Alternative Forms of Energy : Part II
I had previously written a blog entitled What Will be Powering Our Cars in the Future? and since them some people have asked me to produce/write a second blog expanding the on the ideas presented in the first blog. In this particular blog I will discuss in more detail certain aspects presented the previous blog as well as presenting new information like the pros and cons on the use of Ethanol based fuels.
I would like to note before the discussion begins that I am a physicists and not a chemist, but I do play a bad chemist here at allpar. Therefore I have asked for the help from jstwe314 (a member here at allpar) who has a degree in physics but has worked as a chemist for many years. jstwe314 has added a lot (and I mean a lot) of information here on the actual chemistry behind certain reactions that I will be discussing. And I would also like to personally thank jstwe314 for all of his insight into this particular field.
This blog will be broken down into five sections; the chemistry behind the reactions of certain hydrocarbons, the pros and cons on the use of Ethanol, the facts about the use of hydrogen as a source of fuel, the physics behind particular alternative forms of energy, and why all of this is not the final answer for energy independence.
_______The Chemistry behind the Reactions of certain Hydrocarbons_______
In order for us to understand why there is a need for alternative sources of energy or how they actually work, let us first describe to you some basic principles of gasoline. For starters here are some notes about Gasoline.
Gasoline is is made up almost entirely of hydrocarbons, which are molecules made up of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons present in gasoline usually have between 6 and 12 carbon atoms in each molecule. A good average is probably octane, which has eight carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms and is written C8H18. (Note: sugars are hydrocarbons with oxygen….interesting)
When a hydrocarbon is burned (that is, reacted with oxygen), it forms carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). For our “average” gasoline of C8H18, the reaction is 2 molecules of octane reacting with 25 molecules of oxygen (O2) to form 18 molecules of water (18*H20) and 16 molecules of carbon dioxide (16*CO2).
Of course, this reaction only occurs completely in an ideal world. In the real world, there is usually not quite enough oxygen available or fast enough inside your car’s engine to allow the reaction to occur completely, so there is also some carbon monoxide (CO) formed as well.
In addition, since the oxygen is provided by bringing air into the engine, and since air consists mostly of nitrogen, some oxides of nitrogen (NO#) are formed as well. Finally, some of the trace elements in the gasoline (such as sulfur) can react to form small amounts of other pollutants, such as SO2 or sulfur dioxide.
In summary gasoline is a mixture of:
- Natural or straight run gasoline, that is, distillate in the temperature range 40-205 degrees Celsius, C5-C10 and cycloalkanes, like cyclohexane C6H12.
- Reformate, that is, n-alkanes and maybe olefins rearranged to branched alkanes, methyl- and ethyl- groups on straight chain alkanes.
- Aromatics, like benzene, C6H6.
- Oxygenates and octane boosters like MTBE (methyl tertiarybutyl ether) and ethanol.
- Proprietary additives and detergents for corrosion control and fuel system.
- Anti-oxidants, metal deactivators, deposit modifiers, surfactants, freezing point depressants, and corrosion inhibitors.
- There are over 500 different hydrocarbons present in gasoline.
Question: How is the heat produced in combusting hydrocarbon fuels apportioned between the carbon and the hydrogen present in the fuel?
Answer: It all depends on the fuel. Let us look at different types of fuels or hydrocarbons.
For a gasoline (say C7H16) fueled vehicle 39% of the power comes from the hydrogen, and 61% from the carbon. Gasoline averages 2.3 hydrogen atoms per carbon atom.
For a diesel (say C12H26) fueled vehicle 38% of the power comes from the hydrogen, and 62% from the carbon. Diesel fuel averages 2.2 hydrogen atoms per carbon atom.
How are these percentages actually calculated? ***Note*** for the purposes of this website, we have answered this question (percentages) assuming it is an accounting problem. Take these values with a grain of salt.
