An Energy Revolution By Robert Zubrin An Energy Revolution

The American Enterprise ^ | January 30, 2006 | By Robert Zubrin

[chimera]

I'll go one better: plug-in hybrids can replace fuels with electricity for short trips, effectively getting 100mph on standard hybrids. Add lightweight for efficiency + ethanol for alternative fuel (getting 100 miles per ethanol gallon) and you have a practical gasoline-free vehicle.

I'd really like to see the automotive industry make some real R&D efforts to get the costs down for those plug-in hybrids. I would really like one for my daily commute, which is on the order of 22 miles roundtrip, city-highway mix. But the acquisition costs seem pretty high from what I've checked out. I don't need an SUV. We have a small family and I don't do a lot of heavy hauling. Seems like there'd be a reasonably strong demand for plug-in hybrids that would have a little less sticker shock. Of course, it's getting to the point of picking your poison, sticker shock at the dealer or the pump.

[WOSG]

"That depends on the definition of "much"...lol. Would you believe in the ballpark of 70% higher than early forecasts? Those are the kind of numbers I've read."

It doesnt matter what the forecasts were, what matters is the reality. Most of the flawed forecasts were in the 1970s, and most of the errors and over-runs were construction costs to utilities that ran intothe buzzsaw of political opposition, changing govt regulations, and inexperience with this type of construction. Once you factor out those construction cost overruns, nuclear power has *outperformed* compared to expectations. The operational production costs of nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation, bar none:

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262 "Nuclear power has the lowest production cost of the major sources of electricity, with production cost of 1.68 cents/kWh. Coal has a cost of 1.9 cents/kWh, natural gas 5.87 cents/kWh, and petroleum 5.39 cents/kWh. Hydro has a production cost of 0.5 cents/kWh, wind .2 cents/kWh and solar 2.48 cents/kWh."

Now that doesnt count the capital costs (which is what makes solar and wind impractical). Adding that in, and you find that currently, the cost leaders are coal and nuclear power:

"To me, the long-term reward to risk ratio looks better for advanced solar and wind power technology combined with advanced technologies to greatly improve the energy efficiency of applicances, machinery, and equipment. Chemically speaking, those are much cleaner solutions to this challenge."

Nuclear is environmentally cleaner, if you look at it from the view of - which disturbs the least amount of land and has the least emissions overall? Economically, wind is closer to competitive than solar but both are far from truly competitive with coal or nuclear.

So solar v nuclear? That's not the choice. There are only TWO ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY FOR OUR MAIN BASELOAD POWER GENERATION IN USA: COAL OR NUCLEAR. Pick one.

[WOSG]

I debated on another thread a few weeks ago about plug-in hybrids, and got challenged on the practicality. so i did some internet searching and found that people are creating plug-in versions of the Prius today.

So its possible today as an aftermarket upgrade.
Probably in 5+ years it will be in showrooms.

The real R&D challenge is batteries. Interesting to hear the PResident tout alternative energy and make the call for energy independence tonight. He was channelling my reply #50!

[WOSG]

"The nuclear industry is the most heavily regulated, most politically opposed industry in the country. Given these facts, I find it all the more amazing that it has still managed to be the cheapest, on a per kwhr of energy produced basis, large-scale energy source for baseload electricity production. The latest numbers I saw from the industry figures (based on FERC reports) indicate that nuclear-generated electricity maintains a cost advantage over competing sources, especially given the huge run-up in NG prices (which was perfectly predictable). That is saying quite a bit, given that it is the only industry that pays for its own regulation, waste disposal, and decommissioning costs up-front."

Well said.

[WOSG]

"Nuclear power is still cost competitive because the power generation costs of all the alternatives for large scale power plants have also increased substantially in the last 30 years."

Actually, the chart I showed earlier disproves that. Coal has come down ... but so has nuclear power. They are at parity at around 3 cents/KWh for wholesale cost.

[chimera]

I have heard of some of those home-brew plug-in hybrid modifications. I think there is an outfit selling conversion kits as well.

Battery technology has always been the Achilles' Heel of these proposals. The limitations on the number of deep-charging cycles, costs of replacement of the battery assemblies, disposal charges, leakage of chemicals, gaseous effluents, etc. I wouldn't want to be saddled with a $5000 charge every few years for a new battery pack. OTOH, I seem to recall reading the one sales pitch about plug-in conversion that the expected lifetime of the battery assembly was in the range of 100,000 miles or so. Now, what does it do to the vehicle weight, and trunk space?

