The Energy Thread

ZS, and anyone else interested. I just got a mail advertising a large number of fully funded Phd studendships in "Energy Demand" based at the UCL and Loughborough. Let me know if you'd like me to forward.

Thanks for thinking of me, Ed! :)

I'm stuck in the United States (and more specifically, Maryland) for the next few years because my fiancee goes to grad school here, but I've recently been thinking about switching back into the university-world to grab a Ph.D. I'll keep the program you mentioned in mind.

It's intriguing to me that I keep seeing one or two (though usually one) small, stand-alone wind-power generators in random places, like you do with cellphone towers. In strip-malls, near buildings, that kind of thing. Does anyone know the production abilities of just one little windmill? Is it like having a small patch of solar panels or something? I mean, these are big windmills, but not quite to my eye like those towering ones you see off the highway.

my company's did some small wind projects awhile ago (altho nothing on the single-turbine scale). how much power they generate varies pretty widely depending on - duh - the wind, but max capacity is probably around 50 kW or so for smaller domestic applications.

done

guys: thorium nuke power

tell me about it. wiki makes it sound like a magic bullet, so there's gotta be a catch somewhere, right?

never heard of it

http://news.change.org/stories/thorium-nuclear-energys-clean-little-secret

Let's review some of the key benefits of thorium. It's abundant (because we've never used any of it); it doesn't require the costly and time-intensive refining process important for uranium, and the waste it produces becomes inert in one hundred years as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years. It's nearly impossible for terrorists to manipulate for weapons production. There's more: the annual fuel cost for a one gigawatt thorium reactor is approximately six hundred times lower than that of a uranium reactor, which requires 250 times more of the raw element.

Thorium as a nuclear fuel
Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. A thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle including much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear properties of the fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced nuclear waste production. Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), has worked on developing the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors. Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal.[14] One of the early pioneers of the technology was U.S. physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, who helped develop a working nuclear plant using liquid fuel in the 1960s.

Some countries are now investing in research to build thorium-based nuclear reactors. In May 2010, researchers from Ben-Gurion University in Israel and Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, received a three-year Energy Independence Partnership Grant to collaborate on the development of a self-sustainable fuel cycle for light water reactors.[15] According to the Israeli nuclear engineer, Eugene Shwageraus, their goal is a self-sustaining reactor, "meaning one that will produce and consume about the same amounts of fuel," which is not possible with uranium. He states, "the better choice is thorium, whose nuclear properties offer considerable flexibility in the reactor core design." Some experts believe that the energy stored in the earth's thorium reserves is greater than what is available from all other fossil and nuclear fuels combined.[15]

[edit]Key benefits
According to Australian science writer Tim Dean, "thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste."[16] With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.[16] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, of the British Telegraph daily, suggests that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," and could put "an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years."[14]

The Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA), an educational advocacy organization, emphasizes that "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." [17] Reducing coal as an energy source, according to science expert Lester R. Brown of The Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC, would significantly reduce medical costs from breathing coal pollutants. Brown estimates that coal-related deaths and diseases are currently costing the U.S. up to $160 billion annually."[18]

what's the catch

that's what i want to know!

sounds like it wasn't pursued back in the day because it ~didn't~ have a weaponizable byproduct, whereas nowadays that's actually a good thing

I am certainly no expert but this popped up a few weeks ago and I did some reading. First off it needs some uranium mixed in with the thorium to get fission to ago and whilst most of the fission products are low half life materials (90%+) you still get some nasty long half life in there. Secondly, on the proliferation angle, although it would be hard for material to be used in a fission or fusion bomb there's still something you can use for a dirty bomb. Thirdly, I can't see anything in the technology that makes it inherently safe from meltdown or release of radioactive material in a reactor containment failure.

I discussed this above in August.

