The Energy Debate in the Primaries/Presidential Election

[TennTradition]

Long post...but bare with me... I have some specific questions here.

-----------------------------

So, the energy debate has been going on inside this election cycle, but perhaps not more evidently so than in the recent Nevada democratic debate. I first heard about it when it came up tonight at dinner here in Trondheim. The deputy director of the MIT Energy Initiative is here with us for some meetings, and he was sitting beside me. The funny part was that he wasn't as excited/interested to hear that the issue of growing energy concerns came up in the presidential debate as he was anxious to hear exactly what was said and to make sure it was accurate.

The discussion stemmed from a question about Yucca mountain. All candidates rejected the future waste depository, which is no surprise considering it is a basic platform of most democrats.

However, Edwards quickly turned the discussion to wind and solar; and Tim Russert responded with the following:

I talked to the folks at the MIT Energy Initiative, and they put it this way, that in 2050, the world’s population is going to go from six billion to nine billion, that CO2 is going to double, that you could build a nuclear power plant one per week and it wouldn’t meet the world’s needs.

(It is worth noting that the actual rate to completely replace all energy with nuclear energy would be one plant a day up to 2050...though Russert's quote isn't inaccurate)

The full debate text surrounding this point can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html?pagewanted=20&ref=politics

I think that Edwards was actually moving the debate to an interesting place when he said that we should build no more coal fired power plants unless they are fitted with the equipment necessary for carbon capture and sequestration (a shift from his past position, which was that the plants should just be built with the capability of future upgrade).

Obama also raised a serious issue that needs to be discussed more - Energy Conservation.

The US is not interested in giving up on coal, so I think that carbon capture and sequestration will be a growing technology. However, the big unknown about our future energy infrastructure is the nuclear proverbial 1000 lb. elephant in the room.

What are your opinions about nuclear energy and the storage problem? And, what are your impressions about wind, solar, etc.? It is hard to have this discussion outside the context of global climate change, but it isn't intended to be a GCC discussion. I'm just wondering what you see as the "energy problem"...is there one? What would be publicly acceptable alternatives to current strategies (that are either not renewable ... or are too carbon intensive)?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Nuclear and coal are the only real alternatives that need to be considered. Wind farms are quixotic attempts at coming up with a so-called "green" energy alternative. As far as the waste, France reprocesses spent fuel rods, why shouldn't we do the same?

 

[TennTradition]

Nuclear and coal are the only real alternatives that need to be considered. Wind farms are quixotic attempts at coming up with a so-called "green" energy alternative. As far as the waste, France reprocesses spent fuel rods, why shouldn't we do the same?

Thanks....good start (that is, a few answers and some more questions).

I think that solar and wind can be considered, but they are local answers, not global answers. Wind won't require significant new (research) investment...while solar is ready to go, but could be improved a lot. My position is why build a nuclear plant in Arizona, when a solar farm might do. After all, nuclear really isn't renewable.

As for reprocessing....I think that the general fear is nuclear proliferation. I've studied this a bit (I did a short policy stint in DC for a summer studying this - but REALLY high level stuff - and not the good kind of high level, the 20,000 ft overview kind of high level). The French method is very susceptible to nuclear proliferation. While this could be improved, none of the methods that have been suggested seem to be really proliferation-resistant technologies. The high radioactivity of the transuranics in spent fuel seem to be the best protection against proliferation right now. The proliferation concerns are that if the material is acquired, the plutonium could be separated...and it turns out...this could be used to build a low-yield nuclear weapon (not a dirty bomb). The high insanely high radioactivity seems to provide protection against "bad people" from wanting to steal the material. Of course, it shouldn't make us feel that much better that all of our spent fuel is sitting under a few feet of water all over the US at the plants where the spent fuel is generated....instead of in a repository where it can be more safely and securely stored.

Also, reprocessing (at least like the French do it) produces a lot of bad wastes that still must be stored - so it doesn't exactly solve the storage problem. However, I am all in favor of adapting to a more progressive and effective fuel cycle that incorporates reprocessing if we can mitigate against the proliferation concerns.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Your average nuke generator is rated for 1200-1500 megawatts. The highest rated wind mill I've seen is just about 1.5 megawatts.

So in essence, you would need to have 1000 of those wind mills to equal the output of one nuke generator. How much land would that require? What would be the environmental impact of taking up that much land and using it so inefficiently? And you only get 1.5 MW in the ideal case (a steady wind). The controls for most of these windmills are such that they don't generate power at lower wind speeds (that is obvious), but they also have control limits that force them to stop once wind speeds go too high (I've heard 35 mph in one case and 50 mph on another occasion). In other words, the wind mills have a narrow operating band. Very rarely will ther be a case when you will have a sustained wind for a period of time (specifically during peak demand periods).

