When I begin teaching a new class on energy technology, I often start by writing a single word on the white board — scale. We then look at the printed handouts that each student has received. They contain table 1.1 from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) which sets out total U.S. energy consumption in quadrillion British Thermal Units (quads). You need a big number like quads when you discuss energy for a whole country like the U.S. And the U.S. consumes about 100 quads of energy per year for all purposes like heating buildings, transport, manufacturing, etc. The purpose of reviewing this data is to give us perspective when we start to talk about energy use and its impact on our environment.
We learn from the table 1.1 that 88 percent of our 2012 energy comes from burning something — oil, coal, natural gas, and biomass including biofuels. Eight percent is from nuclear energy; 3 percent is from hydroelectric dams; and rapidly expanding wind and solar is just 1 percent. It’s the burning 88 percent that is producing green house gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) that are apparently warming our planet. It is clear that even if the wind always blew at the right speed and the sun shone round the clock, that 1 percent is not going to have much impact on the 88 percent anytime soon. The 1 percent is also limited because intermittent wind and solar energy is difficult to use by our energy infrastructure, and the high cost requires large subsidies from cash strapped governments.
U.S. energy consumption has stabilized in recent years from increased efficiency and a slower economy. But the world as whole continues adding 450 billion kilowatt hours annually to electricity consumption. As energy analyst Robert Bryce notes, “That’s the equivalent of adding about one Brazil to the electricity sector every year. And the International Energy Agency expects global electricity use to continue growing by about one Brazil per year through 2035.” Most of this additional demand is being met by burning coal in countries like China and India.
Whether more CO2 is a major hazard, or global warming is a real threat, the indefinite burning of a finite and polluting resource like fossil fuels is not possible. Recent improvements in drilling technology are opening new large resources of cleaner natural gas (NG). NG is mostly methane which has the formula CH4. Coal is mostly carbon (C) so its energy comes from making CO2 from carbon and oxygen. Methane’s energy also comes from producing water vapor by combining hydrogen (H) with oxygen, so it makes less CO2 per unit of energy than coal. NG also lacks pollutants such as the mercury and sulfur emitted by coal burning.
Many environmentalists hope that natural gas can be a bridge fuel to a clean energy future from sources like wind and solar. But those costly and intermittent sources simply lack the scale and reliability to meet the world’s future energy needs. Bryce and others are proposing a program called NtoN (natural gas to nuclear) to meet those needs.
Fissioning uranium and plutonium in our nuclear reactors releases energy from the conversion of matter to energy per Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2. The amount of energy released in this conversion is millions of times the amount you get from normal burning of the same amount of matter. We don’t get all of that in our current generation of reactors, but we get a lot. A uranium fuel pellet the size of a finger joint lasts for five years, and it releases the energy of a ton of coal, while emitting only water vapor. The spent fuel pellets (nuclear waste) can be stored in a geologic facility like Yucca Mountain which has been delayed by politics, not geology. Or better, the spent fuel can be reprocessed with most of it recycled to new fuel as the French do at La Hague.
The world’s most popular new nuclear reactor is the Westinghouse AP 1000 which China has adopted. The U.S. is getting four new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, all are AP 1000s. The AP 1000 cost about $3 billion to build in China, $5 billion in the US. It will produce 600 billion kwh over 60 years which is less than one tenth of a penny per kwh.
ROLF WESTGARD is a professional member of the Geological Society of America and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. He teaches classes on energy subjects for the University of Minnesota Lifelong Learning program.