My impression is that thorium cycle nuclear wasn't used originally because its not as amenable to miniaturizing for naval use as the uranium cycle. Since Adm. Rickenbacker's nuclear submarine program was the seed of the civilian nuclear power industry and uranium was abundant, thorium wasn't pursued. A pure thorium reactor does produce U-233 in spent fuel, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Since U-233 can be separated from the thorium by simple chemistry, rather than the capital intensive huge centrifuge arrays required for enriching U-235 content of natural uranium, the thorium fuel cycle became suspect from the proliferation angle.

There are fuel cycle designs used to work around this (see Radkowski Thorium Reactor, but given the cost of a plant using established technology, I don't think we'll see any private investment in experimenting outside of India.

aha, that's where I must have read about it.

aha

http://www.wellhome.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Final-Thorium.png

^Much better than my comments. Too huge for my monitor.

just cutting and pasting bits from this article to underline how surreal it is to get to the bottom of anything right now

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42097170/ns/politics-more_politics/

WASHINGTON — Regulators should press ahead with approving construction licenses for new nuclear power plants despite Japan's nuclear crisis, President Barack Obama's top energy official said Tuesday.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House panel that "the American people should have full confidence that the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly." But he said that the administration "is committed to learning from Japan's experience."

Chu told reporters on Capitol Hill that he thought construction license applications pending at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission could proceed.

Story: Fire flares at Japan nuke unit with spent fuel, reactor

The NRC may decide in the fourth quarter of this year whether to issue such licenses to Southern Co and SCANA Corp to build two reactors each.

Chu said the agency had a lengthy and thorough process to review applications for new reactors.

"I think we're in good hands," he said.

The Obama administration has maintained its support for expanding use of nuclear energy despite renewed fears about its safety after the events in Japan.

Video: Could a nuclear meltdown happen in U.S.?

Obama has given his backing to building more nuclear power plants to help meet energy needs, fight climate change, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

His budget requests up to $36 billion for loan guarantees to help build new nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of the country's electricity and proponents highlight that nuclear energy production results in virtually zero emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases.

Chu's comments to reporters illustrated the depth of the administration's commitment to moving forward with nuclear energy expansion.

That commitment contrasts with some other countries, which have backed away from nuclear in the wake of the Japanese crisis.

Germany said it would shut down for at least three months all seven of its nuclear power stations that began operating before 1980 and Switzerland put on hold some approvals for nuclear power plants.

Video: 140,000 urged to stay indoors amid radiation leaks (on this page)

Safety concerns
Some lawmakers have questioned whether the United States should put a pause on nuclear, too. Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent, said Sunday Washington should "put the brakes" on new nuclear power plants until there is a full understanding of what happened in Japan.

Asked about the prospects for such a brake, Chu said only that lessons could be learned from the Japan tragedy.

"We have to take a hard look: Were there any lessons learned from this tragedy that can further improve the safety ... of our existing reactors?" he told a congressional committee. "It's probably premature to say anything except we will learn from this."

freakin energy thread over here

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA

Natural gas-fired power plants typically account for about one-half of State electricity generation. California is one of the largest hydroelectric power producers in the United States, and with adequate rainfall, hydroelectric power typically accounts for close to one-fifth of State electricity generation. California’s two nuclear power plants account for about 17 percent of total generation. Due to strict emission laws, only a few small coal-fired power plants operate in California.

California leads the Nation in electricity generation from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources. California generates electricity using wind, geothermal, solar, fuel wood, and municipal solid waste/landfill gas resources.

...

Due to high electricity demand, California imports more electricity than any other State. States in the Pacific Northwest deliver power to California markets primarily from hydroelectric sources, while States in the Desert Southwest deliver power primarily from coal-fired sources. A recent California law forbids utilities from entering into long-term contracts with conventional coal-fired power producers

can't figure out how to paste the consumption chart from that link in here unfortunately

Someone had a hissy fit on the earthquake/ tsunami/ nuclear thread about me posting the below comment so i'll post it here where it'll make no sense just to keep toys in prams.