Meanwhile, nuke and coal plants can generate rated power on a consistent basis and is far more reliable.

 

[TennTradition]

Your average nuke generator is rated for 1200-1500 megawatts. The highest rated wind mill I've seen is just about 1.5 megawatts.

So in essence, you would need to have 1000 of those wind mills to equal the output of one nuke generator. How much land would that require? What would be the environmental impact of taking up that much land and using it so inefficiently? And you only get 1.5 MW in the ideal case (a steady wind). The controls for most of these windmills are such that they don't generate power at lower wind speeds (that is obvious), but they also have control limits that force them to stop once wind speeds go too high (I've heard 35 mph in one case and 50 mph on another occasion). In other words, the wind mills have a narrow operating band. Very rarely will ther be a case when you will have a sustained wind for a period of time (specifically during peak demand periods).

Meanwhile, nuke and coal plants can generate rated power on a consistent basis and is far more reliable.

Coal and nuclear are much more reliable, however this can be addressed. I was discussing this today with a representative of StatoilHydro and they are, for example, very interested in developing off-shore wind turbine and wave energy to complement or perhaps replace their existing hydroelectric technology. Wind will not be a large scale answer at all...and will only be a small-scale answer for specific locations. How much is land worth in the dessert southwest? I don't know the numbers, but I am almost certain that a very large (but reasonable considering the area there) could replace several nuclear plants. Once recent proposal I saw was to pressurize large caverns during the day with air...and then release this at night to meet 24 hour demand with solar energy...a sort of pneumatic capacitor, if you will.

Regardless, these are still niche energy alternatives, until something radical happens. I agree that understanding how to better utilize coal in the short to medium term and nuclear/??? in the medium to long term could be a working approach. However, some areas could use other, working technologies.

Of course, a whole other (but still important) issue is transportation fuels.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Once recent proposal I saw was to pressurize large caverns during the day with air...and then release this at night to meet 24 hour demand with solar energy...a sort of pneumatic capacitor, if you will.

Well, considering that peak energy demand occurs during the day (approx. 3:00-7:00 p.m. in summer), I'm not sure how that will solve our energy crisis.

Show me a link or something that explains this better. Because what we need is more generation that will be available for peak periods... and to upgrade or aging transmission infrastructure. What good would it do to have all of this generation capacity if your transmission lines are burning down lines?

The transmission system upgrades is another debate all together.

 

[TennTradition]

Well, considering that peak energy demand occurs during the day (approx. 3:00-7:00 p.m. in summer), I'm not sure how that will solve our energy crisis.

Show me a link or something that explains this better. Because what we need is more generation that will be available for peak periods... and to upgrade or aging transmission infrastructure. What good would it do to have all of this generation capacity if your transmission lines are burning down lines?

The transmission system upgrades is another debate all together.

It's from scientific american, so I don't have a link...but I can try to explain it better. The application I was talking about was with regard to solar in the southwest US. I think that they were imagining a huge operation, which I am not so sure about. But, a more local operation is entirely possible. Since solar can't produce power at night, part of the day time production could be used to build pressure in the caverns...the "pneumatic capacitor" as I like to refer to it would then be drained overnight as required to produce power. You can take solar panels off line or pump up the cavern if you are producing too much...and then use these reserves to produce power in a hurry if need be...or at night when the solar panels aren't giving you any power. I haven't evaluated this....so I won't vouch for it...it's just an idea I read about in Scientific American. I think they said 5 cents per kilowatt hour during the day and 9 cents at night ... but I don't know by what year that was or if they were assuming certain technological breakthroughs would happen....because that seems a bit low, doesn't it? It seems like solar would be more expensive.

 

[TennTradition]

The transmission system upgrades is another debate all together.

Yeah...I asked someone about that last night, who knows a lot more about this than I do. His opinion was that these upgrades are likely needed, and that by using currently existing capabilities/technologies, the investment would seem minor next to the energy production investment that we will have to make in the next 40 years.

 

[volinbham]

What are the prospects with:

1. Hydrogen - I believe I've heard that it takes more energy to create/capture the hydrogen than is produced but is there potential to increase the efficiency?

2. Fusion - any breakthroughs or potential here? Doesn't fusion change the waste situation compared to fission?

 

[MontereyVol]

What are the prospects with:

1. Hydrogen - I believe I've heard that it takes more energy to create/capture the hydrogen than is produced but is there potential to increase the efficiency?