Comments (19)
Add commentNuclear energy may play a
Nuclear energy may play a large part in meeting our future energy needs, but some of the comments made about wind and solar not being cost-effective or scalable are simply not correct. It's true in many locations that electricity produced by wind and solar still costs more than electricity produced from coal and other sources, but both technologies have reached grid parity in many locations, and both technologies are expected to reach grid parity in most U.S. locations - without subsidies - in the next 5-10 years. Installing small-scale solar power systems on a home or business can already save homeowners thousands of dollars over the life of the system, making it an investment with an excellent rate of return (see http://goo.gl/4HtKy). With regards to scalability, the Department of Energy states that the U.S. could generate 20% of it's electricity needs from wind by 2030, and just a few weeks ago Germany produced half - yes, half - of its entire electricity needs from solar. And Germany is not exactly in the running for the title of "sunniest place on earth." So even if nuclear will be an ingredient in the energy mix for years to come, there are no logistical reasons that solar and wind can't be major, if not dominant, ingredients in the mix as well.
I love to hear the wails of
I love to hear the wails of WE CAN'T!!! tempered by reality.
wm90
Just 1 question. Who signs your paycheck???
Germany's solar fiasco
Germany has the largest solar capacity of any country. In 2011, German solar produced 19 million megawatt hours(mwh) which is 3%(not 50%) of Germany's 600 million mwh. This required subsidies to solar facilities of $10.2 BILLION dollars bringing total solar subsidies in Germany to $125 billion.
The idea of the program was to make Germany a leader in solar panel production. In 2004, Germany held a 69 percent share of the global solar panel business. By 2011, it had declined to 20 percent. Former industry giant Solarworld, based in Bonn, is struggling as the Chinese move in. Germany's Solon and Solar Millennium, once considered model companies, have gone out of business.
A report from the German Physical Society concludes that solar's intermittent and low power capacity mean that "solar
cannot replace any power plant."
German Economics Minister Rosler is proposing an annual cap on solar expansion at 1,000 MW, versus 6,500 MW last year as this whole fiasco draws to a close.
Germany's reverse income distribution
Till now, Germany has provided large subsidies to homeowners who could afford the upfront cost of relatively useless roof top solar($25-30,000). All electric rate payers are assessed to pay this subsidy. The result is that low and middle income homeowners are paying so that the wealthy can decorate their roofs with solar, showing the world how eco friendly they are.
There is a reason that despite years and billions of subsidies, low efficiency solar currently provides less than one tenth of 1% of US electric energy. The notion that it could be dominant is absurd.
Yea solar is good, but so is nuclear
To the comment posted about the 50% power generation via solar in Germany, you must not forget that this was one day of 365 days in a year. This was at peak times of sunlight, during low peak hours, in the peak time of the year for solar. This was the best situation. Solar panels drop in power depending on the time of the year, and they also do have a working life of approx. 30 years. The efficiency has a tendency to decrease over the years to a point of breaking.
What this means is large scale power plants will produce progressively lower amounts of energy without new panel inputs. Don't get me wrong, I love solar, but not for large scale operations, but on a small scale personal level. I currently reside in Canada where the subsidies offer 8 times the actual value of the power. This will result in rate increases over the 20 year contracts. Once the contracts end, unless solar has become competitive with other sources for pricing, another subsidy will need to emerge causing a further increase in pricing. Don't sell the power for more than it is worth. Let the savings of self generation lead the way, not over pricing power.
Nuclear offers centralized power stations capable of generating energy at vast quantities. The only stations capable of generating more are hydroelectric dams (huge ones like three gorges with is rated at 20GW). Small scale solar works for homes, but what of power requirements for larger buildings. The LHC has power requirements far above some towns. NIF can burn through the US power grid if left on for more than a second. These amazing science experiments that rely on ALOT of juice. They are dense energy hogs. Housing is a relatively sparse energy hog, with the exception of large scale apartment buildings where you may have 200 tennants within 10000 sq ft of land space.
Yea solar is good, but so is nuclear
To the comment posted about the 50% power generation via solar in Germany, you must not forget that this was one day of 365 days in a year. This was at peak times of sunlight, during low peak hours, in the peak time of the year for solar. This was the best situation. Solar panels drop in power depending on the time of the year, and they also do have a working life of approx. 30 years. The efficiency has a tendency to decrease over the years to a point of breaking.