A procedure to calculate the heat released in combustion of an alkane hydrocarbon is to multiply the number of carbon atoms per molecule by 100.7 kcal/mol and multiply the number of hydrogen atoms per molecule by 28.4 kcal/mol and add.
Sample Calculations:
1. Natural gas, methane, CH4: 100.7 + 4(28.4) = 100.7 (energy from the carbon atom) + 113.6 (energy from the hydrogen atoms)= 214 kcal/mol in total from methane.
Percent heat from hydrogen = 113.6/214 = 53%
2. Propane, C3H8: 3(100.7) + 8(28.4) = 529 kcal/mol
Here is a table with the above examples plus more; H. of C. = Heat of Combustion.
|
# Carbon Atoms |
# Hydrogen Atoms |
Name |
H. of C. (kcal/mol) |
H. of C. (BTU/gal) |
% of Heat from Hydrogen |
|
1 |
4 |
Methane |
213 |
121,459 |
52 |
|
3 |
8 |
Propane |
530 |
84,448 |
43 |
|
8 |
18 |
Octane |
1318 |
114,194 |
39 |
|
12 |
42 |
Dodecane |
1947 |
125,881 |
38 |
For a NGV like the Honda GX, 53% of the power comes from the hydrogen in the natural gas, and 47% from the carbon. So the GX could, just barely, be called a MHFV (mostly hydrogen fueled vehicle). Natural gas is mainly methane (CH4) and there are 4 hydrogen atoms per carbon atom, the largest ratio for any hydrocarbon fuel.
Summary:
- For more information on the chemical makeup of gasoline, please visit this website.
- Gasoline may be plentiful today, but I think that we can all agree that fossil fuels will not be around forever. For reasons backing up this statement, see my previous blog.
- We as a society should focus our attention for finding new sources of oil and natural gas as well as finding new alternative sources of energy because of the previous statement.
- A very hot topic as of late is the use of Ethanol to help run our automobiles. I will continue with the current topic of this blog and discuss possible pros and cons of Ethanol in the next section.
_______The Pros and Cons on the Use of Ethanol_______
The Facts:
Ethanol consists of hydrocarbons with the addition of oxygen or C2H5OH. Ethanol is also commonly known as ethyl alcohol, alcohol, or grain spirit. Ethanol is a clean-burning alcohol produced by bacteria that ferment the sugars in corn and cornstalks as well as other products.
Pros:
- Since ethanol is an alcohol based product, it does not produce hydrocarbons when being burned or during evaporation. This is great since hydrocarbons contribute to the formation of ground level ozone or O3 (a greenhouse gas).
- Aldehyde emissions from the combustion of ethanol blends are slightly higher than when burning gasoline. An aldehyde is a compound containing a carbonyl group with at least one hydrogen attached to it. R-C=O where R may be some hydrocarbon or hydrogen atoms. However, The Royal Society of Canada termed the possibility of negative health effects caused by aldehyde emissions from the use of ethanol blends as being “remote”.
- By adding ethanol, which contains oxygen, combustion in the engine is more complete and CO is reduced. Research shows that reductions may reach as high as 30% depending on the type and age of the automobile, the emission
system used, and the atmospheric conditions. Ethanol blends dramatically reduce emissions of hydrocarbons, a major contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer. - High-level ethanol blends reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 20%.
- High-level ethanol blends can reduce emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by 30% or more (VOCs are major sources of ground-level ozone formation).
- As an octane enhancer, ethanol can cut emissions of cancer-causing benzene and butadiene by more than 50%.
- Sulphur dioxide and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions are significantly decreased with ethanol. (Note: Sulphur is found only in gasoline and not from Ethanol itself.)
- Ethanol has a pleasant smell.