[WOSG]

The thread that I was on discussing plug-in hybrids was a news story about a cheap light battery technology (lead acid but using plastic embedded with lead for the terminals, and a visit by Sen Durbin to it. It's a spinoff from caterpillar.
If you get batteries as cheap as lead acid but 1/10th the weight, you have a possible hybrid battery solution.

My point is only that the technology keeps improving.
Li-polymer is now light enough. In some number of years it will also be cheap enough.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

I feel the easiest and most efficient way to get off foreign oil is to utilize electricity in our transportation system. The United State is rich in coal resources and the president promised more nuclear power plants in the SOTU, so it seems electricity is the answer.

A plug-in hybrid could reduce my gas consumption drastically if my batteries could get me 30-40 miles with a top speed of 45. Cal-cars has a prius with plug-in, so the technology is available.

[jonrick46]

From President Bush's State of the Union:

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)

[ThirstyMan]

Sounds good, hopefully we can make it past the current crises to realize those dreams.

The enviro wackos will need to be stifled. This wil be a challenge since about a third of college graduate are now in environmental studies -- whatever that is!?!

I say, full steam ahead! (although the hydrogen fuel idea seems like a pipe dream rather than an economic reality - a net loser)

[nuke rocketeer]

Solar thermal has had a very poor track record on keeping all the promises made about operating costs and availability. Stirling engines are neat machines with few moving parts, but they do not scale up well to sizes needed for large scale (20MW+) generation. I remember another solar thermal plant built in California back in the 80's that was touted by solar enthusiasts as the one that would break through and prove it was competitive. It operated for a few years and died a quiet death as the busbar cost of electricity was even more expensive than solar PV. ALL solar projects are like March....in like a lion, lots of front page PR and bluster and out like a lamb with a paragraph on page 45.

[carl in alaska]

"ALL solar projects are like March....in like a lion, lots of front page PR and bluster and out like a lamb with a paragraph on page 45."

That statement is just totally false. There are thousands of viable, working solar energy projects all over the world. Just go to your local Whole Foods Market and you'll find that many of them have working solar panels on the roof that generate most of the power for the entire store. This new project in central California looks good and we'll just have to see how well it does. I'll see if I can find you a link with a good story about that project. Be careful about using the word "ALL" (esp. in capital letters.) Usually when people us the word "all" they're making a sweeping false generalization.

[carl in alaska]

Regarding your chart in post #102, it conveniently ends in 2001. I'll assume that is an oversight and wasn't a deliberate attempt to snooker your readers. The price of coal and coal-generated power has risen significantly in the last couple of years and I think it will go higher. My intuitive sense for nuclear power, based on the history of big federally-sponsored projects, is that the waste disposal costs will continue to escalate over time but it will probably remain cost competitive because the fuel costs will stay low compared to alternatives. The waste fuel has to be stored for hundreds of years. Just think how many waste cannisters will be in Yucca Mountain in another 200 years. Eventually the cannisters will probably deteriorate to the point where they have to be replaced sometime in the next century, at a substantial cost to utility customers.

There's an inherent disadvantage to nuclear power because it generates a lot of radioactive waste that is costly to store. While the technology for solar, wind, and hydropower is not as advanced, reliable, and efficient as nuclear technology, these alternatives have the one big advantage that they don't generate radioactive waste that sits around for hundreds of years. Give it some time and the alternatives will catch up to nuclear on cost and reliability. I'll bet you a case of beer, redeemable in the year 2025.

One last thought: apparently some researchers are finding that cold fusion is not a fraud, and somthing real is happening there that we don't understand yet which generates useful amounts of heat. Hopefully someday that will make most alernatives obsolete. Nuclear physics is a fascinating area of science.

[JasonC]

Most sensible thing I've read on the subject in 20 years.

I'll just add, also remove the green Nazis' roadblocks in the way of nuclear power, and developing our domestic energy resources of every kind. Just stop listening to the luddites, across the board - they are the ones who brought us to this pass.

[Wiseghy]

By Promoting nuke, bio-ag., and tech innovation I assert that Republicans can be far more enviro friendly that the Dems ever could be.

The dems simply want to conserve until the economy stagnates. Driving 55 max is the best example of their simple minded solutions.