What this means is large scale power plants will produce progressively lower amounts of energy without new panel inputs. Don't get me wrong, I love solar, but not for large scale operations, but on a small scale personal level. I currently reside in Canada where the subsidies offer 8 times the actual value of the power. This will result in rate increases over the 20 year contracts. Once the contracts end, unless solar has become competitive with other sources for pricing, another subsidy will need to emerge causing a further increase in pricing. Don't sell the power for more than it is worth. Let the savings of self generation lead the way, not over pricing power.
Nuclear offers centralized power stations capable of generating energy at vast quantities. The only stations capable of generating more are hydroelectric dams (huge ones like three gorges with is rated at 20GW). Small scale solar works for homes, but what of power requirements for larger buildings. The LHC has power requirements far above some towns. NIF can burn through the US power grid if left on for more than a second. These amazing science experiments that rely on ALOT of juice. They are dense energy hogs. Housing is a relatively sparse energy hog, with the exception of large scale apartment buildings where you may have 200 tennants within 10000 sq ft of land space.
Rolf
What irritates me about gas is that gas drillers are screwing up my elk hunting in western Colorado. Will that continue in the future or should I look for a new place to hunt?
Not sure if this is relevant but...
http://www.lvrj.com/business/amonix-closes-north-las-vegas-solar-plant-a...
Trip
If there is gas there you had better find another hunting ground as fracking gas drilling is here to stay.
As to Amonix, it joins Solyndra, Abound Solar, Range Fuels, etc in hundred million dollar+ bankruptcy. More to come as the administration pushes into production energy technology that isn't ready for market without big subsidies and 'must take' deals with utilities.
A new candidate is a $2.2 billion solar farm near Ivanpah, NV. It's a concentrated solar project where curved mirrors focus sunlight on a liquid container atop a tower. The liquid heats water which makes steam to generate electricity. The Ivanpah one has 3 towers and over 300,000(yes) big power driven mirrors. Big bucks from taxpayers are getting it started. Effective output is probably about 100MW. that's one tenth the Prairie Island nuclear plant when the sun is shining at Ivanpah.
Power wash trucks are to go back and forth cleaning the mirrors of desert dust. Weeds will spring up from the water, obscuring the mirrors. Maybe they can cut the weeds to make biofuel. Some of these programs are beyond belief.
Rolf,
you sure scared that Obama supporter away with a little truth. Thanks.
OFB
Romney supporters sign their checks on the front side.
Obama supporters sign their's on the back side.
Well, then Obama is a shoo in.
Because most people work for someone and endorse their paychecks.
The people that shout encouragement
at Obama rallys are paid by Obama campaign funds. They're mostly the same people that are paid to heckel his opponents and they get together at paid OWS property damage jobs. Actually the ones with no checks have cards now so they won't be embarassed at the store.
Do Tea Party Get Togethers Shout Encouragement ? NO !
I was led to believe it was Arnies Army ( Dick that is) that exclusively used Super Pac funds to load many bus loads of hired Tea Party fanatics to travel around the country in convoys to their appointed Fox News staged media events. Where camera angles are closly monitored to make groups of 50 look like a crowd. Then the normal Fox Entertainment network entertainment dept sets about editing the audio portion of most (all) clips to suit their needs. Were all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for the Tea Party paid bad actors to start showing up again with their hate filled signs and slogans. There is a reason they are called insurgent NEO CONS....
That's a load of
you know what captron. Spread the liberal propaganda elsewhere, please.
Your posts lose credibility
Your posts lose credibility when you 'spin'. The comment about weeds is just 'spin' and makes the rest of your post questionable.
I hope your students don't get caught up in your spinning and seek out other sources of information.
You lost
All Credibility long ago fishhead. All you are like is a broken record with the same story every time.
Water and sand
All that a desert needs to bloom is water. The first things up are weeds.