Cons:
- 1.5 gallons of ethanol has the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline. (Conventional Gasoline = 5.253 MBtu/Barrel and Fuel Ethanol = 3.539 MBtu/Barrel where M = million)
- It takes 3 units of input energy to make 4 units of ethanol energy. Therefore, a gallon of ethanol replaces only 2/3 of a gallon of gas, and making it requires the fossil energy in about 1/2 a gallon of gas. In summary one must make 6 gallons of ethanol to save the fossil energy in one gallon of gas. This is expensive using US corn but much cheaper with Brazilian sugar cane or beets.
- With 15,000 square miles of land devoted to ethanol, we reduce our energy dependence by just over 1/4 of 1%.
- To achieve independence would require 50% more land than in the US counting Alaska.
- Ethanol production or the production of corn is not good for the soil; corn uses more nitrogen fertilizer than other crops, which pollutes our waterways.
- There are other cons related to the refining processes that I am exactly not familiar with.
_______The Facts about the use of Hydrogen as a Source of Fuel_______
I am not going to go into stating whether or not we as a society should place our energy (not a pun) into using or not using Ethanol as a temporary replacement for gasoline. But I will continue the blog by talking about a possible next generation of fuel, which of course would be hydrogen, another very current hot topic.
I am also just going to give you some facts about hydrogen like; what it actually is, where it comes from, and how we will begin to use it.
- Hydrogen must be stored at extremely low temperatures and high pressure. A container capable of withstanding these specifications is larger and more expensive than a standard typical gas tank. Hydrogen storage could be viewed as a problem by consumers.
- The heat or energy would be obtained from the combination of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom or 4H + O2 -> 2H2O. The formation of water is in a lower energy state relative to the atoms in an unbounded state therefore this reaction is exothermic and energy is released.
- Ideally if this could be utilized, using hydrogen as a fuel, this would be a true renewable source of energy. Hydrogen stored in the car would react with oxygen from the air creating water or H2O. The water would be released into the environment for us to use again at a later date.
- Today, hydrogen is mostly extracted from natural gas, making it a fossil fuel product. The mining of the gas and the hydrogen extraction process are not pollution free, even if fuel cell powered cars essentially are.
- In order for the hydrogen to be truly “renewable” or “green,” it would have to be produced from water by electrolysis. Electrolysis requires a large amount of electricity, though, so the source of the electricity would also need to be renewable and clean if the whole process is to be.
- We must put the same amount of energy into gathering hydrogen as we will get out of it when we use it. Therefore the entire process has a net efficiency is 0%.
- The reader should then ask the question: If we have to burn or use fossil fuels to make hydrogen, what have we really gained?
_______The Physics behind Alternative Forms of Energy_______
Turbines:
The majority of electricity today is produced by burning coal or oil to heat up water. The water is converted into high temperature and high pressure steam through different stages of boiling and super heating within the confines of the boiler tubes. This high pressure, high temperature steam then passes through a main steam pipe to the turbine. A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from fluid flow. It converts mechanical energy from fluid flow, and for more information on a turbine find it under Wind and Hydro-electric power.
As we discussed in the previous section, we learned that if we were to obtain hydrogen from water, we must then use electrolysis to extract the hydrogen. This means that we must burn fossil fuels in order to obtain hydrogen from the renewable source of water. One way for us to get around the use of fossil fuels, in this instance, is to find or use other alternative sources of renewable electricity. Examples of these include wind, hydro-electric, and solar power.
Wind and Hydro-electric Power:
Uses Faraday’s law which states that electricity (or moving charges) is produced when the field of a magnetic field is changing in time.
A turbine has magnets connected to its moving parts and as a windmill spins its blades or water moves through a damn, this causes the magnets to move. The magnets move around some copper wires, say, which generates electricity in the wires.
Solar Power:
Uses the photo-electric effect that was first discovered by Einstein (he won his Noble prize for this)
A photon hits the metal which releases an electron, the electron moves producing current thus electricity. This is a completely free, natural, and renewable source of energy. Drawbacks include: a bad efficiency of current solar panels, the cost in constructing solar panels, the need for huge land areas of solar panels to generate enough energy for them to be productive.