It's all very well saying "Ooh, lets address our use of nuclear power" when there's already 250 million tonnes of waste that they don't know how to get rid of properly as it takes around 100k years to burn out, without counting what'll be used from now until they come up with a replacement.

― not_goodwin, Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:37 (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I'm not saying California isn't doing a pretty good job with respect to carbon emissions / gigawatt hour. Natural gas is way better than coal in this regard. I'm just pointing out that this is the landscape I'm looking at:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG

and I totally agree that coal is a huge problem, I just don't like nukes and coal being presented as an either/or scenario.

would've expected Sweden/Finland to be doing a little better there with the renewables tbh :(

I haven't confirmed whether that's lifecycle or operating emissions. Wind tends to have rather high upfront carbon emissions due to all the concrete in the footings, and somewhat disappointing system emissions in practice due to the current need to have 1 MW of combined cycle gas generation on standby for every MW of wind capacity. Gas plants are far less efficient when their output is cycling up and down to compensate for wind intermittancy.

The system that holds the most promise at the moment is utility scale concentrating solar thermal with onsite storage (as molten sulfur, for example). I'd like to pave the whole of Nevada with these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jN490nJu10

They won't be built in California.

interesting - hadn't heard of that particular project before

although obviously various solar-thermal designs/projects have been bouncing around for a few years now

well that one technically is in California.

but obviously Vegas drove the project.

Most of the work in solar thermal has been in Spain, with only a couple little pilot plants in the Mojave. Ivanpah and a sister project at Coyote Springs are the first things I've seen in the U.S. that really takes a bite at efficiencies of scale.

xp: Fallout New Vegas has distorted my geography a bit. And, of course there's a lawsuit by conservationists against Ivanpah.

yeah the Mojave pilot plants are the ones I heard about

Fuck desert tortoises. If they're not smart enough to realize the bipeds are providing them with midday shade every dozen feet, they deserve extinction.

hmm y'know one of my bandmates is a biologist who does environmental impact studies, I wonder what he makes of these lawsuits

lol
xp

I dunno if I'm even kidding there. Guys, there are higher priorities at play here.

I confess I am similarly prejudicial towards my own species

but then EIRs are tricky beasts, there can be unforeseen consequences to all sorts of human activity

I'm sure that BrightSource could higher one eager and fully qualified herpetologist to hand feed and stroke lovingly every desert tortoise found on site in perpetuity for the costs this lawsuit creates (both legal, and in financing).

higher = hire, obv.

I don't even really understand how the plants would harm the tortoises.

eh y'know I suspect it's the usual - disturb migratory patterns (do tortoises migrate?), destroy mating sites, etc

They're endangered, right? How many can there be? They should round em up and send them to me. I'll take care of the tortoises and they can go ahead with the plants. Sorted.

the tortoise whisperer

the tortoises per her

I've (regrettably) seen videos of captive tortoises mating with rocks and shoes of every style. I doubt they expect much in the way of amenities for their mating sites.

Also, I think you should reconsider your state reptile, California. Its must be awkward having the other states' reptiles snickering behind your back.

If I may jump way back in the thread, I'd like to point out that LFTR molten-salt thorium reactors are completely awesome and everyone who cares about green energy should be pushing for them big-time. The science behind it is very solid and it's basically politics holding it back at this point.

My boss, who is an uber-nerd, has been spending his spare time trying to tell the canadian gov't about this stuff for at least a year. He was specifically told by some mid-level political functionary that any talk of new nuclear power was a political dead-end. Even more so now, I imagine...

The caution I have with the molten salt thorium breeder is with the molten salt. You may recall high-school chemistry hijinks with pure sodium and public toilets. I do, anyway. The same explosive reactions have occurred with sodium coolant at the Japanese Monju Nuclear Power Plant.

Ignore the above. Obv liquid floride is potentially very different from generic molten salt, which in nuclear circles usually means sodium...I'll research further.

so California's hydro power - does that come from dams or from waves?