2. Fusion - any breakthroughs or potential here? Doesn't fusion change the waste situation compared to fission?

1. Hydrogen is still in early stages of production abilities. Some alternatives to the methods we have now (which arent very good) are to mine the moon for its hydrogen rich dust. This dust is the perfect type we need, think of it like sweet crude is better than course.

2. ITER check this site out and realize that it is under UN sponsership. However the US will not allow France to be the only one on this project. We are developing our own here (somewhere?) at the same time. We intend, IMHO to use the multinational effort to either help us along with ours in problematic areas, while not giving too much back. Rest assured that we are closer with the French than most people think.

 

[MontereyVol]

Our energy problems are going to be based on multiple individual areas for each industry in the future. Several serious discussions pose that while ethanol is agriculturally unsustainable for our driving needs. a breakdown would go like this.
1. our transportation structure (ie semi trucks) will run on ethanol.
2. Regular cars will have to either go electric or get at least 40 MPG
This would eliminate our need for any outside oil and we could sustain ourselves.

Homes and businesses will have to start investing for whatever is most viable for their area for themselves. I forsee in about 50 years to get reliable power the homeowner is going to have to get it themselves. like the new solar power shingles for rooftops which would generate more than enough for an average household. or in areas that it wouldn't work well in wind power from a 4 foot span windmill will do the job. look at these as the new aerial antennas of the times before cable.

 

[TennTradition]

What are the prospects with:

1. Hydrogen - I believe I've heard that it takes more energy to create/capture the hydrogen than is produced but is there potential to increase the efficiency?

2. Fusion - any breakthroughs or potential here? Doesn't fusion change the waste situation compared to fission?

Hydrogen is actually the focus of my thesis research. Currently about 90% of the US hydrogen is produced via steam reforming, primarily of methane. Hydrogen is best not viewed as an energy source, but as an energy carrier. Unless we find hydrogen reserves (like the moon as mentioned by MontereyVol), then we will always have to obtain hydrogen from some energy source, such as methane....or put energy in to get it, such as splitting water to make it. Hydrogen isn't an answer to energy problems - but it may be an important component of future energy systems if there is a need to capture and sequester carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is clean burning - so it is appealing for applications like fueling cars. It may also be possible to separate carbon dioxide more easily in hydrogen production (from methane or from coal - in coal gasification) than after combustion...so you could see hydrogen fueled power plants, for example. The problem is that you generally only recover about 2/3 of the energy from this...so you use more energy, but it can be "carbon free." Biofuels markets become important here too. There is no way that we can have a large biofuels market without a lot of fertilizer...and to make the ammonium nitrates in fertilizer...we need a lot of hydrogen (that is how we use most of our hydrogen today). The good thing is that you can reform biofuels to make hydrogen...so you could imagine this as a sort of closed loop biofuel market that is CO2 free...this CO2 would not even have to be sequestered, but if you did, then you could actually decrease atmospheric CO2 over time.

Fusion energy deserves to be researched and would solve a lot of our problems if more energy could be extracted, than put in. But, it is not there right now, so we can't bank on it (I'm not sure it ever will be). As MontereyVol mentioned, ITER (Latin for the path..thus the path to future energy security or the path to no energy problems), is a multinational fusion effort. However, MontereyVol, didn't the US just zero out its funding of ITER?

 

[MontereyVol]

However, MontereyVol, didn't the US just zero out its funding of ITER?

Have no idea, I was following ITER when they were awarding the contract and had some interest when US worker slots were to be given out. After France won the pick we started planning on our own and called it the back up. I am guessing the war may have helped in our decision to back out monetarily and the fact that the scientist we wanted working on the project all wanted to remain in the US (or come here). Also the fact the UN is running the show didnt appeal to us as we want this thing developed and tried as soon as possible.

 

[TennTradition]

Have no idea, I was following ITER when they were awarding the contract and had some interest when US worker slots were to be given out. After France won the pick we started planning on our own and called it the back up. I am guessing the war may have helped in our decision to back out monetarily and the fact that the scientist we wanted working on the project all wanted to remain in the US (or come here). Also the fact the UN is running the show didnt appeal to us as we want this thing developed and tried as soon as possible.

2 billion dollars a week (and off the books) will do that to you, I guess.

 

[MontereyVol]

Maybe we should quit funding the UN and our problems will be solved!

 

[TennTradition]

Maybe we should quit funding the UN and our problems will be solved!

Yeah...all of our problems solved

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The good thing is that you can reform biofuels to make hydrogen...so you could imagine this as a sort of closed loop biofuel market that is CO2 free...this CO2 would not even have to be sequestered, but if you did, then you could actually decrease atmospheric CO2 over time.