Follow the links provided for more information on the the physics behind each idea presented and Click here for more information on different types of Energy Sources
_______Why all of this is not the Final Answer for Energy Independence_______
Unfortunately the world is not just black and white….there are a lot of shades of grey. For all of the positive benefits of Ethanol there are equally huge drawbacks in my opinion.
Hydrogen gas also has its drawbacks in its current form, the fact that we must use natural gas or methane in order for us to gather hydrogen. If hydrogen is to be obtained from water then a massive amount of electricity must be used. Currently, electricity is produced from fossil fuels. It is like a never ending deadly cycle. We as a society cannot seem to end the cycle of using fossil fuels to run our cars, cool or heat our homes, surf on the internet to listen to some lunatic talk about energy. It is like there is no end to the cycle or we are just not smart enough to find a break.
The only way I see it, if we want to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels is the use of Nuclear power. I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of Nuclear power, we all know what they are; cheap power, wonderful efficiency, harmful by-products with no place to store them, etc.
The other way for us to break the cycle is for us to fund more research into fusion reactors. Unlike Nuclear (or fission) reactors the by-products of fusion are not harmful, 4 hydrogen atoms are smashed together to get one helium atom. This technology has been used in bombs (the H-bomb) which have a great destructive power with more output energy relative to the older nuclear (or fission) bombs. The current problem for us is that we are unable to gather and use the output energy. Hopefully current researchers and engineers will be able to solve this among other problems with this particular form of energy.
Excellent analysis overall, though I am also concerned with terrorist activity regarding nuclear weapons - but this isn’t the place to debate that. Solar, though indeed expensive now, is getting cheaper by leaps and bounds as more money is put into research.
Reducing demand is a BIG thing. As an example, AMD is running ads talking about how many megawatts of power would be saved if all Intel-powered servers ran on their new, more efficient chips. I recall having a Quadra 605 that ran a total of 30 watts, peak, and beat the day’s 300-watt Intel-powered machines. Likewise, my current Intel Core Duo-powered Mac Mini has a normal power usage of under 30 watts (peak is I believe 60) and replaces both my dual-G4 and my Athlon-powered PC, meaning that I am probably saving about 120 -300 watts throughout the entire working day (excluding air conditioning to compensate for heat generation!). Then in the office I use fluourescent lights (another 110 watts saved for eight-ten hours a day), and my big CRT screen has been replaced by an efficient LCD. For that matter, you can throw in our front-loading washer - a pricey item, even on double-sale at Sears, but it uses far, far less water than a conventional washer, and by spinning very very very fast, leaves very little for the dryer to do - we are using the dryer less than half as much as we did before getting that washer! (For anyone who cares, by the way, I have NEVER used a “hot comb” or hair dryer…)
In corporate America, simply using the power-saving features built into computers could save hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil from being burned each year; probably millions. Some years ago I recall Rutgers University talking about millions of dollars of annual savings from steps like shutting off the lights and lowering the heat when nobody was in the building, along with activating power-save modes on their computers and other common sense steps. But as long as energy is as cheap as it STILL is, people will continue to leave the heat on at 75 degrees while they’re on vacation, buy 10 mpg SUVs because they like the macho appearance, etc. Conservation really is the EASIEST way to reduce our reliance on oil - FAR, FAR easier than ethanol, as CYJ explained. Indeed, the cost of saving oil with ethanol is far, far greater than the cost of simply buying more efficient appliances.
I will admit to being a bit of a hypocrite in one regard - since I don’t drive very much any more, I gave up my wonderful 1994-born Neon, which got 30-34 mpg, for a PT Cruiser, which gets more like 21-27 mpg. But then, I started to feel the “sucker effect” - why should _I_ always be sacrificing when nobody else seems to care? That’s one of the big hurdles of energy conservation, and one reason why energy leadership in the White House, rather than pie-in-the-sky “ethanol and hydrogen will save us” platitudes would be so effective. (And you’ll never see it because BOTH parties, albeit one more than the other, are good, good friends of the Saudis.)
