gold - carbon-negative baseload energy.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:21 am
25 Aug 2008
The stuff is just very, very expensive and likely to get even more so.
Politicians, at least in the west, are not going to determine our energy future as much as the market will. Energy companies are not overall dumb. They will not spend their capital for the least return, but for the most.
Coal is only artificially, and most likely only temporarily, inexpensive. Fuel extraction and transportation costs are rising. There is mounting pressure to clean up the waste stream.
Wind is already cheap. Solar prices are dropping and likely to drop significantly in the near future. (Look for large drops in PV over the next couple of years as surplus silicon appears on the market.)
Who in their right mind is going to spend massive amounts of money to build new nuclear (or "clean" coal) when they can finance a wind farm or thermal solar field and see a decent return on their investment in a few years?
Want to invest in something that will produce $0.15+ per kWh electricity 10-15 years down the road or in something that will produce <$0.05 per kWh electricity 2-3 years from now?
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:56 am
25 Aug 2008
No, unlike what you may think, economics is not the best friend for the environment. (Isn't it obvious ? )
Just as organic food tends to be more expensive than supermarket food, environmentally friendly energy sources will tend to be more expensive than other sources. This is because our notion of money is completely distorted - by an array of hidden subsidies for stupid behavior encouraging burning the environment and wastage of resources. So, I always urge everyone to think in eco-dollars (as visible in my signature). For any new technology, we should compute the potential cost to the environment (mining, land use, soil depletion, water table depletion, bio diversity loss so on) and not the current cost in dollars. The current dollar cost is very deceptive.
Having said all that, your idea that new nuclear costs a lot in current dollars is plainly wrong. Granted that nuclear plants take a lot of money to build. But this can be brought down by standardizing design and by mass production of reactors in a factory. Generation 4 nuclear reactors which burn existing nuclear waste (such as the Integral Fast Reactor) can be constructed for as cheaply as 1 billion US $ (in place of 9 billion $ as told by critics).
Countries which employ nuclear electricity have the cheapest electricity in the planet. France has the cheapest rates in the whole of Europe. Why did nuclear work for France, but not for US. One word : standardization of reactor design.
To be contrasted with Denmark which employs a lot of wind has the priciest electricity, and also some of the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions.
It is not the current dollar price we should be worrying about, but true limits to the capacity of any alternative energy. These limits are well studied by the physicist Dr David Mackay, and his book makes a very nice reading. If the energy needs of a society are not met, costly energies will become profitable in the market (costly as in not only economically, but also environmentally in eco-dollars).
There are some people who insist that nuclear is a silver bullet which solves all our energy problems. But I don't agree. I foresee a distant future (after several centuries) when our populations are reduced and when we rely purely on renewable energies. But nuclear energy is indispensable now and will be indispensable for quite some time, at least for developing countries with huge populations to take care of.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:43 am
25 Aug 2008
Not all variants of CCS have any potential to regurgitate CO2. The one discussed here does not; it is good enough that dismissing CCS as if it did not exist is a loser's gambit.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:47 am
25 Aug 2008
Yeah tough limits, only about a thousand times what humans presently use, hehey. 100 kw per meter of wave front in many areas for instance.
That's just wave power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:58 am
25 Aug 2008
I say 10 years minimum. Without this testing process nukes are dead in the water. the water use issue is huge with climate change drought.
Coal plants in Austrailia were closed down for lack of water. French nukes shut down in hot summer drought and the power outage killed a lot of people.
Wind, wave, solar, and biogas don't use up water. In fact, biogas actually reclaims waste water. And prevents massive water contamination with dangerous pathogens and nitrogen compounds.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
meeu Posted 4:26 am
25 Aug 2008
Thanks for well done informational series.
Peronally I see CCS like I see Ethanol. Another way for narrow interests to be subsidized instead of giving support to promising nonprofits like a Berkeley engineer has ready to go. It does not produce electrons it just keeps us from burning so many fossil building blocks. see
http://hubpages.com/hub/How-To-Really-Do-Something-About- ...
Permalink
ids Posted 11:14 am
25 Aug 2008
So, the world is not lining up neatly into black and white....sorry!
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has 23 major groups of workers, within these major groups are 96 minor groups, 449 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations, of which coal mining is infinitesimal part. Sadly, the mining multiplier might be larger than some others groups because of increased health care revenue it creates, and that is advocating more sickness.
Your willingness to waste the world for a tiny special interest among one of dozens on the fringe, an industry destined to become extinct, becoming more capital and less labor intensive, most dangerous and least healthy, with the greatest associated externalities you ignore, is twisted like most Gristwash.
As far as your point that the world is not lining up between black and white, I don't think history serves your point well.
Permalink
mshedd Posted 1:09 pm
25 Aug 2008
Even with Integral Fast Reactor which I saw mentioned, there is still radioactive waste generated at some scale and has to be disposed of and while it might break down faster a couple hundred years is still a long time.
I am not saying nuclear power isn't part of the answer on becoming less reliant on fossil fuel. I am looking for any constructive input about why I should not be concerned about the nuclear waste and where we bury it. How do you know the containers we put it in can withstand a thousand or even a couple hundred years of radio active waste not leaking out?