I am still not getting my hands around the idea that CO2 is all of a sudden a pollutant when it makes up about 1% of the atmosphere (maybe less) and it is not even the most efficient green house gas (water vapor has more of an effect on the so-called green house effect than CO2).

Please, anyone... show me some data that actually explains how CO2 will have such a drastic effect on the atmosphere. Also, show me at what level will be "critical levels" for CO2 and what percentage would CO2 have to reach in our atmosphere before it gets to its saturation point. Will it become saturated at 1%? 1.5% of the atmosphere?

Just curious. But I haven't seen any convincing evidence concerning this subject...

 

[TennTradition]

I am still not getting my hands around the idea that CO2 is all of a sudden a pollutant when it makes up about 1% of the atmosphere (maybe less) and it is not even the most efficient green house gas (water vapor has more of an effect on the so-called green house effect than CO2).

Please, anyone... show me some data that actually explains how CO2 will have such a drastic effect on the atmosphere. Also, show me at what level will be "critical levels" for CO2 and what percentage would CO2 have to reach in our atmosphere before it gets to its saturation point. Will it become saturated at 1%? 1.5% of the atmosphere?

Just curious. But I haven't seen any convincing evidence concerning this subject...

I think that I may have addressed some of this in another thread, but I don't feel like searching so I'll give it a go here. I would first like to say that it is very difficult to talk about saturation points because they are necessarily temperature driven. I think that we can use the temperature near the surface as a general rule to talk about gas concentrations though - but I could be wrong. Let's use an average temperature of 15 C or 288 K. Saturation points can be roughly calculated by looking for the gas partial pressure (or concentration) equals the vapor pressure of the gas - this is the temperature where condensation will occur. It is even tougher to pick a pressure - and in just giving this a bit of thought, I'm not sure what the best pressure is. Assuming that we're well mixed, I will just use pressure near the surface (or at sea level). So, for water, its vapor pressure is about 13 mmHg, which would mean that at its saturation point near the surface, the concentration would be about 1.7% in the gas phase. The vapor pressure of CO2 at 15 C is 38,000 mmHg ... so high that it is hard to draw comparisons. This basically means that CO2 won't condense..or reach its saturation point. The more worthwhile point of measurement is the where the CO2 would be dangerous to human life from a toxicity standpoint, which is probably around 5%. Basically, you would be dead long before CO2 would condense and its concentration rise would stabilize.

Water is the more prevalent greenhouse gas, but it is clearly at water/gas equilibrium levels - at its saturation point (as evidenced by the oceans of water). So, no amount of water that humans emit can raise the concentration (on average)...but temperature increases can increase the concentration of water (both a positive and negative feedback in global warming because of cloud formation).

The concentration of CO2 is currently at about 0.035% - so you're right, its about 50 times less prevalent than water in the surface atmosphere. The concerns come in because water has stabilized - it won't increase significantly (without temperature increase). The effects of water are already factored into our climate...we would be much much colder without water in the atmosphere because it is a greenhouse gas and warms us. The effects of more water vapor and more clouds with increasing temperature are factored into existing global warming models.

As far as efficiencies of greenhouse gases go, I'm not sure about water. Efficiency is usually expressed through GWP values, or global warming potential values. What I do know is that water vapor is the "strongest" GHG as far as its effect goes. CO2 is talked about most because while it is less "effective" compared to some gases such as methane, its concentration is higher and growing faster.

The greenhouse gas effect is talked about in terms of forcing, incremental changes, and disruptions from thermal equilibrium. The incremental forcing due to water vapor is extremely small because its concentration isn't changing, so if you emit water vapor - it condenses, and it doesn't add ADDITIONAL forcing to climate (trap MORE radiation). When we release CO2, its concentration rises unconstrained and the gas traps ADDITIONAL amounts of solar radiation. The earth absorbs more radiation because of it and its temperature increases slowly to try to get rid of this extra heat.

I may not have explained my understanding of these aspects (or my understanding may not be good enough to get the story exactly straight), but hopefully I roughly answered your questions...do I need to be more clear on any part?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So, for water, its vapor pressure is about 13 mmHg, which would mean that at its saturation point near the surface, the concentration would be about 1.7% in the gas phase. The vapor pressure of CO2 at 15 C is 38,000 mmHg ... so high that it is hard to draw comparisons. This basically means that CO2 won't condense..or reach its saturation point. The more worthwhile point of measurement is the where the CO2 would be dangerous to human life from a toxicity standpoint, which is probably around 5%. Basically, you would be dead long before CO2 would condense and its concentration rise would stabilize.