Anyway, point is, congrats CYJ on your exploration of the issues. No easy answers … but we CAN all do something now and it’s NOT waiting for hydrogen and ethanol to save us.
PS> Why wasn’t biodiesel in there?
Jeep,
As Bob Sheaves has previously pointed out the future of ethanol production is
in using cellulose waste products. Corn ethanol is more a stopgap political
process.
Solar has great possibilities if the price comes down. What do you do when the
sun doesn’t shine?
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/02/south_africa_cl.html
I worked in Germany for a summer a few years back. They have windmills all over
the place. What do you do when the wind is not blowing?
Air conditioning is not common in Germany and you just suffer with the heat.
That will solve a lot of electricity problems.
An interesting tidbit. In Fort MacMurray they have what I believe is the largest
hydrogen production facility in thge world. They add the hydrogen to the crude
and it removes the sulphur and results in a greater quantity of oil.
Thanks for the blog.
Bluecon
Is your implication that we should abandon wind and solar in case we have quiet, cloudy days? The grid works by having powerplants that can scale down usage do so when there is less demand. More wind is less demand. I don’t think anybody suggested going to 100% wind and solar, but we can at least raise them above .5% of wherever they are now.
Know what a peaking plant is? They’re usually dirty, obsolete plants used to provide extra power for “peak” demand times (hence peaking). (In some cases they pump water into a big lake at night and then drain it through hydro generators in the day to provide peak power.) They don’t provide full time power. A nuclear plant probably has a more steady state approach, but oil and gas plants can raise or lower production to meet demand - which of course would increase on quiet, dark days.
That tidbit was indeed interesting.
Regarding solar, another interesting issue is electrical dissipation over particularly long lines - stretches where wires travel for many miles to get to their source - as in backwoods rural areas or the Great White North. In those cases, I suspect the local production of solar or wind would be more cost-effective, not just because it would mean ending maintenance of long high-voltage lines, but also because less power would be needed if produced locally. I don’t recall how much power is lost over the miles but someone gave me a formula that said it wasn’t nearly as bad as I had thought… but it’s still there.
PS> Again, not to bash SUVs and larger minivans, but one of the BIG reasons they sell - along with inefficient small SUVs like the pT Cruiser - is because people are feeling more and more unsafe in regular cars, surrounded by massive, black-windowed MPVs. Perhaps starting to tax vehicles on square footage or something and eliminating black glass on vehicles so you can see through them WOULD greatly help.
You are correct Dave there are no easy answers as some people would like us to think.
Why was there no biodiesel included? I don’t know much about biodiesel and I thought that the blog was getting a bit too long as it is. I hope people will take the time to read it….maybe in part III, I will talk about biofuels more.
“As Bob Sheaves has previously pointed out the future of ethanol production is
in using cellulose waste products. Corn ethanol is more a stopgap political
process.” –> sorry but I haven’t been following the Ethanol thread…I have been lately and didn’t know that is what Bob was discussing. I am familiar with celluose Ethanol. One reason why I didn’t add it is because I didn’t think people knew about it. Also, people are not using it (right now) so I thought it was a bit of a moot point.
Also conservation is the best method….but it reminds me a bit like abstinence. It is the best method, but no one really practices it, except for a few people :)
Well, if you don’t mind, I’ll probably addd it to the editorials section at some point, esp if you write the bio thing.
http://www.allpar.com/ed/biodiesel.html
Ya, I wouldn’t mind….jstwe314 would you mind?
I will get on the bio stuff (trying to not duplicate) stuff that Bob wrote.
Jeep,
I agree that conservation is the best method.
I put new windows and doors in my house and sealed up many of the airleaks such
as electrical boxes etc.
This resulted in at least a 25% reduction in the energy I use.
I rewired my buddies car repair business and replaced the halogen outdoor lighting
with sodium and the old flourecent lighting with the newer T8 lighting with
electronic ballast and daylight bulbs. The halogens were 400w and the sodiums are 125w and provide better lighting.