Sorry if they are silly questions but ones I am always looking for opinions on from different folks. Input is much appreciated.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:41 pm
25 Aug 2008
Countries which employ nuclear electricity have the cheapest electricity in the planet. France has the cheapest rates in the whole of Europe. Why did nuclear work for France, but not for US. One word : standardization of reactor design.
Heh, and we know thats bullshit.
The reason they have the cheapest electricity is Four words.
Federal Monopoly, and Federal Debt.
Anything can be "Cheap" when you assume that the Federal Debt is a magical source of free money that never needs to be repaid.
The cost of the eletricity could be 0.0001cents per kwh for all the French government cares about the repayment period on the Federal Debt.
-
And even with the most lavish support on the planet, French Nuclear is still not cheap, or quick.
As evidenced by AREVA's (French Nuclear Monopoly) so far failed attempt to build a new plant in Finland.
(All of course with Federal Financing from the French Government, and Guaranteed above-market purchase programs from the Finish Government)
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/quickeconfact208.pdf
_
As for "Economies of Scale". A process with a high number of reproductions/iterations is far superior for large economies of scale.
And thats the exact opposite of what Nuclear offers.
Where as Renewables have a high number of reproductions/iterations. And can therefore get the maximum benefit of repeated production.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:47 pm
25 Aug 2008
Since that of course goes straight into the Federal Debt.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:16 am
26 Aug 2008
Hi Amazing.. You can either flaunt these idiotic numbers and keep ignoring reality, or get down for a real energy plan. I urged you several times to read the book of Dr David Mackay. The chapter F (page 300) in the appendix explains elaborately the whole physics of tidal energy. Just quoting a stupid number 100 kw / meter of wave in many areas doesn't outline a reasonable plan.
The energy density of wave power on a good day is 80 kw /meter. You have to account for calm days (50% of the days you don't get good waves). So you get an average energy density of 40 kw/meter. You have to multiply this number with the efficiency of conversion to electricity by a "duck" (which is at best 50%) and then by the efficiency in transmitting that electricity to inland (which is at around 60% to 70%). Then you obtain a revised energy density.
In practice, deep water "Salter ducks" on the coast of Scotland have been observed to deliver 19 MW / kilometer.
Federal monopoly and federal debt
There GreyFlcn, you get onto the final recourse of a conspiracy theorist. Hands up, it is all the FED.
Now, you will do better to assign the French a reasonable level of intelligence. All the French nuclear plants have amortized their capital costs. Now the cost of nuclear fuel being a miniscule portion of nuclear electricity, it costs damn nothing for the French to produce electricity now. What is true for nuclear power will also be true for renewable power (high capital costs, low operating costs).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:29 am
26 Aug 2008
Nuclear waste is not a perennial problem. With breeder reactors, the longevity of waste will be reduced to a couple of hundred years and not thousand years.
How can we isolate the waste for a few hundred years, so that the spills of radiation will not affect humans or biosphere.
Simple answer #1 : Dump it in the ocean. Deep ocean sea bed is practically devoid of life. And the water sorrounding the waste acts as a natural moderator for radiation.
Simple answer #2 : Sorround the waste with a huge coating of lead/graphite to absorb all the radiation possible. Dump these balls in the ocean.
Simple answer #3 : Construct a building next to the nuclear plant. Cover its walls with a lot of ead and graphite. Make the building very strong to withstand earthquakes and explosions. The entire nuclear waste for a lifetime operation of a breeder reactor will fit into a small room.
Simple answer #4 : The same as #3, but construct that storage building deep underground.
Due to its extremely tiny volume, nuclear waste is a non problem. We human beings operate a lot more volumes of different types of hazardous material. And most importantly, a lot of these hazardous material is directly released onto the atmosphere (sulphur and CO2 from coal plants) or into river streams (check any industry which is located next to a river).
Nuclear industry is one of the few industries which claims total responsibility for all the waste that is produced.
The killer answer #5 : There are several techniques to neutralize radio active material. If you are really scared of radiation, you neutralize the waste by these techniques. A lot more of these techniques will be developed in the future.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:12 am
26 Aug 2008
Consider the coiled heating elements on a stovetop. They turn the energy of an electric current passing through them into heat. Containers surrounding radioactive material similarly turn the energy of the rays from it into heat.
If you have any experience with stovetops, then, it can teach you that a lot of heat can be created in metal without harming it, and from this you might figure, correctly, that the inner surface of a waste container could similarly degrade a lot of radiation to heat without being harmed. And this typically is experimentally determined with stronger radiation sources than nuclear waste, so that a surface gets the same dose it would in a thousand years' service in a few weeks or months of testing.
Also, the containers' deep burial means they don't need to be perfect. If they were at the sea bottom, the job we would be wanting them to do would be akin to keeping the saltshakers in the Edmund Fitzgerald from leaking all their salt into Lake Superior.
It's better if they don't, but if they do, they aren't going to salt the lake to any significant degree; there is much less salt in a saltshaker than there was in Lake Superior when men first laid eyes on it.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 11:49 pm
26 Aug 2008
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
Cheapest Electricity Posted 11:25 pm
26 Oct 2008
Permalink