[nuke rocketeer]

Carl,

The sweeping generalization was on purpose because I meant it. Whole foods and anyone else for that matter who powers up with solar PV will be paying a much higher price for electricity than they would pay otherwise. On economic reasons, solar is more than quadruple the cost of nuclear and wind is at least double the price. The only solar projects that pay off are those where the grid cannot reach except at a very high cost due to the remote location and low number of users. If you have a utility connection available, it is always cheaper to connect than generate your own by PV cells.

The entire cost of fuel disposal is being paid for by the utilities...that is, the customers, along with the entire cost of the regulatory structure, and the highest personnel costs of any power, and it is still by far the cheapest alternative. All new fission research is paid for by the nuclear utilities and vendors.You cannot count the cost of the research funded by the government in the 50's and 60's, as that is a sunk cost and it was entirely for military reasons with a civilian component to make it look good to the bleeding hearts.

[WOSG]

"Regarding your chart in post #102, it conveniently ends in 2001. I'll assume that is an oversight and wasn't a deliberate attempt to snooker your readers."

I take what the internet offers, but the numbers havent changed much ... see for example, this article on the economics of nuclear power:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

See also this PDF:
http://www.uic.com.au/neweconomics.pdf

" The price of coal and coal-generated power has risen significantly in the last couple of years and I think it will go higher."
... if the price of coal stays high (which it may).
That only improves the case for nuclear, and explains why
nuclear power plant construction is again on the drawing board. 5 years ago, the utilities were building natural gas plants as the cheapest form of power addition. Then the price of natural gas went up. Now the utilities are seeing that their best performing assets are nuclear power plants.

" My intuitive sense for nuclear power, based on the history of big federally-sponsored projects, is that the waste disposal costs will continue to escalate over time"

I've noted already that billions have been collected in the
nuclear waste fund, and that indeed the nuclear power industry is being over-taxed on this.

" but it will probably remain cost competitive because the fuel costs will stay low compared to alternatives."

Fuel costs and also operating costs are the lowest bar none.

"The waste fuel has to be stored for hundreds of years. Just think how many waste cannisters will be in Yucca Mountain in another 200 years."

It's small: Less than the waste stream in an average municipal garbage dump.

"Eventually the cannisters will probably deteriorate to the point where they have to be replaced sometime in the next century, at a substantial cost to utility customers."

Not true.
1) After 100 years, the radiation level is much less, about 99% reduction. The canisters will be solid ceramic in a cool, dry place. There is nothing to 'deteriorate' in this very thick sealed containers.
2) "substantial cost" I pointed out already the cost is .1 cent/kwh. 1-2% of total retail cost.

"There's an inherent disadvantage to nuclear power because it generates a lot of radioactive waste that is costly to store."

Ah, but this is a myth! "A lot"? -- consider this.
100 nuclear power plant that have a capcity of generating almost 100 GW of power, 20% of our power, and 2,000 metric tons of used fuel is generated each year, with 44,000 metric tons already created.

See: http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=197

The volume of waste in the entire history of the US nuclear power industry could fit on a single football field:

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=62
"To put this in perspective, all the used fuel produced to date by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 40 years of operation—some 40,000 metric tons—would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards, if the fuel assemblies were stacked side by side and laid end to end."

This not a lot. A single coal plant will generate that waste stream volume in coal ash in under a single year! there's a factor of 500 to 1 or so.

The point about it being 'costly to store' is really a function of how heavily regulated the industry is, to build in many, many levels of precautions and margins of safety.

IN fact, on site dry storage of nuclear used fuel is happeneing in a perfectly adequate manner on many power plant sites, and is being done at reasonable cost. Stick the used fuel in a huge heavy thick-walled concrete and steel canister and let it sit there and cool off. It's very safe and not complicated.

This "disadvantage" of nuclear power is actually an advantage. The waste stream from nuclear energy is much smaller than any fossil fuel alternative.

... and think about the football field. 40 years of used fuel from 100 reactors. Compare with the footprint of wind farms or solar power plants. You would have to make half of south dakota a wind farm to match those nuclear power plants.


"Give it some time and the alternatives will catch up to nuclear on cost and reliability."

But what about now? It would take $2 trillion to replace coal plants with solar and wind plant. It wont happen. No utility wants to go bankrupt. Nuclear power is safe, reliable, environmentally friendly and economic. As I said, the choice for NOW is either coal or nuclear.

"I'll bet you a case of beer, redeemable in the year 2025."