The daylight flourescents are much brighter and are 32w compared to 40w per bulb. That is an example of the
low hanging fruit which is all over the place in our society.
Bluecon
Interesting blog! Alternative fuels is such a huge subject I think it could have it’s own forum.(I have way too many questions) The U.S. nuclear industry is waking up again despite objections at allpar. Public opinion is becoming more favorable as the reality of global warming is sinking in. Global warming concern will accelerate alternative fuel development well before a oil shortage in my opinion. Starting with Ethanol: Most of the negative factors stated about ethanol are based on CORN? Experts agree I think, using corn is stupid, though it gets the industry started. Hopefully politics won’t prevent the transition to cellulose technology. I thought Bio oil & spirits shared the qualities of being much cleaner than petroleum in general but/and the tendency to raise NOx?
Hey, thanks CJYJ for the interesting article. I think however, that you are confusing the terms “fission” and “fusion” with regard to nuclear reactions. Fission is what commercial plants use and involves “splitting” the atom to produce a heat energy by-product. Fusion is when the atoms (typically helium or hydrogen in a “tokamak” reactor) are driven together (fusing), generating energy (and a small amount of radioactive tritium, if my memory serves.) I believe that one of fusions other problems (so far) is that the energy produced by the reaction is not nearly as much as what it took at actually CAUSE the reaction, so a net loss of energy. That could change of course as research progresses.
Also, FWIW, a friend of mine who was an engineer at the local nuclear plant told me that although the time for nuclear waste to decay to a completely non-radioactive state (i.e. lead) and quoted my many nuclear opponents is indeed thousands of years, the time for it to decay to a point where it is equivalent to the uranium that was originally mined is only about 100 years. Therefore (according to him) the storage issue is not nearly as dangerous as many believe.
I am so embarrassed….thanks gforce2002
Fission is to break apart….fusion is to buid an atom….I had the opposite meaning….you should take about my Ph.D. :)
I will reverse it asap thanks again.
Yes, more energy is need to put into the process to “fuse” atoms together….when the energy is brought down….it is referered to as cold fusion. That is where the money is….and people at Los Alamos are doing research on this particular subject.
_________
There are certian “dauther-atoms” of U decay that have half lifes on the order of millions of years.
I will try to find all of their half-life values for you.
Fascinating stuff! We’ve been trying to ease up on our energy usage. True, my PT uses more gas than the Neon, but the PT/5th Ave switch was a wash. We’ve new windows and are replacing the back doors (entry and storm door). We’ve installed a truly programmable thermostat. And if these pesky home issues calm down, we’ll replace the CRT with a LCD monitor. Oh, and we’re switching over to flourescent instead of incandesent bulbs.
We also did the windows, now that you mentioned it, and caulked etc. … long list of things done in the name of energy savings.
Regarding the storage issue, I’ll point out that uranium ore is generally in hard-to-reach places and is usually distributed through rock rather than stored in large clumps. Part of the issue is also transportation to storage facilities and the cost of getting it there in a truly secure fashion. (They do take a LOT of precautions witih nuclear material and always have, but if terrorists ever get beyond the lone-wolf system, it could be BIG trouble. Securing against that is, as far as I know, done with Federal money and is NOT part of your nuclear energy bill - correct me gently if I’m wrong - so it’s a hidden cost, not unlike “foreign aid” to the PLO as a hidden cost of getting oil out of Arab countries.)
“Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor - right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site.”..”Unlike the usual green alternatives - water, wind, solar, and biomass - nuclear energy is here, now, in industrial quantities.”..”And nuclear is our best hope for cleanly and efficiently generating hydrogen, which would end our other ugly hydrocarbon addiction - dependence on gasoline and diesel for transport.”
