The Energy Thread

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?

It's gotta be dams. Tidal energy is still very much in the embryonic state.

yeah tidal power um they haven't quite worked that out yet

dams have pretty big environmental consequences iirc

not nuclear disaster huge obv but sayin

yeah tidal power um they haven't quite worked that out yet

"The first large-scale tidal power plant (the Rance Tidal Power Station) started operation in 1966."

??

let me just say there were some serious environmental and technical concerns recently when the City of SF entertained some proposals about putting giant turbines under the bay bridge

dams have pretty big environmental consequences iirc

yeah they do, but it's a lesser of three evils thing - compared to stuff that emits GHGs and nuclear waste/safety issues, dams are definitely preferable

they also destroy ecosystems

yeah well I'm not really sympathetic to people who complain about Hetch Hetchy either. small price to pay etc

I mean humanity destroys ecosystems. we build cities, etc. it's kinda what we do. you can attempt to manage it as best as possible, but let's not pretend like there's some entirely benign way to run human civilization.

Giant mirrors in the desert. It's proven and it works. Why isn't this being done NOW in the Chihuahua desert, the Sahara, Mexico, Gobi, etc? I don't remember the stat but it's something ridiculous like an area the size of Rhode Island filled with these things could store up enough electricity to power the entire world. I suspect the answer has to do with batteries and distribution but fuckin come on.

um that very prospect is discussed few posts up

lawsuits!

environmental impact studies!

tortoises!

Big oil!

Big coal, I meant

uuuuuuuuugh

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday an enormous expansion in coal mining that threatens to increase U.S. climate pollution by an amount equivalent to more than half of what the United States currently emits in a year.

In other words, despite his administration's rhetorical embrace of clean energy, Obama is effectively using modest wind and solar investments as cover for a broader embrace of dirty fuels. It's the same strategy BP, Chevron, and other major polluters use: tout modest environmental investments in multi-million dollar PR campaigns, while putting the real money into fossil fuel development.

jesus fuck