While they may get cheaper, nuclear power *also* could and should get much cheaper. The technology being used today is effectively 1950s technology and 1970s regulation. New plant designs like pebble-bed have come up as alternatives. Argonne has a new reactor technology: Liquid metal lead-bismuth nuclear reactor (technology Russia used in subs) could be used as a breeder reactor with an operating temperature up to 1000C, thermal efficiency above 50% using CO2 Brayton-cycle, etc. The liquid metal means no high pressure in the reactor, which means many of the systems of the current reactors could be simplified. This might well be twice as economically efficient down the road.

Point being: Nuclear power technology is not standing still either. Nuclear should be considered a renewable energy source just like wind and solar, and should be viewed and environmentally friendly, because it is.

[truemiester]

Why not just take all the gas we burn off when we drill for oil and bottle it instead of burn it?
Go to Louisiana on a clear night and look out over the Gulf. the flares from buring gas from the wells will give the sky a faint orange glow. Impressive when you think most are miles from shore. We should use that gas instead of burning it. Leave the coal for latter generations. We waste more than we produce, it seems.

Better yet lets go to a 'war footing' economy. If people felt they had to give up something to help the military they would feel like they were a part of the GWOT. Its what brought a sense of community to complete strangers during WW2. And spend the money on a energy 'Manhatten Project'.

[truemiester]

Good point.

I'm sorry, I cant drive 55!

[chimera]

There's an inherent disadvantage to nuclear power because it generates a lot of radioactive waste that is costly to store.

It is not a lot in terms of volume. The waste from nuclear plants is much more manageable than that from other facilities, such as coal-burning plants. Nuclear waste stays where it is produced. It is in pre-packaged form, ready for disposal (or reprocessing). That is not true of fossil-fueled plants, where the waste is blown about on the four winds, to go where it might. Poster nuke rocketeer has noted that the current volume of waste would cover an area equal to that of a football field to a depth of 15 feet. That is all the waste, military and civilian, going back to the start of the Manhattan Project. A significant portion of that material is from the military programs, not power plants. It is also important to note that this is the volume without reprocessing.

If you go with reprocessing, the volume shrinks dramatically. Even simple partitioning of the waste, wherein useful materials are extracted, like unused uranium and plutonium, you go from the football field volume down to that of a tennis court covered to a depth of a couple of feet. If you go to full actinide recycle, the volume of the stuff you have to bury drops to that of about the size of a restaurant freezer. Now, considering the amount of energy that came from that relatively small amount of waste, most people would not classify it as "a lot".

In terms of the cost of disposal, there is a capital investment in building the repository, which is paid for by the utilities (not the government, or "taxpayers"). However, once that facility has been fully utilized and sealed up, there is very little cost associated with "operating" it. It just sits there, buried 2000 feet down in a water-free, stable geologic formation. Maybe once in a while you'd send someone out in a pickup truck to make sure no one was messing around in the area where the facility was, but that would be about it.

Give it some time and the alternatives will catch up to nuclear on cost and reliability.

All the time in the world will not change the laws of nature. And the biggest one is, you can't get more out than you put in. All of the systems for "alternatives" that have been tried or proposed have one thing in common: the energy source is intermittent and diffuse. You are limited to what nature provides you at the input to your energy collection and conversion system. Wind, solar, tides, all are dependent on the whims of Mother Nature. The energy may be there when you need it, or it might not be. That means you need some kind of storage system to cover you when the source is not there. That adds to cost and affects reliability (availability). The energy is generally in very diffuse form. In engineering there is a term for that: quality. Diffuse energy is generally classified as low quality. Don't impute any moral judgments to the use of that term. It doesn't mean it is "bad", or lacking in some way. The only thing it is lacking is that you have to work harder to gather enough of the energy to convert it into useful form. Again, that adds to cost and affects reliability.

Your example of the Whole Foods stores is a good one for illustration. Probably a good portion of what they use that PV-generated electricity for is lighting their stores. Just a guess, but I'd say if that there the goal they'd probably be better off putting in skylights. They'd not have lighting at night, but PV has the same problem. They'll likely be tapping into their good old reliable local grid when night falls and they need to keep their products cooled in their freezers and refrigerators, and probably about 20% of that energy will be from nuclear plants.

BTW, Whole Foods isn't the only one going this route. There was a store in PA, or someplace, like a Target of WalMart, that made a big fuss about having a PV array on their roof to generate electricity for their overhead lighting. But both they and Whole Foods (I think) admitted that it was just for show, to impress their customers. So it might be okay for a publicity stunt here and there, but as a matter of nationwide public policy, we'll probably have to look at it from a bit more or a practical aspect.