“In France, Japan, and Britain, nuclear engineers do the sensible thing: recycle. Alone among the nuclear powers, the US doesn’t”……….please see this link for more: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html?pg=1&topic=nuclear&topic_set=
That article pretty much eliminates itself from credibility with the comment “The granola crowd likes to talk about conservation and efficiency, and surely substantial gains can be made in those areas. But energy is not a luxury people can do without, like a gym membership or hair gel. The developed world built its wealth on cheap power - burning firewood, coal, petroleum, and natural gas, with carbon emissions the inevitable byproduct.” Oh, yes, just discard any sort of sensible use and conservation like that - after all, we’d have no wealth if we used less energy, and to even SUGGEST such a thing makes me a hippie. Self-righteous, smug jerk (him, not you.)
As for nuclear being wonderfully economical, just ask someone at PSEG, which admittedly was just bought by Exelon, what they think. Loads of debt and high operating costs plus the issue of disposal. Loads of fun.
I like this one: “Thanks to standardized construction, they may even be cost-competitive to build - $1,200 per kilowatt-hour of generating capacity versus more than $1,300 for the latest low-emission (which is not to say low-carbon) coal plants. But there’s no way to know for sure until someone actually builds one.”
How much was that war in Iraq “supposed” to cost again?
How about trying this query: http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=nuclear+power -
Excerps from one:
“Setting aside whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, the fact remains that there are 104 nuclear power reactors licensed to operate in the United States today. None of these reactors is inherently safe. They are authorized to operate by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the assumption that conservative defense-in-depth features reduce their risk to an acceptably low level.”
No judgement call there.
“First, nuclear power plants are aging more rapidly than expected. In the past two years, the metal tubes inside the isolation condensers at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 had to be replaced and cracks in its metal core shroud had to be repaired not once but twice. This vital safety equipment was supposed to last for the plant’s entire operating lifetime, but it did not. Second, nuclear plant owners and NRC inspectors are performing far fewer safety checks today than they did five and ten years ago. The NRC plans to perform 15 percent fewer inspections next year than it did this year. As humans get older, we go to doctors more often to make sure we maintain our health at optimum levels. As nuclear plants get older, fewer checkups are done.”
” In the last decade, 11 nuclear power reactors have closed due to economics. … For many years, the Maine Yankee nuclear plant had a reputation as a low-cost electricity producer. In 1996, the NRC peeked behind Maine Yankee’s curtain and discovered that the owner acquired this reputation by simply not doing required maintenance. The backlog of such work, which averages a few hundred items at a typical nuclear plant, rose to several thousand items at Maine Yankee. In August 1997, Maine Yankee’s owners decided to close the plant rather than spend the money needed to repair all the safety equipment.”
As for trusting the NRC:
“In May 1997, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on its investigation of NRC actions at the troubled Millstone, Salem, and Cooper nuclear power plants. The Salem plant was shut down for over two years. The NRC had a list of 43 items that had to be fixed before the Salem plant could be restarted. The GAO looked at that list and discovered that 38 of the problems had been known to the NRC before the plant was operating. At least one of the problems was around for about four years before the plant was shut down. The GAO asked how problems which were so serious that Salem could not be safely restarted could possibly be not so serious when the plant was running.”
In short - nuclear power needs to be part of our energy strategy, but if we make it a savior, or if we have a combination regulatory/promotional agency like the NRC, we might be in for a heap o’ trouble. I’m not saying we should shut down the nuclear plants; I’m saying I don’t trust people who talk about how they are all perfectly safe, and we should shut our eyes and pretend everything is OK, and build as many new ones as we can even though we can’t even seem to manage the existing ones. Throw in the current administration’s attitude towards auditors and inspections - well documented and I believe objected to by quite a few Republicans as well as Democrats - and you have a recipe for disaster as “burdensome Federal safety regulations” are waived for politically correct (good contributors) donor companies.