Water is the more prevalent greenhouse gas, but it is clearly at water/gas equilibrium levels - at its saturation point (as evidenced by the oceans of water). So, no amount of water that humans emit can raise the concentration (on average)...but temperature increases can increase the concentration of water (both a positive and negative feedback in global warming because of cloud formation).

The concentration of CO2 is currently at about 0.035% - so you're right, its about 50 times less prevalent than water in the surface atmosphere. The concerns come in because water has stabilized - it won't increase significantly (without temperature increase). The effects of water are already factored into our climate...we would be much much colder without water in the atmosphere because it is a greenhouse gas and warms us. The effects of more water vapor and more clouds with increasing temperature are factored into existing global warming models.

At the current rate, how long would it take for human activity to raise CO2 levels to the point where it is in the danger zone? I mean, if CO2 is only .04% right now, a 50% increase in CO2 emmissions would still only push it up to .06%. I think the fearmongers use the 50% rate of increase number as a means to scare people, but if you look at the overall picture, we are still talking about minute amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

***not saying that 50% is the rate of increase that is being tossed around, but just using that as an example of how some people can use one set of numbers to say one thing and disregard other data that would minimize the level of urgency***

 

[TennTradition]

At the current rate, how long would it take for human activity to raise CO2 levels to the point where it is in the danger zone? I mean, if CO2 is only .04% right now, a 50% increase in CO2 emmissions would still only push it up to .06%. I think the fearmongers use the 50% rate of increase number as a means to scare people, but if you look at the overall picture, we are still talking about minute amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

***not saying that 50% is the rate of increase that is being tossed around, but just using that as an example of how some people can use one set of numbers to say one thing and disregard other data that would minimize the level of urgency***

I don't think that the 5% toxicity level is being talked about much because it would take incredible reserves of carbon-containing matter to reach that point. I'm not sure if we could get there...but it might be possible.

But, this 5% level is disconnected from the global warming debate. The 5% number I gave is the concentration that would pretty much kill people from CO2 poisoning. Significant (meaning measurable) climate variations are possible at much smaller concentration increases, such as 0.01%. The climate scientists suggest trying to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a level between 0.045% and 0.06%...though many do not think going above 0.05% would be a good idea.

This is getting into an area of GW science where the predictions are difficult. Temperature increases are the "easy" part...but the effects of those increases on things such as precipitation, ice shelves, permaforst, ocean thermal cycles, etc. are a little to much harder depending on the issue.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This is getting into an area of GW science where the predictions are difficult. Temperature increases are the "easy" part...but the effects of those increases on things such as precipitation, ice shelves, permaforst, ocean thermal cycles, etc. are a little to much harder depending on the issue.

If the easy part is predicting temp increases, then that blows holes all through the entire argument about CO2 or any singular human action being the cause of GW. Heck, these guys have a hard enough time predicting temps 2-3 weeks ahead of time. How am I to respect a scientist then that claims that X + Y will cause Z to happen in 40 years?

 

[TennTradition]

If the easy part is predicting temp increases, then that blows holes all through the entire argument about CO2 or any singular human action being the cause of GW. Heck, these guys have a hard enough time predicting temps 2-3 weeks ahead of time. How am I to respect a scientist then that claims that X + Y will cause Z to happen in 40 years?

It isn't weather..it is climate...

I put easy in quotation marks because it really isn't all that easy. But, you seem to be mistaking local temperature increases for global temperature increases. Predicting local weather (for example, temperature) is the extremely difficult part. Forecasting actual weather beyond 10 days is simply impossible (stochastic, not deterministic). But, predicting weather trends is more possible - but still difficult and bears a lot of uncertainty. These are the parts of the GW models that I have less faith in (for the record, the scientists who make the model generally agree).

Precipitation patterns, ice melt, etc. are more difficult because these are more localized effects. However, the global mean temperature predictions are easier to do that this because they are essentially a very detailed energy balance. Given some input from the sun, some amount of reflection by the earth, and some amount of energy trapped by the GHGs, then you have a specific amount absorbed by the earth - this gives the heating that causes the earth's temperature to increase (to allow it to re-radiate it back to space).

 

[TennTradition]

I really don't want to give the impression it is easy..so I'll post that again...that is why I said "easy." A lot of the debate over this issue is generated by the uncertainty in the predictions. However, the uncertainty in temperature prediction is much smaller than other uncertainties. Global average temperatures can be predicted ... and are not subject to local weather patterns. (Unless these local weather patterns cause some kind of large global anomaly .. but I am pressed to think of situations like this).