By the way, a utility guy suggested I get a generator for after Exelon takes over PSEG…
Oh, and maybe this is one reason why don’t like to generate plutonium that much …
(did anyone read that old Alistair MacLean thriller, by the way, … it wasn’t all that good … Goodbye California? He pointed out these issues back in the 1970s or so.)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary/japanese-plutonium-plant.html
“Japan has already accumulated a stockpile of more than 40 metric tons of separated plutonium, enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons. Japan does not have a credible, realistic plan to dispose of the plutonium that it has already accumulated. The approximately four metric tons of plutonium that will be produced during the first trial run of the plant will simply be added to this stockpile, presenting a tempting target for terrorists.
“… the techniques used to measure the inventory of plutonium in the plant are not precise enough to be able to determine whether a shortfall of enough material to make a simple nuclear weapon—roughly six kilograms—was the result of an intentional diversion or was due to random measurement errors. For a plant like the RRP, which may process 8,000 kilograms of plutonium per year, that requires the ability to detect a diversion of six kilograms, or less than 0.1 percent of the annual throughput. This is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack with a blurry magnifying glass.”
I agree with Dave that there are environmental/cost/social related issues with nuclear power.
It is not black and white which also goes with the other forms of energy.
I social debt within each country should happen for figure out what each society would like to do and how they are going to do it. I don’t think the answers are right at the end of our noses.
but a debt in our newspapers/congress or parliament/person to person needs to occur.
Where is our society going?
What are our goals?
What would we like to accomplish?
How much?
What will be the damage?
etc.
I agree with the points you make about safety concerns Dave . I remember the Three Mile Island scare. I used to live down wind of Nine Mile point. The federal government dose’nt have a good record with any oversight responsibility that I know of. But personally I’m at the point of which is scarier, Nuclear technology or Global warming? We earthlings are not in the position to endlessly debate the options for the next 50 years. I agree also that Wired magazine has a smarta$$ editorial style but I believe this article makes a good case supporting Nuclear power to replace our carbon problems. I personally believe in thrifty energy use (I drive a lousy escort for cry’n out loud) but I don’t think conservation alone is gonna do it. “An MIT study forecasts that worldwide energy demand could triple by 2050. China could build a Three Gorges Dam every year forever and still not meet its growing demand for electricity. Even the carbon reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol - which pointedly exempts developing countries like China - will be a drop in the atmospheric sewer”
If your in the market for a generator Dave, I suggest this combination hybrid car/ home generator I saw on the web! It has a onboard reformer that converts methanol and water into hydrogen which then feeds a fuel cell.
http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72126&hl=
(where’s the edit button?) I forgot to add this from the end of that wired article:”insiders say the Union of Concerned Scientists has a growing pro-nuke faction.”
Issues with Hydrogen fuel for conventional engines (Piston and Wankel). The speed at which Hydrogen ignites is much faster than normal fuels, like petrol and ethanol. You might have notices higher ‘Octane’ (R.O.N) fuels are “better”, as they burn slower, and allow a more efficient combustion as the travel of the engine crank. Hydrogen releases a very quick burst energy and is therefore inefficient. This is also detrimental to the engine components and will cause sever engine ware and damage. To run Hydrogen you need comparatively retarded ignition timing and low compression (or at lease low static compression). On a 8.2:1 engine at 0 degrees timing at 800rpm, advancing to 5 degrees to 4000rpm, an engine will run on Hydrogen, although it denotes, and I estimate the engine would last 10k-20k km’s. 9.7:1 compression engine and a variety of timing’s, the rings give way and the engine seizes. Those are the 2 most successful of my tests.
The use of Hydrogen to power cars requires another 100yrs of engine development.
Or, if given the funds from US defence, 1 week.
[...] Previously I have written two blogs that have attempted to explain/understand why there is a need for Alternative Fuels and what where some of the pros and cons of each of the different technologies. The first blog was titled What Will be Powering Our Cars in the Future? and the second was called Alternative Forms of Energy : Part II in which I was a co-author with allpar member jstwe314. [...]